Practical Solutions for Immigrants and for America

The Math of Immigration Detention:
Runaway Costs for Immigration Detention Do
Not Add Up to Sensible Policies

Executive Summary .................................................................... 1
An Overview of Immigrant Detention Costs............................... 2
Prosecutorial Discretion ............................................................ 4
Privatization of ICE-owned Detention Facilities ........................ 5
The Need to Detain and Alternatives to Detention ......................7
Conclusion ................................................................................. 9

August 2012

Executive Summary
One symptom of our broken immigration system is the exorbitant spending wasted on detaining
hundreds of thousands of immigrants annually. Physical detention, as costly and severe as it is,
should only be used in limited circumstances, such as for holding immigrants whose release
would pose a serious danger to the community. For the majority of individuals currently in
immigration detention, the government could use less expensive alternatives to detention to
serve their needs. Billions of dollars could be saved if the government reduced its overreliance
on detention and properly allocated resources towards more humane and cost-effective
alternative methods of monitoring.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), located in the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS), has begun prioritizing enforcement against immigration violators who pose a danger to
the community, rather than using limited resources to target people who are simply trying to
make a living. However, ICE’s use of discretion has been limited so far, and resources are still
used to detain and deport aspiring citizens who pose no risk. Wise use of prosecutorial
discretion is a huge opportunity to reshape our vast immigration detention system, yet the
opportunity is being squandered.
Despite a more focused approach by DHS to immigration enforcement, the White House
continues to ask for billions of dollars for the detention operations of ICE. For the Fiscal Year
that begins October 1, 2012 (Fiscal Year 2013), DHS and the White House requested $1.959
billion for DHS Custody Operations. This funding level would amount to $5.4 million per day
spent on immigration detention. The current cost to detain an immigrant is approximately $164
per day at a capacity of 32,800 daily detention beds. Congress would spend even more.
Many of these detention dollars flow to enormous private prison corporations that stand to reap
significant profits when more and more immigrants are detained.
Detention should not be used as the default approach to enforcing immigration laws. Less
wasteful and equally effective alternatives to detention exist. They range in cost from as low as
30 cents to $14 a day. If only individuals convicted of serious crimes were detained and less
expensive alternative methods were used to monitor the rest of the currently detained
population, taxpayers could save more than $1.6 billion per year—over an 80% reduction in
annual costs. An examination of the numbers makes it clear—the dollars spent to detain
immigrants do not add up to something that makes sense.

1

An Overview of Immigration Detention Costs
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) requested about $2 billion in funding for
immigration detention for FY 2013, which runs October 1, 2012 – September 30, 2013.1 This pot
of money would provide Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) with funding to maintain
a detention capacity of 32,800 people in nearly 250 facilities 2 on any given night, including
operational expenses,3 at an average of $5.35 million per day.4 Congress has made clear that it
intends to fund immigration detention at levels that exceed the request from the Administration,
specifically 34,000 daily detention beds for FY 2013. Current funding levels appropriated by
Congress for FY 2012 support 34,000 beds per day.
Two figures are used in calculating the average daily cost of immigration detention per person:
$122 per daily bed is the number ICE commonly provides for detention costs,5 but $164 per
daily bed includes ICE’s operational expenses.6 The higher cost figure was confirmed by ICE
officials in August 2012.7
 $1,959,363,000 FY 2013 Presidential annual budget request for custody operations / 365
days in a year = $5.4 million per day.
 $5.4 million per day / 32,800 immigrant detainees = $164 daily cost to tax payers per
immigrant detainee.8
These costs are a slight decline from the $166 per daily bed the National Immigration Forum
calculated based on 2011 numbers.9 The decline is attributed to the President requesting $91
million less for Custody Operations and attempting to reduce daily detention bed numbers by
1,200.
Congress endeavors to spend even more taxpayer money, exceeding what DHS has requested, on
the detention operations of ICE. For Fiscal Year 2013, the House of Representatives approved a
budget of $2.026 billion for Custody Operations, which is nearly $67 million more than the
President’s request and would accommodate the detention of 34,000 immigrants on any given
day. DHS sought to detain 1,200 fewer individuals each day. The Congressional funding level

