Immigration Detention: Additional Actions Needed to Strengthen DHS Management of Short-Term Holding Facilities
Published: 2016-05-26T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: DHS is responsible for providing safe, secure, and humane confinement for detained aliens who may be subject to removal or have been ordered removed from the United States. For example, during fiscal years 2014 and 2015, Border Patrol apprehended 823,768 aliens and held them temporarily in holding facilities. GAO was asked to examine DHS's management and oversight of holding facilities. This report examines the extent to which DHS has (1) standards in place for the short-term custody of aliens and monitors compliance with established standards and (2) processes in place for obtaining and addressing complaints from aliens in holding facilities.
GAO reviewed CBP and ICE data on time in custody and complaints. GAO also interviewed agency officials and visited 32 holding facilities selected based on geographical location and facility type, among other factors. The visit results are not generalizable, but provided insight to the oversight of holding facilities and management of complaints.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have standards for short-term holding facilities—which are generally designed to keep individuals in custody for 24 hours or less—and some processes to monitor compliance with the standards. For example, each component has policies governing the operation of holding facilities, and CBP has an annual Self-Inspection Program, which is designed to assess internal controls in all CBP operations, including holding facilities. However, U.S. Border Patrol, within CBP, and ICE do not have a process to fully assess data on the amount of time individuals are held in custody. Such a process could help these agencies in better understanding issues that GAO identified, such as data quality, level of compliance with agency standards, and factors impacting time in custody. For example, GAO identified potential irregularities with Border Patrol's fiscal year 2014 to 2015 time in custody data, due to, among other things, delays in agents recording individuals' “book-out” from holding facilities. In addition, although Border Patrol officials from 10 holding facilities GAO visited stated that time in custody rarely exceeds 72 hours, GAO noted that approximately 16 percent of Border Patrol's cases with complete data in fiscal years 2014 to 2015 exceeded this threshold. Developing and implementing a process to assess time in custody data, consistent with internal control standards, would provide Border Patrol and ICE with more visibility into the quality of their data, facility compliance with time in custody guidelines, and the factors impacting time in custody.
DHS has various mechanisms to obtain and address complaints related to holding facilities. Specifically, individuals can submit complaints directly to holding facilities or to one of various DHS entities, including the DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) and Joint Intake Center (JIC). However, DHS and its components have not consistently communicated information to individuals in CBP and ICE holding facilities on these mechanisms. For example, during site visits to DHS holding facilities, GAO observed that the posters used to communicate DHS complaint mechanisms varied in their coverage. Providing guidance to holding facilities on which of DHS's various complaint mechanisms they should communicate to individuals in custody, consistent with internal control standards, would help DHS have better assurance that individuals in custody within holding facilities have received information on how to submit a complaint. DHS complaint mechanisms maintain data in various systems; however, most of these systems do not have a classification code for holding facilities to would allow users to readily identify the universe of complaints involving holding facilities and conduct trend analysis. For example, the JIC's complaint tracking system does not include a facility, facility type, or issue code related to holding facilities. GAO found that information identifying whether a complaint involved a holding facility may be located within narrative fields. Creating a classification code and conducting trend analysis on holding facility complaints, consistent with internal control standards, would provide DHS with useful information for management decisions, including targeting areas for compliance monitoring.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that DHS establish a process to assess time in custody data for all individuals in holding facilities; issue guidance on how and which complaint mechanisms should be communicated to individuals in short-term custody; include a classification code in all complaint tracking systems related to DHS holding facilities; and develop a process for analyzing trends related to holding facility complaints. DHS concurred with the recommendations and identified planned actions.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Customs and  Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement  (ICE) inspect and apprehend aliens based on their authorities, including  immigration and customs-related law enforcement and investigative  responsibilities. CBP is the lead federal agency charged with keeping  terrorists and their weapons, criminals and their contraband, and  inadmissible aliens out of the country. Within CBP, the Office of Field  Operations (OFO) inspects individuals at designated U.S. ports of entry  (POE) to determine their admissibility to the country and U.S. Border  Patrol interdicts and apprehends aliens between POEs. For example,  during fiscal year 2015, Border Patrol apprehended 337,117 aliens  nationwide. ICE is responsible for apprehending aliens who may be  removable from the United States for various reasons, including entering  the country illegally or being convicted of certain crimes. Within ICE,  Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) identifies, apprehends,  detains, and removes aliens as appropriate.
After inspecting an individual for admissibility into the United States or  while making an apprehension, DHS components may hold aliens at  short-term holding facilities nationwide, which are located at OFO ports of  entry, Border Patrol stations, and ICE ERO field offices, among other  locations. DHS components may hold aliens at holding facilities in order  to complete general processing and determine the appropriate course of  action, such as transferring them to or from a court, jail, prison, other  agency or other unit of the facility or agency, relocating such aliens into  ICE detention facilities, removing them from the country, or releasing  them, among other scenarios. The population of individuals in holding  facilities may include single adults, family units, and unaccompanied alien  children, among other demographic groups. Holding facilities are  generally designed to keep individuals in custody for 24 hours or less and  typically contain basic features, such as a concrete bench and a  combination sink/toilet unit. Both DHS entities and immigration advocacy  organizations have raised concerns about the conditions and overall time  in custody at DHS short-term holding facilities. For example, in 2012,  DHS’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) conducted an  investigation of holding facilities located within Border Patrol’s Tucson  Sector and identified a number of issues, such as inadequate medical  care and inconsistencies regarding the amount of food provided to  individuals. In 2009, advocacy organizations, including the American Civil  Liberties Union, filed a since-settled lawsuit against DHS in regards to an  ICE holding facility in Southern California, alleging that individuals were  held in overcrowded and unsanitary cells for weeks beyond agency  guidelines.
You asked us to review DHS’s management and oversight of holding  facilities and its processes to address complaints filed by aliens in short- term custody. This report addresses the following questions: To what  extent does DHS have (1) standards in place for the short-term custody of  aliens and monitors compliance with established standards and (2)  processes in place for obtaining and addressing complaints from aliens in  holding facilities?
