Specifically, CBP’s data indicate that Border Patrol  transferred 99 percent of such UAC whom agents apprehended from  fiscal years 2009 through 2014, and OFO transferred about 93 percent of  such UAC apprehended at land POEs from fiscal years 2012 through   Further, officials at 13 of the CBP facilities and land POEs we  2014.visited stated that non-Mexican UAC are always transferred to HHS,  indicating that the officials were aware of the policy. Second, although CBP repatriated most Mexican UAC under the age of  14 from fiscal years 2009 through 2014, we found that Border Patrol  agents did not consistently document the basis for their decisions, as  required. Our analysis of a random  sample of 180 Border Patrol case files of UAC apprehended in fiscal year  2014 showed that agents did not document the rationales for their  conclusions related to UAC’s independent decision-making ability. We analyzed a random sample of 180 Form 93s for  Mexican UAC apprehended by Border Patrol in fiscal year 2014. CBP and ICE Have Developed Policies That Are Consistent with UAC Care Requirements, but Could Improve Data Collection, Interagency Coordination, and Repatriation Efforts

		CBP and ICE Policies Generally Reflect Care Requirements for UAC, and CBP Follows These Policies in Practice

CBP and ICE have policies in place to implement the Flores Agreement  and care for UAC, and CBP generally follows these policies. However, other organizations have  reported on inconsistent compliance with the requirements for UAC care. DHS Does Not Collect Complete or Reliable Data on Care of UAC or Their Time in the Department’s Custody

Within DHS, CBP and ICE have not collected complete or reliable data  documenting (1) the care provided to UAC while in DHS custody and (2)  the length of time UAC are in DHS custody. Documentation of care provided to UAC. For example, data  showed the following:
Agents documented 14 of the 20 care actions for less than half of the  55,844 UAC (the remaining 6 actions were documented for more than  50 percent of the UAC). Interagency Process to Refer and Transfer UAC from DHS to HHS Shelters Is Inefficient and Does Not Have Clearly Defined Roles and Responsibilities

GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. UAC referral and placement process relies on e-mails and manual  data entry. However, DHS and  HHS do not have a documented interagency process that clearly defines  the roles and responsibilities of each DHS component and ORR for UAC  referrals and placements during normal operations. Recommendations for Executive Action

To better ensure that DHS complies with TVPRA requirements for  training, screening, and transferring UAC to HHS, we recommend that the  Secretary of Homeland Security direct the Commissioner of U.S.  Customs and Border Protection to take the following six actions: develop and implement TVPRA training for OFO officers at airports  who have substantive contact with UAC;  revise the Form 93 to include indicators or questions that agents and  officers should ask UAC to better assess (1) a child’s ability to make  an independent decision to withdraw his or her application for  admission to the United States and (2) credible evidence of the child’s  risk of being trafficked if returned to his or her country of nationality or  last habitual residence; provide guidance to Border Patrol agents and OFO officers that  clarifies how they are to implement the TVPRA requirement to transfer  to HHS all Mexican UAC who have fear of returning to Mexico owing  to a credible fear of persecution; develop and implement guidance on how Border Patrol agents and  OFO officers are to implement the TVPRA requirement to transfer to  HHS all Canadian and Mexican UAC who are victims of a severe form  of trafficking in persons; ensure that Border Patrol agents document the basis for their  decisions when assessing screening criteria related to (1) an  unaccompanied alien child’s ability to make an independent decision  to withdraw his or her application for admission to the United States,  and (2) whether UAC are victims of a severe form of trafficking in  persons; and determine which agents and officers who have substantive contact  with UAC, complete the annual UAC training, and ensure that they do  so, as required. Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Our objectives were to determine the (1) extent to which the Department  of Homeland Security (DHS) has developed and implemented policies  and procedures to ensure that all unaccompanied alien children (UAC)  are screened as required and (2) DHS and the Department of State  (State) developed and implemented policies and procedures to ensure  that UAC are cared for as required while in DHS custody and during  repatriation; and (3) costs associated with apprehending, transporting,  and caring for UAC in DHS and Department of Health and Human  Services (HHS) custody during fiscal years 2009 through 2014. Because neither Border Patrol nor OFO has complete information on  screening decisions in its database stored in an aggregate manner, we  analyzed fiscal year 2014 case files of Mexican UAC Border Patrol  apprehended. On the basis of  our observations and interviews, we determined that CBP had  implemented its care policies at these facilities if at least 80 percent of the  facilities we visited were generally providing care consistent with policy  requirements at the time of our visits. Appendix III: Summary Statistics for Unaccompanied Alien Children Apprehended by the Department of Homeland Security during Fiscal Years 2009 through 2014

