Conditions at the NWDC: Reporting of Sexual
Abuse and Assault

Photo courtesy La Resistencia

MAY 16, 2022

This report is part of a series regarding Human Rights Conditions at the Northwest
Detention Center in Tacoma, Washington, based on ongoing research efforts and
released to highlight initial findings in the urgent context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Contents:
· Introduction
· Background, Methodology, and Human Rights Standards
· Sanitation of Food and Laundry
· Allegations of Medical Neglect
· Use of Solitary Confinement
• COVID-19 and Health Standards
· Reporting of Sexual Assault and Abuse
~ Previous section: COVID-19 and

Health Standards

Calls to nowhere: Reports of sexual abuse and
assault go unanswered at the NWDC
Executive summary
Concerns about sexual abuse and assault are common in immigration detention. UWCHR
reviewed records from multiple sources about reports of sexual abuse at the Northwest
Detention Center[ 11 -including incident reports drafted by ICE personnel, complaints of
sexual abuse logged by national hotlines operated by DHS and ICE, written grievances
filed by people in detention at the NWDC, and records from the Tacoma Police
Department-and discovered grounds for serious concern. This report focuses on the
gaps this research uncovered in the implementation of the standards to which the facility
is bound under its contract, and to which ICE is bound under the Prison Rape Elimination
Act (PREA) and the agency's own standards. These gaps have not been previously
detected in PREA audits of the facility. Their existence suggests that no one really knows
how widespread sexual abuse may be at the NWDC, and that rather than focusing on

adding more procedures to an already-long list of detailed policies to prevent sexual
assault in detention, these problems should be understood as endemic in sites where
people are detained without judicial overview or transparency.

Introduction
The United States Congress passed the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) in 2003,
requiring all prisons to incorporate "zero tolerance" policies for sexual assault and abuse.
Eleven years later, the Department of Homeland Security began to issue a series of
regulations, policies, and directives on preventing sexual assault in immigration detention
facilities which draw directly on the requirements of PREA. For example, in 2014, DHS
issued the regulation titled "Standards to Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Sexual Abuse
and Assault in Confinement Facilities" and, several months later, issued ICE Policy No.

11062.2: Sexual Assault and Abuse Prevention and Intervention. ICE's 2011 PerformanceBased National Detention Standards (PBNDS) and its 2016 revision also included, in
Section 2.11, significant requirements based on these same standards established in
PREA. And while the PBNDS' standards themselves are not directly binding on detention
centers, the contracts between individual facility operators, like GEO Group, require
facilities to uphold the standards laid out in the PBNDS and other documents. Many
private prison operators, including GEO, also have corporate policies demanding
adherence to PREA rules. And lastly, PREA, PBNDS, DHS's regulations and ICE's directives
as well as GEO's corporate policies require individual facilities to develop their own
written policies to prevent sexual abuse at the facility.
Despite this, organizations of detained people and their communities continue to
denounce sexual abuses in ICE detention centers across the country.[21 Journalists[31and
human rights organizations[41have documented "systematic" sexual assault by guards,
[S1 abuse by medical personnel,[61and a failure to protect against abuses among the
detained population. These accounts have prompted lawsuits/71 and Congressional
demands for investigations,[81and even a 2013 report by the U.S. Government
Accountability Office, the conclusions of which foreshadow our findings here. Sadly,
despite these problems being extensive and well-documented for many years, it is
unclear whether anything at all has changed for migrants detained in civil detention
facilities like the Northwest Detention Center, who remain vulnerable to sexual abuse.

Indeed, in response to the growing outcry around these issues, ICE and facility operators
typically tout the rigor of the standards themselves rather than any empirical evidence of
the standards' effectiveness_[9l How many sexual assaults have been reported at the
NWDC, for example? The question is a basic one, but the answer remains unknown.
In this context, the UW Center for Human Rights reviewed a range of records pertaining
to sexual assault/abuse[101 at the NWDC, and to aid in their interpretation, consulted
stakeholders including service providers and migrant justice organizations. We
have not attempted to speak to currently detained people about this topic, as we cannot
ensure that they are able to speak freely while in custody. ICE's Community Relations
Officer has also declined to speak to us, directing us instead to use the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) to obtain information about the agency.
Using FOIA and Washington state's Public Records Act, we obtained and reviewed the
following documents:
• All ICE Significant Incident Reports[ 11 l filed through ICE's Significant Event Notification
system in the Seattle Area of Operations between January 1, 2015 and September 1,
2019, obtained through FOIA litigation. As noted below, ICE personnel are mandated
to use this system to document any allegation of sexual abuse within 24 hours. Of the
hundreds of documents reviewed, 25 involve allegations of sexual assault/abuse at
the NWDC.
• A log of all calls received by the ICE ERO's Detention Reporting and Information Line
(DRIL) from October 24, 2014 to September 30, 2019, regarding the Northwest
Detention Center. Of 2426 calls during this period, 9 reported concerns about sexual
abuse/assault. As described below, DRIL is a hotline established by ICE to facilitate
reporting of abuse claims involving people detained in ICE custody.
• Copies of all written grievances filed by people detained at the NWDC from January 1,
2012 to March 10, 2018. UWCHR researchers reviewed 4544 pages of complaints,
many of them handwritten, and identified 30 pages covering 21 reported cases of
sexual abuse/assault reported through this mechanism during this period. Under ICE's
rules, facilities are required to maintain a grievance log and note the receipt and
resolution of formal (written) and informal (verbal) complaints received from those
incarcerated there.[1 21

