This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-15-26 
entitled 'Alternatives to Detention: Improved Data Collection and 
Analyses Needed to Better Assess Program Effectiveness' which was 
released on November 13, 2014. 

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 Committees: 

November 2014: 

Alternatives to Detention: 

Improved Data Collection and Analyses Needed to Better Assess Program 
Effectiveness: 

GAO-15-26: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-15-26, a report to congressional committees. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Aliens awaiting removal proceedings or found to be removable from the 
United States are detained in ICE custody or released into the 
community under one or more options, such as release on bond and under 
supervision of the ATD program. Within the Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS), ICE is responsible for overseeing aliens in detention 
and those released into the community. In 2004 ICE implemented the ATD 
program to be a cost-effective alternative to detaining aliens. ICE
administers the program with contractor assistance using case 
management and electronic monitoring to ensure aliens comply with 
release conditions—-including appearing at immigration court hearings 
and leaving the United States if they receive a final order of 
removal. The Joint Explanatory Statement to the 2014 Consolidated 
Appropriations Act mandated that GAO evaluate ICE's implementation of 
the ATD program. 

This report addresses (1) trends in ATD program participation from 
fiscal years 2011 through 2013 and the extent to which ICE provides 
oversight to help ensure cost-effective program implementation, and 
(2) the extent that ICE measured the performance of the ATD program 
for fiscal years 2011 through 2013. GAO analyzed ICE and ATD program 
data, reviewed ICE documentation, and interviewed ICE and ATD 
contractor officials. 

What GAO Found: 

From fiscal year 2011 through fiscal year 2013, the number of aliens who
participated in the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE)
Alternatives to Detention (ATD) program increased from 32,065 to 
40,864, in part because of increases in either enrollments or the 
average length of time aliens spent in one of the program's 
components. For example, during this time period, the number of aliens 
enrolled in the Full-service component, which is run by a contractor 
that maintains in-person contact with the alien and monitors the alien
with either Global Positioning System (GPS) equipment or a telephonic 
reporting system, increased by 60 percent. In addition, the average 
length of time aliens spent in the Technology-only program component, 
which offers a lower level of supervision at a lower contract cost 
than the Full-service program component and involves ICE monitoring of 
aliens using either telephonic reporting or GPS equipment provided by 
a contractor, increased by 80 percent-—from about 10 months to about 
18 months. In 2011, ICE recommended practices in guidance to its 
Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) field offices to better ensure
cost-effective implementation of the program. For example, ICE 
recommended that field officers move aliens who have demonstrated 
compliance under the Full-service component to the less costly 
Technology-only component. GAO's work showed differences in ERO field 
offices' implementation of the guidance. However, ICE headquarters 
officials said that because of limitations in how they collect and 
maintain program data, they do not know the extent to which field 
officers have consistently implemented this guidance. ICE plans to 
institute new data collection requirements to address these 
limitations and use these data for a variety of purposes; however, ICE 
has not considered how to analyze these data to monitor the extent to 
which ERO field offices are implementing the guidance. Analyzing these 
data, once collected, could help ICE better monitor the extent to
which ERO field offices are implementing the practices in its guidance 
intended to ensure more cost-effective program operation. 

ICE has established ATD program performance measures to, among other
things, assess alien compliance with requirements to appear in court 
and leave the country after receiving a final order of removal, but it 
has not collected complete data for assessing progress against these 
measures. Specifically, ICE's ATD contractor collected data for the 
Full-service component, and from fiscal years 2011 through 2013, these 
data showed that over 99 percent of aliens with a scheduled court 
hearing appeared in court as required. However, ICE did not collect 
similar performance data to report results for aliens enrolled in the
Technology-only component-—which composed 39 percent of the overall ATD
program participants in fiscal year 2013-—because when the program was 
first created, ICE officials stated that they envisioned that most 
aliens would be in the Full-service component with data tracked by the 
contractor. ICE plans to expand the contractor's role in data 
collection but does not plan to require collection of performance data 
for aliens enrolled in the Technology-only component; rather ICE plans 
to leave it to the discretion of field officials as to whether to 
require the contractor to collect these data. Without requirements to 
collect these data, ICE may not have complete information to fully 
assess program performance. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that ICE analyze data to monitor ERO field offices'
implementation of guidance and require the collection of data on the
Technology-only component. DHS concurred with the recommendations. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-26]. For more 
information, contact Rebecca Gambler at (202) 512-8777 or 
gamblerr@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

ICE Expanded the ATD Program and Changed Program Use, but Has Not 
Monitored Implementation of Guidance Intended to Help Ensure Program 
Cost-Effectiveness: 

ICE Has Established Program Performance Measures for the ATD Program, 
but Has Not Collected Complete Data for Assessing Progress against All 
of These Measures: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Number of Times U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
(ICE) Released Aliens under Various Options, Fiscal Year 2013: 

Table 2: Detention Facility Bookings and Enrollments under Release 
Options, Fiscal Years 2011 through 2013: 

Table 3: Average Length of Time Aliens Spent in the Alternatives to 
Detention (ATD) Program in Days, Fiscal Years 2011 through 2013: 

Table 4: Average Cost per Alternatives to Detention (ATD) Program 
Participant Day, Fiscal Years 2011 through 2013: 

Table 5: Alternatives to Detention Program Goals and Results Related 
to Removal of Aliens from the United States, Fiscal Years 2011 through 
2013: 

Table 6: Performance Rates for Aliens in the Full-service Component of 
the Alternatives to Detention (ATD) Program, Fiscal Years 2011 through 
2013: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Alternatives to Detention Program Requirements: 

Figure 2: Number of Aliens Participating in the Alternatives to 
Detention (ATD) Program from Fiscal Years 2011 to 2013: 

Figure 3: Alternatives to Detention (ATD) Enrollments from Fiscal 
Years 2011 to 2013: 

Figure 4: Number of Aliens Terminated from the Alternatives to 
Detention (ATD) Program from Fiscal Years 2011 to 2013: 

Figure 5: Reasons for Termination from the Full-service Component of 
the Alternatives to Detention Program, Fiscal Years 2011 through 2013: 

Figure 6: Court Appearance Rate for Aliens Enrolled in the Full-
service Component of the Alternatives to Detention Program, Fiscal 
Years 2011 through 2013: 

Abbreviations: 

ATD: Alternatives to Detention: 

BI: Behavioral Interventions, Inc. 

DHS: Department of Homeland Security: 

EOIR: Executive Office for Immigration Review: 

ERO: Enforcement and Removal Operations: 

GPS: Global Positioning System: 

ICE: Immigration and Customs Enforcement: 

INA: Immigration and Nationality Act: 

RCA: Risk Classification Assessment: 

TRUST Act: Transparency and Responsibility Using State Tools Act: 

[End of section] 

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

November 13, 2014: 

The Honorable Mary Landrieu: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Dan Coats: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Homeland Security: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable John Carter: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable David Price: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Homeland Security: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
House of Representatives: 

For more than a decade, the federal government has been exploring cost-
effective alternatives to immigration detention that would provide 
appropriate federal oversight for some of the over 1.5 million aliens 
in fiscal year 2013 who, if not detained in a detention facility, were 
released into the community.[Footnote 1] The Department of Homeland 
Security's (DHS) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is 
responsible for such oversight and implemented the Alternatives to 
Detention (ATD) program in 2004 to be a cost-effective alternative to 
detention that uses case management and electronic monitoring to 
ensure adult aliens released into the community comply with their 
release conditions--including requirements to appear at immigration 
court hearings--and comply with final orders of removal from the 
United States.[Footnote 2] Congress has increased funding for 
operation of the ATD program from $3 million in fiscal year 2003 
[Footnote 3] to $91.4 million in fiscal year 2014.[Footnote 4] 

ICE's Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) enforces the nation's 
immigration laws by identifying and apprehending aliens, detaining 
these individuals when legally required or otherwise appropriate 
during the course of their immigration proceedings, and upon 
completion of those proceedings, ensuring that aliens who receive a 
final order of removal leave the United States. ERO prioritizes the 
apprehension, arrest, and removal of aliens from the United States who 
are convicted criminals, pose a threat to national security, are 
fugitives or obstruct immigration controls, or are recent border 
entrants. Based out of 24 field offices and 186 suboffices located 
throughout the country, ERO is also responsible for supervising aliens 
who are not held in detention facilities, but instead are released to 
the community under ATD or other release conditions, such as being 
released on bond. ERO's ATD Unit provides guidance and coordinates 
program implementation across participating ICE ERO field offices that 
administer the program, with the assistance of a contractor that 
provides technological and case management services. ERO field 
officials' responsibilities include ensuring that detained and 
nondetained aliens comply with requirements to appear in court for 
their immigration hearings, which are administered by the Department 
of Justice's Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).[Footnote 
5] At 59 EOIR immigration courts across the country, immigration 
judges conduct court hearings to determine whether aliens should be 
removed from the country under an order of removal, granted voluntary 
departure, or allowed to remain in the United States under a form of 
relief, such as asylum.[Footnote 6] 

Since the ATD program was first implemented, ICE has made changes to 
align the program with agency priorities and program goals--with some 
key program changes occurring around 2011. The Joint Explanatory 
Statement to the 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Pub. L. No. 113-
76) mandated that GAO provide a report evaluating ICE's implementation 
of the ATD program, including any recommendations for how the program 
could be improved.[Footnote 7] This report addresses the following 
questions: (1) What were the trends in ATD program participation from 
fiscal years 2011 through 2013, and to what extent does ICE provide 
oversight to help ensure cost-effective program implementation? (2) To 
what extent has ICE measured the performance of the ATD program for 
fiscal years 2011 through 2013? 

