This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-14-38 
entitled 'Immigration Detention: Additional Actions Could Strengthen 
DHS Efforts to Address Sexual Abuse' which was released on November 
20, 2013. 

[This report was revised on December 6, 2013, to correct a date on 
the Highlights page and text regarding substantiated allegations on 
page 61 within Table 10] 

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. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

November 2013: 

Immigration Detention: 

Additional Actions Could Strengthen DHS Efforts to Address Sexual 
Abuse: 

GAO-14-38: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-14-38, a report to congressional requesters. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

In 2003 Congress passed the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) to 
protect individuals against sexual abuse and assault in confinement 
settings, including persons potentially subject to removal from the 
United States housed in DHS’s detention facilities. GAO was asked to 
review DHS efforts to address issues of sexual abuse and assault in 
immigration detention facilities. This report examines (1) what DHS 
data show about sexual abuse and assault in immigration detention 
facilities, and how these data are used for detention management; (2) 
the extent to which DHS has included provisions for addressing sexual 
abuse and assault in its detention standards; and (3) the extent to 
which DHS has assessed compliance with these provisions and the 
results. 

GAO reviewed documentation for 215 sexual abuse and assault 
allegations reported to ICE headquarters from October 2009 through 
March 2013; analyzed detention standards and inspection reports; and 
visited 10 detention facilities selected based on detainee population, 
among other things. The visit results cannot be generalized, but 
provided insight. 

What GAO Found: 

The Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) U.S. Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement (ICE) sexual abuse and assault allegations data 
are not complete, a fact that could limit their usefulness for 
detention management. ICE’s data system described 215 allegations of 
sexual abuse and assault in facilities that had over 1.2 million 
admissions from October 2009 through March 2013; however, ICE data did 
not include all reported allegations. For example, GAO was unable to 
locate an additional 28 allegations detainees reported to the 10 
facilities GAO visited—or 40 percent of 70 total allegations at these 
10 facilities—because ICE field office officials did not report them 
to ICE headquarters. ICE issued guidance on reporting sexual abuse and 
assault allegations, but has not developed controls to ensure that 
field office officials responsible for overseeing all facilities are 
reporting allegations to ICE headquarters. Detainees may also face 
barriers to reporting abuse, such as difficulty reaching the DHS 
Office of Inspector General (OIG) telephone hotline, one of various 
means for reporting abuse. For example, GAO’s review of data 
maintained by ICE’s phone services contractor for fiscal years 2010 
through 2012 showed that approximately 14 percent of calls placed to 
the hotline from about 210 facilities did not go through because, for 
example, the call was not answered. OIG officials were not aware that 
the OIG could monitor hotline connectivity through these data. 
Developing additional controls to better ensure reporting of 
allegations and coordinating with the OIG to better ensure OIG access 
to hotline connectivity data in accordance with federal internal 
control standards could better position ICE to assess its sexual abuse 
and assault prevention and intervention (SAAPI) efforts. 

DHS included various SAAPI provisions in three of four sets of 
detention standards it uses at detention facilities, but does not have 
reliable and consistent information to determine which provisions 
apply to which individual facilities. For example, GAO’s review of a 
nonprobability sample of 20 facility contracts and agreements showed 
inconsistencies in ICE’s data on which detention standards should be 
in place for almost half of the facilities. Documenting and 
maintaining reliable information about which detention standards apply 
to which facilities in accordance with federal internal control 
standards could better ensure that ICE officials, facility 
administrators, and other stakeholders have a reliable and consistent 
understanding of facility requirements and position ICE to plan for 
SAAPI program operations. 

DHS focused its sexual abuse and assault oversight on 157 of 
approximately 250 facilities that housed about 90 percent of detainees 
and found most facilities compliant with SAAPI provisions from fiscal 
years 2010 through 2013. ICE used various oversight mechanisms, such 
as inspections, onsite supervision, and facility self-assessments, and 
identified SAAPI-related deficiencies. However, facility inspection 
reports did not consistently assess all SAAPI provisions expected by 
inspection protocols. For example, during 27 percent of inspections 
performed during this time period inspectors did not assess whether 
facilities met the provision to have sexual abuse statistics and 
reports readily available for review. Developing a process for 
ensuring consistency across and completeness in how SAAPI inspections 
are performed in accordance with federal internal control standards 
could help ensure that ICE management has complete information about 
SAAPI compliance across all detention facilities. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that DHS (1) develop additional controls to ensure all 
allegations are reported to headquarters, (2) coordinate OIG access to 
hotline connectivity data, (3) document and maintain reliable 
information on detention standards, and (4) develop a process for 
performing oversight of SAAPI provisions consistently across 
facilities. DHS concurred and reported actions to address the 
recommendations. 

View GAO-14-38. For more information, contact Rebecca Gambler at (202) 
512-8777 or gamblerr@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

ICE Sexual Abuse and Assault Allegations Data Are Not Complete, Which 
Could Limit Their Usefulness for Detention Management: 

Sexual Abuse and Assault Provisions in Detention Standards Vary in 
Content and Applicability across Facilities: 

DHS Focused Its Sexual Abuse and Assault Oversight on Facilities 
Housing Most Detainees and Found Most Facilities Compliant with 
Provisions: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Summary of Substantiated Sexual Abuse and Assault 
Allegations, October 2009 through March 2013: 

Appendix III: Process for Reporting and Investigating Sexual Abuse and 
Assault Allegations: 

Appendix IV: Provisions for Sexual Abuse and Assault Prevention and 
Intervention Included in Immigration Detention Standards: 

Appendix V: NPREC Recommendations Compared with DHS Detention 
Standards and PREA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: 

Appendix VI: DHS PREA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Compared with DOJ 
PREA Rule: 

Appendix VII: Enforcement and Removal Operations 2008 and 2011 Sexual 
Abuse and Assault Provisions Inspection Checklists: 

Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

Appendix IX: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Detention 
Facility Types and Characteristics: 

Table 2: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Detention 
Standards: 

Table 3: Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Sexual Abuse and 
Assault Prevention and Intervention (SAAPI) Roles and Responsibilities 
in Detention Facilities: 

Table 4: Characteristics of the 215 Closed Sexual Abuse and Assault 
Allegations at Immigration Detention Facilities Included in the Joint 
Integrity Case Management System, October 2009-March 2013, by 
Percentage: 

Table 5: Results of Closed Investigations into Sexual Abuse and 
Assault Allegations Included in the Joint Integrity Case Management 
System, October 2009-March 2013: 

Table 6: GAO Analysis of Reasons Why 119 Sexual Abuse and Assault 
Allegations Reported in the Joint Integrity Case Management System 
Were Determined to Be Unsubstantiated, October 2009-March 2013: 

Table 7: Examples of Sexual Abuse and Assault Prevention and 
Intervention (SAAPI) Provisions in U.S Immigration Customs and 
Enforcement (ICE) Detention Standards for Adult Facilities: 

Table 8: Sexual Abuse and Assault Prevention and Intervention (SAAPI) 
Provisions Applicable to Immigration Detention Facilities, as of 
August 2013: 

Table 9: Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) Inspection Results 
of the 2008 Performance-Based National Detention Standards Sexual 
Abuse and Assault Prevention and Intervention (SAAPI) Provisions, 
Fiscal Years 2010 through 2013: 

Table 10: Substantiated Allegations of Sexual Abuse and Assault in 
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Detention Facilities, 
October 2009 through March 2013: 

Table 11: Provisions for Sexual Abuse and Assault Prevention and 
Intervention (SAAPI) in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 
Detention Standards: 

Table 12: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission (NPREC) 
Recommended Standards for Immigration Detention Facilities Compared 
with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 2011 Performance-Based 
National Detention Standards (PBNDS) and DHS Prison Rape Elimination 
Act of 2003 (PREA) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM): 

Table 13: Selected Differences between Department of Homeland Security 
(DHS) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for Implementing the Prison 
Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA) Rule and Department of Justice 
(DOJ) Final PREA Rule: 

Table 14: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Enforcement 
and Removal Operations (ERO) 2008 and 2011 Sexual Abuse and Assault 
Prevention and Intervention (SAAPI) Inspection Checklists: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Detention 
Facility Locations, as of August 2013: 

Figure 2: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Oversight 
Mechanisms That Included Sexual Abuse and Assault Oversight by 
Detention Facilities and Average Daily Detainee Population, Fiscal 
Year 2012: 

Figure 3: Process for Reporting and Investigating Sexual Abuse 
Allegations in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Detention 
Facilities: 

Abbreviations: 

DHS: Department of Homeland Security: 

DOJ: Department of Justice: 

DSM: detention service manager: 

ERO: Enforcement and Removal Operations: 

HIV: Human Immunodeficiency Virus: 

ICE: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement: 

JICMS: Joint Integrity Case Management System: 

NDS: National Detention Standards: 

NPREC: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission: 

OAQ: Office of Acquisition Management: 

ODO: Office of Detention Oversight: 

ODPP: Office of Detention Policy and Planning: 

OIG: Office of Inspector General: 

OPR: Office of Professional Responsibility: 

PBNDS: Performance-Based National Detention Standards: 

PREA: Prison Rape Elimination Act: 

SAAPI: sexual abuse and assault prevention and intervention: 

SAFE: sexual assault forensic examiner: 

SANE: sexual assault nurse examiner: 

USAO: U.S. Attorney's Office: 

USMS: U.S. Marshals Service: 

[End of section] 

GAO:
United States Government Accountability Office: 
441 G St. N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

November 20, 2013: 

Congressional Requesters: 

Congress passed the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA) to 
protect individuals against sexual abuse and assault in confinement 
settings, including persons confined in U.S. immigration detention 
facilities.[Footnote 1] From fiscal years 2010 through 2012, the 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) admitted persons potentially 
subject to removal from the United States for violations of 
immigration law into its approximately 250 immigration detention 
facilities, which had more than 1.2 million admissions. The National 
Prison Rape Elimination Commission, which PREA established to study 
the impacts of prison rape in the United States, reported that persons 
in immigration detention facilities are especially vulnerable to 
sexual abuse and its effects because of social, cultural, and language 
isolation; poor understanding of U.S. culture and the subculture of 
U.S. prisons; and the often traumatic experiences they have endured in 
their cultures of origin. Furthermore, the National Prison Rape 
Elimination Commission reported that immigration detainees may be 
especially vulnerable to sexual abuse and assault by staff because 
detainees are confined by the same agency that has the power to deport 
them, and fearing the possibility of retaliatory deportation, tend to 
be less likely than other prisoners to challenge the conditions of 
their confinement.[Footnote 2] 

DHS's U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is responsible 
for overseeing the nation's largest civil detention system. Within 
ICE, the Office of Acquisition Management (OAQ) negotiates contracts 
and agreements with facilities to house detainees that incorporate 
various immigration detention standards for conditions of confinement. 
The Office of Detention Policy and Planning (ODPP) is responsible for 
detention system design and evaluation, and the Enforcement and 
Removal Operations (ERO) oversees the confinement of ICE detainees 
across facilities in accordance with immigration detention standards. 
In addition, the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) tracks 
and investigates sexual abuse and assault allegations in immigration 
detention facilities. 

You asked us to review DHS's efforts to address issues of sexual abuse 
and assault in immigration detention facilities. This report addresses 
the following questions: (1) What do DHS data show about sexual abuse 
and assault in immigration detention facilities, and how are these 
data used for detention management? (2) To what extent has DHS 
included provisions for addressing sexual abuse and assault in its 
immigration detention standards? (3) To what extent has DHS assessed 
facility administrator compliance with these provisions and what were 
the results of DHS's assessments? 

To address these questions, we assessed DHS's efforts to address 
sexual abuse and assault in immigration detention facilities that 
house ICE detainees.[Footnote 3] In particular, we visited a 
nonprobability sample of 10 detention facilities in California, 
Florida, Texas, and Washington. We selected these facilities based on 
a mix of factors, such as differences in geographical location, 
detainee population, facility type, detention standards governing the 
facility, length of time the facility may hold detainees, and 
recommendations made by DHS and organizations that work with 
immigration detainees.[Footnote 4] We collected and reviewed 
investigative files for all 70 sexual abuse and assault allegations 
occurring from fiscal years 2010 through 2012 maintained at the 10 
facilities we visited and assessed their completeness against ICE 
requirements and Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 
Government.[Footnote 5] We interviewed ERO field office officials, 
facility personnel, and detainees regarding sexual abuse and assault 
prevention and intervention (SAAPI) policies and procedures in place 
at the facilities we visited.[Footnote 6] In advance of each visit, we 
interviewed representatives from at least one local immigrant advocacy 
organization about their views on SAAPI efforts at the facilities. 
[Footnote 7] The information we obtained from our facility visits 
cannot be generalized to all facilities, guards, detainees, or 
advocacy organizations, but offers insight into the overall range of 
implementation of SAAPI policies across detention facilities. 

To determine what DHS data show about sexual abuse and assault in 
detention facilities and how they are used for detention management, 
we reviewed closing reports summarizing the allegation and 
investigative steps and outcomes for all 215 sexual abuse and assault 
allegations reported to ICE from October 2009 through March 2013 and 
tracked in OPR's Joint Integrity Case Management System (JICMS)--the 
primary system ICE uses to track sexual abuse and assault allegations. 
[Footnote 8] We also met with agency officials from ICE offices and 
other DHS components responsible for collecting and using data on 
sexual abuse and assault in detention facilities including the DHS 
Office of Inspector General (OIG), which investigates misconduct 
involving DHS and contractor employees and operates a hotline through 
which detainees can report complaints regarding misconduct in 
detention facilities, including sexual abuse and assault, and the DHS 
Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, which is responsible for 
identifying policy gaps that can contribute to sexual abuse. To assess 
the reliability of the JICMS data, we compared the allegations 
contained in JICMS, which according to ICE is to include all reported 
sexual abuse and assault allegations, with other information sources 
including allegations documented by the 10 facilities we visited. 
Further, we interviewed knowledgeable OPR officials about the 
completeness and reliability of JICMS data and controls in place for 
these data. We used this information to assess ICE controls for 
maintaining JICMS data against ICE requirements and Standards for 
Internal Control in the Federal Government.[Footnote 9] We determined 
that the data within JICMS were sufficiently reliable for the purpose 
of presenting the type and outcome of sexual abuse and assault 
allegations, but we found limitations with the information about the 
number of reported sexual abuse allegations in JICMS, which we discuss 
later in this report. We also conducted limited testing of mechanisms 
available to detainees for reporting sexual abuse at each of the 
facilities we visited by placing calls to ICE hotlines from selected 
telephones within detainee housing, among other things, and assessed 
these mechanisms against ICE detention standards requirements and 
Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government.[Footnote 10] 
In addition, we collected and analyzed telephone connectivity data 
from ERO to determine the extent to which detainee calls placed to the 
OIG hotline from fiscal years 2010 through 2012 using ICE's telephone 
contractor or its pro bono telephone platform were successfully 
connected.[Footnote 11] We assessed the reliability of these data by 
interviewing ERO officials and contractor personnel familiar with the 
processes used to collect, record, and analyze the data, and 
determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes 
of our report. Finally, we assessed the completeness of documentation 
in a nonprobability sample of 15 sexual abuse and assault allegation 
files maintained at the 10 facilities we visited against ICE 
requirements and Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 
Government.[Footnote 12] 

To determine the extent to which DHS detention standards include SAAPI 
provisions, we reviewed relevant ICE SAAPI standards and policies 
currently applicable to, or proposed for, ICE detention facilities. In 
particular, to establish the relative protections these standards 
afford detainees, we analyzed and compared ICE's four sets of 
detention standards and DHS's December 2012 notice of proposed 
rulemaking for implementing PREA--Standards to Prevent, Detect, and 
Respond to Sexual Abuse and Assault in Confinement Facilities. In 
addition, we compared DHS's most recent set of detention standards--
the 2011 Performance-Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS)--and 
notice of proposed rulemaking with National Prison Rape Elimination 
Commission recommendations for immigration detention facilities and 
also compared DHS's notice of proposed rulemaking and the Department 
of Justice's (DOJ) PREA rule. To determine which sexual abuse and 
assault standards ICE requires facilities to implement, we collected 
fiscal year 2013 detention standards data from ERO and OAQ and 
compared the maintenance of this data against Standards for Internal 
Control in the Federal Government.[Footnote 13] We assessed the 
reliability of the ERO and OAQ detention standards data by reviewing 
the contracts on which the data were based for a nonprobability sample 
of 20 facilities, and interviewing ERO and OAQ officials about any 
discrepancies in the data.[Footnote 14] We determined that the data 
were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of presenting trends in the 
standards to which different types of facilities are to adhere, but we 
found limitations with the data on the number of facilities that are 
obligated by their contracts or agreement with ICE to adhere to 
particular sets of detention standards, which we discuss later in the 
report. 

To determine the extent to which DHS has assessed facility compliance 
with SAAPI provisions, as well as the results of these assessments, we 
analyzed and compared various oversight mechanisms, such as 
inspections, utilized at ICE's detention facilities. Specifically, we 
interviewed ICE officials responsible for facility oversight; ERO 
officials responsible for reviewing results from facility self-
assessments; representatives from the ERO contractor responsible for 
conducting facility inspections; and DOJ officials responsible for 
assessing compliance with DOJ standards at facilities with which DOJ 
has agreements that house ICE detainees. We also reviewed the results 
of the 110 ERO and 30 Office of Detention Oversight (ODO) facility 
inspection reports that assessed compliance with SAAPI standards 
during fiscal years 2010 through 2013 to assess the extent to which 
inspectors found deficiencies in the SAAPI standards, associated 
corrective actions, and any patterns across reports.[Footnote 15] We 
assessed the consistency with which the SAAPI inspections were 
performed in accordance with Standards for Internal Control in the 
Federal Government.[Footnote 16] Additional details on our scope and 
methodology are contained in appendix I. 

We conducted this performance audit from October 2012 through November 
2013 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit 
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for 
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Background: 

Legislation and Regulations Pertaining to Sexual Abuse and Assault in 
Confinement: 

PREA was enacted to, among other things, establish a zero-tolerance 
standard for rape in U.S. prisons and make the prevention of prison 
rape a top priority in each prison system.[Footnote 17] PREA also 
charged the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission with 
recommending standards for addressing prison rape for consideration by 
the Attorney General and directed the Attorney General to adopt 
national standards for the detection, prevention, reduction, and 
punishment of prison rape.[Footnote 18] In June 2009, the National 
Prison Rape Elimination Commission issued a report with recommended 
standards, including specific recommendations for facilities that 
house immigration detainees, and in May 2012, DOJ released a final 
rule for publication in the Federal Register adopting national 
standards for the detection and prevention of, and response to, prison 
rape.[Footnote 19] When DOJ published its final rule, DOJ also 
announced its conclusion that PREA encompasses all federal confinement 
facilities, and noted that other federal departments with confinement 
facilities (including but not limited to DHS) would work with the 
Attorney General to issue rules or procedures that would satisfy the 
requirements of PREA.[Footnote 20] In May 2012, the President also 
issued a memorandum directing all agencies with federal confinement 
facilities not already subject to DOJ's final rule to work with the 
Attorney General to propose, within 120 days of May 17, 2012, any rule 
or procedure necessary to satisfy the requirements of PREA and to 
finalize any such rules or procedures within 240 days of their 
proposals.[Footnote 21] On December 6, 2012, DHS released a notice of 
proposed rulemaking for publication in the Federal Register for 
adopting its own national standards for the detection and prevention 
of, and response to, sexual abuse and assault in confinement 
facilities.[Footnote 22] According to DHS officials, the department 
did not have a planned date for releasing its final PREA rule, but 
anticipated doing so in fall 2013.[Footnote 23] 

Detainee Population and Detention Facility Structure: 

The Immigration and Nationality Act provides ICE with broad authority 
to detain aliens believed to be removable while awaiting a 
determination of whether they should be removed from the United States 
and mandates that ICE detain certain categories of aliens.[Footnote 
24] Aliens subject to mandatory detention include those arriving in 
the United States without documentation or with fraudulent 
documentation, those who are inadmissible or deportable on criminal or 
national security grounds, those certified as terrorist suspects, and 
those who have final orders of removal. Unlike criminal incarceration, 
immigration detention is not to be punitive; rather, ICE is to confine 
detainees for the administrative purpose of holding, processing, and 
preparing them for removal. According to ICE data, during 2012, the 
agency detained about 32,000 detainees in its detention facilities 
each day and held detainees for an average of about 28 days.[Footnote 
25] ICE detainees include a mix of men and women from a wide variety 
of countries and with criminal and noncriminal backgrounds.[Footnote 
26] For example, ICE's fiscal year 2012 detainee population was about 
91 percent male and 9 percent female and came from almost 200 
countries. When detention facilities admit aliens, they are to use a 
classification system through which they separate detainees by threat 
risk and special vulnerabilities by assigning them a custody level of 
low, medium, or high. From fiscal years 2010 through 2012, about 39 
percent of ICE detainees were of a low custody level, 41 percent were 
of a medium custody level, and 20 percent were of a high custody 
level.[Footnote 27] 

ICE's ERO oversees the confinement of ICE detainees in approximately 
250 detention facilities that it manages in conjunction with private 
contractors or under agreements with state and local 
governments.[Footnote 28] Over 90 percent of facilities are operated 
under agreements with state and local governments and house about half 
of ICE detainees together with or separately from other confined 
populations. The remaining facilities house exclusively ICE detainees 
and are operated by a mixture of private contractors and ICE, state, 
and local government employees. Table 1 presents information about the 
number and types of facilities that ICE uses to house detainees, the 
entities that own and operate them, and the percentage of the detainee 
population confined in each facility type. 

Table 1: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Detention 
Facility Types and Characteristics: 

Facility type: Service processing center; 
Description: Facilities owned by ICE, operated by a mix of ICE 
employees and contractor staff, that exclusively house ICE detainees; 
Number of facilities[A]: 6; 
Detainee population[B]: 12%. 

Facility type: Contract detention facility; 
Description: Facilities owned and operated by private companies under 
direct ICE contracts that exclusively house ICE detainees; 
Number of facilities[A]: 7; 
Detainee population[B]: 19%. 

Facility type: Dedicated intergovernmental service agreement; 
Description: Facilities owned by state and local governments or 
private entities, operated under agreements with state and local 
governments, that exclusively house ICE detainees; 
Number of facilities[A]: 9[C]; 
Detainee population[B]: 22%. 

Facility type: Family residential; 
Description: Facility owned and operated by a local government entity 
that houses children and their families and exclusively houses ICE 
detainees; 
Number of facilities[A]: 1; 
Detainee population[B]: less than 1%. 

Facility type: Nondedicated intergovernmental service agreement; 
Description: Facilities owned by state and local governments or 
private entities, operated under agreement by state and local 
governments, that house ICE detainees in addition to other confined 
populations (e.g., inmates), either together or separately; 
Number of facilities[A]: 103; 
Detainee population[B]: 34%. 

Facility type: U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) intergovernmental 
agreement or contract; 
Description: Facilities owned and operated by state and local 
governments or private entities under agreement or contract with USMS 
within the Department of Justice to house federal prisoners until they 
are acquitted or convicted. ICE takes out task orders against the USMS 
intergovernmental agreements and contracts to house immigration 
detainees at these facilities, either together with or separately from 
other populations; 
Number of facilities[A]: 125; 
Detainee population[B]: 14%. 

Source: GAO analysis of ICE information. 

Notes: ICE authorizes facilities to house detainees for up to 72 hours 
or more than 72 hours. Of ICE's 251 facilities, 85 are authorized to 
house detainees for up to 72 hours. These consist of 31 nondedicated 
intergovernmental service agreement facilities and 54 USMS 
intergovernmental agreement facilities. In addition to the facilities 
listed in this table, ICE also uses 3 facilities operated by the DOJ 
Federal Bureau of Prisons to confine detainees. 

[A] The number of each facility's type presented in this table is as 
of August 2013. 

[B] Detainee population percentages are based on the average daily 
detainee population at facilities across fiscal years 2010 through 
2012. Percentages do not sum to 100 because of rounding. 

[C] ICE initially used 1 of these facilities as a family residential 
facility, but in 2009 converted it to a women-only facility. 

[End of table] 

ICE's detention facilities are located across the United States. In 
general, facilities that house the most detainees and exclusively ICE 
detainees are concentrated in the southern United States, while 
facilities that house fewer detainees are more evenly distributed 
across the nation. Figure 1 presents the locations of ICE's facilities 
by size and type. 

Figure 1: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Detention 
Facility Locations, as of August 2013: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated U.S. map] 

Legend: 

Size indicates average daily population: 
0-10; 
11-50; 
51-100; 
101-500; 
greater than 500. 

Color indicates facility type: 
Service processing center; 
Contract detention facility; 
Dedicated intergovernmental service agreement facility;
Nondedicated ICE intergovernmental service agreement facility or U.S. 
Marshals Service intergovernmental agreement facility; 
Family residential facility. 

Source: GAO analysis of ICE information; Mapinfo (map). 

Note: Average daily population is based on ICE data for fiscal years 
2010 through 2012. 

[End of figure] 

Detention Standards: 

ICE uses four sets of national detention standards with varying 
requirements to govern the conditions of confinement in its detention 
facilities. ICE establishes the set of standards applicable to each 
detention facility through an individual contract or agreement with 
the facility. Accordingly, different facilities are governed by 
different standards. Table 2 provides information about each of these 
four sets of standards. 

