DRO is responsible for the detention of aliens in its custody pending civil administrative immigration removal proceedings. According to ICE, as of the week ending December 31, 2006, there were 27,607 aliens detained in ICE custody at 330 adult detention facilities nationwide. The majority of ICE’s alien detainee population is housed with general population inmates in about 300 state and local jails that have intergovernmental service agreements with ICE. In addition to being housed in these state and local facilities, alien detainees are also housed in 8 ICE-owned service processing centers and 6 contract detention facilities operated by private contractors specifically for ICE alien detainees. In addition to these adult detention facilities, ICE contracts for the operation of 19 juvenile and 3 family detention facilities. According to ICE officials, they maintain custody of one of the most highly transient and diverse populations of any correctional or detention system in the world. This diverse population includes individuals from different countries; with varying security risks (criminal and noncriminal); with varying medical conditions; and includes males, females, and families of every age group. As of January 2007, the countries with the largest numbers of alien detainees in ICE custody were Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, the Dominican Republic, and Haiti. See appendix II for additional information on alien detention population statistics. ICE’s National Detention Standards are derived from the American Correctional Association Third Edition, Standards for Adult Local Detention Facilities. ICE officials said that they were currently in the process of revising the National Detention Standards based on American Correctional Association Fourth Edition, Performance-Based Standards for Adult Local Detention Facilities. In most cases ICE standards mirror American Correctional Association (ACA) standards. However, in some cases ICE standards exceed or provide more specificity than ACA standards to address the unique needs of alien detainees. As an example, ICE standards specify that a detainee should receive a tuberculosis test upon intake, while ACA standards do not. Further, ICE standards require a detailed list of immigration-related legal reference materials be made available in law libraries, while ACA standards do not specify the type and nature of legal materials to be made available. Also, exceeding ACA standards, ICE standards specify that, when possible, use of force on detainees be videotaped and that certain informational materials provided to detainees, such as fire evacuation instructions and detainee handbooks, be available in Spanish. The ICE National Detention Standards are to apply to ICE-owned detention facilities and those state and local facilities that house alien detainees. The standards are not codified in law and thus represent guidelines rather than binding regulations. According to ICE officials, ICE has never technically terminated an agreement for noncompliance with its detention standards. However, under ICE’s Detention Management Control Program policies and procedures, ICE may terminate its use of a detention facility and remove detainees or withhold payment from a facility for lack of compliance with the standards. Separate standards addressing the treatment of juvenile aliens are used for juvenile secure detention and shelter facilities. Both adult and juvenile detention facility standards are used at ICE’s family shelter facilities because of the unique classification of family shelters. There are 38 ICE National Detention Standards for adult detention facilities; 18 standards are related to detainee services, 4 are related to detainee health services, and 16 are related to security and control. More detailed information on each of these standards is provided in appendix IV. According to ICE officials, in addition to being required to comply with ICE’s National Detention Standards, some ICE detention facilities are accredited by ACA. For example, seven of eight ICE service processing centers and five of six contract detention facilities are accredited by ACA. In addition, according to ICE officials, some of the over 300 intergovernmental service agreement facilities are also accredited by ACA. Moreover, some facilities are also accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations (JCAHO), the predominant standards-setting and accrediting body in health care, and the National Commission on Correctional Health Care (NCCHC), which offers a health services accreditation program to determine whether correctional institutions meet its standards in their provision of health services. Our field observations at 23 alien detention facilities showed systemic telephone system problems at 16 of 17 facilities that use the pro bono telephone system, but no pattern of noncompliance for other standards we reviewed. Problems with the pro bono telephone system restrict detainees’ abilities to reach their consulates, nongovernmental organizations, pro bono legal assistance providers, and the OIG complaint hotline. ICE and facility officials told us that they did not know the specific nature and extent of the problem prior to our review. ICE’s lack of awareness and insufficient internal controls appear to have perpetuated telephone system problems for several years. Similarly, there were insufficient internal controls at the facilities to ensure posted phone numbers were kept up to date or otherwise accurate. For instance, one facility told us that the only means to know if a posted phone list was out of date or inaccurate was if a detainee complained. In addition to telephone problems, we also observed a lack of compliance with one or more aspects of other individual detention standards at 9 of the 23 sites we visited. These instances of noncompliance varied across facilities that we visited, and unlike the telephone system problems, did not appear to show a persistent pattern of noncompliance. Other examples of deficiencies included food service issues such as kitchen cleanliness and menu rotation, failure to follow medical care policy at intake, hold room policy violations such as lack of logbooks and overcrowding, and potential use of force violations such as the potential for use of dogs and/or Tasers, since some facilities had the use of Tasers either authorized in policy or facility officials stated they used these methods. Last, we also observed detainees being housed in numbers that exceeded the rated capacity at 4 of the 23 sites we visited. ICE alien detention standards specify that detainees be provided the ability to make telephone calls, at no charge to themselves or to the recipients, to their respective consulates, designated pro bono legal service providers, and the OIG complaint hotline, among others. The pro bono telephone system is to ensure that detainees have access to authorized legal representatives, that aliens who wish to retain counsel are not prevented from doing so, and to allow detainees to contact their home country consulates to seek assistance. The pro bono telephone system is also to ensure that detainees can voice complaints regarding their conditions of confinement to organizations with responsibility for investigating or monitoring detainee treatment. In order to meet the telephone access standard, ICE contracted with Public Communications Services (PCS) to provide a pro bono telephone system to enable detainees to contact the aforementioned parties at no charge. The term of the contract is January 22, 2004, to January 21, 2009, and consists of a 12-month base period and four 12-month options. Of the 23 detention facilities we visited, 17 facilities utilize the PCS detainee telephone system. We performed telephone tests at all 17 of these facilities. Our tests consisted of dialing the OIG’s complaint line, consulates, nongovernmental organizations, and pro bono legal service providers from the numbers posted next to the telephones to determine if we could get a connection. All of the phones were in good working order, and we observed that detainees could successfully place personally funded phone calls using calling cards purchased from the facility. However, we often could not connect to the telephone numbers for the OIG, consulates, and pro bono legal providers. At 16 of 17 detention facilities where we performed test calls through the pro bono telephone system, we encountered numerous failures that ranged from incomplete and inaccurate phone number postings to a variety of technical system failures that would not permit the caller to make the desired connections. For example, during our facility visits, we observed posters advertising the OIG complaint hotline 1-800 number. However, we found that the OIG number was blocked or otherwise restricted at 12 of the facilities that we tested. Typical problems that we encountered when dialing the OIG’s complaint line included getting a voice prompt stating that “this number is restricted,” “this is an invalid number,” or “a call to this number has been blocked by the telephone service provider.” Also, at 14 of the facilities using the PCS detainee telephone system, we could not complete phone connections to some consulates. We received messages such as a message stating that “all circuits are busy, call back at a later time” and “this number is restricted.” At the Pamunkey Regional Jail in Virginia we requested that the on-site Systems Administrator call PCS to determine