Dep’t of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Salaries and Expenses, Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Justification, p. 1036,
available at http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/mgmt/dhs-congressional-budget-justification-fy2013.pdf [hereinafter, “DHS FY 2013 Budget
Justification”]. DHS requested $1,959,363,000 for Custody Operations in FY 2013, however, in H.R. 5855, the House of Representatives
increased the proposed amount for immigration detention by $66.98 million in order to increase the number of detention beds to 34,000. See
Department
of
Homeland
Security
Appropriations
Bill
Committee
Report,
p.
50,
available
at
http://appropriations.house.gov/uploadedfiles/homeland-fy13-fullcommitteereport.pdf. H.R. 5855 has been referred to the Senate for
approval.
See
House
Approves
Fiscal
Year
2013
Homeland
Security
Appropriations
Bill,
available
at
http://appropriations.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=298983.
2 Dep’t of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General Report, “Management of Mental Health Cases in Immigration Detention” (March
2011), p. 1, available at http://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets%5CMgmt%5COIG_11-62_Mar11.pdf.
3 DHS FY 2013 Budget Justification, supra note 1 at 1068-1069.
4 See id. at 1036.
5 Id. at 1067.
6 In calculating bed rates, collateral costs need to be accounted for as well. ICE officially projects bed cost at $122; however this figure excludes
payroll costs for employees who operate the detention system. If payroll is included, the cost of detention beds increases to $164 per bed—a more
accurate assessment. See id.
7
USA
Today,
“Immigrants
Prove
Big
Business
for
Prison
Companies
(August
2012)
available
at,
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-08-02/immigration-prison/56689394/1
8 The average daily population of detention centers is typically below the maximum capacity, thus if calculated for actual population numbers,
the daily cost of detaining an individual would be even higher. See, Dep’t of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
Total Removals (May 2011), available at http://www.ice.gov/doclib/about/offices/ero/pdf/ero-removals.pdf.
9
National Immigration Forum, The Math of Immigration Detention (August 2011).
1

2

would amount to $5.54 million per day spent on immigration detention or $163 per day per
person.
The exorbitant costs associated with immigration detention result from the dramatic growth of
this industry in recent years, as illustrated in Figure 1. The number of daily detention beds has
nearly doubled over the past eight years, from 18,000 in 2004 to the current capacity of
34,000.10 From 2001 to 2010 the total number of immigrants who pass through ICE detention
per year has also nearly doubled, from 209,000 individuals in 2001 to almost 392,000
individuals in 2010.11
Figure 112

450,000

$2,000,000

400,000

$1,800,000

350,000

$1,600,000
$1,400,000

300,000

$1,200,000

250,000

$1,000,000

200,000

$800,000

150,000

$600,000

100,000

$400,000

50,000

$200,000

0

$0

Dollars Spent on Immigration Detention
(thousands)

Total Number of Immigrants held in Detention

Growth of Detention Population & Costs

Detention Cost
Detainee Population

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Fiscal Year

The types of detention facilities used by ICE also dictate costs. Increased strain has been placed
on state and local jails that hold immigrant detainees on behalf of ICE. This is due to the
majority of immigrant detainees being housed in space ICE rents from approximately 220 state

