Skip navigation

Oig Deaths in Ice Custody Review 2008

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.

Office of Inspector General
ICE Policies Related to Detainee Deaths and the 

Oversight of Immigration Detention Facilities 


June 2008

Office of Inspector General
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Washington, DC 20528

\~t Security

June 11, 2008

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) was established by
the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296) by amendment to the Inspector General
Act of 1978. This is one of a series of audit, inspection, and special reports prepared as part of our
oversight responsibilities to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness within the department.
This report addresses the strengths and weaknesses of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE) operations related to detainees who died in custody. We also analyzed certain medical
standards and ICE’s oversight of facilities that house immigration detainees. We based our report on
interviews with relevant agencies, direct observations, and a review of applicable documents and
The recommendations herein have been developed to the best knowledge available to our office, and
have been discussed in draft with those responsible for implementation. It is our hope that this
report will result in more effective, efficient, and economical operations. We express our
appreciation to all of those who contributed to the preparation of this report.

Richard L. Skinner 

Inspector General 

Table of Contents/Abbreviations
Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................1 


Results of Review……………………………………………………………………………………..4 

An Analysis of Two Immigration Detainee Deaths……………………………………………….4 

Recommendations ………………………………………………………………………………..14

Management Comments and OIG Analysis……………………………………………………...14 

Oversight Can Be Improved at ICE Detention Facilities………………………………………...19 

Recommendations ………………………………………………………………………………..26
Management Comments and OIG Analysis……………………………………………………...26

Additional Efficiencies in Medical Operations Can Enhance 

Implementation of ICE’s Detention Standards………………………………………………… ..29 

Recommendations ………………………………………………………………………………..33

Management Comments and OIG Analysis……………………………………………………...34 

Appendix A:
Appendix B:
Appendix C:
Appendix D:
Appendix E:
Appendix F:

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology.........................................................................35 

Management’s Comments to the Draft Report ......................................................36 


Comparison of Various Detention Standards…………………………………….50 

Major Contributors to this Report............………………………………………..54 

Report Distribution……………………………………………………………….55 


American Bar Association 

American Correctional Association

Department of Homeland Security 

Division of Immigration Health Services 

Electronic Health Records 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

Office of Federal Detention Trustee 

Office of Inspector General 

Office of Professional Responsibility 

Regional Correctional Center 

Department of Veterans Affairs 

ICE Policies Related To Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration 

Detention Facilities 


Department of Homeland Security
Office of Inspector General

Executive Summary
Immigration and Customs Enforcement houses a daily average of 28,700
detainees in 353 facilities nationwide. Various types of detention facilities,
such as service processing centers, contract detention facilities, and state and
local jails, are used to house these individuals. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement detention standards are used to inform facilities on expectations
regarding medical care, detainee access to legal materials, and other areas
related to facility management. Between January 1, 2005, and May 31, 2007,
33 immigration detainees died.
We reviewed two cases where immigration detainees died in custody. One of
these incidents occurred in St. Paul, Minnesota. The second incident took
place in Albuquerque, New Mexico. We evaluated how the agency and its
detention partners dealt with the two cases. In addition, we examined policies
related to detainee deaths, medical standards, and other issues. We gathered
data from the two affected detention facilities, examined the agency’s reports
completed after its monitoring visits to various facilities, and had discussions
with public and private-sector experts on detention standards.
Although there are compliance problems related to certain medical standards
at various facilities, ICE adhered to important portions of the detainee death
standard in the two cases that were the focus of this review. Based on
information received from clinical experts and our analysis, the two detainees’
serious pre-existing medical conditions led to their deaths. Although ICE’s
detention standards are comparable to other organizations, such as the
American Correctional Association, we are making 11 recommendations to
improve the standards, strengthen ICE’s oversight of facilities, and enhance
clinical operations and detainee safety.

ICE Policies Related To Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration 

Detention Facilities 

Page 1

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the largest investigative branch
of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), was created in March 2003
by combining the law enforcement functions of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service and United States Customs Service. The Immigration
and Nationality Act authorizes ICE to arrest, detain, and remove certain aliens
from the United States.1 The agency’s average daily detainee population in
December 2007 was 28,702. This was a 61% increase compared to January
2006, as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: ICE's Average Daily Detainee Population, January 2006December 2007












ICE is charged with ensuring that removable aliens depart the United States.
ICE uses three types of facilities to house its detainees until they are deported:
Service processing centers are owned and operated by ICE; private companies
operate ICE’s contract detention facilities; and state and local jails with
intergovernmental service agreements house ICE detainees. Most service
processing centers and contract detention facilities use Commissioned Corps
Officers in the Public Health Service to deliver onsite medical care. The
partnership between the Public Health Service and federal immigration
agencies was initially established in 1891. Local jails rely mainly on other
onsite clinicians, such as contractors or staff employed by a county public
health department.


8 USC §§ 1226, 1227, 1229, 1229(a), and 1357.
ICE Policies Related To Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration 

Detention Facilities 

Page 2

ICE’s Detention Operations Manual stipulates the agency’s detention
standards, which are designed to ensure facilities provide services that will
protect detainees’ life and dignity. The standards contain rules on medical
care, food service, access to legal materials, and various other areas. Facilities
are to be inspected on an annual basis to ensure compliance with ICE’s
standards. ICE staff is also responsible for visiting each facility to interact
with detainees on a regular basis.
In November 2000, the Immigration and Naturalization Service established
detention standards to ensure the “safe, secure, and humane treatment” of
detained immigrants. Discussions among federal immigration officials, the
American Bar Association (ABA), the Department of Justice, and other
organizations helped create the standards. Several of ICE’s 36 standards have
been revised or expanded. Since the creation of DHS, two additional
standards have been issued: (1) staff-detainee communication requirements
were established in July 2003, and (2) detainee transfer policies were
approved in September 2004.
Other federal agencies have their own detention standards. The Office of
Federal Detention Trustee (OFDT) in the Department of Justice ensures that
federal agencies involved in detention operations provide for the safe and
humane confinement of persons who are awaiting trial. OFDT is responsible
for conducting annual facility reviews using Federal Performance-Based
Detention Standards. OFDT and ICE inspect some of the same facilities.
Private entities also have created detention standards. The American
Correctional Association (ACA) and the National Commission on
Correctional Health Care have more than 150 years of combined experience in
creating and revising detention standards. Both entities accredit national,
state, and local detention facilities that meet existing detention standards. In
some areas, such as the placement of first aid kits and defibrillators, ICE
requires adherence to ACA standards.
ACA’s purpose is to promote improvement in the management of correctional
agencies through the administration of a voluntary accreditation program and
the ongoing revision of its standards. As with ICE and OFDT standards, the
ACA covers a variety of subjects pertaining to the administration and
management of detention facilities. For facilities seeking accreditation, ACA
conducts onsite inspections every three years. According to ACA policy
facilities are required to document compliance with the standards for each
month over the three-year period.
The National Commission on Correctional Health Care works to improve the
quality of health care in correctional facilities. The Commission’s standards
ICE Policies Related To Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration 

Detention Facilities 

Page 3

guide facilities on the delivery and management of health care in correctional
systems. ICE’s service processing centers and contract detention facilities are
required to maintain accreditation by the Commission.
As a stakeholder in developing ICE’s standards, ABA has created a
commission to help review detention standards at facilities housing
immigrants and asylum seekers. The ABA’s Commission on Immigration
ensures detainees are made aware of their rights, including access to legal
materials, telephones, and group presentations. Working with volunteer law
firms, the ABA visits facilities to review practices and suggest improvements.
The ABA shares its site visit reports with ICE.

Results of Review
This review examined two cases of detainee death, as well as ICE’s overall
standards related to detainee deaths and the medical treatment of immigration
detainees. The two detainees died as a result of serious pre-existing medical
conditions. Although there have been problems with adherence to medical
standards at the two facilities in question, ICE’s overall standards are
equivalent to other detention organizations. ICE has been taking steps to
enhance its ability to effectively monitor immigration detention facilities. Our
recommendations focus on how ICE can make further improvements to the
efficiency of clinical operations by developing better oversight procedures.

An Analysis of Two Immigration Detainee Deaths
The first detainee’s death occurred in April 2006, in St. Paul, Minnesota; the
second death happened in September 2006, in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Although the two detainees were in ICE custody, the individuals were
hospitalized at the time of death. According to ICE’s standards, both the
agency and its detention partners are required to take certain actions when a
detainee dies. In both of these incidents, the procedures outlined in the
detainee death standard were performed, with the exception of a state
notification requirement that we describe in our discussion of the Albuquerque
incident. Pursuant to its statutory authority, the DHS Office for Civil Rights
and Civil Liberties investigated a complaint concerning the Minnesota
detainee death. The Office reviewed compliance with ICE’s medical care
standard at the detention facility and made recommendations to ICE for
possible improvements in detainee care.

ICE Policies Related To Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration 

Detention Facilities 

Page 4

ICE’s Detainee Death Standard
In September 2000, the Immigration and Naturalization Service created a
standard for detainee deaths. This standard remains in place. Field office
personnel we interviewed reported satisfaction with the standard itself.
Detainees who die in custody do not always pass away in a detention facility;
therefore ICE has different rules for situations where detainees die in other
locations or in transit. From the notification of family to disposition of
remains and personal property, ICE standards address the sensitivity that
surrounds detainee deaths.
Notifying the family is an important part of ICE’s detainee death procedures.
Additionally, the standard requires notification of the applicable consulate.
ICE also must prepare a condolence letter for the family that describes the
circumstances of the death. After completing the necessary notification
requirements, ICE is required to assist in other areas, such as autopsy
arrangements. Before initiation of the autopsy, facilities must determine the
detainee’s religious affiliation. This is important because some religions have
specific restrictions involving autopsies, embalming, and cremation. When
family members cannot afford the costs associated with transporting the
remains, ICE may transport the remains to a location in the United States.
ICE’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) reviews detainee death
cases. OPR’s management directive does not require the reporting of deaths
to the OIG, nor were we provided any ICE policy documents that require the
reporting of immigration detainee deaths to our office. However, OPR can
refer cases to the OIG when ICE determines an outside review is warranted.
An OPR manager informed us that the Joint Intake Center may report detainee
deaths to the OIG or OPR. Likewise, the OIG’s Office of Investigations may
refer various detainee death incidents to OPR. The DHS Office for Civil
Rights and Civil Liberties also has reviewed detainee deaths and compliance
with ICE standards.
OPR has helped ICE improve detention practices after some detainee deaths.
However, ICE should report all detainee deaths to the OIG. In the past, we
have received information about detainee deaths on a sporadic basis, mainly
through complaints to the OIG Hotline. Notifying the OIG of any detainee
death would keep the OIG better informed and allow it to determine whether
additional review is warranted in each case. A policy in this area could
outline procedures for providing relevant records to the OIG, as necessary.
ICE’s detainee death standard compares well to ACA and OFDT standards.
Both ACA and OFDT point out the importance of mortality reviews, which
can prompt changes to facility procedures and can potentially decrease the
ICE Policies Related To Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration 

Detention Facilities 

Page 5

chance of additional deaths. Although ICE does not require mortality
reviews, we noticed evidence of such reviews in the files of several detainees
who died, including the two deaths that are the focus of this review.
Clinicians with the Division of Immigration Health Services usually complete
ICE’s mortality reviews.
The St. Paul, Minnesota Case
The immigration file of the detainee, who died in April 2006, shows an initial
hearing before an immigration judge in November 1997. An October 1998
letter instructed the individual to appear for deportation on November 3, 1998.
The detainee did not appear for deportation. Thereafter, ICE considered the
detainee a fugitive. ICE did not locate the detainee until February 2006, and
arrested the detainee for not departing the United States in 1998.
ICE held the detainee at the Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center. This
facility is located in downtown St. Paul, Minnesota, and houses various
individuals awaiting legal proceedings in the county. When this incident
occurred, the facility housed 70 immigration detainees on an average day. For
the first six months of 2007, the facility accepted 177 new ICE detainees.
ICE’s 2006 monitoring report for the facility showed an acceptable overall
On April 3, 2006, at approximately 2:30 p.m., the detainee fell from a bunk
bed and sustained a lump on the back of the head. The guard who arrived at
the cell ensured that a nurse would see the detainee during 4:00 p.m. medical
rounds. At that time, the detainee reported dizziness and headaches to the
nurse. The detainee’s medical file includes information from the nurse
reporting that the detainee was confused when the detainee returned to the
cell. Four hours later, the detainee’s condition had deteriorated, prompting a
nurse to order transportation to a nearby hospital.
After arriving at the hospital, physicians diagnosed a serious condition known
as neurocysticercosis, which is an infection of the brain by larva of the pork
tapeworm. This disease caused the detainee’s death on April 13, 2006.
Serious complications can result if the disease enters the central nervous
system. The detainee reported a history of headaches that were not relieved
by medication. The facility’s clinical protocols, which called for the use of
aspirin for headaches, do not account for other possibilities, such as serious,
pre-existing parasitic diseases as a cause of the problem. Although seizures
are a common symptom of the disease, there was no evidence of seizures in
the detainee’s medical file.