• 101 complaints about conditions at the NWDC submitted to DHS' Office of Civil Rights
and Civil Liberties (CRCL) from January 1, 2014 through October 1, 2019, of which 8
referred to reports of sexual abuse/assault.
• Tacoma Police Department's call logs and incident reports, and supplemental incident
reports, from January 1, 2015 to November 15, 2019. UWCHR researchers reviewed
the call log for all calls originating from the NWDC during this period, requested
incident reports and supplemental documentation for the 26 calls coded as
"sex/molestation," "rape," or "sex/lewd conduct" on the log, and reviewed all files
received, some of which contained ICE or GEO documents in addition to TPD
documents.
We compiled the reports of abuse/assault contained in these various documents into a
single spreadsheet, cross-referencing them by date and descriptions of the incidents and
alleged victims or perpetrators. In several cases, we found the same incident reflected in
multiple reports, either because the person reporting the incident contacted multiple
institutions seeking response, or because one of the institutions informed another. (For
example, in most cases TPD documents reflected the fact that they were informed of an
alleged assault by NWDC personnel.) In total, we reviewed documentation of 63 reports
of sexual assault/abuse at the NWDC, though some reports mentioned multiple incidents.
We also reviewed the publicly-available copies of the audit reports for both PREA audits
conducted at the NWDC, the first in March 2017, by Nakamoto Group and the second
in December 2019 by Creative Corrections.
Of course, there are important limitations to what can be concluded on the basis of this
data, which is more limited than the data available to the auditors mentioned above. We
cannot, for example, draw conclusions about the total number of sexual abuses or
assaults reported at the facility, since verbal reports would not be captured in the
aforementioned documents; we also cannot surmise anything about the credibility of the
reports received or the thoroughness of any investigations conducted. We
can only conclude that where policies require ICE documentation and yet ICE has failed to
produce such documents, gaps in implementation of these policies exist; this suggests
that even in this area where standards governing facility operations are most rigorous,
they are routinely ignored.

What the standards say: mandated practices to prevent
sexual abuse/assault
GEO's contract to operate the NWDC clearly states that GEO is to uphold ICE's written
policies and guidelines-as well as many others,[1 31 encompassing matters that range
from admissions procedures to uniforms to medical care, and many more. Of these, the
standards governing prevention of sexual abuse/assault are arguably the most stringent,
inasmuch as they are rooted in federal law, enumerated in a range of documents at the
agency (DHS) and sub-agency (ICE) level, private company (GEO) level, and facility (NWDC)
level, and subjected to their own PREA-specific auditing processesP 41
These governing documents include ICE's 2011 Performance-Based National Detention
Standards, (revised in 2016), Standard 2.11 of which addresses sexual abuse/assault;
Subpart A of ICE's March 2014 "Standards to Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Sexual
Abuse and Assault in Confinement Facilities," (sometimes referred to as "DHS PREA
Regulation"); and ICE's May 2014 Policy No. 11062.2: Sexual Assault and Abuse Prevention
and Intervention (also referred to as the "ICE SAAPI Directive"). In addition, under PBNDS,
each facility must develop its own written policy and procedures for the Sexual Abuse and
Assault Prevention and Intervention Program (SAAPI); the same requirements are laid out
in GEO's Corporate Policy and Procedure Manual 5.1.2 "Zero Tolerance Policy Towards
Sexual Abuse and Harassment." While GEO's NWDC-specific policy documents have not
been made public, references to them elsewhere[ 15l suggest that they replicate the same
rules as the above documents, all of which derive from PREA specifications.
The rules contained in these various documents are detailed and voluminous. We do not
attempt here to describe them all, not only because of how many there are, but also
because UWCHR's research only sheds light on compliance with some of them. For
example, without access to the facility or its staff, we cannot assess the extent to which
personnel are adequately trained or posters are displayed on-site with relevant
information. However, the independent analysis of available public documents does
permit us to assess compliance with those requirements that generate a written record.
In this report, we focus on those requirements regarding reporting, investigations,
and post-investigative reviews of alleged sexual abuses at the NWDC.

In the below, we describe what the standards require in each of these areas, and the
degree to which available documents reveal adherence to these standards.

Reporting
The NWDC is required to follow a series of requirements to ensure that anyone in facility
custody who experiences sexual abuse or assault is able to safely report their concerns.
The rules impose requirements for GEO, as the operators of this individual facility, and
for ICE, as the agency overseeing all civil detention facilities. The rules require that
multiple avenues be made available for detained people to report sexual abuse/assault,
both within the facility and beyond its walls; and that GEO and ICE respond immediately
to allegations once they are brought forward.
For example, the PBNDS requires that facilities "develop policies and procedures to
ensure that detainees have multiple ways to privately report sexual abuse,"[ 161 including
speaking to facility staff members, filing written grievances, contacting the OHS Office of
the Inspector General (OIG), calling their consular office, and "at least one ... public or
private entity or office that is not part of the agency, and that is able to receive and
immediately forward detainee reports of sexual abuse to agency officials, allowing the
detainee to remain anonymous upon request."[ 171
To ensure that those in detention are able to
access these mechanisms, ICE (and separately,
GE0[18l) require PREA posters to be displayed in
ICE detention facilities;[ 19l these "PREA posters"
advertise multiple agency-run hotlines; similar
information must also be provided in
the Detainee Handbook given to everyone
booked into the facility.[ 201 The handbook
advises those in detention to "Report all Sexual
Abuse and Assaults" and includes a list of forms
such reporting can take, including, under the
heading "Report to OHS or ICE Headquarters,"
the ICE Detention Reporting and Information

