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][email protected] . 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][email protected]

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][email protected]
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [42][email protected] (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][email protected] (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
[email protected].

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:[email protected]
  37. mailto:[email protected]
  38. http://www.gao.gov/
  39. http://www.gao.gov/
  40. http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
  41. mailto:[email protected]
  42. mailto:[email protected]
  43. mailto:[email protected]
  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. ***