Alien Detention Standards
Telephone Access Problems Were Pervasive at Detention Facilities; Other Deficiencies Did Not Show a Pattern of Noncompliance Gao ID: GAO-07-875 July 6, 2007The total number of aliens detained per year by the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) increased from about 95,000 in fiscal year 2001 to 283,000 in 2006. The care and treatment of these detained aliens is a significant challenge to ICE. GAO was asked to review ICE's implementation of its detention standards for aliens in its custody. GAO reviewed (1) detention facilities' compliance with ICE's detention standards, (2) ICE's compliance review process, and (3) how detainee complaints regarding conditions of confinement are handled. To conduct its work, GAO reviewed DHS documents, interviewed program officials, and visited 23 detention facilities of varying size, type, and geographic location.
GAO's observations at 23 alien detention facilities showed systemic telephone system problems at 16 of 17 facilities that use the pro bono telephone system, but no pattern of noncompliance for other standards GAO reviewed. At facilities that use the ICE detainee pro bono telephone system, GAO encountered significant problems in making connections to consulates, pro bono legal providers, or the DHS Office of the Inspector General (OIG) complaint hotline. Monthly performance data provided by the phone system contractor indicates 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.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-07-875, Alien Detention Standards: Telephone Access Problems Were Pervasive at Detention Facilities; Other Deficiencies Did Not Show a Pattern of Noncompliance
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-875
entitled 'Alien Detention Standards: Telephone Access Problems Were
Pervasive at Detention Facilities; Other Deficiencies Did Not Show a
Pattern of Noncompliance' which was released on June 6, 2007.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
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. 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.
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:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-875, a report to congressional requesters
Why GAO Did This Study:
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.
What GAO Found:
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.
Figure: Percentage of Successful Calls through ICE's Detainee Pro Bono
Telephone System, November 2005 through November 2006:
[See PDF for Image]
Source: GAO analysis of ICE contractor provided data.
[End of figure]
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.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-875].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Richard M. Stana at (202)
512-8777 or StanaR@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Field Visits at 23 Detention Facilities Showed Systemic Telephone
Access Problems and Instances of Noncompliance with Other Standards:
ICE's Review Mechanism Identified Deficiencies in Most Areas, but
Weaknesses Exist Regarding the Telephone System:
Alien Detainees Filed Complaints with Several External Organizations
Concerning a Wide Range of Allegations:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Alien Detention Population Statistics:
Appendix III: Juvenile and Family Detention Standards:
Appendix IV: Explanation of the Standards:
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Table:
Table 1: Subjects of the ICE National Detention Standards:
Figures:
Figure 1: Detainee Telephone System and Posted Pro Bono Call Lists at
Denver Contract Detention Facility, October 2006:
Figure 2: Percentage of Successful Calls through ICE's Detainee Pro
Bono Telephone System, November 2005 through November 2006:
Figure 3: Medical Exam Unit at Denver Contract Detention Facility,
October 2006:
Figure 4: Berks County Prison Dental Treatment Room, September 2006:
Figure 5: An Unclean Kitchen Grill at Denver Contract Detention
Facility, October 2006:
Figure 6: Hampton Roads Regional Jail Indoor/Outdoor Recreation Area,
October 2006:
Figure 7: Indoor/Outdoor Recreation at Denver Contract Detention
Facility, October 2006:
Figure 8: Law Library at the San Diego Correctional Facility, September
2006:
Figure 9: Portable Beds on the floor between Standard Beds at the Krome
Service Processing Center, Miami, Florida, October 2006:
Figure 10: Portable Beds on the Floor between Standard Beds at the
Denver Contract Detention Facility, Denver, Colorado, October 2006:
Figure 11: External Process for Filing Detainee Complaints:
Figure 12: Criminal versus Noncriminal Aliens in Detention as of
December 31, 2006:
Figure 13: Criminal Charges by Criminal Aliens as of December 31, 2006:
Figure 14: Outdoor Playground at Berks Family Shelter, Leesport,
Pennsylvania, September 2006:
Figure 15: Housing Unit at Berks Family Shelter, Leesport,
Pennsylvania, September 2006:
Figure 16: Classroom at Berks Family Shelter, Leesport, Pennsylvania,
September 2006:
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:
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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.
The National Detention Standards apply to the 330 adult and 3 family
detention facilities that ICE uses to detain aliens.[Footnote 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 system[Footnote 5] 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?
To address our objectives we,
* conducted visits to a nonprobability sample of detention facilities
to observe conditions of confinement, implementation of the standards,
and extent of compliance with alien detention standards;
* interviewed DHS and ICE officials responsible for compliance with
alien detention standards and analyzed documentation on staffing levels
devoted to ensuring compliance with alien detention standards and
associated guidance and training provided to personnel to oversee
compliance with the standards;
* interviewed DHS and ICE officials and analyzed DHS documentation on
efforts, methodologies, and internal controls used to evaluate
compliance with the standards;
* analyzed data on pro bono telephone system performance provided by
the ICE telephone contractor; and:
* analyzed data on detention-related complaints filed by alien
detainees or their representatives with the OIG, and reviewed
information on the number and type of detainee complaints received by
DHS and ICE components, and nongovernmental organizations assisting
alien detainees.
On the basis of interviews with the United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees (UNHCR), ABA, and OIG officials, we selected a
nonprobability sample of 8 of 38 ICE National Detention Standards to
review at the detention facilities we visited. The 8 standards we
selected are telephone access, medical care, hold rooms
procedures,[Footnote 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.
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.[Footnote 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.
The ICE National Detention Standards are to apply to ICE-owned
detention facilities and those state and local facilities that house
alien detainees.[Footnote 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.
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,[Footnote 9] since some facilities had the use of Tasers
either authorized in policy or facility officials stated they used
these methods.[Footnote 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.
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.[Footnote 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.
Figure 1: Detainee Telephone System and Posted Pro Bono Call Lists at
Denver Contract Detention Facility, October 2006:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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.[Footnote 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.
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.[Footnote 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.
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:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of ICE contractor provided data.
[End of figure]
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.[Footnote 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.
