During fiscal years 2014 and 2015, Border Patrol apprehended 823,768  aliens and held them temporarily in holding facilities. Agencies have also established processes for monitoring holding facilities  for compliance with standards. Within CBP, the Management Inspections  Division and designated officials from Border Patrol and OFO  headquarters manage the annual Self-Inspection Program (SIP), which is  designed to assess internal controls in all CBP operations, including  holding facilities. CBP and ICE Could Improve Oversight by Better Assessing Time in Custody Data

CBP and ICE do not have a process or processes in place to fully assess  their time in custody data, including the quality of the data, and the extent  to which holding facilities are adhering to agency standards for time in  custody and the factors affecting the length. Our discussions with  Border Patrol officials and analysis of Border Patrol’s time in custody data  for fiscal years 2014 to 2015 raised questions about the quality of the  data. While Border Patrol and ICE maintain specific  guidelines regarding time in custody for individuals in short-term holding  facilities, these agencies could better understand the level of compliance  with the guidelines and factors impacting time in custody. For example, although Border  Patrol officials from 10 holding facilities we visited stated that time in  custody rarely exceeds 72 hours, we noted that approximately 16 percent  of cases with complete data in fiscal years 2014 and 2015 exceeded this  threshold. DHS Has Complaint Mechanisms for Individuals in Holding Facilities, but Could Better Communicate the Mechanisms and Classify and Analyze Complaint Data

		DHS Has Multiple Mechanisms for Obtaining and Addressing Complaints Related to Holding Facilities

DHS and its components have multiple mechanisms at the holding facility  and headquarters levels to obtain and address individuals’ complaints  regarding CBP and ICE holding facilities or personnel. During our visits to Border Patrol, OFO, and ICE  holding facilities we observed that the posters used to communicate DHS  complaint mechanisms varied in their coverage. DHS Does Not Maintain Classification Codes for Holding Facility Complaints in All Tracking Systems or Conduct Trend Analysis

Most of the complaint tracking systems that DHS and its components  employ do not have classification codes for holding facilities that would  allow agencies to readily identify which complaints are related to holding  facilities and to analyze these complaints for potential trends. In reviewing the JICMS  data, we found that it does not include a facility, facility type, or issue  code related to holding facilities that would allow users to readily identify  the universe of complaints involving holding facilities. Rather, we found  that information identifying whether a complaint involved a holding facility  may be located within narrative fields. However, providing guidance to holding facilities on which of  DHS’s various complaint mechanisms they should communicate to  individuals in custody would help CBP and ICE have better assurance  that individuals in custody within holding facilities have received  information on how to submit a complaint. In addition, developing a  process for analyzing trends related to holding facility complaints would  provide CBP and ICE with more information to oversee such facilities and  aid in management decision-making. Recommendations for Executive Action

To enhance the monitoring of holding facilities, the Secretary of  Homeland Security should direct Border Patrol and ICE to develop and  implement a process to assess their time in custody data for all  individuals in holding facilities, including:  identifying and addressing potential data quality issues; and  identifying cases where time in custody exceeded guidelines and  assessing the factors impacting time in custody. With regard to the third recommendation that DHS include a  classification code in all complaint tracking systems related to DHS  holding facilities, DHS concurred and stated that the agency will take  measures to add a code to tracking systems. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Our objectives were to determine the extent to which the Department of  Homeland Security (DHS) has (1) standards in place for the short-term  custody of aliens and monitors compliance with established standards  and (2) processes in place for obtaining and addressing complaints from  aliens in holding facilities. For this report, our scope covered holding facilities operated by U.S.  Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and  Customs Enforcement (ICE). While not generalizable, this sample of  organizations provided us with insights into the perspectives of advocacy  organizations regarding DHS’s short-term custody of aliens.
Why GAO Did This Study

DHS is responsible for providing safe, secure, and humane confinement for detained aliens who may be subject to removal or have been ordered removed from the United States. For example, during fiscal years 2014 and 2015, Border Patrol apprehended 823,768 aliens and held them temporarily in holding facilities. GAO was asked to examine DHS's management and oversight of holding facilities. This report examines the extent to which DHS has (1) standards in place for the short-term custody of aliens and monitors compliance with established standards and (2) processes in place for obtaining and addressing complaints from aliens in holding facilities.
GAO reviewed CBP and ICE data on time in custody and complaints. GAO also interviewed agency officials and visited 32 holding facilities selected based on geographical location and facility type, among other factors. The visit results are not generalizable, but provided insight to the oversight of holding facilities and management of complaints.

What GAO Found

The Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have standards for short-term holding facilities—which are generally designed to keep individuals in custody for 24 hours or less—and some processes to monitor compliance with the standards. For example, each component has policies governing the operation of holding facilities, and CBP has an annual Self-Inspection Program, which is designed to assess internal controls in all CBP operations, including holding facilities. However, U.S. Border Patrol, within CBP, and ICE do not have a process to fully assess data on the amount of time individuals are held in custody. Such a process could help these agencies in better understanding issues that GAO identified, such as data quality, level of compliance with agency standards, and factors impacting time in custody. For example, GAO identified potential irregularities with Border Patrol's fiscal year 2014 to 2015 time in custody data, due to, among other things, delays in agents recording individuals' “book-out” from holding facilities. In addition, although Border Patrol officials from 10 holding facilities GAO visited stated that time in custody rarely exceeds 72 hours, GAO noted that approximately 16 percent of Border Patrol's cases with complete data in fiscal years 2014 to 2015 exceeded this threshold. Developing and implementing a process to assess time in custody data, consistent with internal control standards, would provide Border Patrol and ICE with more visibility into the quality of their data, facility compliance with time in custody guidelines, and the factors impacting time in custody.
DHS has various mechanisms to obtain and address complaints related to holding facilities. Specifically, individuals can submit complaints directly to holding facilities or to one of various DHS entities, including the DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) and Joint Intake Center (JIC). However, DHS and its components have not consistently communicated information to individuals in CBP and ICE holding facilities on these mechanisms. For example, during site visits to DHS holding facilities, GAO observed that the posters used to communicate DHS complaint mechanisms varied in their coverage. Providing guidance to holding facilities on which of DHS's various complaint mechanisms they should communicate to individuals in custody, consistent with internal control standards, would help DHS have better assurance that individuals in custody within holding facilities have received information on how to submit a complaint. DHS complaint mechanisms maintain data in various systems; however, most of these systems do not have a classification code for holding facilities to would allow users to readily identify the universe of complaints involving holding facilities and conduct trend analysis. For example, the JIC's complaint tracking system does not include a facility, facility type, or issue code related to holding facilities. GAO found that information identifying whether a complaint involved a holding facility may be located within narrative fields. Creating a classification code and conducting trend analysis on holding facility complaints, consistent with internal control standards, would provide DHS with useful information for management decisions, including targeting areas for compliance monitoring.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DHS establish a process to assess time in custody data for all individuals in holding facilities; issue guidance on how and which complaint mechanisms should be communicated to individuals in short-term custody; include a classification code in all complaint tracking systems related to DHS holding facilities; and develop a process for analyzing trends related to holding facility complaints. DHS concurred with the recommendations and identified planned actions.