ICE PREA Poster

Line (DRIL), and the DHS Office of the Inspector
General (OIG), both of which have toll-free numbers and direct dial shortcuts making
them reachable from within the facilityP 11 These are the same hotlines advertised on the
PREA posters.
Once an incident of potential sexual assault at the NWDC is brought to a GEO officer's
attention, they are required to immediately notify the ICE personnel on siteP 21 Those
personnel, in turn, are required to immediately notify others up ICE's chain of command:
ICE's Field Office Director must inform ICE's Assistant Director for Field Operations and
the ICE Joint Intake Center (JIC) by telephone within two hours of becoming aware of the
alleged sexual abuse or assault, and in writing within 24 hours, using ICE's Significant
Event Notification database. Relatedly, GEO staff, in coordination with ICE personnel, are
responsible for reporting any abuse that is potentially criminal to the Tacoma Police
Department for criminal investigationP31 In its 2020 audit of the facility, Creative
Corrections noted that it is GEO practice to contact the Tacoma Police Department
in every case of sexual abuse alleged at NWIPC, allowing the police make the
determination as to whether a crime was committedP4l
In sum, any report of abuse brought to ICE's attention should, according to the rules,
trigger immediate reporting-well prior to an assessment of its credibility(251 -and within
24 hours, that reporting should include written notification through ICE's SEN system.
Unfortunately, however, the records released to UWCHR from ICE's SEN system suggest
that this doesn't always happen. In fact, the records show that ICE appears to fail to
respond adequately-in some cases, at all-to abuse reported through the very
mechanisms the agency has created purportedly to facilitate reporting.
For example, 18 of the 20 sexual abuse/assault cases reported using the facility's
grievance system[26l were never documented in ICE's SEN system, despite the fact that in
several cases records show ICE was made aware of the incident. For example:
• On March 21, 2016, a Ukrainian woman reported that a fellow detained person had
been making "inappropriate sexual comments" to her and others in her unit. She
characterized the remarks as "harassing" and said that these remarks made her
"extremely uncomfortable." In response, facility management reported that ICE and
GEO were aware of the incident and it was currently under investigation; the record

also notes the case was closed and the allegation deemed "unfounded." But this case
was never documented in the SEN system.

Grievance ·- 16-0008 (SJM Ref #800 09'3)
Dat · ubmitt d: 03/21 :OJ 6 11 :29 PM

Fr m:

UKRAI
Hou ing Area:

)

Date Received: 0 /22/2:1:H 6 I :00 P
, 0 ,D

1

·gned To: l

ct

I ue:
Out om:

Re u -t
Origina I R qu e- t ...

ri~aJn

to whom it may concern
i WOllld like to i.n~ ml you that d taine
ro m O in D unit, ha. made innapmpriate
e ual conn ients ho tty after my arri a to etenti n cent r. i wa . holdin · a k becau~e i 11
victim of , exual abus _ in the past amd it. in my nature to hide and clo. e in without repo11ing. but
aft oth r deLain
am out and aid ~ n harra sin,. them as n in · - u. I mann r. i1
m· ,e s me fee xlr mely uncom ortabl,e ~show · . uch-belm ior. i hope it ii b raesol ed soon
11)(6) (bKJ'MC)

I

b_n 03/22/2016 al l: 49 P

Above: Grievance 12-0008
• On September 26, 2017, a detained person had an encounter with a health care
provider in the NWDC's medical center that gave rise to a series of written grievances.
In multiple reports, the patient alleged that the health care provider touched their
"gluteals" inside their underwear, and made a comment about their skin; in one of the
relevant grievances, they wrote "I feel assaulted," and in another, "I'm heartbroken by
your inadequate service." Following this incident, the detained person reported panic
attacks, self-harm practices, and suicidal thoughts. The grievance forms note that the
detainee's accounts were deemed "unfounded," and that following a discussion with
the Clinical Director, a GEO Lieutenant Commander told them that if they did not want
to have to see the man again, they could request to be transferred to another facility.

Without reviewing the investigation, it is impossible to gauge whether the response
was appropriate, but it is clear that under agency policy, allegations of sexual assault
by a detained person against a medical provider should be reported in the SEN
system. In this case they were not.
• On October 18, 2017, a person at the NWDC reported having been sexually harassed
by a GEO officer on October 5, 2017, reporting that they felt unsafe and disturbed, to
the point where they had a nightmare following the incident. They filed a grievance
with GEO, but complained that no apparent action had been taken, since the officer
was "still freely working the units," and a GEO Major had claimed the comments were
just a joke. "Sexual language under any circumstances is neither funny or
professional," the detained person insisted, "It's making me feel unsafe and
disturbed." An ICE officer noted in response, "Actions have been taken to prevent this
from happening again." The next day, the detained person filed a second grievance
complaining that the problem had not been addressed, to which ICE responded,
"Action has been taken, however, it cannot be disclosed to you." This case, while
apparently considered serious enough for "action to be taken," was apparently not
documented in ICE's SEN system.

Grievance - IC - #2 243,648
....
ftiK
_6l_,(t:i_){7_l(c_>_ _ _ _.....,..._ _ _.,....N

From:

Hou ing r a: F
ssig

r su

d o:

:

Ou come:

I E rv · rp
- 1 one Selected- · one Selected-

)

Oat ·· ubmitt d: 10/1 /2017 1:00 P
d: I 0/ 1, /2017 4:00 P
· ram :
CLO ED

yp :

- one

rgent:

N ,

lected-

Origin I Requ t ...
kt
bW7WCi

·

::::::=-~-,:-'- .

T
IT.
HA
l

Above: Grievance #2,243,648
Relatedly, in the below, Tacoma Police Department files trace their involvement in a case
which, for unknown reasons, ICE never documented, despite being clearly aware of the
allegations. Indeed, TPD records report multiple conversations with NWDC officials about
the case:
• On July 17, 2016, the Tacoma Police were dispatched to St. Joseph's Hospital where a
man detained at the NWDC had been taken after reporting he had been raped by
another detainee. TPD's Incident Report and Supplemental Reports trace the TPD's
investigation of the case, from the initial officer's report upon interviewing the man at
the hospital to multiple conversations with NWDC personnel regarding the alleged
victim's credibility, the availability of video evidence of the assault, and other possible
explanations for what occurred, to the collection and analysis of the rape kit
performed at the hospital. Although these reports suggest there was no evidence to