why its pro bono telephone system was not working properly. The PCS service department informed him that there was a problem with the PCS system and it seemed to be at all facilities. Figure 1 shows a telephone with posted pro bono numbers at the Denver Contract Detention Facility, where we identified telephone system problems during our testing. Further, we found the PCS detainee telephone system to be cumbersome and complicated to use. For example, at Pamunkey Regional Jail, the automated system required eight different actions by the user to place a call. One of these actions added further confusion by instructing a detainee to select “collect call” in order to make a pro bono telephone system call. Similarly, at the Northwest Detention Center, detainees were offered only two voice prompt options when attempting to place a call using the pro bono telephone system: (1) to place a “collect call” and (2) to place a “credit card call.” In some cases, we found that the pro bono telephone system requires detainees to input their Alien Registration Number (commonly referred to as an “A” number) as part of the process for making a pro bono telephone call. In at least one facility, however, this in itself provided enough confusion among detainees to prevent them from making a successful call. At Pamunkey Regional Jail, we asked a group of about 40 detainees in one dorm if any of them could call any of the pro bono service numbers posted on the wall. We found that most of the detainees were not familiar with “A” numbers that would be required. In one case, when we asked a detainee for his “A” number, he referred to an unrelated number labeled “PIN” on his jail inmate wrist band. This may have been because the detainee handbook at Pamunkey refers to an “A” number as “PIN.” This problem was also recorded during a visit by UNHCR representatives at the same facility in 2005. Nevertheless, we obtained an actual “A” number from personal paperwork provided to us by one of the detainees. Using his legitimate “A” number, and working our way through numerous voice prompts, we could not make a connection using any of the pro bono legal service or consulate numbers posted at the Pamunkey Regional Jail. The facility compliance officer, the phone technician on site, and the ICE phone system contract technical representative who accompanied us at Pamunkey could offer no explanation for the pro bono telephone system failure. The telephone technician told us that he oversees frequent problems with the detainee phones at Pamunkey. At 16 of the 17 detention facilities we visited with the ICE pro bono telephone system, we found insufficient internal controls to ensure that telephone number postings are kept up to date and/or that the pro bono telephone system is functioning properly. For example, the phone number listings for pro bono legal providers and consulates were out of date and inaccurate at the Elizabeth Detention Facility. When we visited this facility in September 2006, the list of consulate numbers was 6 years old (dated 2000). We called 30 of the consulate numbers on the posted listing and determined that 9 of the numbers were incorrect. When we asked the ICE officer in charge on site why the consulate numbers were not up to date, he said he had no way of knowing if the phone numbers posted for the detainees were out of date unless someone complained. Additional examples include Pamunkey and Hampton Roads Regional Jails, where we found that consulate numbers were not listed for two countries with detainees of those nationalities present. Inaccurate or missing telephone numbers may preclude detainees from reaching consulates, pro bono legal providers, and the OIG complaint hotline, as required in ICE’s National Detention Standards. Officials we interviewed at the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) stated that their organization updates all local pro bono legal services phone numbers every 3 months and provides these updated phone numbers to all immigration courts. Some of these immigration courts are located within the detention facilities themselves. The EOIR officials stated that it is the responsibility of ICE staff to ensure that copies of updated pro bono phone lists are regularly picked up at the immigration courts and posted in the detainee dorms. Moreover, we did not have any problem obtaining current phone number lists for local pro bono legal services from the EOIR Web site. Current consulate phone numbers are also available on the Department of State’s Web site. Despite the availability of these numbers, ICE staff did not have procedures to ensure that the updated numbers were posted and provided to the phone system contractor to be programmed into the system on a regular basis. We found that most facilities that we visited were not aware that the pro bono telephone system was not operating properly because there were no internal control procedures for regularly testing the system. At two of the facilities we visited, the San Diego Correctional Facility and the Denver Contract Detention Facility, ICE’s recent compliance inspection reports cited facility officials for failing to properly monitor the pro bono phone system. When we tested the pro bono telephone system at the T. Don Hutto Family Shelter and found that we were unable to make most connections successfully, the facility officials established a new logbook and required the officer on duty in the detainee dorms to test the pro bono telephone system three times daily (8 a.m., 12 noon, and 4:30 p.m.) and record the results of these tests (satisfactory or unsatisfactory). We are not aware of any other immediate corrective action taken by other facilities that we visited. At Broward Transitional Center, facility officials stated that if a detainee had difficulty connecting through the pro bono call system, they provided an alternative means for a detainee to direct- dial these calls on a facility phone outside of the housing unit. Noting the poor performance of the pro bono telephone system it is important for facilities to post instructions for alternative means for detainees to complete calls in the event that the ICE pro bono telephone system is not functioning properly. We reviewed monthly pro bono telephone system performance reports provided to ICE by the pro bono phone system contractor for the last 5 years. The overall data show that over the 5-year period, 41 percent of calls placed through the system were not successful. This was consistent with problems we found during our site visits. These high failure rates indicated a systemic problem with the detainee pro bono telephone system. Figure 2 shows the monthly success rate for telephone calls placed through the pro bono telephone system from November 2005 to November 2006. Over this period, the rate of successful connections was never above 74 percent. Further, during the period between May and July 2006, on average, 60 percent of all attempted calls by detainees were not completed. The contractor-provided performance data also contained information on systemwide facility success rates for completed calls. When we reviewed these data, we found that individual facilities showed a similar trend of poor performance in completing calls when detainees attempted to use the pro bono call system. Our discussions with ICE contract administration officials, including contract officials in the Office of Acquisition and the Contracting Officer Technical Representative (COTR) in DRO, indicated that there was little oversight of the telephone contract being performed. The ICE contracting officer assigned responsibility for the PCS contract told us that the PCS phone contract was operating essentially on “autopilot” in that there was limited oversight being performed of the contract. The contracting official also stated that he had not been informed of any performance-related contract issues by the ICE COTR, who he said was responsible for monitoring the technical performance of the contractor. When we interviewed the COTR, he told us that he was assigned contract-related duties on a collateral basis while serving as a full-time compliance reviewer in the Detention Standards Compliance unit of DRO. A senior official in ICE’s Office of Acquisition said that the office faced significant challenges relating to turnover, understaffing, and loss of institutional knowledge regarding contract oversight and management. After several discussions with ICE contract and detention compliance officials concerning our findings of systemic problems with the pro bono calling system, the officials acknowledged that a lack of internal controls exists in its present system for monitoring detainee telephone system contractor performance and that greater contractor oversight is required. According to ICE officials, their intent is to issue a new telephone contract solicitation in the coming months. This contract for delivering pro bono telephone services is projected to be awarded by December 31, 2007. We found that detainee complaints over the high costs of phone calls were common. Under ICE’s pro bono telephone contract, PCS gains exclusive rights to provide paid telephone access to detainees at Service Processing Centers (SPC) and Contract Detention Facilities (CDF) to make paid telephone calls through the purchase of calling cards in denominations of $5, $10, or $20. The PCS rates range from $0.65 to $0.94 per minute for international calls and $0.06 to $0.17 a minute for domestic calls. Additionally, PCS