To address these questions, we visited a nongeneralizable sample of 32  CBP and ICE holding facilities in California, Florida, Texas, and Virginia.  Specifically, we visited 17 Border Patrol facilities, 7 OFO facilities, and 8  ICE facilities. We selected these facilities based on a mix of factors, such  as facility type, differences in geographical location, number of  apprehensions, and recommendations from DHS and advocacy  organizations that work with individuals held in DHS’s custody. We  conducted semistructured interviews with holding facility personnel and  senior officials with Border Patrol sectors, OFO field offices and ICE field  offices regarding holding facility standards, compliance mechanisms and  avenues for individuals to make complaints. The information we obtained  from our holding facility visits cannot be generalized to all facilities, but  provided us insights into the implementation of policies and procedures  used by DHS to oversee holding facilities and manage complaints.
To determine the extent to which DHS has standards in place for the  short-term custody of aliens and monitors compliance with established  standards, we reviewed agency documentation, including holding facility  policies and procedures and self-inspection results. We also interviewed  Border Patrol, OFO, and ICE officials at the headquarters level who  oversee holding facilities, as well as holding facility personnel and  sector/field office officials. During these interviews, among other things,  we determined the extent to which agencies use and analyze data, such  as time in custody, for oversight purposes and discussed the various  factors that could impact time in custody. In addition, we collected and  analyzed fiscal year 2014 through 2015 Border Patrol data on  apprehensions and time in custody—the most recent data maintained by  Border Patrol at the time of our review—to determine the population and  time in custody for individuals in holding facilities. To determine the  reliability of these data, we reviewed Border Patrol documentation and  interviewed agency officials responsible for ensuring data quality about  e3—the system that Border Patrol uses to track information on aliens held  in short-term custody. We determined that the apprehension data were  sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our reporting objectives; however,  we could not determine the reliability of the time in custody data because  of potential irregularities, such as individuals indicated as having many  months in custody. We also collected data from ICE on number of aliens  in custody at ERO holding facilities; however, based on a review of ICE  documentation and interviews with ICE officials responsible for ensuring  data quality, we determined that the data were not reliable for our  purposes because of missing and inaccurate data. Moreover, we were  unable to analyze or determine the reliability of ICE data on time in  custody because the agency does not include hours in custody in its  standard reports or OFO time in custody data because the agency does  not currently capture it nationwide. We discuss agency time in custody  data, including reliability issues, in more detail in the report. We assessed  DHS practices for monitoring holding facilities against Standards for  Internal Control in the Federal Government.
To determine the extent to which DHS has processes in place for  obtaining and addressing complaints from individuals in holding facilities,  we analyzed documentation on DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG),  DHS CRCL, ICE/CBP Joint Intake Center (JIC), CBP INFO Center and  ICE Detention and Reporting Information Line processes for managing  complaints and interviewed officials from these complaint mechanisms.  To better understand the characteristics of DHS complaint tracking  systems, we analyzed fiscal years 2012 to 2014 data maintained in the  Joint Integrity Case Management System (JICMS)—the system ICE and  CBP use to track complaints reported to the JIC, including those related  to holding facilities. We selected JICMS data to evaluate since it contains  information on both ICE and CBP complaints. We could not use JICMS  data or report on the universe of holding facility complaints because  JICMS does not categorize holding facility complaints, as discussed in  more detail later in this report. We also interviewed holding facility officials  on their local processes for obtaining and addressing complaints and  evaluated how holding facilities communicated available complaint  mechanisms. Specifically, we observed whether holding facilities posted  information on available complaint mechanisms, such as the DHS OIG, in  holding cells/rooms or the processing area. We assessed DHS’s  processes for obtaining and addressing complaints against Standards for  Internal Control in the Federal Government. Additional details on our  scope and methodology are contained in Appendix I.
We conducted this performance audit from May 2015 to May 2016 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: DHS components operate holding facilities at various locations  nationwide. Border Patrol has approximately 203 holding facilities that are  located at stations, checkpoints and forward operating bases. OFO has  approximately 129 holding facilities located at land POEs. ICE has 137  holding facilities that are located at ERO field offices and sub-offices. The  reasons why individuals are taken into short-term custody vary by  component.
Border Patrol apprehends aliens along the land borders and between  POEs due to suspected criminal activity or violations of U.S.  immigration law, such as illegal entry into the United States or  presence in the country without lawful immigration status, and  transports them to Border Patrol holding facilities, where they undergo  processing before being removed, released, or transferred to ICE for  long-term detention, among other scenarios.
OFO inspects all arriving persons to the United States to determine  their citizenship or nationality, immigration status, and admissibility.  This inspection can lead to persons being taken into temporary  custody at POE holding facilities while awaiting repatriation to a  foreign country; transfer or referral to another agency, such as ICE; or  completion of inspection and associated processing.
ICE takes aliens into custody upon their release from jails and prisons  through the Criminal Alien Program and other efforts or apprehends  aliens for various reasons, including through the National Fugitive  Operations Program, and transports them to ICE holding facilities.
During fiscal years 2014 and 2015, Border Patrol apprehended 823,768  aliens and held them temporarily in holding facilities. Approximately 98  percent of aliens apprehended by Border Patrol during those fiscal years  were apprehended along the southwest border of the United States with  Mexico. Of the 810,704 aliens whom Border Patrol apprehended along  the southwest border, about 49 percent were apprehended in the Rio  Grande Valley sector in Texas. Figure 1 shows the locations of aliens  apprehended by Border Patrol along the southwest border during fiscal  years 2014 through 2015.
DHS officials at holding facilities conduct a number of activities in  managing the short-term custody of aliens, including (1) processing, (2)  care, and (3) monitoring.
Processing. During processing, holding facility officials gather and record  information from aliens. Specifically, holding facility officials collect and  record information on aliens in agency databases; take fingerprints, if  applicable; conduct records checks; and collect and maintain personal  belongings. Holding facility personnel typically conduct these processing  activities in a general area outside of the actual holding cells.