corroborate the alleged victim's claim, the TPD forwarded the case to Pierce County
Prosecutor's Office, who declined to file charges, and the case was closed. It is unclear
why ICE did not report the case as required.
Similarly, ICE often failed to respond to calls for help through the two agency hotlines to
which people detained at the NWDC were specifically directed for purposes of reporting
assaults. For example, according to ICE's records, its DRIL hotline received nine reports of
sexual abuse/assault at the NWDC from January to September 2019, yet none of these
were documented in the records from ICE's SEN system released to UWCHR, or in records
of the NWDC personnel's communications with the Tacoma Police Department from the
same period.
For example:
• On June 3, 2019, a Honduran man detained at the NWDC called the DRIL hotline to
complain not only that he had been sexual assaulted the month before, but that
facility guards and, separately, his ICE Deportation officer, had failed to respond when
he attempted to report the assault. He reportedly asked for an investigation to review
facility videos, believing they would corroborate his account, but the investigator
walked into his dorm and spoke loudly about his sexual assault complaint, violating his
privacy in front of othersP 7l The DRIL hotline operator flagged the report as "Urgent:
Action Required," coding its topic as "Afraid of, or Report of, Sexual Abuse" as well as
"ICE/Facility personnel misconduct." But there is no mention of the case in records
from ICE's SEN system, despite clear policies mandating such notification.
• On June 27, 2019, a detained man within the NWDC called ICE's DRIL hotline and
reported that he was being repeatedly sexually harassed, verbally, by a group of other
detained men. Reportedly at the instigation of a night shift officer in his unit, a group
of five other detained men began to mock him and make comments about his
perceived sexual orientation; he said that he was afraid and wanted this to stop. The
phone log described the topic of the call as "Afraid of, or Report of, Sexual Abuse" and
with a secondary topic "ICE/Facility Personnel misconduct;" it was flagged as "Critical"
in priority level. Despite this, it is unclear with whom, if anyone, this report was shared;
if ICE personnel in Seattle or Tacoma were notified at all, they failed to register this
through ICE's Significant Event Notification system as would have been required within
two hours of an incident coming to their attention.

Similarly, calls to the OIG were often responded to in ways that defy regulations:
• On July 14, 2017, a man detained at the NWDC called the DHS Office of the Inspector
General to report that he had been a victim of sexual abuse by another detained
person. The Office of the Inspector General did not notify ICE officials in Seattle of this
report until August 9; ICE's Seattle office, in turn, did not inform GEO personnel at the
NWDC until August 15. At this point, NWDC's SAAPI committee[281 conducted an
investigation, finding the claim "Unfounded" on the basis of the lack of video evidence.
Yet it is worth noting that according to ICE's SEN documentation of this incident, "GEO
also reviewed video of the unit from August 15th 2017 at 1600 hrs to August 16th
2017 at 0900 hrs and did not witness any horseplay or inappropriate touching"; given
that the alleged incident occurred in July, it seems unclear how video from August
would be useful to the investigation.
It is particularly troubling to find evidence that cases may have been ignored or dismissed
after being reported through mechanisms specifically promoted to encourage reporting;
even if such cases were investigated and found to be unsubstantiated, rules governing
ICE and GEO conduct specifically mandate that all cases be documented prior to any
attempt to investigate. In the absence of such documentation, it appears that, to put it
bluntly, calls for help from within the NWDC have gone nowhere.

Investigation
As noted above, PREA standards require that all reports of abuses must be taken
seriously. Prior to initiating an investigation or assessing the credibility of the claim, the
alleged victim must be separated from the alleged perpetrator, for example, and all those
reporting abuse should be offered a forensic medical evaluation to gather evidence.
[291

Standards further mandate that facilities "shall attempt to make available to the victim

a victim advocate from a rape crisis center;"[3o1 in the case of the NWDC, while two
auditors' reports note that local rape crisis center Rebuilding Hope is available to support
survivors,[31 1the organization's Executive Director clarified that while the organization
provided feedback to GEO and ICE about the conditions necessary for the organization to
offer meaningful support to survivors within the facility-for example, requiring
confidentiality and interpretation-these conditions have not been met.l32l

Once these immediate steps are taken, the standards envision a two-track investigation
system, emphasizing the importance-first-of full cooperation with criminal
investigations by law enforcement agencies, in this case the Tacoma Police Department.
[331 Once

the criminal investigation is complete, in cases where the investigation found

the incident substantiated,[341 or in cases where no criminal investigation was completed,
an in-house administrative investigation is ordered to be conducted.[351(The purpose of
this sequencing is, according to the PBNDS, "to ensure that the criminal investigation is
not compromised by an internal administrative investigation."[361) These investigations
must be written up in detai1[37l, and their findings and any resultant actions must be
communicated to ICE Field Office Director, who will in turn communicate them up the
chain to ICE headquartersP8l
Once again, the records reviewed by UWCHR suggest that in multiple cases these
investigations did not proceed as envisioned under the standards. For example:
• On March 11, 2015, Tacoma Police Department records show a call from an NWDC
detention supervisor reporting allegations made by a man detained at the facility that
his cell mate had repeatedly exposed his penis and touched him on his leg and
buttocks through his clothing, while making threatening statements. According to the
TPD incident report, the alleged victim was taken to the medical clinic "as a precaution,
but all tests and statements were negative to any sexual assault." The GEO employee
reported that neither the alleged victim nor perpetrator would be allowed in the same
holding area, but that deportation was pending for them both. The report concludes,
"Nothing further." There was no documentation of this reported event in ICE's SEN
system. The case is puzzling; it's unclear why medical tests would have been expected
to prove an assault occurred when the alleged abuse involved verbal statements and
unwanted touching through clothes. And it appears that whatever internal
determination was made at the facility colored the police investigation, precisely in the
way the PBNDS and DHS PREA regulations seek to prevent by mandating that criminal
investigations precede internal facility determinations.[391 Lastly, it is unclear whether
GEO failed to report the event to ICE, or ICE failed to document it in SEN, but ICE
procedures were not followed.
• On February 1, 2017, the Tacoma Police Department documented a call from the
NWDC that was coded in TPD's log as reporting "sexual/lewd conduct." The CAD

incident inquiry reads, "Supervisor called stated possible inmate assault another
prisoner via pushed a victim [sic]. They have not checked the cameras or interviewed
the suspect. The supervisor said they would call us back if there is any evidence of a
crime then we can do the report." Yet no documentation of this case appears in
records from ICE's SEN system released to UWCHR; it is unclear whether GEO
personnel reported the incident to TPD but not to ICE, or whether ICE officials were
notified, but failed to document the report according to policy. Further, the very
language of the police records would appear to confirm that the intended sequencing
of investigations was inverted, with an administrative investigation (the review of
videos and interview of suspect) determining whether a criminal investigation would
occur or not-the opposite outcome from that intended under policy.