To determine the trends in ATD program participation and to what 
extent ICE provides oversight to help ensure cost-effective program 
implementation, we analyzed data for ATD program costs and performance 
provided by ICE and its contractor; reviewed relevant federal laws and 
DHS documents including ICE policy memorandums, congressional budget 
justifications, and ICE's teleconference meeting notes regarding the 
ATD program; and conducted interviews at ICE and its contractor 
headquarters and 4 of 24 ERO field office locations. Specifically, we 
analyzed ICE and contractor ATD program data from fiscal years 2011 
through 2013, including data on costs, enrollments, terminations from 
the ATD program, and average length of time enrolled in the program, 
to determine program trends over time. We analyzed data from fiscal 
years 2011 through 2013 to determine trends in the most recent fiscal 
years in which complete data were available. Using these data, we also 
calculated the average ATD program cost per day per alien. We could 
not compare this cost per day for aliens who are released under other 
conditions, such as being released on bond, because ICE does not 
capture cost data associated with these release options. We also 
reviewed the Department of Justice's EOIR data on the length of time 
aliens spend in immigration proceedings before receiving their final 
disposition. We assessed the reliability of these data by interviewing 
or soliciting written responses from ICE and EOIR officials regarding 
their oversight of their respective databases, as well as the ATD 
database maintained by ICE's contractor, and reviewed the data for any 
missing data fields, entries with values beyond expected ranges, or 
other entries that appeared to be unusual. We determined that the data 
were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. We also 
interviewed ICE and contractor headquarters officials regarding (1) 
how ICE has structured the ATD program and how ICE officials decide 
which aliens to place in the ATD program and at what supervision 
level; (2) how ICE officials determine when to terminate an alien from 
the ATD program or one of the program's components;[Footnote 8] (3) 
changes to program implementation over time, including future plans; 
and (4) benefits and challenges of the program. In addition, we 
interviewed ICE ERO field office officials and contractor officials in 
four locations--Dallas, Texas; Los Angeles, California; Las Vegas, 
Nevada; and St. Paul, Minnesota--regarding their implementation of the 
program.[Footnote 9] We selected these offices on the basis of various 
factors, including the (1) size of the program at each office, (2) 
geographic location, (3) program components offered, and (4) 
recommendations from cognizant DHS officials. While we cannot 
generalize the results of our interviews to all ICE ERO field office 
locations, officials we interviewed provided us with a general 
overview and perspective on how ICE implements the ATD program at the 
selected locations. In addition, we compared ICE's management of the 
ATD program against standards in Standards for Internal Control in the 
Federal Government.[Footnote 10] 

To determine how ICE measured the performance of the ATD program for 
fiscal years 2011 through 2013, we analyzed DHS documents, 
congressional budget justifications, and ICE's teleconference meeting 
notes regarding the ATD program. We also analyzed ICE and ICE 
contractor data from fiscal years 2011 through 2013 related to ATD 
program performance, including data on court appearances, removals 
from the United States, and other performance metrics. To assess the 
reliability of these data, we interviewed ICE and ATD contractor 
headquarters officials regarding database oversight and reviewed the 
data for any missing data fields, entries with values beyond expected 
ranges, or other entries that appeared to be unusual. We determined 
that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this 
report, except for certain limitations as noted later in our report. 
For example, because of limitations in some of the performance data, 
we were not able to assess some aspects of performance results for one 
component of the ATD program or compare performance data of aliens in 
the ATD program with performance data for the rest of the nondetained 
population. We also interviewed ICE and contractor officials in 
headquarters and the 4 ICE ERO field office locations to obtain their 
perspectives on performance metrics and future plans for data 
collection. Additionally, we compared ICE's management of the ATD 
program against standards in Standards for Internal Control in the 
Federal Government.[Footnote 11] 

We conducted this performance audit from March 2014 to November 2014, 
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: 

EOIR and ICE Roles in Managing Aliens: 

Within the Department of Justice, EOIR immigration judges conduct 
hearings to determine whether an alien is removable from the United 
States and whether he or she is eligible for a form of relief or 
protection from removal. If an immigration judge determines that an 
alien is removable from the United States and not eligible for relief 
or protection from removal, including voluntary departure, the 
immigration judge can issue an order of removal. The removal order 
becomes administratively final when all avenues for appeal with EOIR 
to remain in the United States have been exhausted or waived by the 
alien, and the alien is to be removed from the United States.[Footnote 
12] Once an order of removal is final, ICE is responsible for carrying 
out the removal. In fiscal year 2013, ICE reported removing 368,644 
aliens from the United States. 

While immigration judges have the authority to make custody 
determinations, ICE also makes the initial decision as to whether to 
detain aliens in ICE custody or release them to the community pending 
removal proceedings, subject to certain laws.[Footnote 13] The 
Immigration and Nationality Act, as well as other legislation, 
requires that under specified circumstances ICE detain certain aliens, 
including those arriving without documentation or with fraudulent 
documentation, those who are inadmissible or removable on criminal or 
national security grounds, and those aliens subject to a final order 
of removal.[Footnote 14] Even if not required to do so, ICE may detain 
aliens who it believes pose a threat to public safety or are flight 
risks, with the option for some aliens to be subsequently released. In 
fiscal year 2013, ICE booked 440,557 aliens into detention facilities. 

ICE uses one or more release options when it determines that an alien 
is not to be detained in ICE's custody--including bond, order of 
recognizance, order of supervision, parole, and on condition of 
participation in the ATD program. 

* If an alien is not a threat to public safety, presents a low risk of 
flight, and is not required to be detained, ICE may release him or her 
on (1) a bond of at least $1,500 or (2) an order of recognizance that 
requires the alien to abide by specified release conditions but does 
not require the alien to post a bond.[Footnote 15] 

* DHS may release an alien on an order of supervision, despite such 
alien being subject to a final order of removal, where there is no 
significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable 
future, because, for example, travel documents are not forthcoming. 
[Footnote 16] An alien subject to a final order of deportation or 
removal may also request a stay of deportation or removal.[Footnote 17] 

* ICE may release certain aliens on parole for urgent humanitarian 
reasons or significant public benefit, or for a medical emergency or 
legitimate law enforcement objective, on a case-by-case basis. 
[Footnote 18] 

* Finally, an alien can also be placed in the ATD program, which 
requires that, among other things, aliens released into the community 
agree to appear at all hearings and report to ICE periodically. 
[Footnote 19] 

In fiscal year 2013, ICE released aliens under these various options 
113,690 times, as shown in table 1. 

Table 1: Number of Times U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
(ICE) Released Aliens under Various Options, Fiscal Year 2013: 

Release option: Bond; 
Enrollment: 40,714. 

Release option: Order of recognizance; 
Enrollment: 29,672. 

Release option: Order of supervision; 
Enrollment: 13,108. 

Release option: Parole; 
Enrollment: 6,242. 

Release option: Alternatives to Detention; 
Enrollment: 23,954. 

Release option: Total; 
Enrollment: 113,690. 

Source: GAO analysis of ICE data. GAO-15-26. 

Note: The data in the table above include the number of times that ICE 
decided to release aliens under these options in fiscal year 2013. It 
does not include aliens who were released under these options in prior 
fiscal years, and still remain under these options. Further, because 
aliens may be released under more than one option--either concurrently 
or at different times--these data may contain duplications. 

[End of table] 

To assist ICE officers in their decisions whether to detain aliens in 
ICE custody or release them, ICE developed an analytical tool known as 
the Risk Classification Assessment (RCA). The RCA, which ICE fully 
deployed in February 2013, considers several factors related to an 
alien's public safety and flight risks--such as criminal history, 
prior removal data, ties to the local community, and gang affiliation--
and recommends each alien for detention or release. An ICE officer 
reviews the RCA results along with other factors, such as an alien's 
final order status, and, after obtaining supervisory approval, makes a 
custody determination. ICE officials stated that they generally do not 
use the RCA for aliens that ICE must detain by law or that are likely 
to be removed from the United States within 5 days.[Footnote 20] 

Overview of the ATD Program: 

ICE created the ATD program in 2004 as another condition of release to 
help ensure that aliens released into the community appear at their 
immigration proceedings. The ATD program seeks to provide an enhanced 
monitoring option for those aliens for whom ICE, or an immigration 
judge, has determined that detention is neither mandated nor 
appropriate, yet may need a higher level of supervision than that 
provided by the less restrictive release conditions.[Footnote 21] When 
reviewing an alien's case for possible placement in ATD, officers are 
to consider the alien's criminal history, compliance history, 
community and family ties, and humanitarian concerns. ICE may require 
participation in the ATD program as a condition of the alien's release 
during immigration proceedings, or upon receipt of the alien's final 
order of removal or grant of voluntary departure. 

For fiscal year 2003, ICE was allocated $3 million for alternatives to 
detention to promote community-based programs for supervised release 
from detention.[Footnote 22] Subsequently, ICE created the first 
iteration of the ATD program in 2004 across eight cities; this 
iteration ran until 2009 and consisted of three separate programs 
operated by ICE and two companies under separate contracts.[Footnote 
23] These three programs provided varying levels of alien supervision 
intended to help improve alien attendance rates at scheduled 
immigration court proceedings. By the end of 2009, the ATD program 
expanded to all of the 24 ICE ERO field offices and 5 of 186 
suboffices. 

ICE initiated the second phase of the ATD program in 2009 with a 5-
year contract with a private contractor and consolidated the program 
into a single contract with two components--Full-service and 
Technology-only.[Footnote 24] Behavioral Interventions, Inc. (BI), the 
contractor, operates the Full-service component out of stand-alone 
sites or out of ICE offices--currently in 45 cities.[Footnote 25] To 
be eligible for the Full-service component, aliens must be at least 18 
years old and generally must reside within about 75 miles of the 
contractor's office, depending on the field office. The contractor 
maintains in-person contact with the alien, which includes requiring 
periodic office visits and conducting unscheduled home visits, and 
monitoring the alien with either Global Positioning System (GPS) 
equipment or a telephonic reporting system.[Footnote 26] The 
contractor also provides case management services, which may include 
helping aliens understand the legal process, acquiring travel 
documents, and developing travel plans; reminds aliens to attend 
immigration proceedings; and handles initial alerts and violations for 
aliens.[Footnote 27] Last, the contractor documents aliens' attendance 
at court hearings and compliance with electronic monitoring and in-
person supervision requirements. ICE officers are ultimately 
responsible for removing aliens from the United States and responding 
to program violations. 

Generally, ICE field officials make all decisions about the 
appropriate level of supervision and type of technology for aliens. 
Under the current program, an alien's status in immigration 
proceedings generally dictates the required number of office visits 
and unscheduled home visits by the contractor for aliens in the Full-
service component.[Footnote 28] For example, aliens whose immigration 
proceedings are still ongoing (known as pre-order under the ATD 
contract) must visit the contractor's office once every 2 weeks and be 
subject to home visits once every 4 weeks. When an alien receives a 
final order of removal (known as post-order), the frequency of 
required visits doubles, and an alien with a pending appeal must visit 
the office and is subject to home visits once every 4 weeks.[Footnote 
29] Further, ICE officers may enroll aliens in ATD who were detained 
and subsequently released into the community after a post-order 
custody review; the level of supervision determined for these aliens 
depends on whether their removal from the United States is 
significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future.[Footnote 30] 

ICE ERO field office officials manage the Technology-only component of 
the ATD program, which is available in 96 locations, utilizing the 
contractor's systems and equipment.[Footnote 31] The Technology-only 
component offers a lower level of supervision at a lower contract cost 
than the Full-service component and allows ICE to monitor aliens' 
compliance with the terms of their release using either telephonic 
reporting or GPS equipment provided by the contractor.[Footnote 32] 
ICE officers are responsible for providing case management, in 
addition to removing aliens from the country and responding to 
violations. In locations where Full-service and Technology-only are 
available, ICE officers can de-escalate aliens from the Full-service 
component to the Technology-only component (or vice versa) at their 
discretion. For both components, ICE officers determine when an 
alien's participation in the program should be terminated. ICE 
terminates aliens from the ATD program who are removed from the United 
States, depart voluntarily, are arrested by ICE for removal, or 
receive a benefit or relief from removal. ICE may also terminate an 
alien from the program when aliens are arrested by another law 
enforcement entity, abscond, or otherwise violate the conditions of 
the ATD program. Further, ICE may terminate an alien from the program 
if ICE officers determine the alien is no longer required to 
participate. The program requirements for the various levels of 
supervision for aliens in the Full-service and Technology-only 
components are shown in figure 1. 