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:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Figure 4: Berks County Prison Dental Treatment Room, September 2006:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Figure 7: Indoor/Outdoor Recreation at Denver Contract Detention
Facility, October 2006:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Figure 10: 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:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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.[Footnote 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.
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:
[See PDF for image]
Source: Department of Homeland Security.
[End of figure]
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;[Footnote 16] mistreatment;[Footnote 17] protesting
detention or deportation; civil rights, human rights, or
discrimination;[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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,[Footnote 20] 26
unfounded,[Footnote 21] and 65 unsubstantiated.[Footnote 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.
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.[Footnote 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.
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:
* Amend the DRO compliance inspection process relating to the detainee
telephone access standard to include:
- measures to ensure that facility and/or ICE staff frequently test to
confirm that the ICE pro bono telephone system is functioning properly;
- revisions to ICE's compliance review worksheet to require ICE
reviewers, while conducting annual reviews of the telephone access
standard at detention facilities, to test the detainee pro bono
telephone system by attempting to connect calls and record any
automated voice messages as to why the call is not being put through.
* Require the posting in detention facilities of instructions for
alternative means for detainees to complete calls in the event that the
ICE pro bono telephone system is not functioning properly.
* Direct ICE staff to establish procedures for identifying any changes
to phone numbers available from EOIR, the Department of State, and the
OIG and for promptly updating the pro bono telephone numbers posted in
detention facilities.
* Establish supervisory controls and procedures, including appropriate
staffing, to ensure that DRO and Office of Acquisitions staff are
properly monitoring contractor performance.
* In regard to the contract with Public Communications Services,
explore what recourse the government has available to it for contractor
nonperformance.
* In competing a new telephone contract, ensure that the new contract
contains adequate protections and recourse for the government in the
event of contractor nonperformance.
* Develop a formal tracking system to ensure that all detainee
complaints referred to DRO are reviewed and the disposition, including
any corrective action, is recorded for later examination.
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 StanaR@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are
acknowledged in appendix VI.
Signed by:
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:
[End of section]
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.[Footnote 24] 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.
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.
[End of section]
The detention sites visited are:
* Philadelphia Field Office:
- Berks County Prison:
- Berks County Youth Shelter:
- Berks Family Shelter:
- York County Prison:
* Newark Field Office:
- Elizabeth Detention Facility:
- Washington Field Office:
- Pamunkey Regional Jail:
- Hampton Roads Regional Jail:
* New Orleans Field Office:
- West Baton Rouge Parish Detention Center:
- Bureau of Prisons Oakdale Federal Detention Center:
- Pine Prairie Correctional Center:
* Miami Field Office:
- Krome Service Processing Center:
- Broward Transitional Center:
- Wakulla County Sheriff's Office:
* Los Angeles Field Office:
- San Pedro Service Processing Center:
- North Las Vegas Detention Center:
* San Diego Field Office:
- El Centro Service Processing Center:
- San Diego Correctional Facility:
- Casa De San Juan Family Shelter:
* Denver Field Office:
- Denver Contract Detention Facility:
- Seattle Field Office:
- Northwest Detention Center:
- Cowlitz County Juvenile Detention Center:
* San Antonio Field Office:
- T. Don Hutto Family Facility:
- Laredo Contract Detention Facility:
To describe how reviews are conducted to ensure compliance with
National Detention Standards, we interviewed DHS and ICE officials and
analyzed documentation on staffing levels for ensuring compliance with
alien detention standards, training provided to staff to ensure
compliance with the standards, and processes in place to ensure
compliance with the standards. To assess what pertinent complaints and
reports have been filed with DHS and ICE and external organizations
monitoring the treatment of alien detainees, we analyzed data on
detainee complaints from the DHS OIG complaint database from fiscal
years 2005 through 2006 using content analysis. For our content
analysis, we reviewed about 750 detainee complaints and categorized
them by type to be able to characterize common types of detainee
complaints received by the OIG. We also obtained and reviewed
information on the number and types of detainee complaints received
from components within DHS and ICE for the period fiscal years 2003-
2006 as well as UNHCR for the period 1993 through 2006 and the ABA for
the period January 2003 through February 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.
[End of section]
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:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of ICE data.
[End of figure]
Figure 13 shows the breakdown of criminal charges by criminal aliens.
Figure 13: Criminal Charges by Criminal Aliens as of December 31, 2006:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of ICE data.
[End of figure]
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.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Juvenile and Family Detention Standards:
[End of section]
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.[Footnote
25] 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.
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:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Figure 15: Housing Unit at Berks Family Shelter, Leesport,
Pennsylvania, September 2006:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Figure 16: Classroom at Berks Family Shelter, Leesport, Pennsylvania,
September 2006:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix IV Explanation of the Standards:
Table 1: Subjects of the ICE National Detention Standards:
Detainee services: 1. Access to legal materials; Facilities housing ICE
detainees shall permit detainee access to a law library, and provide
legal materials, facilities, equipment and document copying privileges
and the opportunity to prepare legal documents;
Security and control: 1. Contraband; Establishes policies and
procedures for handling and properly disposing of contraband items,
including those items that may be a security threat to people or
property.
Detainee services: 2. Admission and release; Establishes procedures for
admission and release including initial medical screenings, files and
past history reviewed for classification, searches, and inventorying
and safeguarding detainee property. Upon release, provides standards
for identity verification, documentation, and redistribution of
property;
Security and control: 2. Detention files; Establishes policies and
procedures for maintaining a detention file for all detainees in a
facility for more than 24 hours, including documents such as
classification sheets, medical questionnaires, and property inventory
sheets.
Detainee services: 3. Correspondence and other mail; Establishes
procedures for detainees to send and receive both general
correspondence and legal and personal mail;
Security and control: 3. Detainee transfers; Establishes procedures and
notification requirements to be followed when transferring a detainee
from one facility to another for a variety of reasons.
Detainee services: 4. Detainee classification system; Establishes
requirements for facilities to classify detainees according to risk
level upon intake based on previous criminal history and other factors.
Specifies that low-risk detainees are not to be comingled with high-
risk detainees;
Security and control: 4. Disciplinary policy; Establishes disciplinary
sanctions on any detainee whose behavior is not in compliance with
facility rules and procedures.