ICE Policies Related To Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration 

Detention Facilities 

Page 6

We identified two important facts related to the detainee’s medical care.
Facility information we examined included a head trauma protocol. This
document justified the detainee’s expedited transportation to the hospital after
a nurse observed that the detainee was dizzy and confused. Additionally, the
detainee did not receive a physical exam, which ICE medical standards
require within 14 days of intake. However, after discussions with clinical
experts and a review of medical literature, we concluded that neither more
timely medical attention for the head trauma nor a more timely initial medical
exam would have ensured the detainee’s recovery from neurocysticercosis.
The case history showed that ICE did a commendable job implementing parts
of the detainee death standard. We examined two “significant incident”
reports prepared for ICE headquarters by the agency’s staff in Minnesota.
Field office personnel send these reports to headquarters after serious events
take place. ICE also left a message with the Consulate of Ecuador in Chicago.
ICE also notified the detainee’s spouse. This timely compliance with steps in
ICE’s detainee death standard did facilitate necessary actions, such as the
return of the remains. Documentation also showed that the detainee’s spouse
received some of the detainee’s personal property less than one week after the
death. The detention standards do not have a time requirement for the return
of property, but ICE made a good effort to ensure that this occurred.
The death led to a debate within the Ramsey County government regarding
whether to continue to house ICE detainees. The County Sheriff said that the
Law Enforcement Center may not be the best place for ICE to house
individuals longer than a few days. Media also reported that the sheriff was
concerned about the ability to care for immigration detainees on an ongoing
basis. “We’re not really prepared to translate, interpret, and assist that kind of
population,” he said.2 After further discussions, in December 2006, the
County Board of Supervisors voted four to three to maintain its agreement
with ICE.
Policy Improvements and Additional Education Efforts Would Help
Identify and Treat Cysticercosis
While ICE’s medical standards recognize the need to treat infectious diseases
in general, they do not specifically mention cysticercosis. Furthermore, nonemergency radiology services, such as computed tomography scans or
magnetic resonance imaging−methods of making detailed images of the body
to identify problems that are not readily apparent−are not included in the
Division of Immigration Health Services covered services package. Although
case-by-case requests for coverage and payment of diagnostic tests are

“No immigrant detainees in Ramsey County?,” Minneapolis Star-Tribune, December 19, 2006.
ICE Policies Related To Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration 

Detention Facilities 

Page 7

possible, current policy does not specifically provide for proactive diagnosis
of cysticercosis.
The disease, which disproportionately affects Latin American immigrants, can
infect humans who come in contact with the tapeworm that causes
cysticercosis. The resulting cysts can migrate to various parts of the body,
including muscles, the eyes, or the brain. In the central nervous system, the
disease is known as neurocysticercosis, which was the cause of death in the
St. Paul case. We cannot determine with certainty whether this death could
have been avoided had the detainee received immediate medical attention for
head trauma. However, ICE, in conjunction with the DHS Office of Health
Affairs, should engage the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to
review the medical screenings provided for detainees, with special
consideration of the origins of the population.
According to medical journals and experts we interviewed, cysticercosis is
expected to become more prevalent in the United States within the next
decade. A neurology professor informed us that she has seen many more
cases of the disease over the past five years. A leading journal also predicted
that cysticercosis “will grow in clinical and public health importance” in the
United States. This article reported that Latinos accounted for 85% of
individuals who died of cysticercosis in the United States from 1990 through
2002. After these deaths were studied, the authors wrote that the incidents
reflect “immigration patterns in states that include substantial populations of
immigrants from cysticercosis-endemic areas, particularly Mexico and other
areas of Latin America.”3
Based on ICE data for the period of October 2006 through November 2007,
individuals from Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala, countries
where the disease is endemic, account for 79% of ICE’s total detainees, as
shown in Figure 2.


“Deaths from Cysticercosis, United States,” Emerging Infectious Diseases, February 2007, p. 230231, 233.
ICE Policies Related To Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration 

Detention Facilities 

Page 8

Figure 2: Country of Origin for ICE Detainees, October 2006November 2007

All others



El Salvador

In a study of deceased neurocysticercosis patients in Oregon spanning six
years, it was determined that 44 of 57 fatalities (77%) occurred in people who
had been born in Mexico or Guatemala.4 A separate review of autopsies in
Mexico showed a prevalence of cysticercosis in about three percent of the
population.5 If three percent of ICE’s detainees from Mexico were infected,
nearly 5,000 Mexican nationals detained in fiscal year 2007 could be carrying
the parasite.
Currently, the standards used by the Office of Federal Detention Trustee
(OFDT) provide a logical process for the treatment of special needs
individuals. The Detention Trustee’s definition of special needs individuals
includes those with communicable diseases. ICE’s standard is less detailed,
and it should be revised to include individuals who carry the tapeworm that
can cause cysticercosis. There is also a specific Trustee standard6 that
requires “appropriate diagnostic testing” be done on detainees with special
ICE also can educate staff at facilities housing detainees to ensure
understanding of neurocysticercosis. One of the world’s leading experts on
immigrant health care informed us that neurocysticercosis is “the leading
cause of seizures” in adults from Mexico and Central America. Another
expert, who labeled seizures as the “hallmark” symptom of the disease,
informed us that the Centers for Disease Control developed an “extremely

“Neurocysticercosis in Oregon, 1995-2000.” Emerging Infectious Diseases, March 2004, 508-510.

“Deaths from Cysticercosis, United States,” p. 232. 


ICE Policies Related To Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration 

Detention Facilities 

Page 9

simple” blood test that can reveal whether an individual has the tapeworms
capable of spreading the disease. The CDC has noted that the blood test may
not always be accurate, and other more definitive diagnostic tools, such as
brain imaging, exist. Through expanded educational efforts, as well as greater
use of available diagnostic tools when deemed appropriate, ICE could
facilitate faster identification of tapeworm carriers or instances of the disease
among detainees. This offers a chance to improve treatment of a disease more
likely found in ICE detainees than in United States citizens.
Another way ICE could better detect the disease is to ensure that questions
related to cysticercosis are asked during the initial health assessment and 14day physical exam. A neurologist who has treated neurocysticercosis said an
entire family should be treated if one individual in a household has the
disease. Records indicate that facility staff was informed that the detainee’s
mother had surgery four years before to treat “eggs of bugs inside her head.”
These comments may appear non-sensical, but they provided a clue that could
have led to further questioning or diagnostic testing. Adding intake and
medical screening questions about a family history of the disease would have
been useful.
Greater efforts to recognize neurocysticercosis may have expedited the care
the detainee received. More than a month before the detainee’s death, clinical
staff was told, “Tylenol or aspirin don’t do anything [to remedy my
headaches.]” Also, after falling from the bunk bed on April 3, 2006, the
detainee exhibited general confusion and dizziness. Neurocysticercosis was
quickly diagnosed after the detainee visited the emergency room.
The Albuquerque, New Mexico Case
In 2004, the Regional Correctional Center (RCC) in downtown Albuquerque
was leased to Cornell Companies, a private correctional firm based in
Houston, Texas. After making several renovations, Cornell began housing
ICE and U.S. Marshals detainees at the RCC. The RCC booked 10,026 ICE
detainees from July 1, 2005 through July 20, 2007.
The detainee, who died on September 11, 2006, was arrested as a result of an
ICE operation on the East Coast. The individual, along with 13 others, was
transferred in August 2006 to the RCC. Records show that the detainee was
sent to a hospital on September 4, 2006.
The detainee died of “widely metastatic” pancreatic cancer, which means that
cells broke away from the original cancerous tumor and spread to other parts
of the body. This type of cancer makes survival unlikely. A physician with
25 years of oncology practice said, “I have never seen a tumor marker that
ICE Policies Related To Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration 

Detention Facilities 

Page 10

high,” after reviewing the detainee’s test results. Hospital clinicians who
treated the detainee recognized that the disease was at an advanced stage
before ICE took the detainee into custody. However, medical examinations
received after the detainee arrived at the RCC did not reveal the illness.
A Hotline complaint we received, an affidavit from another detainee, and
unsworn testimony from a former RCC employee, all alleged that the
facility’s personnel did not address the detainee’s medical issues.
Specifically, the Hotline complainant believed ICE and RCC staff gave “scant
attention” to the detainee’s medical needs. However, it appeared that
Cornell’s clinical staff addressed written medical requests identified in the
detainee’s records. The detainee received antacid tablets after complaining of
abdominal pain, so, like the Minnesota case, staff did not immediately
recognize a more serious condition. Based on documentation from hospital
staff, we concluded that the RCC’s medical team could not have saved the
individual’s life, even with quicker onsite treatment or expedited
transportation to the hospital.
ICE staff in Albuquerque notified managers at ICE headquarters of this
incident. ICE contacted the detainee’s family and the consulate of the
detainee’s country of origin. Local staff also placed a copy of the death
certificate in the detainee’s file, which is required by ICE standards.
In certain cases, ICE faces challenges locating family members of detainees.
This is inherent in the immigration detention process, especially when
detainees are often transferred across the United States. In this case, the
detainee’s son, the only family member identified in the case files, was
attending a university on the East Coast during the detainee’s time in New
Mexico. This led to difficulties coordinating post mortem activities, such as
the transfer of remains. The records show that ICE made appropriate efforts
to communicate with the family. The head of the consulate from the
detainee’s country of origin thanked ICE for the professionalism exhibited by
the agency’s staff during the incident.
Nonetheless, the Hotline complainant, other detainees, and a former RCC
employee asserted that the RCC was not dealing with some detainee sick call
requests of in a timely fashion. Based on facility data and a September 2006
site visit report by OFDT, there is merit to those concerns. OFDT reported
that, due to a nursing shortage, detainees were often waiting as many as 30
days for sick call requests to be answered. Additionally, OFDT reported that
only 11 of 20 detainees with chronic conditions were regularly scheduled for
chronic care clinics.