Figure 1: Alternatives to Detention Program Requirements: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table] 

Full-service: 

Status in immigration proceedings: Preorder; 
Supervision: 
Office visits: Once/two weeks; 
Unscheduled home visits: Once/four weeks; 
Electronic monitoring: Global Positioning System (GPS) or telephonic 
reporting; 
Review individual service plan: Once/four weeks. 

Status in immigration proceedings: Postorder; 
Supervision: 
Office visits: Twice/two weeks; 
Unscheduled home visits: Once/two weeks; 
Electronic monitoring: Global Positioning System (GPS) or telephonic 
reporting; 
Review individual service plan: Once/four weeks. 

Status in immigration proceedings: Appeal; 
Supervision: 
Office visits: Once/four weeks; 
Unscheduled home visits: Once/four weeks; 
Electronic monitoring: Global Positioning System (GPS) or telephonic 
reporting; 
Review individual service plan: Once/four weeks. 

Status in immigration proceedings: Postorder custody review: 
reasonably foreseeable removal; 
Supervision: 
Office visits: Twice/two weeks; 
Unscheduled home visits: Once/two weeks; 
Electronic monitoring: Global Positioning System (GPS) or telephonic 
reporting; 
Review individual service plan: Once/four weeks. 

Status in immigration proceedings: Postorder custody review: non-
foreseeable removal; 
Supervision: 
Office visits: Once/eight weeks; 
Unscheduled home visits: Once/eight weeks; 
Electronic monitoring: Global Positioning System (GPS) or telephonic 
reporting; 
Review individual service plan: Once/eight weeks. 

Technology only: 
Supervision: 
Electronic monitoring: GPS or telephonic monitoring. 

Source: GAO analysis of Behavioral Interventions, Inc., and U.S. 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement documents. GAO-15-26. 

[End of figure] 

In June 2014, ICE issued a request for proposal for the third phase of 
the ATD program, to begin in September 2014,[Footnote 33] which, 
according to the request, is intended to provide ICE officers with 
more flexibility to determine the appropriate level of supervision 
based on an alien's history and circumstances. Under the second phase 
of the program, the level of alien supervision for Full-service 
participants is based on where the alien is in the immigration 
process. For the third phase, the program's goals are to be to 
maintain a high court appearance rate and to remove aliens from the 
United States after they receive final orders of removal. 

ICE Expanded the ATD Program and Changed Program Use, but Has Not 
Monitored Implementation of Guidance Intended to Help Ensure Program 
Cost-Effectiveness: 

The number of aliens participating in the ATD program increased from 
fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2013, in part because of increases in 
either enrollments or the average length of time aliens spent in one 
of the program's components; and ICE changed the focus of the program 
to align with changes in agency priorities. Pursuant to ICE guidance 
in 2011, ICE also recommended that ERO field offices transition aliens 
among the two ATD program components--or levels of supervision--to 
help facilitate cost-effective use of the ATD program; however, ICE 
has not monitored the extent to which ERO field offices have 
consistently implemented the guidance. ICE plans to increase the 
average daily participation level of both ATD program components with 
increased funding, but ATD program officials stated that several 
factors affect their ability to identify future capacity and expand 
the program. 

The Number of Aliens Participating in the ATD Program Increased, in 
Part, because of Increased Enrollments and Longer Times That Some 
Aliens Spent in the Program: 

ICE increased the number of aliens participating in the ATD program 
over the last 3 fiscal years with some differences between the Full-
service and Technology-only components, and this increase, in part, 
can be attributed to increased enrollments and the increased average 
length of time aliens spent in the Technology-only component of the 
program. Specifically, the total number of unique aliens who 
participated in the program increased from 32,065 in fiscal year 2011 
to 40,864 in fiscal year 2013, with most aliens participating in the 
Full-service component, as shown in figure 2.[Footnote 34] These 
numbers include all aliens in the ATD program for each of these years--
regardless of the year in which they were initially enrolled. The 
increase in the number of aliens in the program over this time 
occurred primarily in the Technology-only component. Specifically, the 
overall number of aliens participating in the ATD program grew by 27 
percent; the number of aliens in the Technology-only component 
increased by 84 percent; and the number of aliens in the Full-service 
component increased by 23 percent. 

Figure 2: Number of Aliens Participating in the Alternatives to 
Detention (ATD) Program from Fiscal Years 2011 to 2013: 

[[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

Number served: 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
Full-service (unique): 23,627; 
Technology-only (unique): 10,214; 
Total ATD program (unique): 32,065. 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Full-service (unique): 23,924; 
Technology-only (unique): 15,335; 
Total ATD program (unique): 35,936. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Full-service (unique): 28,961; 
Technology-only (unique): 18,803; 
Total ATD program (unique): 40,864. 

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
contractor data. GAO-15-26. 

Note: The figure represents unique aliens in the Full-service 
component and the Technology-only component. Since aliens can be 
placed in both components in the same year, they may be counted in 
both categories. The total number of aliens in the ATD program is 
unique and does not include such duplicates. 

[End of figure] 

During this time, the composition of aliens in the ATD program also 
changed to align with agency priorities. Specifically, ICE shifted its 
overall enforcement priorities with a June 2010 policy memorandum that 
detailed the priorities for alien apprehension, detention, and removal 
as follows: (1) aliens who pose a danger to national security or a 
risk to public safety--including aliens convicted of crimes--and (2) 
recent illegal entrants and aliens who are fugitives or otherwise 
obstruct immigration controls.[Footnote 35] ICE established such 
priorities because, as stated in the memo, ICE has resources to remove 
only approximately 400,000 aliens per year from the country, less than 
4 percent of the estimated illegal alien population in the United 
States. According to ICE data, about 50 percent of aliens in the ATD 
program met an ICE enforcement priority in fiscal year 2012, such as 
aliens convicted of crimes. As of April 2014, ICE reported that about 
90 percent of aliens in the ATD program met ICE enforcement priorities 
and 51 percent were criminal aliens. 

One factor contributing to the increase in ATD program participation 
was that ICE generally increased the number of aliens it enrolled in 
the program each year. Specifically, the total number of unique 
enrollments in the ATD program increased by 26 percent--from 16,252 in 
fiscal year 2011 to 20,441 in fiscal year 2013--although there was a 
slight decline in fiscal year 2012 before increasing in fiscal year 
2013.[Footnote 36] As shown in figure 3, the increase from fiscal 
years 2011 to 2013 was due to enrollments in the Full-service 
component--which increased by 60 percent during this time. 

Figure 3: Alternatives to Detention (ATD) Enrollments from Fiscal 
Years 2011 to 2013: 

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

Enrollments: 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
Full-service (unique): 10,825; 
Technology-only (unique): 5,796; 
Total ATD program (unique): 16,252. 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Full-service (unique): 10,928; 
Technology-only (unique): 5,827; 
Total ATD program (unique): 16,010. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Full-service (unique): 17,279; 
Technology-only (unique): 5,759; 
Total ATD program (unique): 20,441. 

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
contractor data. GAO-15-26. 

Note: The figure represents unique aliens in the Full-service 
component and the Technology-only component. Since aliens can be 
placed in both components in the same year, they may be counted in 
both categories. The total number of aliens in the ATD program is 
unique and does not include such duplicates. 

[End of figure] 

Information on alien enrollments showed that the extent to which ICE 
booked aliens into detention facilities or released them into the 
community varied across fiscal years 2011 through fiscal year 2013, as 
shown in table 2, although these enrollments were not unique. For 
example, these enrollments include aliens who may have been enrolled 
in both detention and one or more release options in the same fiscal 
year and aliens who may have been booked multiple times into detention 
facilities or released multiple times under the same option in the 
same fiscal year. 

Table 2: Detention Facility Bookings and Enrollments under Release 
Options, Fiscal Years 2011 through 2013: 

Detention: 
2011: 429,096; 
2012: 477,383; 
2013: 440,557. 

Alternatives to Detention: 
2011: 16,933; 
2012: 17,107; 
2013: 23,954. 

Other release options: 

Bond: 
2011: 40,408; 
2012: 47,091; 
2013: 40,714. 

Order of recognizance: 
2011: 9,693; 
2012: 16,633; 
2013: 29,672. 

Order of supervision: 
2011: 8,816; 
2012: 11,646; 
2013: 13,108. 

Parole:
2011: 2,132; 
2012: 2,079; 
2013: 6,242. 

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 
data. GAO-15-26. 

Note: The table data include the number of times that ICE booked a 
person into detention or released aliens under the Alternatives to 
Detention (ATD) program or other release options in each of the fiscal 
years. These data categories are not mutually exclusive and can 
include duplicates for several reasons. Aliens may be released into 
more than one category--either concurrently or at different times. For 
example, an alien could be in detention prior to being released into 
the community, released on an order of recognizance and enrolled in 
the ATD program at the same time, or released and subsequently 
detained. Further, some aliens may have been detained or placed in 
detention or under the same release option more than once in the same 
fiscal year. ICE has limited options for how to place some aliens. For 
example, ICE may be required to detain some aliens. 

[End of table] 

During this time, ICE also expanded use of the ATD program across ERO 
field office and suboffice locations. Specifically, ICE expanded use 
of the Full-service component from 38 ERO field offices and suboffices 
in fiscal year 2011 to 44 field offices in fiscal year 2013.[Footnote 
37] During this time, ICE expanded the use of the Technology-only 
component from 70 to 76 ERO field office and suboffice locations that 
were actively using the component.[Footnote 38] 

Another factor contributing to the increase in the number of aliens in 
the Technology-only component of the ATD program was an increase in 
the length of time these aliens were in the program. While the average 
length of time aliens spent in the ATD program has remained fairly 
constant, differences existed across the program's components. The 
average length of time that aliens spent in the Full-service component 
decreased by about 20 percent from fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 
2013, while the average length of time increased nearly 80 percent for 
aliens in the Technology-only component during this same time, as 
shown in table 3. Specifically, aliens enrolled in the Full-service 
component in fiscal year 2013 spent about 10 months in the component, 
and those enrolled in Technology-only in fiscal year 2013 spent about 
18 months in this component.[Footnote 39] According to an ICE 
official, this difference is likely because of guidance that directs 
field office officials to move compliant aliens from the more 
expensive Full-service component to the Technology-only component 
after 90 days, which is discussed later in this report. 