Detainee services: 5. Detainee grievance procedures; Establishes
procedures for detainees to submit grievances about their conditions of
confinement internally at the facility. Encourages detainees to resolve
their grievances informally, but also specifies a formal system with
multiple levels of appeal;
Security and control: 5. Emergency plans; Requires facilities to
develop plans for emergencies that are reasonably likely to occur. The
stated goal of these plans is to control the emergencies without
endangering lives or property.
Detainee services: 6. Detainee handbook; Requires a facility to prepare
a handbook for detainees in English and the other most commonly spoken
languages within the facility. The handbook is to describe the
services, programs, and rules within a facility;
Security and control: 6. Environmental health and safety; Establishes a
hazardous materials program for the control, handling, storage, and use
of flammable, toxic, and caustic materials at facilities.
Detainee services: 7. Food service; Specifies policy and procedures for
preparation and distribution of food to detainees, including levels of
sanitation, nutritional content analysis, and medical clearances for
workers;
Security and control: 7. Hold rooms in detention facilities;
Establishes policies and procedures for hold rooms that are used for
the temporary detention of individuals awaiting removal, transfer,
Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) hearings, medical
treatment, intrafacility movement, or other processing into or out of
the facility.
Detainee services: 8. Funds and personal property; Specifies policy for
the control and storage of detainee personal property while in
detention;
Security and control: 8. Key and lock control (security,
accountability, and maintenance); Establishes a system for the use,
accountability, and maintenance of keys and locks at a facility.
Detainee services: 9. Group presentations on legal rights; Specifies
policy and procedures for group presentations for the purposes of
informing detainees on U.S. immigration law and procedures;
Security and control: 9. Population counts; Establishes a system for
the counting of detainees at facilities. Formal and informal counts
will be conducted as necessary to ensure around-the-clock
accountability for all detainees.
Detainee services: 10. Issuance and exchange of clothing, bedding, and
towels; Specifies the procedures associated with the issuance and
exchange of clothing, bedding, and towels, including issuance
immediately upon entry to the facility and the regular exchange of
clothing afterward;
Security and control: 10. Post orders; Specifies that each officer at a
facility will have written post orders that specifically apply to
his/her current duties. The post orders will specify the duties of the
post officer, along with instructions on how to perform those duties.
Detainee services: 11. Marriage requests; Specifies that all facilities
have in place policy and procedures to enable eligible detainees to
marry;
Security and control: 11. Security inspections; Specifies that in an
area with heightened security requirements, a facility's post officer
must thoroughly understand all aspects of facility operations.
Specially trained officers only will be assigned to these security
inspection posts.
Detainee services: 12. Nonmedical emergency escorted trips; Establishes
procedures for detainees with approved staff escort to visit critically
ill members of their immediate family or attend their funerals;
Security and control: 12. Special management unit (administrative
segregation); Specifies that each facility will establish a Special
Management Unit that will isolate certain detainees from the general
population for administrative reasons.
Detainee services: 13. Recreation; Specifies policies and procedures
for detainees to have access to recreational activities;
Security and control: 13. Special management unit (disciplinary
segregation); Specifies that each facility will establish a Special
Management Unit that will isolate certain detainees from the general
population for disciplinary reasons.
Detainee services: 14. Religious practices; Specifies policy and
procedures related to detainee access to religious practices, including
the provision of religious services and availability of religious
meals;
Security and control: 14. Tool control; Establishes a tool control
policy with which all employees at a facility shall comply. The
Maintenance Supervisor shall maintain a computer-generated or
typewritten inventory of tools and equipment, and storage locations.
These inventories shall be current, filed, and readily available during
an audit.
Detainee services: 15. Staff-detainee communication; Establishes
procedures to allow for formal and informal contact between ICE staff
and detainees. Includes requirement for periodic visits by ICE staff
and provides for means for detainees to make written requests to ICE
staff;
Security and control: 15. Transportation (land transportation);
Specifies reasonable precautions to protect the lives, safety, and
welfare of officers; other personnel; the general public; and the
detainees themselves involved in the ground transportation of
detainees.
Detainee services: 16. Telephone access; Specifies policy and
procedures to provide for detainee access to telephones. Requires
facilities to provide a means for detainees to reach consulates, pro
bono legal providers, and immigration courts among others;
Security and control: 16. Use of force; Specifies that the use of force
is authorized only after all reasonable efforts to resolve a situation
have failed. Officers shall use as little force as necessary to gain
control of the detainee; to protect and ensure the safety of detainees,
staff, and others; to prevent serious property damage; and ensure the
security and orderly operation of the facility. Physical restraints
shall be used to gain control of an apparently dangerous detainee only
under specified conditions.
Detainee services: 17. Visitation; Establishes policies and procedures
for detainees to receive both personal and legal visitors;
Security and control: [Empty].
Detainee services: 18. Voluntary work program; Establishes policies and
procedures for detainees to voluntarily work in the facility;
Security and control: [Empty].
Detainee services: 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;
Security and control: [Empty].
Source: GAO analysis of ICE data.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Washington, DC 20528:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Homeland Security:
June 25, 2007:
Mr. Richard M. Stana:
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Stana:
RE: Draft Report GAO-07-875, Alien Detention Standards: Telephone
Access Problems Were Pervasive at Detention Facilities; Other
Deficiencies Did Not Show a Pattern of Noncompliance (GAO Job Code
440515):
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appreciates the opportunity
to review and comment on the draft report referenced above. We agree
with the seven recommendations. U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) officials have either completed steps to correct
identified problems or have started to do so.
As noted in the draft report, identified deficiencies generally do not
illustrate a pattern of noncompliance with the ICE National Detention
Standards (NDS) but rather are isolated incidents, the exception being
telephone access. Since the time of the review, ICE has worked
vigorously to address all of the U.S. Government Accountability
Office's (GAO's) concerns, with special attention to improving
telephone access. It should be noted that the telephone access contract
is based upon a legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service contract
framework. In addition to internal efforts, ICE officials also have
requested an audit by the DHS Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of
telephone services to detention facilities to ensure that this problem
does not continue.