contracts independently of ICE to provide paid telephone access at some intergovernmental service agreement (IGSA) facilities who determine their own rates apart from ICE. For instance, at the Pamunkey Regional Jail, an IGSA facility, detainees are charged $3.95 to connect and 89 cents a minute for long-distance calls. Under ICE’s agreement with PCS, PCS provides the pro bono platform to any IGSA facility that chooses to adopt it to meet the telephone access standard. ICE officials stated that approximately 200 facilities currently use the PCS pro bono telephone system. They also stated that some detention facilities have revenue-sharing agreements with PCS for a portion of the revenue resulting from the sale of the calling cards. ICE officials provided some information at the end of our review indicating that telephone commissions at some detention facilities range from 2 percent to 10 percent of calling card sales. According to ICE, revenue sharing is not a part of its ICE-PCS contract; however, PCS has negotiated agreements independently with detention facilities to make distribution to the detainees of the phone cards, collect money, etc. We were unable to examine the full extent of these contractual agreements across all ICE detention facilities. However, on June 1, 2007, the ICE Assistant Secretary requested a DHS Inspector General audit of the ICE pro bono telephone system and contract to include activity relevant to the sale and use of calling cards. Our review of correctional facility literature indicated that commissions resulting from telephone card sales can be as high as 20 percent to 60 percent. In addition to reviewing compliance with the telephone access standard, we focused on seven other detention standards. The standards we reviewed included medical care, hold rooms, use of force, food service, recreation, access to legal materials, and detainee grievance procedures. While we found deficiencies regarding these other standards, unlike the telephone system problems, these deficiencies did not show a systemic pattern of noncompliance from facility to facility. ICE standards state that detainees are to receive an initial medical screening immediately upon admission and a full medical assessment within 14 days. The policy also states that a health care specialist shall determine needed medical treatment. Medical service providers used by facilities include general medical, dental, and mental health care providers and are licensed by state and local authorities. Some medical services are provided by the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS), while other medical service providers work on a contractual basis. Facilities that we visited ranged from small clinics with contract staff to facilities with on-site medical staff and diagnostic equipment such as X-ray machines. According to ICE, when outside medical care appears warranted, then ICE will make the determination through a Managed Care Coordinator provided by PHS. Officials at some facilities told us that the special medical and mental health needs of detainees can be challenging. Some also cited difficulties in obtaining approval for outside medical and mental health care as also presenting problems in caring for detainees. We observed deficiencies in ICE’s Medical Care Standards at three facilities we visited. These facilities consisted of one adult detention facility, one family detention facility, and one juvenile detention facility. Specifically, at the San Diego Correctional Facility, ICE reviewers that we accompanied cited PHS staff for failing to administer the mandatory 14-day physical exam to approximately 260 detainees. PHS staff said the problem was due to inadequate training on the medical records system and technical errors in the records system. At a family detention center, Casa de San Juan Family Shelter, the facility staff did not administer medical screenings immediately upon admission, as required in ICE medical care standards. Finally, at the Cowlitz County Juvenile Detention Center, no medical screening was performed at admission and first aid kits were not available, as required. Figures 3 and 4 show examples of medical facilities at the Denver Contract Detention Facility and Berks County Prison, which provide on-site medical care. Hold rooms are used for temporary detention of individuals awaiting removal, transfer, medical treatment, intrafacility movement, or other processing into or out of the facility. ICE standards specify that detainees not be held longer than 12 hours in a hold room, and that logs be maintained documenting who is being held in hold rooms, how long they have been held, and what food and services have been provided to them. Deficiencies were observed in compliance with hold room standards at three detention facilities we visited. As we accompanied ICE reviewers at the San Diego Correctional Facility, the reviewers cited the facility for placing detainees in holding cells for longer than the 12-hour limit. The San Diego facility was also cited for failing to maintain an accurate hold room log with custodial information about detainees arriving at and departing from the facility. During our visit to the Denver Contract Detention Facility, we observed that the number of detainees in the hold rooms exceeded rated capacity and that the logbook was not properly maintained for individuals housed in the hold rooms. As a result, officers on duty could not determine how many detainees were being kept in hold rooms and meals were not recorded. In a compliance review closeout meeting with Denver facility officials, ICE reviewers identified the following deficiencies with the facility’s compliance with ICE’s hold room standards: hold rooms were over capacity; the detainee hold room logbook was incomplete and unreadable; and unsupervised detainees had placed wads of paper in hold room air vents. We also observed the absence of a hold room log at the North Las Vegas Detention Center. ICE’s use of force standard specifies that facilities have policies on the use of force that require documentation of the criteria for using force, the filing of incident reports, and review and consultation with medical staff before and after the use of force. If possible, service processing centers and contract detention facilities are required to videotape situations where it is anticipated that the use of force may occur. All facilities that we visited, with the exception of Casa de San Juan Family Shelter, had policies on the appropriate criteria for the use of force on inmates. ICE policy on the use of force also prohibits a facility to use Tasers at any time or dogs except when searching for contraband. However, we observed the potential for the use of Tasers and/or dogs at four of the adult detention facilities that we visited. At the Wakulla County Sheriff’s Office, we observed officers armed with Tasers. We interviewed one of these officers, who was not aware of ICE’s policy forbidding the use of Tasers on detainees. Therefore, if an incident occurs where he felt use of his Taser was warranted, it would be unlikely he would distinguish between an alien detainee and a jail inmate. At the North Las Vegas Detention Facility, officers told us that they use Tasers and the use of Tasers was noted in the facility’s Use of Force continuum. At Pine Prairie Correctional Center and York County Prison, the use of Tasers is authorized in policy. According to officials at the North Las Vegas detention facility, dogs may be potentially used in a “show of force” situation, but would not actually be deployed as a “use of force” on detainees. ICE standards require that all facilities offer rotating 5-week menus, special medical and religious meals when approved by medical staff or a chaplain, and that menus be reviewed by a nutritionist to ensure adequate caloric and nutritional intake. Further, ICE food service standards require that facility food service employees be instructed in food safety and that the facility be inspected by local, state, or ICE authorities. We observed deficiencies regarding the ICE Food Service Standard at two adult detention facilities and one juvenile detention facility that we visited. At the Denver Contract Detention Facility, an adult facility, ICE reviewers cited the facility for lack of cleanliness in its food service preparation and a 4-week rotating menu instead of the required 5-week menu. The Denver Contract Detention Facility received a deficient rating in sanitation from ICE reviewers in October 2006 because the kitchen area was not properly cleaned between meals. Figure 5 shows an unclean kitchen grill at the Denver Contract Detention Facility. At the San Diego Correctional Facility, an adult facility, PHS inspectors we accompanied reviewed the files of the detainee food service workers and found that two of the detainee workers had not been cleared to work in the kitchen. These workers were immediately removed from food service duty until such time as they receive the proper medical and security clearances. At the Cowlitz County Juvenile Detention Center, juveniles received only one hot meal per day rather than two hot meals per day as required by the ICE Juvenile Food Standard. Some detainees we spoke with expressed displeasure with the food, frequently citing that what they were served was not what they were accustomed to or that meals were served too early in the morning, and/or they did not have sufficient time to eat their meals. ICE detention standards state that