United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

Report to Congressional Requesters

July 2007

ALIEN DETENTION
STANDARDS
Telephone Access
Problems Were
Pervasive at Detention
Facilities; Other
Deficiencies Did Not
Show a Pattern of
Noncompliance

GAO-07-875

July 2007

ALIEN DETENTION STANDARDS
Accountability Integrity Reliability

Highlights
Highlights of GAO-07-875, a report to
congressional requesters

Telephone Access Problems Were
Pervasive at Detention Facilities; Other
Deficiencies Did Not Show a Pattern of
Noncompliance

Why GAO Did This Study

What GAO Found

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. As shown in the figure below, monthly performance data
provided by the phone system contractor indicate 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.

What GAO Recommends
GAO is making several
recommendations, including that
ICE take actions to ensure that the
pro bono phone system in alien
detention facilities is operating
effectively, and to explore current
and future options to obtain
recourse for contractor
nonperformance. DHS stated that it
agreed with our seven
recommendations and identified
corrective actions that it has
planned or are under way to
address the problems identified
by GAO.

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.
Percentage of Successful Calls through ICE’s Detainee Pro Bono Telephone System,
November 2005 through November 2006
Percentage of success rate
100
80

72.09 68.92 73.48
65.85 68.96 66.46

63.78

68.48

62.97
55.94

60
43.36
35.05

40

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-875.
To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.
For more information, contact Richard M.
Stana at (202) 512-8777 or
StanaR@gao.gov.

40.13

20
0
Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

2005
Source: GAO analysis of ICE contractor provided data.

May

June

July

Aug. Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

2006

United States Government Accountability Office

Contents

Letter

1
Results in Brief
Background
Field Visits at 23 Detention Facilities Showed Systemic Telephone
Access Problems and Instances of Noncompliance with Other
Standards
ICE’s Review Mechanism Identified Deficiencies in Most Areas, but
Weaknesses Exist Regarding the Telephone System
Alien Detainees Filed Complaints with Several External
Organizations Concerning a Wide Range of Allegations
Conclusions
Recommendations for Executive Action
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

5
7

10
30
34
38
39
40

Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

44

Appendix II

Alien Detention Population Statistics

48

Appendix III

Juvenile and Family Detention Standards

50

Appendix IV

Explanation of the Standards

54

Appendix V

Comments from the Department of
Homeland Security

57

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

68

Table 1: Subjects of the ICE National Detention Standards

54

Appendix VI

Table

Page i

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

Figures
Figure 1: Detainee Telephone System and Posted Pro Bono Call
Lists at Denver Contract Detention Facility, October 2006
Figure 2: Percentage of Successful Calls through ICE’s Detainee
Pro Bono Telephone System, November 2005 through
November 2006
Figure 3: Medical Exam Unit at Denver Contract Detention Facility,
October 2006
Figure 4: Berks County Prison Dental Treatment Room, September
2006
Figure 5: An Unclean Kitchen Grill at Denver Contract Detention
Facility, October 2006
Figure 6: Hampton Roads Regional Jail Indoor/Outdoor Recreation
Area, October 2006
Figure 7: Indoor/Outdoor Recreation at Denver Contract Detention
Facility, October 2006
Figure 8: Law Library at the San Diego Correctional Facility,
September 2006
Figure 9: Portable Beds on the floor between Standard Beds at the
Krome Service Processing Center, Miami, Florida,
October 2006
Figure 10: Portable Beds on the Floor between Standard Beds at
the Denver Contract Detention Facility, Denver, Colorado,
October 2006
Figure 11: External Process for Filing Detainee Complaints
Figure 12: Criminal versus Noncriminal Aliens in Detention as of
December 31, 2006
Figure 13: Criminal Charges by Criminal Aliens as of December 31,
2006
Figure 14: Outdoor Playground at Berks Family Shelter, Leesport,
Pennsylvania, September 2006
Figure 15: Housing Unit at Berks Family Shelter, Leesport,
Pennsylvania, September 2006
Figure 16: Classroom at Berks Family Shelter, Leesport,
Pennsylvania, September 2006

Page ii

12

15
19
20
22
24
25
27

28

30
35
48
49
51
52
53

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

Abbreviations
ABA
ACA
CBP
CDF
COTR
CRCL
DFIG
DHS
DRO
DOJ
EOIR
HHS
ICE
IGSA
JIC
JCAHO
NCCHC
OIG
OPR
PCS
PHS
SPC
UNHCR

American Bar Association
American Correctional Association
Customs and Border Protection
Contract Detention Facilities
Contracting Officer Technical Representative
Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
Detention Facilities Inspection Group
Department of Homeland Security
Office of Detention and Removal
Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Health and Human Services
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
intergovernmental service agreement
Joint Intake Center
Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care
Organizations
National Commission on Correctional Health Care
Office of the Inspector General
Office of Professional Responsibility
Public Communications Services
Public Health Service
Service Processing Centers
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the
United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further
permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or
other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to
reproduce this material separately.

