    Alien Detention Standards: Telephone Access Problems Were
    Pervasive at Detention Facilities; Other Deficiencies Did Not
    Show a Pattern of Noncompliance (06-JUL-07, GAO-07-875).

    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.
    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-07-875
        ACCNO:   A72128
      TITLE:     Alien Detention Standards: Telephone Access Problems Were
    Pervasive at Detention Facilities; Other Deficiencies Did Not
    Show a Pattern of Noncompliance
         DATE:   07/06/2007
      SUBJECT:   Aliens
    	     Contract oversight
    	     Correctional facilities
    	     Detention facilities
    	     Food services
    	     Health care programs
    	     Health care services
    	     Internal controls
    	     Standards
    	     Telephone services
    	     Telephones

    ******************************************************************
    ** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
    ** GAO Product.                                                 **
    **                                                              **
    ** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
    ** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
    ** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
    **                                                              **
    ** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
    ** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
    ** document's contents.                                         **
    **                                                              **
    ******************************************************************
    GAO-07-875

         * [1]Results in Brief
         * [2]Background
         * [3]Field Visits at 23 Detention Facilities Showed Systemic Tele

              * [4]Systemic Problems in Detainees' Telephone Access Restrict De

                   * [5]Widespread Failures Found at Facilities We Visited in the
                     Pr
                   * [6]Insufficient Internal Controls Existed to Ensure Pro Bono
                     Te
                   * [7]ICE Not Monitoring Contractor Telephone System
                     Performance R
                   * [8]Some Telephone Contracts Provide for Commissions to
                     Detentio

              * [9]Compliance with Other Standards Varied but Did Not Show a Co

                   * [10]Medical Care
                   * [11]Hold Rooms
                   * [12]Use of Force
                   * [13]Food Service
                   * [14]Recreation
                   * [15]Access to Legal Materials
                   * [16]Detainee Grievance Procedures

              * [17]Detainee Populations Exceeded Rated Capacity at 4 of 23 Faci

         * [18]ICE's Review Mechanism Identified Deficiencies in Most Areas

              * [19]ICE Annual Compliance Inspection Reviews Have Identified Com
              * [20]Weaknesses in Inspection Checklist Permit Pro Bono Telephone

         * [21]Alien Detainees Filed Complaints with Several External Organ
         * [22]Conclusions
         * [23]Recommendations for Executive Action
         * [24]Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
         * [25]GAO Contact
         * [26]Acknowledgments
         * [27]GAO's Mission
         * [28]Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

              * [29]Order by Mail or Phone

         * [30]To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
         * [31]Congressional Relations
         * [32]Public Affairs

    Report to Congressional Requesters

    United States Government Accountability Office

    GAO

    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

    Contents

    Letter 1

    Results in Brief 5
    Background 7
    Field Visits at 23 Detention Facilities Showed Systemic Telephone Access
    Problems and Instances of Noncompliance with Other Standards 10
    ICE's Review Mechanism Identified Deficiencies in Most Areas, but
    Weaknesses Exist Regarding the Telephone System 30
    Alien Detainees Filed Complaints with Several External Organizations
    Concerning a Wide Range of Allegations 34
    Conclusions 38
    Recommendations for Executive Action 39
    Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 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
    Appendix VI GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 68