Beyond addressing these specific issues, ICE continues to exercise
rigorous national oversight of its detention facilities. In furtherance
of this effort, ICE created the Detention Facilities Inspection Group
(DFIG) within its Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). The DFIG
performs quality assurance reviews of the Office of Detention and
Removal Operations (DRO) detention facility review process, ensures
consistent application of the National Detention Standards, and
verifies corrective actions. This additional oversight will complement
the current DRO Detention Standards Compliance Program and ensure ICE
detention facilities remain safe and secure while providing appropriate
conditions for detainees.
ICE's NDS were implemented in 2001. The NDS were developed in
coordination with subject matter experts from within various components
of the Department of Justice and non-governmental entities, such as the
American Bar Association. DRO is currently engaged in a major
initiative to improve the delivery of care to detainees by converting
the standards into a performance-based format, consistent with the
approach used by the American Correctional Association. The revised
standards, practices, and outcome measures will enable ICE to not only
monitor activities but also to measure outcomes over time.
ICE also remains committed to ensuring that all Service Processing
Centers (SPCs) and Contract Detention Facilities (CDFs) that house ICE
detainees fully comply with the NDS, and that Intergovernmental Service
Agreement (IGSA) facilities managed by other law enforcement agencies
meet the intent of those standards.
GAO recommends that the Secretary of Homeland Security direct the
Assistant Secretary for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to
take the following actions 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's
National Detention Standards and that all detainee complaints are
reviewed and acted upon as necessary.
Recommendation 1A: Amend the DRO compliance inspection process relating
to the detainee telephone access standard to include measures to ensure
that facility and/or ICE staff frequently test to confirm that the ICE
pro bono telephone system is functioning properly.
ICE Response: ICE concurs with this recommendation. The detention
standard for telephone access requires detention facilities to provide
reasonable and equitable access to telephones and allow detainees to
make free access calls to consulate offices, community-based free ("pro
bono") legal service organizations, and to the DHS OIG.
To facilitate these free access calls, ICE contracted with Public
Communication Services Inc. (PCS) on January 22, 2004 to maintain what
is known as the free "Pro-Bono Platform." This "platform" allows ICE
detainees to make free calls by using a toll-free telephone number and/
or preprogrammed speed dial numbers.
ICE's National Detention Standards require that facilities provide
"some other means" to meet this requirement when detainee phones are
unable to do so. The ICE standards require that in instances when
detainees advise staff that they cannot make the free access calls
required by the standard, facilities may provide cell phones for
detainee use or, as in most cases, escort detainees to facility
administrative phones to make such calls. GAO did not include in the
draft report whether facilities were providing detainees with another
means of making these free access calls. The GAO personnel also stated
in discussions that they did not test or validate the availability of
this crucial element of the standards.
As a result of the issues identified by the GAO, ICE has taken steps to
further enhance the delivery of free access calls for detainees and is
being proactive in its efforts to address the issues. Specifically, on
April 4, 2007, DRO issued a memorandum directive to all Field Office
Directors regarding detainee telephone services. The directive, which
took effect April 6, 2007, requires that all telephones in facilities
for ICE detainees be checked weekly for serviceability. These
serviceability checks are to verify that phones are working, that the
telephones can connect to the "pro-bono" platform, and have
connectivity to a selection of consulates and pro-bono services, the
OIG, and the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR). The ICE
review worksheet already has specific line items for reviewers to
ensure that facilities provide detainees with the ability to make non-
collect (special access) calls, and that call blocking or other
telephonic restrictions are not used on detainees attempting to contact
attorneys and legal service providers who are on the approved "Free
Legal Services List." The memorandum requires field offices to maintain
a record of serviceability checks and subsequent corrective actions to
verify compliance and document efforts to correct service problems.
In addition, ICE is conducting random compliance audits to ensure that
field office personnel are fully implementing the directive. DRO is
working with the Office of Acquisition Management (OAQ to develop a Web-
based work request system to report telephone service problems. ICE
officials anticipate that the system will reduce the periods of
inoperability after telephone service problems are first identified by
providing real-time reporting capabilities to telephone service
providers and to ICE oversight staff. The Web-based system will also
provide trend analysis of phone problems to identify trouble areas or
technical equipment problems. A draft version has been developed and is
currently under review. ICE officials expect to implement the system
before September 30, 2007.
ICE requests that this recommendation be considered resolved and open
pending the implementation of the remaining portions of this response.
Recommendation 1B: Amend the DRO compliance inspection process relating
to the detainee telephone access standard to include 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.
ICE Response: ICE concurs with this recommendation. ICE has designated
Agency Technical Representatives (ATRs) to provide "eyes and ears" on
the ground for the Contracting Officer. ATRs will be responsible for
monitoring telephone service within their areas of responsibility and
for reporting issues to the Contracting Officer, Contracting Officers
Technical Representative (COTR), and the service provider through the
Web-based system.
ICE will require PCS to conduct training of field personnel regarding
use of the PCS/ICE Web site. The training shall be in either a Web-
based or manual format that will enable proper use of this tool. The
Web site will allow the addition/deletion of telephone numbers locally
and the removal of call blocking among other options. Additionally, the
Web site will soon offer online trouble ticket reporting. ICE OAQ is
developing a task order for the contractor to ensure the training is
completed. ICE currently has scheduled the training for July 24-26,
2007 and August 7-9, 2007.
ICE OAQ has also developed a Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan to
enhance consistent oversight of PCS performance. In this way, ICE has
increased overall oversight of the PCS contract to include monitoring
response times and repair times, while ensuring full compliance with
contract terms and conditions.
As previously noted ICE has also established an inspections group
within OPR that is responsible for providing independent oversight of
DRO detention facility inspections, and for other related areas of
concern such as detainee telephone access. OPR will also provide
independent review of all detention compliance reviews conducted by
DRO. As necessary, OPR will alert DRO to any deficient or at-risk
facilities identified so that immediate management action may be
undertaken.
ICE requests that this recommendation be resolved and closed.
Recommendation 2: Require the posting of instructions in detention
facilities for alternative means for detainees to complete calls in the
event that the ICE pro bono telephone system is not functioning
properly.