Page iii

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC 20548

July 6, 2007
Congressional Requesters
In 2006, a Pew Hispanic Center report estimated that there were
11.5 million to 12 million unauthorized aliens in the United States.1
Moreover, according to the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS)
2005 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, the population of unauthorized
aliens in the United States will continue to grow at an average annual rate
of about 400,000 aliens per year.2 Through immigration enforcement
efforts such as workplace raids and other law enforcement activities,
some of these unauthorized aliens may be apprehended and placed in
detention pending civil administrative immigration removal proceedings.
The total number of aliens in administrative proceedings that spend some
time in detention per year increased from 95,214 in 2001 to 283,115 in
2006.3 Available detention bed space rose from 19,702 in fiscal year 2001 to
27,500 in fiscal year 2007. In fiscal year 2007, DHS’s U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) received $953 million in funding for detention
services. The care and treatment of these aliens while in detention is a
significant challenge to ICE, and concerns have been raised by members
of Congress and advocacy groups about the treatment of aliens while in
ICE custody.
According to ICE, its goal is to provide safe, secure, and humane
conditions for all detainees in ICE custody. Furthering the goal of ensuring
that alien detainees are housed under appropriate conditions of
confinement, in 2000, the former Immigration and Naturalization Service
implemented National Detention Standards that apply to alien adult
detention facilities. These standards are derived from the American
Correctional Association Third Edition, Standards for Adult Local

1

Pew Hispanic Center, America’s Immigration Quandary: No Consensus on Immigration
Problem or Proposed Fixes, March 30, 2006. The Pew Hispanic Center is a nonpartisan
research organization supported by the Pew Charitable Trusts whose mission is to improve
understanding of the U.S. Hispanic population and to chronicle Latinos’ impact in the
United States. The center is a project of the Pew Research Center in Washington, D.C.
2

Office of Immigration Statistics, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2005 Yearbook of
Immigration Statistics.
3

Administrative proceedings can include removal proceedings and asylum hearings.

Page 1

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

Detention Facilities, and were developed in consultation with the
American Bar Association (ABA), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ),
and other organizations involved in pro bono representation and advocacy
for immigration detainees. The standards encompass areas such as
telephone access, legal access, medical services, detainee grievance
procedures, food services, and recreation. Following the creation of DHS
in March 2003, ICE took over responsibility for the National Detention
Standards when the Immigration and Naturalization Service was
abolished. ICE’s Office of Detention and Removal (DRO) is responsible for
conducting reviews to ensure compliance with these standards, and
according to ICE policy, all detention facilities are required to be
inspected annually for this purpose.
The National Detention Standards apply to the 330 adult and 3 family
detention facilities that ICE uses to detain aliens.4 These standards are to
govern conditions relating to detainee telephone access, medical care, and
access to legal materials, among others. Alien detention facilities can use
various means to satisfy the requirements of the standards. For example,
the telephone access standard and grievance procedure standard require
that facilities provide a means for detainees to make calls at no charge to
themselves or to the recipients, to their consulates, pro bono legal
providers, and the DHS Office of the Inspector General’s (OIG) complaint
line among others. Many facilities have adopted ICE’s contractor-provided
automated pro bono telephone system5 to satisfy the standard, while
others allow detainees to make the required calls using facility phones
with the assistance of facility personnel. As a second example, to fulfill the
standard for providing medical services, some facilities provide on-site
medical care, while others make use of local medical providers. As a third
example, some facilities provide legal search programs on computers to
meet the access to legal materials standard, while others provide hardcopy legal reference materials in a law library.
This report focuses on the following questions: (1) To what extent do
selected facilities comply with established detention standards? (2) To

4

ICE has separate standards that apply to juveniles at 19 juvenile and 3 family detention
facilities.
5

ICE refers to its automated telephone system as the “pro bono telephone system” because
the system enables detainees to place calls at no charge to their respective consulates, pro
bono legal service providers, the local immigration court, and the OIG’s complaint line,
among others.

Page 2

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

what extent does ICE’s compliance review process identify deficiencies?
(3) What organizations external to the detention facilities receive alien
detainee complaints, and what types of complaints have been received?
To address our objectives we,
•

conducted visits to a nonprobability sample of detention facilities to
observe conditions of confinement, implementation of the standards,
and extent of compliance with alien detention standards;

•

interviewed DHS and ICE officials responsible for compliance with
alien detention standards and analyzed documentation on staffing
levels devoted to ensuring compliance with alien detention standards
and associated guidance and training provided to personnel to oversee
compliance with the standards;

•

interviewed DHS and ICE officials and analyzed DHS documentation
on efforts, methodologies, and internal controls used to evaluate
compliance with the standards;

•

analyzed data on pro bono telephone system performance provided by
the ICE telephone contractor; and

•

analyzed data on detention-related complaints filed by alien detainees
or their representatives with the OIG, and reviewed information on the
number and type of detainee complaints received by DHS and ICE
components, and nongovernmental organizations assisting alien
detainees.