Table 3: Average Length of Time Aliens Spent in the Alternatives to 
Detention (ATD) Program in Days, Fiscal Years 2011 through 2013: 

Year: 2011; 
Full-service: 398; 
Technology-only: 302; 
Total ATD program: 382. 

Year: 2012; 
Full-service: 415; 
Technology-only: 394; 
Total ATD program: 409. 

Year: 2013; 
Full-service: 312; 
Technology-only: 542; 
Total ATD program: 383. 

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
contractor data. GAO-15-26. 

[End of table] 

ICE officials stated that how long an alien is in the ATD program 
before receiving a final decision on his or her immigration 
proceedings depends on how quickly EOIR can process immigration cases. 
According to EOIR officials, the length of time before an alien 
receives a final decision has been much longer for aliens released 
from detention under the ATD program or other release options, 
primarily because EOIR has prioritized immigration cases for detained 
aliens, and because detained aliens are less likely to be eligible for 
relief as many have been convicted of crimes.[Footnote 40] For 
example, EOIR data show that after DHS filed the charging document, 
aliens in detention waited 41 days on average to have their first 
court hearing and 82 days on average to receive a final decision in 
fiscal year 2013.[Footnote 41] In that same year, aliens released from 
detention waited 281 days on average to have their first hearing and 
770 days on average--over 2 years--to receive a final decision. 
[Footnote 42] 

While our analyses showed that the average daily cost of the ATD 
program ($10.55) was significantly less than the average daily cost of 
detention ($158) in fiscal year 2013,[Footnote 43] the extent to which 
the length of immigration proceedings affects the cost-effectiveness 
of the ATD program varies under different scenarios. Specifically, we 
conducted two analyses to estimate when the cost of keeping aliens in 
the ATD program would have surpassed the cost of detaining an alien in 
a facility. Under our first analysis, we considered the average costs 
of ATD and detention and the average length of time aliens in 
detention spent awaiting an immigration judge's final decision, and 
found that the ATD program would have surpassed the cost of detention 
after an alien was in the program for 1,229 days in fiscal year 2013--
significantly longer than the average length of time aliens spent in 
the ATD program in this year (383 days).[Footnote 44] In our second 
analysis, we considered the average costs of ATD and detention and the 
average length of time aliens spent in detention--regardless of 
whether they had received a final decision from an immigration judge--
since some aliens may not be in immigration proceedings or may not 
have reached their final hearing before ICE released them from 
detention. ICE reported that the average length of time that an alien 
was in detention in fiscal year 2013 was 29 days. Using this average, 
we calculated the average length of time aliens could have stayed in 
the ATD program before they surpassed the cost of detention would have 
been 435 days in fiscal year 2013.[Footnote 45] Our analyses of costs 
for the ATD program from fiscal year 2011 through fiscal year 2013 
showed that the costs per day per alien in the ATD program increased 
to $10.55 in fiscal year 2013--which includes ATD personnel costs--
after decreasing in fiscal year 2012, as shown in table 4.[Footnote 
46] This compares with the average cost of detention, which is $158 a 
day per alien, which includes personnel costs.[Footnote 47] 

Table 4: Average Cost per Alternatives to Detention (ATD) Program 
Participant Day, Fiscal Years 2011 through 2013: 

ATD program: Expenditures; 
2011: $64.8 million; 
2012: $64.9 million; 
2013: $85 million. 

ATD program: Participation days; 
2011: 8,061,113; 
2012: 8,297,148; 
2013: 6,045,144. 

ATD program: Cost per participant day; 
2011: $10.72; 
2012: $7.83; 
2013: $10.55. 

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement data. 
GAO-15-26. 

Note: If an alien is enrolled in Full-service and also has electronic 
monitoring using Global Positioning System or telephonic reporting, he 
or she is counted as having 2 participant days. To adjust for this in 
our cost per day estimate, we reduced the number of Full-service 
participants in half, as reflected in the table above. 

[End of table] 

ICE officials told us that while ICE received an additional $24 
million funding for the ATD program in fiscal year 2013, by the time 
it became available, it was too late to expand capacity of the 
program. These officials stated that they reprogrammed some of the 
additional funding, and used the remaining on various ATD-related 
activities, such as conducting trainings and purchasing new vehicles 
for ICE officers.[Footnote 48] 

ICE Increased the Number of Aliens Terminated from the ATD Program, 
but Has Not Monitored Implementation of Guidance to Help Ensure Cost-
Effective Program Implementation: 

ICE increased the number of aliens terminated from the ATD program 
since 2011 after guidance directed ERO field offices to more cost-
effectively use the ATD program; however, ICE has not monitored the 
extent to which field offices have implemented the guidance. Under the 
original ATD contract, ICE officials stated that aliens enrolled in 
the ATD program generally stayed in the program from the time of 
enrollment through completion of the immigration process (i.e., 
completion of a final court hearing or, if ordered removed at the 
final hearing, removal from the United States). However, concerned 
about the time it has taken for aliens to complete immigration 
proceedings and the subsequent impact on ATD program costs, ICE 
recommended in 2011 that ERO field offices help facilitate cost-
effective use of the ATD program. Pursuant to this guidance, ICE 
officials recommended that field officials reserve more intense and 
costly supervision options under the Full-service component for (1) 
aliens who are newly enrolled in ATD who do not have an order of 
removal or an immediate immigration court date and (2) aliens who have 
already received a final order of removal from the country--the latter 
of which is seen as a best practice, according to ICE. Specifically, 
pursuant to ICE's guidance, ICE recommended that ICE ERO field office 
officials assess whether aliens in the Full-service component 
demonstrated compliance with the conditions of their release, at least 
every 90 days, and if so, terminate them from the Full-service 
component after 90 days and de-escalate them to lower levels of 
supervision at a lower cost by moving them to the Technology-only 
component of the ATD program.[Footnote 49] Conversely, ICE recommended 
that ERO field office officials terminate aliens from the Technology-
only component who received their final order of removal or grant of 
voluntary departure and escalate them to the Full-service component so 
that ICE, along with the contractor, could more easily monitor and 
ensure their departure. Subsequently, ICE increased the number of 
terminations from the two components of the ATD program. Specifically, 
as shown in figure 4, ICE increased the number of terminations from 
the Full-service component by 82 percent and the number of 
terminations from the Technology-only component by 299 percent from 
fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2013. 

Figure 4: Number of Aliens Terminated from the Alternatives to 
Detention (ATD) Program from Fiscal Years 2011 to 2013: 

Terminations: 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
Full-service: 10,234; 
Technology-only: 2,076; 
Total ATD program: 12,310. 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Full-service: 12,277; 
Technology-only: 5,274; 
Total ATD program: 17,551. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Full-service: 18,651; 
Technology-only: 8,287; 
Total ATD program: 26,938. 

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
contractor data. GAO-15-26. 

Note: Since aliens could be enrolled in both the Full-service 
component and the Technology-only component in the same year or may 
have been enrolled in the same component more than once in a year, 
they may be counted multiple times if they were terminated more than 
once in a year. 

[End of figure] 

ICE does not have complete data to identify the specific reasons field 
officials decided to terminate aliens from the program and therefore 
cannot determine whether ERO field offices are implementing the 
guidance for changing an alien's level of supervision between the ATD 
program components with the goal of cost-effectively implementing the 
ATD program. According to ICE officials, because the individual 
circumstances for each alien's case can vary, the decision to 
terminate or change an alien's level of supervision is made by the 
field officer, who decides whether to keep aliens in the Full-service 
component, de-escalate aliens from the Full-service component to the 
Technology-only component, or terminate aliens from the ATD program 
entirely by placing them in detention or releasing them under their 
own recognizance or another release option. While ICE collects some 
data on the reasons for termination decisions made by field officials, 
ICE does not collect data on the specific reason why field officials 
would determine an alien is no longer required to participate in the 
program. For example, our analysis of termination data for the Full-
service component showed that 13 percent of terminations from the Full-
service component were made after confirmation of an alien's removal 
and departure from the United States or after the alien had been 
granted relief and benefits to remain in the country, and another 15 
percent of terminations were made for reasons including that aliens 
had violated the terms of the ATD program, had absconded, had been 
arrested, were pending departure, or other reasons. However, it was 
unclear why ERO field office officials made most terminations--71 
percent--before the completion of the aliens' immigration proceedings 
or removal from the United States, because the reason provided was 
that a field official determined that an alien was no longer required 
to participate in the program.[Footnote 50] As a result, ICE officials 
stated that they did not know if field office officials made the 
majority of these terminations in response to its guidance 
recommending changing the levels of supervision that could result in 
more cost-effective operation of the program, or for other reasons. 
[Footnote 51] Figure 5 shows the reasons for Full-service terminations 
in fiscal years 2011 through 2013. 

Figure 5: Reasons for Termination from the Full-service Component of 
the Alternatives to Detention Program, Fiscal Years 2011 through 2013: 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph] 

Terminations: 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
Confirmed removals and departures: 2,307; 
Relief and benefits granted: 592; 
No longer required to participate as determined by ICE: 4,976; 
Arrests, pending departure, other: 1,022; 
Absconders and violators: 1,337. 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Confirmed removals and departures: 2,132; 
Relief and benefits granted: 403; 
No longer required to participate as determined by ICE: 7,591; 
Arrests, pending departure, other: 864; 
Absconders and violators: 1,287. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Confirmed removals and departures: 2,198; 
Relief and benefits granted: 294; 
No longer required to participate as determined by ICE: 13,293; 
Arrests, pending departure, other: 1,213; 
Absconders and violators: 1,653. 

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 
contractor data. GAO-15-26. 

Note: Since aliens could be enrolled in the Full-service component 
more than once in a year, they may be counted twice if they were 
terminated more than once in a year. 

[End of figure] 

In addition, ICE contractor data showed ERO field office officials may 
not be following ICE guidance intended to help ensure cost-effective 
program implementation. Specifically, data on the Full-service 
component of the ATD program in fiscal year 2013 showed that the 
majority of aliens terminated from the Full-service component were not 
subsequently enrolled into the Technology-only component, as 
recommended by ICE guidance. These data show that of 12,769 unique 
aliens terminated from the Full-service component for the reason that 
ICE determined the alien no longer needed to participate, 1,051--or 8 
percent--were subsequently enrolled in the Technology-only component. 
[Footnote 52] ICE officials said that because of the data limitations 
discussed above, they do not have information necessary to analyze why 
ERO field offices were terminating aliens from higher levels of 
supervision under the Full-service component without subsequently 
enrolling them in lower-level supervision under the Technology-only 
component as specified in the guidance. For example, they could not 
determine how many of the cases terminated because ICE decided the 
alien no longer needed to participate were a result of something 
outside ICE's control, such as an administrative closure, or how many 
were terminated because ICE ERO field officers released the alien 
under an order of recognizance rather than de-escalate the alien's 
level of supervision to the Technology-only component.[Footnote 53] 
These data would provide insight into how field officers are 
implementing ICE's guidance. In addition, ICE officials stated that 
they do not have data available to determine how many aliens in the 
Technology-only component were re-escalated to higher levels of 
supervision under the Full-service component upon receiving their 
final order of removal from the country--which ICE considers a best 
practice to ensure that aliens do not abscond and do comply with 
requirements to leave the country--because data maintained in its 
information system on final orders for aliens in the Technology-only 
component are not reliable. ICE officials said that data maintained in 
its information system on final orders for aliens in the Technology-
only component are not complete because field officials do not have 
time to track these data given limited resources and other priorities. 