ICE Response: ICE concurs in principle with this recommendation. In
fact, ICE believes that a better long-term solution would be to include
the information in the ICE Detainee Handbook rather than post the
information. Posted information is frequently damaged and destroyed in
detention facilities. By publishing the information in the Detainee
Handbook, detainees will have a greater degree of access to a more
durable source.
ICE developed the Detainee Handbook for use by detainees regardless of
where they are detained. Notification that detention facilities must
provide detainees with an alternative means to complete calls in the
event that the ICE pro-bono telephone system is not functioning
properly will be included in the handbook. The handbook will direct
detainees to seek facility or ICE staff for assistance when they are
unable to make free access calls on detainee telephones. The handbook
is currently under review by ICE officials. ICE expects to issue the
new handbook in the next few months. In the interim, ICE will require
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. ICE will ensure that instructions are posted
in all detainee-housing areas by June 30, 2007.
ICE requests that this recommendation be considered resolved and open
until ICE provides a copy of the new Detainee Handbook to GAO.
Recommendation 3: 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.
ICE Response: As noted in our response to recommendation l, the testing
of the serviceability of the system includes ensuring the telephone
numbers are current and that the contractor has the current pro bono
and consulate numbers as well. The April 4 memo referenced in ICE's
response above tells the field personnel to ensure that ALL aspects of
the telephone system work from their locations.
ICE requests that this recommendation be resolved and closed.
Recommendation 4: Establish supervisory controls and procedures,
including appropriate staffing, to ensure that DRO and Office of
Acquisitions staff are properly monitoring contractor performance.
ICE Response: ICE concurs with this recommendation. Since
identification of this issue, both DRO and ICE OAQ have taken
appropriate measures to establish supervisory controls and new or
revised procedures to properly monitor contractor performance. DRO
staff members are inspecting telephone service weekly, to include
making calls, checking posted numbers, and verifying connectivity. ICE
has the contractor providing weekly trouble ticket status; weekly pro
bono checklists to track Intergovernmental Service Agreement
connections to the network; monthly pro bono usage reports to track
successful calls through the pro bono network; and a monthly
comprehensive trouble ticket report. ICE will officially assign 42 part-
time Agency Technical Representatives to help the Contracting Officers
Technical Representative monitor the contract in the field. These ATRs
will be responsible for reporting telephone problems to the contractor
by phone and to the COTR using an ICE-produced and hosted database. In
the interim, other DRO staff have been assigned to monitor and review
phone service as an additional duty.
On page 16 of the draft report, the GAO provided a chart that displayed
an unacceptably low connection rate for the pro bono network. ICE is
currently reviewing this connection data metric, and believes that the
data improperly represents the number of calls that are not connected
due to problems with the network or provider. Connection data reflects
that the system's `failure to connect' a call is often due to problems
resulting from something other than the general provision of telephone
services. More specifically, the status of a given phone's `failure to
connect' is also frequently caused by other means, not related to the
network or provider, including that:
* A busy signal is received.
* Detainees sometimes hang up before the call is complete. A hang up
will show as a non-completed call because the pro bono network was
accessed.
* Some consulates still require positive acceptance. Without such
affirmation, the call data shows it as a non-completed call.
* Many detainees make after-hour or weekend calls to pro-bono attorney
offices outside of the attorneys' normal business hours. These calls
register as non-completed calls, even though the receiving office's
business hours are outside the pro bono network provider's control.
* Detainees are required to input a 9-digit PIN after accessing the pro
bono network. If they enter too few or too many numbers, the attempt to
make the call shows as a non-completed call.
In order to understand the reasons for non-completed calls, ICE
officials asked the contractor to provide additional detail on the type
of non-completions. ICE personnel chose a 13-month period that included
the performance review from November 2005 through November 2006, which
approximates the period of the GAO review. Provided below is a summary
of the data:
* Call was not accepted (positive acceptance required) -15,649 calls:
* Line was busy - 33,910 calls:
* Called party did not answer-11,203 calls:
* User dialing error - 65,540 calls; and:
* Refused - 64 calls:
ICE officials are requiring that valid non-connect calls be tracked and
will improve the statistics that are within their control over time.
Although it may not be possible to resolve all wrong numbers, busy
signals or non-answers, ICE is committed to improving in areas within
contractor/government control. Where detainee action such as inputting
a code or a PIN is required, ICE will improve clarity for detainees by
developing easy-to-follow instructions that local ICE staff will post
next to each phone bank. ICE has requested that the pro bono network
contractor update the system so that all sites use the same speed dial
listings instead of actual phone numbers. The update to the system will
facilitate accuracy, as well as aid detainees by permitting them to
dial shorter numbers. Speed dial listings will remain the same at all
sites for important numbers, including but not limited to the OIG
Hotline.
ICE requests that this recommendation be resolved and closed.
Recommendation 5: In regard to the contract with Public Communications
Services, explore what recourse the government has available to it for
contractor non-performance.
ICE Response: ICE concurs with this recommendation. ICE has examined
this matter closely and is taking appropriate actions for instances of
contractor non-performance as established by law and the contract
itself. ICE has increased its communication with the contractor and has
already had two meetings with senior PCS management to review
corrective action plans. The COTR and contracting officer together
performed in-person reviews at selected sites. ICE will continue to
evaluate performance to determine if there was failure to fully comply
with all contract terms and conditions, and has issued formal notices
to the contractor to require resolution of all deficiencies at all
sites when they are discovered and documented. Further, as previously
mentioned, ICE has requested that the DHS Office of the Inspector
General arrange for an audit of the contract to document problems in
detail so that a determination can be made about appropriate actions.
Because of the complexity and large number of sites involved, it is
important that all corrective actions be supported and legally
enforceable within the framework of the contract itself. OAQ will
consider all solutions within the terms of the contract based on the
nature and severity of the findings. The first identified action is a
decision not to exercise the final option period on this contract.
Instead, ICE is developing and will solicit for a new contract with a
target award date of December 31, 2007.
ICE requests that this recommendation be resolved and closed.
Recommendation 6: In competing a new telephone contract, ensure that
the new contract contains adequate protections and recourse for the
government in the event of contractor non-performance.