Table 2: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Detention 
Standards: 

2000 National Detention Standards (NDS): 
These standards are derived from the American Correctional 
Association's Standards for Adult Local Detention Facilities, Third 
Edition, and were developed by the former Immigration and 
Naturalization Service within the Department of Justice (DOJ) in 
consultation with various stakeholders, including the American Bar 
Association--an association of attorneys--and organizations involved 
in pro bono representation and advocacy for immigration detainees. 
Following the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 
2002, DHS became responsible for immigration detention and began 
operating the detention system under the 2000 NDS. 

2007 Family Residential Standards: 
ICE approved the Family Residential Standards in 2007 to apply to its 
facilities that house families in detention. The Family Residential 
Standards are based on ICE analysis of family detention operations and 
state statutes that affect children. 

2008 Performance-Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS): 
ICE revised the 2000 NDS to integrate changes included in, and move to 
a performance-based format more in line with, the American 
Correctional Association's Performance-Based Standards for Adult Local 
Detention Facilities, Fourth Edition. The 2008 PBNDS, which ICE 
developed in coordination with agency stakeholders to apply to adult 
detention populations, prescribe the expected outcomes of each 
detention standard and the expected practices required to achieve 
them. The 2008 PBNDS also include more detailed requirements for 
service processing centers and contract detention facilities. 

2011 PBNDS: 
ICE revised the 2008 PBNDS to improve conditions of confinement in 
various ways, including medical and mental health services, access to 
legal services and religious opportunities, communication with 
detainees with no or limited English proficiency, the process for 
reporting and responding to complaints, and recreation and visitation. 
The 2011 PBNDS also expanded the more detailed requirements for 
service processing centers and contract detention facilities included 
in the 2008 PBNDS to dedicated intergovernmental service agreement 
facilities or, in some cases, to all facilities. 

Source: GAO analysis of ICE information. 

Note: U.S. Marshals Service intergovernmental agreement facilities are 
under agreements to adhere to DOJ detention standards. Facilities 
under private contract with the U.S. Marshals Service are to adhere to 
the Federal Performance-Based Detention Standards, which incorporate 
elements of American Correctional Association standards, DOJ 
standards, and the 2000 NDS. 

[End of table] 

DHS Agencies' Roles and Responsibilities: 

Within DHS, ICE has the primary responsibility for SAAPI in 
immigration detention facilities, but other components--including the 
OIG and Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties--also play a role 
by investigating sexual abuse allegations. Table 3 identifies the 
primary DHS components involved in SAAPI in detention facilities and 
their respective roles and responsibilities. 

Table 3: Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Sexual Abuse and 
Assault Prevention and Intervention (SAAPI) Roles and Responsibilities 
in Detention Facilities: 

DHS component: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)[A]; 

Office: Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO); 
Roles and responsibilities pertaining to SAAPI: 
* Identifies and apprehends removable aliens, detaining these 
individuals when it deems necessary, and removing them from the United 
States. 

Office: Custody Management; 
Roles and responsibilities pertaining to SAAPI: 
* Contracts with inspectors to conduct routine inspections of certain 
detention facilities to assess compliance with ICE detention 
standards, including SAAPI standards, and develops corrective action 
plans, as necessary; 
* Oversees the on-site Detention Monitoring Program, created in 2010, 
which places ICE detention service managers (DSM) at select facilities 
to monitor that conditions of confinement are in accordance with ICE 
detention standards, including SAAPI standards; 
* Administers the ICE Community and Detainee Helpline, which detainees 
may use to report sexual abuse and assault, among other grievances. 

Office: Field Operations; 
Roles and responsibilities pertaining to SAAPI: 
* Ensures that the appropriate components have been notified following 
an alleged sexual abuse or assault, and documents these notifications; 
* Ensures that facilities are aware of response, intervention, and 
investigation mandates established by relevant detention standards 
following alleged sexual abuse or assault through personnel located at 
24 field offices; 
* Reviews annual self-assessments conducted by select facilities. 

Office: Office of Detention Policy and Planning (ODPP); 
Roles and responsibilities pertaining to SAAPI: 
* Leads efforts to design detention standards, including SAAPI 
standards, and was charged with designing a new civil detention system. 

Office: Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR); 
Roles and responsibilities pertaining to SAAPI: 
* Investigates select allegations of sexual abuse and assault; 
* Documents allegations of sexual abuse and assault in the Joint 
Integrity Case Management System, a system to log, track, and manage 
cases for all OPR functions including investigations; 
* Coordinates sexual abuse and assault investigations with federal, 
state, or local law enforcement or facility incident review personnel; 
* Houses an agency-wide Prevention of Sexual Assault coordinator to 
develop, implement, and oversee ICEs SAAPI efforts. 

Office: Office of Detention Oversight (ODO); 
Roles and responsibilities pertaining to SAAPI: 
* Inspects facility compliance with detention standards, including 
SAAPI standards, using a risk-based methodology. 

Office: Joint Intake Center; 
Roles and responsibilities pertaining to SAAPI: 
* Receives, processes, and assigns for review or investigation all 
misconduct allegations involving ICE and U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection employees and contractors, including those pertaining to 
sexual abuse and assault in detention facilities. 

Office: ICE Health Service Corps; 
Roles and responsibilities pertaining to SAAPI: 
* Provides direct detainee care in some facilities, where corps 
members may serve as first responders in instances of sexual abuse and 
assault, and oversees care administered by non-ICE Health Services 
Corps providers in other facilities. 

Office: Office of Acquisition Management (OAQ); 
Roles and responsibilities pertaining to SAAPI: 
* Negotiates and manages ICE contracts and agreements for detainee 
housing at detention facilities. 

DHS component: Office of Inspector General; 
Roles and responsibilities pertaining to SAAPI: 
* Operates a hotline to which detainees can report sexual abuse and 
assault allegations; 
* Has investigative primacy for all sexual abuse and assault 
allegations against DHS or contractor staff members regardless of how 
they are reported. 

DHS component: Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties; 
Roles and responsibilities pertaining to SAAPI: 
* Investigates complaints alleging violation of civil rights and civil 
liberties and addresses allegations from a policy perspective; 
* Consults with ICE in the development of detention standards, 
including SAAPI standards. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS information. 

[A] In May 2012, ICE issued guidance--Directive 11062.1: Sexual Abuse 
and Assault Prevention and Intervention--assigning SAAPI 
responsibilities to individual ICE components. This table focuses on 
the primary ICE offices and components with roles and responsibilities 
related to SAAPI in detention facilities; however, the directive also 
assigns SAAPI-related responsibilities to certain other offices, such 
as ICE's Homeland Security Investigations, which may take aliens into 
custody through arrest. 

[End of table] 

ICE Sexual Abuse and Assault Allegations Data Are Not Complete, Which 
Could Limit Their Usefulness for Detention Management: 

ICE Data Describe the Type and Outcome of Sexual Abuse and Assault 
Allegations, but Missing Data Could Limit Their Usefulness for 
Managing Abuse Prevention and Intervention: 

Our analysis of ICE JICMS data showed 215 allegations of sexual abuse 
and assault in ICE detention facilities from October 2009 through 
March 2013, during which time ICE data indicate that its detention 
facilities had more than 1.2 million admissions.[Footnote 29] JICMS 
data describe the circumstances around the alleged incidents reported 
to OPR, and our analysis of these data showed that more sexual abuse 
and assault allegations were made against other detainees than against 
facility staff, and allegations against staff were most often related 
to actions taken while staff were conducting job duties. Specifically, 
our analysis showed that of the 215 allegations, 123 were allegations 
against fellow detainees or inmates, 86 were allegations against staff 
members, and 6 did not specify the perpetrator.[Footnote 30] In 
general, allegations that named fellow detainees as the perpetrator 
tended to be allegations of inappropriate touching or penetration or 
attempted penetration. Allegations that named staff members as the 
perpetrator tended to be allegations of harassment or allegations that 
a staff member had sexually abused the victim during the course of job 
duties--for example, by touching a detainee inappropriately during a 
pat-down search. Table 4 describes allegations reported in JICMS from 
October 2009 through March 2013. 

Table 4: Characteristics of the 215 Closed Sexual Abuse and Assault 
Allegations at Immigration Detention Facilities Included in the Joint 
Integrity Case Management System, October 2009-March 2013, by 
Percentage: 

Gender of alleged perpetrator: Male; 
Allegations against staff members[A]: 52%; 
Allegations against fellow detainees and inmates: 73%; 
Allegations against unspecified perpetrators: 17%; 
All allegations: 63%. 

Gender of alleged perpetrator: Female; 
Allegations against staff members[A]: 23%; 
Allegations against fellow detainees and inmates: 19%; 
Allegations against unspecified perpetrators: 0; 
All allegations: 20%. 

Gender of alleged perpetrator: Not specified; 
Allegations against staff members[A]: 24%; 
Allegations against fellow detainees and inmates: 8%; 
Allegations against unspecified perpetrators: 83%; 
All allegations: 17%. 

Type of abuse alleged: Penetration/attempted penetration; 
Allegations against staff members[A]: 13%; 
Allegations against fellow detainees and inmates: 25%; 
Allegations against unspecified perpetrators: 17%; 
All allegations: 20%. 

Type of abuse alleged: Inappropriate touching; 
Allegations against staff members[A]: 20%; 
Allegations against fellow detainees and inmates: 50%; 
Allegations against unspecified perpetrators: 33%; 
All allegations: 37%. 

Type of abuse alleged: Harassment, including voyeurism; 
Allegations against staff members[A]: 23%; 
Allegations against fellow detainees and inmates: 11%; 
Allegations against unspecified perpetrators: 0; 
All allegations: 15%. 

Type of abuse alleged: Part of staff duties[B]; 
Allegations against staff members[A]: 34%; 
Allegations against fellow detainees and inmates: Not applicable; 
Allegations against unspecified perpetrators: 0; 
All allegations: 13%. 

Type of abuse alleged: Other or not specified; 
Allegations against staff members[A]: 10%; 
Allegations against fellow detainees and inmates: 15%; 
Allegations against unspecified perpetrators: 50%; 
All allegations: 14%. 

Source: GAO analysis of Joint Integrity Case Management System data. 

Notes: Percentages do not sum to 100 because of rounding. 

[A] This column includes 2 allegations that identified both staff and 
detainee perpetrators. 

[B] This category includes alleged abuse and assault by staff during 
their employment duties, such as inappropriately touching a detainee 
during a pat-down search. 

[End of table] 

Of the 215 investigations of the allegations completed between October 
2009 and March 2013, our analysis showed that 55 percent of the 
allegations were determined to be unsubstantiated (investigators could 
not determine if abuse had occurred), 38 percent unfounded 
(investigators determined that abuse had not occurred), and 7 percent--
or 15 allegations--substantiated (investigators determined that abuse 
had occurred).[Footnote 31] Substantiated allegations included both 
allegations against staff members and allegations against fellow 
detainees as well as a variety of types of sexual abuse and assault, 
including attempted penetration, inappropriate touching, and sexual 
harassment (for descriptions of the 15 substantiated allegations, see 
appendix II). Nearly all of the detainees (51 of 53) we interviewed at 
the 9 facilities we visited housing detainees stated that they felt 
safe at the detention facility in which they were residing, which they 
attributed to factors such as respectful treatment and professionalism 
by guards and a peaceful culture among detainees.[Footnote 32] Table 5 
shows the outcomes of the 215 closed investigations of the sexual 
abuse and assault allegations. 

Table 5: Results of Closed Investigations into Sexual Abuse and 
Assault Allegations Included in the Joint Integrity Case Management 
System, October 2009-March 2013: 

Outcome: Substantiated; 
Description: An investigation determined the alleged incident occurred; 
Number of investigations: 15; 
Percentage of investigations: 7%. 

Outcome: Unsubstantiated; 
Description: An investigation could not determine whether or not the 
alleged incident occurred; 
Number of investigations: 119; 
Percentage of investigations: 55%. 

Outcome: Unfounded; 
Description: An investigation determined that the alleged incident did 
not occur; 
Number of investigations: 81; 
Percentage of investigations: 38%. 

Source: GAO analysis of Joint Integrity Case Management System data. 

[End of table] 

Our analysis of the closing reports for these 215 investigations 
indicated several frequently cited reasons why the majority of 
allegations could not be proved or disproved and were therefore 
reported as unsubstantiated. For example, in 29 percent of the 
unsubstantiated allegations, our analysis showed that the alleged 
victim either chose not to cooperate with the investigation or 
recanted or denied the allegation. Detainees may also report false 
allegations--for example, in an attempt to delay deportation--
according to officials at the facilities we visited. In addition, as 
DOJ has reported, confined individuals, including detainees, may not 
report sexual abuse and assault because doing so requires them to 
relive an experience that was traumatic, they feel shame or 
embarrassment about the incident, or they live in fear of retribution 
or retaliation from the perpetrator.[Footnote 33] Therefore the extent 
to which data describing reported incidents reflect the actual 
incident rate is unknown. Other frequently cited reasons from our 
analysis were that no evidence of assault existed and local law 
enforcement or prosecutors chose not to pursue the case.[Footnote 34] 
Less frequently cited reasons were that witness statements, medical 
evidence, or video evidence did not corroborate the allegation. Table 
6 shows our analysis of the number and percentage of closing reports 
citing reasons for unsubstantiated allegations. 

Table 6: GAO Analysis of Reasons Why 119 Sexual Abuse and Assault 
Allegations Reported in the Joint Integrity Case Management System 
Were Determined to Be Unsubstantiated, October 2009-March 2013: 

Reason[A]: Investigation did not uncover evidence that substantiated 
an assault; 
Number of cases: 46; 
Percentage of cases: 39%. 

Reason[A]: Victim did not cooperate with the investigation, declined 
to press charges, or recanted the allegation; 
Number of cases: 35; 
Percentage of cases: 29%. 

Reason[A]: Federal or local authorities chose not to pursue the case; 
Number of cases: 31; 
Percentage of cases: 26%. 

Reason[A]: Incident occurred, but was determined not to constitute 
sexual abuse or assault; 
Number of cases: 12; 
Percentage of cases: 10%. 

Reason[A]: Video surveillance footage did not corroborate allegation; 
Number of cases: 10; 
Percentage of cases: 8%. 

Reason[A]: Medical evidence did not corroborate allegation; 
Number of cases: 6; 
Percentage of cases: 5%. 

Reason[A]: Witness statements did not corroborate allegations; 
Number of cases: 10; 
Percentage of cases: 8%. 

Reason[A]: Other reason provided, such as the alleged victim being 
deported; 
Number of cases: 30; 
Percentage of cases: 25%. 

Reason[A]: No reason provided; 
Number of cases: 9; 
Percentage of cases: 8%. 

Source: GAO analysis of Joint Integrity Case Management System data. 

[A] Some closing reports cite multiple reasons for the investigation 
outcome. Therefore, the total does not sum to 119, and percentages do 
not add to 100. 

[End of table] 

Allegations of sexual abuse and assault have not been consistently 
reported for entry into ICE's JICMS, and while ICE has issued guidance 
to help improve reporting, developing internal controls to monitor 
reporting could help ICE ensure that it has more complete allegations 
data moving forward. ICE detention standards require that facilities 
provide detainees with several methods to report sexual abuse and 
assault, and all ICE components are required to report any allegations 
they receive to the Joint Intake Center at OPR headquarters, which 
then is to open a case in JICMS.[Footnote 35] In addition, the OIG and 
Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties also report certain 
allegations they receive to the Joint Intake Center or directly to ICE 
OPR.[Footnote 36] These reporting methods include the fact that 
detainees can report abuse or assault to any facility or ERO staff 
member orally or in writing; and that detainees can make free phone 
calls to DHS headquarters hotlines, their consulates, and other pro 
bono services (for more information about the reporting and 
investigation process, see appendix III). Most sexual abuse and 
assault allegations are reported by detainees to local facility 
management, rather than through headquarters hotlines or other 
mechanisms. For example, approximately three-quarters of the 
allegations contained in JICMS for October 2009 through March 2013 
(163 of 215) were reported locally at a detention facility. When 
facility staff learn of an allegation, they are to report it to the 
local ERO field office, which is to officially report the allegation 
to the Joint Intake Center by submitting a Significant Incident Report. 

However, we found examples of allegations reported locally by 
detainees, either to facilities or ERO field offices, from fiscal 
years 2010 through 2012, that were not included in JICMS because ERO 
field offices did not consistently report allegations they received to 
the Joint Intake Center.[Footnote 37] In particular, 28 of the 70 
allegations (40 percent) provided to us by ERO field office officials 
at the 10 facilities we visited for fiscal years 2010 through 2012 
were not in JICMS, and these officials reported that they had not 
submitted Significant Incident Reports for them for reasons including 
that they deemed the allegation to constitute harassment rather than 
abuse, or that they determined that the allegation was unfounded. 
[Footnote 38] As a result, these 28 allegations were not included in 
ICE sexual abuse and assault data for that time period, although they 
were required to be reported to the Joint Intake Center, according to 
ICE officials responsible for JICMS data.[Footnote 39] In May 2012, 
ICE issued a directive to establish policies and procedures for the 
prevention of sexual abuse or assault of individuals in ICE custody 
that clarified the requirement to report all sexual abuse and assault 
allegations to the Joint Intake Center.[Footnote 40] According to the 
ICE Prevention of Sexual Assault coordinator, this directive, along 
with subsequent training ICE provided to ERO officials on its 
implementation, was intended to improve the reporting and completeness 
of sexual abuse and assault data captured in JICMS. This is a positive 
step that could help improve the reporting of sexual abuse and assault 
allegations by local ERO officials. However, OPR has not developed 
controls to ensure that ERO field office officials responsible for 
overseeing all facilities are reporting sexual abuse and assault 
allegations, and ERO field office officials told us that they did not 
submit Significant Incident Reports for 3 of 9 sexual abuse or assault 
allegations made after May 2012 at the facilities we visited.[Footnote 
41] According to OPR officials, ODO risk-based inspections, which we 
discuss in more detail later in this report, may help ensure that ICE 
ERO field office officials responsible for overseeing facilities ODO 
inspects report all sexual abuse and assault allegations to the Joint 
Intake Center. However, ODO inspected compliance with SAAPI provisions 
at a minority of facilities--an average of less than 8 (3 percent) 
from fiscal years 2010 through 2013--and OPR has not implemented 
controls to ensure reporting by field office officials at the 
remainder of facilities. 

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government highlights 
the need for capturing information to meet program objectives and 
determining that relevant, reliable, and timely information is 
available for management decision-making purposes.[Footnote 42] 
Without complete data on sexual abuse and assault allegations at 
immigration detention facilities, ICE does not have all pertinent 
information needed for detention management decision making. In the 
past, ICE has used JICMS primarily to oversee investigations of 
individual allegations. However, according to agency officials, ICE 
plans to use reported sexual abuse allegations maintained in JICMS for 
incident review and monitoring as well.[Footnote 43] The ICE May 2012 
directive describes requirements for data use including that the ICE 
Prevention of Sexual Assault coordinator analyze and report on sexual 
abuse allegations, identify problem areas and recommend corrective 
actions for the agency, and provide an assessment of the agency's 
progress in addressing sexual abuse and assault in a publicly 
available annual report.[Footnote 44] The DHS PREA notice of proposed 
rulemaking also proposes to require that ICE collect and aggregate 
data related to sexual abuse and assault to facilitate the agency's 
ability to detect possible patterns and help prevent future incidents. 
Developing and implementing additional controls to ensure reporting of 
sexual abuse and assault allegations by ERO field offices to the Joint 
Intake Center could help better ensure the completeness of JICMS 
sexual abuse and assault data and thereby strengthen these data's 
usefulness for making detention management decisions and meeting these 
program management goals. 

ICE Is Working to Minimize Barriers to Detainees Reporting Abuse, but 
Certain Barriers Could Result in Unreported Allegations: 

According to ICE officials, ICE detention standards are intended to 
encourage detainees to report sexual abuse and assault and require 
facilities to provide multiple methods to report abuse; however, ICE 
data on sexual abuse allegations could also be incomplete because of 
barriers detainees sometimes face in reporting abuse.[Footnote 45] The 
National Prison Rape Elimination Commission reported that efforts to 
enhance reporting depend on the accessibility and safety of mechanisms 
to report sexual abuse, and agencies should make reporting sexual 
abuse as easy, private, and secure as possible, including by providing 
detainees access to the DHS OIG and other hotlines. Further, according 
to the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission, some confined 
individuals, including detainees, will never feel comfortable 
reporting abuse internally to a corrections employee, and thus it is 
important to provide them with the option of confidentially reporting 
to an outside entity. Nearly all detainees we interviewed at 9 
facilities (46 of 50) reported that they knew of at least one 
mechanism to report sexual abuse; however, some detainees (7 of 53) 
expressed concerns with reporting abuse, such as fear of retaliation 
or uncertainty that the allegation would be treated with 
confidentiality.[Footnote 46] ICE has taken steps intended to help 
improve the reporting of sexual abuse and assault allegations by, for 
example, explicitly forbidding retaliation for reporting sexual abuse 
and assault in its detention standards, establishing a hotline to 
serve as an alternative method for detainees to report sexual abuse 
and assault to ICE headquarters, and appointing an agency-wide 
Prevention of Sexual Assault coordinator to oversee efforts to improve 
prevention and response practices, including with respect to reporting 
issues. 

During our site visits to 10 facilities and review of phone records 
from approximately 200 detention facilities, we observed indications 
that detainees may sometimes face barriers to accessing the DHS OIG 
hotline for reporting abuse at some of the facilities we visited. 
Although detainees report most sexual abuse and assault allegations to 
local facility management, consistent with the National Prison Rape 
Elimination Commission's recommendations to facilitate reporting by 
detainees who may feel uncomfortable reporting internally, ICE 
requires that detainees at all facilities have access to make free 
phone calls to the OIG to report abuse, including sexual abuse and 
assault allegations. During our site visits, we attempted to connect 
to the OIG hotline using phones in detainee housing pods and had mixed 
success in reaching the hotline. Specifically, in 5 out of 19 total 
attempts using phones at 10 facilities, we were unable to reach the 
OIG hotline (4 instances) or were unable to leave a message for the 
OIG (1 instance). We were unable to determine if the problem was with 
the phone or the OIG hotline itself. We previously reported in 2007 
that systematic problems in facility telephone systems restricted 
detainees' abilities to reach the OIG hotline and other pro bono 
numbers.[Footnote 47] Specifically, we found that from November 2005 
through November 2006, the percentage of unsuccessful calls placed to 
pro bono numbers programmed into ICE's telephone system ranged from 
approximately 26 percent to 65 percent each month, and that system-
wide facility success rates for complete calls showed a similar trend 
of performance. We made seven recommendations to ensure that detainees 
could access resources by telephone and that all detainee complaints 
were reviewed and acted upon as necessary. DHS implemented these 
recommendations by monitoring a new contractor for the telephones, 
posting pro bono numbers in detainee housing areas, and testing 
facility telephones, among other actions. Our review of phone records 
data maintained by ERO's phone services contractor for fiscal years 
2010 through 2012 showed that approximately 14 percent of calls placed 
to the OIG hotline by detainees from about 210 facilities were not 
connected, primarily because of detainees ending the call prior to its 
completion or the OIG hotline not answering the call. 

OIG officials were able to provide a possible reason for why we were 
not able to leave a voice message on the hotline from one telephone, 
but did not know why calls placed to the hotline were not connected in 
four of our attempted calls and as shown by phone records data. 
According to OIG officials, the OIG hotline is not staffed with a live 
operator, but permits detainees to leave voice recordings, which OIG 
staff members are to listen to and document. These OIG officials 
explained that we may not have been able to leave a voice recording on 
the OIG hotline because the voice recording mailbox was full because 
of an OIG staffing shortage. More specifically, the OIG hotline voice 
recording mailbox can hold 135 voice messages, after which the hotline 
does not permit callers to leave voice recordings. According to OIG 
officials, OIG staff are to empty the mailbox every day, but during 
staffing shortages, the mailbox may remain full. For example, OIG 
officials stated that the OIG experienced a staffing shortage from 
late May 2013 to late June 2013. OIG officials said that this staffing 
shortage has been resolved, but were unaware that the OIG could 
monitor hotline availability to detainees through connectivity data 
collected by ERO's phone services contractor. OIG officials stated 
that receiving data on connectivity issues would be helpful to monitor 
the ability of detainees to successfully call the OIG hotline from 
detention facilities. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 
Government calls for information to be communicated to individuals 
within an entity who need it and in a form and within a time frame 
that enables the individuals to carry out their 
responsibilities.[Footnote 48] OIG and ERO coordination to ensure OIG 
access to OIG hotline connectivity data could better ensure that the 
OIG has information it needs to identify and address any technical 
issues detainees face in reaching the OIG hotline. Receiving these 
data could also help better position the OIG to fulfill its 
responsibility under the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, to 
receive and review complaints and information from any source alleging 
abuses of civil rights and civil liberties by DHS employees and 
employees of DHS contractors.[Footnote 49] 

Detainees may also face confusion in how to contact the OIG hotline 
given that the navigation required to place a call to the hotline 
within the telephone system generally requires several steps, or may 
not leave sufficient information on the OIG hotline voice mail system, 
according to DHS officials. For example, these officials explained 
that detainees may not leave their names or the name of the facility 
in which they are confined in their voice mail message, which makes it 
difficult for ICE to take action on the allegation. 