Care. Once processing is complete, holding facility officials typically place  individuals in a secure holding cell or room and provide them with various  types of care, including meals and water, restrooms, hygienic supplies  and medical care. Holding facilities maintain written or electronic  custody logs to document care provided to individuals. Telephone access  varies by holding facility; some facilities include a telephone in the holding  cells, while other facilities maintain a telephone only in the processing  area. Holding facilities and the conditions of confinement may vary by  component, among other factors. For example, while all three  components maintain secure cells, OFO sometimes places individuals in  general waiting areas at POEs based on a risk assessment of individuals  and facility space limitations. In addition, holding facility officials typically  segment the population based on age, gender and other characteristics,  such as risk. Figure 2 depicts a typical cell at DHS holding facilities.
Monitoring. Holding facility officials monitor holding facilities primarily  through video cameras and physical checks to help ensure that cells are  kept clear of contraband and other potentially dangerous materials. For  example, holding facility officials might conduct physical checks at various  intervals throughout the day, which are designed for a number of  purposes, including overseeing individuals in short-term custody,  providing a deterrent for misconduct, and affording individuals the  opportunity to communicate potential issues regarding their health or  safety. Holding facility personnel may conduct more frequent monitoring  activities for high risk individuals who might show signs of distress,  hostility, or other unusual behavior.
section_title: DHS Has Established Standards and Monitoring Processes for the Short-Term Custody of Aliens, but Could Better Assess Time in Custody Data
subsections: section_title: DHS Has Established Standards and Monitoring Processes for the Short Term Custody of Aliens
paragraphs: CBP and ICE have issued standards for the short-term custody of aliens  that apply to their holding facilities nationwide. For example, CBP has  established minimum standards that apply to both Border Patrol and OFO  holding facilities, and each component also maintains a holding facility  policy. In addition, ICE has a policy that governs the operation of ERO  holding facilities. The Border Patrol, OFO, and ICE standards contain  common requirements for holding facilities, including:
Limiting aliens’ total time in custody: Process and then transfer,  remove, or release aliens as soon as is appropriate and operationally  feasible.
Conducting periodic physical checks of holding cells: Monitor holding  cells directly and regularly when individuals are in custody.
Maintaining a detention log: Collect and preserve in written or  electronic form general information from all individuals.
Providing various accommodations to individuals: Offer meals and  snacks at specified intervals, as well as access to drinking water and  restrooms at all times to individuals.
Safeguarding of individuals’ personal property while in custody:  Collect, inventory, and safeguard funds, valuables, and baggage, and  other personal property.
Within these common elements, however, the Border Patrol, OFO and  ICE standards for the short-term custody of aliens vary. For example, the  Border Patrol and ICE holding facility policies state that, whenever  possible, an individual should not be held for more than 12 hours while  the OFO holding facility policy states that the detention of a person in a  holding facility at POEs shall be for the “least amount of time necessary”  to complete processing but generally less than 24 hours. The policies  also vary with respect to conducting physical checks of cells. The OFO  and ICE holding facility policies require that personnel conduct physical  checks of individuals placed inside of holding cells at least every 15  minutes, while the Border Patrol policy states that personnel must  physically check holding cells on a regular basis for all individuals and  every 15 minutes for individuals deemed to be high risk (e.g., an  individual exhibiting unusual behavior such as signs of distress). Border  Patrol, OFO, and ICE holding facilities may also use local standard  operating procedures to augment agency standards for holding facilities.  For example, an ICE holding facility that we visited maintained four local  standard operating procedures on areas such as controlling and  safeguarding personal property. Similarly, we learned during our site  visits that other Border Patrol, OFO, and ICE holding facilities have local  standard operating procedures.
Agencies have also established processes for monitoring holding facilities  for compliance with standards. Within CBP, the Management Inspections  Division and designated officials from Border Patrol and OFO  headquarters manage the annual Self-Inspection Program (SIP), which is  designed to assess internal controls in all CBP operations, including  holding facilities. The SIP varies from year-to-year and typically  incorporates elements of holding facility policies. For example, the 2015  Border Patrol SIP covered the extent to which holding facilities  maintained detention logs on aliens, including meal service, medical care,  and other pertinent information. Border Patrol and OFO holding facilities  reported in the SIP results for 2015 that they were generally compliant  with holding facility standards. Besides the SIP, Border Patrol and OFO  officials told us that holding facilities monitor compliance with holding  facility standards through daily activities. We learned from discussions  with agency officials and observations during our site visits that these  daily activities include: maintaining continuous surveillance of individuals  through video cameras, conducting periodic physical checks of  individuals, and having shifts overlap to allow independent personnel to  review and verify actions taken to care for individuals. Moreover, regional  Border Patrol sectors or OFO field offices may also undertake monitoring  activities. For example, a senior OFO official stated that his field office  conducts periodic spot-checks of holding facilities in its jurisdiction to  verify compliance with holding facility standards.
Within ICE, holding facilities monitor compliance through daily activities.  According to ICE officials, some of these daily activities include  maintaining continuous surveillance of individuals through video cameras,  as well as conducting periodic and end of day physical checks of  detainees. During our site visits to ICE holding facilities, we also observed  video cameras and written logbooks that notated the date and time ICE  personnel inspected individual holding cells. In addition, ICE  headquarters is currently developing a holding facility self-assessment  tool intended to capture the level of compliance in ICE holding facilities  nationwide with ICE’s holding facility policy, such as standards related to  providing meals and water and managing personal property. ICE  headquarters provided us with the draft self-assessment tool and a  project plan for its completion. ICE is currently in the final stages of  reviewing the tool and expects to begin using it by June 2016.
section_title: CBP and ICE Could Improve Oversight by Better Assessing Time in Custody Data
paragraphs: CBP and ICE do not have a process or processes in place to fully assess  their time in custody data, including the quality of the data, and the extent  to which holding facilities are adhering to agency standards for time in  custody and the factors affecting the length. CBP and ICE maintain data  systems that record information on various elements for short-term  custody of individuals, including time in custody. Time in custody  represents the time between when an individual is “booked in” and  “booked out” of a holding facility. CBP and ICE holding facility policies  include standards for the number of hours that an individual should be  held in short-term custody. According to agency officials, these standards  are in place because holding facilities are not designed to hold individuals  for long periods of time and thus generally do not have features such as  beds and showers. However, based on our review of time in custody  data, Border Patrol and ICE do not have a process to completely assess  time in custody data and OFO has only recently initiated efforts to collect  such data.