Our interviews with ICE officials in three of the four ERO field 
offices also showed differences in how the ICE guidance was 
implemented.[Footnote 54] Officials from two field offices said that 
they had implemented changes to more actively move aliens to higher 
and lower levels of supervision, as needed. For example, officials in 
one field office said that they began generally reviewing cases on a 
monthly basis and, after 30 days, often lowered the level of 
supervision of aliens in the Full-service component from using more 
expensive GPS to less expensive telephonic monitoring if an alien had 
shown compliance during that time. These officials reported that after 
90 days they often terminated aliens from the more expensive Full-
service component and moved them to the less expensive Technology-only 
component or other release options. These officials reported re-
enrolling aliens who had received their final order of removal in the 
Full-service component. Officials in the other of these field offices 
cited implementing a similar practice of de-escalation and escalation 
of supervision across the Full-service and Technology-only components, 
with some differences. These officials reported generally reviewing 
cases every 4 to 6 months and escalating all aliens in the Technology-
only component to the Full-service component 30 days before any court 
hearing, and de-escalating these aliens back down to the Technology-
only component after the alien's attendance at the hearing unless a 
final order of removal was issued. They also said they had a practice 
to consider enrolling aliens in ATD who are under all release options-
-not just ATD--when they receive an order of removal. These officials 
stated that they now review all aliens who receive a final order of 
removal for possible enrollment in ATD--even if the alien was never 
previously in the ATD program. According to ICE, Full-service 
supervision has proven to be a best practice in ensuring successful 
removal from the United States.[Footnote 55] Officials in the other 
field office said that they changed their practice of using Full-
service enrollment to focus only on aliens who had received their 
final order of removal to align with agency priorities. Furthermore, 
the four field offices we selected for interviews were generally 
consistent with national trends in placing the majority of aliens in 
the Technology-only component on telephonic reporting--which has lower 
associated contract costs than GPS. As of April 2014, 97 percent of 
aliens in the Technology-only component and 52 percent of aliens in 
the Full-service component were monitored via telephonic reporting, 
with the remaining being monitored by GPS. 

Under the new ATD program contract to be implemented in September 
2014, ICE planned to address these data limitations but did not plan 
to use these data to monitor the extent to which ERO field offices 
have implemented the guidance for cost-effective program 
implementation across field offices. ICE officials said the new ATD 
program contract will require the contractor to maintain data on final 
orders; when an alien's supervision level changed; and for aliens that 
ICE determined are no longer required to participate in the ATD 
program, the specific reason for this determination. ICE officials 
stated that these data will provide them with information on how long 
participants were monitored by the ATD program before being de-
escalated to lower levels of supervision or terminated from the 
program and that these data can be used to establish a better profile 
of a participant's program life cycle and outcome. While requiring the 
contractor to maintain these data is a positive step that will help 
ICE collect more complete data on ATD participants, ICE officials did 
not have a plan to analyze these data to monitor ERO field offices' 
implementation of ICE guidance that is intended to ensure more cost-
effective use of the program. Standards for Internal Control in the 
Federal Government states that an agency's internal controls should 
provide reasonable assurances that operations are effective and 
efficient.[Footnote 56] The standards also call for agencies to 
examine and use the information to make decisions and monitor 
programs. Once additional data are collected under the new ATD program 
contract, analyzing termination data--specifically data on when an 
alien's level of supervision changes and the specific reasons for 
terminations from the ATD program--could help ICE better monitor how 
ERO field offices are implementing the guidance to cost-effectively 
use the ATD program. 

ICE Officials Cited Factors That Affect Future Capacity and Expansion 
of the ATD Program: 

ICE intends to increase the average daily participation level of both 
ATD program components with increased funding, according to ICE's 
fiscal year 2015 budget justification; however, ATD program officials 
stated that several factors affect their ability to identify future 
capacity and expand the program. These officials said that one of 
these factors was limited information for determining how many aliens 
who were detained or otherwise released could have been considered 
suitable for the ATD program. For example, ATD program officials said 
that ERO field office officials who manage the ATD program have the 
ability to see the cases that are referred to the ATD program, but not 
the cases that resulted in the alien being detained in ICE custody or 
released under other options after the RCA process is completed. 
Nationwide, the RCA tool recommended that 91 percent of the 168,087 
aliens processed by the RCA in fiscal year 2013 be detained in ICE 
custody--some of whom were subsequently eligible for bond--and that 
the remaining 9 percent (15,162 aliens) be released under ATD or other 
release options. However, ICE field officials managing the ATD program 
may not have seen the cases that resulted in detention or release and 
accordingly, are limited in their ability to estimate to what extent 
ATD program capacity could be expanded or changed in their location. 
To help increase the number of cases referred for ATD program 
consideration, ICE has issued guidance to its ERO field offices 
emphasizing that all nondetained criminal aliens should be given 
priority consideration for ATD program enrollment. Accordingly, this 
guidance directs the Criminal Alien Program and Fugitive Operations 
teams that generate case referrals in the field to coordinate with 
their local ATD component for enrollment consideration, including 
aliens released on a bond.[Footnote 57] ICE reported that field 
offices coupling a bond with ATD as a condition of release have shown 
an increased rate of success in alien removals from the United States. 

Other factors that ICE officials identified as affecting their ability 
to identify capacity and expand the ATD program are federal and state 
statutes and agency guidance. For example, ICE reported that from 
fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2013, 77 percent to 80 percent of 
aliens in detention facilities were required to be detained under 
federal law, and were not eligible for consideration in the ATD 
program.[Footnote 58] In addition, federal law requires that ICE 
maintain a minimum of 34,000 detention beds each day,[Footnote 59] and 
as part of its fiscal year 2015 budget justification, ICE reported 
that a decrease in the number of detention beds required to be 
maintained would result in an increase in the number of aliens who 
could be enrolled in the ATD program. In regard to state statute, one 
state, for example, passed a law whereby law enforcement officials 
have the discretion to cooperate with federal immigration officials by 
detaining an individual on the basis of an immigration hold after that 
individual becomes eligible for release from custody, only where 
certain criteria are met.[Footnote 60] In regard to agency guidance, 
ICE has instructed ERO field offices generally not to enroll aliens 
who are not likely removable, as well as aliens who were brought to 
the United States as children and may be eligible for the Deferred 
Action for Childhood Arrivals program.[Footnote 61] 

ICE officials stated that they did not plan to expand use of the ATD 
program to additional ERO field office locations until after the new 
contract was in place; however, officials reported that several 
factors could affect whether a field office could be or is willing to 
implement the program. For example, ICE reported in May 2014 that five 
field offices had requested to implement the Full-service component in 
their office but ICE did not approve the requests because the field 
offices did not have the necessary resources to implement the program. 
Such resources include officers' time to respond to instances of alien 
noncompliance with the terms of the program and review ATD cases and 
make supervision and termination decisions. 

ICE Has Established Program Performance Measures for the ATD Program, 
but Has Not Collected Complete Data for Assessing Progress against All 
of These Measures: 

ICE established two program performance measures to assess the ATD 
program's effectiveness in (1) ensuring alien compliance with court 
appearance requirements and (2) ensuring removals from the United 
States, as well as performance rates to evaluate the program's 
performance, but limitations in data collection hinder ICE's ability 
to assess overall program performance. 

Compliance with court appearances. ICE established a program 
performance measure in 2004 to monitor alien compliance with 
requirements to appear at their immigration hearings. Data collected 
by ICE's ATD contractor for the Full-service component of the ATD 
program from fiscal years 2011 through 2013 showed that over 99 
percent of aliens with a scheduled court hearing appeared at their 
scheduled court hearings while participating in this component of the 
ATD program, with the appearance rate dropping slightly to over 95 
percent of aliens with a scheduled final hearing appearing at their 
final removal hearing, as shown in figure 6. 

Figure 6: Court Appearance Rate for Aliens Enrolled in the Full-
service Component of the Alternatives to Detention Program, Fiscal 
Years 2011 through 2013: 

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) attendance rate: 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
Fiscal year 2011 goal: 96%; 
All hearings: 99.4%; 
Final hearings: 95.9%. 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
All hearings: 99.6%; 
Final hearings: 97.6%. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
All hearings: 99.6%; 
Final hearings: 96.7%. 

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
contractor data. GAO-15-26. 

Note: Immigration and Customs Enforcement did not have court 
appearance program goals for the Alternatives to Detention program in 
fiscal years 2012 and 2013. 

[End of figure] 

However, ICE does not collect similar performance data or report 
results on the court appearance rate for aliens enrolled in the 
Technology-only component of the ATD program--which constituted 39 
percent of the overall ATD program in fiscal year 2013. According to 
ICE officials, the agency did not require the contractor to capture 
similar data for the Technology-only component because when the ATD 
program was created, it was envisioned that most aliens would be in 
the Full-service component for the duration of the immigration 
process, and data for aliens in the Full-service component are 
collected by the contractor.[Footnote 62] ICE officials stated that 
they did not have sufficient resources to collect such data for the 
Technology-only component, given other priorities. 

ICE has taken steps to address the lack of data collection for the 
Technology-only component. Specifically, during the course of our 
review, ICE initiated a pilot program with its contractor in May 2014 
to establish improved data collection efforts, as well as expanded 
supervision options. The pilot, which is being tested in eight cities, 
increases the role the ATD contractor has in collecting and tracking 
data on aliens in the Technology-only component. Specifically, the 
contractor tracks compliance with release requirements, including 
court appearance requirements, for aliens enrolled in the Technology-
only component, as it already does for aliens enrolled in the Full-
service component. Under the new contract, ICE plans to implement key 
aspects of the pilot across all program locations, including giving 
ICE officers the ability to require the contractor to track data on 
aliens in the Technology-only component--including data on court 
appearances--to the contractor, according to the request for proposal 
for the new ATD program contract. However, ICE officials will not be 
required to have the contractor collect these data under the contract. 
[Footnote 63] While ICE's plan to expand data collection for the 
Technology-only component under the new contract is a positive step 
that will help provide more information for assessing the performance 
of that program component, ICE may not have complete data for 
assessing program performance without requirements that ICE or 
contractor field staff collect these data. Standards for Internal 
Control in the Federal Government states that agencies should employ 
control activities to monitor their performance.[Footnote 64] More 
specifically, agencies should develop mechanisms to reliably collect 
data that can be used to compare and assess program outcomes related 
to entire program populations. Requiring ERO field offices to collect, 
or have the contractor collect, court appearance data on the 
Technology-only component of the ATD program would help ensure that 
ICE has complete data for assessing the performance of that program 
component as well as the overall ATD program, particularly in light of 
ICE's guidance issued in fiscal year 2011 directing field offices to 
transition more aliens to the Technology-only component. 

