As a result, INS did not fully comply with the legal requirements that it (1) place criminal aliens who had committed aggravated felonies in removal proceedings while they are incarcerated or (2) take those aggravated felons into custody upon their release from prison. We requested that LESC conduct a search to determine whether any of these released inmates were potentially deportable criminal aliens. Specifically, for inmates with no records whom LESC determined to be potentially deportable criminal aliens, LESC further found that 33 percent of the 1995 sample were aggravated felons at the time that LESC made its determination, and 63 percent of the 1997 sample were aggravated felons. INS Did Not Complete the IHP for About One-Half of the Released Criminal Aliens, Resulting in Avoidable Detention Costs Amounting to Millions of Dollars

We performed an analysis of data on foreign-born inmates who, according to BOP and the corrections departments of the four states we reviewed, were released from their prison systems during the first 6 months of 1997 and, according to INS and EOIR data, were potentially deportable. Similar to our 1995 analysis, our current analysis of the 12,495 potentially deportable cases for which INS had records showed that INS was able to quickly remove those deportable aliens who had completed the IHP with final deportation orders before they were released from prison—75 percent were removed from the United States within 1 week of their prison release in both 1995 and 1997. Specifically, in 1995, 36 percent of such aliens were removed within 1 month, compared to 59 percent in 1997. INS has taken some action on most of the recommended program improvements; however, none of these actions had been fully implemented as of September 1998. This information is to be used to perform record checks in other databases to make a determination on an alien’s removability. INS Had Not Established Controls to Ensure That Proceedings for Aggravated Felons Are Initiated Before Prison Release

The law requires INS to take certain actions regarding criminal aliens who have been convicted of aggravated felonies beyond those actions required for other criminal aliens. As previously mentioned, INS is required by law to initiate and, to the extent possible, complete removal proceedings against aggravated felons while they are incarcerated and to take these felons into custody upon their release. In June 1998, a draft workload analysis model was submitted to the Office of the Executive Associate Commissioner for Field Operations. Furthermore, for fiscal year 1998, INS did not set goals for regional directors. Conclusions

INS has shown limited improvement in its IHP performance on the basis of our analysis of its 1997 program performance. This, coupled with INS’ limited progress in fully implementing our recommendations, suggests that INS still does not know whether it has identified all potentially deportable criminal aliens in the BOP and state prison systems. To accomplish this, we determined the extent to which deportable criminal aliens were included in the IHP, the extent to which INS completed removal hearings for deportable aliens during their time in prison or after their prison release, and whether INS had acted on recommenations that we made in our July 1997 testimony. GAO Estimate of Avoidable Detention Costs

Because most criminal aliens released from state and federal prisons in fiscal year 1997 had not completed the IHP, INS needed to detain these aliens until their removal hearings could be completed.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Immigration and Naturalization Service's (INS) Institutional Hearing Program's (IHP) performance during 1997, focusing on: (1) the extent to which deportable criminal aliens were included in the IHP; (2) the extent to which INS completed removal hearings for deportable aliens during their time in prison or after their prison release; and (3) whether INS had acted on recommendations that GAO made in its July 1997 testimony.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) INS' performance has shown limited improvement since 1995; (2) in 1995, INS' database of deportable aliens did not have records on about 34 percent of the released inmates included in GAO's analysis who had been identified by the states and the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) as foreign born; (3) about 32 percent of these were subsequently determined by INS' Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC) to be potentially deportable criminal aliens; (4) in 1997, INS had no records on 36 percent of such aliens, 27 percent of whom were determined by LESC to be potentially deportable criminal aliens; (5) although some of these inmates were United States citizens and some were ordered removed through means other than the IHP, a substantial number were aliens on whom INS did not have records; (6) in 1995, about 33 percent of these potentially deportable criminal aliens for whom INS did not have records were aggravated felons at the time of the analysis, as determined by LESC; (7) in GAO's analysis of 1997 data, 63 percent of the potentially deportable criminal aliens for whom INS did not have records were identified by LESC as being aggravated felons; (8) this is important because federal law requires INS to initiate removal proceedings for aggravated felons while they are incarcerated and, to the extent possible, complete deportation proceedings for these felons before their release from prison; (9) in 1995, INS did not complete the IHP before prison release for 57 percent of the potentially deportable criminal aliens for whom INS had records; as a result, INS incurred about $37 million in avoidable detention costs; (10) in 1997, INS did not complete the IHP for about 50 percent of these aliens; the avoidable detention costs were about $40 million; and (11) as of September 1998, INS had made limited progress in implementing GAO's recommendations, as follows: (a) INS had begun to establish an automated system for tracking potentially deportable criminal aliens in BOP facilities, but it had not determined whether it will be able to use this system to track potentially deportable criminal aliens in state prison systems; (b) INS had not taken specific actions to ensure that aggravated felons are placed in removal proceedings while they are incarcerated and then taken into custody upon their release from prison; (c) regarding resource issues, INS completed a draft workload analysis model in June 1998 that IHP managers intend to use to determine what resources are needed to accomplish program goals; and (d) INS has taken limited actions to improve its management practices.