See, Dep’t of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, Detention and Removal of Illegal Aliens (April 2006), p. 1036, available at
http://www.dhs.gov/xoig/assets/mgmtrpts/OIG_06-33_Apr06.pdf; See footnote 1.
11 ACLU, “Securely Insecure: The Real Costs, Consequences & Human Face of Immigration Detention” (January 2011), available at
http://www.detentionwatchnetwork.org/sites/detentionwatchnetwork.org/files/1.14.11_Fact%20Sheet%20FINAL_0.pdf
[hereafter ACLU,
“Securely Insecure”]; Dep’t of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Immigration Enforcement Actions: 2010 (June
2011), available at http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/enforcement-ar-2010.pdf [hereafter “Immigration Enforcement
Actions: 2010”] (stating that ICE detained approximately 363,000 immigrants in FY 2010).
12 See, Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, “Growth in Number Detained,” Syracuse Univ. (Feb. 11, 2010), available at
http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/224/include/4g.html; Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, “Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) Budget Expenditures,” Syracuse Univ. (Feb. 11, 2010), available at
http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/224/include/3.html; See also, Detention Watch Network, “The Influence of the Private Prison Industry
in the Immigration Detention Business” (May 2011), available at
http://www.detentionwatchnetwork.org/sites/detentionwatchnetwork.org/files/PrivatePrisonPDF-FINAL%205-11-11.pdf.
10

3

and local jails.13 Alternatively, as discussed later, the correctional industry has designed and
built some facilities to house ICE detainees exclusively. In addition, ICE currently owns and
operates six detention facilities, called Service Processing Centers (SPCs).14 ICE has proposed
closing some SPCs to lower costs.15 Finally, ICE utilizes seven Contract Detention Facilities
(CDFs) that are operated by contractors but house solely ICE detainees. ICE claims to be
“exploring” cost efficiencies in these facilities.
Efforts to restructure ICE’s detention system are increasingly politically charged. Political
pressure plays a large role in keeping open detention centers where problems have been
abundant, including the Etowah County Detention Center in Alabama. 16 Terminating use of a
contracted or leased detention facility has been difficult because of political pressure to keep the
jobs created by the detention centers.17 The demand for jobs creates an incentive to find more
detainees to fill the jails, regardless of poor conditions of confinement or whether or not those
incarcerated within merit detention.18

Prosecutorial Discretion
Over the past two years, ICE has attempted to shift enforcement practices away from haphazard
and sweeping methods, to more targeted efforts focused on individuals whose removal is a high
priority for the agency. This is a smart and needed shift. From 1996 to 2006, 65% of immigrants
who were detained and deported were detained after being arrested for non-violent crimes.19 In
2009 and 2010, over half of all immigrant detainees had no criminal records.20 Of those with
any criminal history, nearly 20% were merely for traffic offenses.21
ICE now says its policy is to prioritize apprehension and detention of individuals convicted of
serious criminal offenses. The first step towards more focused enforcement came in June 2010
when ICE Director John Morton released a memorandum outlining the civil immigration
enforcement priorities of ICE, focusing on removing individuals who are a threat to national
security, public safety, and border security.22 With regard to detention, this directive stated “as a
general rule, ICE detention resources should be used to support the enforcement priorities…or
for aliens subject to mandatory detention by law.” It also directed ICE personnel to avoid
detention where possible of individuals with serious physical or mental illnesses or who are
disabled, pregnant, nursing, or are primary caretakers, or whose detention is “not in the public
interest.”
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, “Report on Immigration in the United States: Detention and Due Process” (December 2010),
p. 1067, available at http://cidh.org/pdf%20files/ReportOnImmigrationInTheUnited%20States-DetentionAndDueProcess.pdf; Detention
Reform Accomplishments, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, http://www.ice.gov/detention-reform/detention-reform.htm.
14 Located in Batavia, New York; El Centro, California; El Paso, Texas; Florence, Arizona; Miami, Florida; and Los Fresnos, Texas. El Paso is
currently being converted to office space and El Centro is being considered for co-location of ICE field offices. DHS FY 2013 Budget Justification,
supra note 1 at 1067-1068.
15 Id at 1068
16 The Nation, “How One Georgia Town Gambled its Future on Immigration Detention” Hannah Rappleye and Lisa Riordan Seville,
(April 2012), available at http://www.thenation.com/article/167312/how-one-georgia-town-gambled-its-future-immigration-detention.
17 Id.
18 Id (citing Gary Mead, executive director for enforcement and removal operations for ICE, stating “I do not believe we will be allowed to leave
Etowah without serious repercussions against our budget.”).
19 ACLU, “Securely Insecure,” supra note 10.
20 Id.; “Immigration Enforcement Actions: 2010,” supra note 10.
21 Id.
22 U.S. ICE Memorandum: Civil Immigration Enforcement: Priorities for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Aliens (June 2010),
available at http://www.ice.gov/doclib/news/releases/2010/civil-enforcement-priorities.pdf.
13