Removals from the United States. ICE established a new program 
performance measure in fiscal year 2011 to assess the number of aliens 
removed from the country who had participated in the ATD program. 
[Footnote 65] ICE officials said the decision to replace the court 
appearance goal with the removal goal was based on the fact that the 
court appearance rate had consistently surpassed 99 percent and the 
program needed to establish another goal to demonstrate improvement 
over time. For this program performance measure, a removal attributed 
to the ATD program counts if the alien (1) was enrolled in ATD for at 
least 1 day, and (2) was removed or had departed voluntarily from the 
United States in the same fiscal year, regardless of whether the alien 
was enrolled in ATD at the time the alien left the country. As shown 
in table 5, ATD met its goal for removals in fiscal years 2012 and 
2013.[Footnote 66] In fiscal year 2012, their goal was to have a 3 
percent increase from their fiscal year 2011 total, and in fiscal year 
2013, a 3 percent increase from their 2012 removal goal. 

Table 5: Alternatives to Detention Program Goals and Results Related 
to Removal of Aliens from the United States, Fiscal Years 2011 through 
2013: 

Year: 2011; 
Goal: [Empty]; 
Verified Removals: 
Total: 2,733; 
Full-service: 2,458; 
Technology-only: 275. 

Year: 2012; 
Goal: 2,815; 
Verified Removals: 
Total: 2,841; 
Full-service: 2,340; 
Technology-only: 501. 

Year: 2013; 
Goal: 2,899; 
Verified Removals: 
Total: 2,901; 
Full-service: 2,353; 
Technology-only: 548. 

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement data. 
GAO-15-26. 

Note: There was no removal goal in fiscal year 2011, as this was the 
baseline year. 

[End of table] 

Performance rates. ICE also uses four performance rates to evaluate 
how well the ATD program is operating while aliens are participating 
in the program.[Footnote 67] These four performance rates (success 
rate, failure rate, absconder rate, and removal rate)--though not 
measures of how well aliens in the ATD program comply with court 
appearances or removal orders--assess the status of an alien's case at 
the time the alien is terminated from the ATD program. These 
performance rates are based on outcomes defined as favorable, neutral, 
and unfavorable. 

* Favorable outcomes reflect cases where the final outcome of an 
alien's immigration proceeding resulted in either a verified departure 
from the United States or a grant of relief and benefits to remain in 
the country while the alien was an active participant in the ATD 
program. 

* Neutral outcomes do not reflect final outcomes of immigration 
proceedings, but rather include aliens who are terminated from the ATD 
program while awaiting departure, after being arrested, or because ICE 
determined the alien no longer needed to participate in the program--
which could be because the case was administratively closed, the alien 
moved to a jurisdiction that did not have the ATD program, or ICE 
determined to lower or raise the alien's level of supervision by 
moving him or her to a detention facility or another release option. 

* Unfavorable outcomes include aliens who were terminated from the ATD 
program after absconding or violating program requirements. 

Specifically, the success rate reflects the percentage of aliens whose 
cases resulted in either favorable outcomes or neutral outcomes. This 
rate essentially measures the ATD program's effectiveness in being 
able to track and monitor an alien while in the program, according to 
ICE officials. The failure rate is the converse of the success rate, 
measuring the percentage of unfavorable outcomes, including 
noncompliance with program terms or absconding from the program. The 
absconder rate measures the percentage of aliens whom ICE terminated 
from the program as a result of aliens absconding from the program. 
The removal rate approximates the percentage of aliens in ATD who will 
be removed or depart after the completion of their immigration 
proceedings. ICE calculates these rates for both its Full-service and 
Technology-only components. 

Using these performance rates, ICE reported that for the Full-service 
component over the last 3 years, ICE, along with its contractor, was 
able to track and monitor 90 percent or more of aliens until they were 
terminated from the Full-service component of the ATD program, with 
variance in the rate of aliens who had absconded from the program or 
who were projected to be removed from the country. During that same 
time, ICE reported improved ability to track and monitor aliens in the 
Technology-only component from nearly 80 percent in fiscal year 2011 
to nearly 90 percent in fiscal year 2013. See table 6 for Full-service 
and Technology-only performance rates over these last 3 years. 

Table 6: Performance Rates for Aliens in the Full-service Component of 
the Alternatives to Detention (ATD) Program, Fiscal Years 2011 through 
2013: 

Performance metric: Success rate: the percentage of all aliens 
terminated from the ATD program whose departure from the United States 
was verified or were granted relief or were no longer required to 
participate in ATD, pending departure, or arrested. This measure is not 
intended to be an indicator for successful removal from the United 
States or compliance with a court appearance; instead, U.S. Immigration 
and Customs Enforcement (ICE) uses this rate to measure its ability to 
track and monitor aliens when enrolled in ATD; 
2011: 
Full-service: 90%; 
Technology-only: 79.8%; 
2012: 
Full-service: 93%; 
Technology-only: 88%; 
2013: 
Full-service: 93.5%; 
Technology-only: 89.5%. 

Performance metric: Failure rate: the percentage of all aliens 
terminated from the ATD program who absconded or violated terms; 
2011: 
Full-service: 10%; 
Technology-only: 20.3%; 
2012: 
Full-service: 7%; 
Technology-only: 12%; 
2013: 
Full-service: 6.5%; 
Technology-only: 10.5%. 

Performance metric: Absconder rate: the percentage of all aliens 
terminated from the ATD program who absconded from the program; 
2011: 
Full-service: 8.6%; 
Technology-only: 9.6%; 
2012: 
Full-service: 5.6%; 
Technology-only: 3.7%; 
[Empty]; 
2013: 
Full-service: 5.3%; 
Technology-only: 4.5%. 

Performance metric: Removal rate: the percentage of aliens whose 
departure from the United States was verified divided by the number of 
absconders and violators who have received their final orders of 
removal, and aliens who were verified to have departed the country; 
2011: 
Full-service: 84.1%; 
Technology-only: 44.1%; 
2012: 
Full-service: 84.9%; 
Technology-only: 48.9%; 
2013: 
Full-service: 79.2%; 
Technology-only: 47.1%. 

Source: GAO analysis of ICE contractor data. GAO-15-26. 

[End of table] 

However, ATD program performance measures and rates provide limited 
information about the aliens who are terminated from the ATD program 
prior to receiving the final disposition of their immigration 
proceedings or were removed or voluntarily departed from the country. 
Specifically, with respect to program performance measures, ICE counts 
an alien who was terminated from the program and was subsequently 
removed from the United States toward his or her removal performance 
measure as long as the alien was in the program during the same fiscal 
year he or she was removed from the country.[Footnote 68] However, 
aliens who were terminated from the program do not count toward court 
appearance rates if they subsequently do not appear for court. 
Further, performance rates, for example, did not reflect whether the 
87 percent of the aliens whom ICE terminated from the ATD program in 
fiscal year 2013 were removed, voluntarily departed from the United 
States, or were granted relief.[Footnote 69] ICE officials reported 
that it would be challenging to determine an alien's compliance with 
the terms of his or her release after termination from the ATD program 
given insufficient resources and the size of the nondetained alien 
population. In accordance with ICE guidance, staff resources are 
instead directed toward apprehending and removing aliens from the 
United States who are considered enforcement and removal priorities. 

Conclusions: 

The ATD program is intended to help ICE cost-effectively manage the 
aliens for whom ICE, or an immigration judge, has determined that 
detention is neither mandated nor appropriate, yet may need a higher 
level of supervision when released into the community until they are 
removed from the United States or receive approval to remain in the 
country. ICE has altered its implementation of the ATD program to 
address the cost associated with keeping aliens in the program in 
light of lengthy immigration proceedings. However, by analyzing data 
that ICE plans to collect on supervision levels and specific reasons 
aliens are terminated from the program, ICE could be better positioned 
to monitor ERO field offices' implementation of guidance intended to 
ensure cost-effective management of the ATD program. Further, 
collecting reliable data on both components of the program would help 
ensure that ICE has more complete data for assessing the relative 
performance of these program components as well as the overall ATD 
program. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To strengthen ICE's management of the ATD program and ensure that it 
has complete and reliable data to assess and make necessary resource 
and management decisions, we recommend that the Secretary of Homeland 
Security direct the Deputy Assistant Secretary of ICE to take the 
following two actions: 

* analyze data on changes in supervision levels and program 
terminations to monitor ERO field offices' implementation of ICE 
guidance intended to ensure cost-effective management of the program, 
and: 

* require that field offices ensure that ICE or contractor staff 
collect and report data on alien compliance with court appearance 
requirements for all participants in the Technology-only component of 
the ATD program. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of Homeland 
Security and Justice for their review and comment--both provided 
technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. We provided 
selected excerpts of this draft report to the ATD contractor to obtain 
its views and verify the accuracy of the information it provided, and 
the contractor had no technical comments. DHS also provided written 
comments, which are summarized below and reproduced in full in 
appendix I. DHS concurred with the two recommendations in the report 
and described actions under way or planned to address them. 

With regard to the first recommendation, that ICE analyze data on 
changes in supervision levels and program terminations to monitor 
field offices' implementation of guidance intended to ensure cost-
effective management of the program, DHS concurred. DHS stated that 
ICE recognized that, because of contractual limitations, information 
on termination codes was not amenable to detailed reporting and 
analysis, which limited the program's ability to adapt and improve. To 
address this, ICE established a requirement under its new ATD contract 
that information on termination codes must be collected and reported 
and that this would allow for more in-depth analyses that may yield 
avenues for further program refinements. DHS provided an estimated 
completion date of December 31, 2014. These planned actions, if fully 
implemented to include monitoring of field offices' cost-effective 
management of the program, should address the intent of the 
recommendation. 

With regard to the second recommendation, to require that field 
offices ensure that ICE or contractor staff collect and report data on 
alien compliance with court appearance requirements for all 
participants in the Technology-only component of the ATD program, DHS 
concurred. DHS stated that ICE was aware that this recommended 
enhancement would greatly improve the program and that ICE began 
working in early fiscal year 2014 to implement the enhancement while 
developing the requirements for the new ATD contract. Under the new 
contract, ICE will have the opportunity to select a variety of case 
management services, including EOIR case tracking for any participant 
in the ATD program. DHS provided an estimated completion date of 
December 31, 2014. These planned actions, if fully implemented to 
include oversight on the extent that field offices are ensuring that 
ICE or contractor staff collect and report data on alien compliance 
with court appearance rates, should address the intent of the 
recommendation. 