ICE Policies Related To Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration 

Detention Facilities 

Page 11

This detainee’s death highlighted a limitation in ICE’s detainee death policy.
New Mexico law requires that any death of a person in the custody of law
enforcement be reported; however, New Mexico’s Office of the Medical
Investigator, which should have received this notification, did not have a
record of the detainee’s death. ICE staff said that the county should have
reported the death. State officials said that the hospital could have worked
with ICE to ensure compliance with the state’s requirements. ICE should
revise the detainee death standard to ensure that the agency and its detention
partners comply with laws requiring notification to state officials. The
standard requires the notification of family and the consulate, so adding
language about state reporting would be suitable. Regardless of who should
take the lead in contacting the state, ICE needs to ensure that detainee deaths
are reported to state governments if legally required.
RCC Site Visit Reports
ICE’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) visited the RCC in June
2007. At that time, the facility housed 746 immigration detainees. OPR
reported a variety of problems, including inadequate suicide watch
observation, food service, records maintenance, and security procedures.
OPR considered the RCC’s overall security procedures to be “weak” and “in
dire need of improvement.” Based on its determinations, including the
discovery of illegal drugs in the facility, ICE decided to remove all of its RCC
detainees in early August 2007. We commend ICE for using its own process
to identify areas of concern at detention facilities.
Cornell management acknowledged problems at the RCC. A senior manager
said that a corporate audit team has helped identify and correct deficiencies.
Based on recent comments by the Chief U.S. District Court Judge in New
Mexico, the company’s efforts have led to some improvements.7 Cornell said
that ICE did not fully explain why all immigration detainees were transferred
to other locations. However, Cornell’s Chief Executive Officer said, “if we
had operated RCC as we do our best facilities, no one would have had any
basis for criticism. But we didn’t.”8
Prior to OPR’s report, evidence existed that showed the RCC was having
some difficulty in important areas. Within a six-week period in 2006, ICE
and OFDT completed separate monitoring visits at the RCC. OFDT assigned
the RCC an at-risk rating in its September 2006 monitoring report. This is the

“Bernalillo County’s Regional Correctional Center conditions improving,” Albuquerque Tribune, 

August 30, 2007, and “Red Flags Raised at Albuquerque’s Downtown Jail,” Albuquerque Tribune, 

September 25, 2007. 

“Jail CEO explains setbacks,” Albuquerque Tribune, August 11, 2007. 

ICE Policies Related To Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration 

Detention Facilities 

Page 12

lowest possible overall rating, two levels below acceptable. ICE granted an
acceptable rating to the facility after its 2006 site visit. OFDT’s follow-up
report, based on a February 2007 site visit, determined that RCC’s operations
were acceptable, which suggested that the RCC made important corrections
after OFDT’s September 2006 report.
In September 2006, OFDT reported problems with the RCC’s compliance
with ICE’s detainee death policy. OFDT concluded that the RCC’s policies
did not address a requirement to notify the Departments of Justice or
Homeland Security in the event of detainee death. OFDT also reported that
the RCC’s policy did not address religious requirements or medical
circumstances regarding autopsies. Finally, the facility’s policy did not
address the need to gain the permission from federal agencies to release the
detainee’s body.
ICE’s November 2006 RCC report did not mention actual or pending
revisions to the detainee death policy. Limitations to the detainee death policy
should have been clearly written in ICE’s report, especially since an RCC
detainee died less than two months before ICE’s site visit.
OFDT’s report mentions other problems at the RCC of interest to ICE. In its
discussion of detainee classification, which pertains to separating individuals
by severity of their offenses, OFDT identified seven non-criminal ICE
detainees housed with 136 criminal detainees. Based on a recommendation in
our December 2006 report, Treatment of Immigration Detainees Housed at
Immigration and Customs Enforcement Facilities, ICE has taken steps to
address classification problems at its facilities.9 However, an assistant trustee
stated that OFDT has detected such problems at other ICE facilities, but there
are no procedures for sharing report findings with ICE.
ICE and OFDT have different standards, but some efficiency could be gained
if ICE engaged the detention trustee on facilities reviewed by both agencies.
OFDT could inform ICE about issues of interest to ICE, but ICE is not taking
advantage of this opportunity. No field office reported interaction with OFDT
on facility monitoring, though OFDT reports mention ICE standards.
Moreover, the two agencies do not share monitoring reports. The Assistant
Trustee we interviewed lamented such missed opportunities by saying that
there is “very minimal” information sharing between ICE and OFDT.
By developing a better relationship with OFDT, ICE could gain important
perspectives about its detention facilities. Problems of mutual interest, such

DHS OIG, Treatment of Immigration Detainees Housed at Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Facilities, OIG-07-01, December 2006, p. 48.
ICE Policies Related To Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration 

Detention Facilities 

Page 13

as timeliness of health care delivery, could lead ICE to request more data
samples, interviews, or policies to ensure compliance. A more developed
relationship between the two agencies would be helpful, especially in
situations where OFDT’s standards differ from ICE.

We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs
Recommendation #1: Work with the Office of Inspector General to create a
policy that would lead to the prompt reporting of all detainee deaths to the
Office of Inspector General.
Recommendation #2: Work with the Division of Immigration Health
Services, the Centers for Disease Control, and other experts, to enhance
existing medical standards, rules for special needs individuals, and coverage
guidance related to infectious disease.
Recommendation #3: Revise medical intake screening forms and physical
exam questionnaires at detention facilities to include questions regarding the
detainee’s family history of cysticercosis.
Recommendation #4: Revise the notification section of ICE’s detainee death
standard to ensure that the agency and its detention partners report a
detainee’s death in states that require notification in the event of a death in
custody. Documentation of this reporting should appear in a detainee’s file.
Recommendation #5: Seek to enter into a memorandum of understanding
with the Department of Justice, Office of Federal Detention Trustee that
establishes a process that enables OFDT and ICE to regularly share
information resulting from facility site visits.

Management Comments and OIG Analysis
ICE and the DHS Office of Health Affairs provided written comments on our
draft report. We evaluated these comments and have made changes where we
deemed appropriate. Below is a summary of ICE’s written response to the
report’s first five recommendations and our analysis. A copy of ICE’s
complete response is included as Appendix B.
ICE’s Comments to Recommendation #1

ICE Policies Related To Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration 

Detention Facilities 

Page 14

ICE concurred with our recommendation. A March 13, 2008, memo that was
created by ICE’s Office of Professional Responsibility outlines the process
that will ensure OIG notification of each detainee death. ICE will make
telephone contact with the OIG as quickly as possible after the death. The
following day, additional details will be provided as part of an existing OIG
notification mechanism.
OIG Analysis
ICE’s new policy should facilitate interaction with our office on detainee
death cases. As needed, we will use this new process to gain additional
information about detainee death incidents.
The recommendation is resolved and closed.
ICE’s Comments to Recommendation #2
ICE concurred in part and disagreed in part with our recommendation. ICE
concurred with the recommendation to work with DIHS and other experts to
enhance the detention standard for detainee access to medical care. ICE is
updating all 38 standards and converting them into 41 performance-based
standards. These revisions are being reviewed by major governmental
organizations and DHS’ Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. DHS
expects to publish the revised standards on September 1, 2008.
ICE stated that the current medical standard allows for special needs
individuals to receive appropriate medical care. Regarding “medical
standards,” ICE said it does not have the authority to establish or alter national
public health or medical health care industry standards, which are established
by professional medical researchers and medical practitioners in tandem with
public health and medical care governing and regulatory bodies.
Although ICE believes the current detention standard is sufficient to meet the
medical needs of detainees, it believes doctors and medical staff must be
cognizant of diseases. It has asked DIHS to develop a training tool to enhance
the medical field’s awareness and early detection of diseases that might be
prevalent in aliens from particular geographic locales.
OIG Analysis
We are not recommending that ICE attempt to expand its authority and role in
the development of national public health or medical care industry standards.
However, it is well within the agency’s authority, in consultation with experts,
to revise its own policies and the medical care standard in the Detention
Operations Manual. Special needs individuals may be getting adequate care,
but we reaffirm our recommendation that ICE augment its policy to call more
attention to those carrying infectious diseases, and help ensure that its medical
ICE Policies Related To Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration 

Detention Facilities 

Page 15

care better reflects the needs of its population. Possible changes include
listing particular diseases that make someone a special needs individual, as
OFDT has done. Diseases that are more common to immigrant populations,
such as cysticercosis, can be the focus of such efforts. ICE’s decision to ask
DIHS to develop a tool to enhance the medical field’s awareness and early
detection of diseases is a positive step, but this tool would be most effective if
it is accompanied by needed policy enhancements that respect the particular
needs of ICE’s unique population of detainees.
DIHS clinicians, who are now ICE employees, are committed to serving
ICE’s needs. ICE should take a greater interest in discussing possible changes
to coverage rules for its population. The DHS Office of Health Affairs is
another resource that can help ICE in these areas.
ICE’s action plan should include information about its work with DIHS to
alter policies that increase the probability of expedited treatment for
individuals with infectious disease. Current coverage guidance does not
adequately allow for coverage of conditions that do not appear to be medical
emergencies. Through greater dialog with DIHS and ICE’s departmental
partners, the chances for improved health care outcomes will increase.
This recommendation is unresolved and open.
ICE’s Comments to Recommendation #3
ICE concurred in part and disagreed in part with our recommendation. ICE
agrees that DIHS should review its medical intake and physical exam forms,
presumably to assess whether the forms can be modified to allow for more
accurate and timely identification of certain diseases. ICE stated that present
health screening tools include questions concerning family history. The
agency stated that there is sufficient space on the forms to record any
information provided to alert medical professionals of any possible problems
that are not readily apparent. ICE’s current intake form is based largely on
questions that are not only related to family history of various diseases, but
symptoms that may lead medical professionals to diagnose an illness. Given
its large, diverse detainee population, it is not clear to ICE whether a specific
designation of family history of cysticercosis is warranted on medical intake
forms or that amending the form is the most appropriate manner to respond to
this particular disease. Furthermore, ICE questioned the OIG’s conclusions
regarding the scope and danger of cysticercosis. It stressed that the disease is
still quite rare, even after the large increase in Latin American immigrants
over the last 30 years. ICE reported that technological improvements, not a
prevalence of cysticercosis, led to increased detection of the disease.

ICE Policies Related To Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration 

Detention Facilities 

Page 16

ICE noted that DIHS’ commitment to enhance the medical field’s awareness
and early detection of diseases that might be prevalent in aliens from
particular geographic locales is a major step forward. ICE believes the best
approach to address our concerns about cysticercosis or infectious diseases is
to request that DIHS reevaluate the current medical form in order to determine
whether amending these forms is appropriate.
OIG Analysis
ICE questioned the value of incorporating any family history of cysticercosis
on forms currently in use, but also agreed that DIHS should review its medical
intake forms and physical exam forms in order to better identify certain
diseases. ICE will request that DIHS review current medical forms in order to
determine whether amending these forms is appropriate. ICE did not indicate
how it would respond to a decision by DIHS to amend the forms, whether it
would revise any forms, or how such changes would be communicated to
local facilities, which often use their own screening forms. ICE should
provide documentation of its request, and the results of DIHS’ evaluation.
We do not expect ICE to make cysticercosis the focus of its health care
program. However, the disease, rare even in ICE’s population, is a far greater
risk to immigrants from Latin America than the general population, and
amending intake screening and physical exam forms is a step ICE can take to
help detect the disease.