    Table

    Table 1: Subjects of the ICE National Detention Standards 54

    Figures

    Figure 1: Detainee Telephone System and Posted Pro Bono Call Lists at
    Denver Contract Detention Facility, October 2006 12
    Figure 2: Percentage of Successful Calls through ICE's Detainee Pro Bono
    Telephone System, November 2005 through November 2006 15
    Figure 3: Medical Exam Unit at Denver Contract Detention Facility, October
    2006 19
    Figure 4: Berks County Prison Dental Treatment Room, September 2006 20
    Figure 5: An Unclean Kitchen Grill at Denver Contract Detention Facility,
    October 2006 22
    Figure 6: Hampton Roads Regional Jail Indoor/Outdoor Recreation Area,
    October 2006 24
    Figure 7: Indoor/Outdoor Recreation at Denver Contract Detention Facility,
    October 2006 25
    Figure 8: Law Library at the San Diego Correctional Facility, September
    2006 27
    Figure 9: Portable Beds on the floor between Standard Beds at the Krome
    Service Processing Center, Miami, Florida, October 2006 28
    Figure 10: Portable Beds on the Floor between Standard Beds at the Denver
    Contract Detention Facility, Denver, Colorado, October 2006 30
    Figure 11: External Process for Filing Detainee Complaints 35
    Figure 12: Criminal versus Noncriminal Aliens in Detention as of December
    31, 2006 48
    Figure 13: Criminal Charges by Criminal Aliens as of December 31, 2006 49
    Figure 14: Outdoor Playground at Berks Family Shelter, Leesport,
    Pennsylvania, September 2006 51
    Figure 15: Housing Unit at Berks Family Shelter, Leesport, Pennsylvania,
    September 2006 52
    Figure 16: Classroom at Berks Family Shelter, Leesport, Pennsylvania,
    September 2006 53

    Abbreviations

    ABA American Bar Association
    ACA American Correctional Association
    CBP Customs and Border Protection
    CDF Contract Detention Facilities
    COTR Contracting Officer Technical Representative
    CRCL Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
    DFIG Detention Facilities Inspection Group
    DHS Department of Homeland Security
    DRO Office of Detention and Removal
    DOJ Department of Justice
    EOIR Executive Office for Immigration Review
    HHS Health and Human Services
    ICE Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    IGSA intergovernmental service agreement
    JIC Joint Intake Center
    JCAHO Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations
    NCCHC National Commission on Correctional Health Care
    OIG Office of the Inspector General
    OPR Office of Professional Responsibility
    PCS Public Communications Services
    PHS Public Health Service
    SPC Service Processing Centers
    UNHCR 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.

    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
    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.

    1Pew 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.

    2Office of Immigration Statistics, U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
    2005 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics.

    3Administrative proceedings can include removal proceedings and asylum
    hearings.

    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 hard-copy 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
    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?

    4ICE has separate standards that apply to juveniles at 19 juvenile and 3
    family detention facilities.

    5ICE 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.

    To address our objectives we,

               o 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;

               o 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;

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

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

               o 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 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.

    6These 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.

    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.

    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
    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 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 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 to detainees,
    such as fire evacuation instructions and detainee handbooks, be available
    in Spanish.

    7A 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.

    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.

    8In 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.

    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 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.

    9According 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.

    10ICE'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.

      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 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.

    11IGSA 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.

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

    Further, we found the PCS detainee telephone system to be cumbersome and
    complicated to use. For example, at Pamunkey Regional Jail, the automated
    system required eight different actions by the user to place a call. One
    of these actions added further confusion by instructing a detainee to
    select "collect call" in order to make a pro bono telephone system call.
    Similarly, at the Northwest Detention Center, detainees were offered only
    two voice prompt options when attempting to place a call using the pro
    bono telephone system: (1) to place a "collect call" and (2) to place a
    "credit card call."

    In some cases, we found that the pro bono telephone system requires
    detainees to input their Alien Registration Number (commonly referred to
    as an "A" number) as part of the process for making a pro bono telephone
    call.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 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.

    12The Alien Registration Number is the number assigned to an alien's
    administrative file for tracking purposes.

    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
    direct-dial these calls on a facility phone outside of the housing unit.
    Noting the poor performance of the pro bono telephone system it is
    important for facilities to post instructions for alternative means for
    detainees to complete calls in the event that the ICE pro bono telephone
    system is not functioning properly.

    13Department of State Web site for current lists of consulates can be
    found at [33]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 [34]http://www.usdoj.gov/eoir/probono/states.htm
    .

      ICE Not Monitoring Contractor Telephone System Performance Reports

    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.