Post-investigative review
In addition to investigations into the incident itself, the NWDC is required to conduct a
review "following every investigation of sexual abuse or assault... to assess whether
changes to facility policy or practice could better prevent, detect, or respond to sexual
abuse and assault."[4 o1 The facility is then tasked with implementing the
recommendations generated by this review process, or, if it declines to do so, with
documenting the reason for its decision in a written response. Both the review itself and
the facility's response must be forwarded to ICE's Field Office Director for transmission to
the ICE PSA Coordinator.[41 1 Furthermore, all investigations and reviews are to be
compiled and evaluated once per year in an annual review process)42l
Each of these steps, of course, should generate a written record. It is therefore
particularly troubling that in a recent letter responding to UWCHR's FOIA request for
copies of such documents, ICE claimed that no such records exist. The below case
provides an example of why this is worrisome.
• On October 9, 2015, a detained man reported being forcibly held down by his
bunkmates while they pulled down his pants and touched his penis and butt. ICE's
Significant Incident Report shows that a GEO supervisor initially concluded that this
was "not a SAAPI reportable event." The NWDC's SAAPI committee reviewed the case
the next week and disagreed, deciding to investigate further. When video and

eyewitness testimony wound up corroborating the victim's account, the committee
decided on November 6, 2015 to treat the incident as a SAAPI case and report it to the
Tacoma Police Department. TPD's call log summarizes a call with the NWDC officer
who contacted the police: ''The facility is preparing reports regarding the incident.
They are not completed at this time. No need for a response. Two of the subjects
involved have been deported. The witness and Victim are still here. Once the reports
are completed [the GEO employee] will email to me and I will write report under this
case." Records show the Tacoma Police Department followed up on November 9 and
again on November 13 seeking copies of the NWDC's investigation; by the time they
received a response early January of the following year, the NWDC reported that all
parties involved had left the facility, rendering further investigation impossible.
Records of this investigation completed by ICE and GEO at NWDC were included in the
Tacoma Police Department file. They reveal that upon investigation, the NWDC
determined the event to have been substantiated. Yet if no sexual abuse incident review
was conducted in this case, as ICE alleges in the aforementioned letter to UWCHR, this
not only violates the PBDNS, DHS PREA Standards, and ICE SAAPI rules on their faces, but
also demonstrates why such reviews are necessary, since they aim to identify missed
opportunities and improved practices for the future.

Facility audits
In addition to the general audits of the facility mandated by private certification
standards, ICE rules, and the NWDC contract, rules governing sexual abuse/assault
mandate separate audits focusing only on compliance with PREA standards.The NWDC
has had two PREA audits, its first in March 2017, by Nakamoto Group[43l and a second
in December 2019 by Creative Corrections. The facility passed both audits. Yet these
audits did not detect the flaws mentioned above, which constitute important breaches of
safety protocols. Given published studies' prior conclusions that audits of ICE detention
facilities "do not lead to sustained compliance or systemic improvements,"[441this may
not be a surprising discovery; as Tina Vasquez has noted, Nakamoto Group advertises to
detention facilities that it will "ensure your federal funding is not jeopardized due to PREA
deficiencies," suggesting that the motivation for the PREA audit may be less about

identifying areas for improvement than maintaining income)45l But it lends further
credence to ICE employees' own assertion to the DHS OIG that such audits are "useless"
and "very, very difficult to fail."[461
UWCHR investigated the extent to which the NWDC's system of facility audits produces
useful outcomes in 2020; we concluded that four factors render the system a sham. First,
auditors have a financial incentive to overlook abuses; second, audits rely on reviews of
records our own research has shown to be inaccurate; third, grievances and other
mechanisms by which detained people express concerns are routinely ignored; and
fourth, there is often no consequence to receiving a critical audit.
In this report, we do not pretend to revisit this topic, only to note that this research
reveals that PREA audits, much like the others reviewed in our prior research, have failed
to detect serious problems at the facility.

Other concerns
In our review of the documents, other concerns emerged as well, though the
documentation of these issues is not sufficient to permit an assessment of how
systematic such problems might be.
For example, records suggest that the likely deportation of victims or plaintiffs may have
been a factor influencing the decision to investigate a case. In many cases, investigations
that were found to be substantiated were apparently truncated by the deportation of
witnesses, perpetrators, or victims. ICE's standards specifically prohibit this: ''The
departure of the alleged abuser or victim from the employment or control of the facility
shall not provide a basis for terminating an investigation," the PBNDS cautions.[471Yet if
key informants are no longer available, any investigation will inevitably be weakened.
It is unclear, for example, the extent to which the Tacoma Police Department's decision to
investigate is influenced by ICE's statements that the victim or perpetrator has been
deported or will be soon, but the frequency of such notes in their records suggest that
decisions may in fact be shaped by the ability to rely on victim or witness participation.