ICE Response: ICE concurs with this recommendation. The follow-on
detainee telephone contract will remain a zero cost contract with
revenue to the contractor generated from the sale of debit phone cards
to detainees at core sites. Through consistent monitoring, more-
effective oversight, and better contract administration, ICE officials
will strongly convey their willingness to re-compete the contract
rather than have options exercised if the performance is sub par.
Provisions under consideration for the follow-on contract include the
use of liquidated damages to provide an incentive to quickly resolve
all significant issues that surface. In addition, ICE personnel will
explore the possibility of creating an award-tern arrangement so as to
provide positive incentive for exemplary performance on the contract.
Further still, OAQ will provide appropriate past performance ratings if
the contractor fails to fully comply with all terms and conditions. A
negative past performance rating will adversely affect the contractor
should subsequent government contracts be sought. ICE officials will
develop a new contract with a target award date of December 31, 2007.
ICE requests that this recommendation be considered resolved and open
until the GAO can be advised of the status of any new telephone
contract that might be let out for bid.
Recommendation 7: 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.
ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. DRO has already
coordinated with the ICE Office of Chief Information Officer (OCIO) to
develop an OCIO-certified referral case tracking system.
It should be noted that DRO has a functioning business process in place
to ensure that all complaints referred to DRO, including detainee
complaints from OPR and OIG, are reviewed and recorded in an
information system. Likewise, DRO would also store information
pertaining to the disposition of these complaints--including any
corrective action--for purposes of record keeping. DRO's current
records-keeping system lists the type of complaints and its status
(e.g., open case, closed case, fact finder case, or management referral
case). However, given the concerns noted in the GAO draft report, the
database user interviewed by the GAO might not have been able to fully
articulate how the database is used. The user also required additional
training on how to extrapolate data from the database. Nevertheless, in
May of 2007, DRO made some modification and enhancements to the
existing DRO database to store "detainee complaint" referrals, as
distinguished from all other OPR and OIG referrals to DRO. DRO has
since provided remedial training to the employee performing this
function. This has provided DRO with an immediate ability to address
the GAO's primary concern.
Furthermore, DRO established an Administrative Inquiry Unit in February
2007 for the purpose of receiving, documenting, and tracking all
referrals to DRO, including detainee complaints. This Unit ensures that
each referral is reviewed and that the disposition, including
corrective action, is recorded and stored for later examination.
As the GAO noted during earlier discussions, the ICE OPR Joint
Integrity Case Management System (JICMS) is also an exceptional tool
for the purpose of recording, tracking and monitoring detainee
complaints. JICMS is also the primary tool used by the ICE Joint Intake
Center, through which detainees sometimes report complaints, and also
provides a means to coordinate actionable complaints with the DHS OIG.
The ICE Employee & Labor Relations office also uses JICMS to track
employee administrative inquiries and disciplinary action through the
adjudication stage, making this a viable system to consider for the
purposes stated by the GAO or at least to model a new system after.
This is especially helpful for management purposes since a JICMS-
patterned system would possess data reporting features capable of
generating the level of data detail sufficient for auditing purposes.
DRO will consider in its long-term planning the options available for
closer coordination with OPR and ICE OCIO and the possibility of
developing a compartmentalized module within a system like JICMS that
will further enhance DRO's capability to more closely manage detainee
complaints.
ICE requests that this recommendation be considered resolved and open
pending a demonstration to the GAO that a plan of action has been
initiated or a system is in place to better track and manage detainee
complaints.
The ICE NDS are designed to meet the needs of all alien detainees and
were carefully crafted with the assistance of nongovernmental
organizations to ensure that detention facilities provide humane
conditions for all detainees. For example, the Access to Legal Material
Standard ensures all detainees have access to a Law Library with legal
materials and document copying privileges for the preparation of legal
documents. The Telephone Access Standard ensures all detainees have
reasonable and equitable access to telephones. The Religious Practices
Standard ensures that all detainees are provided reasonable and
equitable opportunities to participate in the practices of their
respective faiths. The Classification Standard ensures all detainees
are classified into appropriate categories and physically separated
from other categories.
ICE has a rigorous NDS compliance program and conducts detention
standards compliance reviews at more than 300 facilities nationwide
each year. The Detention Standard Compliance Unit has a cadre of more
than 400 specially trained officers authorized to review detention
facilities for compliance with ICE's National Detention Standards.
The inspection consists of a comprehensive 643-point checklist and
takes two trained officers, two to three full days to complete. All
facility inspection reports are thoroughly reviewed by the Detention
Standards Compliance Unit and plans of action are required for noted
deficiencies. This is further augmented with the OPR Detention
Facilities Inspection Group that was noted previously.
ICE will continually seek to improve operations and procedures to
assure the safety, security and welfare of the detainees in its
custody.
ICE officials' comments largely regarding action taken on several
issues or conditions noted in the draft report follow. These GAO
observations did not result in recommendations.
Medical Care:
As reported by the GAO, ICE compliance reviewers determined that during
the annual compliance review of the San Diego CDF, 14-day physicals
were not being provided in a timely manner. The U.S. Public Health
Service operates the San Diego CDF's medical department. It is
currently accredited by American Correctional Association (ACA),
National Commission for Correctional Health Care (NCCHC) and Joint
Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO). In an
effort to remedy this issue, ICE required that the Department of
Immigration Health Services (DIHS) detail staff to the facility and
conduct a complete file review of all medical records. DIHS quickly
brought all physicals up to date and continues to ensure compliance
with the 14-day requirement.
Hold Rooms:
As reported by the GAO, ICE compliance reviewers identified instances
where detention facilities utilized by ICE were not 100 percent
compliant with the ICE hold room standard. ICE policy prohibits
detainees from being held in hold rooms for more then 12 hours and
requires that logs be maintained to record services provided and the
lengths of time detainees are confined in hold rooms. These facilities
were required to submit plans of action to correct the deficiencies and
the local field offices were required to conduct a follow-up review to
ensure corrective actions were implemented. ICE is in the process of
following up on plans of action submitted by the facilities to ensure
these facilities will be in compliance with the hold room standard.