    Figure 2: Percentage of Successful Calls through ICE's Detainee Pro Bono
    Telephone System, November 2005 through November 2006

    The contractor-provided performance data also contained information on
    systemwide facility success rates for completed calls. When we reviewed
    these data, we found that individual facilities showed a similar trend of
    poor performance in completing calls when detainees attempted to use the
    pro bono call system.

    Our discussions with ICE contract administration officials, including
    contract officials in the Office of Acquisition and the Contracting
    Officer Technical Representative (COTR) in DRO, indicated that there was
    little oversight of the telephone contract being performed. The ICE
    contracting officer assigned responsibility for the PCS contract told us
    that the PCS phone contract was operating essentially on "autopilot" in
    that there was limited oversight being performed of the contract. The
    contracting official also stated that he had not been informed of any
    performance-related contract issues by the ICE COTR, who he said was
    responsible for monitoring the technical performance of the contractor.
    When we interviewed the COTR, he told us that he was assigned
    contract-related duties on a collateral basis while serving as a full-time
    compliance reviewer in the Detention Standards Compliance unit of DRO. A
    senior official in ICE's Office of Acquisition said that the office faced
    significant challenges relating to turnover, understaffing, and loss of
    institutional knowledge regarding contract oversight and management. After
    several discussions with ICE contract and detention compliance officials
    concerning our findings of systemic problems with the pro bono calling
    system, the officials acknowledged that a lack of internal controls exists
    in its present system for monitoring detainee telephone system contractor
    performance and that greater contractor oversight is required. According
    to ICE officials, their intent is to issue a new telephone contract
    solicitation in the coming months. This contract for delivering pro bono
    telephone services is projected to be awarded by December 31, 2007.

      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 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 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.

    14According 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.

    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.

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

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

      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 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 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

    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
    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.

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

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

      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 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.

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

      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, 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

    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.

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

    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, 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, 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 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.

    15According 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.

    As discussed above, we found telephone access compliance deficiencies to
    be pervasive at the detention facilities we visited. However, at 16 of 17
    detention facilities that utilize the pro bono telephone system; the most
    recently available ICE inspection reports for these same facilities
    disclosed phone problems at only 5 of the 16 facilities. Of these 5
    facilities, 3 were given a rating of "deficient" or "at risk" for
    compliance with the telephone access standard that required the facility
    to submit a plan of action to resolve the deficiency. For the other two
    facilities, the problems were listed as a "concern" rather than a
    deficiency and as such, did not require a plan of action. The examples
    below illustrate the variations in how the ICE reviewer in charge reported
    telephone compliance problems.

    Elizabeth Detention Facility: At this facility, our analysts accompanied
    the ICE team during its annual compliance inspection. Although we advised
    the ICE team, ICE facility staff, and contractor management that the phone
    listings were out of date and the pro bono telephone system was not
    operating properly, ICE's final compliance report only addressed problems
    with outdated phone numbers and not the larger concern of telephone system
    problems.

    San Diego Correctional Facility: At San Diego, we also accompanied ICE
    reviewers who noted pro bono telephone system problems, including
    inaccurate and outdated phone lists and detainees being unable to make
    successful connections through the pro bono telephone system. In this
    case, the ICE reviewers detected the full range of telephone problems and
    reflected them in their final report, subsequently requiring the facility
    to a file a plan of action.

    Wakulla County Sheriff's Office: We visited this facility in October 2006
    and observed a full range of pro bono telephone system problems, including
    an inability to connect to consulates. Some of these problems were also
    cited during ICE's 2005 compliance review at this facility. In this review
    ICE rated the Telephone Access Standard at this facility as "at risk,"
    requiring that a plan of action be filed within 30 days and that noted
    deficiencies be addressed within 90 days. Despite these requirements, no
    corrective action was evident during our visit nearly a year later.