ICE officials acknowledged that there have been difficulties with 
detainees connecting to the OIG hotline from detention centers and 
stated that ICE established an alternative ICE-run hotline--the 
Community and Detainee Helpline--in February 2013 that detainees can 
use to directly report sexual abuse and assault allegations to ICE. 
[Footnote 50] According to ICE officials, the Community and Detainee 
Helpline--which is staffed with live operators for 12 hours each day--
receives approximately 150 to 250 calls each day, over 60 percent of 
which pertain to detained individuals, and as of September 2013, had 
received a total of 83 calls concerning physical or sexual abuse. 

Investigative Files Maintained at Facilities Varied in Completeness, 
Potentially Limiting Their Usefulness in Monitoring and Analyzing 
Sexual Abuse and Assault at Individual Facilities: 

Files documenting investigations of sexual abuse and assault at the 10 
facilities we visited varied in the extent to which they contained 
complete documentation of the investigation and outcomes. OPR tracks 
sexual abuse and assault allegations reported to ICE headquarters via 
JICMS; however, individual facilities are responsible for maintaining 
investigative files for allegations of incidents occurring in those 
facilities. ICE detention standards specify that facilities are to 
document and track incidents of sexual abuse and assault in order to 
monitor, evaluate, and assess the effectiveness of the facility's 
SAAPI program. In particular, ICE detention standards specify that 
facilities are to maintain investigative files for sexual abuse 
allegations to include information such as incident and investigative 
reports, medical forms, and supporting memorandums, among other 
things.[Footnote 51] Internal control standards state that management 
is responsible for developing detailed policies and procedures to fit 
the agency's operations, and according to ERO officials, these files 
should demonstrate that an investigation was complete and thorough. 
Further, federal internal control standards call for agencies to 
capture information needed to meet program objectives and determine 
that relevant, reliable, and timely information is available for 
decision making.[Footnote 52] 

Our review of the facilities' investigative files for all 70 
allegations of sexual abuse and assault occurring from fiscal years 
2010 through 2012 at the 10 facilities we visited, however, showed 
that the files did not consistently document and track information 
supporting the investigation of the sexual abuse incidents. 
Specifically, our review showed that these investigative files 
generally contained narrative information pertaining to the 
circumstances of the allegation; however, they varied in the extent to 
which they contained supporting documents, such as police reports and 
the outcome of the investigations. We conducted a more detailed 
analysis of the investigative files for a nonprobability sample of 15 
of the 70, including at least 1 allegation file from each of the 9 
facilities we visited at which there were allegations from fiscal 
years 2010 through 2012. Of the 15 files we reviewed in more detail, 9 
files from 5 facilities did not include supporting documentation, and 
8 files from 5 facilities did not include information about the 
outcomes of the investigation.[Footnote 53] According to ICE officials 
and facility administrators, the files may be incomplete because ICE 
guidance does not provide facility officials with a clear 
understanding of what specific information they should include, or the 
missing documentation--such as the results of the forensic medical 
examination--is retained by another department within the facility, 
such as the medical clinic, among other things. 

According to the ICE Prevention of Sexual Assault coordinator, 
information contained in facility files is important for SAAPI program 
management because it provides ICE with a basis to review how the 
facility responded to sexual abuse or assault allegations and a means 
for the facility's SAAPI program coordinator to determine how the 
facility could improve its response to allegations or to identify 
systemic or root causes of abuse. In addition, the DHS PREA notice of 
proposed rulemaking would establish requirements for facility 
investigations, which would apply to all facilities once the rule's 
standards are incorporated into facility contracts. The notice of 
proposed rulemaking proposes to require that facilities conduct a 
sexual abuse incident review at the conclusion of every investigation 
of sexual abuse and, where the allegation was not determined to be 
unfounded, prepare a written report recommending whether the 
allegation or investigation indicates that a change in policy or 
practice could better prevent, detect, or respond to sexual abuse, 
among other new requirements. By clarifying guidance to help ensure 
that ICE and facility administrators correctly document investigations 
into sexual abuse and assault allegations, ICE could better ensure the 
completeness of facility files for SAAPI program management purposes 
and better position ICE and facility administrators to comply with the 
provisions of the DHS notice of proposed rulemaking. 

Sexual Abuse and Assault Provisions in Detention Standards Vary in 
Content and Applicability across Facilities: 

Three of Four Sets of DHS Detention Standards Include Provisions 
Focused on Sexual Abuse and Assault: 

ICE has four sets of detention standards for facilities, three of 
which include provisions on SAAPI and one that does not include SAAPI 
provisions. Specifically, the 2000 NDS do not include such provisions, 
but the three sets of standards that ICE subsequently developed--the 
2007 Family Residential Standards, the 2008 PBNDS, and the 2011 PBNDS-
-each include specific SAAPI provisions. The SAAPI provisions included 
in the standards have increased in number and breadth over time, as 
shown in table 7. The 2007 and 2008 standards include SAAPI provisions 
spanning various topical areas, such as written policies and 
procedures, program coordination, and investigation and prosecution. 
Most recently, ICE developed the 2011 PBNDS, which include SAAPI 
provisions that address the same topical areas as the 2008 PBNDS and 
are similarly intended to apply to adult facilities. However, the 2011 
PBNDS include additional requirements, such as that written policies 
and procedures include statement of a zero-tolerance policy for all 
forms of sexual abuse or assault, and broader requirements within the 
topical areas, such as that intergovernmental service agreement 
facilities designate a SAAPI coordinator rather than only service 
processing centers and contract detention facilities. Appendix IV 
provides more detailed information about SAAPI provisions currently 
used across ICE detention standards for adult facilities. 

Table 7: Examples of Sexual Abuse and Assault Prevention and 
Intervention (SAAPI) Provisions in U.S Immigration Customs and 
Enforcement (ICE) Detention Standards for Adult Facilities: 

Topical area: Written policies and procedures; 
2000 National Detention Standards requirements: None for SAAPI; 
2008 Performance-Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS) 
requirements: Require facility administrators to have written SAAPI 
policies and procedures; 
Requirements in 2011 PBNDS beyond those in 2008 PBNDS: Require written 
SAAPI policies and procedures to include additional components, such 
as a statement of a zero-tolerance policy for all forms of sexual 
abuse or assault. 

Topical area: Program coordination; 
2000 National Detention Standards requirements: None for SAAPI; 
2008 Performance-Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS) 
requirements: Require service processing centers and contract 
detention facilities to designate a SAAPI coordinator to, among other 
things, coordinate the gathering of reports on incidents of sexual 
abuse or assault; 
Requirements in 2011 PBNDS beyond those in 2008 PBNDS: Require all 
facilities that house detainees for more than 72 hours, including 
intergovernmental service agreement facilities, to designate a SAAPI 
coordinator. 

Topical area: Investigation and prosecution; 
2000 National Detention Standards requirements: Require facilities to 
develop a process for investigating detainee grievances, including 
allegations, but do not specifically address sexual abuse or assault 
investigations; 
2008 Performance-Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS) 
requirements: Stipulate that a sensitive and coordinated response is 
necessary when a detainee alleges sexual abuse or assault, and that 
all allegations are promptly and effectively investigated. Require 
that staff preserve the crime scene, when possible, and arrange for 
the victim to undergo a forensic medical examination, based on factors 
such as availability of in-house expertise and security considerations; 
Requirements in 2011 PBNDS beyond those in 2008 PBNDS: Require that 
all investigations into alleged sexual assault be prompt, thorough, 
objective, and conducted by trained investigators. In addition, the 
facility administrator must arrange for the victim to undergo an off-
site forensic medical examination in all cases, rather than based on 
such factors as availability of in-house expertise and general 
security considerations. Also require the facility SAAPI coordinator 
to review the results of every investigation of sexual abuse to assess 
and improve prevention and response efforts. 

Source: GAO analysis of ICE detention standards. 

Note: The 2007 Family Residential Standards are not included in this 
table because the table focuses on facilities that generally house 
adult immigration detainees. The 2007 Family Residential Standards are 
intended to apply to facilities that house families, and as of August 
2013, 1 of ICE's 251 detention facilities housed families. 

[End of table] 

SAAPI provisions in the DHS PREA notice of proposed rulemaking build 
on those included in the PBNDS and other DHS detention policies, and 
according to DHS officials, are similar to the provisions in the 2011 
PBNDS, with certain differences. In addition, the provisions in the 
notice of proposed rulemaking in many respects incorporate the 
standards for immigration detention facilities recommended by the 
National Prison Rape Elimination Commission, as shown in appendix V. 
As a set of regulations, if finalized, DHS's PREA notice of proposed 
rulemaking would carry more legal weight than agency policy with 
respect to the roles and responsibilities of ICE employees.[Footnote 
54] DOJ's PREA rule, from which various provisions in DHS's notice of 
proposed rulemaking adopt exact language, with certain differences--
such as content for sexual abuse training--applies to all facilities 
in a state, including state and local facilities under agreement with 
USMS that house ICE detainees.[Footnote 55] Appendix VI provides 
examples of select differences between the standards included in DOJ's 
PREA rule and DHS's PREA notice of proposed rulemaking. 

ICE Does Not Have Consistent and Reliable Information to Determine the 
Extent to Which Sexual Abuse and Assault Provisions Apply to Different 
Facilities: 

ICE has information regarding the detention standards and SAAPI 
provisions generally in place at different types of detention 
facilities; however, ICE does not have reliable information to 
identify which detention standards and SAAPI provisions apply to 
individual facilities. As discussed previously, ICE establishes the 
standards applicable to its detention facilities through either 
individual contracts or agreements. According to ICE officials and 
documentation, the SAAPI provisions cited in facility contracts or 
agreements vary by facility, but there are general patterns across 
facility types, as summarized in table 8. ICE detention program 
officials explained that not all facilities are bound to ICE's most 
recent standards because of resource considerations. In particular, if 
facilities that house very few detainees require additional funds to 
adopt more recent standards, it might not be cost-effective for ICE to 
renegotiate the contract or agreement. ICE detention program and 
contracting officials also stated that, in general, the agency is 
prioritizing modifications of contracts or agreements to first 
implement the 2011 PBNDS at facilities that exclusively house ICE 
detainees and that house the greatest number of detainees--service 
processing centers, contract detention facilities, and dedicated 
intergovernmental service agreement facilities. 

Table 8: Sexual Abuse and Assault Prevention and Intervention (SAAPI) 
Provisions Applicable to Immigration Detention Facilities, as of 
August 2013: 

Facility type: Service processing center; 
Detention standards generally applicable to facility type, according 
to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials and 
documentation: 2011 Performance-Based National Detention Standards 
(PBNDS). All service processing centers have signed contract 
modifications adopting the 2011 PBNDS in full; 
Average percentage of detainee population, fiscal years 2010-2012[A]: 
12%. 

Facility type: Contract detention facility; 
Detention standards generally applicable to facility type, according 
to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials and 
documentation: 2011 PBNDS. All contract detention facilities have 
signed contract modifications adopting the 2011 PBNDS in full; 
Average percentage of detainee population, fiscal years 2010-2012[A]: 
19%. 

Facility type: Dedicated intergovernmental service agreement; 
Detention standards generally applicable to facility type, according 
to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials and 
documentation: 2007 Family Residential Standards, 2008 PBNDS, or 2011 
PBNDS. All but 2 of the dedicated intergovernmental service agreement 
facilities have signed contract modifications specifically adopting 
the 2011 PBNDS SAAPI provisions, but not the 2011 PBNDS pertaining to 
other topical areas[B]; 
Average percentage of detainee population, fiscal years 2010-2012[A]: 
22%. 

Facility type: Nondedicated intergovernmental service agreement; 
Detention standards generally applicable to facility type, according 
to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials and 
documentation: 2000 National Detention Standards, 2008 PBNDS, or 2011 
PBNDS. In 2012, ICE sent letters to the 53 nondedicated 
intergovernmental service agreement facilities that house detainees 
for more than 72 hours and have average daily populations of more than 
10 detainees requesting that they sign contract modifications to 
specifically adopt the 2011 PBNDS SAAPI provisions. As of August 2013, 
37 facilities had signed a modification; 
Average percentage of detainee population, fiscal years 2010-2012[A]: 
34%. 

Facility type: Family residential; 
Detention standards generally applicable to facility type, according 
to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials and 
documentation: 2007 Family Residential Standards; 
Average percentage of detainee population, fiscal years 2010-2012[A]: 
less than 1%. 

Facility type: U.S. Marshals Service intergovernmental agreement or 
contract; 
Detention standards generally applicable to facility type, according 
to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials and 
documentation: U.S. Marshals Service intergovernmental agreement and 
contract facilities are not generally required to adhere to ICE SAAPI 
provisions. However, these facilities are to adhere to the Department 
of Justice's (DOJ) final Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA) 
rule; 
Average percentage of detainee population, fiscal years 2010-2012[A]: 
14%. 

Source: GAO analysis of ICE testimony and documentation. 

[A] Percentages do not sum to 100 because of rounding. 

[B] ICE classifies 1 of the 2 facilities that had not signed a 
contract modification as a family residential facility, but it is 
considered a dedicated intergovernmental service agreement facility 
for the purpose of this report because it was converted to a women-
only facility in 2009 and no longer houses families. The 2 facilities 
that had not signed a contract modification, but were governed by the 
SAAPI provisions included in the 2007 Residential Standards or 2008 
PBNDS, housed an average of 4 percent of the total detainee population 
from fiscal years 2010 through 2012. 

[End of table] 

ICE headquarters and ERO field office officials do not have consistent 
and reliable information readily available on which detention 
standards--and the SAAPI provisions they contain--apply to which 
individual facilities. OAQ contracting officials maintain information 
on the applicable detention standards for ICE's detention facilities, 
but this information was not fully consistent with ICE contracts and 
agreements with those facilities. OAQ headquarters officials provided 
us with a spreadsheet listing their understanding of standards cited 
in ICE's contracts and agreements with detention facilities; however, 
when we reviewed detention standards listed in this spreadsheet 
against the standards listed in a sample of 20 facility contracts and 
agreements, the standards listed in the spreadsheet were not 
consistent with the facility contracts and agreements for almost half 
(9) of these facilities.[Footnote 56] According to OAQ officials, OAQ 
retains ICE contracts and agreements with detention facilities in 
electronic files, but does not have a central system in which all 
contract and agreement documentation is stored. OAQ officials 
explained that in 2012 OAQ's four regional divisions, each of which 
oversees detention contracts and agreements for facilities in a 
different area within the United States, manually reviewed ICE's 
contracts and agreements with its 251 facilities and recorded the 
detention standards cited in a spreadsheet. OAQ reviewed and updated 
this spreadsheet to furnish us with information on the standards cited 
in ICE's contracts and agreements with detention facilities, and 
according to OAQ officials, it may have missed some changes that 
occurred since it initially developed the spreadsheet. However, the 
standards in the contracts and agreements for facilities for which 
inconsistent information was recorded did not change within the last 
year. During the course of our audit work, OAQ officials corrected the 
data inconsistencies we identified through our review of the sample of 
20 contracts and agreements; however, without checking its data for 
the remaining 231 facilities, OAQ does not have reasonable assurance 
that its data are consistent and reliable. 

We also requested that ERO headquarters provide us with information 
about the standards governing each detention facility, and found 
discrepancies between facility contracts and agreements and ERO's 
data. In particular, ERO detention program officials provided us with 
the data they maintain on detention standards--a listing of the 
detention standards under which ERO inspects each facility--that they 
extracted from the Facility Performance Management System.[Footnote 
57] However, the detention standards cited for 8 of the same sample of 
20 facilities for which we reviewed contract and agreement 
documentation were inconsistent. We also observed differences between 
information maintained by OAQ and ERO, in that OAQ and ERO recorded 
different standards in their spreadsheets or in information on 
facilities' standards that they subsequently provided for 10 
facilities.[Footnote 58] ERO headquarters officials attributed one 
discrepancy between the contracts and agreements and ERO's data to an 
error in the Facility Performance Management System--a relatively new 
system released in June 2012--that was in the final stages of testing 
during our review. 

In addition, ICE officials stated that ERO's data reflect the 
standards under which ERO inspects facilities rather than those cited 
in the facility contracts or agreements, and that ERO performs 
inspections under standards that are more rigorous than those cited in 
its contracts and agreements with some facilities. In particular, 
according to ERO officials, at facilities at which the 2000 NDS are 
cited in the contracts or agreements, ERO field office officials 
responsible for overseeing the facilities, or the administrators 
operating the facilities, may request that inspections be completed 
under the 2008 PBNDS because they believe the facilities are exceeding 
2000 NDS requirements and want that formally confirmed through 
inspections. In such instances, ERO generally inspects the facilities 
under the more rigorous standards, according to ERO officials. A 
senior ICE official responsible for detention policy explained that 
ERO inspecting a facility under more rigorous standards than those 
cited in the facility's contract or agreement is acceptable with 
agreement from the facility, and can be beneficial to ICE because it 
permits the agency to hold facilities accountable for more rigorous 
requirements. For example, by inspecting a facility with a contract 
that cites the 2000 NDS under the 2008 PBNDS, ERO is able to hold the 
facility accountable for SAAPI provisions that would not be required 
of the facility if it were inspected under the 2000 NDS, which do not 
include SAAPI provisions. In addition, this senior official stated 
that it can be more efficient and cost-effective for ICE to ensure 
that facilities adhere to more rigorous standards through the 
inspection process rather than modifying the facilities' contracts or 
agreements to include the more rigorous standards because, for 
example, facilities may request to open negotiations for the entire 
contract and request additional funding from ICE. 

At the field level, we observed that ICE field office and facility 
program officials overseeing 5 of the 10 facilities we visited did not 
have reliable information about the standards cited in their contracts 
or agreements with ICE. In particular, ERO DSM and field office 
officials at 2 of the 10 facilities asserted that the facility's 
contract or agreement cited the 2008 PBNDS when its contract cited the 
2000 NDS. ERO field office officials at 3 additional facilities stated 
that the facility had signed a contract modification adopting the 2011 
PBNDS SAAPI provisions when it had not, or vice versa.[Footnote 59] 
ERO field office officials attributed these inconsistencies to factors 
such as OAQ providing them with inaccurate information and 
interpreting the language about detention standards included in the 
contract differently from OAQ headquarters officials.[Footnote 60] 

Inconsistent information about the detention standards cited in 
facilities' contracts or agreements can affect facility owners' and 
administrators' understanding of their responsibilities to ICE and the 
information available to decision makers and stakeholders regarding 
the standards applicable to the facilities. Our review of ICE facility 
inspection reports from fiscal years 2010 through 2013, which we 
discuss in more detail later in this report, for the same sample of 20 
facility contracts and agreements, showed that there were at least 10 
instances at 2 facilities in which ERO or ICE's ODO assessed 
compliance with the 2008 PBNDS, including the SAAPI standard, when the 
facility was contractually bound to the 2000 NDS, which have no SAAPI 
standard. The administrators we spoke with at these 2 facilities were 
unaware that they were contractually required to adhere to the 2000 
NDS, not the 2008 PBNDS. According to ERO officials, ERO has not 
established a process for documenting that a facility administrator 
understands that the standards under which ERO is inspecting the 
administrator's facility exceed those required by the facility 
contract or agreement, or the facility administrator's consent to such 
an inspection in these instances. Nevertheless, ERO may discuss the 
issue and gain agreement with facility administrators by means such as 
electronic mail, according to ERO officials. These officials also 
stated that ERO can generally remove detainees from a facility if it 
does not comply with the standards under which ERO inspects the 
facility, even if those standards are more rigorous than those cited 
in the facilities' contracts and agreements, and thus it is not always 
imperative for inspection purposes for ERO to modify its contracts and 
agreements with facilities to incorporate the more rigorous standards. 

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government calls for 
agencies to develop control activities to help ensure that data are 
accurately recorded and communicated to management and others within 
the entity who need them and specifies that all transactions and other 
significant events need to be clearly documented, and the 
documentation should be readily available for examination.[Footnote 
61] Documenting and maintaining reliable information on the detention 
standards cited in facilities' contracts and agreements with ICE, as 
well as recording any agreements by facilities to undergo inspection 
under more rigorous standards, could better position ICE headquarters 
officials, ERO field office officials, facility administrators, and 
other stakeholders, such as inspectors and auditors, to have a 
reliable and consistent understanding of applicable facility detention 
standards. 

Reliable information on the SAAPI provisions cited in facilities' 
contracts or agreements could also help ICE better plan for the 
resources and time necessary to implement DHS's PREA rule. According 
to DHS's PREA notice of proposed rulemaking, once the rule is 
finalized, DHS would establish a process for requiring that all 126 
detention facilities under an ICE contract or agreement (family 
residential facilities, service processing centers, contract detention 
facilities, ICE dedicated intergovernmental service agreement 
facilities, and ICE nondedicated intergovernmental service agreement 
facilities) comply with the final rule's SAAPI provisions.[Footnote 
62] In particular, according to the notice of proposed rulemaking, the 
proposed provisions would be phased in through the inclusion in new 
contracts and contract renewals of an obligation to adopt and comply 
with the provisions set forth in the final rule. Accordingly, the 
SAAPI provisions in the final rule would supersede the SAAPI 
provisions these 126 facilities currently have in place under the 2007 
Residential Standards, 2008 PBNDS, or 2011 PBNDS, as well as establish 
SAAPI provisions at those facilities operating under the 2000 NDS that 
currently have no such provisions. According to OAQ officials, 
incorporating the provisions proposed in DHS's PREA notice of proposed 
rulemaking will likely take multiple years to complete. According to 
DHS, the department cannot be certain how much, if any, of the costs 
associated with implementation it will pay, as those costs will be 
determined through negotiation with facilities.[Footnote 63] These 
costs could include, for example, staff training, providing detainees 
with access to outside confidential support services, and 
documentation of cross-gender pat-downs. Reliable baseline information 
about SAAPI provisions currently applicable to facilities, as 
established in their contracts and agreements with ICE, could help ICE 
estimate any costs associated with implementing the final DHS PREA 
rule that the department might incur during contract negotiations, and 
determine appropriate time frames for contract negotiations. 
Documenting and maintaining reliable information on the detention 
standards applicable to facilities across ICE components could better 
position ICE officials to have accurate information to effectively 
plan for program operations, such as the implementation of DHS's final 
PREA rule. 

DHS Focused Its Sexual Abuse and Assault Oversight on Facilities 
Housing Most Detainees and Found Most Facilities Compliant with 
Provisions: 

ICE Used Various Oversight Methods to Assess Compliance with SAAPI 
Provisions at More than Half of Facilities That Housed About 90 
Percent of Detainees: 

During fiscal years 2010 through 2013, ICE provided oversight of its 
three sets of SAAPI provisions at 157 of approximately 250 detention 
facilities that housed about 90 percent of ICE detainees. ICE 
officials said that they did not perform SAAPI oversight at the 
remaining facilities because they inspected the facilities under the 
2000 NDS, which do not have SAAPI provisions.[Footnote 64] In 
particular, ICE used four primary mechanisms for assessing facilities' 
compliance with SAAPI provisions: (1) annual inspections conducted by 
an ERO contractor, (2) periodic inspections by ODO personnel, (3) 
continuous ERO on-site monitoring provided by a DSM, and (4) annual 
self-assessments by certain facilities that passed two consecutive ERO 
inspections and met other requirements.[Footnote 65] According to ICE 
officials responsible for facility oversight, these different 
oversight methods complement each other and serve different purposes. 
ERO inspections are to assess compliance with all standards across 
facilities and, according to ERO officials, ERO generally focuses on 
performing inspections at facilities that house 10 or more detainees. 
[Footnote 66] ODO conducts more limited, but in-depth inspections of 
certain standards at facilities selected using a risk-based approach. 
[Footnote 67] DSMs are to monitor facility adherence to ICE's 
detention standards on a day-to-day basis and provide facilities with 
technical guidance, including for implementing corrective action 
plans, as needed. 

ICE used one or more oversight mechanisms to assess SAAPI compliance 
at certain facilities ERO identified as subject to the 2007 Family 
Residential Standards or the 2008 or 2011 PBNDS.[Footnote 68] In 
fiscal year 2012, for example, ICE assessed compliance with SAAPI 
provisions at 61 facilities and used at least two oversight mechanisms 
at 28 of the 61 facilities at which it assessed SAAPI compliance (46 
percent). These 28 facilities housed about 55 percent of ICE detainees 
in fiscal year 2012, as illustrated in figure 2.[Footnote 69] 

Figure 2: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Oversight 
Mechanisms That Included Sexual Abuse and Assault Oversight by 
Detention Facilities and Average Daily Detainee Population, Fiscal 
Year 2012: 

[Refer to PDF for image: 3 overlapping circles] 

DSM total: 
50 facilities; 
78% of average daily population (ADP). 

ERO total: 
33 facilities; 
56% of ADP. 

ODO total: 
14 facilities; 
27% of ADP. 

Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) Detention Service Manager 
(DSM): 
Number of facilities: 24; 
Percentage of ADP: 23%. 

ERO inspections: 
Number of facilities: 7; 
Percentage of ADP: 5%. 