Use of Force:
The GAO reported the potential for Taser and canine use at four IGSA
detention facilities utilized by ICE. ICE policy restricts the use of
canines to contraband detection only and forbids the use of any Electro-
Muscular Disruption devices (EMDs), such as Tasers. ICE is aware of the
growing trend in the corrections/detention industry to utilize EMDs as
an alternative to other use of force devices. ICE has issued a
memorandum to field staff reiterating current use of force and canine
policies. Additionally, ICE is surveying all field offices to identify
IGSA facilities where the potential might exist for Tasers and canines
to be used contrary to ICE policy. ICE will examine the final survey
results and its current policies to ensure they are consistent with
industry standards.
Food Service:
As reported by the GAO, ICE compliance reviewers inspected the Denver
CDF in October 2006. The facility was found to be deficient in food
service due to the kitchen not being fully cleaned between meals and
for having a 28-day menu cycle rather then a 35-day menu cycle.
However, ICE found that the facility was overall in compliance with
National Detention Standards. The Denver Contract Detention Facility is
currently accredited by both ACA and NCCHC. Both of these organizations
are recognized as leaders in the Detention/Corrections industry, and
their accreditation programs have food service components. Even so, the
facility was required to submit a plan of action to remedy noted
deficiencies and ICE has verified the facility has corrected those
deficiencies. To further ensure compliance, ICE will direct the Denver
Field Office to ensure that monthly reviews of food service are
conducted and that the facility remains in compliance with the
standard.
As reported by the GAO, ICE compliance reviewers inspected the San
Diego Contract Detention Facility in September of 2006. ICE found the
facility compliant with the food service standard as well as the
Voluntary Work Program Standard. The GAO suggested in its draft report
that some kitchen workers may not have appropriate medical clearances.
ICE has verified that all kitchen workers receive appropriate medical
clearances.
Recreation:
As reported by the GAO, ICE compliance reviewers inspected the Wakulla
County Detention Facility in August of 2006. ICE found the facility
compliant with the recreation standard. The GAO suggested in the draft
report that some detainees were not receiving appropriate recreation.
The ICE reviewer in charge specifically noted on the compliance review
worksheet that detainees have access to recreation activities outside
their housing unit five days a week for a one-hour period on each day.
ICE conducted an unscheduled review in April 2007 and again found the
facility compliant with the recreation standard.
Access to Legal Materials:
ICE utilizes the Casa San Juan Family Center via a U.S. Marshal Service
IGSA. ICE currently uses the Casa San Juan Family Center for temporary
placement for unaccompanied alien children while awaiting placement to
a Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Refugee
Resettlement-approved shelter. The GAO reported law library
deficiencies at the Casa San Juan Family Center and the North Las Vegas
Detention Facility. The former facility is used to shelter
unaccompanied alien children for periods under 72-hours, and therefore,
does not require a law library.
ICE compliance reviewers inspected North Las Vegas in October 2006. ICE
reviewers reported erroneously that the facility was deficient in the
access to legal material standard. The ICE DRO Field Office has
clarified all ICE detainees have access to computers loaded with the
Lexis Nexis CD-ROM Law Library. In January 2007, a letter was issued by
the law librarian for the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, which
stated that Lexis Nexis CD-ROM Law Library meets ICE's requirements to
provide legal research material. Additionally, computers at the
detention facilities include word processing software that affords
detainees the means to perform legal work.
Detainee Grievance Procedures:
The GAO identified minor deficiencies with the grievance procedures at
four facilities. The ICE grievance procedure inspection worksheet
measures compliance in six different areas of the standard. Non-
compliance with one of the six areas does not constitute a finding of
non-compliance and an overall rating of deficient. ICE strives for 100
percent compliance, and when deficiencies are identified, corrective
plans of action are required to address deficiencies and obtain
compliance. ICE has shared the GAO's findings with its Field Office
Directors for future use toward inspections and the National Detention
Standards program.
Rated Capacity:
The GAO reported that four ICE facilities were observed exceeding their
established rated capacity. It is important to note, however, that
maintaining facility population below rated capacity is not a
requirement of ICE Detention Standards; nor does maintaining a detainee
population above rated capacity prevent accreditation under the ACA
Standards. While we cannot discuss in great specificity any issues
related to rated capacity as it applies to particular facilities, due
to on-going litigation, ICE closely monitors detainee populations at
each of its facilities and has always maintained facility safety,
security, and appropriate conditions of confinement. To this end, DRO
provides ICE management a weekly report of any facilities operating
above the established rated capacity in order to ensure that the
facilities do not reach unsafe levels of capacity.
Detained population at San Diego CDF dropped from just over 900 on
January 25, 2007, to under 650 on January 29, 2007. The ICE detained
population at San Diego CDF has remained below 800 since January 29,
2007 and is not expected to exceed that population. No immigration
detainees have been tripled celled at the San Diego CDF since January
29, 2007. Similarly, the detained population at the Krome Service
Processing Center dropped from just over 750 on January 14, 2007, to
under 550 on January 23, 2007. The Krome SPC population has remained
below 650 since January 23, 2007.
The Denver CDF and San Pedro SPC continue to use temporary beds on a
limited basis due to fluctuations in the criminal alien population and
the dynamic nature of the immigration enforcement system. In a 60-day
period from April 2007 through May 2007, the Denver CDF utilized an
average of nine temporary beds per day for its 400-bed population,
while San Pedro averaged 85 temporary beds per day for its 550-bed
population. However, all beds are in open bay dorms and facilities
remain below emergency capacities.
As GAO found, the identified deficiencies generally do not illustrate a
pattern of noncompliance with the ICE National Detention Standards, but
rather, are isolated incidents, the exception being telephone access.
Since the time of the review, ICE has worked diligently to address all
of GAO's concerns, and will continue to do so.
Technical comments will be provided under separate cover.
Sincerely,
Signed by;
Steven J. Pecinovsky:
Director:
Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison Office:
[End of section]
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Richard M. Stana, (202) 512-8777 or StanaR@gao.gov:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact listed above, William W. Crocker III,
Assistant Director; Minty M. Abraham; Frances A. Cook; Katherine M.
Davis; Dorian R. Dunbar; Cindy K. Gilbert; Lemuel N. Jackson; Robert D.