On the basis of interviews with the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees (UNHCR), ABA, and OIG officials, we selected a nonprobability
sample of 8 of 38 ICE National Detention Standards to review at the
detention facilities we visited. The 8 standards we selected are telephone
access, medical care, hold rooms procedures,6 use of force, food services,
recreation, access to legal materials, and detainee grievance procedures.
According to the officials we interviewed, these standards pertained to the
basic treatment of detainees and were representative of areas of concern

6

These establish policies and procedures for hold rooms that are used for the temporary
detention of individuals awaiting removal, transfer, Executive Office for Immigration
Review (EOIR) hearings, medical treatment, intrafacility movement, or other processing
into or out of the facility.

Page 3

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

and common complaints received in their organizations. We also observed
whether the population in the facilities we visited exceeded rated capacity.
We visited all 3 family detention facilities, 2 of 19 juvenile detention
facilities, and 18 of 330 adult detention facilities for our visits on the basis
of geographic diversity, facility type, and prior inspection ratings. Because
we did not randomly select our detention facilities, the results pertain only
to the facilities we visited and cannot be projected to the universe of
detention facilities. We also analyzed ICE annual facility compliance
reports for the detention sites we visited. Additionally, we analyzed the
most recently available detainee complaints compiled by the OIG and
reviewed information on the number and type of detainee complaints
received by ICE, UNHCR, and other sources. 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 DRO
reviews or detainee complaints were implemented.
We analyzed data on alien detention population statistics from DRO’s
Monthly Detention Reports, the number of authorized detention facilities
and their most current compliance ratings from DRO’s Detention
Inspection Unit’s compliance database, and available data on the number
and status of detainee complaint allegations received by the OIG. Further,
we reviewed and reported on the number and type of detainee complaints
received by ICE’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), DHS Office
of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL), the UNHCR, and the ABA. To
determine compliance with the telephone access standard, we also
analyzed contractor monthly telephone performance data related to the
detainee pro bono telephone system. Overall, we determined the data to
be sufficiently reliable for purposes of our review.
Our review focused on ICE, which has responsibility for custody of alien
detainees pending civil administrative removal proceedings and
accompanied juvenile aliens. We did not include alien detainees serving
criminal sentences in DOJ’s Bureau of Prisons facilities or unaccompanied
juvenile aliens in the custody of the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS). See appendix I for more detailed information on our
scope and methodology.
Our work was conducted from May 2006 through May 2007 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Page 4

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

Results in Brief

During field visits to 23 detention facilities, we observed systemic
problems with the pro bono telephone system at 16 of 17 detention
facilities that use this system. Further we also observed instances of
noncompliance with one or more other selected national detention
standards at 9 of the 23 facilities we visited. At 16 detention facilities we
visited where ICE contracts with a private vendor for a pro bono phone
system, often we could not make successful connections due to technical
problems within the system. Further, there were insufficient internal
controls at the facilities to ensure posted phone numbers were kept up to
date or otherwise accurate. At 1 facility we visited in September 2006, the
list of consulate numbers was 6 years old (dated 2000). We called 30 of the
consulate numbers on the posted listings and determined that 9 of the
numbers were incorrect. We found that the pro bono telephone system
provider had reported performance data to ICE every month for the last
5 years for all facilities using the system that when analyzed, indicated the
likelihood of significant and consistent telephone system failures.
However, ICE officials told us that they did not know the nature and the
extent of the problem prior to our review. The ICE contracting officer
assigned responsibility for the Public Communications Services (PCS)
contract told us that he had taken only a limited oversight role regarding
the PCS phone contract. A senior official in ICE’s Office of Acquisition,
which is responsible for overseeing contractor performance, said that the
office faced significant challenges relating to turnover, understaffing, and
loss of institutional knowledge regarding contract oversight and
management. Officials acknowledged that a lack of internal controls exists
in its present system for monitoring detainee telephone system contractor
performance and acknowledged that greater contractor oversight is
required. ICE has confirmed that PCS has not complied with the terms and
conditions of the contract. As a result, the ICE Assistant Secretary
requested a DHS Inspector General audit of the ICE pro bono telephone
system and contract. With the exception of the pro bono telephone system
failures, other instances of deficiencies varied across the facilities that we
visited and did not appear to show a pattern of noncompliance. Examples
of other deficiencies included food service issues at 3 facilities, medical
care policy at 3 facilities, hold room policy at 3 facilities, and use of force
policy at 4 facilities. We also observed detainees being housed in numbers
that exceeded the rated capacity at 4 of the 23 sites we visited.
ICE conducts annual compliance inspection reviews at detention facilities
to determine that these facilities are in compliance with the National
Detention Standards, and recent ICE inspection reports for the facilities
that we visited reflected similar deficiencies in compliance with the
standards to those that we observed. Lack of internal controls and

