Table 2 provides information about each of these three sets of  standards. Incomplete ICE Data and Limitations in Controls to Track and Manage Costs Limit Assessment of Cost Variances across Detention Facility Types

		ICE Does Not Have Complete Data for Managing Detention Costs and Operations

ICE has two offices, OBPP and ERO Operations Support Division, that  use different methods to collect and assess data on detention  expenditures and costs for different purposes; however, these two  methods do not provide ICE with complete data for managing detention  costs across facilities and facility types. First, for the purposes of  developing ICE’s annual budget requests for detention, ICE’s OBPP  developed a method to estimate total detention costs per detainee per  day. These standardized queries provide ICE with an average overall bed rate  and the average bed rate for each of ICE’s 24 areas of responsibility.However, ICE officials stated that through fiscal year 2013 these queries  did not produce data that can be used to track or manage costs for  individual facilities or facility types because of errors in how ICE field  office personnel enter data into ICE’s Federal Financial Management  System and limitations in the system that make it difficult for ICE to  accurately record expenditures for all individual facilities. The agency, however, has taken steps to manually track  and manage costs, referred to as manual work-arounds. ICE also identified challenges in tracking  and maintaining complete data on all costs or expenditures associated  with individual facilities, including costs for medical care and  transportation, for example. Assessing the  extent to which ICE’s manual work-arounds could provide ICE with more  complete data on facility costs and the extent to which additional controls  may be needed could better position ICE to have more reliable data for  tracking and managing costs across facilities and facility types. ICE Applied Different Federal Standards across Facilities but Has Not Documented Reasons for the Differences

		ICE Applies the Most Rigorous Detention Standards to 15 Percent of Facilities Housing Over Half of Detainees

ICE detention standards vary in rigor as defined by the number and  content of standards in place to protect detainees and focus on  performance outcomes. In  fiscal year 2013, ICE housed approximately 54 percent of its ADP in  these 25 facilities. ICE Did Not Have Documentation for Reasons Why Standards Vary across Facilities

ICE has not documented the reasons for using different standards across  facilities or why the 125 facilities under 2000 NDS as of January 2014 had  not been transitioned to the 2011 PBNDS. Documenting reasons why facilities cannot be  transitioned to the most recent standards could help strengthen ICE’s  ability to oversee facilities’ compliance with detention standards and could  provide an institutional record of decisions ICE has made about why  facilities are held or not held to certain standards. Eighteen facilities  that housed about 1 percent of total ADP in fiscal year 2013 were not  subject to any of the four types of oversight mechanisms. Further, in fiscal year 2013, the majority of  detainees—94 percent of ICE’s average daily population—were in  facilities that received an annual ERO inspection—and continuous on-site  monitoring by a DSM—78 percent of ICE’s average daily population—as  shown in figure 5. ICE officials stated that ERO and ODO have not discussed differences in  their inspection findings and have not addressed broader issues of why  ERO and ODO inspection results differed across almost all inspections  conducted at the same facilities within fiscal year 2013, or to what extent  oversight mechanisms are functioning as intended. Recommendations for Executive Action

To enhance ICE’s ability to analyze and manage detention facility costs,  ensure transparency and accountability in the management of detention  facilities, and strengthen the oversight mechanisms that ensure detention  facilities provide safe, secure, and humane confinement, we recommend  that the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement take the  following five actions: assess the extent to which ICE has appropriate internal controls for  tracking and managing detention facility costs and develop additional  controls as necessary; develop an oversight mechanism to ensure that field offices comply  with guidance to appropriately consider costs in making detainee  placement decisions;  take additional steps to help ensure that personnel responsible for  reviewing and paying facility detention invoices follow internal control  procedures to ensure proper payments; document the reasons facilities cannot be transitioned to the most  review reasons for differences between ERO and ODO inspection  results and assess the extent to which differences reflect broader  issues with the inspection mechanisms themselves to help ensure the  mechanisms are working as intended. DHS  did not concur with one recommendation in the report. We continue to believe that ICE should document the reasons why  individual facilities cannot be transitioned to the most recent standards. 3. To what extent do federal oversight and the results of that oversight  vary across different types of immigration facilities? We determined that the data are not  reliable for reporting on the differences in cost by facility type, as  discussed in this report. We compared the percentage of fiscal year  2013 ADP in immigration detention facilities by facility type and oversight  mechanisms used at facilities to determine what percentage of detainees  are housed in facilities at which ICE uses the various oversight  mechanisms.
Why GAO Did This Study