ICE Policies Related To Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration 

Detention Facilities 

Page 17

Greater awareness and detection of the disease might not decrease morbidity
or mortality in a specific case, but this is not a reason to omit specific
language related to cysticercosis on intake and physical exam forms. The
disproportionate risk of cysticercosis in ICE’s population is not “anecdotal,”
as ICE notes, but rather a well-documented fact, based on decades of research
by highly credible public health and medical experts. ICE should do more to
respect this risk and take steps to mitigate it through the possibility of quicker
detection and treatment for detainees carrying the disease.
Because cysticercosis remains rare, clinicians in various parts of the country
may have limited experience with diagnosis, as was evident in the Minnesota
case. No information in Ramsey County’s treatment protocols, ICE’s medical
standard, or the DIHS covered services package could help a facility diagnose
or proactively treat the disease, even though it is a disproportionate risk to the
bulk of ICE’s detainees. ICE can help its detention partners by providing
more details about the disease as well as enhanced means for facilities to
detect infected detainees.
This recommendation is unresolved and open.
ICE’s Comments to Recommendation #4
ICE did not concur with our recommendation. ICE believes that its standards
are appropriate in this area. The agency stated that a medical examiner, a
hospital, or a physician, is responsible for implementing any state notification
requirement. In the New Mexico case, ICE noted that any rule of its own
would not have facilitated action by state or local entities to make notification
to the proper authority.
OIG Analysis
We reaffirm our recommendation. ICE acknowledged the importance of state
notification, but believes it is not its responsibility to do so. ICE can rely on
other entities to ensure state notification. However, ICE’s standard currently
does not mention reporting detainee deaths to states. Although other officials
or a hospital can help satisfy the requirement, the detainee is ICE’s
responsibility. It is possible that some hospitals or medical examiners may
not realize that ICE is a law enforcement agency. ICE is not prohibited from
proactively ensuring that detainee death notification occurs, especially since
the agency’s standards require staff to comply with state rules on infectious
disease reporting and other areas. ICE could take the step of articulating the
importance of death notification. This would also provide ICE an additional
opportunity to collaborate with states.
This recommendation is unresolved and open.
ICE Policies Related To Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration 

Detention Facilities 

Page 18

ICE’s Comments to Recommendation #5
ICE concurred with our recommendation. The agency is pursuing a
Memorandum of Understanding with OFDT. ICE also provided details on its
work with OFDT, as well as efforts to improve the compliance at the Regional
Correctional Center. ICE stated that our recommendation was incorrectly
based on a perception that OFDT provided information that led to ICE’s
decision to remove detainees from the facility. ICE stressed that it relied on
its own standards, rather than input from OFDT, in the decision to remove all
immigration detainees from the RCC.
OIG Analysis
Our recommendation is not based on a belief that OFDT has better standards.
We reported that OPR findings led to the removal of ICE’s RCC detainees.
The purpose for this recommendation was that OFDT had indentified medical
access problems that ICE did not. Without knowing about these problems,
ICE admitted nearly 3,500 detainees to the RCC. Through greater interaction
with OFDT, the two agencies can facilitate improvements across federal
detention facilities. A formalized partnership, along with the improvements
that ICE is making, can facilitate higher levels of compliance at facilities.
When the final MOU is completed, ICE should forward the document to the
OIG. We could close this recommendation at that time.
This recommendation is resolved and open.

Oversight Can Be Improved at ICE Detention Facilities
ICE conducts annual monitoring visits to determine a facility’s compliance
with the detention standards. Staff conducting routine oversight of facilities
has not been effective in identifying certain serious problems at facilities.
Moreover, ICE’s reports, based mainly on checklists that divulge little about
the area reviewed, do not provide much information to facilities or outside
reviewers. In December 2006 we reported that ICE did not find medical
access problems and other non-compliance at detention facilities. Although
ICE is taking steps to improve facility oversight, the agency should revise
certain policies and standards to gain a more complete understanding of
facilities’ compliance status. By improving its oversight methodology, ICE
will improve both standards compliance and detainee safety.
An Overview of ICE’s Detention Facility Monitoring Efforts
Each facility housing ICE detainees is scheduled to receive an annual
monitoring visit. Site visit teams use various worksheets to report on a
ICE Policies Related To Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration 

Detention Facilities 

Page 19

facility’s adherence to ICE’s standards. For contract detention facilities and
service processing centers, a team from ICE headquarters leads the site visits.
Field office staff is charged with monitoring of facilities that house detainees
under an intergovernmental service agreement. Reviews usually take three or
four days to complete.
Within 14 days of completing a facility review, the team submits a report to
ICE’s Detention Standards Compliance Unit. The unit examines the report for
completeness and the soundness of the team’s conclusions. This leads to a
rating of the facility’s performance against general areas of the standards, such
as food service, the detainee handbook, and detainee access to medical care.
If the review team determines that there is a deficiency in a particular area, the
facility is required to undertake corrective action. After review of the report
by headquarters staff, the facility also receives one of five overall ratings:

•	 Superior – The facility exceeds expectations based on exceptional
performance and excellent internal controls.
•	 Good – The facility performs all of its functions with few deficient
•	 Acceptable – The facility’s detention functions are performed
adequately. ICE considers this level the baseline for its facility
rating system.
•	 Deficient – The facility is not performing one or more detention
functions, with inadequate internal controls.
•	 At Risk – The facility’s detention operations are impaired to the
point where mission performance is not being accomplished.
ICE is strengthening its oversight of detention facilities. A manager in ICE’s
Office of Professional Responsibility informed us that a new unit, the
Detention Facilities Inspections Group, will focus on standards compliance at
detention facilities. The group will also conduct independent reviews of
certain incidents at detention facilities. At the time of our fieldwork, only six
employees were assigned to the new group, with projections for 12 additional
ICE Policies Related To Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration 

Detention Facilities 

Page 20

staff members. ICE officials asserted that the Detention Facilities Inspections
Group is a “high priority.” The group must have sufficient resources to
inspect detention facilities. Figure 3 highlights the placement of ICE’s
detention facility monitoring units in the agency’s organizational structure.
Figure 3: Excerpt of ICE Organizational Chart Showing Detention Facility

Monitoring Units

IC E A s s is ta n t
S e c r e ta r y
O ffic e o f
P r o fe s s io n a l
R e s p o n s ib ility
D e te n tio n
F a c ilitie s
In s p e c tio n
G ro u p

O p e r a tio n s
D e p u ty
A s s is ta n t
S e c r e ta r y
D e te n tio n a n d
R em oval
O p e r a tio n s
D e te n tio n
S ta n d a r d s
C o m p lia n c e
U n it
S ite V is it
Team s

OPR participated in an ICE site visit after a March 2006 detainee death in
Texas. According to the review, which took place less than a week after that
incident, serious issues compromised detainee safety. A subsequent report
concluded that the facility “has experienced a complete breakdown in
communication, leadership, and supervision,” prompting difficulties “on every
level.” ICE no longer uses the facility to house detainees.
ICE is also in the process of contracting with outside experts to relieve ICE
staff of the annual onsite facility monitoring function. This new process is
now in place. ICE management believes that this new approach will be
similar to how OFDT implements its monitoring visits. ICE’s contractor will
use existing ICE monitoring instruments and protocols.
Better Review of Medical Exam Timeliness is Needed
ICE’s medical care detention standards require facilities to conduct a health
appraisal and physical examination on each detainee within 14 days of the
detainee’s arrival at the facility. This exam is designed to gather details about
a detainee’s health beyond the screening questions asked during the intake
process. The physical examination offers an important opportunity to gauge
the health status of detainees. Timely delivery of the physical exam enhances
a facility’s identification and treatment of communicable or chronic illnesses.

ICE Policies Related To Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration 

Detention Facilities 

Page 21

We examined data on the timeliness of the 14-day exam from the Regional
Correctional Center and the Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center.
Because it had a considerably larger number of detainee intakes, we only
requested three months of data from the RCC, April through June 2007.
Ramsey County provided timeliness data for all detainees entering the facility
for the first six months of 2007. Both facilities had difficulty meeting ICE’s
physical exam timeliness standard. Officials at various detention facilities
reported that staffing shortages, overworked clinicians, or an excessive facility
intake can cause delays in delivery of this service.
There were 1,118 new ICE detainees booked at the RCC during our threemonth sample. Of these, 997 stayed longer than 14 days. We determined that
830 of the 997, or 83%, received a timely physical exam and 167, or 17%, did
not. During its September 2006 monitoring visit, OFDT determined that the
RCC met the 14-day standard in 18 of 20 cases, a 90% rate.
For the Ramsey County facility, only 43 ICE detainees admitted in the first 6
months of 2007 were housed for more than 14 days. Of the 43 detainees, 10,
or 23%, had information regarding a physical exam in their medical file.
Those with a completed physical often received the exam beyond 14 days.
Table 1 lists the 10 detainees who had medical exam information documented
in their file. In 3 of the 10 cases, no physical exam had been provided. For
the seven cases with an exam date, an average of 40 days elapsed between the
detainees’ intake and the exam.
Table 1. Ten Cases from the Physical Exam Timeliness Sample, Ramsey

County Law Enforcement Center 

Intake date Exam date
Days Elapsed Days Detained
Detainee #1
Detainee #2
Detainee #3
Detainee #4
Detainee #5
Detainee #6
Detainee #7
No exam
Detainee #8
No exam
Detainee #9
Detainee #10 6/12/2007
No exam

The data provided by Ramsey County showed additional problems with
timely tuberculosis screening. One element in ICE’s monitoring protocol asks
if the facility has ever needed more than one business day to conduct this
screening test. For the 43 individuals in our sample, only 14 cases showed a
date for the initial skin test used to detect tuberculosis. Ten of these detainees
were not given a test within one business day. In one of these cases, the
facility did not test a detainee for more than two months.
ICE Policies Related To Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration 

Detention Facilities 

Page 22

ICE monitoring reports contained limited evidence that staff conducting site
visits actually reviewed facility compliance with the 14-day exam standard.
We concluded that sampling is not done on a consistent basis. A manager in
ICE headquarters said that sampling is discussed during reviewer training, but
ICE’s monitoring protocols do not require sampling to test a facility’s
compliance. ICE should examine sample data during each of its monitoring
visits to test compliance with the 14-day exam and other standards.
Our December 2006 report on detainee treatment discussed problems with the
14-day exam standard at two facilities. The Berks County Prison was
compliant on only 38 of 42 sample cases, while an ICE facility in San Diego
met the standard in only eight of 19 cases. Two other facilities met the
standard in all 50 cases examined.10 Using sampling to gain a better
understanding of a facility’s compliance level would be a valuable measure of
how well detainees receive services designed to improve health outcomes.
Since compliance can fluctuate over time, ICE needs to ensure that facilities
continuously comply with detention standards. Although we are not
recommending regular reporting by facilities, such information could be
helpful to discern the ability of a particular location to house more detainees.
ICE should also take larger and more frequent samples of other medical
standards at those facilities that have exhibited problems. Developing
sampling guidance in other areas would benefit ICE’s monitoring program.
ICE Can Improve Detention Facility Monitoring Reports
Questions regarding the materiality of findings are undermining the quality
and usefulness of ICE’s monitoring reports. Current policy emphasizes that
the materiality of a finding is based on the reviewer’s analysis of available
evidence, extent of the problem, risk to the program’s efficient and effective
management, review objectives and any other factors. This is a credible
approach, but additional policy is needed to ensure ICE reviewers, who must
determine whether a facility’s performance warrants deficient ratings, target
areas of particular importance. Improvements in this area would also make a
facility’s final rating more objective.
In some monitoring reports, reviewers deemed the facility’s performance on
certain elements acceptable, despite identifying notable deficiencies. For
example, the November 2006 report for Ramsey County said the facility did
not abide by ICE’s standards on tuberculosis screening. Screening for