Page 5

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

weaknesses in ICE’s compliance review process, however, resulted in
ICE’s failure to identify telephone system problems at many facilities we
visited. Specifically, ICE’s Detention Inspection Worksheet used by
reviewers did 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. For example, at the 16 facilities where we
identified telephone problems, ICE reported problems with the detainee
telephone system for only 5 of these facilities in its most recently available
compliance reports. Moreover, in at least one case when phone system
problems were identified by ICE reviewers resulting in the facility being
rated “at risk” for the Telephone Access Standard, our tests showed that
the problems still persisted nearly a year later when we visited the facility
in October 2006.
Detainees have filed a variety of complaints regarding conditions of
confinement with external organizations. 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. Our review of about
750 detainee complaints in the OIG database for the period fiscal years
2005 through 2006 showed that most complaints related to medical
treatment; case management; mistreatment; detainee protests of detention
or deportation; civil rights, human rights or discrimination; property
issues; and employee misconduct at the facility. As previously discussed,
we found that detainees’ ability to register complaints through the OIG
may be restricted due to consistent system failures in the pro bono
telephone system that is provided for this purpose. Of the approximately
1,700 detainee complaints in the OIG database that were filed in the period
from 2003 through 2006, OIG investigated 173 and referred the remainder
to other DHS components, such as ICE’s Office of Professional
Responsibility (OPR) and DRO, for their review. Of the 409 complaints
OPR reported it had received during this period, officials told us they had
substantiated 7 of them. DRO also receives complaints from the OIG, but
we found that its informal database of detainee complaints was not
sufficiently reliable for audit purposes. Since DRO is responsible for
overseeing the management and operation of 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 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. Detainees or their representatives may
also file complaints with nongovernmental organizations, including

Page 6

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

UNHCR and other advocacy organizations that monitor alien detention
conditions. Examples of complaints received by UNHCR included lack of
timely response to requests for medical services, inadequate access to
legal materials, and problems making connections using the ICE pro bono
telephone system. These external organizations said they forward detainee
complaints to DHS components for review and possible corrective action.
We are making several recommendations to help ensure that detainees can
successfully use the pro bono telephone service to contact legal service
providers, report complaints, and obtain assistance from their consulates.
These include amendments to the DRO compliance inspection process
relating to the detainee telephone access standard to include that
reviewers test to ensure that the pro bono telephone system is functioning
properly. Further, we are recommending the establishment of formal
procedures to ensure that the pro bono telephone numbers posted in
detention facilities reflect the most currently available numbers. We are
also recommending that ICE’s Office of Acquisition and DRO establish
better contractor oversight and that the Assistant Secretary explore
current and future options to obtain recourse for contractor
nonperformance. Additionally, we are also recommending that DRO
establish improved internal control procedures to help ensure that
detainee complaints are properly documented and their disposition is
recorded for later examination.
We provided a draft of this report to DHS for review and comment. In
commenting on this report, DHS agreed with our recommendations and
outlined actions planned or under way to address them. A copy of DHS’s
letter commenting on the report is presented in appendix V. DHS also
provided technical comments, which we considered and incorporated into
this report as appropriate.

Background

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

Page 7

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

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.7 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

7

A service processing center is a detention facility of which the primary operator and
controlling party is ICE. A contract detention facility is a facility that provides detention
services under a competitively bid contract awarded by ICE. An intergovernmental service
agreement (IGSA) is a cooperative agreement between ICE and any state, territory, or
political subdivision for the construction, renovation, or acquisition of equipment, supplies,
or materials required to establish acceptable conditions of confinement and detention
services. ICE may enter into an IGSA with any such unit of government guaranteeing to
provide bed space for ICE detainees, and to provide the clothing, medical care, food and
drink, security, and other necessities specified in the ICE Detention Standards; facilities
providing such services are referred to as IGSA facilities.

Page 8

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

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.8 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.

8

In providing technical comments to this report, ICE officials stated that detention
standards generally apply to contract facilities as well, although certain standards might
not apply in specific instances, for example, a law library is not required at an under
72-hour facility.

Page 9

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

Field Visits at 23
Detention Facilities
Showed Systemic
Telephone Access
Problems and
Instances of
Noncompliance with
Other Standards

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,9 since some facilities had the
use of Tasers either authorized in policy or facility officials stated they
used these methods.10 Last, we also observed detainees being housed in
numbers that exceeded the rated capacity at 4 of the 23 sites we visited.

Systemic Problems in
Detainees’ Telephone
Access Restrict Detainees’
Ability to Reach Pro Bono
Services

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

9

According to Taser International, Taser is a trademark and an acronym for the Thomas A.
Swift Electrical Rifle, which was developed in the 1970s. For the purposes of this report,
the term “Taser” will refer to a weapon that shoots two stainless steel barbs to a distance of
25 feet and results in an incapacitating 50,000-volt electric shock.
10

ICE’s use of force standard states that detention facilities used by ICE must comply with
ICE’s use of force policy, which forbids the use of Tasers.

Page 10

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

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.

Widespread Failures Found at
Facilities We Visited in the Pro
Bono Telephone System

Of the 23 detention facilities we visited, 17 facilities utilize the PCS
detainee telephone system.11 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

11

IGSA detention facilities are not required to adopt the detainee telephone system, and it is
ultimately their choice as to whether to use the platform to meet the standard or provide
pro bono telephone access by some other means.