Since ICE is permitted to remove or transfer people from the NWDC at will and without
explanation, there is a danger that they could do so-or indicate to the Police that they
had done so, whether or not this was true-as a way to cover up troubling cases.
One example of this could be the October 9, 2015 case referenced above, in which GEO
officers initially decided a sexual assault did not require investigation, but later
discovered witnesses and video that corroborated the victim's account. By the time the
relevant information was shared with the Tacoma Police, all relevant individuals were no
longer in custody. While we have no evidence that this was a case of retaliatory
deportation, such practices have indeed been reported in other cases, including at the
NWDC.[481The problem this reveals is not one that can be solved by further investigations
or audits; the problem is that the agency has total control over detained people's
location, well-being, and access to the outside world, and there is no effective oversightneither by federal or local governments, nor the courts-to ensure this power is wielded
without abuse.

Conclusion
At first glance, the proliferation of documents describing PREA standards may appear to
offer a system whereby intentional redundancy promises rigorous adherence to the
rules. Unlike many other concerns about conditions in detention, where standards may
be unclear or shifting, in the case of sexual assault the rules are rooted in federal law; and
a raft of no-cost mechanisms to report violations are openly advertised on facility walls
and in documents made available to all. Multi-layered, multi-institutional reporting
requirements are spelled out in DHS regulations, ICE directives, the PBNDS, GEO
corporate policy, and a contract which explicitly binds these various levels of rulemaking
to facility funding as the bottom line.
On the other hand, this research shows that in the cases examined, this same
proliferation of rules, institutions, and responsible parties often fails. What use is
elaborate mandated pestering to advertise an abuse hotline, if the calls go nowhere? Of
what benefit is a multi-layered, multi-institutional investigatory process, if cases are

closed when victims are deported? And what use are sexual abuse-specific audits, if their
content focuses on the existence of hotlines, guidebooks, and grievance procedures but
fails to examine the extent to which such mechanisms lead to improved practices?
GEO's contract with ICE to operate the NWDC states, "The detainee and the public are the
ultimate recipients of the services identified in this Agreement."[491 If so, then why are we
-the ultimate recipients-denied access to the most basic information about the
functioning of these services?
The PREA rules, in their delineation of ICE roles from GEO roles, allow the federal
government to claim it has high standards, yet offload responsibility for any breaches
onto the companies who actually operate the facilities[ 50l-while itself failing to set up
any effective mechanisms for oversight and accountability, thus perpetuating those
breaches. Unfortunately, the NWDC's failures are hard-wired into the system that created
it.

Notes
[11 In 2019, GEO Group and ICE began referring to the facility as the Northwest ICE

Processing Center (NWIPC), and/or the Tacoma ICE Processing Center. To avoid
confusion, we refer here to the facility under the name it has been most consistently
called.
[21 See

for example: EFE, "lnmigrantes denuncian abuses sexuales en un centre de

detenci6n de Florida," Los Angeles Times, August 26, 2021; and Aoife Burke, "US activists
call for ICE detention centres to release trans detainees," GCN, March 29, 2021; and
#Not1 More, "ICE Allows Rape of Transgender Woman at Eloy Detention Center: Free
Marichuy!".
[31 See

for example: Alice Speri, "Detained, then Violated," The Intercept, April 11, 2018; and

Tina Vasquez, "In Search of Justice: How DHS PREA Standards Don't Necessarily Protect
Immigrants From Assault", Rewire News Group, March 13, 2019; Emily Kassie, "Sexual

Assault Inside ICE Detention: 2 Survivors Tell Their Stories," New York Times, July 17, 2018;
and Adolfo Flores, "An Immigrant Says She And Two Others Were Raped Inside An ICE
Detention Cell Right Before Being Deported," Buzzfeed, May 27, 2020.
[41 See

for example: Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, "Complaints Regarding Sexual

Abuse of Women in DHS Custody at Karnes County Residential Center," September 30,
2014; and Human Rights Watch, "US Records Show Physical, Sexual Abuse at
Border," October 21, 2021; and Emily Kassie, "Sexual Assault Inside ICE Detention: 2
Survivors Tell Their Stories," New York Times, July 17, 2018.
[Sl

See for example: Lomi Kriel, "ICE Guards 'Systemically' Sexually Assault Detainees in an

El Paso Detention Center, Lawyers Say," ProPublica, August 14, 2020.
[ 61 Freedom

for Immigrants, 'Women at Florida Immigration Detention Center File Federal

Complaint Over Sexual and Medical Abuse, Toxic Chemical Spray, and Racist
Treatment," August 26, 2021 .
[71 See

for example, Tina Vasquez, "Lawsuit alleges three women were raped in ICE

custody before being deported," Prism, June 3, 2020; and Victoria Lopez and Sandra
Park, "ICE Detention Center Says It's Not Responsible for Staffs Sexual Abuse of
Detainees," ACLU, November 6, 2018.
[Bl See for example, this letter sent to DHS in December 2017 by over 70 Congresspeople

demanding an investigation into sexual abuse in immigration detention. It is not clear
whether this triggered any response.
[91 For

example, when Congress mandated that ICE provide information about its

compliance with PREA as part of the Appropriations process in 2018, the agency
issued this report, which details the rules but not their impact.
[10l

The PBNDS defines sexual abuse as follows: "Sexual abuse of a detainee by another

detainee
includes any of the following acts by one or more detainees who, by force, coercion, or
intimidation, or if the victim did not consent or was unable to consent or refuse, engages
in or attempts to engage in: a. Contact between the penis and the vulva or anus and, for
purposes of this subparagraph, contact involving the penis upon penetration, however