Office of Detention Oversight (ODO) inspections: 
Number of facilities: 2; 
Percentage of ADP: 2%. 

Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) Detention Service Manager 
(DSM) and ERO inspections: 
Number of facilities: 16; 
Percentage of ADP: 31%. 

Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) Detention Service Manager 
(DSM) and Office of Detention Oversight (ODO) inspections: 
Number of facilities: 2; 
Percentage of ADP: 4%. 

Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) Detention Service Manager 
(DSM), Office of Detention Oversight (ODO) inspections, and ERO 
inspections: 
Number of facilities: 8; 
Percentage of ADP: 20%. 

ERO inspections and Office of Detention Oversight (ODO) inspections: 
Number of facilities: 2; 
Percentage of ADP: 1%. 

Source: GAO analysis of ICE documents. 

Note: According to ERO officials, DSMs may monitor the reporting 
process of sexual abuse and assault allegations, regardless of 
inspection standards. 

[End of figure] 

ICE Oversight Identified SAAPI-Related Deficiencies, but ERO 
Inspections Were Performed Inconsistently: 

ICE oversight of its three sets of SAAPI provisions from fiscal years 
2010 through 2013 identified few deficiencies through ERO and ODO 
inspections, and ERO officials provided one example of a SAAPI 
deficiency identified through the DSM program. However, ERO's review 
of results from the first year of the self-assessment program 
identified deficiencies with SAAPI provisions at over a third of 
facilities. In addition, DOJ provides oversight related to preventing 
sexual abuse and assault at facilities under agreement with USMS that 
house detainees. 

ERO Inspections: 

ERO identified few deficiencies in facility compliance with the 2008 
or 2011 SAAPI provisions from fiscal years 2010 through 2013, and 
found 1 facility did not meet the overall 2011 SAAPI standard. 
[Footnote 70] In particular, ERO inspections identified deficiencies 
during 11 of 110 inspections (10 percent) at 39 facilities. Most 
deficiencies (7 of 11) were in SAAPI priority provisions, such as the 
provision that staff be trained in required SAAPI areas.[Footnote 71] 
Table 9 summarizes the deficiencies identified by the inspections ERO 
performed under the 2008 SAAPI provisions. 

Table 9: Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) Inspection Results 
of the 2008 Performance-Based National Detention Standards Sexual 
Abuse and Assault Prevention and Intervention (SAAPI) Provisions, 
Fiscal Years 2010 through 2013: 

SAAPI standard provision: Applicable to contract detention facilities 
or service processing centers only: 

For service processing centers and contract detention facilities, the 
written policy and procedure has been approved by the ERO field office 
director; 
Meets standard: 50; 
Does not meet standard: 3; 
Not applicable: 55. 

For service processing centers and contract detention facilities, the 
Sexual Assault Awareness Information brochure is available for 
detainees[A]; 
Meets standard: 78; 
Does not meet standard: 1; 
Not applicable: 29. 

SAAPI standard provision: Applicable to all detention facilities and 
related to sexual abuse and assault allegations: 

Tracking statistics and reports are readily available for review by 
the inspectors; 
Meets standard: 78; 
Does not meet standard: 1; 
Not applicable: 29. 

All records associated with claims of sexual abuse or assault are 
maintained, and such incidents are specifically logged and tracked by 
a designated staff coordinator; 
Meets standard: 104; 
Does not meet standard: 0; 
Not applicable: 4. 

When there is an alleged sexual assault, staff conduct a thorough 
investigation, gather and maintain evidence, and make referrals to 
appropriate law enforcement agencies for possible prosecution; 
Meets standard: 106; 
Does not meet standard: 0; 
Not applicable: 2. 

Victims of sexual abuse or assault are referred to specialized 
community resources for treatment and gathering of evidence; 
Meets standard: 106; 
Does not meet standard: 1; 
Not applicable: 1. 

Priority: There is prompt and effective intervention when any detainee 
is sexually abused or assaulted and there are policy and procedures 
for required chain-of-command reporting; 
Meets standard: 106; 
Does not meet standard: 1; 
Not applicable: 1. 

Priority: When there is an alleged or proven sexual assault, the 
required notifications to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
(ICE), facility management, and the appropriate law enforcement agency 
are promptly made; 
Meets standard: 107; 
Does not meet standard: 0; 
Not applicable: 1. 

SAAPI standard provision: Applicable to all detention facilities and 
otherwise related to sexual abuse and assault: 

Priority: All staff are trained, during orientation and in annual 
refresher training, in the prevention and intervention areas required 
by the SAAPI detention standard; 
Meets standard: 106; 
Does not meet standard: 2; 
Not applicable: 0. 

Priority: Detainees are screened upon arrival for "high-risk" sexual 
assaultive and sexual victimization potential and housed and counseled 
accordingly. Detainees who are likely to become victims will be placed 
in the least restrictive housing that is available and appropriate; 
Meets standard: 106; 
Does not meet standard: 2; 
Not applicable: 0. 

Priority: Detainees are informed about the program in facility 
orientation and the detainee handbook (or equivalent); 
Meets standard: 107; 
Does not meet standard: 1; 
Not applicable: 0. 

Priority: The facility has a SAAPI program that includes, at a minimum: 
* measures to prevent sexual abuse and sexual assault; 
* Policy and procedures for required chain-of-command reporting to the 
highest facility official and the ICE field office director; 
* measures for prompt and effective intervention to address the safety 
and treatment needs of detainee victims if an assault occurs, and; 
* investigation of incidents of sexual assault, and discipline 
assailants; 
Meets standard: 107; 
Does not meet standard: 1; 
Not applicable: 0. 

The Sexual Assault Awareness Notice is posted on all housing unit 
bulletin boards[B]; 
Meets standard: 108; 
Does not meet standard: 0; 
Not applicable: 0. 

Source: GAO analysis of ERO inspection reports. 

Notes: Inspectors assessed the two provisions applicable only to 
contract detention facilities and service processing centers at 9 of 
63 and 35 of 63 intergovernmental service agreement facilities, 
respectively, and did not assess them at one contract detention 
facility. Inspectors did not assess a facility to not meet the same 
SAAPI provision more than once during this time frame. One inspection 
determined that the facility did not meet multiple provisions. 

[A] ICE's Sexual Assault Awareness Information brochure contains 
information on sexual abuse and assault definitions, avoiding sexual 
assault, and what to do if assaulted, among other things. 

[B] The Sexual Assault Awareness Notice contains contact information 
for reporting sexual abuse and assault to a facility staff member, ICE 
officials, ICE's Community and Detainee Helpline, and ICE's Joint 
Intake Center. 

[End of table] 

In addition, of the 2 facilities inspected under the 2011 SAAPI 
provisions, 1 met all SAAPI provisions and 1 did not meet the overall 
SAAPI standard. ERO officials responsible for inspections explained 
that one way in which facilities do not meet an overall detention 
standard is if they do not meet three priority provisions within the 
standard.[Footnote 72] The facility that did not meet the overall 
SAAPI standard did not meet 12 of the 21 applicable 2011 SAAPI 
provisions, including 6 priority provisions.[Footnote 73] (See 
appendix VII for all 2011 SAAPI provisions.) Our review of ERO 
corrective action plans showed that corrective actions were taken at 9 
of the 11 facilities to address the SAAPI deficiencies the inspections 
identified in a manner consistent with ICE requirements.[Footnote 74] 
ERO officials explained that they did not know why 1 facility did not 
take corrective actions within the required time frame to address 
these deficiencies, and that another facility did not do so because 
the facility and ERO determined that the 2011 PBNDS were too onerous 
for the size of the facility, facility resources, and ICE population 
housed at the facility, and that ERO would conduct a 90-day follow-up 
inspection under the 2008 PBNDS. 

Our further review of 110 ERO inspection reports--108 assessing 
compliance with the 2008 SAAPI provisions and 2 with the 2011 SAAPI 
provisions--documenting performance at 39 facilities from fiscal years 
2010 through 2013 showed that some inspection teams did not assess all 
appropriate 2008 SAAPI standard provisions, providing inconsistent 
information for detention oversight. In these inspection reports, 
inspectors are to use a worksheet specific to either the 2008 PBNDS or 
the 2011 PBNDS to document if a facility meets or does not meet each 
SAAPI standard provision, as well as if the provision does not apply 
to the facility.[Footnote 75] (See appendix VII for a comparison of 
the 2008 and 2011 PBNDS SAAPI inspection worksheets.) We found that 
inspectors did not assess or collect information for all the 2008 
SAAPI provisions at facilities where no sexual abuse or assault 
allegations were made during the time period under review; rather, the 
inspectors recorded that these provisions did not apply. In 
particular, inspectors did not assess during 29 of 108 inspections (27 
percent) whether facilities met the provision to have sexual abuse 
statistics and reports readily available for review by inspectors and 
inspectors did not assess whether 4 facilities met the provision to 
maintain all records associated with claims of sexual abuse or 
assault. ERO officials said that inspectors should evaluate all SAAPI 
standard provisions at all inspected facilities, even if no sexual 
abuse or assault allegations were made; for example an inspector could 
still verify that the facility has a framework for tracking 
statistics, should allegations occur. ERO officials said that they 
orally communicated this expectation to the inspections contractor in 
March 2012.[Footnote 76] 

However, our review of inspections conducted after March 2012 found 
that inspectors continued to not assess or collect information for all 
applicable 2008 SAAPI standard provisions. Specifically, 4 of 43 
inspections conducted from March 2012 through September 2013 did not 
assess or collect information for all applicable 2008 SAAPI standard 
provisions, including the provision to have sexual abuse statistics 
and reports readily available for review by inspectors (2 of 4), among 
others. Contractor representatives responsible for inspection 
oversight stated that they may not have assessed all 2008 SAAPI 
provisions because of inspector error. ERO officials responsible for 
inspection oversight stated that ERO has processes in place to ensure 
that contracted inspectors consistently inspect all SAAPI provisions, 
such as ERO field office personnel reviewing inspection results and 
system controls that assign a detention standard rating based on 
checkmarks in each provision. However, these processes would not 
identify instances when inspectors inaccurately determined that a 
SAAPI provision did not apply, and thus did not assess or collect 
information about the facility's ability to meet the provision. 
Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that 
management should ensure there are adequate means of obtaining 
information from external stakeholders, such as contracted inspectors, 
that may have a significant impact on the agency achieving its 
goals.[Footnote 77] Given that ERO performs the majority of SAAPI 
inspections under the 2008 PBNDS--27 of 29 in fiscal year 2013--
incomplete assessment of these provisions can result in ERO having 
incomplete information about the extent to which facilities are 
prepared to maintain sexual abuse and assault allegation records, 
should such incidents occur. Developing a process to monitor the 
results of ERO inspections conducted under the 2008 SAAPI standard to 
ensure consistency across and completeness in how the inspections are 
performed, and addressing any inconsistencies, could help ensure that 
ERO management has complete information about relative SAAPI 
compliance across facilities. 

ODO Inspections: 

ODO identified some deficiencies in facility compliance with ICE's 
three sets of SAAPI standards during fiscal years 2010 through 2013. 
[Footnote 78] In particular, ODO identified SAAPI deficiencies during 
7 of 30 inspections (23 percent) at 28 facilities.[Footnote 79] 
Similar to ERO inspection results, ODO inspection results identified 
deficiencies in priority provisions, such as the provision that staff 
be trained in required SAAPI areas (3 facilities). In addition, 
facilities did not meet SAAPI provisions to maintain separate general 
and investigative files for cases of sexual abuse or assault (2 
facilities), specify that chain-of-command reporting sexual abuse and 
assault allegations includes reporting to ICE (1 facility), or use a 
coordinated, multidisciplinary team approach to respond to sexual 
abuse (1 facility). ODO officials stated that they have not identified 
any trends among facilities with deficient SAAPI provisions. Our 
review of corrective action plans showed that corrective actions were 
taken at 6 of 7 facilities, and that another facility had received an 
extension from ICE to do so as of September 2013. 

DSMs and Self-assessments: 

ERO officials provided an example of one deficiency in facility 
compliance with ICE's three sets of SAAPI provisions identified 
through DSM oversight, and ERO officials said their review of facility 
self-assessment results identified deficiencies in the SAAPI 
provisions at more than a third of facilities. In regard to the DSM 
program, ERO officials said they received weekly reports from DSMs who 
performed on-site oversight at approximately 50 facilities during 
fiscal years 2010 through 2013. ERO officials provided one example of 
a SAAPI-related deficiency identified through a DSM weekly report. 
[Footnote 80] In this instance, a DSM determined that a facility was 
not in compliance with staff training requirements, including SAAPI-
related requirements. In regard to the self-assessment program, ERO 
officials reported in September 2013 that they reviewed inspection 
results from the 93 facilities, which collectively housed less than 1 
percent of ICE's detainee population during fiscal years 2010 through 
2012, and that the inspection results identified deficiencies in 
compliance with at least one SAAPI provision or with the overall SAAPI 
standard at 39 facilities. The self-assessment program policy 
guidelines require that facilities include corrective action plans for 
any deficiencies that the facility did not correct at the time of the 
assessment in their results. According to ERO officials, the 39 
facilities included corrective actions to address the SAAPI 
deficiencies they identified in their assessments, and as of September 
2013, had completed or were in the process of implementing the 
actions.[Footnote 81] 

USMS Inspections: 

In August 2013, DOJ-certified auditors were to conduct audits of 
facilities subject to the DOJ PREA rule, including the 125 facilities 
that are under agreement with USMS and house ICE detainees.[Footnote 
82] In particular, DOJ's PREA rule requires that the agencies managing 
these facilities ensure that the facilities undergo triennial PREA 
audits, and that agencies publish final PREA audit reports on their 
websites, or make these reports otherwise publicly available.[Footnote 
83] Following finalization of DOJ's PREA rule, USMS added a question 
to its annual inspection checklist concerning the extent to which the 
facility is compliant with all applicable PREA standards. USMS 
officials responsible for prisoner operations explained that they plan 
to use results of these triennial PREA audit reports to determine 
facility compliance with PREA per the USMS annual inspection 
checklist.[Footnote 84] ERO officials responsible for detention 
oversight stated that as the DOJ PREA audits are fairly recent, they 
have not yet determined to what extent, if any, they will use the DOJ 
audit results to inform ICE's oversight of SAAPI provisions at USMS 
facilities that house ICE detainees. 

ICE Plans to Increase On-site Monitoring at Select Facilities and Self-
assessments at Others: 

ERO plans to increase oversight at some facilities and the use of self-
assessments at other facilities, based on relative average daily 
detainee populations and success in past inspections, with an 
attendant benefit of potentially achieving cost savings for detention 
management. Moving forward, ERO officials said they plan to expand use 
of DSMs to an additional 22 facilities, targeting those facilities 
that house a relatively large proportion of ICE detainees.[Footnote 
85] ERO officials responsible for the DSM program stated that DSMs 
directly contribute to ICE cost savings because, by better ensuring 
facility compliance with detention standards, they prevent ICE from 
potentially incurring future costs.[Footnote 86] According to ERO 
officials, in January 2013, ICE planned to increase its use of self-
assessments at other facilities that have relatively low average daily 
populations, house detainees for more than 72 hours, and that passed 
ICE inspections in the past 2 years.[Footnote 87] ERO will assess 
compliance at these facilities biennially instead of annually, and 
these facilities will be required to complete self-assessments the 
year that ERO does not inspect them. For example, ERO officials stated 
that facilities eligible for biennial inspections in January 2013 will 
then complete a self-assessment in 2014. As of August 2013, in 
addition to the 93 facilities that completed annual self-assessments, 
ICE approved 36 facilities for biennial inspections. According to ERO 
officials responsible for oversight, ICE largely discontinued annual 
inspections at facilities that house detainees for less than 72 hours 
and implemented biennial inspections at other facilities in an effort 
to lower detention costs. In addition, officials explained that using 
self-assessments as an oversight mechanism is considered low risk 
because these facilities house detainees for a relatively short period 
of time. 

Further changes to DHS oversight of SAAPI compliance at detention 
facilities may occur in the course of implementing DHS's final PREA 
rule. For example, the DHS PREA notice of proposed rulemaking would 
provide for facility audits on a triennial cycle, in addition to ICE's 
current annual and biennial inspection schedule.[Footnote 88] In 
addition, the notice of proposed rulemaking would require that ICE 
publish final inspection reports on its website, or make them 
otherwise readily available to the public. 

Conclusions: 

ICE has taken action to strengthen sexual abuse and assault prevention 
and intervention at its detention facilities; however, some 
improvements could further strengthen ICE management of its detention 
program in this regard. For example, to assess and ensure the safety 
and security of detainees, it is important that ICE detention 
management programs have complete and accurate information with which 
to assess program results and take corrective action, as necessary. By 
developing and implementing additional internal controls to ensure 
reporting of sexual abuse and assault allegations by ERO field 
offices, ICE could better ensure the completeness of JICMS sexual 
abuse data and thereby strengthen these data's usefulness for making 
detention management decisions and meeting program management goals. 
In addition, by clarifying guidance to help ensure that ICE and 
facility administrators correctly document investigations into sexual 
abuse and assault allegations, ICE could better ensure the 
completeness of facility files for SAAPI program management purposes 
and better position ICE and facility administrators to comply with the 
provisions of the DHS notice of proposed rulemaking. ICE also has 
opportunities to better ensure the quality of information available to 
its managers for SAAPI program planning and improve its oversight of 
existing SAAPI provisions. In particular, by documenting and 
maintaining reliable information on the detention standards cited in 
facilities' contracts and agreements, as well as recording any 
agreements by facilities to undergo inspection under more rigorous 
standards, ICE could better ensure that ICE officials, facility 
administrators, and other stakeholders have a reliable and consistent 
understanding of facility detention standards and plan for the 
resources and time necessary to implement DHS's PREA notice of 
proposed rulemaking. In addition, developing a process to monitor the 
results of ERO inspections conducted under the 2008 SAAPI standard to 
ensure consistency across and completeness in how the inspections are 
performed, and addressing any inconsistencies, could help ensure that 
ERO management has complete information about relative and actual 
SAAPI compliance across facilities. Further, OIG and ERO coordination 
to ensure that the OIG has access to OIG hotline connectivity data, 
could better ensure that the OIG has information it needs to identify 
and address any technical issues detainees face in trying to reaching 
the hotline. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To ensure that ICE has complete and accurate information needed for 
SAAPI program decision making and planning, we recommend that the 
Director of ICE take the following four actions: 

* develop and implement additional internal controls to ensure ERO 
field offices' reporting of allegations of sexual abuse and assault to 
the Joint Intake Center; 

* clarify guidance for ICE and facility administrators on how to 
correctly document investigations into sexual abuse and assault 
allegations; 

* document and maintain reliable information on the detention 
standards cited in facilities' contracts and agreements, and record 
any agreements by facilities to undergo inspection under more rigorous 
standards; and: 

* develop a process to monitor the results of ERO annual inspections 
conducted under the 2008 SAAPI standard to ensure consistency across 
the inspections and completeness in how the inspections are performed, 
and address any inconsistencies. 

In addition, to ensure that the DHS OIG has information for 
identifying and addressing any technical problems detainees face in 
reaching the OIG hotline, we recommend that the Director of ICE and 
the DHS Deputy Inspector General coordinate OIG access to OIG hotline 
connectivity data. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to DHS and DOJ for their review and 
comment. DHS provided written comments, which are reproduced in 
appendix VIII, and DOJ did not provide written comments. In its 
comments, DHS concurred with the five recommendations and described 
actions under way or planned to address them by April 30, 2014. DHS 
and DOJ provided technical comments, which we incorporated as 
appropriate. 

With regard to the first recommendation, that ICE develop and 
implement additional internal controls to ensure field offices' 
reporting of sexual abuse and assault allegations to the Joint Intake 
Center, DHS concurred and stated that ICE has taken action, and plans 
to take additional action, to better ensure ERO field offices' 
reporting of such allegations. Specifically, DHS stated that ICE 
issued a directive and developed guidance and training materials to 
enhance field office reporting of sexual abuse and assault 
allegations, as discussed in our report, and would take further steps 
to issue supplemental guidance. Further, DHS noted that ODO compares 
system data with field office records during visits, which it 
completes at a sample of facilities, to assess compliance with 
reporting requirements, and stated that future ICE quarterly reports 
to agency leadership will include any identified reporting 
discrepancies. These actions to educate and train staff and inform 
agency leadership of compliance with reporting requirements are 
positive steps, but to be fully responsive to the intent of our 
recommendation, we encourage DHS to develop and implement additional 
controls to assess compliance with reporting requirements across 
detention facilities, such as additional controls to help better 
ensure that ERO field office officials are reporting sexual abuse and 
assault allegations in accordance with ICE's directive. In addition, 
DHS noted that ERO field office officials at facilities we visited had 
reported two of the three allegations we reported as missing from ICE 
headquarters' information system; however, in its technical comments, 
DHS clarified that officials did not report these two allegations in 
accordance with protocols established in ICE's directive. We updated 
our final report to include this information. 

With regard to the second recommendation, that ICE clarify guidance on 
how to correctly document investigations into sexual abuse and assault 
allegations, DHS concurred and noted the importance of completely 
documenting investigations of sexual abuse and assault allegations and 
described actions that ICE has taken and plans to take to clarify 
these requirements. Specifically, DHS stated that ICE plans to issue a 
broadcast message to all field offices providing detailed guidance to 
be disseminated and posted in all facilities. The department also 
noted that the facility files we reviewed included files for cases 
that originated in fiscal years 2010 through 2012, and that the number 
of facilities that have adopted detention standards that articulate 
specific requirements for facilities to maintain investigative files 
for sexual abuse allegations--the 2007 Residential Standards, 2008 
PBNDS, and 2011 PBNDS--have increased since that time. However, as 
described in the report, while additional facilities may have moved to 
adopt these detention standards, four of the eight facilities at which 
we identified deficiencies in the investigative files were already 
governed by these standards at the time the allegations associated 
with the files were made. Accordingly, if fully implemented, ICE's 
planned action to distribute detailed guidance should help address the 
intent of the recommendation to better ensure the completeness of 
facility investigative files. 

With regard to the third recommendation, that ICE document and 
maintain reliable information on the detention standards cited in 
facilities' contracts and agreements, DHS concurred and cited action 
it was taking to document and maintain reliable information, and 
record any agreements by facilities to undergo inspection under more 
rigorous standards. While DHS noted that deficiencies in record 
keeping did not affect ICE's efforts to safeguard detainees, DHS 
stated that it recognized the importance of thorough record keeping 
and that it is in the process of modifying its Facility Performance 
Management System to report data on both the standards that 
contractually govern a facility and the standards that a facility has 
voluntarily agreed to adopt for inspection purposes, and that ERO and 
OAQ will jointly review this list on a quarterly basis to ensure 
information on both categories is current and accurate. If fully 
implemented, these actions should address the intent of the 
recommendation and better position ICE headquarters officials, ERO 
field office officials, facility administrators, and other 
stakeholders to have a reliable and consistent understanding of 
applicable facility detention standards. 

With regard to the fourth recommendation, that ICE develop a process 
to monitor the results of ERO annual inspections conducted under the 
2008 SAAPI standard, DHS concurred and stated that the department will 
make every effort to ensure utilization of a uniform inspections 
protocol, including action to clarify expectations with inspectors and 
conduct monthly meetings with the inspection contractor to reinforce 
expectations. To assess the extent to which the contractor meets these 
expectations and to meet the intent of the recommendation, we 
encourage departmental efforts to develop a process to monitor the 
results of facility inspections and address any inconsistencies in how 
inspections are performed. 

With regard to the fifth recommendation, that ICE and the DHS OIG 
coordinate access to hotline connectively data, DHS concurred and 
stated that the Director of ICE would immediately begin to provide the 
DHS Deputy Inspector General with information on OIG hotline 
connectivity exceptions, as appropriate. If implemented as planned, 
this action should help address the intent of the recommendation to 
ensure that the DHS OIG has information for identifying and addressing 
any technical problems detainees face in reporting sexual abuse 
allegations. 

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 
committees, the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, the Attorney 
General of the United States, and other interested parties. In 
addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions, please contact me at (202) 
512-8777 or gamblerr@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 
page of this report. GAO staff who made significant contributions to 
this report are listed in appendix IX. 

Signed by: 

Rebecca Gambler: 
Director: 
Homeland Security and Justice: 

List of Requesters: 

The Honorable Zoe Lofgren: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security: 
Committee on the Judiciary: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Robert Brady: 
The Honorable Judy Chu: 
The Honorable Yvette Clarke: 
The Honorable Luis V. Gutierrez: 
The Honorable Janice Hahn: 
The Honorable Alcee Hastings: 
The Honorable Michael Honda: 
The Honorable Barbara Lee: 
The Honorable John Lewis: 
The Honorable Carolyn Maloney: 
The Honorable George Miller: 
The Honorable Gwen Moore: 
The Honorable James Moran: 
The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton: 
The Honorable Jared Polis: 
The Honorable Michael Quigley: 
The Honorable Charles Rangel: 
The Honorable Lucille Roybal-Allard: 
The Honorable Loretta Sanchez: 
The Honorable Jose Serrano: 
The Honorable Nydia Velazquez: 
The Honorable Henry Waxman: 
House of Representatives: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

This report addresses the following three questions: 

(1) What do Department of Homeland Security (DHS) data show about 
sexual abuse and assault in immigration detention facilities, and how 
are these data used for detention management? 