Page 11

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

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.
Figure 1: Detainee Telephone System and Posted Pro Bono Call Lists at Denver
Contract Detention Facility, October 2006

Source: GAO.

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.”

Page 12

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

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.12 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.

Insufficient Internal Controls
Existed to Ensure Pro Bono
Telephone Number Postings
Are Kept Up to Date or That the
Pro Bono Calling System Is
Functioning Properly

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

12

The Alien Registration Number is the number assigned to an alien’s administrative file for
tracking purposes.

Page 13

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

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.13 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 directdial these calls on a facility phone outside of the housing unit. Noting the

13

Department of State Web site for current lists of consulates can be found at
http://www.state.gov/s/cpr/rls/fco/fallwinter2/, and Executive Office for Immigration
Review lists of local pro bono legal services can be found at
http://www.usdoj.gov/eoir/probono/states.htm.

Page 14

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

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.

ICE Not Monitoring Contractor
Telephone System
Performance Reports

Figure 2: Percentage of Successful Calls through ICE’s Detainee Pro Bono Telephone System, November 2005 through
November 2006
Percentage of success rate
100
90
80
70

65.85

68.96

72.09
66.46

73.48
68.92

68.48
63.78

62.97

60

55.94

50

43.36

40

40.13
35.05

30
20
10
0
Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

2005

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

2006

Month/year
Source: GAO analysis of ICE contractor provided data.

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

Page 15

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

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.

Some Telephone Contracts
Provide for Commissions to
Detention Facilities

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

Page 16

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

agreement with PCS, PCS provides the pro bono platform to any IGSA
facility that chooses to adopt it to meet the telephone access standard.14
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.

Compliance with Other
Standards Varied but Did
Not Show a Consistent
Pattern of Noncompliance

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.

Medical Care

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

14
According to ICE, there are several IGSA facilities that have both an ICE IGSA contract
and where PCS is the provider selected locally for detainee phone service, but that IGSA
facilities are not required to select PCS as their phone service provider. An IGSA facility
may choose to meet the telephone access standard via the pro bono platform provided by
PCS and not adopt PCS as its primary service provider.

Page 17

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

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.

Page 18

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

Figure 3: Medical Exam Unit at Denver Contract Detention Facility, October 2006

Source: GAO.

Page 19

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

Figure 4: Berks County Prison Dental Treatment Room, September 2006

Source: GAO.

Hold Rooms

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

Page 20

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

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.

Use of Force

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.

Food Service

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

Page 21

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

cleaned between meals. Figure 5 shows an unclean kitchen grill at the
Denver Contract Detention Facility.
Figure 5: An Unclean Kitchen Grill at Denver Contract Detention Facility, October
2006

Source: GAO.

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.

Recreation

ICE detention standards state that detainees are to be allowed at least
5 hours of recreation per week. At facilities that we visited, common

Page 22

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

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.

Page 23

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

Figure 6: Hampton Roads Regional Jail Indoor/Outdoor Recreation Area, October
2006

Source: GAO.

Page 24

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

Figure 7: Indoor/Outdoor Recreation at Denver Contract Detention Facility, October
2006

Source: GAO.

Access to Legal Materials

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

Page 25

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

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.

Page 26

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

Figure 8: Law Library at the San Diego Correctional Facility, September 2006

Source: GAO.

Detainee Grievance Procedures

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,

Page 27

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

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.

Detainee Populations
Exceeded Rated Capacity
at 4 of 23 Facilities Visited

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.
Figure 9: Portable Beds on the floor between Standard Beds at the Krome Service
Processing Center, Miami, Florida, October 2006

Source: GAO.

Page 28

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

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.

Page 29

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

Figure 10: Portable Beds on the Floor between Standard Beds at the Denver
Contract Detention Facility, Denver, Colorado, October 2006

Source: GAO.

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’s Review
Mechanism Identified
Deficiencies in Most
Areas, but
Weaknesses Exist
Regarding the
Telephone System

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,

Page 30

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

we observed the same problems nearly a year after the facility’s telephone
standard compliance had been rated as “at risk.”

ICE Annual Compliance
Inspection Reviews Have
Identified Compliance
Deficiencies Similar to
Those That We Observed

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,

Page 31

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

good, acceptable, deficient, or at risk.15 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.

Weaknesses in Inspection
Checklist Permit Pro Bono
Telephone System
Problems to Go
Undetected at 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

15

According to Detention Management Control Program policies and procedures, a superior
rating means that the facility is performing all of its functions in an exceptional manner,
has excellent internal controls, and exceeds expectations. A good rating means that a
facility is performing all of its functions, and there are few deficient procedures, but
internal controls are not limited by these deficiencies. An acceptable rating means that
detention functions are being adequately performed. Although deficiencies may exist, they
do not detract from the acceptable accomplishment of the vital functions. Deficient ratings
mean that one or more detention functions are not being performed at an acceptable level.
Internal controls are weak, thus allowing for serious deficiencies in one or more program
areas. At-risk ratings mean the detention operations are impaired to the point that it is not
presently accomplishing its overall mission. That is, internal controls are not sufficient to
reasonably ensure acceptable performance can be expected in the future.