Border Patrol has taken some steps to monitor time in custody data.
For example, we learned during our site visits that a Border Patrol  sector in Texas generates a detention dashboard report that tracks  aliens’ total time in custody by station and a Border Patrol sector in  Florida disseminates a regular report to stations with time in custody  information on individuals. In addition, Border Patrol incorporated time  in custody as an inspection item for individual stations in the 2015  SIP. Further, Border Patrol officials responsible for managing the  agency’s data told us that they address individual irregularities in time  in custody data as they discover them, such as incomplete or  duplicative information. However, these Border Patrol headquarters  officials told us that the agency is currently only tracking and  producing regular reports for Border Patrol leadership about the time  in custody for unaccompanied alien children and families but not for  the rest of the detainee population. Border Patrol headquarters  officials responsible for overseeing holding facilities told us that  Border Patrol has not directed an entity at the headquarters level to  assess time in custody data for all types of aliens in Border Patrol’s  custody.
ICE produces various reports that include time in custody data for  both detention and holding facilities; however, the information in these  reports is limited. Specifically, the reports do not include total hours in  custody by alien, despite ICE’s holding facility policy specifying that  individuals should not be held for longer than 12 hours absent  exceptional circumstances. ICE headquarters officials indicated that  ICE does not use time in custody data to monitor holding facilities,  and ICE officials in the field stated that the agency is more focused on  monitoring longer term detention facilities.
OFO maintains fields in its automated database to track aliens’ time in  custody in holding facilities, although, according to OFO officials, most  land POEs have not been consistently recording that information, with  the exception of seven land POEs in California and Texas. We  previously reported in July 2015 that OFO did not yet have a policy  requiring officers to use an automated database to record care  provided to unaccompanied alien children, including book out dates  and times, and most POEs did not use an automated database to  track custody care actions. In November 2015, OFO began piloting  the mandatory automated collection of time in custody data for holding  facilities at selected POEs. According to OFO headquarters officials,  OFO expects to expand the pilot program to all POEs in calendar year  2016.
While Border Patrol and ICE produce some reports with time in custody  data, more fully monitoring time in custody data could allow the agencies  to identify potential trends and differences across all field locations.  Specifically, Border Patrol and ICE could better understand (1) the quality  of time in custody data, such as determining the sources of irregularities  and uncovering missing or inaccurate data, and (2) the extent to which  holding facilities are adhering to agency standards for time in custody and  the factors affecting the overall length.
Determining quality of time in custody data. Our discussions with  Border Patrol officials and analysis of Border Patrol’s time in custody data  for fiscal years 2014 to 2015 raised questions about the quality of the  data. Specifically, we could not determine the reliability of Border Patrol’s  time in custody data for two reasons. First, Border Patrol expanded use of  its e3 system to capture additional custody care information, including  time in custody, and we identified challenges associated with entry of  these data by Border Patrol personnel. According to Border Patrol  officials, since fiscal year 2014 was the first full year that the agency  collected electronic time in custody data across all facilities nationwide,  agents in the field are still learning how to accurately and consistently  record time in custody information. Second, we analyzed the Border  Patrol’s fiscal years 2014 and 2015 time in custody data from the e3  system and found irregularities, such as individuals with multiple months  or negative hours in custody. Officials from Border Patrol headquarters  could not fully explain the irregularities we found. Specifically, they told us  that lengthy times in custody might result from officials in the field not  temporarily booking out aliens for a hospital visit or court appearance or  failing to record book-out dates and times in a timely manner.
We also identified issues involving the recording of book-out information  during our site visits. For example, Border Patrol holding facility officials in  three locations stated that agents forgetting to input book-out times into  the e3 system could explain some lengthy times in custody. In particular,  a Patrol Agent in Charge at one Border Patrol holding facility stated that  fiscal year 2014 data for his facility were likely inaccurate because there  may have been delays, in some cases spanning weeks or months, in  agents recording aliens’ book-out times. While the data indicated that the  facility held over 100 aliens for more than 24 hours, the official stated that  it is extremely rare to hold aliens for 24 hours since the facility’s operating  hours are limited. Officials from Border Patrol headquarters said that they  would not know if lengthy times in custody were either accurate or  inaccurate due to data issues unless Border Patrol personnel conducted  a more comprehensive analysis. Because of these reasons, we were  unable to determine the reliability of Border Patrol’s time in custody data.
Further, we could not assess the reliability of data on the number of hours  individuals were in ICE holding facilities because ICE includes days, but  not hours, in the year-end reports it produces with time in custody data.  ICE provided a report for us with the time in custody by individual;  however, this information was limited to number of days in custody, and  for many individuals, the report included a “zero” for the overall duration.  Based on findings from our audit work, an ICE data management official  told us that ICE would include “book-in time” and “book-out time” in fiscal  year 2016 reports to allow the reporting of hours in custody by individual.  This is a positive step, which should help strengthen ICE’s monitoring of  time in custody data. However, this action does not address other  reliability concerns we identified with ICE’s time in custody data.  Specifically, our analysis of ICE’s data showed that one ICE holding  facility was not electronically recording time in custody data in ENFORCE  and another ICE holding facility was recording aliens in ENFORCE that  were never in ICE’s custody; rather the aliens were in custody at a Border  Patrol holding facility where ICE ERO contributes resources. In response  to the issues, ICE officials stated that, in 2016, these locations plan to  modify standard operating procedures to strengthen the completeness or  accuracy of their data in ENFORCE. While these are positive steps,  without a process to fully monitor time in custody data, ICE is not  positioned to address data reliability issues in a systematic manner.