detainees are to be allowed at least 5 hours of recreation per week. At facilities that we visited, common outdoor recreational activities included basketball and volleyball, and common indoor recreation activities included board games and television. The physical facilities for recreational activities varied, particularly the outdoor recreation facilities. ICE detention standards do not specify that outdoor recreation take place physically outside the detention facility. If only indoor recreation is available, detainees shall have access for at least 1 hour each day and shall have access to natural light. Some facilities we visited provided recreation through indoor areas with natural sunlight. For example, figures 6 and 7 show indoor/outdoor recreational areas with natural sunlight and fresh air ventilation for detainees at the Hampton Roads Regional Jail and Denver Contract Detention Facility. Each of the facilities we visited met the 5-hour-per-week recreation standard. ICE’s recreation standard states that if outdoor recreation is available at the facility, each detainee shall have access for at least 1 hour daily, at a reasonable time of day, 5 days a week, weather permitting. However, the Wakulla County Sheriff’s Office detainee handbook stated that detainees were allowed 3 hours of outdoor recreation per week. In commenting on our report, DHS stated, notwithstanding the handbook, that detainees receive outdoor recreation at Wakulla 5 days a week for a 1-hour period each day. According to the ICE legal access standard, which applies only to adult and family detention facilities, detainees shall be permitted access to a law library for at least 5 hours per week, be furnished legal materials, and be provided materials to facilitate detainees’ legal research and writing. Although not required, 18 of the 21 adult and family detention facilities visited provided detainees with at least one computer and legal software as an option to conduct research on immigration law and cases. Detainees at most facilities that we visited generally had access to legal materials. However, we observed a law library deficiency at the North Las Vegas Detention Center. At North Las Vegas, certain detainees did not have direct access to its law library because of the law library’s location. This is because low-risk detainees would have needed to pass through a dorm that housed high-risk detainees, thus violating ICE’s policies against comingling of risk levels. As a result, some detainees were required to submit a research plan to a designated detainee law clerk, who researches the information on their behalf. We discussed this policy with facility officials and they said that the current system was adopted to prevent commingling among detainees of different risk levels and reduce overcrowding within the law library. In June 2007, ICE officials stated that all detainees at this facility have access to computers loaded with a legal research database, which according to an ICE law librarian meets ICE’s requirements to provide legal research material. However, at the time of our visit to the North Las Vegas Detention Center, facility officials told us that they were only in the process of providing for a mobile law library cart with a computer loaded with legal research software. At the time of our visit to the facility, the cart/computer system was not available to the detainees. Figure 8 shows the law library available at the San Diego Correctional Facility law library. ICE’s detainee grievance standard states that facilities shall establish and implement procedures for informal and formal resolution of detainee grievances. The detainee grievance standard advocates resolving detainee grievances informally, before resorting to formal grievance processes. The formal grievance process permits detainees to file written grievances with the designated grievance officer, generally within 5 days of the event or unsuccessful resolution of an informal grievance. The standard also states that detainees must have the opportunity to file a complaint directly with the OIG, which we discuss later in the report. The standard also requires facilities to maintain a grievance log and outline grievance procedures in the detainee handbook. Our review of available grievance data obtained from facilities and discussions with facility management showed that the types of grievances at the facilities we visited typically included the lack of timely response to requests for medical treatment, missing property, high commissary prices, poor food quality and/or insufficient food quantity, high telephone costs, problems with telephones, and questions concerning detention case management issues. Four of the 23 facilities we visited did not comply with all aspects of ICE’s detainee grievance standards. Specifically, Casa de San Juan Family Shelter did not provide a handbook, the Cowlitz County Juvenile Detention Center did not include grievance procedures in its handbook, Wakulla County Sheriff’s Office did not have a grievance log, and the Elizabeth Detention Center did not record all grievances that we observed in their facility files. At 4 of the 23 detention facilities we visited, we observed that detainees were sleeping in portable beds on the floor in between standard beds and/or sleeping three persons to a two-person cell. These 4 detention facilities were the Krome Service Processing Center, the Denver Contract Detention Facility, the San Pedro Service Processing Center, and the San Diego Correctional Facility. At the time of our visit, the Krome Service Processing Center in Florida had a population of 750 detainees with a rated capacity of 572 detainees. Officials told us that the facility’s population had been as high as 1,000 detainees just 1 week prior to our visit. An official at that facility expressed concern about the limited amount of unencumbered space at the facility. Figure 9 shows the use of portable beds on the left side of the picture used to accommodate excess population at the Krome Service Processing Center. At the San Diego Correctional Facility, we observed that detainees were “triple-bunked”—three detainees in a cell built for two. For example, we counted 110 women housed in a dorm designed to house only 68 detainees. ICE and facility officials stated that overcrowding was a potential security and safety issue, and this concern was noted in ICE’s inspection report. The officials later informed us that they had developed a plan with recommendations to address overcrowding at the San Diego facility. According to these officials, they had submitted the plan to ICE headquarters officials for their approval. In January 2007, we contacted ICE officials for an update on the overcapacity issues at the San Diego Correctional Facility, and officials said that ICE had reduced the detainee population and was no longer triple-bunking detainees. We requested documentation in support of the San Diego facility’s new policy on overcrowding, but ICE said that it could not respond to our request due to pending litigation involving the San Diego facility. During our October 2006 visit to the Denver Contract Detention Facility, we also observed that detainees were sleeping in portable beds placed in the aisles between standard beds. The ICE Denver Field Office Director said that his field office has been requesting additional detention bed space within the region for some time and that his office considers overcrowding to be an issue of concern. He said that the portable beds that we observed are a measure to address overcapacity and that the Denver Contract Detention Facility needs to be expanded. Figure 10 shows the use of portable beds and overcapacity conditions at the Denver Contract Detention Facility. In addition to our observations, UNHCR officials, who monitor conditions of confinement at alien detention facilities, told us that they had observed overcrowded conditions at two facilities they visited in 2006. These facilities were the South Texas Detention Complex, Pearsall, Texas, and the Aguadilla Service Processing Center in Puerto Rico. ICE annual inspections of detention facilities are generally conducted on time and with the exception of the pro bono telephone system have identified deficiencies for corrective action. Weaknesses that we found in ICE’s compliance review process have resulted in ICE’s failure to identify telephone system problems at many facilities we visited. Specifically, ICE’s Detention Inspection Worksheet used by reviewers does not require that a reviewer check that detainees are able to make successful connections through the pro bono telephone system. Further, there was variation in how ICE reviewers addressed and reported telephone system problems. Moreover, in at least one case, the Wakulla County Sheriff’s Office, where phone system problems were identified by ICE reviewers, we observed the same problems nearly a year after the facility’s telephone standard compliance had been rated as “at risk.” We reviewed the most recently available ICE annual inspection reports for 20 of the 23 detention facilities that we visited. The 20 inspection reports showed that ICE reviewers had identified a total of 59 deficiencies. Many of the types of deficiencies noted in the ICE inspection reports were similar to those that we observed. For example, deficiencies included issues concerning staff-detainee communication, detainee transfers, access to legal materials, admission and release, recreation, food service, medical