DHS has reported that the number of noncitizens in immigration detention has increased from about 230,000 in fiscal year 2005 to about 440,600 in fiscal year 2013. ICE applies various sets of detention standards—such as medical services—at over 250 facilities owned by ICE or private contractors, or owned by or contracted to state and local governments. GAO was asked to examine differences in cost, standards, and oversight across types of facilities.
This report addresses the extent to which (1) ICE has processes to track costs, (2) standards vary across facility types and the reasons for any differences, and (3) oversight and the results of that oversight vary across facility types. GAO reviewed ICE data and information on costs, detention population, standards, and oversight for 166 facilities that held detainees for 72 hours or more, from fiscal years 2011 through 2013, reviewed facility contracts, and interviewed federal contractors and DHS and ICE officials.

What GAO Found

Within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) uses two different methods to collect and assess data on detention costs; however, these methods do not provide ICE with complete data for managing detention costs across facilities and facility types. One method uses the agency's financial management system to estimate total detention costs per detainee per day for the purposes of developing ICE's annual detention budget request. However, ICE identified errors in the entry of data into this system and limitations in the system make it difficult for ICE to accurately record expenditures for individual facilities. ICE's other method involves the manual tracking of monthly costs by individual facilities for the purposes of reviewing data on individual facility costs. However, this method does not include data on all costs for individual facilities, such as for medical care and transportation, and such costs are not standardized within or across facility types. Thus, ICE does not have complete data for tracking and managing detention costs across facilities and facility types. ICE has taken some steps to strengthen its financial management system, such as implementing manual work-arounds to, among other things, better link financial transactions to individual facilities. However, ICE has not assessed the extent to which these manual work-arounds position ICE to better track and manage costs across facilities or facility types and the extent to which additional controls are needed to address limitations in its methods for collecting and assessing detention costs, in accordance with federal internal control standards. Conducting these assessments could better position ICE to have more reliable data for tracking and managing costs across facility types.
GAO's analysis of ICE facility data showed that ICE primarily used three sets of detention standards, with the most recent and rigorous standards applied to 25 facilities housing about 54 percent of ICE's average daily population (ADP) as of January 2014. ICE plans to expand the use of these standards to 61 facilities housing 89 percent of total ADP by the end of fiscal year 2014; however, transition to these standards has been delayed by cost issues and contract negotiations and ICE does not have documentation for reasons why some facilities cannot be transitioned to the most recent standards in accordance with internal control standards. Documenting such reasons could provide an institutional record and help increase transparency and accountability in ICE's management of detention facilities.
GAO's analysis of ICE facility oversight programs showed that ICE applied more oversight mechanisms at facilities housing the majority of the ADP in fiscal year 2013. For example, 94 percent of detainees were housed in facilities that received an annual inspection. GAO's analysis of ICE's inspection reports showed that inspection results differed for 29 of 35 facilities inspected by both ICE's Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) and Office of Detention Oversight (ODO) in fiscal year 2013. ICE officials stated that ODO and ERO have not discussed differences in inspection results and whether oversight mechanisms are functioning as intended. Assessing the reasons why inspection results differ, in accordance with internal control standards, could help ICE better ensure that inspection mechanisms are working as intended.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends, among other things, that ICE assess the extent to which it has appropriate controls for tracking facility costs, document reasons why facilities cannot be transitioned to the most recent standards, and review reasons for differences in inspection results. DHS concurred with all recommendations but one to document reasons why facilities cannot be transitioned to the most recent standards because, among other reasons, DHS believes it already has sufficient documentation. As discussed in this report, GAO continues to believe in the need for such documentation.