Determining level of compliance with agency guidelines and factors  affecting time in custody. While Border Patrol and ICE maintain specific  guidelines regarding time in custody for individuals in short-term holding  facilities, these agencies could better understand the level of compliance  with the guidelines and factors impacting time in custody. Agency officials  expressed concerns about individuals’ time in custody at holding facilities.  For example, Border Patrol officials in nine holding facilities we visited in  California, Florida, and Texas told us that Border Patrol’s twelve-hour  guideline for time in custody is sometimes challenging to meet. They  stated that a variety of factors could extend time in custody for individuals  at holding facilities. First, Border Patrol sometimes has to process a large  group of individuals simultaneously, such as when Border Patrol agents  encounter a possible smuggling operation. Second, Border Patrol holding  facilities may experience delays in transferring individuals to ICE custody  due to ICE not having detention capacity and based on ICE offices not  operating 24 hours/7 days per week to accommodate Border Patrol  transfer requests. Third, Border Patrol may need to seek treatment for  individuals with medical issues (e.g., dehydration, sprained ankle) prior to  transferring them to ICE. An analysis of time in custody data would help  Border Patrol understand the extent to which these factors might be  impacting the agency’s level of compliance with guidelines or whether  data issues are skewing the numbers. For example, although Border  Patrol officials from 10 holding facilities we visited stated that time in  custody rarely exceeds 72 hours, we noted that approximately 16 percent  of cases with complete data in fiscal years 2014 and 2015 exceeded this  threshold.
Border Patrol and ICE provided various reasons why they are not more  fully assessing time in custody data. For example, Border Patrol  headquarters officials told us that they prioritize assessing time in custody  data for unaccompanied alien children and families due to the legal  requirements related to those populations, but that they generally rely on  the field to monitor time in custody data for the rest of the population in  short-term holding facilities. An ICE data management official told us  that the agency has the ability to report on hours in custody for aliens in  holding facilities but has not done so in the past because ICE  headquarters or external stakeholders have not been interested in these  data. Additionally, an ICE headquarters official responsible for overseeing  holding facilities stated that ICE does not currently use time in custody  data to monitor holding facilities because the duration of custody is short  and ICE field offices understand how to appropriately monitor time in  custody. However, by not fully monitoring time in custody, agency officials  at the headquarters level do not have visibility into data across holding  facilities. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government  recommend that entities process obtained data into quality information to  support the internal control system and to achieve its objectives. The  Standards also recommend that management entities should establish  and operate monitoring activities to monitor the internal control system  and evaluate the results.
By developing and implementing a process to assess time in custody  data, Border Patrol and ICE would have reasonable assurance about the  quality of the data and the level of compliance with their own standards  for time in custody. Border Patrol and ICE could also better understand  the factors affecting time in custody in holding facilities. For example,  Border Patrol would be better able to determine more accurately the  extent to which agents at holding facilities may not be entering temporary  or permanent book-out information for individuals and thus inadvertently  increasing time in custody data. Additionally, Border Patrol would be  better positioned to assess the impact that operational considerations,  such as challenges in processing a large group of individuals  simultaneously or coordinating transfers with ICE, have on time in  custody at holding facilities nationwide. Similarly, ICE would be better  positioned to assess the actual hours in custody for individuals in custody  at its holding facilities to ensure that they are meeting the guidelines in its  holding facility policy.
section_title: DHS Has Complaint Mechanisms for Individuals in Holding Facilities, but Could Better Communicate the Mechanisms and Classify and Analyze Complaint Data
subsections: section_title: DHS Has Multiple Mechanisms for Obtaining and Addressing Complaints Related to Holding Facilities
paragraphs: DHS and its components have multiple mechanisms at the holding facility  and headquarters levels to obtain and address individuals’ complaints  regarding CBP and ICE holding facilities or personnel. The types of  complaints submitted through these mechanisms could relate to such  issues as: (1) conditions of confinement, including the temperature of the  hold rooms, the amount of noise or light in the facility, or the quality of the  food; and (2) employee misconduct, including alleged use of force or  verbal abuse by Border Patrol, OFO, and ICE employees.
DHS provides individuals in short-term holding facilities the opportunity to  submit their complaints directly to CBP or ICE officials at the local holding  facility. DHS headquarters and holding facility officials we spoke with told  us that generally it is DHS’s practice to address complaints immediately  and at the lowest level possible through oral communication with Border  Patrol, OFO, and ICE facility staff. Generally an individual would submit a  complaint to a supervisor at a holding facility, who would try to resolve the  complaint as quickly as possible, especially if a complaint related to the  conditions of confinement. For example, according to CBP and ICE  officials responsible for holding facilities, individuals make complaints,  such as being cold or hungry and request that officers provide them a  blanket or food. Officers will attempt to resolve such complaints as quickly  as possible by supplying a blanket or providing a meal or a snack.
In addition to making complaints directly to officials at holding facilities,  individuals in holding facilities can submit complaints through various  mechanisms at the DHS or component headquarters level. These  mechanisms include: (1) DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG); (2) DHS  Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL); (3) CBP INFO Center;  (4) ICE Detention Reporting and Information Line (DRIL); and (5) Joint  Intake Center (JIC). Complaints can be submitted by telephone, e-mail,  mail, or fax. For example, the DHS OIG operates a toll free hotline to  receive complaints. Each of the five complaint mechanisms has a  different purpose and is designed to address different issues, including  alleged violations of civil rights and civil liberties and other types of  grievances. According to DHS officials, complaints can be reported  through any of these different mechanisms and the same complaint may  be reported through multiple mechanisms. For example, according to an  ICE official, the same complaint may be submitted to DHS OIG, DHS  CRCL, and the JIC; however, only one investigation into the complaint  may be conducted. Table 1 summarizes the different DHS mechanisms  through which individuals can submit complaints, including the  responsible DHS entity and the purpose of each mechanism.