4

In June 2011, ICE released another memorandum detailing the use of prosecutorial discretion
consistent with immigration enforcement priorities outlined in the June 2010 memorandum.23
Specific to detention, under the 2011 memorandum, the term “prosecutorial discretion” applies
to a broad range of enforcement decisions, including “deciding whom to detain or to release on
bond, supervision, personal recognizance, or other condition.”24 Factors to consider include a
person’s criminal history, the agency’s civil immigration enforcement priorities, the
circumstances of the person’s arrival in the United States, and the person’s pursuit of education
in the United States, among other things.25
In August 2011, DHS Secretary Napolitano announced that backlogged immigration cases would
be reviewed for prosecutorial discretion, and that prosecutorial discretion should be applied
consistently in new immigration cases.26 Despite the promise of this announcement, more than
one year after the 2011 prosecutorial discretion memorandum was issued, ICE had identified
only nine percent of the non-detained cases as amenable for prosecutorial discretion 27, and only
4,363 cases had been administratively closed or dismissed of the 232,181 cases that have been
reviewed.28
The slow pace of prosecutorial discretion is dire for detained individuals. With detention costs
high and deprivation of the liberty a severe governmental action, the potential of prosecutorial
discretion is arguably at its zenith in cases involving detainees. Amazingly, less than one percent
of detained cases that ICE has reviewed had been identified as eligible for prosecutorial
discretion.29
ICE could save millions of dollars by applying prosecutorial discretion in decisions about whom
to detain and whom to release. The guidance issued so far offers a mechanism to inject
practicality and deliberation into the enforcement system, but much remains to be done to
maximize the use of prosecutorial discretion in immigration enforcement, especially regarding
the use of detention.

Privatization of ICE-owned Detention Facilities
The expansion of the immigrant detention system has directly benefitted the private prison
industry. Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) is the largest ICE detention contractor,
operating a total of fourteen ICE-contracted facilities with a total of 14,556 beds.30 GEO Group,
Inc. (GEO), the second largest ICE contractor, operates seven facilities with a total of 7,183
beds.31 In 2011, CCA and GEO reported annual revenues of $1.73 billion and $1.6 billion
respectively.32 In December 2010 GEO purchased B.I. Incorporated, a company that has
Immigrations and Custom Enforcement memorandum regarding Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion Consistent with the Civil Immigration
Enforcement Priorities of the Agency for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Aliens (June 2011), available at
http://www.ice.gov/doclib/secure-communities/pdf/prosecutorial-discretion-memo.pdf.
24Id. at 2-3.
25 Id. at 4.
26 ICE Case-by-Case Review Statistics (June 2012), available at http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/367098-ice-review-stats.html.
27 Id.
28 Id.
29 Id.
30 Detention Watch Network, “The Influence of the Private Prison Industry in Immigration Detention,” supra note 10.
31 Id.
32Corrections Corporation of America, “CCA Announces 2011 Fourth Quarter and Full-Year Financial Results” (Feb. 2012), available at
http://ir.correctionscorp.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=117983&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1658614&highlight; 4-traders, “The Geo Group, Inc.: The GEO
23