Page 32

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

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.

Page 33

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

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.

Alien Detainees Filed
Complaints with
Several External
Organizations
Concerning a Wide
Range of Allegations

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.

Page 34

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

Figure 11: External Process for Filing Detainee Complaints

ICE detainees

External complaint

Joint Intake Center
(JIC)

Nongovernmental organizations:
UN High Commissioner for
Refugees (UNHCR), American
Bar Association (ABA)

DHS Office of
Inspector General (OIG)

DHS Office of Civil Rights and
Civil Liberties (CRCL)

Classify and refer
to DHS OIG for
retention or referral

Enter into case management
system as complaint and refer
to the OIG

Refer to ICE Office of Professional
Responsibility (ICE/OPR) for action

ICE/OPR may retain
for investigation

OIG may retain
for investigation

Refer to Office of Detention
and Removal (DRO) for action

Refer to DHS Office of Civil Rights
and Civil Liberties (CRCL) for action

Refer to ICE/OPR

Retained by CRCL
for investigation

Source: Department of Homeland Security.

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

Page 35

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

medical treatment; case management;16 mistreatment;17 protesting
detention or deportation; civil rights, human rights, or discrimination;18
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.19 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,20
26 unfounded,21 and 65 unsubstantiated.22 Three of the seven substantiated

16
“Case management” was defined as a complaint regarding the administrative handling of a
detainee’s case.
17
An allegation alleging that a detainee suffered mistreatment by ICE or facility contract
personnel during detention.
18
Any allegation that claimed discrimination, alleged civil rights infractions, or human rights
complaints.
19
Class I allegations consist of criminal activity. OPR retains all Class I cases. Class II
allegations consist of noncriminal but serious misconduct that can result in adverse action
if substantiated. Class III allegations consist of those that are referred to management
officials at CBP or ICE without an OPR investigation, or with a limited OPR investigation
that clarified the allegation. The management officials may assign an OPR-trained fact
finder to conduct an administrative inquiry. Class IV allegations are treated as information
only and as such require no investigation but may be referred to management officials for
their information.
20
OPR defines “substantiated allegation” as an allegation for which the evidence would
cause a reasonable person to conclude that the alleged act of misconduct is likely to have
occurred.
21

An allegation is unfounded when the evidence would cause a reasonable person to
conclude that the subject employee did not commit the alleged misconduct, or that, in fact,
no misconduct occurred.
22
An allegation is unsubstantiated when the evidence is not sufficient for a reasonable
person to determine whether the subject employee committed the alleged misconduct.

Page 36

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

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.23 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,

23

GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1
(Washington, D.C.: November 1999), p. 15.

Page 37

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

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.

Conclusions

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

Page 38

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

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.

Recommendations for
Executive Action

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:
•

•

Page 39

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.

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

Agency Comments
and Our Evaluation

•

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

Page 40

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

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 nonprobability 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

Page 41

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

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.

Richard M. Stana
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues

Page 42

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

List of Requesters
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson
Chairman
Committee on Homeland Security
House of Representatives
The Honorable Kendrick Meek
House of Representatives
The Honorable Zoe Lofgren
Chairwoman
Subcommittee on Immigration,
Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security,
and International Law
Committee on the Judiciary
House of Representatives
The Honorable Ed Markey
House of Representatives
The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton
House of Representatives
The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee
House of Representatives

Page 43

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

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 2006.1
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

1
Information obtained from these site visits is not generalizable because the sites selected
represent a nonprobability sample. Results from nonprobability samples can not be used to
make inferences about a population because in a nonprobability sample, some elements of
the population being studied have no chance or an unknown chance of being selected as
part of the sample.

Page 44

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

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:
•

Philadelphia Field Office
• Berks County Prison
• Berks County Youth Shelter
• Berks Family Shelter
• York County Prison

•

Newark Field Office
•
Elizabeth Detention Facility
•
Washington Field Office
•
Pamunkey Regional Jail
•
Hampton Roads Regional Jail

Page 45

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

•

New Orleans Field Office
•
West Baton Rouge Parish Detention Center
•
Bureau of Prisons Oakdale Federal Detention Center
•
Pine Prairie Correctional Center

•

Miami Field Office
•
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

•

San Diego Field Office
•
El Centro Service Processing Center
•
San Diego Correctional Facility
•
Casa De San Juan Family Shelter

•

Denver Field Office
•
Denver Contract Detention Facility
•
Seattle Field Office
•
Northwest Detention Center
•
Cowlitz County Juvenile Detention Center

•

San Antonio Field Office
•
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

Page 46

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

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.