DHS OIG, Treatment of Immigration Detainees Housed at Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Facilities, OIG-07-01, December 2006, pp. 3-4.
ICE Policies Related To Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration 

Detention Facilities 

Page 23

tuberculosis is central to the safety of facility staff and other detainees.
Compliance in this area should be a leading factor in a facility’s overall rating
in the access to medical care area. However, the facility received an
acceptable rating for that general standard.
In its September 2006 report, OFDT raised concerns about the ability of the
RCC’s medical unit to provide timely care with the number of clinicians on
staff. ICE’s November 2006 report, on the other hand, simply gave a “yes”
answer, with no other comment, for the standard requiring all detainees have
access to and receive medical care. Had ICE been aware of the health care
access problems at the RCC, it might have considered different locations for
some of the 3,465 detainees who entered the facility from January through
July 2007.
There were some questionable conclusions in ICE’s November 2006 RCC
monitoring report. For several elements, no examples of a particular event
were evident, yet ICE concluded that the RCC met the standard. For such
situations, it would be more accurate to conclude that a particular element was
not applicable. ICE reported that the facility met other requirements, even
though reviewer comments suggested otherwise. For example, the RCC did
not have certain emergency plans, but the report concluded that the RCC met
the requirement for such plans. Also, ICE reported that the RCC met the
standard requiring storage of medical records in a locked area, even though
the reviewers found one cabinet unlocked. Although corrective action was
immediate, the issue was serious enough to warrant a finding that the RCC did
not meet the standard.
ICE drew questionable conclusions in monitoring reports of other facilities.
One report listed several deficiencies regarding a facility’s medical treatment,
even though ICE granted an acceptable rating in this area, including:

Absence of intake tuberculosis screening;
Absence of privacy blinds in exam rooms;
Insufficient oversight to ensure medical records were always secured;
The need to update certain policies, including 24-hour access to
emergency services; and,
•	 Improvements needed to policies related to special needs individuals.
Another ICE monitoring report graded a facility’s security inspections
acceptable, while noting the need for improvement in a non-compliant visitor
pass system, the absence of documentation showing vehicles entering or
departing secured areas, and incomplete vehicle searches. With such
information, we have determined that the facility was deficient in this area.
ICE Policies Related To Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration 

Detention Facilities 

Page 24

Further explanation of these problems in an expanded narrative section in the
report would have been beneficial.
In comparing overall ratings given to facilities, changes are also needed to
explain why particular facilities receive a given rating. Some field offices
perceive the final rating process used by ICE headquarters as arbitrary. The
Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center received a good rating in 2005, but
only acceptable in 2006. The later report did not explain why the compliance
status fell one level. In another example, in June 2006, one facility with
uncorrected problems with staff-detainee communication still received a good
rating. Another facility without any notable deficiencies only received a
rating of acceptable. After reviewing the reports, we could not determine the
justification for the second facility receiving a lower rating.
Enhancements to site visit reports would permit a better understanding of a
facility’s particular rating. In most of the reports we examined, the review
team did not make use of the Remarks section found after each general
standard. The narratives that appear in OFDT reports offer a more detailed
assessment of a facility’s compliance status. This is especially important in
instances where a facility could use more guidance.
An ICE Standard on Internal Review at Facilities Would be Beneficial
ICE currently does not have a requirement that facilities perform assessments
of their operations. Through review of its own operations, a facility could
more quickly discover problems, such as untimely access to health care.
Developing a standard in this area would help ensure that facilities achieve
and maintain compliance improvements.
Both ACA and OFDT have standards that address the need for facilities to
review their operations continually. ACA’s policy on Health Care Internal
Review and Quality Assurance establishes the collecting, trending, and
analyzing of data as a central feature of a successful review program. On-site
monitoring of health service outcomes on a regular basis is the central
component of ACA’s standard. According to OFDT’s policy, a facility’s
internal review process is separate from external or continuous inspections or
reviews conducted by other agencies. These standards for internal review
could guide ICE’s development of its own standard in this area.
Notable problems at one facility demonstrate the utility of self assessments.
In March 2006, the facility received a deficient rating based on noncompliance in 11 of the 38 detention standards. Later that year, two detainees
died at the facility. ICE’s reviews of these two incidents discussed serious
problems with access to medical care and the oversight of clinical operations.
ICE Policies Related To Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration 

Detention Facilities 

Page 25

ICE reported that the facility did not perform basic supervision and provide
for the safety and welfare of ICE detainees. Had the facility reviewed its own
operations, it might have uncovered issues related to insufficient medical
staffing, problems with staff training, or other deficiencies. ICE discovered
these issues only after two detainees died. ICE’s March 2007 monitoring
review at the facility noted that five detainee deaths had occurred in the
previous calendar year.
Two recent monitoring reports of another facility highlight the importance of
ongoing detention facility oversight. In August 2006, ICE granted a superior
rating to one facility after a routine monitoring visit. After the November
death of a detainee, ICE identified a variety of problems related to this
facility’s medical care. The review team noted that the facility does not
routinely do physical examinations on detainees who are in the facility more
than 14 days. Additionally, ICE’s review team concluded that the facility has
failed on multiple levels to perform basic supervision and provide for the
safety and welfare of ICE detainees. Further, the line of communication in the
medical department at this facility was deemed to be poor, placing detainee
health care in jeopardy.
Maintaining a complete and current picture of its facilities’ clinical operations
should become a priority for ICE and its detention partners. Detecting
deficiencies before problems arise is vital to detainee protection and standards
compliance. As one correctional expert wrote, “Delayed or inadequate
treatment of persons with medical conditions often results in liability exposure
and publicity.”11 Investments in internal reviews can diminish such negative
effects through continual corrective action by the facility itself, outside of
ICE’s regular monitoring process.

We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs
Recommendation #6: Revise monitoring protocols and the medical
detention standard to require sampling and continuous oversight of the 14-day
physical exam standard across ICE’s detention facilities.
Recommendation #7: Revise monitoring policies and other guidance given
to reviewers regarding the materiality of site visit report findings to ensure
that standards, such as tuberculosis screening and others related to access to
medical care, weigh more heavily on a facility’s compliance level.

Clinical Practice in Correctional Medicine, 2nd ed., 2006, p. 42.
ICE Policies Related To Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration 

Detention Facilities 

Page 26

Recommendation #8: Require reviewers preparing monitoring reports to use
narratives to illuminate special areas of concern and provide additional details
about issues relevant to a facility’s compliance status.
Recommendation #9: Develop a standard that requires facilities housing ICE
detainees to implement an internal review function.

Management Comments and OIG Analysis
ICE’s Comments to Recommendation #6
ICE concurred with our recommendation. The agency will use three steps to
improve oversight of the 14-day physical exam standard.
•	 Regular sampling by on-site clinical staff and remote sampling for
facilities served by a regional contractor.
•	 Findings of OPR’s Detention Facility Inspection Group inspections
through its facility oversight role, and
•	 Detention and Removal Operations will provide OPR information on
this recommendation during Self Inspection Program reporting.
OIG Analysis
In its action plan, ICE should provide sufficient evidence of the policy
revisions and site visit reports, showing that the required sampling is taking
place to satisfy the intent of this recommendation.
This recommendation is resolved and open.
ICE’s Comments to Recommendation #7
ICE concurred with our recommendation, noting that findings with significant
consequences are weighed more heavily in a facility’s overall compliance
rating. ICE’s pending performance-based standards will improve the accuracy
and credibility of performance ratings. ICE also relies on immediate
correction of serious life and safety issues found during monitoring visits.
OIG Analysis
Our recommendation focused on the scoring of particular elements in a way
that inaccurately reported a facility’s actual status. Examples in our report
showed facilities with obvious medical access problems still scoring at an
acceptable level for that specific element. In its action plan, ICE should
provide more detailed policy guidance and examples of site visit reports to
demonstrate that both overall and specific elements are more accurately
graded during the monitoring process. Upon doing so, we will close this
ICE Policies Related To Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration 

Detention Facilities 

Page 27

This recommendation is resolved and open.
ICE’s Comments to Recommendation #8
ICE concurred with our recommendation. As a result of improvements made
in late 2007, ICE is expanding the use of narratives in its site visit reports.
This new process, which uses contracted experts in facility oversight, will lead
to greater use of narratives to expound on areas of concern. Such additional
information can clarify findings and enhance a facility’s ability to comply
with necessary standards.
OIG Analysis
ICE has taken positive steps in this area, as it now uses the narrative field in
its monitoring reports. We will close this recommendation on receipt of a
copy of an inspection that demonstrates the use of the report’s narrative
This recommendation is resolved and open.

ICE’s Comments to Recommendation #9
ICE concurred with the premise of our recommendation, but did not concur
with the need to create a standard on facility self-assessments. ICE is
concerned that a self-assessment policy could diminish the consistent
implementation of its national standards. The agency noted that it uses quality
assurance experts at large facilities to help ensure local compliance in key
areas. ICE believes that the participation of third party experts is necessary
for local conditions to be monitored appropriately. In addition, ICE relies on
its own monitoring practices to examine the compliance of facilities housing
immigration detainees.
OIG Analysis
We reaffirm our recommendation that ICE develop a facility self-assessment
policy. The agency’s response states, “We concur that there needs to be a
sound internal review mechanism, but we disagree to the extent that the
review process should be conducted by facility personnel.” In the health care
compliance field, self-assessments are performed by a facility’s own staff.
ICE’s regular site visit monitoring process and internal review are different
concepts, to be performed by different individuals. What we are
recommending in no way replaces those reviews. The Health Care
Compliance Association notes that internal reviews “test compliance with
internal policies and procedures and with federal, state, and local laws
regulations and rules.” These programs are “often critical” in finding a
problem before “it creates significant risk to the organization.” A facility can
ICE Policies Related To Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration 

Detention Facilities 

Page 28

use a self assessment to measure current compliance, ensure correction of
deficiencies, or confirm ongoing compliance. Clinical staff at a local facility
has the expertise to determine whether rules on the timeliness of physical
exams and screenings have been met. Many standards do not require
interpretation or the intervention of outside experts. Thus, ICE should not be
concerned that self assessments are contrary to national consistency. It is also
important to note that an internal review need not place exorbitant demands on
detention facilities. For example, after receiving data from Ramsey County
and Cornell, we quickly judged the facilities’ timeliness in providing physical
exams and tuberculosis screening, two areas central to a facility’s medical
care access.
ICE’s quality assurance experts are not used in most local facilities. ICE
should help facilities use their own processes to ensure basic standards are met
on an ongoing basis – outside of the routine monitoring processes. Onsite
experts or ICE site visits do not provide this level of ongoing assessment.
Since ICE endeavors to follow ACA standards, it should create a facility self
assessment standard to match the mandatory nature of ACA’s guidance in this
area, which has existed since 2004.
This recommendation is unresolved and open.