Lowthian; Victoria E. Miller; and William T. Woods made key
contributions to this report.
(440515):
FOOTNOTES
[1] Pew Hispanic Center, America's Immigration Quandary: No Consensus
on Immigration Problem or Proposed Fixes, March 30, 2006. The Pew
Hispanic Center is a nonpartisan research organization supported by the
Pew Charitable Trusts whose mission is to improve understanding of the
U.S. Hispanic population and to chronicle Latinos' impact in the United
States. The center is a project of the Pew Research Center in
Washington, D.C.
[2] Office of Immigration Statistics, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security, 2005 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics.
[3] Administrative proceedings can include removal proceedings and
asylum hearings.
[4] ICE has separate standards that apply to juveniles at 19 juvenile
and 3 family detention facilities.
[5] ICE refers to its automated telephone system as the "pro bono
telephone system" because the system enables detainees to place calls
at no charge to their respective consulates, pro bono legal service
providers, the local immigration court, and the OIG's complaint line,
among others.
[6] These establish policies and procedures for hold rooms that are
used for the temporary detention of individuals awaiting removal,
transfer, Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) hearings,
medical treatment, intrafacility movement, or other processing into or
out of the facility.
[7] A service processing center is a detention facility of which the
primary operator and controlling party is ICE. A contract detention
facility is a facility that provides detention services under a
competitively bid contract awarded by ICE. An intergovernmental service
agreement (IGSA) is a cooperative agreement between ICE and any state,
territory, or political subdivision for the construction, renovation,
or acquisition of equipment, supplies, or materials required to
establish acceptable conditions of confinement and detention services.
ICE may enter into an IGSA with any such unit of government
guaranteeing to provide bed space for ICE detainees, and to provide the
clothing, medical care, food and drink, security, and other necessities
specified in the ICE Detention Standards; facilities providing such
services are referred to as IGSA facilities.
[8] In providing technical comments to this report, ICE officials
stated that detention standards generally apply to contract facilities
as well, although certain standards might not apply in specific
instances, for example, a law library is not required at an under 72-
hour facility.
[9] According to Taser International, Taser is a trademark and an
acronym for the Thomas A. Swift Electrical Rifle, which was developed
in the 1970s. For the purposes of this report, the term "Taser" will
refer to a weapon that shoots two stainless steel barbs to a distance
of 25 feet and results in an incapacitating 50,000-volt electric shock.
[10] ICE's use of force standard states that detention facilities used
by ICE must comply with ICE's use of force policy, which forbids the
use of Tasers.
[11] IGSA detention facilities are not required to adopt the detainee
telephone system, and it is ultimately their choice as to whether to
use the platform to meet the standard or provide pro bono telephone
access by some other means.
[12] The Alien Registration Number is the number assigned to an alien's
administrative file for tracking purposes.
[13] Department of State Web site for current lists of consulates can
be found at Hyperlink, 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 Hyperlink,
http://www.usdoj.gov/eoir/probono/states.htm.
[14] According to ICE, there are several IGSA facilities that have both
an ICE IGSA contract and where PCS is the provider selected locally for
detainee phone service, but that IGSA facilities are not required to
select PCS as their phone service provider. An IGSA facility may choose
to meet the telephone access standard via the pro bono platform
provided by PCS and not adopt PCS as its primary service provider.
[15] According to Detention Management Control Program policies and
procedures, a superior rating means that the facility is performing all
of its functions in an exceptional manner, has excellent internal
controls, and exceeds expectations. A good rating means that a facility
is performing all of its functions, and there are few deficient
procedures, but internal controls are not limited by these
deficiencies. An acceptable rating means that detention functions are
being adequately performed. Although deficiencies may exist, they do
not detract from the acceptable accomplishment of the vital functions.
Deficient ratings mean that one or more detention functions are not
being performed at an acceptable level. Internal controls are weak,
thus allowing for serious deficiencies in one or more program areas. At-
risk ratings mean the detention operations are impaired to the point
that it is not presently accomplishing its overall mission. That is,
internal controls are not sufficient to reasonably ensure acceptable
performance can be expected in the future.
[16] "Case management" was defined as a complaint regarding the
administrative handling of a detainee's case.
[17] An allegation alleging that a detainee suffered mistreatment by
ICE or facility contract personnel during detention.
[18] Any allegation that claimed discrimination, alleged civil rights
infractions, or human rights complaints.
[19] Class I allegations consist of criminal activity. OPR retains all
Class I cases. Class II allegations consist of noncriminal but serious
misconduct that can result in adverse action if substantiated. Class
III allegations consist of those that are referred to management
officials at CBP or ICE without an OPR investigation, or with a limited
OPR investigation that clarified the allegation. The management
officials may assign an OPR-trained fact finder to conduct an
administrative inquiry. Class IV allegations are treated as information
only and as such require no investigation but may be referred to
management officials for their information.
[20] OPR defines "substantiated allegation" as an allegation for which
the evidence would cause a reasonable person to conclude that the
alleged act of misconduct is likely to have occurred.
[21] An allegation is unfounded when the evidence would cause a
reasonable person to conclude that the subject employee did not commit
the alleged misconduct, or that, in fact, no misconduct occurred.
[22] An allegation is unsubstantiated when the evidence is not
sufficient for a reasonable person to determine whether the subject
employee committed the alleged misconduct.
[23] GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,
GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: November 1999), p. 15.
[24] Information obtained from these site visits is not generalizable
because the sites selected represent a nonprobability sample. Results
from nonprobability samples can not be used to make inferences about a
population because in a nonprobability sample, some elements of the
population being studied have no chance or an unknown chance of being
selected as part of the sample.
[25] The court-approved settlement agreement in the case of Flores v.
Reno is the result of a class action lawsuit filed against the former
Immigration and Naturalization Service challenging the agency's arrest,
processing, detention, and release of juveniles in its custody. The
agreement sets out nationwide policy for the detention, release, and
treatment of minors in the custody of ICE. Stipulated Settlement
Agreement, Flores v. Reno, No. CV85-4544-RJK (C.D. Cal. Jan 17, 1997).
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site.
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon,
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