5

lucrative government contracts with ICE as the sole administrator of its alternatives to detention
program.33 Private prison companies in 2011 housed nearly half of all immigration detainees.34
Private prison corporations have also exerted their influence on legislators by lobbying for laws
that detain immigrants more frequently and for longer periods of time.35 According to the
Associated Press, the three corporations with the lion’s share of ICE detention contracts,
including CCA and GEO, together spent at least $45 million in the past decade on campaign
donations and lobbyists at the state and federal levels.36 The cozy relationships between
legislators and private prison corporations are perhaps best illustrated by Arizona’s
controversial S.B. 1070 bill, which was drafted in the presence of officials from CCA. 37 Of the 36
co-sponsors of S.B. 1070, 30 received campaign contributions from private prison lobbyists or
companies, including CCA.38
The influence of private prison corporations is even more troubling given persistent and
numerous complaints by detainees held at private facilities, including sexual abuse,39 inadequate
access to translators, prolonged detention, and insufficient medical treatment.40 ICE detention
standards, designed to guide the operation of immigration detention facilities, are not expressly
enforceable at many of the facilities under contract with ICE.41 Given the lack of strict standards
and proper oversight at these facilities, sub-par conditions at these locations come as little
surprise.
The role of private prisons in immigration detention was on a prominent stage this year. A highprofile private immigration detention facility opened in March 2012 in Karnes, Texas. GEO
Group, Inc. built the facility to specifications set by ICE, and designed it to be the first “civil
detention center” intended to house low-risk, adult males.42 The Karnes facility has been
controversial; some say that the accommodations are too plush for the detainees housed there
and others note that alternatives to detention would be a more cost-effective option for
detainees in the facility. 43 The Karnes facility allows for greater unescorted movement, more
recreational opportunities, and better visitation.44 The facility cost GEO $32 million to build, but
Group Reports Fourth Quarter 2011 Results” (Feb. 2012), available at http://www.4-traders.com/THE-GEO-GROUP-INC-12753/news/TheGeo-Group-Inc-The-GEO-Group-Reports-Fourth-Quarter-2011-Results-and-Announces-Adoption-of-Ca-14033010/.
33
See, “The GEO Group Announces Acquisition of BI Incorporated,” GEO Group (Dec. 2010), available at
http://bi.com/geo_group_announces_acquisition_of_bi_incorporated.
34
USA Today, “Immigrants Prove Big Business for Prison Companies”, Associated Press, (August 2012) available at,
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-08-02/immigration-prison/56689394/1
35 ACLU, “Securely Insecure,” supra note 10.
36
USA
Today,
“Immigrants
Prove
Big
Business
for
Prison
Companies,
(August
2012)
available
at,
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-08-02/immigration-prison/56689394/1
37 Laura Sullivan, “Prison Economics Help Drive Ariz. Immigration Law,” National Public Radio, (Oct. 28. 2010), available at
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130833741.
38
Justice
Policy
Institute,
“Gaming
the
System”
(June
22,
2011),
p.
30,
available
at
http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/gaming_the_system.pdf.
39 Between the creation of ICE detention centers in 2003 and August 2010, there have been more than 15 separate documented incidents and
allegations of sexual assault, abuse, or harassment, involving more than 50 alleged detainee victims. See, National Immigration Forum,
“Summaries
of
Recent
Reports
on
Immigration
Detention”
(June
2011)
p.
11,
available
at
http://www.immigrationforum.org/images/uploads/2010/DetentionReportSummaries.pdf citing Human Rights Watch, “Detained and at Risk”
(August 2010).
40 See generally, id.
41 ACLU, “Securely Insecure,” supra note 10.
42
“ICE opens its first-ever designed-and-built civil detention center”, ICE News Release (March 13, 2012), available at
http://www.ice.gov/news/releases/1203/120313karnescity.htm.
43
U.S. House of Representatives, “Holiday on ICE” Hearing, statement of Jessica M. Vaughan, available at
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/Hearings%202012/Vaughan%2003282012.pdf.
44 Id.

6

they plan to recoup their costs with an estimated $15 million in annual revenue from operating
the facility.45 ICE will reimburse GEO at a rate of $68.75 per day per detainee for the first 480
detainees, and $56.48 for all detainees above 480.46 A fundamental question raised by the
Karnes facility is whether it is appropriate and economically wise to incarcerate the kind of lowrisk detainees housed there. While the Karnes facility may be a step up from jails that lease bed
space to ICE, it continues to enhance the influence of private prison companies, who have much
to gain from detaining as many people as possible.