care, telephone access, special management unit, tool control, detainee classification system, and performance of security inspections. Additional information on these standards is included in appendix IV. The ICE inspection reports are to be forwarded to the cognizant ICE field office and the facility that was reviewed. For deficiencies that could take longer than 45 days to correct, the facility management is to file a plan of action documenting how the deficiency will be addressed. According to ICE policy, all 330 adult detention facilities, as well as the 19 juvenile and 3 family detention facilities, are required to be inspected at 12-month intervals to determine that they are in compliance with detention standards and to take corrective actions if necessary. As of November 30, 2006, according to ICE data, ICE had reviewed approximately 90 percent of detention facilities within the prescribed 12-month interval. To perform these compliance reviews, ICE headquarters has a Detention Inspection Unit that has a Unit Chief of Compliance, six staff officers, three support staff, and a private contractor consultant. In addition, 298 ICE field staff serve as detention compliance reviewers on a collateral basis. According to the Detention Management Control Program Policy, reviewers are provided written guidance for conducting compliance inspections. Subsequent to each annual inspection, a compliance rating report is to be prepared and sent to the Director of the Office of Detention and Removal or his representative within 14 days. The Director of the Office of Detention and Removal has 21 days to transmit the report to the field office directors and affected suboffices. Facilities receive one of five final ratings in their compliance report—superior, good, acceptable, deficient, or at risk. ICE officials reported that as of June 1, 2007, 16 facilities were rated “superior,” 60 facilities were rated “good,” 190 facilities were rated “acceptable,” 4 facilities were rated “deficient,” and no facilities were rated “at risk.” ICE officials stated that this information reflects completed reviews, and some reviews are currently in process and pending completion. Therefore, ICE could not provide information on the most current ratings for some facilities. The telephone access section of the review checklist guide that ICE teams use to conduct their annual detention facility compliance reviews only requires that the reviewer determine that detainees have access to operable phones to make calls. This is an example of an insufficient internal control because the checklist guide does not require the ICE review teams to check that detainees are able to successfully make connections through the pro bono telephone system. During our visits to detention facilities, we found that the phones were fully functional for pay calls but connections could not always be completed using the pro bono call system. Because inspectors did not test the pro bono telephone system during the review process to determine whether a call could actually be completed using that system, facilities could be and, in some instances were, certified as being in compliance with ICE’s telephone access standard when in reality the pro bono call system was not functioning and detainees were not able to make connections. For example, at one facility where we had determined that the pro bono telephone system would not allow us to make connections with consulates, the OIG complaint hotline, or local pro bono legal services, the senior ICE inspector on site considered the phone access standard had been met because he had observed detainees talking on the phones. In this instance, the ICE reviewer found that the facility was in compliance with the telephone access standard without actually verifying that a successful connection could be made through the pro bono telephone system. As a result, it is possible that many phone system problems had not been identified by ICE reviewers. As discussed above, we found telephone access compliance deficiencies to be pervasive at the detention facilities we visited. However, at 16 of 17 detention facilities that utilize the pro bono telephone system; the most recently available ICE inspection reports for these same facilities disclosed phone problems at only 5 of the 16 facilities. Of these 5 facilities, 3 were given a rating of “deficient” or “at risk” for compliance with the telephone access standard that required the facility to submit a plan of action to resolve the deficiency. For the other two facilities, the problems were listed as a “concern” rather than a deficiency and as such, did not require a plan of action. The examples below illustrate the variations in how the ICE reviewer in charge reported telephone compliance problems. Elizabeth Detention Facility: At this facility, our analysts accompanied the ICE team during its annual compliance inspection. Although we advised the ICE team, ICE facility staff, and contractor management that the phone listings were out of date and the pro bono telephone system was not operating properly, ICE’s final compliance report only addressed problems with outdated phone numbers and not the larger concern of telephone system problems. San Diego Correctional Facility: At San Diego, we also accompanied ICE reviewers who noted pro bono telephone system problems, including inaccurate and outdated phone lists and detainees being unable to make successful connections through the pro bono telephone system. In this case, the ICE reviewers detected the full range of telephone problems and reflected them in their final report, subsequently requiring the facility to a file a plan of action. Wakulla County Sheriff’s Office: We visited this facility in October 2006 and observed a full range of pro bono telephone system problems, including an inability to connect to consulates. Some of these problems were also cited during ICE’s 2005 compliance review at this facility. In this review ICE rated the Telephone Access Standard at this facility as “at risk,” requiring that a plan of action be filed within 30 days and that noted deficiencies be addressed within 90 days. Despite these requirements, no corrective action was evident during our visit nearly a year later. According to ICE officials, the ICE Office of Professional Responsibility is creating a Detention Facilities Inspection Group (DFIG) within its Management Inspections Unit to independently validate detention inspections conducted by DRO. ICE officials stated that DFIG will perform quality assurance over the review process, ensure consistency in application of detention standards, and verify corrective action. According to these officials, experienced staff were assigned from other ICE components to this unit in February 2007. In addition to the detainee grievance procedures at the detention facilities, external complaints may be filed by detainees or their representatives with several governmental and nongovernmental organizations, as shown in figure 11. The primary mechanism for detainees to file external complaints is directly with the OIG, either in writing or by phone using the OIG complaint hotline. Detainees may also file complaints with the DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, which has statutory responsibility for investigating complaints alleging violations of civil rights and civil liberties. In addition, detainees may file complaints through the Joint Intake Center (JIC), which is operated continuously by both ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) personnel, and is responsible for receiving, classifying, and routing all misconduct allegations involving ICE and CBP employees, including those pertaining to detainee treatment. ICE officials told us that if the JIC were to receive an allegation from a detainee, it would be referred to the OIG. OIG may investigate the complaint or refer it to CRCL or DHS components such as the ICE Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) for review and possible action. In turn, CRCL or OPR may retain the complaint or refer it to other DHS offices, including DRO, for possible action. Further, detainees may also file complaints with nongovernmental organizations such as ABA and UNHCR. These external organizations said they generally forward detainee complaints to DHS components for review and possible action. Of the approximately 1,700 detainee complaints in the OIG database that were filed in fiscal years 2003 through 2006, OIG investigated 173 and referred the others to other DHS components as displayed in figure 11. As discussed earlier, the OIG complaint hotline telephone number was blocked or otherwise restricted at 12 of the facilities that we visited. Therefore, while some detainees at these facilities may have filed written complaints with the OIG, the number of reported allegations may not reflect the universe of detainee complaints. OIG has a system to record the type of complaint and its status (e.g., open investigation, closed due to insufficient information, or referred). Our review of approximately 750 detainee complaints from fiscal years 2005 through 2006 showed that the complaints in the OIG database mostly involved issues relating to medical treatment; case management; mistreatment; protesting detention or deportation; civil rights, human rights, or discrimination; property issues; and employee misconduct at the facility. Other, less common complaints involved physical abuse, use of force, mismanagement, detainee-on-detainee violence, general