section_title: DHS Components Could Better Communicate Available Complaint Mechanisms
paragraphs: While DHS and its components make information publicly available on the  various complaint mechanisms, they have not consistently communicated  information to individuals in CBP and ICE holding facilities on  mechanisms that are available for them to submit a complaint. DHS  primarily advertises available complaint mechanisms through  organizational websites. For example, ICE ERO includes information on  its website advertising the DRIL, and the CBP website communicates  information regarding the CBP INFO Center. In addition, DHS CRCL has  a public guide available on its website listing the various DHS complaint  mechanisms; however, this information is not consistently communicated  in holding facilities. During our visits to Border Patrol, OFO, and ICE  holding facilities we observed that the posters used to communicate DHS  complaint mechanisms varied in their coverage. For example, while all 32  ICE and CBP holding facilities we visited included at least one poster on  how to file a complaint with the DHS OIG or a component involving a  potential incident of sexual abuse or assault related to the Prison Rape  Elimination Act (PREA), the facilities differed in the extent to which they  communicated how to submit a non-PREA complaint through DHS  complaint mechanisms. Specifically:  ICE. We observed that most ICE holding facilities (six out of eight)  posted information on how individuals can contact the DHS OIG to file  non-PREA complaints, while half of the facilities (4 out of 8) posted  information on the DRIL and a couple of facilities (2 out of 8) posted  information on the JIC. Half of the ICE holding facilities (4 out of 8)  included a “speed dial” poster with phone numbers on external  resources (e.g., “Mexican Consulate” or “Joint Intake Center”);  however, the posters do not provide any information on these  resources, including their purpose.
Border Patrol. We observed that 4 of 17 Border Patrol holding  facilities posted information on how individuals can contact the DHS  OIG to file general complaints, but the remaining facilities did not have  information posted on any complaint mechanisms, such as the JIC or  CBP INFO Center.
OFO. We observed that one OFO holding facility (one out of six)  posted information on both the DHS OIG and CBP INFO Center;  however, at the remaining facilities we did not see posted information  on any reporting mechanisms.
Figure 3 shows an example of a PREA poster that we observed in a  Border Patrol holding facility.
DHS components have undertaken some efforts to review complaints- related signage in holding facilities. For example, in 2015, the CBP  Commissioner’s Office directed OFO and Border Patrol to review  complaints-related signage in holding facilities because of concerns that it  might be outdated and not consistently in place. As part of that effort, the  components issued guidance to the field; however, the guidance has  been limited to ensuring PREA posters are in place and removing  outdated signage. For example, the Border Patrol instructed all Border  Patrol sectors to ensure that signage in holding facilities complied with  PREA standards and remove any outdated signage related to the former  Immigration and Naturalization Service. Similarly, OFO instructed holding  facilities to ensure that proper signage, such as PREA information, is  displayed in the detention areas. While OFO and Border Patrol took steps  to evaluate complaints-related signage in holding facilities and clarify that  PREA posters should be in place, they have not provided guidance to the  field concerning how and which complaint mechanisms should be  communicated to individuals in the holding facilities.
According to DHS headquarters and holding facility officials, DHS has not  placed an emphasis on which complaint mechanisms should be  communicated because individuals are encouraged to submit complaints  to holding facility personnel and an individual may be more likely to  submit a complaint while in longer-term detention. For example,  according to a Border Patrol official in the field, the majority of all  complaints made by individuals are not made while they are in Border  Patrol custody, but rather after they have been transferred to ICE custody  in a detention facility. However, individuals in holding facilities may have a  concern that they do not communicate because they may not be aware of  the available complaint mechanisms. In addition, while CBP and ICE may  encourage individuals to submit complaints to holding facility personnel  rather than through external complaint mechanisms, individuals who need  to file a complaint may not necessarily: (1) be able to get their complaint  addressed at the field level, or (2) feel comfortable lodging a complaint to  a local official, such as due to fear of retribution. An ICE holding facility  official shared this view, stating that it is important to inform individuals of  external mechanisms like the DRIL since they may not be comfortable  making a complaint locally or the local office may not properly resolve the  issue. Furthermore, agency officials and advocacy organizations have  expressed concerns about the transparency of DHS’s processes for  obtaining holding facility complaints. For example, during our review, both  headquarters and field officials within the components stated that  individuals may not understand the different avenues to file a complaint.  In addition, in 2014, an advocacy organization expressed written  concerns to DHS, noting that there are many different complaint  mechanisms in place and the public is confused about where and how to  submit complaints related to holding facilities.
Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that  management should document each unit’s responsibilities through policy  to allow management to effectively monitor the control activity. The  standards also state that management should communicate quality  information down and across reporting lines to enable personnel to  perform key roles in achieving objectives, addressing risks, and  supporting the internal control system. By providing guidance to the field  that specifies how and which complaint mechanisms should be  communicated in holding facilities, Border Patrol, OFO, and ICE could  better ensure that individuals have full recourse to the mechanisms  available to them should they need to file a complaint about facility  conditions, misconduct, abuse, or other issues.
section_title: DHS Does Not Maintain Classification Codes for Holding Facility Complaints in All Tracking Systems or Conduct Trend Analysis
paragraphs: Most of the complaint tracking systems that DHS and its components  employ do not have classification codes for holding facilities that would  allow agencies to readily identify which complaints are related to holding  facilities and to analyze these complaints for potential trends. DHS OIG,  CRCL, CBP INFO Center, DRIL, and JIC maintain tracking systems for  complaints; however, information on holding facilities is typically  subsumed within a narrative field. In order to better understand the  capabilities of DHS complaint tracking systems, we gathered data from  JICMS because it contains information on both ICE and CBP complaints  that may have originated from holding facilities. In reviewing the JICMS  data, we found that it does not include a facility, facility type, or issue  code related to holding facilities that would allow users to readily identify  the universe of complaints involving holding facilities. Rather, we found  that information identifying whether a complaint involved a holding facility  may be located within narrative fields. We searched the database using  potentially relevant issue codes and terms that would potentially uncover  complaints in the narrative field, however, it was not always clear, even  when reviewing the narrative field, whether a complaint was related to a  holding facility. For example, we identified complaints that alleged an  individual’s money was not returned to him or an individual was injured  due to potential use of force. However it was unclear if these complaints  related to ICE holding facilities or detention facilities.