(2) To what extent has DHS included provisions for addressing sexual 
abuse and assault in its immigration detention standards? 

(3) To what extent has DHS assessed facility administrator compliance 
with these provisions and what were the results of DHS's assessments? 

For this report, we assessed DHS's efforts to mitigate sexual abuse 
and assault in immigration detention facilities that house U.S. 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainees. DHS defines an 
immigration detention facility as a confinement facility operated by 
or affiliated with ICE that routinely holds persons for over 24 hours. 
We did not include other types of facilities, such as holding 
facilities and prisons that temporarily house detainees waiting for 
ICE transfer to detention facilities. We also excluded the three 
federal prisons where ICE has detention bed space because two house 
few detainees and use of the third prison for detention was to be 
discontinued by the end of calendar year 2013, according to Bureau of 
Prisons and ICE officials. We also did not include facilities for 
juveniles that are regulated by the Department of Health and Human 
Services. 

To address our questions, we visited a nonprobability sample of 10 
detention facilities in California, Florida, Texas, and Washington. We 
selected these facilities based on a mix of factors, such as 
differences in geographical location, detainee population, facility 
type, detention standards governing the facility, length of time the 
facility may hold detainees, and recommendations made by DHS and 
organizations that work with immigration detainees.[Footnote 89] We 
collected and reviewed investigative files for all 70 sexual abuse and 
assault allegations occurring from fiscal years 2010 through fiscal 
year 2012 maintained at the 10 facilities we visited and assessed 
their completeness and the extent to which they are useful for 
detention management against ICE requirements and Standards for 
Internal Control in the Federal Government.[Footnote 90] Of these 
files, we selected investigative files for a nonprobability sample of 
15 allegations for more in-depth analysis, to include allegations from 
each facility and allegations against staff members and allegations 
against detainees. The results of our more in-depth analysis are not 
generalizable to all investigative files, but provided helpful 
insights into investigative file completeness. We interviewed ICE 
Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) field office officials, ERO 
detention service managers (DSM), facility administrators, and medical 
personnel regarding sexual abuse and assault prevention and 
intervention (SAAPI) policies and procedures in place at the facility. 
We also interviewed 18 guards at 9 of these facilities to understand 
how these policies and procedures are practiced.[Footnote 91] 
Moreover, we interviewed a nonprobability sample of 53 detainees to 
gain an understanding of detainees' knowledge of policies relevant to 
SAAPI, such as how to report sexual abuse or assault. We selected 
approximately 6 detainees from each of the 9 facilities.[Footnote 92] 
We selected detainees based on gender, age, country of origin, and 
number of days in ICE custody. Detainees speak various languages, and 
some detainees are not proficient in English. Toward including such 
detainees in our sample, we interviewed 19 detainees at 5 facilities 
in Spanish, but did not interview detainees who were not proficient in 
English or Spanish. In addition, we conducted physical observations to 
observe facility implementation of SAAPI provisions, such as posting 
required information. The information we obtained from our facility 
visits cannot be generalized to all facilities, guards, or detainees 
but offers insight into the overall range of SAAPI implementation 
across detention facilities. In advance of each site visit, we 
interviewed a local immigrant advocacy organization to gain its 
perspective on ICE's efforts to prevent and respond to sexual abuse 
and assault at the facility and the extent to which sexual abuse and 
assault in detention may be over- or underreported and why. We 
identified these local organizations through recommendations provided 
by two national advocacy organizations--the American Civil Liberties 
Union and the National Immigrant Justice Center. In instances when the 
national organizations suggested that we speak with more than one 
local organization, we invited representatives from all of the local 
organizations to meet with us. While not generalizable, this sample of 
organizations provided us with helpful insights into the perspectives 
of local advocacy organizations. 

To determine what DHS data show about sexual abuse and assault in 
detention facilities and how they are used for detention management, 
we reviewed closing reports summarizing the allegation and 
investigative steps and outcomes for all 215 sexual abuse and assault 
allegations reported to ICE from October 2009 through March 2013 and 
tracked in ICE Office of Professional Responsibility's (OPR) Joint 
Integrity Case Management System (JICMS)--the primary system ICE uses 
to track sexual assault and abuse allegations.[Footnote 93] We 
analyzed this information to determine the characteristics of these 
allegations and how they were reported. We also met with agency 
officials from ICE offices and other DHS components with 
responsibilities related to collecting and using data on sexual abuse 
and assault in detention facilities including (1) ICE OPR, which 
tracks and investigates sexual abuse allegations; (2) ICE Office of 
Detention Policy and Planning (ODPP), which develops policies and 
standards to address sexual abuse in detention facilities; (3) the DHS 
Office of Inspector General (OIG), which investigates misconduct 
involving DHS and contractor employees and operates a hotline through 
which detainees can report complaints regarding misconduct in 
detention facilities, including sexual abuse and assault; and (4) the 
DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, which is responsible 
for identifying policy gaps that can contribute to sexual abuse. To 
assess the reliability of the JICMS data, we compared the allegations 
contained in JICMS, which according to ICE officials, is to include 
all reported sexual abuse and assault allegations, with information 
from other sources, including allegations documented by the 10 
facilities we visited. Further, we interviewed knowledgeable OPR 
officials about the completeness and reliability of JICMS data and 
controls in place for these data, and assessed our findings against 
ICE requirements and Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 
Government.[Footnote 94] We determined that the data within JICMS were 
sufficiently reliable for the purpose of presenting the type and 
outcome of sexual abuse and assault allegations in JICMS, but we found 
limitations with the information about the number of reported sexual 
abuse allegations, which we discuss in the report. To assess barriers 
to detainees reporting sexual abuse, we interviewed knowledgeable ICE 
officials regarding the extent to which sexual abuse may be over-or 
underreported, and reviewed relevant documentation from the Department 
of Justice's (DOJ) Bureau of Justice Statistics. We also conducted 
limited testing of reporting mechanisms at each of the facilities we 
visited by placing calls to ICE hotlines from 19 telephones in 
detainee housing areas at 10 facilities, among other things. We 
generally tested a telephone in two living area pods at each facility 
we visited by dialing the OIG hotline, ICE Community and Detainee 
Helpline, and the ICE Joint Intake Center hotline. In addition, we 
collected and analyzed telephone connectivity data from ERO to 
determine the extent to which detainee calls placed to the OIG hotline 
from fiscal years 2010 through 2012 using ICE's telephone contractor 
or its pro bono telephone platform were successfully 
connected.[Footnote 95] We also interviewed ERO and OIG officials 
about how they use these data and assessed our findings against 
Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government.[Footnote 96] 
We assessed the reliability of these data by interviewing ERO 
officials and contractor personnel familiar with the processes used to 
collect, record, and analyze the data, and determined that the data 
were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our report. We 
identified and analyzed DHS and ICE policies related to sexual abuse 
and assault reporting requirements and plans for using sexual abuse 
data for detention management. Finally, we assessed the completeness 
of documentation in 15 sexual abuse and assault investigative files 
maintained at the 10 facilities we visited against ICE requirements 
and Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government.[Footnote 
97] 

To determine the extent to which DHS detention standards include SAAPI 
provisions, we reviewed sexual abuse and assault standards and 
policies developed by ICE's ODPP, Office of the Principal Legal 
Advisor, and ICE Health Service Corps currently applicable to, or 
proposed for, ICE detention facilities. In particular, to establish 
the relative protections these standards afford detainees, we compared 
the: 

* 2000 National Detention Standards (NDS), 

* 2007 Family Residential Standards, 

* 2008 Performance-Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS), 

* 2011 PBNDS, and: 

* DHS's notice of proposed rulemaking on the Prison Rape and 
Elimination Act (PREA).[Footnote 98] 

Moreover, we compared DHS's 2011 PBNDS and PREA notice of proposed 
rulemaking with recommendations for immigration detention centers that 
the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission (NPREC) made in 2009, 
and interviewed seven of eight former NPREC members to obtain their 
perspectives on how the extent to which DHS incorporated NPREC's 
recommendations will affect the effectiveness of DHS's SAAPI efforts. 
[Footnote 99] We also interviewed DHS Office of the Principal Legal 
Advisor and ODPP officials about the department's reasons for 
incorporating or not incorporating particular NPREC recommendations in 
the 2011 PBNDS.[Footnote 100] In addition, we interviewed 
representatives from national organizations and associations involved 
in immigration detention advocacy to obtain their perspectives on 
DHS's PREA notice of proposed rulemaking. In particular, we spoke with 
the American Civil Liberties Union, American Bar Association, National 
Immigrant Justice Center, and Just Detention International. We 
selected these organizations and associations based on their 
involvement with SAAPI-related immigration detention issues and 
contributions to the development of national detention standards. 
While not generalizable, this sample provided us with helpful insights 
into the perspectives of national advocacy organizations. In addition, 
we compared DHS's PREA notice of proposed rulemaking and DOJ's final 
PREA rule to determine differences, if any, in sexual abuse and 
assault provisions they include. To determine which sexual abuse and 
assault standards ICE requires facilities to implement, we requested 
fiscal year 2013 information from ERO and the ICE Office of 
Acquisition Management (OAQ) concerning the detention standards cited 
in facilities' contracts or agreements with ICE. We assessed the 
reliability of the ERO and OAQ detention standards data by reviewing 
the contracts and agreements on which the information was based for a 
nonprobability sample of 20 facilities, and interviewing ERO and OAQ 
officials about discrepancies in the data.[Footnote 101] We assessed 
ERO's and OAQ's maintenance of information on the standards cited in 
facilities' contracts and agreements against Standards for Internal 
Control in the Federal Government.[Footnote 102] We determined that 
the data were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of presenting 
trends in the standards to which different types of facilities are to 
adhere, but we found limitations with the data the detention standards 
cited in facilities' contracts and agreements, which we discuss in the 
report. Finally, we interviewed relevant DHS officials regarding their 
approach to implementing the 2011 PBNDS and PREA notice of proposed 
rulemaking across facilities and any associated challenges. 

To determine the extent to which DHS assessed facility compliance with 
SAAPI provisions, as well as the results of these assessments, we 
reviewed oversight mechanisms utilized at ICE's detention facilities 
from fiscal years 2010 through 2013. In particular, we compared 
oversight mechanisms in place through (1) ERO annual facility 
inspections, (2) ERO's DSM program, (3) ERO's Operational Review Self-
Assessment process, and (4) OPR Office of Detention Oversight's (ODO) 
risk-based facility inspections and assessed the extent to which these 
mechanisms where used at ICE's 251 authorized facilities. In addition, 
we reviewed the results of the 110 ERO and 30 ODO facility inspection 
reports that assessed compliance with SAAPI standards during fiscal 
years 2010 through 2013.[Footnote 103] We analyzed information in 
these reports to assess the extent to which inspectors found 
deficiencies in the SAAPI standards, associated corrective actions, 
and any patterns across reports. In addition, we assessed the 
consistency of the SAAPI inspections with standards in Standards for 
Internal Control in the Federal Government.[Footnote 104] We also 
interviewed ERO and ODO officials responsible for inspections and the 
DSM program; officials from the entity that ERO currently contracts 
with to complete its inspections; DSMs, ICE officials, and 
administrators responsible for on-site oversight at the facilities we 
visited; ERO officials responsible for reviewing results from facility 
self-assessments; and U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) officials 
responsible for assessing compliance with DOJ standards at the 
facilities with which USMS has agreements that house ICE detainees 
about the oversight they perform.[Footnote 105] Moreover, we collected 
information on ICE's plans for future oversight and DHS's notice of 
proposed rulemaking to assess the extent to which they will change 
ICE's SAAPI oversight efforts. 

We conducted this performance audit from October 2012 through November 
2013, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit 
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for 
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Summary of Substantiated Sexual Abuse and Assault 
Allegations, October 2009 through March 2013: 

Our analysis of ICE JICMS data showed 15 substantiated allegations of 
sexual abuse and assault in ICE detention facilities from October 2009 
through March 2013. The 15 substantiated sexual abuse and assault 
cases had several similar underlying factors. In particular, 4 of 
these cases included situations where the detainee was alone with a 
guard--such as in protective custody or transport--and 3 cases 
involved transgender victims. In addition, 4 cases included a 
perpetrator who did not understand the zero-tolerance sexual abuse 
policy. In 4 of the 15 substantiated cases, a guard sexually abused a 
detainee, whereas in the remaining 11 cases, a detainee sexually 
abused a detainee. Table 10 summarizes these substantiated allegations 
and identifies characteristics that were similar across multiple cases. 

Table 10: Substantiated Allegations of Sexual Abuse and Assault in 
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Detention Facilities, 
October 2009 through March 2013: 

Staff-on-detainee allegations: 

Allegation summary[A]: A transgender detainee was sexually assaulted 
by a male guard while in protective housing (December 2010); 
Type of facility: Dedicated intergovernmental service agreement; 
Outcomes: The guard was prosecuted by the local U.S. Attorney's Office 
(USAO); 
Similarities across cases: 
* Transgender victim; 
* Victim housed in protective custody; 
* Staff member alone with detainee; 
* Perpetrator admitted to abuse. 

Allegation summary[A]: A female guard attempted sexual intercourse 
with a male detainee (November 2012); 
Type of facility: Service processing center; 
Outcomes: Criminal prosecution was declined by the local USAO; 
Similarities across cases: 
* Staff member alone with detainee; 
* Perpetrator admitted to abuse. 

Allegation summary[A]: A male guard took a female detainee out of the 
vehicle during transport to an airport, conducted a pat-down search, 
and asked her to raise her shirt. When the detainee refused, the guard 
propositioned her for sexual intercourse. The detainee refused and 
they proceeded to the airport. During an investigation, an additional 
nine female detainees reported that this male guard had sexually 
assaulted them during transport (December 2009 to May 2010); 
Type of facility: Dedicated intergovernmental service agreement; 
Outcomes: The guard was prosecuted and indicted by the local USAO; 
Similarities across cases: 
* Staff member alone with detainee; 
* Perpetrator admitted to abuse. 

Allegation summary[A]: A male guard intimidated and coerced a 
transgender male detainee assigned to protective custody to display 
the detainee’s breasts and then the guard inappropriately touched 
himself in view of the detainee (December 2009); 
Type of facility: Nondedicated intergovernmental service agreement; 
Outcomes: The guard was prosecuted in state court; 
Similarities across cases: 
* Transgender victim; 
* Victim housed in protective custody; 
* Staff member alone with detainee; 
* Perpetrator admitted to abuse. 

Detainee-on-detainee allegations: 

Allegation summary[A]: A male detainee was sexually assaulted by 
another male detainee. The assault included repeated sexual requests, 
among other things (February to March 2010); 
Type of facility: Nondedicated intergovernmental service agreement; 
Outcomes: The local law enforcement agency did not pursue an 
investigation because the alleged perpetrator was scheduled for 
deportation 1 week after the allegation; 
Similarities across cases: 
* Victim housed in protective custody. 

Allegation summary[A]: A male detainee repeatedly hit another 
detainee in the face with his genitalia (September 2010); 
Type of facility: Nondedicated intergovernmental service agreement; 
Outcomes: The perpetrator was tried for sexual misconduct and ordered 
to pay a fine; 
Similarities across cases: 
* Transgender victim. 

Allegation summary[A]: A male detainee touched another detainee's 
genitalia on several occasions (March 2013); 
Type of facility: Nondedicated intergovernmental service agreement; 
Outcomes: The local district attorney did not pursue prosecution 
because the victim did not want to press charges; 
Similarities across cases: 
* Perpetrator did not understand zero-tolerance sexual abuse and 
assault policy; 
* Perpetrator admitted to abuse. 

Allegation summary[A]: A male detainee grabbed two other males' 
buttocks (January 2013); 
Type of facility: Contract detention facility; 
Outcomes: The local law enforcement agency did not file criminal 
charges; 
Similarities across cases: 
* Perpetrator admitted to abuse. 

Allegation summary[A]: A male detainee grabbed another male detainee 
by his genitalia (September 2011); 
Type of facility: Contract detention facility; 
Outcomes: Criminal prosecution was declined by the local USAO; 
Similarities across cases: 
* Perpetrator did not understand zero-tolerance sexual abuse and 
assault policy; 
* Perpetrator admitted to abuse. 

Allegation summary[A]: A male detainee grabbed another male detainee's 
genitalia (March 2013); 
Type of facility: Nondedicated intergovernmental service agreement; 
Outcomes: Local law enforcement declined to investigate because the 
victim did not want to press charges; 
Similarities across cases: 
* None. 

Allegation summary[A]: A male detainee reported that other male 
detainees touched him, and an investigation indicated that there was 
inappropriate touching among ICE detainees, but that there was no oral 
sex or penetration (November 2012); 
Type of facility: Nondedicated intergovernmental service agreement; 
Outcomes: None of the individuals involved wanted to file or sign a 
formal complaint regarding the incident; 
Similarities across cases: 
* Perpetrators admitted to abuse. 

Allegation summary[A]: A male detainee pressed his genitalia against 
another male detainee (January 2013); 
Type of facility: Nondedicated intergovernmental service agreement; 
Outcomes: The local district attorney declined prosecution because of 
a lack of evidence; 
Similarities across cases: 
* Perpetrator admitted to abuse. 

Allegation summary[A]: A male detainee grabbed another male detainee's 
chest and buttocks (February 2013); 
Type of facility: Nondedicated intergovernmental service agreement; 
Outcomes: Local law enforcement declined to investigate because the 
victim did not want to press charges; 
Similarities across cases: 
* Perpetrator admitted to abuse. 

Allegation summary[A]: A female detainee grabbed another female 
detainee's buttocks (June 2012); 
Type of facility: Nondedicated intergovernmental service agreement; 
Outcomes: Local law enforcement declined to investigate because of the 
minor level of contact; 
Similarities across cases: 
* Perpetrator did not understand zero-tolerance sexual abuse and 
assault policy. 

Allegation summary[A]: A male detainee repeatedly requested oral sex 
from another male detainee (February 2013); 
Type of facility: Nondedicated intergovernmental service agreement; 
Outcomes: The perpetrator was transferred before a disciplinary 
hearing could take place; 
Similarities across cases: 
* None. 

Source: GAO analysis of ICE information. 

[A] Dates presented in this column reflect when the alleged abuse 
occurred or, if that date was not available, when the allegation was 
reported to ICE headquarters. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Process for Reporting and Investigating Sexual Abuse and 
Assault Allegations: 

DHS ICE provides detainees with multiple methods to report sexual 
abuse and assault in detention facilities and oversees a multilayered 
investigation process. As shown in figure 3, detainees can report 
sexual abuse and assault allegations either locally at facilities in 
which they are housed or to DHS headquarters hotlines. Regardless of 
how detainees report abuse, DHS components are to forward these 
allegations to the Joint Intake Center to be routed for investigation. 
Local law enforcement and various DHS investigative entities including 
the OIG and ICE OPR conduct investigations into sexual abuse 
allegations. These investigations determine whether the alleged 
incident occurred and can lead to prosecution of alleged perpetrators. 

Figure 3: Process for Reporting and Investigating Sexual Abuse 
Allegations in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Detention 
Facilities: 

[Refer to PDF for image: process map] 

Detainee allegedly experiences sexual abuse in immigration detention: 

Reporting: 

1. Detainee chooses not to report: 
ICE may not know about allegation[A]. 

2. Detainee or third party chooses to report allegation: 

Two possible process paths: First path: 

3. Detainee reports to a local facility: 
Reports to local ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) 
personnel; 
Joint Intake Center[C]. 

4. Reports to facility contractor staff; 
Takes immediate action and reports to local law enforcement. 

Investigation: 

Local law enforcement investigates. 

Second path: 

3. Detainee reports to a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 
headquarters hotline. 

4. Reports to ICE Community and Detainee Helpline; 
Reports to DHS Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL)[B]; 
Reports to DHS Office of the Inspector General (OIG): 
Accepts case; or: 
Declines case: Joint Intake Center[C]. 

Investigation: 

5. Accepts case: DHS OIG investigates. 

6. Declines case: ICE Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) Case 
Management Group assesses case. 

7. Assigns to ICE OPR field office to investigate, in coordination 
with local law enforcement; or: 

8. Assigns to ICE ERO: 
ICE ERO Administrative Inquiry Unit investigates; or: 
Management referral–-local ICE ERO field office investigates. 

Outcome: 

Substantiated: Investigation determined allegation occurred. 

Unsubstantiated: Investigation could not determine whether or not 
allegation occurred. 

Unfounded: Investigation determined allegation did not occur. 

Source: GAO. 

[A] According to ICE officials, facility staff receive training on 
signs of sexual abuse and assault and may be able to detect abuse even 
if a detainee or third party does not report it. 

[B] According to Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties 
officials, the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties first 
refers allegations it receives to the OIG. If the OIG declines to 
investigate the allegation, the Office for Civil Rights and Civil 
Liberties investigates the allegation or refers it to the ICE 
Prevention of Sexual Assault coordinator, who then refers it to the 
Joint Intake Center. 

[C] When the Joint Intake Center receives staff-on-detainee 
allegations from ICE entities, it first refers them to the DHS OIG. If 
the DHS OIG declines to investigate the allegations, the Joint Intake 
Center refers them to OPR. 

[End of figure] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Provisions for Sexual Abuse and Assault Prevention and 
Intervention Included in Immigration Detention Standards: 

Table 11 provides a summary comparing SAAPI provisions included in 
ICE'S detention standards that apply across immigration detention 
facilities. These standards include the 2000 NDS, 2008 PBNDS, and 2011 
PBNDS. 

Table 11: Provisions for Sexual Abuse and Assault Prevention and 
Intervention (SAAPI) in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 
Detention Standards: 

Topical area: Definitions; 
2000 National Detention Standards (NDS) provisions: None related to 
SAAPI; 
2008 Performance-Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS) 
provisions: Define detainee-on-detainee and staff-on-detainee sexual 
abuse or assault; 
Provisions in 2011 PBNDS beyond those in 2008 PBNDS: Expand definition 
of detainee-on-detainee sexual abuse or assault to include attempted 
sexually abusive contact. Expand definition of staff-on-detainee 
sexual abuse or assault to include repeated verbal statements or 
comments of a sexual nature to a detainee, including demeaning 
references to gender, derogatory comments about body or clothing, or 
profane or obscene language or gestures. 

Topical area: Prohibitions; 
2000 National Detention Standards (NDS) provisions: Prohibit sexual 
assault, engaging in sexual acts, and making sexual proposals and 
threats; 
2008 Performance-Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS) 
provisions: State that sexual conduct between detainees and staff, 
volunteers, or contract personnel--regardless of consensual status--is 
prohibited; 
and subject to administrative, disciplinary, and criminal sanctions; 
Provisions in 2011 PBNDS beyond those in 2008 PBNDS: Similar to the 
provisions in the 2008 SAAPI standard. 

Topical area: Written policies and procedures; 
2000 National Detention Standards (NDS) provisions: None for SAAPI; 
2008 Performance-Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS) 
provisions: Require facility administrators to have written SAAPI 
policies and procedures; 
Provisions in 2011 PBNDS beyond those in 2008 PBNDS: Require written 
SAAPI policies and procedures to include additional components, such 
as a statement of a zero-tolerance policy for all forms of sexual 
abuse or assault. 

Topical area: Program coordination; 
2000 National Detention Standards (NDS) provisions: None for SAAPI; 
2008 Performance-Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS) 
provisions: Require service processing centers and contract detention 
facilities to designate a SAAPI coordinator to, among other things, 
coordinate the gathering of reports on incidents of sexual abuse or 
assault; 
Provisions in 2011 PBNDS beyond those in 2008 PBNDS: Require all 
facilities that house detainees for more than 72 hours, including 
intergovernmental service agreement facilities, to designate a SAAPI 
coordinator. 

Topical area: Staff training; 
2000 National Detention Standards (NDS) provisions: None specific to 
SAAPI; 
2008 Performance-Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS) 
provisions: Require facilities to provide training on certain topics 
relating to sexual abuse and assault for employees, volunteers, and 
contract personnel; 
Provisions in 2011 PBNDS beyond those in 2008 PBNDS: Modify 2008 
requirements to specify that the level and type of training for 
volunteers and contractors will be based on the services they provide 
and their level of contact with detainees, requires training on 
working with vulnerable populations, and requires facilities to 
maintain documentation to verify training. 

Topical area: Detainee notification, orientation, and instruction; 
2000 National Detention Standards (NDS) provisions: None related to 
SAAPI; 
2008 Performance-Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS) 
provisions: Require facilities to provide detainees with information 
on their SAAPI programs. Facility must provide detainees an option to 
report a sexual incident or situation to a designated staff member 
other than an immediate point-of-contact line officer and post sexual 
assault awareness information; 
Provisions in 2011 PBNDS beyond those in 2008 PBNDS: Require that 
facilities provide detainees with information on additional topics and 
document detainee participation in the instruction session, post the 
name of the SAAPI program coordinator or designated staff member and 
local organizations that can assist detainee victims, and take 
additional steps to strengthen language assistance for limited English 
proficient and illiterate detainees. 