slight; b. Contact between the mouth and the penis, vagina, or anus; c. Penetration,
however slight, of the anal or genital opening of another person by a hand or finger or by
any object; d. Touching of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thighs or buttocks,
either directly or through the clothing, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade
or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; ore. Threats, intimidation, or other
actions or communications by one or more detainees aimed at coercing or pressuring
another detainee to engage in a sexual act. Sexual abuse of a detainee by a staff member,
contractor, or volunteer includes any of the following acts, if engaged in by one or more
staff members, volunteers, or contract personnel who, with or without the consent of the
detainee, engages in or attempts to engage in: a. Contact between the penis and the
vulva or anus and, for purposes of this subparagraph, contact involving the penis upon
penetration, however slight; b. Contact between the mouth and the penis, vagina, or
anus; c. Penetration, however slight, of the anal or genital opening of another person by a
hand or finger or by any object that is unrelated to official duties or where the staff
member, contractor, or volunteer has the intent to abuse, arouse, or gratify sexual desire;
d. Intentional touching of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thighs or buttocks,
either directly or through the clothing, that is unrelated to official duties or where the
staff member, contractor, or volunteer has the intent to abuse, arouse, or gratify sexual
desire; e. Threats, intimidation, harassment, indecent, profane or abusive language, or
other actions or communications aimed at coercing or pressuring a detainee to engage in
a sexual act; f. Repeated verbal statements or comments of a sexual nature to a detainee;
g. Any display of his or her uncovered genitalia, buttocks, or breast in the presence of a
detainee; or h. Voyeurism, which is defined as the inappropriate visual surveillance of a
detainee for reasons unrelated to official duties. Where not conducted for reasons
relating to official duties, the following are examples of voyeurism: staring at a detainee
who is using a toilet in his or her cell to perform bodily functions; requiring a detainee to
expose his or her buttocks, genitals, or breasts; or taking images of all or part of a
detainee's naked body or of a detainee performing bodily functions." (PBNDS p. 144-145).
[ 11 1 DHS'

Office of the Inspector General has described Significant Event Notification (SEN)

as "the system ICE uses to document the narrative of any significant events that occur on
duty in a Significant Incident Report." Seep. 5 in OIG-18-76, "Assaults on CBP and ICE Law
Enforcement Officers," September 4, 2018.

[ 121 PBNDS

[ 131

p. 416.

See Contract Number HSCEDM -1 0 - D - 00015, p. 45: ''The contractor shall perform all

services in accordance with ICE 2011 Performance-Based Detention National Standards
(PBNDS) optimals and enhanced recreation, Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), American
Correctional Associate (sic) (ACA) Standards for Adult Local Detention Facilities (ALDF) and
Standards Supplement, Standards for Health Services in Jails, latest edition, National
Commission on Correctional Health (NCCHC), and state and local laws on firearms at all
times."
[141 For

more on PREA audits, see "Auditor Certification Process," PREA.

[ 151 For

example, GEO standards are referenced in the March 2017 and December

2019 PREA audit reports.
[161 PBNDS
[ 171

p. 133.

PBNDS p. 134.

[ 181According

to the PREA audit reports, GEO policy 3.1.1 also requires this posting. See

Creative Corrections, PREA Audit Report, December 2019, p. 12.
[191 See

ICE's website which states that ICE requires PREA posters to be displayed in ICE

detention facilities, PREA pamphlets to be available to all detained people, and for all
detained people to be given a copy of the Detainee Handbook.
[201

PBNDS p. 133.

[21 1 Seep.

11 of the National Detainee Handbook, which contains standardized language

about ICE procedures and offices for replication in facility-specific Detainee Handbooks.
Regarding DRIL, see also this ICE flyer: one of the advertised reasons for which "ICE
stakeholders"-defined as "including the public, family members, attorneys, faith-based
leaders, and non-governmental organizations" are encouraged to call DRIL is to report "an
incident of sexual or physical assault or abuse in detention."
[221

According to audits of the NWDC, GEO policy 3.1.1 requires that "allegations are

reported immediately to on-site ICE staff." See also PBNDS p. 128: "All allegations of
sexual abuse or assault shall be immediately reported to ICE/ERO, and any other required

entities based on the nature of the allegation." And PBNDS p. 140: "Staff members who
become aware of an alleged assault shall immediately follow the reporting requirements
set forth in the written policies and procedures."
[231 See

PBNDS p. 138: "It is the facility administrator's responsibility to ensure that the

incident is promptly referred to the appropriate law enforcement agency having
jurisdiction for investigation (if the incident is potentially criminal) and reported to the
Field Office Director, who shall report it to the QPR Joint Intake Center."
[241

See Creative Corrections, PREA Audit Report, December 2019, p. 7.

[251The

PBNDS is very clear on this point. Seep. 136: "Staff shall take seriously all

statements from detainees claiming to be victims of sexual assaults, and shall respond
supportively and non-judgmentally. Any detainee who alleges that he/she has been
sexually assaulted shall be offered immediate protection and separation from the
assailant and shall be referred for a medical examination and/or clinical assessment for
potential negative symptoms. Staff members who become aware of an alleged assault
shall immediately follow the reporting requirements set forth in the written policies and
procedures."
[261 UWCHR

reviewed 21 grievances alleging sexual abuse/assault at NWDC, but only 20 of

these correspond to the time period for which we also have access to reports from the
SEN system; one is from 2013, and therefore cannot be cross-checked against other
documentation in our possession.
[271This

is specifically prohibited under the PBNDS, which requires that, "Information

concerning the identity of a detainee victim reporting a sexual assault, and the facts of
the report itself, shall be limited to those who have a need-to-know in order to make
decisions concerning the victim's welfare, and for law enforcement/investigative
purposes." PBNDS p. 155.
[281

The SAAPI acronym refers to ICE Directive 11062.2, Sexual Abuse and Assault

Prevention and Intervention (SAAPI).

[291 See

PBNDS p. 139: 'Where evidentiarily or medically appropriate, at no cost to the

detainee, and only with the detainee's consent, the facility administrator shall arrange for
an alleged victim to undergo a forensic medical examination by qualified health care
personnel, including a Sexual Assault Forensic Examiner (SAFE) or Sexual Assault Nurse
Examiner (SANE) where practicable. If SAFEs or SAN Es cannot be made available, the
examination can be performed by other qualified health care personnel."
[3 o1

PBNDS p. 136.