Additional Efficiencies in Medical Operations Can Enhance
Implementation of ICE’s Detention Standards
ICE can develop a more efficient and productive oversight process for its
detention facilities and enhance the standards that are appropriate and
generally equivalent to the standards of ACA and OFDT. Further steps, such
as the creation of electronic health records and increased staffing of clinical
operations, offer additional means for ICE to strengthen standards compliance
and improve detainee care.
ICE’s Standards Are Credible Compared to Other Organizations
Our analysis of several ICE detention standards, compared to the ACA and
OFDT standards, is provided in Appendix E. In some instances, ICE’s
standards are more detailed than those of ACA and OFDT. For example, a
recent article noted that ICE’s standard on hunger strikes provides important
details that are missing from similar ACA standards.12 We found that ICE’s
standard on HIV/AIDS offers more specific guidance to facilities, as well.
ICE requires that only a licensed physician will make a diagnosis of AIDS

“What They Can Do About It: Prison Administrators’ Authority to Force-Feed Hunger-Striking
Inmates,” 24 Washington University Journal of Law and Policy 151 (2007).
ICE Policies Related To Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration 

Detention Facilities 

Page 29

based on a medical history, current clinical evaluation of signs and symptoms,
and laboratory studies. ICE also identifies procedures for treating the detainee
within and outside the facility’s clinic. Staff responsibilities and precautions
are also outlined. ACA’s standard specifies only that the detention facility
will have a written plan that addresses the management of HIV infection and
procedures for dealing with the detainee. Specific procedures for treatment
and staff responsibility are not developed. OFDT’s standard simply classifies
HIV as a chronic medical condition, requiring regular treatment.
Additionally, the ICE standard on detainee grievances has important details
that are not discussed by ACA or OFDT. The ICE standard specifies a formal
and informal procedure for resolving detainee grievances. In the formal
process, the detainee completes a form that discusses in writing the particular
issue of concern. An informal grievance is delivered orally, offering detainees
the opportunity to resolve their concerns before resorting to the longer formal
procedure. Detainees can communicate their informal grievances to ICE staff,
and all grievances can be appealed. OFDT’s process is similar to that of ICE,
although an informal process is not developed. Based on ICE data, no
grievances were filed by the 33 detainees who died between January 1, 2005
and May 31, 2007.
ICE, ACA, and OFDT understand the importance of identifying detainees
with special medical needs. However, the three entities have different
definitions of a special needs individual. According to ICE’s standard in this
area, the facility’s officer in charge will be notified when detainees are
diagnosed with special needs. OFDT echoes this point, but it gives more
specific examples of types of conditions that affect individuals with special
needs. Additionally, OFDT requires additional health care for detainees
diagnosed with special needs.
The ABA has encouraged ICE to make the agency’s detention standards
enforceable through regulation. The ABA contends that, even though
intergovernmental services agreements require compliance with standards, the
standards currently in place are only advice to facilities on ensuring detainee
welfare. There may be merit to creation of a regulatory mechanism to enforce
ICE’s standards. We are not persuaded by the department’s memorandum in
reply to the ABA, which discussed problems this course would create, such as
staffing issues and the cumbersome regulatory update process. However, ICE
is considering the feasibility of making the standards regulatory.
ICE has already taken some steps to enhance its standards. The agency is
moving toward the creation of performance-based standards similar to those
used by ACA and OFDT. These standards provide an opportunity to
articulate more clearly the specific actions that facilities are expected to take.
ICE Policies Related To Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration 

Detention Facilities 

Page 30

Performance-based standards are goal-oriented and include outcomes
measures, which can provide facilities with guidance on the implementation.
This should bring about improvements in facilities’ adherence to specific
goals. Improvements to ICE’s facility monitoring process should be enhanced
when the updated standards are finalized.
Electronic Medical Records Would Create Efficiencies for ICE
We reviewed the utility of electronic health records (EHRs) for ICE’s
detention facilities. EHRs digitally store individual health information, either
in a transferable card or a centralized database. ICE and its facilities currently
rely on traditional paper-based medical records. However, ICE, including its
Division of Immigration Health Services (DIHS), has taken preliminary steps
toward electronic records, including development of systems requirements.
ICE has spent more than $2.2 million on the development of an electronic
records system, including software and training expenses. DIHS determined
this initial systems design was less than sufficient. ICE has noted its interest
in making improvements on its initial system.
Efficiencies created by EHRs would provide ICE many advantages in the
management of detainee care, especially when detainees are transferred to
other facilities. For example, EHRs can be easily transmitted. An
individual’s records would be immediately available to clinical staff at a new
detention facility. This would allow for a more rapid assessment of a
detainee’s current medical needs, reduce duplication of intake screenings or
physical exams, and improve detainee safety. By expediting the development
of EHRs, ICE and its detainees would receive long-term benefits.
The Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture
enabled the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to create EHRs for
individuals receiving care at VA hospitals and clinics. The VA’s EHRs
provide patient-specific information that permits time and context sensitive
clinical decision-making. The VA has achieved important safety
improvements through its use of electronic information. For example,
electronic prescriptions have reduced medication errors and helped to identify
incompatible medications. The VA has reported a medication error rate of
0.003%, well below the three to eight percent national average.13
ICE facilities managed by the Correctional Corporation of America use EHRs.
When an ICE detainee is transferred between facilities managed by the
company, clinical staff can access an electronic records system. One of the
company’s facility wardens said that less paperwork and more timely

“The Best Medical Care in the U.S.,” Business Week, July 17, 2006.
ICE Policies Related To Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration 

Detention Facilities 

Page 31

information about detainees has improved operations at the company’s
detention facilities. An ICE review of a Houston detainee’s suicide provides
an example of how rapid access to health records can be vital. According to
the incident report:
A major area of concern was a lack of medical records . . .
Following the death, the detainee’s health records from his
previous institution revealed the detainee had been diagnosed
and treated for Schizophrenia and had at least one
documented suicide attempt . . . Such information would have
been valuable to the mental health provider and medical staff
at Houston.
Although the individual was transferred from a Bureau of Prisons facility to
Houston, rather than from another ICE facility, the report provides keen
insight into the utility of EHRs.
Additionally, EHRs would not be subject to disruption or destruction. This
was especially important to the VA during Hurricane Katrina, when clinicians
around the country had electronic access to records of the 40,000 veterans
who had received care or ordered prescriptions at VA facilities in Louisiana
and Mississippi. A 2007 study by the State of California also discussed how
EHRs could ensure the maintenance of medical records during natural
disasters or other catastrophic events.14
ICE and DIHS have recently taken steps to create a system of electronic
health records. An ICE official suggested that more detailed discussions are
needed to define systems requirements, and ICE needs to understand DIHS’s
perspective on the limitations of the electronic records system. The proposed
integration of DIHS into ICE should enhance progress toward development of
EHRs for ICE detainees. This integration is anticipated in early FY 2008.
ICE is a natural candidate for implementation of EHRs. By enhancing the
efficiency of clinical operations, ICE would provide better care for its
detainees. We recognize that complicated systems decisions are necessary
before an effective electronic records system can be fully implemented,
including concerns about the privacy of electronic records. Thus, ICE should
consult outside experts, such as the VA, as needed.


The State of California, Legislative Analyst’s Office, “A State Policy Approach: Promoting Health
Information Technology in California,” February 2007.
ICE Policies Related To Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration 

Detention Facilities 

Page 32

Some ICE Facilities Are Experiencing Clinical Staffing Problems
Two ICE facilities included in our review have staffing problems, raising
concerns about not only the slow pace of hiring, but the agency’s ability to
provide proper health care. DIHS personnel said that they need a better
understanding of ICE’s vision for detention services. They said that
understanding the vision would help determine where additional or new
personnel resources should be placed.
Nationally, contract detention facilities and service processing centers using
Public Health Service clinicians had a 36% vacancy rate in October 2007.
The contract detention facility in Pearsall, Texas, which housed more than
1,500 detainees the day we visited, had 22 medical staff vacancies. Given its
rural location and the nation’s high demand for nurses, staff in Pearsall said
that they will endure medical staff shortages indefinitely.
Staff from the San Diego Field Office also expressed concern about recruiting
and retaining clinical staff for its contract detention facility. In its December
2006 ICE site visit report, the facility earned an overall rating of deficient
after receiving a good rating in 2005. Health care access problems caused by
insufficient medical staff were a primary reason for the low level of
performance. According to the site visit report, nearly 260 detainees did not
receive a physical examination during a three-month period in 2006. Field
office staff suggested that DHS’ lengthy security clearance process is an
obstacle to filling vacant medical staff positions. To offset not having
sufficient medical staff, the current staff work extended hours in an attempt to
improve compliance with ICE’s medical standards. ICE did provide data
showing that recent progress has been made on the issue of clearance
processing, but the general concerns expressed by staff in Pearsall and
elsewhere warrant further scrutiny by ICE management.
Immigration attorneys we interviewed said that their primary concern is ICE’s
ability to deliver timely health services. In June 2007, the American Civil
Liberties Union filed a class action suit against ICE as a result of problems at
the San Diego Detention Center. Agencies can be exposed to legal liability if
medical standards are not properly implemented. As one expert wrote, “Most
cases in which courts have found constitutional violations of inmates’ rights to
health care were fostered by the exigencies of an overburdened staff coping
with too few resources.”15 Even in those areas where ICE has a credible
treatment standard, such as care for detainees with AIDS, other organizations
have determined that medical care can be inadequate. A human rights group
recently alleged several examples of problems with ICE’s treatment of

Clinical Practice in Correctional Medicine, 2nd ed., 2006, p. 524.
ICE Policies Related To Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration 

Detention Facilities 

Page 33

detained individuals with AIDS. This group’s report detailed cases where
detainees were denied medications or where needed care was delayed.16 We
did not review any of these cases for this report.
We discussed various medical access issues with Public Health Service
clinicians, who provide care at some of ICE’s facilities, and officials from
DIHS headquarters. Some DIHS officials believe that greater involvement in
ICE’s detention management strategic planning would help with staffing
problems. This would give DIHS a better idea of where clinical staff would
be needed. Although our interviewees described the relationship between ICE
and DIHS as very positive, ICE should ensure that clinical staffing efforts are
aligned with ICE’s strategic planning for detention management.

We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs
Recommendation #10: Expedite all necessary discussions and resources to
develop a system of electronic health records for ICE detainees.
Recommendation #11: Work with the Division of Immigration Health
Services to identify all clinical staff shortages, then work with ICE’s clinical
partners to develop and implement a strategy to fill clinical staff shortages at
immigration detention facilities.

Management Comments and OIG Analysis
ICE’s Comments to Recommendation #10
ICE concurred with our recommendation. The agency continues to work with
DIHS and other experts to create the electronic records system. The
department’s Investment Review Board must approve the system.
OIG Analysis
In its corrective action plan, ICE should provide details on the progress it is
making regarding acquiring the necessary technology and designing the
protocols for the EHRs. Once we receive evidence of ICE’s commitment to
establishing an EHR system, we will close this recommendation.
This recommendation is resolved and open.


Human Rights Watch, Chronic Indifference: HIV/AIDS Services for Immigrants Detained by the
United States, December 2007.
ICE Policies Related To Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration 

Detention Facilities 

Page 34

ICE’s Comments to Recommendation #11
ICE concurred with our recommendation. Through interaction with DIHS,
ICE is creating a strategic plan to examine a variety of issues related to the
recruitment and retention of clinical staff. This plan will include
improvements to the processing time of background investigations,
considerations for the use of incentives such as signing bonuses, student loan
repayment, hiring additional health care recruiters, and collaborating with the
U.S. Public Health Service for hiring and placing health care professionals to
support ICE detention operations.
OIG Analysis
We look forward to receiving ICE’s staffing strategic plan. This plan should
help ICE correct the difficult staffing problems that confront many health care
providers across the country. In its action plan, ICE should set a timetable for
completing the strategic plan.
This recommendation is resolved and open.