Topical area: Prevention; 
2000 National Detention Standards (NDS) provisions: None specific to 
SAAPI, but require facilities to prevent abuse through housing 
assignments that reduce low-threat detainees' exposure to danger; 
2008 Performance-Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS) 
provisions: Assign staff and detainees responsibility for being alert 
for and reporting signs of potential situations in which sexual 
assault might occur. Facility must work to prevent abuse through 
detainee admission and housing assignments. In particular, detainees 
must be screened upon arrival for risk of sexual victimization or 
abusiveness, and monitored and counseled accordingly. Detainees 
considered likely to become victims must be placed in the least 
restrictive housing that is available and appropriate; 
Provisions in 2011 PBNDS beyond those in 2008 PBNDS: Specify that a 
detainee who is subjected to sexual abuse or assault shall not be 
returned to general population until proper reclassification, taking 
into consideration any increased vulnerability of the detainee as a 
result of the sexual abuse or assault, is; 
completed. 

Topical area: Prompt and effective intervention; 
2000 National Detention Standards (NDS) provisions: None specific to 
SAAPI, but require that facilities have a process for responding to 
detainee grievances; 
2008 Performance-Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS) 
provisions: Require that staff take seriously all statements from 
detainees claiming to be victims of sexual assaults, offer alleged 
victims immediate protection from the assailant, refer the alleged 
victim for a medical examination, and follow all reporting 
requirements; 
Provisions in 2011 PBNDS beyond those in 2008 PBNDS: Require that 
facilities use a coordinated, multidisciplinary team approach to 
respond to sexual abuse that includes a medical practitioner, a mental 
health practitioner, a security staff member and an investigator from 
the assigned investigative entity, as well as representatives from 
outside entities that provide relevant services and expertise. Further 
require that care is taken to place the detainee in a supportive 
environment that represents the least restrictive housing option 
possible. 

Topical area: Reporting, notifications, and confidentiality; 
2000 National Detention Standards (NDS) provisions: Require officers 
to document prohibited acts, which include sexual assault, that they 
witness or suspect; 
2008 Performance-Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS) 
provisions: Emphasize importance of timely reporting of all sexual 
abuse and assault incidents and allegations, and outline specific 
reporting avenues for different types of assault incidents. Require 
confidentiality measures to limit information about the alleged 
victims to those who have a need to know; 
Provisions in 2011 PBNDS beyond those in 2008 PBNDS: Require that 
staff suspected of perpetrating abuse be removed from all duties 
requiring detainee contact pending the outcome of an investigation. 

Topical area: Investigation and prosecution; 
2000 National Detention Standards (NDS) provisions: Require facilities 
to develop a process for investigating detainee grievances, including 
allegations, but do not specifically address sexual abuse or assault 
investigations; 
2008 Performance-Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS) 
provisions: Stipulate that a sensitive and coordinated response is 
necessary when a detainee alleges sexual abuse or assault, and that 
all allegations are promptly and effectively investigated. Require 
that staff preserve the crime scene, when possible, and arrange for 
the victim to undergo a forensic medical examination, based on factors 
such as availability of in-house expertise and security considerations; 
Provisions in 2011 PBNDS beyond those in 2008 PBNDS: Require that all 
investigations into alleged sexual assault be prompt, thorough, 
objective, and conducted by trained investigators. In addition, the 
facility administrator must arrange for the victim to undergo an off-
site forensic medical examination in all cases, rather than based on 
such factors as availability of in-house expertise and general 
security considerations. Also require the facility SAAPI coordinator 
to review the results of every investigation of sexual abuse to assess 
and improve prevention and response efforts. 

Topical area: Health care services and transfer of detainees to 
hospitals or other facilities; 
2000 National Detention Standards (NDS) provisions: Require that 
facilities provide detainees with emergency medical care, but do not 
specifically address treatment for sexual abuse or assault victims; 
2008 Performance-Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS) 
provisions: Require that victims of sexual assault must be referred to 
a community facility for treatment and gathering of evidence, when 
possible. If care is provided in-house, requires that health care 
professionals take particular steps (e.g., offer victims prophylactic 
treatment, as appropriate); 
Provisions in 2011 PBNDS beyond those in 2008 PBNDS: Specify that if a 
victim is treated by a community facility, prophylactic treatment, 
emergency contraception, and follow-up examinations for sexually 
transmitted diseases are be offered to victims, as appropriate. 

Topical area: Tracking; 
2000 National Detention Standards (NDS) provisions: Require that 
investigative forms are completed according to facility policies, but 
do not include specific requirements for tracking sexual abuse or 
assault; 
2008 Performance-Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS) 
provisions: Require facility administrators to maintain general and 
investigative files for allegations of sexual abuse that include 
information such as crime characteristics, a detailed reporting 
timeline, incident and investigative reports, medical forms, and 
supporting memos and videotapes; 
Provisions in 2011 PBNDS beyond those in 2008 PBNDS: Require that the 
SAAPI program coordinator undertake an annual review of aggregate data 
related to sexual abuse allegations and present the findings to the 
field office director and ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) 
headquarters for use in determining changes to existing policies and 
practices to further the goal of eliminating sexual abuse. 

Source: GAO analysis of ICE detention standards. 

Note: ICE has developed another set of detention standards--the 2007 
Family Residential Standards--for facilities that house families. As 
of August 2013, 1 of ICE's 251 detention facilities housed families, 
and this facility housed less than 1 percent of the average detainee 
population from fiscal years 2010 through 2012. The 2007 Family 
Residential Standards are not included in this table because this 
table focuses on facilities that generally house adult immigration 
detainees. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: NPREC Recommendations Compared with DHS Detention 
Standards and PREA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: 

The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 established the National 
Prison Rape Elimination Commission to study the impacts of prison rape 
in the United States and charged NPREC with recommending standards for 
addressing prison rape for consideration in developing standards 
required by PREA.[Footnote 106] In June 2009, NPREC issued a report 
with recommended standards, including specific recommendations for 
facilities that house immigration detainees.[Footnote 107] According 
to DHS, the department took NPREC's recommendations for facilities 
that house immigration detainees into consideration along with input 
from other sources in its development of ICE's 2011 PBNDS. In 
addition, DHS stated in the PREA notice of proposed rulemaking that 
NPREC's recommendations for facilities that house immigration 
detainees are of particular interest to the department. Table 12 
provides a summary of the NPREC recommended standards for immigration 
detention facilities compared with the standards in ICE's 2011 PBNDS 
and DHS's PREA notice of proposed rulemaking, along with perspectives 
we obtained from former NPREC members and ICE officials on reasons 
for, and the significance of, any differences. 

Table 12: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission (NPREC) 
Recommended Standards for Immigration Detention Facilities Compared 
with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 2011 Performance-Based 
National Detention Standards (PBNDS) and DHS Prison Rape Elimination 
Act of 2003 (PREA) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM): 

NPREC recommended standard: Agreements with outside public entities 
and community service providers--The agency maintains copies of 
agreements, or documentation showing attempts to enter into 
agreements, with one or more local or national organizations that 
provide legal advocacy and confidential emotional support services for 
immigrant victims of crime; 
2011 PBNDS and DHS NPRM: Both require that facility administrators 
enter into or attempt to enter into agreements; 
Neither specifically requires that agencies maintain documentation 
showing that they entered or attempted to enter into agreements; 
Related comments by former NPREC Commissioners and U.S. Immigration 
and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials[A]: 
NPREC--An agency should maintain documentation as a matter of good 
business practice. Facilities should maintain this documentation as 
evidence to present to PREA auditors; 
ICE--Facility managers are compelled to maintain documentation of 
attempts to enter into agreements because while the 2011 PBNDS do not 
specifically require this documentation, inspectors are to review this 
documentation in conducting facility inspections. 

NPREC recommended standard: Employee training and specialized training 
of investigators and medical and mental health care--Provides for 
special additional training to employees, including medical and mental 
health practitioners and investigators on the following topics: (1) 
cultural sensitivity toward diverse understandings of acceptable and 
unacceptable sexual behavior, (2) appropriate terms and concepts for 
discussing sex and sexual abuse with a culturally diverse population, 
(3) sensitivity and awareness regarding past trauma that may have been 
experienced by immigration detainees, and (4) knowledge of all 
existing resources for immigration detainees both inside and outside 
the facility that provide treatment and counseling for trauma and 
legal advocacy for victims; 
2011 PBNDS and DHS NPRM: The NPRM requires specialized staff training 
on coordination and health care issues, and on communicating 
effectively with detainees. The 2011 PBNDS also require training for 
staff on "cultural and language issues." Neither explicitly requires 
training focused on the four topics enumerated in the NPREC 
recommended standard; 
Related comments by former NPREC Commissioners and U.S. Immigration 
and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials[A]: 
NPREC--Emphasized importance for DHS to require training on the 
specific topics NPREC recommended because individuals with a 
background in corrections do not inherently possess this knowledge and 
detainees will not find facility efforts to prevent sexual abuse 
credible if sexual abuse and assault prevention and intervention 
(SAAPI) information is not provided in a manner that is respectful of 
their cultural norms; 
ICE--Agreed with NPREC standard; however, many of the state and local 
jails housing ICE detainees do not have the resources to provide this 
specialized training, especially given that most house very small 
populations of ICE detainees (to which such cultural issues would be 
applicable). ICE could explore the possibility of assisting facilities 
with this type of training in the future, depending on its own 
resources. 

NPREC recommended standard: Inmate (detainee) education--Sexual abuse 
education for immigration detainees is provided at a time and in a 
manner that is separate from information provided about their 
immigration cases, in detainees' own languages and in terms that are 
culturally appropriate, and is conducted by a qualified individual 
with experience communicating about these issues with a diverse 
population; 
2011 PBNDS and DHS NPRM: Both require that facilities provide 
information to ICE detainees in a language or format that they 
understand. Neither explicitly requires that education be provided to 
detainees separately from information about their immigration cases, 
in terms that are culturally appropriate, or by a qualified individual 
with experience communicating about these issues with a diverse 
population; 
Related comments by former NPREC Commissioners and U.S. Immigration 
and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials[A]: 
NPREC--Incorporation of all elements is important; 
ICE--ICE policies require that facilities make SAAPI-related 
information available to detainees on an ongoing basis that provides 
detainees with the opportunity to learn about SAAPI issues separately 
from their immigration case. Reiterated that many of the state and 
local jails housing ICE detainees do not have the resources to provide 
specialized training to staff beyond the training already required by 
the PBNDS, but that ICE could explore the possibility of assisting 
facilities with this type of training in the future, depending on 
resources. 

NPREC recommended standard: Detainee Handbook--Every detainee is 
provided with an ICE Detainee Handbook upon admission to the facility, 
and a replacement is provided whenever a detainee's handbook is lost 
or damaged. The Detainee Handbook contains notice of the agency's zero-
tolerance policy toward sexual abuse and contains all the agency's 
policies related to sexual abuse, including information about how to 
report an incident of sexual abuse and detainees' rights and 
responsibilities related to sexual abuse. The Detainee Handbook will 
inform immigration detainees how to contact organizations in the 
community that provide sexual abuse counseling and legal advocacy for 
detainee victims of sexual abuse. The Detainee Handbook will also 
inform detainees how to contact the DHS Office for Civil Rights and 
Civil Liberties, DHS Office of the Inspector General (OIG), and 
diplomatic or consular personnel; 
2011 PBNDS and DHS NPRM: Both require that the handbook be made 
available to all detainees, and that detainees be notified about the 
facility's zero-tolerance policy and how to report allegations of 
abuse to ICE headquarters and the OIG. Neither explicitly requires 
that a replacement handbook be provided whenever a detainee's handbook 
is lost or damaged, or that the handbook include information on how to 
contact community organizations, DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil 
Liberties, or diplomatic or consular personnel; 
Related comments by former NPREC Commissioners and U.S. Immigration 
and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials[A]: 
NPREC--The handbook should include the Office for Civil Rights and 
Civil Liberties' phone number because the Office for Civil Rights and 
Civil Liberties' mandate focuses on investigating cases, whereas the 
OIG's mission focuses on ensuring the integrity of DHS functions.[B]; 
ICE--Although no written ICE policy explicitly requires the provision 
of replacement handbooks to detainees, ICE does so in practice, and 
the handbook's introduction advises detainees that they may request a 
replacement as necessary. In addition, contact information for the 
Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, community organizations, 
and diplomatic and consular personnel is provided to detainees through 
other means (e.g., postings in detainee housing areas). 

NPREC recommended standard: Screening for risk of victimization and 
abusiveness--The facility makes every reasonable effort to obtain 
institutional and criminal records of immigration detainees in its 
custody prior to screening for risk of victimization and abusiveness. 
Screening of immigration detainees is conducted by employees who are 
culturally competent; 
2011 PBNDS and DHS NPRM: Both include provisions related to obtaining 
detainee criminal histories. As discussed above, training requirements 
do not include the NPREC-recommended topics related to cultural 
competence, but the 2011 PBNDS require that employee training address 
"cultural and language issues;" 
Related comments by former NPREC Commissioners and U.S. Immigration 
and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials[A]: 
NPREC--Reiterated the importance of providing training to facility 
staff to ensure that they are culturally competent; 
ICE--As discussed above, many state and local jails do not have the 
resources to provide this specialized training, but ICE could explore 
assisting facilities with this type of training in the future, 
depending on resources. 

NPREC recommended standard: Use of screening information--Any facility 
that houses both inmates and immigration detainees houses all 
immigration detainees separately from other inmates in the facility 
and provides heightened protection for immigration detainees who are 
identified as particularly vulnerable to sexual abuse by other 
detainees through the screening process. To the extent possible, 
immigration detainees have full access to programs, education, and 
work opportunities; 
2011 PBNDS and DHS NPRM: Both require that facilities provide 
heightened protection for detainees who are identified as particularly 
vulnerable to sexual abuse, and that facilities allow detainees who 
are identified as particularly vulnerable to sexual abuse to have the 
least restrictive housing possible. Neither requires that facilities 
house all immigration detainees separately from other inmates in the 
facility; 
Related comments by former NPREC Commissioners and U.S. Immigration 
and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials[A]: 
NPREC--Reiterated that housing detainees separately from other inmates 
is of paramount importance because comingling denies detainees their 
civil status and subjects them to rules that are appropriate for 
convicted criminals but not for civil detainees; 
ICE--ICE works to ensure the safety of detainees by housing them 
separately from detainees and inmates of higher threat levels. It is 
infeasible for state and local facilities to house detainees 
separately by classification level and apart from inmates because of 
resource constraints. ICE is working to consolidate the detainee 
population into fewer facilities that house solely ICE detainees, 
which reduces the frequency with which detainees are housed together 
with inmates. 

NPREC recommended standard: Inmate (detainee) reporting--The agency 
provides immigration detainees with access to telephones with free, 
preprogrammed numbers to the DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil 
Liberties and the DHS OIG. In addition, the agency must provide 
immigration detainees with a list of phone numbers for diplomatic or 
consular personnel from their countries of citizenship and access to 
telephones to contact such personnel; 
2011 PBNDS and DHS NPRM: Both require facilities to provide 
information on how to contact the DHS OIG and consular officials. In 
addition, the 2011 PBNDS require that facilities provide detainees 
with free telephone access to these parties. Neither requires 
facilities to provide detainees with free telephone access to the 
Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties; 
Related comments by former NPREC Commissioners and U.S. Immigration 
and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials[A]: 
NPREC--Detainee access to the Office for Civil Rights and Civil 
Liberties is important because the Office for Civil Rights and Civil 
Liberties' mandate focuses on investigating cases, whereas the OIG's 
mission focuses on ensuring the integrity of DHS functions; 
ICE--The Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties has indicated 
that it may not have the capacity to support the increased call volume 
that would result from free access to its number, given its limited 
staffing resources. 

NPREC recommended standard: Inmate (detainee) access to outside 
confidential support services--All immigration detainees have access 
to outside victim advocates who have experience working with 
immigration detainees or immigrant victims of crime for emotional 
support services related to sexual abuse. The facility provides such 
access by giving immigration detainees the current mailing addresses 
and telephone numbers, including toll-free hotline numbers, of local, 
state, and national organizations that provide these services and 
enabling reasonable communication between immigration detainees and 
these organizations. The facility ensures that communications with 
such advocates is private, confidential, and privileged to the extent 
allowable by federal, state, and local law. The facility informs 
immigration detainees, prior to giving them access, of the extent to 
which such communications will be private, confidential, and 
privileged; 
2011 PBNDS and DHS NPRM: The NPRM requires that facilities provide 
detainees with access to support services and enable reasonable 
communication between detainees and service providers, in as 
confidential a manner as possible. The 2011 PBNDS require facilities 
to provide detainees with access to outside services by giving 
detainees the names of local organizations that can assist detainee 
victims. Neither requires that victims be informed of the extent to 
which their communications with the service providers will be private, 
confidential, and privileged; 
Related comments by former NPREC Commissioners and U.S. Immigration 
and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials[A]: 
NPREC--It is critical that detainees have the option to report abuse 
confidentially, and ICE cannot assume that detainees will know which 
of their communications are confidential; ICE must apprise them of 
this; 
ICE--Reiterated that the NPRM contains language requiring that 
facilities enable reasonable communication between detainees and 
support organizations in as confidential a manner as possible, but did 
not comment on informing victims of the confidentiality of their 
communications or that the communications are confidential to the 
extent allowable by law versus as confidential as possible. 

NPREC recommended standard: Protection of detainee victims and 
witnesses--ICE never removes from the country or transfers to another 
facility immigration detainees who report sexual abuse before the 
investigation of that abuse is completed, except at the detainee 
victim's request. ICE considers releasing detainees who are victims 
of, or witnesses to, abuse; and monitoring them in the community to 
protect them from retaliation or further abuse during the course of 
the investigation; 
2011 PBNDS and DHS NPRM: Neither includes these requirements; 
Related comments by former NPREC Commissioners and U.S. Immigration 
and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials[A]: 
NPREC--Permitting the transfer of detainees enables retaliation 
against detainees who report abuse, interrupts investigation 
processes, and makes cases less likely to come to fruition. The threat 
of removal or transfer is very powerful; 
ICE--It is not appropriate to include these requirements in the PBNDS 
2011 because detention standards apply only to detention facilities; 
however, it is ICE, not the detention facilities, that holds the 
authority to transfer and remove detainees. However, ICE Directive 
11062.1--Sexual Abuse and Assault Prevention and Intervention--directs 
the ICE Office of Professional Responsibility to coordinate with 
appropriate entities to facilitate necessary immigration processes 
that ensure availability of victims, witnesses, and perpetrators for 
investigative interviews and administrative or criminal procedures. It 
also directs field office directors to consider potential alternative 
custodial options (such as release) for detainee victims. 

NPREC recommended standard: Data collection--The facility collects 
additional data whenever an immigration detainee is the victim or 
perpetrator of an incident of sexual abuse in custody. The additional 
incident-based data collected indicate whether the victim or 
perpetrator was an immigration detainee, his or her status at the 
initiation of the investigation, and his or her status at the 
conclusion of the investigation; 
2011 PBNDS and DHS NPRM: Both require facilities to maintain records 
when a sexual assault occurs that identify the perpetrator, among 
other things. The 2011 PBNDS also require that the records identify 
the victim. Neither specifically requires that the records identify 
whether the perpetrator was an immigration detainee, his or her status 
at the initiation of the investigation, and his or her status at the 
conclusion of the investigation; 
Related comments by former NPREC Commissioners and U.S. Immigration 
and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials[A]: 
NPREC--DHS should consider developing a more robust framework for 
collecting, analyzing, and using these data similar to the surveys 
performed by the Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics. 
It is crucial for effective record keeping and appropriate 
administrative response to incidents that the status of the 
perpetrator be designated (e.g., staff, visitor, immigration detainee); 
ICE--The information suggested in the NPREC recommendation is 
generally expected to be contained in investigative files based on the 
requirements in the 2011 PBNDS. 

NPREC recommended standard: Recommended standards for family 
facilities--These consist of four standards that address screening of 
immigration detainees, reporting of sexual abuse, investigations, and 
access to medical and mental health care in family facilities. For 
example, they recommend that family facilities develop screening 
criteria to identify those families and family members who may be at 
risk of being sexually victimized that will not lead to the separation 
of families; that parents are questioned confidentially by 
investigators about any incident of sexual abuse, away from their 
children; and that all family members are offered mental health 
counseling when one family member is a victim of sexual abuse in the 
facility; 
2011 PBNDS and DHS NPRM: The 2007 Family Residential Standards govern 
ICE family facilities. Both these standards and the NPRM require the 
use of screening criteria for identifying those likely to be sexual 
aggressors or sexual victims and that facilities offer victims of 
sexual abuse mental health care. Neither identifies as a priority 
ensuring that their application does not lead to the separation of 
families. In addition neither specifies that facilities offer family 
members of victims of sexual abuse mental health care; 
Related comments by former NPREC Commissioners and U.S. Immigration 
and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials[A]: 
NPREC--Reiterated the importance of including all four of the 
standards the commission recommended for family facilities. Sexual 
victimization of a family member in a detention facility involves 
shared trauma, as family members must cope with the consequences. 
Treatment should be made available to all family members directly 
affected by the victimization. Family separation can be destructive 
and very costly. It can also increase detainees' vulnerability to 
sexual victimization; 
ICE--These standards have been implemented in practice at ICE's 
residential facility. For example, all residents at family facilities 
have access to mental health care at any time, so all facility members 
could receive counseling if one member is a victim of sexual abuse. 
The purpose of the family facility is to retain family unity, and the 
purpose of the screening process is to remove any detainees that would 
not be appropriately housed at a family facility, such as sexual abuse 
perpetrators. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS and NPREC documents and testimony. 

Notes: NPREC also recommended that all immigration detainees be 
counseled about the immigration consequences of a positive Human 
Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) test at the time they are offered HIV 
testing. NPREC explained that at the time it drafted the recommended 
standards, immigrants seeking legal status in the United States who 
were known to be HIV-positive had to seek a waiver from the U.S. 
Department of Health and Human Services to do so, as all people with 
communicable diseases of public health significance were required to 
do. Because of the potential consequences of a positive test for an 
immigration detainee, NPREC opined that it was important that 
detainees make an informed decision about whether to be tested or not. 
In 2010, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services published a 
final rule removing HIV from the list of communicable diseases of 
public health significance for purposes of removability and 
inadmissibility (see 42 C.F.R. pt. 34). As a result, this recommended 
standard is no longer relevant. 

[A] The views presented in this column are based on interview 
testimony provided by seven of eight former NPREC commissioners. The 
other commissioner was not available for comment. We refer to the 
former NPREC commissioners we interviewed as NPREC for the purpose of 
brevity in this column, but the former commissioners noted that NPREC 
no longer exists and that they were not speaking on behalf of the 
commission. 

[B] The Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties' mission is to 
support DHS's mission to secure the nation while preserving individual 
liberty, fairness, and equality under the law. The Office for Civil 
Rights and Civil Liberties works to integrate civil rights and civil 
liberties into all of DHS's activities by, among other things, 
investigating and resolving civil rights and civil liberties 
complaints filed by the public regarding department policies or 
activities, or actions taken by department personnel. The OIG's 
mission is to conduct independent and objective inspections, audits, 
and investigations to provide oversight and promote excellence, 
integrity, and accountability in DHS programs and operations. 

[End of table] 

National advocacy organizations we spoke with generally agreed in 
comments they submitted on DHS's PREA notice of proposed rulemaking 
that the notice of proposed rulemaking includes components that could 
strengthen SAAPI provisions in DHS's detention facilities, but 
identified aspects of the proposed rule that they view as weaknesses. 
For example, three of the four national advocacy organizations we 
spoke with agreed that the standards included in DHS's notice of 
proposed rulemaking, if fully implemented, would significantly 
increase the safety of DHS detainees, but that the standards could 
benefit from inclusion of additional requirements, such as that 
forensic medical exams be provided by a Sexual Assault Forensic 
Examiner (SAFE) or a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE).[Footnote 
108] These organizations also raised concern that DHS's notice of 
proposed rulemaking would not ensure timely implementation of the 
standards included in the rule. As DHS's PREA rule is in proposed form 
and subject to change based on public comments received by the 
department, it is too early to assess the extent to which the final 
rule may address these issues. 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: DHS PREA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Compared with DOJ 
PREA Rule: 

DHS's PREA notice of proposed rulemaking adopts the overall structure 
of DOJ's PREA rule and exact language from various DOJ standards; 
however, there are certain differences between the rules' standards, 
examples of which are presented in table 13. 

Table 13: Selected Differences between Department of Homeland Security 
(DHS) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for Implementing the Prison 
Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA) Rule and Department of Justice 
(DOJ) Final PREA Rule: 

Category: Definition of "sexual abuse"; 
DHS NPRM: Includes attempted abuse committed by detainees and staff; 
DOJ final rule: Includes attempted abuse committed by staff but not by 
inmates. 

Category: Prevention planning: cross-gender viewing and searches; 
DHS NPRM: Prohibits cross-gender pat-down searches of female detainees 
absent exigent circumstances and prohibits such searches of male 
detainees unless, after reasonable diligence, staff of the same gender 
are not available at the time the pat-down search is required or in 
exigent circumstances; 
DOJ final rule: Prohibits cross-gender pat-down searches of female 
inmates, absent exigent circumstances, and does not address such 
searches of male inmates; phases in this requirement over 3 to 5 
years, depending on the rated capacity of the facility. 