    According to ICE officials, the ICE Office of Professional Responsibility
    is creating a Detention Facilities Inspection Group (DFIG) within its
    Management Inspections Unit to independently validate detention
    inspections conducted by DRO. ICE officials stated that DFIG will perform
    quality assurance over the review process, ensure consistency in
    application of detention standards, and verify corrective action.
    According to these officials, experienced staff were assigned from other
    ICE components to this unit in February 2007.

    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.

    Figure 11: External Process for Filing Detainee Complaints

    Of the approximately 1,700 detainee complaints in the OIG database that
    were filed in fiscal years 2003 through 2006, OIG investigated 173 and
    referred the others to other DHS components as displayed in figure 11. As
    discussed earlier, the OIG complaint hotline telephone number was blocked
    or otherwise restricted at 12 of the facilities that we visited.
    Therefore, while some detainees at these facilities may have filed written
    complaints with the OIG, the number of reported allegations may not
    reflect the universe of detainee complaints. OIG has a system to record
    the type of complaint and its status (e.g., open investigation, closed due
    to insufficient information, or referred). Our review of approximately 750
    detainee complaints from fiscal years 2005 through 2006 showed that the
    complaints in the OIG database mostly involved issues relating to medical
    treatment; case management;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
    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.

    16"Case management" was defined as a complaint regarding the
    administrative handling of a detainee's case.

    17An allegation alleging that a detainee suffered mistreatment by ICE or
    facility contract personnel during detention.

    18Any allegation that claimed discrimination, alleged civil rights
    infractions, or human rights complaints.

    19Class 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.

    20OPR 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.

    21An 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.

    22An allegation is unsubstantiated when the evidence is not sufficient for
    a reasonable person to determine whether the subject employee committed
    the alleged misconduct.

    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,
    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.

    23GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,
    [35]GAO/AIMD-00-21 .3.1 (Washington, D.C.: November 1999), p. 15.

    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 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:

               o Amend the DRO compliance inspection process relating to the
               detainee telephone access standard to include:

                            o measures to ensure that facility and/or ICE staff
                            frequently test to confirm that the ICE pro bono
                            telephone system is functioning properly;
                            o 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.

               o 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.

               o 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.

               o Establish supervisory controls and procedures, including
               appropriate staffing, to ensure that DRO and Office of
               Acquisitions staff are properly monitoring contractor performance.

               o In regard to the contract with Public Communications Services,
               explore what recourse the government has available to it for
               contractor nonperformance.

               o 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.

               o 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.

    Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

    We provided a draft of this report to DHS for review and comment. DHS
    provided written comments on June 25, 2007, which are presented in
    appendix V. In commenting on the draft report, DHS stated it agreed with
    our seven recommendations and identified corrective actions it has planned
    or under way to address the problems. With regard to several of our
    recommendations, DHS believed that its progress in implementing corrective
    actions merited our closing them. For example, by memo of the DRO
    Assistant Director for Management, effective immediately, ICE staff are to
    verify serviceability of all telephones in detainee housing units by
    conducting random calls to pre-programmed numbers posted on the pro bono
    and consulate lists. ICE staff also are to interview a sampling of
    detainees and review written detainee complaints regarding detainee
    telephone access. The field office directors are to ensure that all phones
    in all applicable facilities are tested on a weekly basis. This appears to
    be a step in the right direction; however, proper implementation and
    oversight of this initiative will be needed to resolve the issues we
    identified. While we are encouraged by DHS's plans and actions designed to
    address the problems we identified in our report, we have not reviewed
    these plans and actions to determine whether they could resolve or have
    resolved the problems and thus will keep the recommendations open until
    these actions can be evaluated for sufficiency.

    DHS's official comments also raised three issues that require some
    clarification of our findings. First, DHS stated that the deficiencies we
    identified generally do not illustrate a pattern of noncompliance with ICE
    National Detention Standards, but rather, are isolated incidents, the
    exception being telephone access. While it is true that the only pervasive
    problem we identified related to the telephone system--a problem later
    confirmed by ICE's testing--we cannot state that the other deficiencies we
    identified in our visits were isolated. Our findings are based on a
    non-probability sample of 23 detention facilities that was not
    generalizable to all alien detention facilities. Moreover, we observed
    facility conditions at a point in time that could have been different
    before and after our visits.