abuse, food and commissary issues, general environmental concerns, and general harassment. One challenge faced by the OIG in investigating detainee complaints is that generally detainees do not stay in facilities for long periods of time, so the complainant may be relocated to another facility or returned to his or her country of origin before an investigation is initiated or completed. OPR investigates allegations of corruption and other official misconduct only upon formal declination to investigate and referral by the OIG. OPR classifies allegations under four categories based on severity of the allegation and may retain cases for investigation, or refer complaints to DHS components including DRO. OPR stated that in fiscal years 2003 through 2006, they had received 409 allegations concerning the treatment of detainees. Seven of these allegations were found to be substantiated, 26 unfounded, and 65 unsubstantiated. Three of the seven substantiated cases resulted in employee terminations, one resulted in an employee termination that is currently under appeal, and according to an OPR official, three cases were still being adjudicated. Additionally, 200 of the allegations were classified by OPR as either information only to facility management, requiring no further action, or were referred to facility management for action, requiring a response. CRCL also receives complaints from the OIG, nongovernmental organizations, and members of the public. It tracks this information in its complaint management system. Officials stated that from the period March 2003 to August 2006 they received 46 complaints related to the treatment of detainees. Of these 46 complaints, 14 were closed, 11 were referred to ICE OPR, 12 were retained for investigation, and 9 were pending decision about disposition. CRCL monitors the review of all referred complaints until conclusion. We could not determine the number of cases referred to DRO or their disposition. On the basis of a limited review of DRO’s complaints database and discussions with ICE officials knowledgeable about the database, we concluded that DRO’s complaint database was not sufficiently reliable for audit purposes. According to ICE, DRO’s complaints database is used as an internal managerial information system and is not designed to be a formal tracking mechanism. DRO is responsible for overseeing the management and operation of detention facilities. Therefore, it is important that DRO accurately document detainee complaints related to conditions of confinement to, among other things, inform its review teams and DRO management regarding the conditions at the facilities used to detain aliens. Moreover, our standards for internal control in the federal government call for clear documentation of transactions and events that is readily available for examination. Documentation would allow for analysis that may reflect potential systemic problems throughout the detention system. In addition to our fieldwork and interviews with DHS and ICE officials regarding compliance efforts in place for alien detention facilities, we reviewed 37 detention monitoring reports compiled by UNHCR from the period 1993 to 2006. These reports were based on UNHCR’s site visits and its discussions with ICE officials, facility staff, and detainee interviews, especially with asylum seekers. Some of the issues noted in UNHCR mission reports included inadequate access to legal materials, the lack of timely response to requests for medical service, questions about case management, the high cost of telephone calls, and problems connecting through the ICE pro bono telephone system. While ABA officials informed us that they do not keep statistics regarding complaints, on the basis of a review of their correspondence as of August 2006, they compiled a list of common detainee complaints received. Common complaints reported by ABA included the high cost of telephone calls and problems with the ICE detainee telephone system, delayed or nonarriving mail, insufficient or outdated law library materials and lack of access to law libraries, detainees housed with criminals and treated like criminals, lack of information about complaint and grievance procedures, medical and dental treatment complaints, unsanitary conditions, insufficient food, facility staff problems, and abuse by inmates or other detainees. Further, ABA data from January 2003 to February 2007 indicated that of the 1,032 correspondences it received, 710 involved legal issues, 226 involved conditions of confinement, 39 involved medical access, and 57 involved miscellaneous issues or were not categorized. While ICE annual inspection reviews of detention facilities noted various deficiencies in compliance with ICE’s standards, insufficient internal controls and weaknesses in ICE’s compliance review process resulted in ICE’s failure to identify telephone system problems that we found to be pervasive at most of the detention facilities we visited. The insufficient internal controls and weaknesses in the telephone access section of the review checklist contributed to ICE reviewers’ failure to identify these telephone system problems. Amendments to the checklist to include requirements to confirm that pro bono telephone call connections can be made successfully may provide for more consistent reporting of telephone problems. Also, insufficient internal controls at detention facilities for ensuring that posted pro bono telephone numbers were accurate resulted in some facilities having inaccurate or outdated number lists. Systemic problems with the pro bono telephone system may preclude detainees from reaching consulates, nongovernmental organizations, pro bono legal providers, and the OIG complaint hotline, as required in ICE’s National Detention Standards. Additionally, ICE’s limited monitoring of contractor performance data that indicated poor system performance is evidence of the need for improved internal controls and monitoring of the contract. ICE confirmed that the contractor did not comply with the terms and conditions of the contract and in June 2007 requested that the OIG review the extent of noncompliance with the terms and conditions of the contract. Given the problems with the current pro bono telephone system we found at 16 facilities we tested, it is also prudent to ensure detainees are aware of and have access to alternative means for completing calls to consulates, pro bono legal providers, and the OIG’s complaint line as required by ICE standards. Without sufficient internal control policies and procedures in place, ICE is unable to offer assurance that detainees can access legal services, file external grievances, and obtain assistance from their consulates. ICE’s lack of a formalized tracking process for documenting detainee complaints hinders its ability to (1) identify potential patterns of noncompliance that may be systemwide and (2) ensure that all detainee complaints are reviewed and acted upon if necessary. Because DRO is responsible for overseeing the management and operation of alien detention facilities, it is important that DRO accurately document detainee complaints related to conditions of confinement to, among other things, inform its review teams and DRO management regarding the conditions at the facilities and facilitate any required corrective action. Moreover, our standards for internal control in the federal government call for clear documentation of transactions and events that is readily available for examination. To ensure that detainees can make telephone calls to access legal services, report complaints, and obtain assistance from their respective consulates, as specified in ICE National Detention Standards and that all detainee complaints are reviewed and acted upon as necessary, we recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security direct the Assistant Secretary for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to take the following actions: Amend the DRO compliance inspection process relating to the detainee telephone access standard to include: measures to ensure that facility and/or ICE staff frequently test to confirm that the ICE pro bono telephone system is functioning properly; revisions to ICE’s compliance review worksheet to require ICE reviewers, while conducting annual reviews of the telephone access standard at detention facilities, to test the detainee pro bono telephone system by attempting to connect calls and record any automated voice messages as to why the call is not being put through. Require the posting in detention facilities of instructions for alternative means for detainees to complete calls in the event that the ICE pro bono telephone system is not functioning properly. Direct ICE staff to establish procedures for identifying any changes to phone numbers available from EOIR, the Department of State, and the OIG and for promptly updating the pro bono telephone numbers posted in detention facilities. Establish supervisory controls and procedures, including appropriate staffing, to ensure that DRO and Office of Acquisitions staff are properly monitoring contractor performance. In regard to the contract with Public Communications Services, explore what recourse the government has available to it for contractor nonperformance. In competing a new telephone contract, ensure that the new contract contains adequate protections and recourse for the government in the event of contractor nonperformance. Develop a formal tracking system to ensure that all detainee