Category: Responsive planning: forensic medical examinations; 
DHS NPRM: Requires forensic medical examinations to be performed by 
qualified health care personnel, but does not specify that they be by 
Sexual Assault Forensic Examiners (SAFE) or Sexual Assault Nurse 
Examiners (SANE); 
DOJ final rule: Requires forensic medical examinations to be performed 
by SAFEs or SANEs where possible, and if SAFEs or SANEs cannot be made 
available, by other qualified medical practitioners; 
efforts to provide SAFEs or SANEs are to be documented. 

Category: Training and education: staff training; 
DHS NPRM: Differs from DOJ rule on substance of training on sexual 
abuse, and includes definitions and examples of prohibited and illegal 
sexual behavior; 
recognition of situations where sexual abuse may occur; 
recognition of physical, behavioral, and emotional signs of sexual 
abuse, and methods of preventing and responding to such occurrences; 
and how to avoid inappropriate relationships with detainees; 
DOJ final rule: Differs from DHS NPRM on substance of training on 
sexual abuse, and includes the dynamics of sexual abuse and sexual 
harassment in confinement, the common reaction of sexual abuse and 
sexual harassment victims, how to detect and respond to signs of 
threatened and actual sexual abuse, and how to avoid inappropriate 
relationships with inmates. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS NPRM and DOJ final rule for implementing 
PREA. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix VII: Enforcement and Removal Operations 2008 and 2011 Sexual 
Abuse and Assault Provisions Inspection Checklists: 

ICE ERO inspected facilities according to two sets of detention 
standards--the 2008 PBNDS and the 2011 PBNDS--that include SAAPI 
provisions in fiscal years 2010 through 2013. ERO developed inspection 
checklist worksheets for each of these sets of standards that it uses 
to assess compliance during its annual inspections of immigration 
detention facilities. Table 14 compares the 2008 and 2011 PBNDS SAAPI 
standard inspection checklists. 

Table 14: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Enforcement 
and Removal Operations (ERO) 2008 and 2011 Sexual Abuse and Assault 
Prevention and Intervention (SAAPI) Inspection Checklists: 

2008 SAAPI provision components: PRIORITY: The facility has a SAAPI 
program that includes, at a minimum: 
* measures to prevent sexual abuse and sexual assault; 
* policy and procedures for required chain-of-command reporting to the 
highest facility official and the ICE field office director; 
* measures for prompt and effective intervention to address the safety 
and treatment needs of detainee victims if an assault occurs; and; 
* investigation of incidents of sexual assault, and discipline of 
assailants[A]; 
For service processing centers and contract detention facilities, the 
written policy and procedure has been approved by the field office 
director; 
Tracking statistics and reports are readily available for review by 
the inspectors; 
2011 SAAPI provision components: Priority: Each facility has written 
policy and procedures for a SAAPI program that includes, at a minimum: 
* a zero-tolerance policy for all forms of sexual abuse or assault; 
* measures taken to prevent sexual abuse or assault, including the 
designation of specific staff members responsible for staff training 
and detainee education regarding issues pertaining to sexual assault; 
* procedures for immediate reporting of any allegation of sexual abuse 
or assault through the facility's chain-of-command procedure, and to 
ERO, including written documentation requirements; 
* procedures for detainees to report allegations; 
* measures taken for prompt and effective intervention to address the 
safety and medical/mental health treatment needs of detainee victims, 
and to preserve and collect evidence; 
* procedures for referral of incidents to appropriate investigative 
agencies (including law enforcement agencies and ICE Office of 
Professional Responsibility), and coordination with such entities; 
* disciplinary sanctions for staff, up to and including termination, 
when staff have violated agency sexual abuse policies, and data 
collection and reporting. 

2008 SAAPI provision components: Priority: All staff are trained, 
during orientation and in annual refresher training, in the prevention 
and intervention areas required by the detention standard.[B]; 
2011 SAAPI provision components: Priority: Training on the facility's 
SAAPI program is included in initial and annual refresher training for 
employees, volunteers, and contract personnel, and addresses all 
training topics required by the detention standard. The facility 
maintains written documentation verifying employee, volunteer, and 
contractor training. 

2008 SAAPI provision components: Priority: Detainees are informed 
about the program in facility orientation and the Detainee Handbook 
(or equivalent); 
2011 SAAPI provision components: Priority: Detainees are informed 
about the facility's SAAPI program and zero-tolerance policy for 
sexual abuse and assault through the orientation program and the 
Detainee Handbook. Detainee notification, orientation, and instruction 
must be in a language or manner that the detainee understands; 
Detainees are provided the option to report any incident of sexual 
abuse or assault to any staff member, including a designated staff 
member other than an immediate point-of-contact line officer (e.g., 
the program coordinator or a mental health specialist). 

2008 SAAPI provision components: The Sexual Assault Awareness Notice 
is posted on all housing unit bulletin boards[C]; 
For service processing centers and contract detention facilities, the 
Sexual Assault Awareness Information brochure is available for 
detainees; 
2011 SAAPI provision components: The Sexual Assault Awareness Notice, 
along with the names of the program coordinator and local 
organizations that can assist detainees who have been victims of 
sexual assault, is posted on all housing unit bulletin boards. The 
"Sexual Assault Awareness Information" brochure is distributed to 
detainees[D]. 

2008 SAAPI provision components: Priority: Detainees are screened upon 
arrival for high-risk sexual assaultive and sexual victimization 
potential and housed and counseled accordingly; 
Detainees who are likely to become victims will be placed in the least 
restrictive housing that is available and appropriate; 
2011 SAAPI provision components: Priority: Detainees are screened upon 
arrival at the facility for potential vulnerabilities to sexually 
aggressive behavior or tendencies to act out with sexually aggressive 
behavior. Detainees identified as being at risk for sexual 
victimization are monitored and counseled, and placed in the least 
restrictive housing that is available and appropriate; 
The facility administrator maintains or attempts to enter into 
memorandums of understanding or other agreements with community 
service providers or, if local providers are not available, with 
national organizations that provide legal advocacy and confidential 
emotional support services for immigrant victims of crime. 

2008 SAAPI provision components: Priority: When there is an alleged or 
proven sexual assault, the required notifications to ICE, facility 
management, and the appropriate law enforcement agency are promptly 
made; 
2011 SAAPI provision components: Priority: Staff members who become 
aware of an alleged assault immediately follow the reporting 
requirements set forth in the written policies and procedures. When a 
detainee is alleged to be the perpetrator, the facility administrator 
ensures that the incident is promptly referred to the appropriate law 
enforcement agency having jurisdiction for investigation, and reported 
to the ERO field office director. When an employee, contractor, or 
volunteer is alleged to be the perpetrator, the facility administrator 
ensures that the incident is promptly referred to the appropriate law 
enforcement agency having jurisdiction for investigation, and reported 
to the ERO field office director. The local government entity or 
contractor that owns or operates the facility is also notified. 

2008 SAAPI provision components: Priority: There is prompt and 
effective intervention when any detainee is sexually abused or 
assaulted, and there are policy and procedures for required chain-of-
command reporting; 
2011 SAAPI provision components: A detainee who is subjected to sexual 
abuse or assault is not returned to general population until proper 
reclassification, taking into consideration any increased 
vulnerability of the detainee as a result of the sexual abuse or 
assault, is completed; 
Priority: Any detainee who alleges that he/she has been sexually 
assaulted is offered immediate protection from the assailant and 
referred for a medical examination or clinical assessment for 
potential negative symptoms; 
The facility uses a coordinated, multidisciplinary team approach to 
responding to sexual abuse, which includes a medical practitioner, a 
mental health practitioner, a security staff member, and an 
investigator from the assigned investigative entity, as well as 
representatives from outside entities that provide relevant services 
and expertise; 
Care is taken to place a victimized detainee in a supportive 
environment that represents the least restrictive housing option 
possible (e.g., protective custody), but victims are not held for 
longer than 5 days in any type of administrative segregation except in 
highly unusual circumstances or at the request of the detainee; 
Priority: Staff suspected of perpetrating sexual abuse or assault are 
removed from all duties requiring detainee contact pending the outcome 
of an investigation. 

2008 SAAPI provision components: When there is an alleged sexual 
assault, staff conduct a thorough investigation, gather and maintain 
evidence, and make referrals to appropriate law enforcement agencies 
for possible prosecution; 
2011 SAAPI provision components: The facility ensures that all 
investigations into alleged sexual assault are prompt, thorough, 
objective, fair, and conducted by qualified investigators. Written 
procedures establish the coordination and sequencing of administrative 
and criminal investigations to ensure that the latter is not 
compromised by the former, including the process for conducting 
internal administrative investigations only after consultation with 
the assigned criminal investigative entity or after a criminal 
investigation has concluded; 
When possible and feasible, appropriate staff preserve the crime 
scene, and safeguard information and evidence in coordination with the 
referral agency and consistent with established evidence-gathering and 
evidence-processing procedures. 

2008 SAAPI provision components: Victims of sexual abuse or assault 
are referred to specialized community resources for treatment and 
gathering of evidence; 
2011 SAAPI provision components: At no cost to the detainee, the 
facility administrator arranges for the victim to undergo a forensic 
medical examination by external independent and qualified health care 
personnel. The results of the physical examination and all collected 
physical evidence are provided to the investigative entity; 
Victims are provided emergency medical and mental health services and 
ongoing care as appropriate, including testing for sexually 
transmitted diseases and infections, prophylactic treatment, emergency 
contraception, follow-up examinations for sexually transmitted 
diseases, and referrals for counseling (including crisis intervention 
counseling). 

2008 SAAPI provision components: All records associated with claims of 
sexual abuse or assault are maintained, and such incidents are 
specifically logged and tracked by a designated staff coordinator; 
2011 SAAPI provision components: Priority: The facility administrator 
has designated a SAAPI program coordinator for the facility; 
Information concerning the identity of a detainee victim reporting 
sexual assault, and the facts of the report itself, is limited to 
those who have a need to know in order to make decisions concerning 
the detainee victim's welfare, and for law enforcement/investigative 
purposes; 
The program coordinator reviews the results of every investigation of 
sexual abuse or assault to assess and improve prevention and response 
efforts; 
The program coordinator conducts an annual review of aggregate data 
regarding sexual abuse or assault incidents at the facility, and 
presents the findings to the ERO field office director and ICE ERO 
headquarters for use in determining whether changes are needed to 
existing policies and practices to further the goal of eliminating 
sexual abuse; 
All case records associated with claims of sexual abuse are maintained 
in a secure location, consistent with the confidentiality requirements 
of the detention standards on "Medical Care" and "Detention Files." 

Source: GAO analysis of ICE documents. 

[A] According to ODPP officials, in March 2013 an ICE working group--
composed of representatives from ERO, ODPP, and the Office for Civil 
Rights and Civil Liberties, among others--determined priority 
provisions within the 2008 and 2011 PBNDS. ICE considers these 
priority provisions to be of most critical importance within each 
detention standard based on significance to issues such as health and 
life safety, facility security, detainee rights, and quality of life 
in detention. 

[B] The SAAPI provisions in the 2008 Performance-Based National 
Detention Standards stipulate that training for employees, volunteers, 
and contract personnel should include recognition of situations where 
sexual abuse or assault may occur, and how to report knowledge or 
suspicion of sexual abuse or assault, among other things. 

[C] The Sexual Assault Awareness Notice contains contact information 
for reporting sexual abuse and assault to a facility staff member, ICE 
officials, ICE's Community and Detainee Helpline, and ICE's Joint 
Intake Center. 

[D] ICE's Sexual Assault Awareness Information brochure contains 
information on sexual abuse and assault definitions, avoiding sexual 
assault, and what to do if assaulted, among other things. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security: 
Washington, DC 20528: 

November 4, 2013: 

Rebecca Gambler: 
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Re: Draft Report GAO-14-38, "Immigration Detention: Additional Actions 
Could Strengthen DHS Efforts to Address Sexual Abuse" 

Dear Ms. Gambler: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this draft 
report. The U.s. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appreciates the 
U.S. Government Accountability Office's (GAO's) work in planning and 
conducting its review and issuing this report. 

DHS is fully committed to protecting detainees from all forms of 
sexual abuse and has taken significant steps to enhance efforts in 
preventing, detecting, and responding to sexual abuse in its 
facilities. Sexual abuse should never be a consequence of detention, 
and the Department is committed to a zero-tolerance policy, the full 
implementation of Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) standards, and 
robust oversight of its facilities to ensure comprehensive 
implementation. DHS is proud of its recent efforts to address the 
issue of sexual abuse and assault in detention and will use the 
recommendations from GAO to further improve its work in this area. 

GAO's review of U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 
allegation data disclosed 215 sexual abuse allegations between October 
2009 and March 2013, 15 of which were found to be substantiated. 
During this period of time ICE had more than 1.2 million admissions to 
its detention and facilities. The Department recognizes that every 
substantiated case of sexual abuse is significant and represents 
victimization that should have been prevented. Significant measures
that ICE has taken toward fulfilling the zero-tolerance policy include 
considerable improvements to standards, training, and policies and 
procedures, such as: 

* Strengthening of safeguards against sexual abuse and assault of 
detainees in ICE detention standards. 

- In the 2011 Performance Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS), 
ICE further reinforced the protection, reporting, investigative, and 
victim care requirements previously established in the 2008 PBNDS by, 
for example, enhancing staff training requirements, procedures for 
ensuring the appropriate housing of victims, protocols for conducting 
prompt and thorough investigations in coordination with criminal law 
enforcement entities, and requirements for individualized and 
aggregate review of information relating to facility sexual abuse and 
assault incidents. 

- PBNDS 2011 has now been implemented at facilities housing over 50 
percent of ICE's average daily detainee population (including all but 
one dedicated facility), and ICE continues on an ongoing basis to 
negotiate its implementation at additional facilities, with priority 
given to those housing the largest populations of detainees. 

- ICE has also requested a much broader range of facilities to 
implement the Sexual Abuse and Assault Prevention and Intervention 
(SAAPI) standard of PBNDS 2011, including smaller facilities operating 
under the National Detention Standards. Excluding those detainees who 
are held in Department of Justice-contracted facilities, and are 
therefore covered by the Department of Justice PREA rule, 
approximately 85 percent of ICE detainees are currently housed in
facilities that have adopted the stronger sexual abuse and assault 
safeguards found in PBNDS 2011, and a total of94 percent of ICE 
detainees are covered by the safeguards in either PBNDS 2011, PBNDS 
2008, or Family Residential Standards. 

* Development of an Agency-wide Directive on Sexual Abuse and Assault 
Prevention and Intervention in May 2012. 

- The Directive both complements and enhances the requirements 
established by detention standards by delineating ICE-wide policy and 
comprehensive procedures and corresponding duties of employees for 
reporting, responding to, investigating, and monitoring incidents of 
sexual abuse. 

- The Directive requires ICE personnel to ensure that the substantive 
response requirements of the 2011 PBNDS are met, and that incidents 
receive timely and coordinated agency follow-up. 

* Clear communication of ICE's prohibition against retaliation for 
reporting sexual abuse, through the development and posting of new 
detainee awareness and education materials in all detention facilities. 

* Establishment and nationwide deployment of a Community and Detainee 
Helpline that serves as an alternative method for detainees to report 
sexual abuse directly to ICE. 

* Hiring of a full-time, Agency-wide Prevention of Sexual Assault 
(PSA) Coordinator to oversee efforts to improve prevention and 
response practices, and the designation of 62 ICE/Enforcement and 
Removal Operations (ERO) Field Office PSA Coordinators to help ensure 
compliance with ICE sexual assault policies in each of the agency's 
Areas of Responsibility (AORs). 

* Development and implementation of new comprehensive training for all 
ICE employees having potential contact with detainees, on their duties 
and responsibilities with respect to sexual abuse and assault 
prevention and intervention. 

* Establishment of a regular intra-agency working group on issues 
pertaining to sexual abuse in detention. 

The draft report contained five recommendations with which the 
Department concurs. Specifically, GAO recommended that the Director of 
ICE: 

Recommendation 1: Develop and implement additional internal controls 
to ensure ERO field offices' reporting of allegations of sexual abuse 
and assault to the Joint Intake Center (JIC). 

Response: Concur. The Director of ICE acknowledges the need for 
thorough review and controls of allegation reporting to ICE's JIC. It 
should be noted, however, that all but one of the unreported 
allegations cited by GAO in this report occurred prior to ICE's 
issuance of its Directive on SAAPI in May 2012, which outlined the 
specific duty of each Field Office to immediately notify the JIC of 
any allegations of sexual abuse. Since issuance of this Directive, ICE 
has developed comprehensive training materials and accompanying 
guidance for all ICE employees who may have contact with detainees on 
their duties under ICE sexual abuse policies, including those related 
to notification and reporting. These steps have largely addressed the
issue discussed in this recommendation, as indicated by the fact that 
only I of the 10 allegations cited post-issuance of the Directive was 
unreported.[Footnote 1] 

Further, ICE's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) does 
currently have some internal controls in place to review and assess 
ERO field office reporting of allegations to the JIC. OPR's Office of 
Detention Oversight routinely conducts a query search of OPR's case
management system to determine the number and type of allegations 
filed prior to conducting facility inspections. The Office of 
Detention Oversight also reviews facility sexual abuse and assault 
files during the course of the inspection, compares those findings 
with the case management records, and brings to facility management 
and local ERO field office personnel's attention any reporting 
discrepancies found. The Director of ICE recognizes the need to 
enhance internal controls regarding reporting, however, and is 
committed to taking further steps to improve in this area. In April 
2013, ICE released a mandatory training course in the prevention of 
sexual assault and abuse for all ICE employees who may come in contact 
with individuals in ICE custody. The annual training provides an 
overview of PRE A and covers ICE's zero-tolerance policy, definitions 
and examples of prohibited behavior, red flags and prevention, 
prohibition on retaliation against those who report abuse, reporting 
of incidents, the investigative process, and follow-up procedural
requirements. ICE will augment that training by issuing supplemental 
guidance to ERO Field Offices reiterating the requirement to report 
all allegations of sexual abuse or assault to the JIC under ICE policy. 

As an additional oversight measure, the ICE PSA Coordinator's 
quarterly report to Agency leadership, which compiles information 
received about all allegations or incidents of sexual abuse or assault 
of individuals in ICE custody, will now include any identified cases 
where ERO field personnel were aware of an allegation of abuse or 
assault but failed to report it to the JIC. Estimated Completion Date 
(ECD): April 30, 2014. 

Recommendation 2: Clarify guidance for ICE and facility administrators 
on how to correctly document investigations into sexual abuse and 
assault allegations. 

Response: Concur. The Director of ICE fully agrees that the 
completeness of information contained in facility files is important 
because it allows ICE to review how the facility responded to abuse 
allegations and can be a tool for facility personnel to determine how 
the facility could improve future prevention and response efforts. 
However, for contextual purposes it is important to note that GAO's 
review of facility files for allegations at the 10 facilities the 
audit team visited includes cases that originated in Fiscal Years 2010-
2012. As mentioned previously, ICE has made significant strides since 
this time in expanding the number of detention facilities that have 
adopted the sexual abuse and assault standard under PBNDS 2011, PBNDS 
2008, or the Family Residential Standards, all of which articulate the 
requirement for facilities to maintain investigative files for sexual 
abuse allegations that include incident information, investigative
reports, and relevant medical reports and other key information. The 
substantial expansion of the PBNDS safeguards largely occurred after 
the dates of the cases reviewed by GAO. 

To further reinforce ICE's expectations regarding file documentation, 
ICE ERO will also issue to all field offices a broadcast message that 
provides detailed guidance on the documentation that facility 
administrators are required to maintain in their general files and 
administrative investigative files on all cases associated with 
allegations of sexual assault or abuse. The guidance will be in 
accordance with the Expected Practices of Section (V)(L) of Standard 
2.11 2011 PBNDS. Each Field Office Director (FOD) will disseminate and 
post the guidance to all facilities within the AOR, including those 
that are governed by the NDS. The guidance will supplement the 
existing requirements in the ICE SAAPI Directive, which already 
directs FODs to review the written policy and procedures for the SAAPI 
Program for all detention facilities in their AOR. ECD: April 30, 2014. 

Recommendation 3: Document and maintain reliable information on the 
detention standards cited in facilities' contracts and agreements, and 
record any agreements by facilities to undergo inspection under more 
rigorous standards. 

Response: Concur. The Director of ICE recognizes the importance of 
ensuring thorough record keeping and will endeavor to improve the 
reliability of standards cited in facility contracts. It is
important to note, however, that the deficiencies in record keeping 
identified by GAO did not negatively impact ICE's efforts to safeguard 
detainees from sexual abuse or assault victimization. In all cases, 
the discrepancies that GAO discovered resulted in facilities being
inspected against a more rigorous set of standards than those included 
in facility contracts. This reflects a purposeful and intentional path 
by ICE to encourage facilities to move to upgraded ICE standards, when 
possible and practicable. 

However, to facilitate the ease of ICE components being able to 
readily identify the standards that contractually govern a facility 
versus upgraded standards that a facility has voluntarily agreed to 
adopt for inspection purposes, ERO is in the process of modifying its 
Facility Performance Management System (FPMS) to report data on both 
categories of standards. The FPMS facility list, which is generated by 
ERO on a weekly basis, is disseminated to the ICE Office of 
Acquisition Management (OAQ), the Office of Detention Oversight, and 
other agency components. On a quarterly basis, ERO and OAQ will 
jointly review the ICE authorized facilities list to ensure 
information on both categories is accurate and up-to-date. ECD: April 
30, 2014. 

Recommendation 4: Develop a process to monitor the results of ERO 
annual inspections conducted under the 2008 SAAPI standard to ensure 
consistency across the inspections and completeness in how the 
inspections are performed, and address any inconsistencies. 

Response: Concur. The Director of ICE will make every effort to ensure 
a uniform inspections protocol is used and will clearly convey to ICE 
contract facility inspectors that they are to fully review the 
facility's compliance with the SAAPI standard, even in the absence of 
an allegation. It is important to note, however, that the 
inconsistencies identified by GAO with regards to inspections 
conducted under the 2008 SAAPI standard were found only in a limited 
number of facilities where no sexual abuse or assault allegations had 
been made in the reporting period. ERO will begin meeting with the 
contractor on a monthly basis, beginning in November 2013, and will 
continually reinforce the agency's expectations with regard to the 
SAAPI standard as well as other systemic oversight issues. These 
meetings will supplement the routine telephonic and e-mail 
communications that regularly take place regarding specific facility 
concerns and inspection scheduling. ECD: April 30, 2014. 

Recommendation 5: [with] the DHS Deputy Inspector General coordinate 
[Office of Inspector General] access to OIG hotline connectivity data. 

Response: Concur. The Director of ICE will immediately begin providing 
the DHS Deputy Inspector General with exception reporting of OIG 
hotline connectivity, as appropriate. Given this action, we request 
that this recommendation be considered resolved and closed. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments on 
this draft report. Technical comments were previously provided under 
separate cover. Please feel free to contact me if you have any 
questions. We look forward to working with you in the future. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Jim H. Crumpacker: 
Director: 
Departmental GAO-OIG Liaison Office: 

Appendix VIII Footnote: 

[1] Although GAO reported that three of these ten allegations were 
unreported, two of the three had in fact been reported by ICE ERO 
Field Office personnel to ICE headquarters. 

[End of section] 

Appendix IX: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Rebecca Gambler, (202) 512-8777 or gamblerr@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Lacinda Ayers, Assistant 
Director; David Alexander; Frances A. Cook; Juan Gobel; Allyson 
Goldstein; Eric Hauswirth; Rebecca Kuhlmann Taylor; Olivia Lopez; 
Alicia Loucks; Taylor Matheson; Jessica Orr; and Gloria Proa made 
significant contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] Pub. L. No. 108-79, 117 Stat. 972 (codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 15601-
15609). PREA requires the Bureau of Justice Statistics within the 
Department of Justice to collect and disseminate information on the 
incidence of prison rape. 42 U.S.C. § 15603. As part of its PREA-
related responsibilities, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported in 
May 2013 that during 2011 and 2012, an estimated 4 percent of state 
and federal prison inmates and 3.2 percent of jail inmates reported 
experiencing one or more incidents of sexual victimization within the 
past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if detention had 
been less than 12 months. The Bureau of Justice Statistics also 
collected allegations of sexual abuse reported by detainees in 5 
immigration detention facilities that collectively housed about 13 
percent of the immigration detention population during fiscal years 
2011 and 2012 and found that the percentage of detainees reporting 
having experienced sexual abuse across the facilities ranged from 0.8 
to 3.8 percent; however, these data for detainees are not 
generalizable to all ICE detention facilities. See Department of 
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-
12, NCJ 241399 (Washington, D.C.: May 2013). 

[2] See National Prison Rape Elimination Commission, National Prison 
Rape Elimination Commission Report, June 2009. 

[3] DHS defines an immigration detention facility as a confinement 
facility operated by or affiliated with ICE that routinely holds 
persons for over 24 hours pending resolution or completion of 
immigration removal operations or processes. We did not include other 
types of facilities, such as holding facilities and prisons that 
temporarily house detainees waiting for ICE transfer to detention 
facilities. We also excluded the three federal prisons where ICE has 
detention bed space because two of these facilities house few 
detainees and the use of the third prison for detention was to be 
discontinued by the end of calendar year 2013, according to Bureau of 
Prisons and ICE officials. We also did not include facilities for 
juveniles that are regulated by the Department of Health and Human 
Services. 