We are sending copies to the Secretary of Homeland Security, the 
Attorney General of the United States, appropriate congressional 
committees, 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 about this report, 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 II. 

Signed by: 

Rebecca Gambler, Director: 
Homeland Security and Justice: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

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

October 7, 2014: 

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

Re: Draft Report GAO-15-26, "Alternatives To Detention: Improved Data
Collection and Analyses Needed to Better Assess Program Effectiveness" 

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. 

The Department appreciates GAO's recognition that U.S. Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement (ICE) has altered its implementation of the 
Alternatives to Detention (ATD) program to address the costs 
associated with keeping aliens in the program during lengthy 
immigration proceedings. The ATD program meets a critical need for 
community supervision of the non-detained alien population. ICE will 
continue actively reviewing its ATD program to enhance program 
integrity and availability, and continue the program's success as an 
effective
immigration enforcement tool. 

The draft report contained two recommendations with which the DHS 
concurs. Specifically, GAO recommended that the Secretary of Homeland 
Security direct the Deputy Assistant Secretary of ICE to: 

Recommendation 1: Analyze data on changes in supervision levels and 
program terminations to monitor field offices' implementation of ICE 
guidance intended to ensure cost-effective management of the program. 

Response: Concur. ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) works 
to identify consistent, appropriate, and new ways to analyze data 
under the current parameters of collection. This information is then 
used to evaluate the program and its participants to determine best 
steps moving forward and to modify the program to ensure the most 
appropriate levels of monitoring and case management, consistent with 
the ICE mission. ICE previously recognized that, due to contractual 
limitations, the termination code subcategories were not amenable to 
detailed reporting or analysis, which limited the program's ability to 
adapt and improve. To address this, ICE established a film requirement 
under its new ATD contract that termination codes and applicable 
termination code subcategories must be collected and reported. This 
will allow for more in-depth data analyses that may yield avenues for 
further program refinements. Expected Completion Date (ECD): December 
31, 2014. 

Recommendation 2: Require that field offices ensure that ICE or 
contractor staff collect and report data on alien compliance with 
court appearance requirements for all participants in the Technology-
only component of the ATD program. 

Response: Concur. ICE ERO recognizes that under the Intensive 
Supervision Appearance Program II (ISAP II) contract, it did not have 
the capability to capture court appearance data for those participants 
who were assigned to the less intensive, Technology-Only (TO) component
where case management services were not provided by the contractor. 
ICE ERO has been aware that the enhancement recommended by GAO would 
greatly improve the program, so ICE ERO began working in early FY 2014 
to implement the enhancement while developing the requirements for the 
ISAP III contract. Under ISAP III, ICE ERO will have the opportunity to
select a variety of case management services, including remote 
Executive Office for Immigration Review case tracking and technology 
alet1s/violations resolutions, for any pat1icipant in the A TD
program, regardless of the distance from a contractor location or ICE 
facility. ECD: December 31, 2014. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to review and comment 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, CIA, CFE: 
Director: 
Departmental GAO-OIG Liaison Office: 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: 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), Tracey Cross, Landis Lindsey, David Alexander, Pedro 
Almoguera, Frances Cook, Jon Najmi, Jessica Orr, and Eric Warren made 
significant contributions to the work. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] The 1.5 million aliens represent the Department of Homeland 
Security's (DHS) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 
caseload in fiscal year 2013 as reported in DHS, U.S. Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement, Enforcement and Removal Operations, Fiscal Year 
2013 Report to Congress (Feb. 28, 2014). Of this number, ICE reported 
that 36,379 aliens were in detention at the end of fiscal year 2013 
and the remaining aliens were released into the community. Detention 
facilities include those facilities ICE manages in conjunction with 
private contractors or under agreements with state and local 
governments. 

[2] In removal proceedings initiated by DHS, an immigration judge 
determines whether an alien is removable from the United States as a 
result of being deemed inadmissible under section 212(a) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)) or 
deportable under section 237(a) of the INA (8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)), and, 
if removable, whether such alien is eligible for relief or protection 
from removal under section 240 of the INA (8 U.S.C. § 1229a) or the 
United Nations Convention Against Torture. See Convention Against 
Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or 
Punishment, art. 3, Dec. 10, 1984, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85. Obligations of 
the United States under article 3 of the Convention Against Torture 
were implemented pursuant to the Foreign Affairs Reform and 
Restructuring Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-277, div. G, tit. XXII, ch. 
3, subch. B, § 2242, 112 Stat. 2681, 2681-822, 2681-823. See 
Regulations Concerning the Convention Against Torture, 64 Fed. Reg. 
8478 (Feb. 19, 1999). 

[3] 149 Cong. Rec. H707, H885 (daily ed. Feb. 12, 2003). 

[4] 160 Cong. Rec. H475, H930 (daily ed. Jan. 15, 2014). 

[5] Under the authority of the Attorney General, EOIR interprets and 
administers federal immigration laws by conducting immigration court 
proceedings, appellate reviews, and administrative hearings. See 8 
U.S.C. § 1229a; 8 C.F.R. pt. 1003. 

[6] For provisions governing the conduct of removal proceedings, see 8 
U.S.C. § 1229a and 8 C.F.R. pts. 1003, 1240. In some cases, aliens may 
be permitted to depart voluntarily in lieu of or prior to completion 
of removal proceedings. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c. Aliens in removal 
proceedings may apply for relief or protection from removal if they 
meet the criteria for doing so and, for purposes of asylum, are able 
to establish that they are refugees within the meaning of section 
101(a)(42)(A) of the INA (8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A)). See 8 U.S.C. §§ 
1158, 1229a(c)(4). 

[7] 160 Cong. Rec. H475, H930. 

[8] The ATD program includes two components--the Full-service and 
Technology-only components. The Full-service component is operated by 
a contractor and includes a higher level of supervision of aliens than 
the Technology-only component, which is operated by ICE, utilizing the 
contractor's systems and equipment. 

[9] We did not interview contractor officials in one location because 
this location did not have a local contractor office. 

[10] 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). The standards state that an agency's 
internal controls should provide reasonable assurances that operations 
are effective and efficient and that management directives are carried 
out. 

[11] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1]. 
Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that 
agencies should develop mechanisms to reliably collect data that can 
be used to compare and assess program outcomes related to entire 
program populations. 

[12] See 8 C.F.R. § 1241.1. 

[13] Removal proceedings usually arise when DHS alleges that an alien 
is inadmissible to the United States, has entered the country 
illegally by crossing the border without being inspected by an 
immigration officer, has violated the terms of his or her admission, 
or otherwise falls into one of the classes of deportable aliens under 
section 237 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 
1182, 1227, 1229. Immigration proceedings may begin after ICE receives 
custody of an alien from another law enforcement agency. ICE may 
receive custody of aliens from other DHS or ICE entities, such as the 
Homeland Security Investigations or U.S. Customs and Border Protection. 

[14] 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225, 1226, 1226a, 1231. 

[15] See 8 U.S.C. § 1226; 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1. DHS may set a bond, which 
may also be used in conjunction with other release conditions, such as 
placement in ATD. Upon the alien's request, an EOIR immigration judge 
may redetermine the amount of bond set by DHS. See 8 C.F.R. § 
1236.1(d)(1). 

[16] See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a); 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.4, 241.5, 241.13, 241.14. 
ICE officers determine the frequency with which aliens released on an 
order of supervision must report to ICE. 

[17] See 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.6, 1003.2(f), 1003.23(b)(1)(v). 

[18] See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A); 8 C.F.R. §§ 212.5, 235.3(b)(2)(iii). 

[19] Upon the alien's request, an EOIR immigration judge may review 
the alien's placement in ATD in some instances. See 8 C.F.R. § 
1236.1(d)(1); Matter of Aguilar-Aquino, 24 I. & N. Dec. 747, 753 
(B.I.A. 2009). 

[20] In fiscal year 2013, the RCA recommended 15,162 aliens for 
release out of 168,087 total recommendations; the RCA was deployed in 
February 2013. 

[21] In limited circumstances related to ongoing class action 
litigation, EOIR immigration judges can order aliens released subject 
to "reasonable conditions of supervision, including electronic 
monitoring if necessary." Rodriguez v. Robbins, 2012 WL 7653016, at *1 
(C.D. Cal. 2012), aff'd, 715 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2013). 

[22] 149 Cong. Rec. H707, H885. 

[23] Under this initial phase of the ATD program, the Intensive 
Supervision Appearance Program began in 2004 and the Enhanced 
Supervision/Reporting program began in 2007--both of which were 
operated by contractors. The Electronic Monitoring program was 
operated by ICE. 

[24] According to ICE officials, ICE officially began using the terms 
"Full-service" and "Technology-only" in January 2011, prior to which 
the programs were known as the Intensive Supervision Appearance 
Program and Electronic Monitoring program, respectively. 

[25] In fiscal year 2013, the Full-service component was available in 
44 cities. ICE expanded Full-service into Fresno, California, in 
fiscal year 2014. 

[26] An alien enrolled in the telephonic reporting voice verification 
program will receive an automated telephone call at periodic 
intervals, which will require the alien to call the system back within 
a certain time frame; the computer will recognize the biometric 
voiceprint and register the "check-in". It is not the purpose of the 
voice verification system to locate an alien. 

[27] The contractor forwards alerts to ICE if the contractor cannot 
resolve them or for informational purposes. 

[28] ICE officers can change the level of supervision regardless of 
where an alien is in his or her immigration proceedings, per a 
contract modification. According to contractor officials, this is 
typically done in special circumstances. 

[29] As of June 2014, 71 percent of the alien population in the Full-
service component of ATD was pre-order, 24 percent was post-order, and 
4 percent was in appeal. The remaining aliens were in post-order 
custody review. 

[30] ICE ERO field officers are required to conduct a post-order 
custody review within 90 days of the date an order of removal becomes 
administratively final. ICE can still detain an alien after 90 days if 
it expects travel documents for an alien to be forthcoming in the 
reasonably foreseeable future. ICE is required to review cases for 
post-order aliens who are not likely to be removed in the foreseeable 
future and are held in detention for 180 days after receiving a final 
order and release aliens pending removal, barring special 
circumstances, such as an alien being a risk to the community or 
unlikely to comply with a removal order, or posing a significant 
threat to national security or a significant risk of terrorism. See 8 
U.S.C. § 1231(a); 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.4, 241.13, 241.14. 

[31] These 96 locations include all 45 sites that support the Full-
service component. As of April 2014, 76 out of 96 possible cities had 
at least one alien who was enrolled in the Technology-only component 
at any point during the year. 

[32] According to ICE officials, these cost data are considered 
privileged as confidential business/commercial information, and 
therefore are not presented in this public report. 

[33] The second ATD contract is scheduled to conclude in November 
2014. The third contract will begin prior to the conclusion of the 
second contract to allow time for any needed transition. 