    Second, DHS commented that GAO personnel stated in discussions that they
    did not test or validate the availability of some other means for
    detainees to make telephone connections when the detainee phones are
    unable to do so. This is not the case. We checked whether the facilities
    we visited offered alternative means to make telephone connections when
    the pro bono system was not working. With the exception of the Broward
    Transitional Center, we were not able to satisfy ourselves through
    interviews with facility officials and detainees that routine assistance
    was available to detainees to make pro bono calls when they were unable to
    make these calls on the telephones provided for this purpose.

    Third, DHS stated that it believes that figure 2 in our report, which
    shows low connection rates for the pro bono network, does not properly
    represent the number of calls that are not connected due to problems with
    the network or provider. DHS's comments included contractor data that
    point out that a detainee may input a wrong number, hang up before
    completing the call process, or call a pro bono attorney after business
    hours. We acknowledge there could be a variety of reasons why some calls
    may not have been completed over the period we reported on. However, these
    additional data do not explain our own test results in which we could not
    complete calls using the pro bono calling system at 16 of the 17
    facilities we tested. We also note that we invited detainees, facility
    personnel, and on-site ICE officials to attempt to make the same calls,
    and they confirmed the calls could not be completed. Further, after we
    brought the telephone deficiencies to their attention, ICE officials
    concluded that the telephone service contractor had not been in compliance
    with the terms and conditions of the contract.

    DHS also provided us with technical comments, which we considered and
    incorporated in the report where appropriate.

    If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact
    me at (202) 512-8777 or [36]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

    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

    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 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.

    1Information 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.

    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:

               o Philadelphia Field Office

                            o Berks County Prison
                            o Berks County Youth Shelter
                            o Berks Family Shelter
                            o York County Prison

               o Newark Field Office

                            o Elizabeth Detention Facility
                            o Washington Field Office
                            o Pamunkey Regional Jail
                            o Hampton Roads Regional Jail

               o New Orleans Field Office

                            o West Baton Rouge Parish Detention Center
                            o Bureau of Prisons Oakdale Federal Detention Center
                            o Pine Prairie Correctional Center

               o Miami Field Office

                            o Krome Service Processing Center
                            o Broward Transitional Center
                            o Wakulla County Sheriff's Office
                            o Los Angeles Field Office
                            o San Pedro Service Processing Center
                            o North Las Vegas Detention Center

               o San Diego Field Office

                            o El Centro Service Processing Center
                            o San Diego Correctional Facility
                            o Casa De San Juan Family Shelter

               o Denver Field Office

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

               o San Antonio Field Office

                            o T. Don Hutto Family Facility
                            o Laredo Contract Detention Facility

    To describe how reviews are conducted to ensure compliance with National
    Detention Standards, we interviewed DHS and ICE officials and analyzed
    documentation on staffing levels for ensuring compliance with alien
    detention standards, training provided to staff to ensure compliance with
    the standards, and processes in place to ensure compliance with the
    standards. To assess what pertinent complaints and reports have been filed
    with DHS and ICE and external organizations monitoring the treatment of
    alien detainees, we analyzed data on detainee complaints from the DHS OIG
    complaint database from fiscal years 2005 through 2006 using content
    analysis. For our content analysis, we reviewed about 750 detainee
    complaints and categorized them by type to be able to characterize common
    types of detainee complaints received by the OIG. We also obtained and
    reviewed information on the number and types of detainee complaints
    received from components within DHS and ICE for the period fiscal years
    2003-2006 as well as UNHCR for the period 1993 through 2006 and the ABA
    for the period January 2003 through February 2007. We did not
    independently assess the merits of detainee complaints. Also, we did not
    determine if any corrective actions suggested for the detention facilities
    as a result of Office of Detention and Removal (DRO) reviews or detainee
    complaints were implemented.