Upon our request, the CBP Office of Internal Affairs produced a report  from JICMS showing potential holding facility complaints; however,  officials from that office noted that it was a time consuming and labor  intensive process, and that the report would not necessarily account for  all holding facility complaints. According to DHS officials, with the  exception of CRCL’s database, the complaint tracking systems for the  other mechanisms DHS OIG, DRIL, and CBP INFO Center—present  similar limitations. Similarly, in February 2016, we reported that CRCL,  DRIL, and JIC maintain medical-related complaint data in their respective  tracking systems; however, the data, in most cases, is not tracked or  analyzed for trending purposes. Specifically, we found that while DHS  provides various avenues for detainees to file medical care complaints  related to immigration detention, DHS does not have a mechanism to  readily determine the overall volume of medical-related complaints it  receives, their status, or outcome.
DHS and component officials stated that there are not many complaints  related to holding facilities, so they have not prioritized creating a specific  classification code for holding facilities or conducted trend analyses on  complaints related to holding facilities. However, without creating a  classification code for holding facilities and conducting trend analysis,  DHS does not have a way of knowing the number and types of  complaints individuals may be submitting related to their short-term  custody at CBP and ICE holding facilities. Moreover, CBP officials  responsible for the CBP INFO Center indicated that trend analysis of  complaints information would help CBP understand where there are  potential operational issues and help the agency mitigate these issues.  Additionally, a recent review of use-of-force incidents by the DHS OIG  found that CBP should better analyze use-of-force data—which could be  determined by complaints of employee misconduct—to inform  departmental decision-making.
According to Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,  management should process the data it collects into quality information  that can be used to support the internal control system. The Standards  also call for management to develop procedures to monitor the  performance of regular operations over time and that there be effective  communication within and across agencies to help ensure appropriate  decisions are made. Creating a classification code for holding facilities  within the various DHS complaint tracking systems would allow DHS to  more readily access data on complaints related to individuals’ short-term  custody at CBP and ICE holding facilities. Such data could help DHS  maintain greater visibility on the complaints, including complaint volume,  facilities where complaints are filed, and differences across facility type— all of which could better position DHS to analyze and identify potential  trends and use this information to inform management decisions.  Additionally, analyzing this type of data for trends could help guide DHS’s  efforts during annual compliance monitoring, such as including inspection  areas related to common complaints filed in holding facilities.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: CBP and ICE maintain holding facilities across the nation, which contain  basic features and are designed specifically for the short-term custody of  individuals. CBP and ICE have standards and monitoring processes in  place at the headquarters and field levels—including the amount of time  an individual generally may be held—to help ensure that holding facilities  are providing the appropriate care. While Border Patrol and ICE maintain  systems to track time in custody, assessing the data to ensure its quality  would improve its utility in accurately informing Border Patrol and ICE’s  operations. Furthermore, fully assessing their time in custody data would  help the components better understand the various factors impacting time  in custody, and would better position them to identify steps, if needed, to  address the amount of time individuals are held in custody. In addition,  DHS and its components have a number of complaint mechanisms in  place. However, providing guidance to holding facilities on which of  DHS’s various complaint mechanisms they should communicate to  individuals in custody would help CBP and ICE have better assurance  that individuals in custody within holding facilities have received  information on how to submit a complaint. In addition, developing a  process for analyzing trends related to holding facility complaints would  provide CBP and ICE with more information to oversee such facilities and  aid in management decision-making.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To enhance the monitoring of holding facilities, the Secretary of  Homeland Security should direct Border Patrol and ICE to develop and  implement a process to assess their time in custody data for all  individuals in holding facilities, including:  identifying and addressing potential data quality issues; and  identifying cases where time in custody exceeded guidelines and  assessing the factors impacting time in custody.
To strengthen the transparency of the complaints process, the Secretary  of Homeland Security should direct CBP and ICE to develop and issue  guidance on how and which complaint mechanisms should be  communicated to individuals in custody at holding facilities.
To facilitate the tracking of holding facility complaints, we recommend that  the Secretary of Homeland Security include a classification code in all  complaint tracking systems related to DHS holding facilities.
To provide useful information for compliance monitoring, the Secretary of  Homeland Security should direct CBP and ICE to develop and implement  a process for analyzing trends related to holding facility complaints across  their respective component.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to DHS for review and comment. DHS  provided written comments, which are noted below and reproduced in full  in appendix II, and technical comments, which we incorporated as  appropriate.
DHS concurred with all four recommendations in the report and described  actions underway or planned to address them. With regard to the first  recommendation related to assessing time in custody data, DHS  concurred and stated that Border Patrol and ICE will develop processes  to assess time in custody data for all individuals in holding facilities. For  example, ICE will take steps to validate length of stay data and identify  potential data quality issues. With regard to the second recommendation  that CBP and ICE develop and issue guidance on how and which  complaint mechanisms should be communicated to individuals in holding  facilities, DHS concurred and stated that CBP and ICE will develop and  issue such guidance. For example, CBP plans to leverage an existing  working group to develop and coordinate guidance on complaint  mechanisms. With regard to the third recommendation that DHS include a  classification code in all complaint tracking systems related to DHS  holding facilities, DHS concurred and stated that the agency will take  measures to add a code to tracking systems. Specifically, DHS plans to  explore the feasibility of adding a source location code specific to holding  facilities within tracking systems. With regard to the fourth  recommendation that CBP and ICE develop and implement a process for  analyzing trends related to holding facility complaints across their  respective component, DHS concurred and stated that each component  will institute a process. For example, CBP plans to develop reports on  trends and patterns related to holding facilities. To the extent that CBP  and ICE analyze trends in all complaint tracking systems, including  JICMS, these steps should meet the intent of the recommendation. These  planned actions, if fully implemented, should address the intent of the four  recommendations contained in the report.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and other interested  parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO  website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions, please contact me at (202) 512- 8777 or gamblerr@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. GAO staff who made significant contributions to this report  are listed in appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: Our objectives were to determine the extent to which the Department of  Homeland Security (DHS) has (1) standards in place for the short-term  custody of aliens and monitors compliance with established standards  and (2) processes in place for obtaining and addressing complaints from  aliens in holding facilities.