[34] Aliens are counted once for each of the Full-service and 
Technology-only components, regardless of whether they were enrolled 
in the component more than once in the same fiscal year. Accordingly, 
if an alien was enrolled in both components, he or she would be 
counted once for each component. However, the total number of aliens 
in the ATD program is unique and does not include such duplicates. 

[35] The policy laid out in this June 2010 memorandum was reiterated 
in a March 2011 memorandum which also included one additional 
statement. 

[36] Since aliens can be placed in both the Full-service component and 
the Technology-only component in the same year, they may be counted in 
both categories. However, the total number of aliens in the ATD 
program is unique and does not include such duplicates. 

[37] In 2013, all but one Full-service location had a Technology-only 
component as well. 

[38] In April 2014, 96 field offices and suboffices received training, 
and were eligible, for the Technology-only component, but not all 
offices were actively using the component. According to ICE officials, 
these locations may have officers trained in ATD use but are based out 
of a detention facility and therefore would not have a nondetained 
population. 

[39] ICE reported that aliens spent an average of 29 days in detention 
in fiscal year 2013. 

[40] In July 2014, EOIR refocused its resources and prioritized cases 
involving aliens who have recently crossed the southwest border and 
whom DHS has placed in removal proceedings, in addition to cases 
involving detained aliens. 

[41] EOIR officials stated that they calculated these data for aliens 
who were detained when the case was completed or, if the case was 
pending on April 12, 2014, on that date. These aliens may not have 
been detained for the entire time leading up to the completion of the 
case. These data show the average time between the filing of the 
charging document and the first hearing where the first hearing took 
place in fiscal year 2013, as well as the average time between the 
filing of the charging document and the immigration judge's decision, 
not including decisions following remands, where the decision was 
issued in fiscal year 2013. A case may have more than one hearing. 

[42] These data do not include aliens who were never detained. EOIR 
officials stated that they calculated these data for aliens who had 
been released from detention by the time the case was completed or, if 
the case was pending on April 12, 2014, by that date. These data show 
the average time between the filing of the charging document and the 
first hearing where the first hearing took place in fiscal year 2013, 
as well as the average time between the filing of the charging 
document and the immigration judge's decision, not including decisions 
following remands, where the decision was issued in fiscal year 2013. 

[43] The ATD program and detention cost per day estimates include 
personnel costs, but do not include expenditures paid toward agency-
wide overhead activities, such as rent or information technology 
services. 

[44] Our analysis took into consideration the average daily cost of 
$10.55 for the ATD program and the average daily cost of $158 for 
placing an alien in a detention facility. Our analysis also considered 
the average time EOIR reported it took between DHS filing a charging 
document and an immigration judge issuing a final decision. For aliens 
detained at the time of the final decision--but who may not have been 
detained for the entire time leading up to the completion of their 
case--the average was 82 days in fiscal year 2013. Specifically, we 
multiplied the average cost of detention with the average time aliens 
detained at the time of the final decision waited for his or her final 
decision, and divided this number by the average cost of ATD. 

[45] Specifically, we multiplied the average cost of detention with 
the average time aliens spent in detention, and divided this number by 
the average cost of ATD. 

[46] If an alien is enrolled in Full-service and also has electronic 
monitoring of GPS or telephonic reporting, ICE counts him or her as 
having 2 participant days. To adjust for this in our cost per day 
estimate, we reduced the number of Full-service participant days in 
half. This cost estimate is higher than what ICE reports, as ICE's 
estimate is based upon the contract costs for ATD divided by the total 
number of participation days--it does not include personnel costs. Our 
estimate incorporates both the cost of ATD personnel, as well as the 
cost of the ATD contract. 

[47] ICE reports an official average daily cost for detention to be 
$118 a day, but this cost does not include personnel costs. The 
detention personnel costs included in our analysis include personnel 
who work at detention facilities, as well as support staff who support 
detention-related activities but are not working at the detention 
facilities. 

[48] ICE discussed and researched using funds for a kiosk pilot for 
the ATD program that would allow aliens to check-in with ICE through 
kiosk machines, but no action was taken to develop and implement the 
pilot. 

[49] The guidance initially recommended that ICE officials review ATD 
cases every 180 days. However, after reviewing data on when aliens are 
most likely to abscond, officials stated that the guidance was changed 
to at least every 90 days. 

[50] Percentages do not add to 100 because of rounding. 

[51] According to ICE officials, ICE officers can make these 
termination decisions for a variety of reasons, including because an 
immigration judge temporarily removed a case from an immigration 
judge's calendar (administrative closure), changes in jurisdiction 
that result from an alien moving to a location where the ATD program 
is not offered, and ICE's decision to change the level of supervision 
required for the alien. Although there is a subcode for this category 
that would provide additional information on the reason for a 
termination in this category, ICE officials stated that they were 
unable to query and analyze these data. 

[52] ICE officials stated that there could be additional subsequent 
enrollments in the Technology-only component that were not captured in 
their data. For example, some aliens who were terminated from the Full-
service component in fiscal year 2013 may have been subsequently 
enrolled in the ATD program in fiscal year 2014. 

[53] In addition, during this time, ICE was directing its ERO field 
offices to terminate aliens from the ATD program who were not likely 
removable from the United States, which may have caused an increase in 
terminations. Although the ATD program, as initially developed, was 
not intended to provide indefinite monitoring of nonremovable aliens, 
ICE officials stated that they did enroll nonremovable aliens in the 
program until ICE changed its program goal focus to removals from 
court appearances. ICE officials stated that this change was made 
because they had already achieved a very high court appearance rate 
and focusing on removals would also align with the agency's overall 
strategic goals of detaining and removing aliens. 

[54] One of the four field offices that we selected to interview did 
not have the Full-service component. 

[55] ATD contractor officials concurred with this general assessment, 
stating that they believe that once the order of removal has been 
issued, it is often difficult to effectively remove an alien when ICE 
or the contractor has lost contact with the alien because the alien 
was terminated from the Full-service component of the ATD program. 
These officials stated that they believe that the Full-service 
component of the ATD program allows ICE officers to focus more on 
their law enforcement duties because the contractor case manager can 
manage the nondetained population in virtually the same manner as an 
ICE officer. However, as these officials stated, the contractor case 
manager has a much smaller caseload than an ICE officer, which allows 
them to have a closer relationship with the alien and they are able to 
follow up with aliens sooner and more often. 

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

[57] ICE's Criminal Alien Program is designed to identify, process, 
and remove criminal aliens from prisons across the United States, and 
the Fugitive Operations Program is designed to pursue known at-large 
criminal aliens and fugitive aliens. 

[58] See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b)(1)(B)(iii)(IV), 1226(c)(1), 1226a, 
1231(a)(2). 

[59] The Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2014 requires 
ICE to maintain a level of not less than 34,000 detention beds. Pub. 
L. No. 113-76, 128 Stat. 5, 251. 

[60] Transparency and Responsibility Using State Tools Act (TRUST 
Act), Cal. Gov't Code §§ 7282, 7282.5 (2014). Under the TRUST Act, law 
enforcement officials may not detain an individual pursuant to an 
immigration hold, where such individual is eligible for release from 
custody, unless: (1) continued detention would not violate any other 
federal, state, or local law, or local policy; and (2) any of the 
listed conditions under subdivision (a) are satisfied. Section 
7282.5(b) of the TRUST Act reiterates that where none of the specified 
conditions under subdivision (a) are fulfilled, an individual who is 
eligible for release from custody shall not be detained pursuant to an 
immigration hold. 

[61] Under this program, certain people who came to the United States 
as children may be eligible for deferral of any removal action against 
them for a certain period of time. 

[62] Although we cannot compare the Full-service population with 
aliens in the Technology-only population, EOIR does report some data 
to inform the court appearance rate for all nondetained aliens who do 
not appear for their immigration hearings, but not specifically for 
aliens in the ATD program or its components. Data reported in EOIR's 
Fiscal Year 2013 Statistics Yearbook show that, in fiscal year 2013, 
of the 53,616 decisions rendered by immigration judges for aliens who 
were never detained, 12,071 (23 percent) were issued in absentia-where 
the alien did not appear at his or her hearing. This indicates a court 
appearance rate of 77 percent. In that same year, for aliens who were 
once detained but subsequently were released from custody, 9,343 of 
28,061 decisions were issued in absentia, for a lower court appearance 
rate of 67 percent. Aliens who were never detained or released may 
include aliens in the ATD program. 

[63] According to ICE officials, having the contractor track court 
appearance data for aliens in the Technology-only component will be 
optional because some aliens in the Technology-only program may have 
already received their final order and would not require the 
contractor to track such data. 

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

[65] This removal goal was incorporated in DHS's Future Years Homeland 
Security Program for fiscal year 2011, according to ICE officials. The 
Future Years Homeland Security Program lays out DHS's plan for 
responsibly allocating resources within established funding targets 
and provides an overview of the department's strategic structure. 
Although ICE officials stated that they subsequently maintained an 
overall goal for removals in the Future Years Homeland Security 
Program, it is not specific to aliens who participated in the ATD 
program. According to DHS's fiscal year 2015 budget justification, the 
ATD program aligns with ICE's strategic plan for detaining and 
removing aliens seeking illegal entry. 

[66] We could not compare the performance data for alien removals 
under the ATD program with data for alien removals under other release 
options for a variety of reasons. First, ICE officials reported that 
the data on the number of aliens in the Technology-only component of 
the ATD program who received a final order is not tracked, and 
accordingly, we would not be able to determine the percentage of 
aliens in ATD who received a final order who were removed from the 
country. Second, ICE officials said that similar data for other 
nondetained aliens was either incomplete or untimely. ICE officials 
cited limited ICE staff resources for monitoring these aliens as a 
reason for these data limitations. 

[67] According to ICE officials, although these rates are not included 
as part of their larger homeland security goals, they may use these 
rates to respond to Questions for the Record for Congress, Freedom of 
Information Act requests, and media inquiries--and officials reported 
that they provide the methodology on how these rates are calculated, 
to ensure transparency. In addition, according to ICE officials, 
further examination of these rates can lead management to evaluate how 
the ATD program works to see how it can be improved to most 
effectively meet the demands placed on ICE. For example, these 
officials stated that an examination of the absconder rate over time 
was used to help the agency determine when an alien was most likely to 
abscond from the program. 

[68] According to ICE officials, after an alien is terminated from the 
ATD program, the information obtained while the alien was in the 
program (i.e., contact information) may assist ICE in locating an 
alien, as necessary, and accordingly, this is why these aliens are 
included in the official removal count. 

[69] Regarding aliens that ICE terminated from the Full-service 
component of the program, these aliens may have been subsequently 
enrolled in the Technology-only component--and in fiscal year 2013, 
about 8 percent of these aliens were enrolled in the Technology-only 
component. 

[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]