    To assess the reliability of OIG detainee complaint data for the period
    fiscal years 2005 through 2006, we reviewed existing information about the
    data and the system that produced them and interviewed agency officials
    knowledgeable about the data. On the basis of our review of this
    information and these discussions, we determined the OIG data to be
    sufficiently reliable for our purposes. Regarding the DRO complaints
    database, we reviewed existing information about the data and the system
    that produced them and interviewed agency officials knowledgeable about
    the data. On the basis of our review of this information and these
    discussions, we determined that this information was not sufficiently
    reliable for audit purposes. In regard to other data sources that we
    reviewed, on the basis of our discussions with agency officials
    knowledgeable about the data, we also determined that these sources were
    sufficiently reliable for purposes of our review. In the case of
    contractor performance data, we could not independently verify the
    accuracy of the data, but did corroborate these data with other sources
    and determined they were reliable for our purposes. Our work was conducted
    from May 2006 through May 2007 in accordance with generally accepted
    government auditing standards.

    While we focused our review on DHS and ICE, we also contacted officials at
    the Departments of Justice, Health and Human Services, and State to
    discuss other issues related to alien detention, such as the custody of
    ICE alien detainees at the Bureau of Prisons facilities, the care of
    juvenile aliens in Health and Human Services custody, and the treatment of
    refugees and asylum seekers in detention.

    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

    Figure 13 shows the breakdown of criminal charges by criminal aliens.

    Figure 13: Criminal Charges by Criminal Aliens as of December 31, 2006

    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.

    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.

    1The 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).

    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

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

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

    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 Establishes policies and procedures for
    shall permit detainee access to  handling and properly disposing of
    a law library, and provide legal contraband items, including those items
    materials, facilities, equipment that may be a security threat to people
    and document copying privileges  or property.
    and the opportunity to prepare
    legal documents.
    2. Admission and release         2. Detention files

    Establishes procedures for       Establishes policies and procedures for
    admission and release including  maintaining a detention file for all
    initial medical screenings,      detainees in a facility for more than 24
    files and past history reviewed  hours, including documents such as
    for classification, searches,    classification sheets, medical
    and inventorying and             questionnaires, and property inventory
    safeguarding detainee property.  sheets.
    Upon release, provides standards
    for identity verification,
    documentation, and
    redistribution of property.
    3. Correspondence and other mail 3. Detainee transfers

    Establishes procedures for       Establishes procedures and notification
    detainees to send and receive    requirements to be followed when
    both general correspondence and  transferring a detainee from one facility
    legal and personal mail.         to another for a variety of reasons.
    4. Detainee classification       4. Disciplinary policy
    system
                                        Establishes disciplinary sanctions on any
    Establishes requirements for     detainee whose behavior is not in
    facilities to classify detainees compliance with facility rules and
    according to risk level upon     procedures.
    intake based on previous
    criminal history and other
    factors. Specifies that low-risk
    detainees are not to be
    comingled with high-risk
    detainees.
    5. Detainee grievance procedures 5. Emergency plans

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

    Requires a facility to prepare a Establishes a hazardous materials program
    handbook for detainees in        for the control, handling, storage, and
    English and the other most       use of flammable, toxic, and caustic
    commonly spoken languages within materials at facilities.
    the facility. 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  Establishes policies and procedures for
    for preparation and distribution hold rooms that are used for the
    of food to detainees, including  temporary detention of individuals
    levels of sanitation,            awaiting removal, transfer, Executive
    nutritional content analysis,    Office for Immigration Review (EOIR)
    and medical clearances for       hearings, medical treatment,
    workers.                         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 Establishes a system for the use,
    property while in detention.     accountability, and maintenance of keys
                                        and locks at a facility.
    9. Group presentations on legal  9. Population counts
    rights
                                        Establishes a system for the counting of
    Specifies policy and procedures  detainees at facilities. Formal and
    for group presentations for the  informal counts will be conducted as
    purposes of informing detainees  necessary to ensure around-the-clock
    on U.S. immigration law and      accountability for all detainees.
    procedures.
    Detainee services                Security and control
    10. Issuance and exchange of     10. Post orders
    clothing, bedding, and towels
                                        Specifies that each officer at a facility
    Specifies the procedures         will have written post orders that
    associated with the issuance and specifically apply to his/her current
    exchange of clothing, bedding,   duties. The post orders will specify the
    and towels, including issuance   duties of the post officer, along with
    immediately upon entry to the    instructions on how to perform those
    facility and the regular         duties.
    exchange of clothing afterward.
    11. Marriage requests            11. Security inspections