complaints referred to DRO are reviewed and the disposition, including any corrective action, is recorded for later examination. We provided a draft of this report to DHS for review and comment. DHS provided written comments on June 25, 2007, which are presented in appendix V. In commenting on the draft report, DHS stated it agreed with our seven recommendations and identified corrective actions it has planned or under way to address the problems. With regard to several of our recommendations, DHS believed that its progress in implementing corrective actions merited our closing them. For example, by memo of the DRO Assistant Director for Management, effective immediately, ICE staff are to verify serviceability of all telephones in detainee housing units by conducting random calls to pre-programmed numbers posted on the pro bono and consulate lists. ICE staff also are to interview a sampling of detainees and review written detainee complaints regarding detainee telephone access. The field office directors are to ensure that all phones in all applicable facilities are tested on a weekly basis. This appears to be a step in the right direction; however, proper implementation and oversight of this initiative will be needed to resolve the issues we identified. While we are encouraged by DHS’s plans and actions designed to address the problems we identified in our report, we have not reviewed these plans and actions to determine whether they could resolve or have resolved the problems and thus will keep the recommendations open until these actions can be evaluated for sufficiency. DHS’s official comments also raised three issues that require some clarification of our findings. First, DHS stated that the deficiencies we identified generally do not illustrate a pattern of noncompliance with ICE National Detention Standards, but rather, are isolated incidents, the exception being telephone access. While it is true that the only pervasive problem we identified related to the telephone system—a problem later confirmed by ICE’s testing—we cannot state that the other deficiencies we identified in our visits were isolated. Our findings are based on a non- probability sample of 23 detention facilities that was not generalizable to all alien detention facilities. Moreover, we observed facility conditions at a point in time that could have been different before and after our visits. Second, DHS commented that GAO personnel stated in discussions that they did not test or validate the availability of some other means for detainees to make telephone connections when the detainee phones are unable to do so. This is not the case. We checked whether the facilities we visited offered alternative means to make telephone connections when the pro bono system was not working. With the exception of the Broward Transitional Center, we were not able to satisfy ourselves through interviews with facility officials and detainees that routine assistance was available to detainees to make pro bono calls when they were unable to make these calls on the telephones provided for this purpose. Third, DHS stated that it believes that figure 2 in our report, which shows low connection rates for the pro bono network, does not properly represent the number of calls that are not connected due to problems with the network or provider. DHS’s comments included contractor data that point out that a detainee may input a wrong number, hang up before completing the call process, or call a pro bono attorney after business hours. We acknowledge there could be a variety of reasons why some calls may not have been completed over the period we reported on. However, these additional data do not explain our own test results in which we could not complete calls using the pro bono calling system at 16 of the 17 facilities we tested. We also note that we invited detainees, facility personnel, and on-site ICE officials to attempt to make the same calls, and they confirmed the calls could not be completed. Further, after we brought the telephone deficiencies to their attention, ICE officials concluded that the telephone service contractor had not been in compliance with the terms and conditions of the contract. DHS also provided us with technical comments, which we considered and incorporated in the report where appropriate. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-8777 or StanaR@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are acknowledged in appendix VI. We used a combinations of approaches and methodologies to meet our audit objectives to assess (1) the extent to which selected facilities comply with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) National Detention Standards, (2) how reviews are conducted to ensure compliance with National Detention Standards, and (3) what pertinent complaints and reports have been filed with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and ICE and external organizations monitoring the treatment of alien detainees. To meet our audit objective on the extent to which selected facilities comply with National Detention Standards, we visited a nonprobability sample of 23 detention facilities from September to November 2006. These facilities were selected on the basis of geographic diversity, facility type, and a cross section of different types of facility ratings. Three of the facilities were undergoing ICE headquarters compliance inspection reviews during our visits, and included the Elizabeth Detention Facility, the San Diego Correctional Facility, and the Denver Contract Detention Facility. Site visits focused on several detention standards affecting basic treatment of detainees, including telephone access, medical care, legal access, food, grievance and complaint procedures, use of force policies, recreation, and hold room policy. On the basis of our interviews with United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the American Bar Association (ABA), and the DHS Officer Inspector General (OIG) officials, we selected a nonprobability sample of these standards to reflect areas of concern and common complaints cited by these organizations. Our site visits ranged from 1 to 3 days. At each location, we collected information and made independent observations using a data collection instrument that we developed from the ICE reviewer checklist in consultation with ICE and nongovernmental organizations monitoring the treatment of alien detainees. Our data collection instrument was not the ICE compliance reviewer checklist in its entirety, but instead included key components drawn from the checklist that we believed to be relevant to the standards we reviewed. We used this checklist to determine if there were deficiencies in compliance with one or more aspects of selected ICE standards. For our site visits, we first requested a tour of the key detention facility operations, including housing unit areas, medical units, kitchens, hold rooms, special management or disciplinary units, recreational areas, law libraries, visitation areas, and educational classrooms when applicable. During these tours, we interviewed facility staff and ICE officers assigned to the facility. In addition, when presented with an opportunity, we interviewed individual detainees concerning their treatment at detention facilities. Due to the limited amount of time we had available at each facility and our desire to visit as many facilities as possible for this review, we did not conduct structured file reviews. However, we did review policies and procedures pertaining to detainee conditions of treatment and interviewed facility and ICE staff responsible for compliance with the standards that we reviewed. For those detention facility locations undergoing ICE compliance inspection reviews at the time our visit, we made use of our data collection instrument, but supplemented it by observing the compliance review process. For juvenile detention facilities, in addition to our data collection instrument, we also referred to ICE’s juvenile standards of treatment to guide our reviews of those facilities. For family shelters included in our review, our observations were based on both the juvenile standards and National Detention Standards for adults because no specific standards for family detention facilities exist. Once problems with detainee access to pro bono numbers were identified, we developed a structured telephone test instrument to provide uniformity with our observations across the sites visited. The detention sites visited are: Berks County Prison Berks County Youth Shelter Berks Family Shelter York County Prison Elizabeth Detention Facility Washington Field Office Pamunkey Regional Jail Hampton Roads Regional Jail West Baton Rouge Parish Detention Center Bureau of Prisons Oakdale Federal Detention Center Pine Prairie Correctional Center Krome Service Processing Center Broward Transitional Center Wakulla County Sheriff’s Office Los Angeles Field Office San Pedro Service Processing Center North Las Vegas Detention Center El Centro Service Processing Center San Diego Correctional Facility Casa De San Juan Family Shelter Denver Contract Detention Facility Seattle Field Office Northwest Detention Center Cowlitz County Juvenile Detention Center T. Don Hutto Family Facility Laredo Contract Detention Facility To describe how reviews are conducted to ensure compliance with National Detention Standards, we interviewed DHS and ICE officials and analyzed documentation on staffing levels for ensuring compliance with alien detention