Page 47

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

Appendix II: Alien Detention Population
Statistics

Appendix II: Alien Detention Population
Statistics
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 12: Criminal versus Noncriminal Aliens in Detention as of December 31, 2006
Noncriminal (16,681)

42%

Criminal (11,980)

58%

Source: GAO analysis of ICE data.

Page 48

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

Appendix II: Alien Detention Population
Statistics

Figure 13 shows the breakdown of criminal charges by criminal aliens.
Figure 13: Criminal Charges by Criminal Aliens as of December 31, 2006

Other

4%
Sexual assault
Unknown

12%
Assault

13%

30%

14%
27%

Immigration

Dangerous drugs
Source: GAO analysis of ICE data.

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.

Page 49

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

Appendix III: Juvenile and Family Detention
Standards

Appendix III: Juvenile and Family Detention
Standards
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.1 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.

1

The court-approved settlement agreement in the case of Flores v. Reno is the result of a
class action lawsuit filed against the former Immigration and Naturalization Service
challenging the agency’s arrest, processing, detention, and release of juveniles in its
custody. The agreement sets out nationwide policy for the detention, release, and
treatment of minors in the custody of ICE. Stipulated Settlement Agreement, Flores v.
Reno, No. CV85-4544-RJK (C.D. Cal. Jan 17, 1997).

Page 50

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

Appendix III: Juvenile and Family Detention
Standards

Figures 14, 15, and 16 show examples of juvenile and family shelter
facilities.
Figure 14: Outdoor Playground at Berks Family Shelter, Leesport, Pennsylvania,
September 2006

Source: GAO.

Page 51

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

Appendix III: Juvenile and Family Detention
Standards

Figure 15: Housing Unit at Berks Family Shelter, Leesport, Pennsylvania,
September 2006

Source: GAO.

Page 52

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

Appendix III: Juvenile and Family Detention
Standards

Figure 16: Classroom at Berks Family Shelter, Leesport, Pennsylvania, September
2006

Source: GAO.

Page 53

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

Appendix IV: Explanation of the Standards

Appendix IV: Explanation of the Standards

Table 1: Subjects of the ICE National Detention Standards
Detainee services

Security and control

1. Access to legal materials

1. Contraband

Facilities housing ICE detainees shall permit detainee access to a
law library, and provide legal materials, facilities, equipment and
document copying privileges and the opportunity to prepare legal
documents.

Establishes policies and procedures for handling and properly
disposing of contraband items, including those items that may be
a security threat to people or property.

2. Admission and release

2. Detention files

Establishes procedures for admission and release including initial
medical screenings, files and past history reviewed for
classification, searches, and inventorying and safeguarding
detainee property. Upon release, provides standards for identity
verification, documentation, and redistribution of property.

Establishes policies and procedures for maintaining a detention
file for all detainees in a facility for more than 24 hours, including
documents such as classification sheets, medical questionnaires,
and property inventory sheets.

3. Correspondence and other mail

3. Detainee transfers

Establishes procedures for detainees to send and receive both
general correspondence and legal and personal mail.

Establishes procedures and notification requirements to be
followed when transferring a detainee from one facility to another
for a variety of reasons.

4. Detainee classification system

4. Disciplinary policy

Establishes requirements for facilities to classify detainees
according to risk level upon intake based on previous criminal
history and other factors. Specifies that low-risk detainees are not
to be comingled with high-risk detainees.

Establishes disciplinary sanctions on any detainee whose
behavior is not in compliance with facility rules and procedures.

5. Detainee grievance procedures

5. Emergency plans

Requires facilities to develop plans for emergencies that are
Establishes procedures for detainees to submit grievances about
their conditions of confinement internally at the facility. Encourages reasonably likely to occur. The stated goal of these plans is to
detainees to resolve their grievances informally, but also specifies control the emergencies without endangering lives or property.
a formal system with multiple levels of appeal.
6. Environmental health and safety

6. Detainee handbook

Requires a facility to prepare a handbook for detainees in English Establishes a hazardous materials program for the control,
and the other most commonly spoken languages within the facility. handling, storage, and use of flammable, toxic, and caustic
materials at facilities.
The handbook is to describe the services, programs, and rules
within a facility.
7. Food service

7. Hold rooms in detention facilities

Specifies policy and procedures for preparation and distribution of
food to detainees, including levels of sanitation, nutritional content
analysis, and medical clearances for workers.

Establishes policies and procedures for hold rooms that are used
for the temporary detention of individuals awaiting removal,
transfer, Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR)
hearings, medical treatment, intrafacility movement, or other
processing into or out of the facility.

8. Funds and personal property

8. Key and lock control
(security, accountability, and maintenance)

Specifies policy for the control and storage of detainee personal
property while in detention.

Establishes a system for the use, accountability, and
maintenance of keys and locks at a facility.

9. Group presentations on legal rights

9. Population counts

Specifies policy and procedures for group presentations for the
purposes of informing detainees on U.S. immigration law and
procedures.

Establishes a system for the counting of detainees at facilities.
Formal and informal counts will be conducted as necessary to
ensure around-the-clock accountability for all detainees.