    Specifies that all facilities    Specifies that in an area with heightened
    have in place policy and         security requirements, a facility's post
    procedures to enable eligible    officer must thoroughly understand all
    detainees to marry.              aspects of facility operations. Specially
                                        trained officers only will be assigned to
                                        these security inspection posts.
    12. Nonmedical emergency         12. Special management unit
    escorted trips                   (administrative segregation)

    Establishes procedures for       Specifies that each facility will
    detainees with approved staff    establish a Special Management Unit that
    escort to visit critically ill   will isolate certain detainees from the
    members of their immediate       general population for administrative
    family or attend their funerals. reasons.
    13. Recreation                   13. Special management unit (disciplinary
                                        segregation)
    Specifies policies and
    procedures for detainees to have Specifies that each facility will
    access to recreational           establish a Special Management Unit that
    activities.                      will isolate certain detainees from the
                                        general population for disciplinary
                                        reasons.
    14. Religious practices          14. Tool control

    Specifies policy and procedures  Establishes a tool control policy with
    related to detainee access to    which all employees at a facility shall
    religious practices, including   comply. The Maintenance Supervisor shall
    the provision of religious       maintain a computer-generated or
    services and availability of     typewritten inventory of tools and
    religious meals.                 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  Specifies reasonable precautions to
    for formal and informal contact  protect the lives, safety, and welfare of
    between ICE staff and detainees. officers; other personnel; the general
    Includes requirement for         public; and the detainees themselves
    periodic visits by ICE staff and involved in the ground transportation of
    provides for means for detainees detainees.
    to make written requests to ICE
    staff.
    16. Telephone access             16. Use of force

    Specifies policy and procedures  Specifies that the use of force is
    to provide for detainee access   authorized only after all reasonable
    to telephones. Requires          efforts to resolve a situation have
    facilities to provide a means    failed. Officers shall use as little
    for detainees to reach           force as necessary to gain control of the
    consulates, pro bono legal       detainee; to protect and ensure the
    providers, and immigration       safety of detainees, staff, and others;
    courts among 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.
    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.

    Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security

    Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

    GAO Contact

    Richard M. Stana, (202) 512-8777 or [37]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)

    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 ( [38]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
    [39]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: (202) 512-6000
    TDD: (202) 512-2537
    Fax: (202) 512-6061

    To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

    Contact:

    Web site: [40]www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
    E-mail: [41]fraudnet@gao.gov
    Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

    Congressional Relations

    Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [42]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, [43]AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
    U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
    Washington, D.C. 20548

    [44]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.

    Highlights of [45]GAO-07-875 , a 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

    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.

    [46]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.

    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.

    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

    References

    Visible links
      33. http://www.state.gov/s/cpr/rls/fco/fallwinter2/
      34. http://www.usdoj.gov/eoir/probono/states.htm
      35. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/AIMD-00-21
      36. mailto:StanaR@gao.gov
      37. mailto:StanaR@gao.gov
      38. http://www.gao.gov/
      39. http://www.gao.gov/
      40. http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
      41. mailto:fraudnet@gao.gov
      42. mailto:JarmonG@gao.gov
      43. mailto:AndersonP1@gao.gov
      44. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-875
      45. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-875
    *** End of document. ***