For this report, our scope covered holding facilities operated by U.S.  Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and  Customs Enforcement (ICE). Specifically, we included in our review  holding facilities managed by CBP’s U.S. Border Patrol and Office of Field  Operations (OFO), as well as ICE’s Enforcement and Removal  Operations (ERO). Within OFO, we focused on holding facilities at land  Ports of Entry (POE) and excluded air and maritime POEs since the  environment at land POEs, including time in custody, is more similar to  Border Patrol and ICE ERO holding facilities.
To address these questions, we visited a nongeneralizable sample of 32  CBP and ICE holding facilities in California (July 2015), Florida  (August/September 2015), Texas (November 2015) and Virginia (January  2016)—to, among other things, observe holding facility conditions and  conduct semistructured interviews with holding facility personnel and  senior officials with Border Patrol sectors, OFO field offices and ICE ERO  field offices. Specifically, we visited 17 Border Patrol facilities, 7 OFO  facilities, and 8 ICE facilities. We selected these facilities based on a mix  of factors, such as facility type, differences in geographical location,  number of apprehensions and recommendations made by DHS and  advocacy organizations that work with individuals held in DHS’s custody.  We focused the site visit interviews on holding facility standards,  compliance mechanisms, and avenues for individuals to make  complaints. The information we obtained from our holding facility visits  cannot be generalized to all facilities, but provided us insights into the  implementation of policies and procedures used by DHS to oversee  holding facilities and manage complaints. Prior to our site visits, we  interviewed five advocacy organizations to obtain their perspective on  DHS’s management of holding facilities. We identified these organizations  through similar GAO work and the recommendations of officials with  advocacy organizations. While not generalizable, this sample of  organizations provided us with insights into the perspectives of advocacy  organizations regarding DHS’s short-term custody of aliens.
To determine the extent to which DHS has standards in place for the  short-term custody of aliens and monitors compliance with established  standards, we reviewed agency documentation, including holding facility  policies and procedures and self-inspection results. Specifically, we  analyzed national standards for holding facilities covering, among other  things, the conditions of confinement, such as the provision of meals and  water, and time in custody. These standards include CBP’s October 2015  National Standards on Transport, Escort, Detention and Search; Border  Patrol’s January 2008 Hold Rooms and Short Term Custody policy;  OFO’s August 2008 Secure Detention, Transport, and Escort Procedures  at Ports of Entry; and ICE’s September 2014 Operations of ERO Holding  Facilities policy. To better understand the standards and monitoring  processes in place, we interviewed Border Patrol, OFO, and ICE officials  at the headquarters level that have responsibility for overseeing holding  facilities, as well as holding facility personnel and sector/field office  officials. During these interviews, among other things, we determined the  extent to which agencies use and analyze data, such as time in custody,  for oversight purposes and discussed the various factors that might  impact time in custody. We assessed DHS practices for monitoring  holding facilities against relevant standards in Standards for Internal  Control in the Federal Government.
In addition, we collected and analyzed fiscal year 2014 through 2015  Border Patrol data on apprehensions and alien time in custody—the most  recent data maintained by Border Patrol at the time of our review—to  determine the population and time in custody for aliens in holding  facilities. To determine the reliability of this data, we reviewed Border  Patrol documentation and interviewed agency officials responsible for  ensuring data quality about e3—the system that Border Patrol uses to  track information on aliens held in short-term custody. We determined  that the apprehension data was sufficiently reliable for the purposes of  our reporting objectives; however, we could not determine the reliability of  the time in custody data because of potential irregularities, such as  individuals indicated as having many months in custody, which we  discuss in the report. We also collected data from ICE on the number of  aliens in custody at ERO holding facilities; however, based on a review of  ICE documentation and interviews with ICE officials responsible for  ensuring data quality, we determined that the data was not reliable  because of missing and inaccurate data, including a potentially significant  over-count in the number of aliens in custody at one holding facility.  Moreover, we were unable to analyze or determine the reliability of ICE  data on time in custody because the agency does not include hours in  custody in its standard reports. We were unable to obtain OFO data on  number of aliens and their time of custody at holding facilities because  the agency does not currently collect it nationwide.
To determine the extent to which DHS has processes in place for  obtaining and addressing complaints from aliens in holding facilities, we  analyzed documentation on DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG), DHS  Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, ICE/CBP Joint Intake Center  (JIC), CBP INFO Center, and ICE Detention and Reporting Information  Line processes for managing complaints and interviewed officials from  these complaint mechanisms. We learned from our review of  documentation and interviews with agency officials that DHS complaint  tracking systems generally do not have a classification code for holding  facility complaints. To better understand the characteristics of these  tracking systems, we analyzed fiscal year 2012-2014 data maintained in  the Joint Integrity Case Management System (JICMS)—the system ICE  and CBP use to track complaints reported to the JIC, including those  related to holding facilities. We selected JICMS data to evaluate since it  contains information on both ICE and CBP complaints. Based on this  analysis, we confirmed that it was not possible to identify the universe of  holding facility complaints in JICMS since the tracking system does not  have a facility or issues type code associated with holding facilities. In  addition, during our site visits, we interviewed holding facility officials on  their local processes for obtaining and addressing complaints and  evaluated how holding facilities communicated available complaint  mechanisms. Specifically, we observed whether holding facilities posted  information on available complaint mechanisms, such as the DHS OIG, in  holding cells/rooms or in the processing area and we summarized the  results of these observations by holding facility and complaint  mechanism. We assessed DHS’s processes for obtaining and addressing  complaints against relevant standards in Standards for Internal Control in  the Federal Government.
We conducted this performance audit from May 2015 to May 2016 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from Department of Homeland Security
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Kirk Kiester (Assistant Director),  Anthony Fernandez, Eric Hauswirth, Susan Hsu, Brian Lipman, Jon  Najmi, Steven Rocker, and Mike Silver made key contributions to this  report.