Within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Customs and  Border Protection’s (CBP) U.S. Border Patrol and Office of Field  Operations (OFO), and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement  (ICE) apprehend, process, detain, and temporarily care for  unaccompanied alien children (UAC)—individuals less than 18 years old  with no lawful immigration status and no parent or legal guardian in the  United States available to provide care and physical custody.
Why GAO Did This Study

From fiscal years 2009 through 2014, DHS apprehended more than 200,000 UAC, and the number of UAC apprehended in fiscal year 2014 (about 74,000) was more than four times larger than that for fiscal year 2011 (about 17,000). On the journey to the United States, many UAC have traveled thousands of miles under dangerous conditions.
The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 included a provision for GAO to, among other things, review how DHS cares for UAC. This report examines, among other things, the extent to which DHS has developed policies and procedures to (1) screen all UAC as required and (2) care for all UAC as required. GAO reviewed TVPRA and other legal requirements, DHS policies for screening and caring for UAC, fiscal year 2009 through 2014 apprehension data on UAC, and 2014 Border Patrol UAC care data. GAO also randomly sampled and analyzed case files of Mexican UAC whom Border Patrol apprehended in fiscal year 2014. GAO interviewed DHS and HHS officials in Washington, D.C., and at Border Patrol and OFO facilities in Arizona, California, and Texas selected on the basis of UAC apprehension data.

What GAO Found

Within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has issued policies and procedures to evaluate, or screen, unaccompanied alien children (UAC)—those under 18 years old with no lawful immigration status and no parent or legal guardian in the United States available to provide care and physical custody—as required by the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA). However, CBP's Border Patrol agents and Office of Field Operations (OFO) officers who screen UAC have not consistently applied the required screening criteria or documented the rationales for decisions resulting from screening. Specifically, under TVPRA, DHS is to transfer UAC to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), but may allow UAC from Canada and Mexico to return to their home countries, that is, to be repatriated, if DHS determines that UAC (1) are not victims of a severe form of trafficking in persons, (2) are not at risk of trafficking upon return, (3) do not have a fear of returning due to a credible fear of persecution, and (4) are able to make an independent decision about returning. GAO found that agents made inconsistent screening decisions, had varying levels of awareness about how they were to assess certain screening criteria, and did not consistently document the rationales for their decisions. For example, CBP policy states that UAC under age 14 are presumed generally unable to make an independent decision, but GAO's analysis of CBP data and a random sample of case files from fiscal year 2014 found that CBP repatriated about 93 percent of Mexican UAC under age 14 from fiscal years 2009 through 2014 without documenting the basis for decisions. Providing guidance on how CBP agents and officers are to assess against UAC screening criteria could better position CBP to meet legal screening requirements, and ensuring that agents document the rationales for decisions would better position CBP to review the appropriateness of these decisions.
DHS has policies in place to implement UAC care requirements, such as providing meals, and GAO's observations and interviews at 15 CBP facilities indicate that CBP generally provided care consistent with these policies at the time of GAO's visits. However, DHS does not collect complete and reliable data on care provided to UAC or the length of time UAC are in DHS custody. GAO analyzed available data on care provided to nearly 56,000 UAC apprehended by Border Patrol in fiscal year 2014 and found that agents documented 14 of 20 possible care actions for fewer than half of the UAC (the remaining 6 actions were documented for more than 50 percent of the UAC). Also, OFO has a database to record UAC care, but officers at most ports of entry do not do so. Developing and implementing processes to help ensure agents and officers record UAC care actions would provide greater assurance that DHS is meeting its care and custody requirements. Further, the interagency process to refer and transfer UAC from DHS to HHS is inefficient and vulnerable to errors because it relies on e-mails and manual data entry, and documented standard procedures, including defined roles and responsibilities, do not exist. DHS and HHS have experienced errors, such as assigning a child to two shelters at once, and holding an empty bed for 14 days at a shelter while HHS officials had placed the child elsewhere. Jointly developing a documented interagency process with defined roles and responsibilities could better position DHS and HHS to have a more efficient and effective process to refer, transfer, and place UAC in shelters.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DHS, among other things, provide guidance on how agents and officers are to apply UAC screening criteria, ensure that screening decisions are documented, develop processes to record reliable data on UAC care, and document the interagency process to transfer UAC from DHS to HHS. DHS concurred with the recommendations.