[4] We did not use the number of sexual abuse allegations at a 
facility as part of our selection criteria because a higher number of 
allegations could represent either (1) an increased risk of abuse to 
detainees or (2) increased reporting at a facility. 

[5] GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1] 
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1, 1999). Of these files, we selected 
investigative files for a nonprobability sample of 15 allegations for 
more in-depth analysis, to include allegations from each facility and 
allegations against staff members and allegations against detainees. 
The results of our more in-depth analysis are not generalizable to all 
investigative files, but provided helpful insights into investigative 
file completeness. 

[6] In particular, we interviewed a nonprobability sample of 18 guards 
at 9 facilities, which we selected to include 1 male and 1 female at 
each facility. Guards at 1 facility elected not to speak with us at 
the recommendation of their union, which was concerned that 
information guards shared with us could be used by facility management 
to negatively assess guard performance. In addition, we interviewed a 
nonprobability sample of 53 detainees at 9 facilities. The 10th 
facility did not have any detainees in its custody during our visit. 
We selected detainees based on gender, age, country of origin, and 
number of days in ICE custody. 

[7] We identified these local organizations through recommendations 
provided by two national advocacy organizations--the American Civil 
Liberties Union and the National Immigrant Justice Center. In 
instances where the national organizations suggested that we speak 
with more than one local organization, we invited representatives from 
all of the local organizations to meet with us. 

[8] We selected October 2009 because, according to ICE officials, data 
prior to fiscal year 2010 do not include sexual abuse and assault 
allegations against detainees. According to ICE OPR, it did not 
collect this information in JICMS prior to fiscal year 2010 because 
the office was focused on employee and contractor misconduct rather 
than detainee misconduct. We selected March 2013 because OPR had 
completed most investigations into allegations made through then at 
the time of our review. 

[9] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1]. 

[10] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1]. 

[11] ERO officials explained that ICE contracts with one telephone 
company to provide full telephone service for detainees at 18 of its 
251 detention facilities. In addition, 191 facilities use this 
telephone company's nationwide pro bono platform, which enables 
detainees to place calls at no charge to certain numbers, including 
the OIG hotline. 

[12] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1]. 

[13] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1]. 

[14] We selected this sample to include (1) facilities at which we 
conducted site visits and (2) facilities for which ERO and OAQ 
information on facility standards differed. While not generalizable, 
this sample provided us with helpful insights into the reliability of 
ERO and OAQ's information on facility standards. 

[15] We chose this time frame because prior to fiscal year 2010, the 
scope of ICE's inspections of the SAAPI standard was limited to 2 of 
its 251 facilities. In addition, our analysis included inspection 
reports available as of August 2013. At that time, all but 2 ERO and 3 
Office of Detention Oversight inspections reports scheduled for fiscal 
year 2013 were available for our review. 

[16] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1]. 

[17] 42 U.S.C. § 15602(1)-(2). 

[18] 42 U.S.C. §§ 15606(e)(1), 15607(a). 

[19] See National Prison Rape Elimination Commission, National Prison 
Rape Elimination Commission Report, June, 2009, and National Standards 
to Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Prison Rape, 77 Fed. Reg. 37,106 
(June 20, 2012) (to be codified at 28 C.F.R. pt. 115). 

[20] 77 Fed. Reg. at 37,112-13. 

[21] White House, Presidential Memorandum--Implementing the Prison 
Rape Elimination Act (Washington, D.C.: May 2012). 

[22] Standards to Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Sexual Abuse and 
Assault in Confinement Facilities, 77 Fed. Reg. 75,300 (Dec. 19, 2012). 

[23] DHS officials also stated that the department provided its final 
PREA rule to the Office of Management and Budget for review in 
September 2013. 

[24] 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225, 1226, 1226a, 1231. 

[25] These data are approximations for ICE detention facilities and do 
not include other types of facilities, such as holding facilities. 

[26] ICE generally does not detain children, with the exception of 
children that the agency detains with their families at one family 
residential facility. ICE must transfer unaccompanied alien children 
less than 18 years of age who are unlawfully in the United States 
without a parent or other legal guardian to the Department of Health 
and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement's custody within 72 
hours of determining that they are unaccompanied. See 8 U.S.C. § 
1232(b)(3). 

[27] ICE's custody classification system considers various factors 
including the detainee's most recent charge or conviction, the most 
serious conviction in the individual's criminal history, any other 
prior felony convictions, any attempts to escape from custody, if the 
individual has a history of assaultive behavior, and the individual's 
behavioral history. 

[28] In addition to detention facilities, ICE also has 127 holding 
facilities, which are used by ICE, U.S Customs and Border Protection, 
and other DHS component agencies for temporary administrative 
detention of individuals for less than 24 hours pending transfer to a 
court, jail, prison, other agency, or other unit of the facility or 
agency. 

[29] JICMS is a system to log, track, and manage cases for all OPR 
functions including investigations, management inspections, and 
personnel security. Several groups within DHS use and access JICMS, 
including ICE, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the Joint Intake 
Center, and the DHS OIG. There were an additional 9 allegations from 
this time period in JICMS for which OPR investigations remained open 
as of August 2013. We excluded these allegations from our analysis. 

[30] Between October 2009 and March 2013, OPR changed the definition 
of sexual abuse and assault it used to identify such allegations in 
JICMS. Specifically, prior to May 2012, OPR defined detainee-on-
detainee sexual abuse or assault as one or more detainees engaging in, 
or attempting to engage in, a sexual act with another detainee or the 
use of threats, intimidation, inappropriate touching, or other actions 
or communications by one or more detainees aimed at coercing or 
pressuring another detainee to engage in a sexual act. Staff-on-
detainee sexual abuse or assault was defined as a staff member 
engaging in, or attempting to engage in, a sexual act with any 
detainee or the intentional touching of a detainee's genitalia, anus, 
groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks with the intent to abuse, 
humiliate, harass, degrade, arouse, or gratify the sexual desires of 
any person. In addition staff sexual misconduct included profane or 
abusive language or gestures and inappropriate visual surveillance of 
detainees. In May 2012, OPR began to employ the sexual abuse and 
assault definition included in the 2011 PBNDS, which broadened 
detainee-on-detainee abuse to include attempted sexually abusive 
contact as well as intentional touching of a detainee in the same ways 
as previously defined by staff-on-detainee abuse when accomplished by 
force, coercion, or intimidation. The 2011 PBNDS staff-on-detainee 
abuse definition was broadened to also include repeated oral 
statements or comments of a sexual nature to a detainee, including 
demeaning references to gender, derogatory comments about body or 
clothing, or profane or obscene language or gestures. 

[31] Investigations into these 215 allegations were conducted by local 
law enforcement agencies, OPR investigators, or DHS OIG investigators. 

[32] These results cannot be generalized across all detainees in all 
immigration detention facilities. 

[33] Department of Justice, Regulatory Impact Assessment for PREA 
Final Rule, (2012), 39. 

[34] According to OPR officials, local law enforcement or prosecutors 
may choose to decline a case for reasons such as insufficient evidence 
or higher-priority cases. 

[35] ICE, Directive 11062.1. 

[36] According to OPR officials, if a detainee or third party reports 
an allegation directly to the DHS OIG and the OIG decides to 
investigate, the OIG would not report the allegation to the Joint 
Intake Center; however, if the OIG decides not to investigate, the OIG 
is to report the allegation to ICE. According to OIG officials, they 
rarely investigate sexual abuse and assault allegations in detention 
facilities. In particular, DHS Management Directive 0810.1, which 
establishes DHS policy regarding the DHS OIG, specifies that any 
allegation that the OIG chooses not to investigate is to be forwarded 
to the appropriate DHS component, which is OPR for allegations of 
sexual abuse and assault in detention facilities. According to the 
Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties officials, the office 
first refers allegations it receives to the DHS OIG, which generally 
declines and returns them to the Office for Civil Rights and Civil 
Liberties, after which the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties 
investigates them or refers them to ICE OPR. Cases that the Office for 
Civil Rights and Civil Liberties refers to OPR are to be entered in 
JICMS. 

[37] We limited our analysis of the extent to which these allegations 
appear in JICMS data to fiscal years 2010 through 2012 because these 
years of data were available at the time of our 10 site visits to 
detention facilities. 

[38] For an additional 9 allegations, although ERO field office 
officials told us that they did not submit a Significant Incident 
Report for the allegation, OPR located the allegation in JICMS, 
indicating that ICE headquarters learned of the allegations through 
another DHS office or a third party. 

[39] ICE initially communicated this requirement to ERO field office 
directors in a June 2006 memo titled Protocol on Reporting and 
Tracking of Assaults. 

[40] ICE, Directive 11062.1. 

[41] These 3 allegations consisted of 1 allegation that OPR could not 
locate in JICMS and 2 allegations for which ERO field office officials 
said that they did not submit Significant Incident Reports. While 
field office officials reported the latter 2 allegations by electronic 
mail to the Joint Intake Center or through the local OPR field office, 
they did not do so in accordance with ICE Directive 11062.1, which 
requires that the local ERO field office director submit a Significant 
Incident Report within 24 hours of an allegation. 

[42] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1]. 

[43] In addition, DHS used JICMS sexual abuse data in the regulatory 
impact analysis accompanying DHS's notice of proposed rulemaking to 
identify a benchmark level of sexual abuse allegations and estimate 
the number of incidents at DHS confinement facilities. See DHS, 
Standards to Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Sexual Abuse and Assault 
in Confinement Facilities: Initial Regulatory Impact Analysis (2012), 
24-26. 

[44] ICE, Directive 11062.1. 

[45] See appendix IV for more information about SAAPI provisions 
included in ICE detention standards. 

[46] We interviewed 53 detainees at 9 facilities. Of these, 3 
detainees at 3 facilities did not state whether they knew of at least 
one mechanism to report sexual abuse. 

[47] GAO, Alien Detention Standards: Telephone Access Problems Were 
Pervasive at Detention Facilities; Other Deficiencies Did Not Show a 
Pattern of Noncompliance, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-875] (Washington D.C.: July 6, 
2007). 

[48] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1]. 

[49] Pub. L. No. 95-452, § 8I(f)(1)(B), 92 Stat. 1101, added by 
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 
108-458, § 8304, 118 Stat. 3638, 3868. 

[50] The Community and Detainee Helpline is available at all detention 
facilities authorized to hold detainees for more than 72 hours, 
according to ICE officials. 

[51] ICE facilities subject to the 2007 Residential Standards, 2008 
PBNDS, and 2011 PBNDS are required to adhere to these standards for 
investigative files; however, facilities under the 2000 NDS are not 
required to adhere to these standards. 

[52] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1]. 

[53] Our more detailed analysis of the investigative files for these 
allegations identified files at a total of 8 facilities that did not 
include either supporting documentation or information about the 
outcomes of the investigation. ICE's contracts or agreements with 4 of 
these 8 facilities cited detention standards that included specific 
requirements for maintaining investigative files for sexual abuse 
allegations at the time the allegation was reported. 

[54] Provisions in the rule that are applicable to ICE would be 
effective on the date a final version of the rule takes effect and 
would carry more legal weight than agency policy for ICE and ICE 
employees. Provisions in the rule that are applicable to facilities 
would be effective once they are incorporated into facility contracts 
and would therefore carry the same legal weight as the detention 
standards in existing contracts. 77 Fed. Reg. at 75,304. 

[55] State-controlled facilities, including USMS intergovernmental 
agreement facilities, that do not implement the DOJ PREA rule may 
cause state forfeiture of DOJ grant funding.In particular, PREA 
provides that DOJ shall withhold 5 percent of prison-related grant 
funding from any state that fails to certify that it has adopted, and 
is in full compliance with, DOJ's PREA standards or that fails to 
provide an assurance that not less than 5 percent of the relevant 
grant funding shall be used to enable the state to adopt, and achieve 
full compliance with, DOJ's PREA standards toward future 
certification. See 42 U.S.C. 15607(c)(2). Under DOJ's PREA rule, the 
state's certification that it is in full compliance with the PREA 
standards applies to all facilities under the operational control of 
the state's executive branch, including facilities operated by private 
entities on behalf of the state's executive branch. See 28 C.F.R. § 
115.501. DOJ's PREA rule therefore does not contain noncompliance 
sanctions for county intergovernmental agreement facilities that fail 
to adopt or implement DOJ's PREA standards. See 77 Fed. Reg. at 37,115. 

[56] We selected this sample to include (1) facilities at which we 
conducted site visits and (2) facilities for which ERO and OAQ 
information on facility standards differed. 

[57] The Facility Performance Management System is a database for 
identifying and providing access to detention inspection information 
and facilitating the production and maintenance of facility analytics 
and reporting. 

[58] We included the contracts for these 10 facilities in the sample 
of 20 contracts we reviewed. 

[59] DSM and ERO field office officials at the other 5 facilities we 
visited had accurate information about the standards to which the 
facilities they oversaw were contractually bound. 

[60] Headquarters OAQ officials told us that when a contract or 
agreement states that the facility must perform in accordance with the 
most current edition of ICE's detention standards, it means that 
facilities must comply with whatever the most current standards were 
at the time the contract was signed; however, officials from one ERO 
field office interpreted this language to require compliance with 
standards issued after the contract was signed. 

[61] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1]. 

[62] DHS's proposed standards would not apply to the 125 USMS 
intergovernmental agreement facilities that house ICE detainees, which 
are governed by DOJ's PREA rule. 

[63] See DHS, Standards to Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Sexual 
Abuse and Assault in Confinement Facilities: Initial Regulatory Impact 
Analysis (2012). 

[64] As previously discussed, ICE inspects certain facilities 
contractually bound to, or under agreement with, the 2000 NDS under 
the 2008 PBNDS. 

[65] Specifically, ERO and ODO performed a total of 140 inspections at 
42 facilities to directly assess SAAPI compliance from fiscal years 
2010 through 2013. Of these 140 inspections, 134 were performed using 
the 2008 PBNDS SAAPI provisions, 4 were performed using the 2011 PBNDS 
SAAPI provisions, and 2 used the 2007 Family Residential Standards 
SAAPI provisions. Certain facilities started performing annual 
facility self-assessments in fiscal year 2012, and 93 facilities had 
completed self-assessments as of August 2013. In addition to passing 
two consecutive ERO inspections, eligible facilities (1) house 
detainees for less than 72 hours, or (2) house an average daily 
population of 10 detainees or fewer. ICE requires all facilities 
participating in the self-assessment program to comply with the 2011 
SAAPI standard. According to ICE officials, prior to fiscal year 2012, 
ICE inspected these facilities under the NDS, which do not have a 
SAAPI standard. 

[66] These facilities also are to have a total of 60 or more man days, 
where a man day constitutes one night spent by one detainee. About 130 
of ICE's approximately 250 detention facilities had an average daily 
detainee population of 10 or more detainees from fiscal years 2010 
through 2012. 

[67] According to ODO officials, ODO selects the facilities it 
inspects using a risk-based model that uses deficiencies identified in 
ERO's annual inspections, number and type of allegations, average 
daily detention population, deficiencies identified in prior ODO 
inspections, and date of last ODO inspection. 

[68] According to ICE officials, in some instances a facility will 
request or agree to be inspected under a set of standards that is more 
rigorous than required by its contract or agreement toward 
demonstrating that it is exceeding its required standards. Therefore, 
a facility that is required by its contract or agreement to adhere to 
the 2000 NDS, which do not include a SAAPI standard, may be inspected 
under the 2008 or 2011 PBNDS, which include a SAAPI standard. 

[69] ICE did not assess SAAPI compliance through inspections or the 
DSM program at facilities in the self-assessment program in fiscal 
year 2012. 

[70] Our analysis included inspection reports available as of 
September 23, 2013. At that time, all but 2 inspection reports 
scheduled for fiscal year 2013 were available for our review. During 
this time period, ERO contractors performed nearly all inspections 
under the 2008 PBNDS (108 inspections at 39 facilities) and a few 
inspections under the 2011 PBNDS (2 inspections at 2 facilities). ERO 
did not perform any inspections under the 2007 Family Residential 
Standards during this time period. See appendix VII for the SAAPI 
provisions that constitute the overall SAAPI standard under the 2008 
PBNDS and the 2011 PBNDS. 

[71] According to ODPP officials, in March 2013 an ICE working group--
composed of representatives from ERO, ODPP, and the Office for Civil 
Rights and Civil Liberties, among others--determined priority 
provisions within the 2008 and 2011 PBNDS. ICE considers these 
priority provisions to be of most critical importance within each 
detention standard based on significance to issues such as health and 
life safety, facility security, detainee rights, and quality of life 
in detention. See appendix VII for the SAAPI standard provisions ICE 
identified as priorities under the 2008 and 2011 PBNDS. ICE officials 
said that they may remove detainees from, or withhold payment to, a 
facility that fails to meet one of its priority standard provisions. 
These officials also said that ICE has not removed detainees or 
withheld payment based on SAAPI standard deficiencies. 

[72] In addition, according to ERO officials, inspectors may determine 
that a facility did not meet the overall SAAPI standard if the 
facility fails numerous nonpriority SAAPI provisions. 

[73] ERO conducted this inspection in February 2013 as a preoccupancy 
inspection, at which time there were no ICE detainees at the facility. 
Since that time, this facility has housed an average of 2 detainees 
daily. 

[74] According to ERO officials, starting in December 2010, ERO 
required the relevant ERO field office to take and report corrective 
actions identified by ERO or ODO inspections within 5 days for a 
deficiency in a priority standard, or 55 days for other deficiencies. 

[75] These worksheets vary according to detention standards. For 
example, the 2008 SAAPI standard worksheet contains 13 provisions, and 
the 2011 SAAPI standard worksheet contains 22 standard provisions. In 
addition, the inspectors can include remarks for every provision, 
regardless of whether the provision met the standard, did not meet the 
standard, or was not applicable. 

[76] That is, with the exception of two SAAPI provisions that apply 
only to service processing centers and contract detention facilities 
highlighted in table 9, which are unrelated to the inconsistency we 
observed. 

[77] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1]. 

[78] Our analysis included inspection reports available as of August 
13, 2013. At that time, all but 3 inspection reports scheduled for 
fiscal year 2013 were available for our review. ODO inspectors do not 
use the inspection checklist ERO inspectors use or assess if a 
facility has overall met or not met a standard. Instead, ODO 
inspectors review the conditions at a facility against the SAAPI 
standard text to identify deficiencies. As a result, we did not 
quantify unmet components of the SAAPI standard found by ODO 
inspections. 

[79] ODO performed 4 of these inspections under the 2008 PBNDS, 2 
under the 2007 Family Residential Standards, and 1 under the 2011 
PBNDS. 

[80] We did not independently review DSM weekly reports to determine 
the frequency with which DSMs identified SAAPI-related deficiencies. 

[81] We did not review the self-assessment inspection results or 
corrective actions because ERO was in the process of collecting 
facility self-assessment results for the first year of the self-
assessment program during our audit work. 

[82] In addition to oversight performed by ICE and DOJ, the American 
Correctional Association is also to monitor select ICE facilities 
according to its own SAAPI detention standards for the purpose of 
providing facility accreditation. ICE officials stated that while the 
ICE detention standards were based on American Correctional 
Association standards, ICE does not request American Correctional 
Association inspection results because, as American Correctional 
Association officials told us, these results are considered 
proprietary. ICE officials further stated that ICE recognizes value in 
facilities maintaining American Correctional Association and other 
accreditations, but ICE standards are tailored to meet the unique 
needs of its immigrant population, and ICE relies on its own standards 
as the best measure of whether facilities are providing appropriate 
conditions of confinement. ERO performed SAAPI oversight at about half 
of these facilities (68 of 125) through inspections, self-assessments, 
or on-site monitoring through the DSM program. According to ERO 
officials, the remaining 57 facilities are inspected under the NDS, 
which do not include SAAPI provisions. 

[83] 28 C.F.R. §§ 115.401(a), 115.403(f). The DOJ PREA rule defines an 
agency as the unit of a state, local, corporate, or nonprofit 
authority, or of DOJ, with direct responsibility for the operation of 
any facility that confines inmates, detainees, or residents, including 
the implementation of policy as set by the governing, corporate, or 
nonprofit authority. See 28 C.F.R. § 115.5. 

[84] Prior to October 2012, USMS did not collect SAAPI-related 
information through its inspection process. 

[85] As of August 2013, ERO officials said they have not decided in 
which facilities ERO will place these 22 DSMs, and thus could not 
determine how the additional DSMs would increase the average detainee 
daily population monitored by DSMs. 

[86] ERO officials responsible for the DSM program explained that 
these cost savings could be related to detention areas other than 
SAAPI. For example, a DSM that ensures a facility's medical unit 
examines sick detainees on a timely basis could curtail future 
detainee health care costs. In addition, these officials stated that 
it would be difficult to estimate the extent to which DSM oversight 
has contributed to ICE cost savings because it is challenging to 
quantify the future costs DSMs have saved through their preventive 
actions. 

[87] Specifically, facilities selected for biennial inspections must 
house an average daily population of greater than10 detainees but 
fewer than 50 detainees for more than 72 hours. 

[88] DHS may expedite inspection in the event that it believes that a 
particular facility may be experiencing sexual abuse and assault 
problems. 

[89] We did not use the number of sexual abuse allegations at a 
facility as part of our selection criteria because a high number of 
allegations could represent either (1) an increased risk of abuse to 
detainees or (2) increased reporting at a facility. 

[90] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1]. 

[91] When possible, we selected the guards to include one female and 
one male guard at each facility. Guards at one facility elected not to 
speak with us at the recommendation of their union, which was 
concerned that information guards shared with us could be used by 
facility management to negatively assess guard performance. 

[92] The 10th facility did not have any detainees in its custody 
during our visit. 

[93] We selected October 2009 because, according to ICE officials, 
data prior to fiscal year 2010 do not include sexual abuse and assault 
allegations against detainees. According to ICE OPR, it did not 
collect this information in JICMS prior to fiscal year 2010 because 
the office was focused on employee and contractor misconduct, in 
accordance with its mission. We selected March 2013 because OPR had 
completed most investigations into allegations made through then at 
the time of our review. 

[94] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1]. 

[95] ERO officials explained that ICE contracts with one telephone 
company to provide full telephone service for detainees at 18 of its 
251 detention facilities. In addition, about 191 ICE intergovernmental 
service agreement facilities use this telephone company's nationwide 
pro bono platform, which enables detainees to place calls at no charge 
to certain numbers, including the OIG hotline, among others. 

[96] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1]. 

[97] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1]. 

[98] Standards to Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Sexual Abuse and 
Assault in Confinement Facilities, 77 Fed. Reg. 75,300 (Dec. 19, 2012). 

[99] The other commissioner was not available for comment. 

[100] We did not interview DHS officials about the reasons for 
incorporating or not incorporating particular NPREC recommendations in 
DHS's proposed PREA rule because it is in proposed form and subject to 
change based on public comments received by the department. 

[101] We selected this sample to include (1) facilities at which we 
conducted site visits and (2) facilities for which ERO and OAQ 
information on facility standards differed. While not generalizable, 
this sample provided us with helpful insights into the reliability of 
ERO and OAQ's information on facility standards. 

[102] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1]. 

[103] We chose this time frame because prior to fiscal year 2010, the 
scope of ICE's inspections of the SAAPI standard was limited to 2 of 
its 251 facilities. Because the 2000 NDS do not include a SAAPI 
standard, we reviewed reports inspecting the 2007 Residential 
Standards, 2008 PBNDS, or 2011 PBNDS. In addition, our analysis 
included inspection reports available as of August 2013. At that time, 
all but 2 ERO and 3 ODO inspection reports scheduled for fiscal year 
2013 were available for our review. 

[104] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1]. 

[105] From fiscal years 2011 through 2013, ERO contracted with the 
Nakamoto Group to conduct its annual detention standards inspections. 

[106] See 42 U.S.C. §§ 15606(a), (d)-(e), 15607(a)(1)-(2). PREA 
directed the Attorney General to adopt national standards for the 
detection, prevention, reduction, and punishment of prison rape and 
required that these standards be based on the independent judgment of 
the Attorney General, after giving due consideration to the NPREC 
recommended standards. In its final PREA rule, the Department of 
Justice determined that PREA encompasses any federal confinement 
facility, including immigration detention facilities, and that federal 
agencies, including DHS, would work with the Attorney General to issue 
rules or procedures that would satisfy the requirements of PREA, 
citing the section of PREA that required the Attorney General to give 
due consideration to NPREC's recommendations, 42 U.S.C. § 15607(a)(2). 
See 77 Fed. Reg. at 37113. 

[107] National Prison Rape Elimination Commission, National Prison 
Rape Elimination Commission Report, June 2009. 

[108] SAFEs are health care providers (e.g., physicians, physician 
assistants, nurses, nurse practitioners, or midwifes) who are 
specially educated and clinically prepared to perform sexual assault 
medical forensic exams. SANEs are registered nurses and advanced 
practice nurses who receive specialized education and fulfill clinical 
requirements to perform sexual assault medical forensic exams. 

[End of section] 

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 website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select 
“E-mail Updates.” 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s 
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

Congressional Relations: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

[End of document]