[311

See p. 2 of 2017 audit: ''The auditor also confirmed that the facility has a

Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) with the Sexual Assault Center of Pierce CountyRebuilding Hospital [sic] to provide victim advocate services." and p. 7 of 2020 audit:
"NWIPC has a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), dated 2013 with no sunset date,
with Rebuilding Hope to provide valuable expertise and support in the areas of crisis
intervention and counseling to most appropriately address detainee victims' needs. This
local community advocate provides victim services following incidents of sexual abuse.
The Auditor spoke with the Director of Rebuilding Hope, who confirmed her trained
advocates provide emotional support, crisis intervention, information, and referrals."
[321

April 28, 2022 interview between Carlyn Sampson and Angelina Godoy, via Zoom.

[331 See

for example, PBNDS p. 128: "The facility shall ensure that each allegation of sexual

abuse or assault is investigated by an appropriate criminal or administrative investigative
entity, and shall cooperate with all investigative efforts to ensure a thorough and
objective investigation."
[341 Definitions

of substantiated and unsubstantiated are as follows: "Substantiated

allegation means an allegation that was investigated and determined to have occurred.
Unsubstantiated allegation means an allegation that was investigated and the
investigation produced insufficient evidence to make a final determination as to whether
or not the event occurred." (PBNDS p 139)
[351 DHS

PREA Standard (included in NWDC Contract), p. 203; see also PBNDS p.

139: "Upon conclusion of a criminal investigation where the allegation was substantiated,
or in instances where no criminal investigation has been completed, an administrative
investigation shall be conducted. Upon conclusion of a criminal investigation where the

allegation was unsubstantiated, the facility shall review any available completed criminal
investigation reports to determine whether an administrative investigation is necessary
or appropriate."
[361 PBNDS

p. 140.

[371 PBNDS

p. 139-40: "Documentation of each investigation [will be] by written report,

which shall include a description of the physical and testimonial evidence, the reasoning
behind credibility assessments, and investigative facts and findings."
[381 See

PBNDS p. 140: "Following an investigation conducted by the facility into a

detainee's allegation of sexual abuse, the facility shall notify the Field Office Director of
the results of the investigation and any responsive actions taken so that the information
can be reported to ICE headquarters and to the detainee."
[391 See,

for example, from p. 140 of the PBNDS: "Such procedures shall govern the

coordination and sequencing of administrative and criminal investigations ... to ensure
that the criminal investigation is not compromised by an internal administrative
investigation. The departure of the alleged abuser or victim from the employment or
control of the facility shall not provide a basis for terminating an investigation." See also
p. 203 of NWDC contract, 115.71 (2): "Upon conclusion of a criminal investigation where
the allegation was substantiated, an administrative investigation shall be conducted.
Upon conclusion of a criminal investigation where the allegation was unsubstantiated,
the facility shall review any available completed criminal investigation reports to
determine whether an administrative investigation is necessary or appropriate.
Administrative investigations shall be conducted after consultation with the appropriate
investigative office within OHS, and the assigned criminal investigative entity."
[4 0l

PBNDS p. 128.

[41 1 PBNDS

[421 See

p. 141.

PBNDS p. 141: "Each facility shall conduct an annual review of all sexual abuse

investigations and resulting incident reviews to assess and improve sexual abuse
intervention, prevention and response efforts. If the facility has not had any reports of
sexual abuse during the annual reporting period, then the facility shall prepare a negative

report. The results and findings of the annual review shall be provided to the facility
administrator, Field Office Director or his or her designee, for transmission to the ICE PSA
Coordinator."
[431The

2017 Nakamoto Audit does not specify the period of time for which documents

were reviewed, but per the PREA Auditor's Handbook, p. 36, auditors are required to
cover a year's time: 115.401 (g)-''The audits shall review, at a minimum, a sampling of
relevant documents and other records and information for the most recent one-year
period."
[441 See

OIG-18-67, "ICE's Inspections and Monitoring of Detention Facilities Do Not Lead

to Sustained Compliance or Systemic Improvements," June 26, 2018.
[451 See

Tina Vasquez, "In Search of Justice: How DHS PREA Standards Don't Necessarily

Protect Immigrants From Assault.", Rewire, March 13, 2019
[461 See

p. 7 of OIG-18-67 "ICE's Inspections and Monitoring of Detention Facilities Do Not

Lead to Sustained Compliance or Systemic Improvements," June 26, 2018.
[471 PBNDS

[481 See,

p. 161.

in particular, the experience of Saja Tunkara at the NWDC: Melissa

Hellmann, "Did ICE Retaliate Against a Detainee Over Seattle Weekly Report?," Seattle
Weekly, November 5, 2018; nationally, see also Sofia Jarrin, "A Culture of Retaliation:

Whistleblower Deportations Reveal Moral Rot at ICE," Nonprofit Quarterly, November 18,
2020; and Kate Morrissey, "Complaint alleges retaliation at immigration detention
facilities after protests over conditions," San Diego Union Tribune, August 30, 2021 .
[491 Quality

Assurance Surveillance Plan, p. 5 (p. 128 of GEO Group's contract with ICE for

the NWDC).
[ 5o1

See, for example, this case in which ICE claims it does not bear responsibility for

facility operations: ACLU, "E.D. v. Sharkey," July 1, 2019.

TOPICS II

I deportation I~

immigration detention

11

II Human Rights At Home I~ II immigrant rights I

mass incarceration

11

Northwest Detention Center

I .....-I-W-a-sh
- in_gt
_ o_n_S
_t -a t_e_,

Center for Human Rights, The Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies, University of Washington, Box
353650, Seattle, WA 98195-3650
Thomson Hall

I Phone: (206) 685-3435 I Fax: (206) 685-0668 I Email: uwchr@uw.edu

Connect with us:

JSIS Business Office / DiversitY. and EQuitY. Committee / JSIS Intranet / Website Login /
Privaq~ / Terms / Make a Gift
The Jackson School is a proud member of

© 2022 Henry M.Jackson School of International Studies, University of Washington

I Seattle, WA