Page 54

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

Appendix IV: Explanation of the Standards

Detainee services

Security and control

10. Issuance and exchange of clothing, bedding, and towels

10. Post orders

Specifies the procedures associated with the issuance and
exchange of clothing, bedding, and towels, including issuance
immediately upon entry to the facility and the regular exchange of
clothing afterward.

Specifies that each officer at a facility will have written post orders
that specifically apply to his/her current duties. The post orders
will specify the duties of the post officer, along with instructions
on how to perform those duties.

11. Marriage requests

11. Security inspections

Specifies that all facilities have in place policy and procedures to
enable eligible detainees to marry.

Specifies that in an area with heightened security requirements, a
facility’s post officer must thoroughly understand all aspects of
facility operations. Specially trained officers only will be assigned
to these security inspection posts.

12. Nonmedical emergency escorted trips

12. Special management unit (administrative segregation)

Establishes procedures for detainees with approved staff escort to
visit critically ill members of their immediate family or attend their
funerals.

Specifies that each facility will establish a Special Management
Unit that will isolate certain detainees from the general population
for administrative reasons.

13. Recreation

13. Special management unit
(disciplinary segregation)

Specifies policies and procedures for detainees to have access to
recreational activities.

14. Religious practices

Specifies that each facility will establish a Special Management
Unit that will isolate certain detainees from the general population
for disciplinary reasons.
14. Tool control

Specifies policy and procedures related to detainee access to
Establishes a tool control policy with which all employees at a
religious practices, including the provision of religious services and facility shall comply. The Maintenance Supervisor shall maintain
availability of religious meals.
a computer-generated or typewritten inventory of tools and
equipment, and storage locations. These inventories shall be
current, filed, and readily available during an audit.
15. Staff-detainee communication

15. Transportation (land transportation)

Establishes procedures to allow for formal and informal contact
between ICE staff and detainees. Includes requirement for periodic
visits by ICE staff and provides for means for detainees to make
written requests to ICE staff.

Specifies reasonable precautions to protect the lives, safety, and
welfare of officers; other personnel; the general public; and the
detainees themselves involved in the ground transportation of
detainees.

16. Telephone access

16. Use of force

Specifies policy and procedures to provide for detainee access to
telephones. Requires facilities to provide a means for detainees to
reach consulates, pro bono legal providers, and immigration courts
among others.

Specifies that the use of force is authorized only after all
reasonable efforts to resolve a situation have failed. Officers shall
use as little force as necessary to gain control of the detainee; to
protect and ensure the safety of detainees, staff, and others; to
prevent serious property damage; and ensure the security and
orderly operation of the facility. Physical restraints shall be used
to gain control of an apparently dangerous detainee only under
specified conditions.

17. Visitation
Establishes policies and procedures for detainees to receive both
personal and legal visitors.
18. Voluntary work program
Establishes policies and procedures for detainees to voluntarily
work in the facility.

Page 55

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

Appendix IV: Explanation of the Standards

Health services
1. Hunger strikes
Establishes policy and procedures for facilities to respond to a
detainee hunger strike.
2. Medical care
Specifies policies and procedures for responding to detainee
medical needs, including a medical evaluation immediately upon
intake and a comprehensive physical examination within 14 days
of arrival at a facility.
3. Suicide prevention and intervention
Establishes policies and procedures designed to prevent and
respond to detainee suicide attempts
4. Terminal illness, advance directives, and death
Establishes policies and procedures for facilities to respond to a
detainee terminal illness, provide for advance directives, or death.
Source: GAO analysis of ICE data.

Page 56

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

Appendix V: Comments from the Department
of Homeland Security

Appendix V: Comments from the Department
of Homeland Security

Page 57

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

Appendix V: Comments from the Department
of Homeland Security

Page 58

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

Appendix V: Comments from the Department
of Homeland Security

Page 59

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

Appendix V: Comments from the Department
of Homeland Security

Page 60

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

Appendix V: Comments from the Department
of Homeland Security

Page 61

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

Appendix V: Comments from the Department
of Homeland Security

Page 62

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

Appendix V: Comments from the Department
of Homeland Security

Page 63

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

Appendix V: Comments from the Department
of Homeland Security

Page 64

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

Appendix V: Comments from the Department
of Homeland Security

Page 65

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

Appendix V: Comments from the Department
of Homeland Security

Page 66

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

Appendix V: Comments from the Department
of Homeland Security

Page 67

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and
Staff Acknowledgments

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff
Acknowledgments
GAO Contact

Richard M. Stana, (202) 512-8777 or StanaR@gao.gov

Acknowledgments

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.

(440515)

Page 68

GAO-07-875 Alien Detention Standards

GAO’s Mission

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of
GAO Reports and
Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To
have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go
to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.”

Order by Mail or Phone

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each.
A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders
should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548
To order by Phone: Voice:
TDD:
Fax:

(202) 512-6000
(202) 512-2537
(202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud,
Waste, and Abuse in
Federal Programs

Contact:

Congressional
Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

PRINTED ON

RECYCLED PAPER