standards, training provided to staff to ensure compliance with the standards, and processes in place to ensure compliance with the standards. To assess what pertinent complaints and reports have been filed with DHS and ICE and external organizations monitoring the treatment of alien detainees, we analyzed data on detainee complaints from the DHS OIG complaint database from fiscal years 2005 through 2006 using content analysis. For our content analysis, we reviewed about 750 detainee complaints and categorized them by type to be able to characterize common types of detainee complaints received by the OIG. We also obtained and reviewed information on the number and types of detainee complaints received from components within DHS and ICE for the period fiscal years 2003-2006 as well as UNHCR for the period 1993 through 2006 and the ABA for the period January 2003 through February 2007. We did not independently assess the merits of detainee complaints. Also, we did not determine if any corrective actions suggested for the detention facilities as a result of Office of Detention and Removal (DRO) reviews or detainee complaints were implemented. To assess the reliability of OIG detainee complaint data for the period fiscal years 2005 through 2006, we reviewed existing information about the data and the system that produced them and interviewed agency officials knowledgeable about the data. On the basis of our review of this information and these discussions, we determined the OIG data to be sufficiently reliable for our purposes. Regarding the DRO complaints database, we reviewed existing information about the data and the system that produced them and interviewed agency officials knowledgeable about the data. On the basis of our review of this information and these discussions, we determined that this information was not sufficiently reliable for audit purposes. In regard to other data sources that we reviewed, on the basis of our discussions with agency officials knowledgeable about the data, we also determined that these sources were sufficiently reliable for purposes of our review. In the case of contractor performance data, we could not independently verify the accuracy of the data, but did corroborate these data with other sources and determined they were reliable for our purposes. Our work was conducted from May 2006 through May 2007 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. While we focused our review on DHS and ICE, we also contacted officials at the Departments of Justice, Health and Human Services, and State to discuss other issues related to alien detention, such as the custody of ICE alien detainees at the Bureau of Prisons facilities, the care of juvenile aliens in Health and Human Services custody, and the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers in detention. According to ICE data, the average length of stay in ICE adult detention custody for fiscal year 2007 as of April 2007 was 37.6 days. As of April 30, 2007, ICE reported that 25 percent of all detained aliens are removed within 4 days, 50 percent within 18 days, 75 percent within 44 days, 90 percent within 85 days, 95 percent within 126 days, and 98 percent within 210 days. According to ICE officials, there are many variables in the time equation for length of stay at a detention facility, including travel document requirements, political conditions, and airline conditions to country of origin. Figure 12 shows the breakdown between criminal and noncriminal aliens in detention. Figure 13 shows the breakdown of criminal charges by criminal aliens. In fiscal year 2006, ICE was funded at an authorized bed level of 20,800. For fiscal year 2007, ICE received funding for 27,500 bed spaces. ICE has requested appropriations to fund 28,450 detention bed spaces in fiscal year 2008. As noted in ICE’s ENDGAME: Office of Detention and Removal Strategic Plan, 2003-2012, the demand for detention has grown much faster than available federal bed space, causing an increased reliance on local jails to house detainees. ICE stated that this factor is critical because DRO has more stringent jail standards than other entities, limiting the number of jails that it can use. The Office of the National Juvenile Coordination Unit within U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Office of Detention and Removal provides oversight and policy guidance to ICE/DRO field offices and field office juvenile coordinators nationwide on issues related to juveniles and families in detention. Within DRO, there are separate standards governing juvenile, family, and adult detention facilities. These standards were developed to ensure proper and safe housing of juveniles and families. Specifically, the family shelter standards are tailored to a unique population and encompass both the Juvenile Detention Standards as well as ICE National Detention Standards for adult aliens. Furthermore, the Minimum Standards for ICE Secure and Shelter Juvenile Detention Facilities are based on American Correctional Association standards and were developed with input from ICE DRO and the American Bar Association and include program requirements contained in the Flores court case settlement. The Juvenile Detention Standards reflect the needs of the juvenile population and include such areas as access to court and legal counsel, educational and vocational training, and medical services and visitation. Currently, ICE has 19 juvenile facilities and 3 family shelters. According to ICE policy, all juvenile secure detention and shelter facilities and family shelter facilities are required to be inspected at 12-month intervals. As with adult detention facilities, the Detention Management Control Program policies and procedures govern the review of ICE juvenile and family facilities. Reviews are conducted through the use of structured review worksheets. Facilities receive one of five final ratings upon review— superior, good, acceptable, deficient, and at risk. According to the National Juvenile Coordinator, juvenile facilities rated deficient and at-risk are immediately reviewed by DRO headquarters to determine the suitability of use for placement of ICE juveniles. Our observations of deficiencies in compliance with ICE standards at juvenile and family shelters are discussed in the body of the report. Figures 14, 15, and 16 show examples of juvenile and family shelter facilities. In addition to the contact listed above, William W. Crocker III, Assistant Director; Minty M. Abraham; Frances A. Cook; Katherine M. Davis; Dorian R. Dunbar; Cindy K. Gilbert; Lemuel N. Jackson; Robert D. Lowthian; Victoria E. Miller; and William T. Woods made key contributions to this report.

Summary: The total number of aliens detained per year by the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) increased from about 95,000 in fiscal year 2001 to 283,000 in 2006. The care and treatment of these detained aliens is a significant challenge to ICE. GAO was asked to review ICE's implementation of its detention standards for aliens in its custody. GAO reviewed (1) detention facilities' compliance with ICE's detention standards, (2) ICE's compliance review process, and (3) how detainee complaints regarding conditions of confinement are handled. To conduct its work, GAO reviewed DHS documents, interviewed program officials, and visited 23 detention facilities of varying size, type, and geographic location. GAO's observations at 23 alien detention facilities showed systemic telephone system problems at 16 of 17 facilities that use the pro bono telephone system, but no pattern of noncompliance for other standards GAO reviewed. At facilities that use the ICE detainee pro bono telephone system, GAO encountered significant problems in making connections to consulates, pro bono legal providers, or the DHS Office of the Inspector General (OIG) complaint hotline. Monthly performance data provided by the phone system contractor indicates the rate of successful connections through the detainee pro bono telephone system was never above 74 percent. ICE officials stated there was little oversight of the telephone contract. In June 2007, ICE requested an OIG audit of the contract,stating that the contractor did not comply with the terms and conditions of the contract. Other instances of deficiencies GAO observed varied across facilities visited but did not appear to show a pattern of noncompliance. These deficiencies involved medical care, use of hold rooms, use of force, food service, recreational opportunities, access to legal materials, facility grievance procedures, and overcrowding. ICE annual compliance reviews of detention facilities identified deficiencies similar to those found by GAO. However, insufficient internal controls and weaknesses in ICE's compliance review process resulted in ICE's failure to identify telephone system problems at most facilities GAO visited. ICE's inspection worksheet used by its detention facility reviewers did not require that a reviewer confirm that detainees are able to make successful connections through the detainee pro bono telephone system. Detainee complaints may be filed with several governmental and nongovernmental organizations. Detainee complaints mostly involved legal access, conditions of confinement, property issues, human and civil rights, medical care, and employee misconduct at the facility. The primary way for detainees to file complaints is to contact the OIG. OIG investigates the most serious complaints and refers the remainder to other DHS components.