The Need to Detain and Alternatives to Detention
Persistent questions surround ICE’s need to detain individuals on such a massive scale. For
example, in 2009, an ICE report found only 11% of detainees had committed what ICE
considered to be violent crime and the majority of detainees posed no threat to the general
public.47 Given the predominantly non-criminal make-up of the immigration detention
population and the expenses and concerns surrounding detention, more humane and costeffective alternatives should be pursued. Many immigrants currently in ICE custody could be
safely released and, if necessary, monitored with alternative methods, such as telephonic and inperson reporting, curfews, and home visits.48
Recognizing that individual circumstances should be considered when making detention
determinations, ICE launched a risk assessment tool pilot program in Washington and
Baltimore in May 2010 that was designed to assist ICE employees in determining the detention
and medical needs of detainees during the intake process, including when it may be appropriate
to use an Alternative to Detention (ATD) program.49 Work began to automate the risk
assessment process in April 2011.50 No information has been made public to indicate whether
the risk assessment tool has been released beyond the pilot programs or is now fully deployed. 51
Widespread and uniform use of the risk assessment tool could reduce unnecessary detention
and better utilize ATD programs by enrolling appropriate individuals.
As with detention decisions, concerns exists about the appropriateness of the population that
ICE enrolls into ATD programs. Currently, ICE uses intensive electronic monitoring on some
individuals as an alternative to release. These individuals pose no danger and are a very low
flight risk and could simply be released on bond or their own recognizance. Instead, ICE could
use ATD programs to mitigate flight risk in the cases of many detainees where that is the only
obstacle to release.
Currently ICE’s ATD program has two primary components: Full-Service (FS) in which
contractors provide equipment and monitoring services along with case management, or
Technology-Only (TO) in which the contractor provides equipment but ICE continues to
“A
Kinder,
Gentler
Immigrant
Detention
Center,”
LOS
ANGELES
TIMES
(March
17,
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/17/nation/la-na-detention-salad-bar-20120318.
46
Intergovernmental Service Agreement between DHS ICE and Karnes County (December
http://www.ice.gov/doclib/foia/isa/karnescountycivildetentionfacility-igsa11-0004.pdf.
47See generally, Dora Schriro, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Immigration Detention Overview and
2009), p. 2, available at http://www.ice.gov/doclib/about/offices/odpp/pdf/ice-detention-rpt.pdf.
48
Anil Kalhan, Columbia Law Review, “Rethinking Immigration Detention” (July, 21, 2010),
http://www.columbialawreview.org/assets/sidebar/volume/110/42_Anil_Kalhan.pdf.
49 ICE Detention Reform Accomplishments, available at http://www.ice.gov/detention-reform/detention-reform.htm.
50 Id.
51 Id.
45

7

2012),

available

at

2010)

available

at,

Recommendations (Oct.
p.

55,

available

at

supervise the participants.52 ICE has grown the size of these ATD programs. As of June 8, 2012,
there were 23,289 individuals enrolled in ICE ATD programs; 11,571 were in the Full-Service
program while 11,718 were in the Technology-Only program.53 This represents a notable
increase in enrollment from the same date in 2011 when 18,960 total individuals were enrolled
in ATD programs.54 Budgetary figures reflect this growth; for the 2013 fiscal year (Oct. 1, 2012 –
Sept. 30, 2013), the President requested $111.59 million for ATD programs, a $39.2 million
increase from FY 2012.55 However, as illustrated in Figure 2 below, spending on ATDs remains
dwarfed by spending on traditional detention.
Figure 256

Dollars Requested by ICE

Allocation of ICE Funding Requested
by the President in FY 2013
$2,500,000,000
$2,000,000,000
$1,500,000,000
$1,000,000,000
$500,000,000
$0

Custody Operations
(Detention)
Custody Alternatives
Operations to Detention
(Detention)