ICE Policies Related To Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration 

Detention Facilities 

Page 35

Appendix A
Purpose, Scope, and Methodology

ICE provided data showing that 33 immigration detainees died in custody
between January 1, 2005 and May 31, 2007. We examined incident reports
and other data about these cases, and interviewed field office personnel to
gain further insight into some detainee deaths. The two instances of detainee
death that were the focus of this report were referred to us through the OIG
We examined:
•	 Documentation regarding detainee death cases, including detainees’
detention and medical files;
•	 Detention standards used by ICE and other entities;
•	 Legal cases and international human rights agreements; and
•	 Facility monitoring reports and data held by detention facilities.
We conducted 53 interviews, including discussions with ICE headquarters and
field office staff. Conversations with field office staff covered detention
standards, detainee death incidents, and resource issues. We interviewed staff
from DHS’ Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, public and private
sector clinical experts, immigration attorneys, and experts in correctional
facility oversight.
We toured seven facilities that house ICE detainees. These facilities were:

Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center, St. Paul, Minnesota;
Sherburne County Jail, Elk River, Minnesota;
El Paso Service Processing Center, El Paso, Texas;
Regional Correctional Center, Albuquerque, New Mexico;
Central Texas Detention Facility, San Antonio, Texas;
South Texas Detention Complex, Pearsall, Texas; and
Laredo Processing Center, Laredo, Texas.

We conducted our review between May 2007 and August 2007 under the
authority of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, and according to
the Quality Standards for Inspections issued by the President’s Council on
Integrity and Efficiency.

ICE Policies Related To Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration 

Detention Facilities 

Page 36

Appendix B
Management’s Comments to the Draft Report

l,S. Of.p...
<Of HQ....I.nd
llu.... l.nd s.<un,y
_n' ....

~Ston. DC
IX. 2OS:l6





and Customs

\lAR 19
15 2008




Richlltd Skinncr
Inspel:tor General

~~ Julie L. Myers
;;..p- Assislant
Assistant Secrctary
Inspector Geneml
Genem.l Audit Draft
Dran. Report
Office of Inspt.'(:tor
"'ICE Policies Related to Detainee Deaths and the Oversight
O~'crsight of
Immigration Dctemion
Detention Facilities,"
Facilities," dated
I. 2008
daled Jan.
Jlln. III,

(OIG) for this opportunity to revicw
wish to
to thank
thank the
the Office
Office of Inspector Geneml
Getlcl'".ll (DIG)
review and
II wish
comment on
on your
your draft
draft report
report concerning ICE's policies relating to detainee death and oversight
of our facilitics.
facilities. I am
am plcased
pleased to know thaI
that DIG confinncd
con finned that
thaI ICE adhered to the imponant
the dctaint."C
detainee death stlUldard
standard that were the fOl;l.Is
foclis of this review. I am
portions of
lUll commined
committed to
considering any
any suggestions
suggestions that will allow
allow ICE to improve the oversight
all facilities that
oversighl of
house individuals
individuals in
in our
our care. I am pmicularly
particularly conunined
committed to ensuring Ihat
thai me
the U.S. Department
Health and
and Human
Human Services'
Services' Dhision
Division of Immigration Health Services
Serviccs (DJHS),
Detention lUld
and Removal
Removal Operations
Openllions (ORO),
(DRO), and our contract facilities take
takc all appropriate
approprimc steps
to recognize
recognile and
and respond
respond to evidence oflife-threatemng
oflife-threatening illnesses in order to avoid the
thc lamentable
of an
an individual
individual in
in ICE's care.
death of
to infonn
infonn you
you that 1C'E.l1as
ICE has madc
made significant
signilicant strides in improving
also wish
wish to
impro\·ing overall
ovcrall ovcrsight
oversight of
II also
our facHllies.
facilities. Your
Your repon
report briefly mentioned the Detention Facilities Inspection Group and
and the
to highlight some of the other progress
Detention Standards
Standards Compliance
Compliance Unit, but 1I wanted 10
progres.o; we
have made
made toward
toward strengthening
strengthening overnll
ovenlU internal review and compliance of our facilities that
were not
nOI considered
considered in
in your
your report,
report. but
but merely mentioned brieny.
ICE emered
entered into
into aa comract
contract that
that has placed subject matter
mailer expens
experts in selected facilities on a daily
basis to
to monitor
monitor both
both the
me detention standards and the detainees·
detainees' quality oflife.
of life. These reviewers
serve as
as rrofcssional
professional on-site
on-site compliance
compliance personnel
personnel in
in each
each Service
Service Processing
Proccssing Center
Centcr (SPC).
Contract Detention
Detention Facility
Facility (CDF)
(CDF) and
and large
Intergovernmental Service
large Intergovcrnmental
Service Agreement
Agreement (IGSA)
IGSA facilities
facilities ....ill
will be
facility. On-sitc
On-site compliance
compliance for
for the
the ilTl1al1cr
smaller IGSA
be achieved
achieved through
through aa rc~,'ional
monitoring plan.
plan. This
This program
program will also support
support contrnctual
contmctual compliance review for contract
of a performance-based concept.
detention facilities
facilitics by
by usc
usc ora
Specifically, ICE
ICE has
has contrJcted
contracted wuh
with the
the Nakamoto
Nakamoto Group
Group to
to provide
provide on-site
on-site National
National Detention
Standards (KD5)
(NDS) compliance
compliance vcri.fic~llion
verification for
for all
all ICE
ICE detention
detention facilities.
facilities. This
This program
program features

ICE Policies Related To Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration 

Detention Facilities 

Page 37

Appendix B
Management’s Comments to the Draft Report

DnIR Rcpon "ICE
-ICE Policies Related
Relll1ed to
to Detainee
Detalni:C Deaths
D~1Ilh1 and
and the
lhe ()o,crsight
Q\asight of
ImnugJ1Illon Detention
Iktcnl.IOD Facilities:'
hcilitics:' datr:d
da:lI:d Jan.
JIlI1. II.
11, 2008
p,," 2

aI five-person
ICE headquaners
fhe-pt'fSOl'l managementleam
manasemcot team at
Wrlquanm that
lhat provides
pm\-llkl program
fI"Ol;"ltn mall3gemcnL
management.. staffing
coonJinahon. reports.
rqxMU, and anlll}tical
anaI}ucal and adminislnuhc:
.wnin.istmJ\C services
SCl'\"ia:s for staff
members stationed
5tlI1Joncd at
~l the United
l,;niud Slates.
Swes. :s'akamoco
pmoIlDC'l are posted
posled on-site
on-sitt al
.. all
facilities throughout
Nakamoto Group personnel
CDF5, and larger
W};c:r IGSAs.
IGSAs.. Smalltt
Smaller IGSAs
IGS.4s will
..ii, be
serviced on
on aIl'l:l;lOrW
regional basis..
~ The
contRdor is also
abo tum:ntl}
CWTro1I~ in
in the firnil
linaI dC\c1opment
d...... kJpmmt stage
stagt ofan
ofan automated
au:.otnJtcd reponing fWlCtion
funcuoo thai
_ill allow
allo'A ORO 10 monitor
momlOr the
thC' mosl-current
mos:I-carm1 compliance
cornphmce Slatus
sum of
of ICE detenllon
dntnnon faclhtles
Creall\t Corrections.
conducts annuallnspcctlGns of all detention
dctcnuon facilities
Our othu partner, Creative
thai ~
howe ICE
ICE detaiJlC'CS.
d~ Eacb
E.:b inspection
iospectioo is conducted
coOO~ by
a five-member
Ii\ -member team
learn of
aob. cet·1D&IlCT
pabmed O\'er
a 1\1,0
IWO 10
U) threc-day
Ibrec-da~ period
pe10Cl dependmg
depenc:bn. on
on the
me t)-PC
l)'PC of
facility bclOg
expen5 and IS performed

ed. MoflOda).
As of today, Crativc
Creative Corrections
C ~ has conducted
coaductcd O\Cf
O\t:r 141 facility
t.ciLit~ re-rie.....s.
R"\ iC'A.... ICE
rtqUlJU Creative
Creall\-C: Corrections
Correcuons to perform
pcfonn eighl
oghl: annuallOspcctions
a:rmuat lMpcetlON per
AddJIJOfI.I.II~. ICE IS worlcing
_-ortmg closely
with major
m2Joc non-governmental
MI).& organilatlOns
orprn7.allM5 and DHS'
Offl« ofCi\'il
ofCi\-il Rips
Rights aDd
and Ci\-i}
Ciyil Liberties (CRCL)
(CRCl) in order to
10 fe\'isc
re\tK our 38
3 current
a.n'fJt national
daCflhon standards
standmls and oon\cn
con\crt Ihcm
lhon lOla
mlO 41 pafomwxe-bdcd
performance-basal srandards.
IUDlbnb. Arier
\I.e consider
hope to
comments from Soo.
NGOs and CRCL we
'ole hope:
10 publish these
~ b)'
b~' $cpIt:mber
Sqltl."mbcr- 1,2008.
1.2008. As
no(ed. _"l:
.....e 0pc'(1
expect tbcsc
Ihese paf~
performance-based standards
a facility's
)"OUJ" repon
n:pon com:ctly noIcd.
sundMds to
10 Improve
to specific,
measurable goaIs..
goals. Abo.
Also. our
revised detamcc
spcc1fic-. ~Ie
dcum.." handbook
Iw1dbooIl. is
IS slated
slaled 10
to be
released in \1..y
\1ay 2008.
2008 Prior
Pnor to
10 diSiributmg
distribUling these handbook.s,
b.Jndboob. ICE
III consull
consult wilh
'ol ith major
nuJor 'GOs
American Immignuion
and the AmcnCOll1
lmmigmion l..a"o\
)'\."'I"·s Association for lhcir
w..i r input
inpul as
t i \\'el1.
"' ....11. This handbook..
which IS wnnen
....nttc:n in
111 EnglIsh
English and Spamsh.
Spatrish. v,;
ill pn:l\-'~
provide an overview
O1;tf\--lC'\\ of the general
~traI rules..
at detention facilitics
policies and
rcgullltions. politics
anJ procedures in place
facilili as
It well
u an overview
o\c:rvi~ of the
sen;ces a\'llliable
available 31
at rh~
the facilitles
programs and Stn1CCS