Alternatives to Detention

Monitoring Method

Financial justifications support expanding ATD programs. Existing alternatives range in cost
from as low as 30 cents up to 14 dollars a day per individual. 57 Thus, even if the most expensive
alternative programs58 were used to monitor the overwhelming majority of detainees without
violent criminal histories, a tremendous amount of resources and money would be saved. If ICE
limited its use of detention to individuals who have committed violent crimes, the agency could
save nearly $4.4 million a night, or $1.6 billion annually—an 82% reduction in costs.59

DHS FY 2013 Budget Justification, supra note 1 at 1085-1086.
Statistics delivered by ICE officials during the 2012 American Immigration Lawyers Association’s Annual Conference, Nashville, TN, June 1316, 2012. For comparison, on January 22, 2011 there were 13,583 participants in the FS category and 3,871 in the Technology-Assisted (now
called Technology-Only) category . Dep‘t of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Salaries and Expenses, Fiscal Year
2012 Congressional Budget Justification, p. 1074, available at http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/dhs-congressional-budget-justificationfy2012.pdf [hereafter “DHS FY 2012 Budget Justification”].
54 Id to AILA conference statistics.
55 DHS FY 2013 Budget Justification, supra note 1 at 1084.
56 DHS FY 2013 Budget Justification, supra note 1 at 1084.
57 See, id.
58
Dep’t of Homeland Security, ICE Detention Reform: Principles and Next Steps (Oct. 2009), available at
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/press_ice_detention_reform_fact_sheet.pdf.
59 11% of detainees have committed violent crimes (.11) * 32,800 detainees per night = 3,608 violent detainees per night. 32,800 detainees per
night – 3,608 violent detainees = 29,192 nonviolent detainees. 29,192 nonviolent detainees * $14 a day for alternative to detention monitoring =
$408,688 a day to monitor nonviolent detainees. 3,608 violent detainees * $164 a day for detention = $591,712 a day to detain violent detainees.
$408,688 on alternatives to detention for nonviolent detainees + $591,712 on detention for violent detainees = $1,000,400 a night to monitor
and detain. $5,400,000 currently spent each night to detain immigrants - $1,000,400 a night if only detaining those who committed violent
crimes = $4,399,600 saved each night.
52
53

8



$4,399,600 saved each night * 365 = $1,605,854,000 savings per year or a savings of
over 81.9% as compared to the current cost for Custody Operations.

Figure 360

Cost of Detention vs. Monitoring an
Individual For a Year (FY 13)
Dollars Spent

$80,000
$60,000
$40,000

Alternatives to Detention
Detention

$20,000

Detention

$0

Monitoring Method

Even beyond the large financial savings, there are significant programmatic reasons to expand
ATD programs. These programs have a very high compliance rate among participants. In FY
2010, the last year for which appearance data is available, ATD programs exceeded the target for
appearance rates for immigration hearings by 35.8 percent; the target was 58 percent and the
actual FY 2010 rate was 93.8 percent.61

Conclusion
Fiscal accountability by the Federal Government is critical in our current economy, yet
immigration detention continues to raise enormous fiscal concerns. The urgency for an
alternative approach is further fueled by numerous humanitarian concerns endemic to
immigration detention. ICE must reexamine and modify how and why it detains people,
including maximizing its alternatives to detention programs to take advantage of cost savings. In
addition, the government must be prudent with limited resources by detaining only those who
actually pose a risk to the security of the country. The fiscal interests of private prison
corporations are insufficient rationale to maintain the current wasteful and bloated immigration
detention system. Prioritizing the use of scarce resources is the responsible thing to do, is
consistent with other immigration policies, and will help accomplish the important objective of
promoting national security. A close examination of the figures makes it clear: the numbers
behind immigration detention simply do not add up to sensible policy.

60

$14 a day for alternative detention procedures * 365 days a year = $5,110 a year to monitor an individual using alternatives, $164 a day to
detain an individual * 365 days a year = $59,860 a year to detain an individual. See DHS FY 2013 Budget Justification, supra note 1.
61 DHS FY 2012 Budget Justification, supra note 57 at 925.

9