the American
your rqxm
report differentiates
differenliates ICE's standards
e also note
nOle thai
WI )'Our
st:1OIJards from those of
Associalion and lhl;'
the Office of Federal OelC1ltion
o......enuon and
aod Trustee
Tru"'cc (OFOn,
(OFDn, panicularly
Correctional Association
when ~'Our
)'Our repan
report discusses OFDT's re\1CW
review of the Regional
RtgJon:II COrret:tionlll
Corm:tional Center (RCC)
(ReC) facility.
repon also highlighlthal
highlight thatlhcse
these differl"TIt
dirr~,..."f1t standards lire
are balied
bust<l on Ihe
thc needs of
We rc-qu~'S1
request thal)our
that your report
each federul
federal agency th:n
that WIIS
was in\·olved
involved lU
in developmg
developing OFOT's
OFDT's eurrent
cum..·11\ stundards.
stalldMUs To be sure.
when OFDT
slandards, itII \\.orkctl
.... orkcd with
1II·llh ICE,
ICF', the U.s.
OFOT ~k~elopcd
dc\Clopcd its
ils current
eurrent pcrfonnllJlec-hllSi."\l
perfonnance-based standards,
agencies hu,e
hUHl de\'elopcd
Marshals Service and the Bureau of Prisons. These three federal
population lhey
they serve consistent
conSistent with
1'0 ith their
thclr overall missions.
standards to meet
mcet tlie
thc n~'t."\Is
needs of the popuhllion
Marshals Service is concerned with !.he
the housing and
The lU,S.
,So Mllrshals
l1lld transportation
tn1n5ponlltion of prisoners and the
Prisons is primarily
thc custody and care of federal prisoners
Bureau of Pnsons
primurily charged with
",Hh the
pn'lOneB who have
been conVIcted
criminal lrials. ICE. on the other hand, detains
tI~"\lIins individuals
convicted ofcrimes and face eriminaltrials.
who arc
cn~\lre their appearance
appearunce in
In Immigration
are fueing
facing civil removal
n.moval proceedings
proccedings in order
orclcr 10 CTIsure
COUrt or 10
to en~un:
ensure their appearance for removal from the United
Unill..d Sllites.
Stliles. Our detention standards
..."<: developed Wilh
mind OFOT
OFI>T recognized
recOgnllod the varymg
varylllg levels of
with the
thc nccds
needs oflhis agency in mind.
siandards ....
hen dC\'~loping
developing tbeir
their own ley
key standards tliat
tllul apply
llppl)' 10
to ull
all fooeral
fcdenll facilities.
fllCililics. In so
doing, OFDT
agmcics; accordmgly.
accordmgly, the
OFOT noloo
noted lhat
that "the
..the purpose for dCl.cnllon
detenlion vanes
varies across agenCIes:
standards adopted
adopled addressed only lhe
llie mosl
most basic and critical clcments
to all agenCiCS.
clementi common 10
The S1andards
SlJpplcment rooh(:JC5,
policies. procedures.
procedures.. and pl'llctic~s
practices lhat
that were
.....ere specific to
standards are
arc inlended
intended 10 supplrnlenl
of~ach agmcy.~
agency." A5
As such. ....
e note thaI
that ourdccision
ourdcc-ision to rcmO\C
rttno\'.... ahens
aliens from the RCC
the noeds
needs of~h
bllSCd on lhe:
the basic Slandnrls
standards OFDT set. bUI tatMr
rather upon our in-depth
ID-dt'pth fC\'iew,
r'C\-iev.. .....
hich wcnt
.... enl
was no!
not hued
be)'Ooo OFOr
far be~-ond
OFOT'ss mirumallindings.
minimal findings.

ICE Policies Related To Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration 

Detention Facilities 

Page 38

Appendix B
Management’s Comments to the Draft Report

SLlilF(T OiG
OIG Dl"lI.ft
Draft Report
Report "ICE
'-ICE Policies
Polirie5 Related
Relaled to
to Detainee
Detainee Deaths
Dcalhs and
and the
W Oversight
(heBighl of
ImmiJp'atlOfl De1enlion
Ddenuon Facililies.,··
Flctlilies.- dated Jan.
Jan. 11.2008
II. 2<1Ob
p~gor 3

1k1O'l/l., please
P icase find ICE'5
ICE' ~ response
n;:sponse 10
to each
each reoommeniliilion
n:com~ your
)'OW" office has
bas made in
in its
its drnft
rrpart I look
klol forward
fO/"lll-an:l 10
&0 continued
continua:t col1abornhon
oollabcnuon ....'Ih
and members
rnembcn: of
office to
)'ou and
your office
1"'JIf'O\': our
our polM:1
Rf'(OlII-._dali•• 1:
I: Work
wort. witllthe
.'ub the Office
OfTJCC aflnspcclOf
oflDspa::tot General
Gc:naaI 10
to create
Cfal~ a policy tIla!
lb! v.ould
lcaJ to the
lhc prompt tq)Orting
of all detainee
deaths to tile
the Office
Offi~ oflnspector

Rcspollsc: ICE wocun;
OOrJClln with
.ilb the
tb&:' reoommerui.atioo.
reoommc:Ildatio We an:
arc committed
ronmtincd to prompl
prompt and
ICE R~pualt;
.ICCVRIe reponing
to OiG
OIG whenever
... he:ne1.-eu
a deuinet:
dctainet: dies
dles in (lUI'
0lII" fxililies.
1'act1:IIC1., Under
l'nder current
currenI ICE
1Cl: polle).
the death
dc:at!l of
any delainee:
deumee in
on our
cuslody is
considered a significant
JigniflaDl. <:'\'eJIt
ne:at tIw
thai must
mloSt be reported to
the Joint
tntake Center
CCDler (l[C).
VIC). ICE must
1l4US1 ootif)'
notif) the
!he JIC of
this event
ncot within
W1Uun tv.
0 hours
ho..n by phone
24-hours In YiTlbng.
v.nting. Once
Jle r'C'Cei\'cs
a1d Within
Onc:c the lIe
reec:i,'cs a Significant
:llNfM:Et Incident
Irw:tdo.:nt Rcpon.
RcporL illo\;1l
prepare a RllJlld
senl to
Professional ResponSlblht)·
~.d Reach Report......hich
Rcpon. "'ilich is sret
10 the Office
Off~ of
for any
deemed appropriate.
well as to
an~ action
aetlOfl doemed
2ppropri.a:e.. as ."dl
10 other
othc:r ICE wmponcnts.
cammlOncnt 10 timely repon
report all deaths
rlmfy (lUI'
OW' commnmcu
dc:aIhs 10 OIG. the
[he Director
DlI'cClOf" ofOPR
memonmdum on
011 March
\ian:b 13.2
13. 2008.• instrul:tiDJ
lnslrUCting the OPR
DIG 1n\.:stipll\1.:
in..cstigati\c limon
liaison at
thc nc
liC to
nob!} D[G
OIG ofany
of an)' dclaiocc
pro\lde an)'
any rele..-anl
rek\-.rn facts
rlCt5 concernmg
conc:mung the
telephomcally notifY
detaiocc death and provide
Addll!OTUIlIy. the death ..
ill be JqlOI1cd
dail)" ICti\ily
11:11\ '1)· rrpon
thai is
I compiled by
dealh. Additionally.
reported In the daily
report Ihat
OPR and trw:L5minN
trunsmined to OIG
QIG each business day.

It is
IS requested
reque:sled that
th31 this
tfus recommendation
recommcndalioo be collSidcml
ll1ld closed.
rk1JoCd Atlached.
AtlolChed, please
considered rcsol\.:d
resoh-ed lllld
lind orR's
OPR's memorandum
mcmonmdllm 10 lhe
the lie.

N:tC'ommtnd:uion 2: "Work
-Work witb
of Imm1lrllion
MnlC'iK the
tht Cmttrs
with tht
the Dh"isioo
Di\"i.sion or
Immigration IItallh
Health Servicn.
(CDC), :and
nperts. to enhance
for DistasI'
Diwan Control (COC),
and other npens.
tnhanct l'1islinJ:
uistin~ medicliistandlirds,
ntfll~ individuals.
Indh k1oaIJ. and rovenge
C'O\l~ragt guidance
luidanu rrhuHt
to inrerlious
InftC'tlouJ disuse."
ror SPKllll
SpeciAl nuds
related 10
Respanse: ICE C'oocurs
concurs In
in pan and diS3grees
disagrecs in pan
ICE Response:
p:irt with
\\ iUt this
thiS recommendation.
recommendJllon. As the
!\''Comm,,-ndalion pertains to 'JDS. ICE eoncurs
ith DII-IS
concurs with the rccommendallon
recommendation to .....ork
work ....
D[HS and
other expcns
experts 10
to enhnnce
enhance the detention standard for detainee access
to medic:!l
neec" 10
medical cart'.
Cllrc. Thc
NOS is
all 38 standards
ICnlllnlzcd for
lor improvement.
Improvement. Currently.
CUlTCIllly. ICE is updating
updal1ng :11138
sUtndards and
them into 41 pcrforrmmce.based
pcrfomJancc.based slundards.
lire currcruly
stlUldll.rds. Thcse
These drun
dma standunh
standllfds arc
cum::ntly being
revIewed hy
by mllJor
major l\GOs
NGOs and CRCL for theIr
their subst:mti\'c
substantive commentS
comments. We expect
expe<:t the revised
September 1.2008.
Nul10lJlIl Detention
DI,.1~·l1tion Standards
StlUltltm:ls to
\0 be published
publish,,-d and available by S(:ptcmbcr

rhc current
C'urrcnt medical standard.
\vhlch was dcveloped
dcvcloped with
wnh Ihc
01 medical
the ,"pUllnd
Input and guidancC'
guidance of
professionals. allows for special nM!
needs indi\
rccl.'i\c approprilltc
Elppropriatc medical
carc. In (liet,
itlull15 to n:cci\c
mCl.!icul cure.
has consulted With
wllh Ihe
thc Centers for Diseases
I~venllon (COC)
the past and
Discascs Controlllnd
Control and Prevention
(CDC) In
in Ihe
has incorpGnltcd
incorporuted mlln)'
many of
the CDC's
CDC"s guidelines inlo
inta protocols (ordctcrtlng
far detccting and Ireal1ng
treating .llcos
infecllous or communIcable
llh ,"(<<llous
communicable diseases in facililies
f1lCllilles WIth
with DIHS Slaffing.
staffing. Also. '"
in genml,
gencml. lhe
standllrd requires
fllCilities employ. at
medical mil'
slall large
cnou}!;h to
n:quires thai
all far:ilitics
III 118 minimum. aI medIal
II"!c cnouW1tO
treatments for all detaUKC5.
detainees. The st3lldard
standard requlrts
requires the dcIentK>ll
perform basic exams and treatmmts
facility<hlll'Kc.....ilh, with the ooopcr.l1ion
coopcrution ofthc
Director. 10
to negotiate
ofttle Clinical Dlla:lor,
n~U81e and maintain
v. ith neMby
nearby medical facilities
facihliC'S or heallbcm
healthcare pro\tdc:rs
pro"idm 10
to pro,
Ide CQjuired
arrangements .ith

ICE Policies Related To Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration 

Detention Facilities 

Page 39

Appendix B
Management’s Comments to the Draft Report

010 Draft
omt Repon
Rcpon '"lCE
")CE Policies
Pohctcs Related
Rel.aled to
Ia Detainee
Dewnec Deaths
Deaths and
and the
Oversight of
DcIcntiOft Facilities:'
Facilities.- dated
dated Jan.
Jan. I11.
Immigration Detention
J. 2008
bcal~ nol
facihlY_ Under
hc.lI~ specialist
sp.."C1IJ~ shall
available ....
ithin the facililY.
the standard, aI hcalthcarc
drtc:rmi medical
rnNit"1ll tmltment
In:::alment. e;ol:cepl
excepC when there
lhcre is disagreement
lbagrecmcn1 on
Oft the
!he t)~
I)'PC or
or extent of
that is medically
medlall~ Decessary.
tleCessaJ)'. In
1lJ instances
tnslancCS of
OllIS makes
mates the
!he final
dctcmUl1lhon in
In consullation
consuJtanon with
lIImh the Chiefof
Dud of \1edical
'-fedJcal Staff
~ff and in
en accordance
~e .....ith the mcJieal
the I..:.S.
poli;;:l of
l,S. Depanment
Dl:panmem ofHcalth
ofHcahh and
IlDd Human
Humm Service's
Scnl«"s Public
Mite Health
Hcill Service
Sen'icc: (USPHS).


~mcdical slandanls,~
-u the
lhc recommendation
I'CIOOmIDCDlbtJ spccificallypcnains
spc:cific::all~ paWns 10 -medical
m:nrJanb.. ~ ICE advises
.d\1Jl:$ thatlhis
what the
agency can do.
IIppC8n to be beyond
bC'yood the
Ilk scope of
do Xatioml
-.:~ public
pubhc heallh
bcaJth or medical
researchers and
care induStry
mdUSU)' sl2ndards
wndardJ are established
embl!med by
b} professional
profcmONl medIcal
a1 medu:al
wilh public
and medical
medical CllTC
pnICtll.KJDl:fS In laIldem
tmdem 'Ith
pubbc hca.llh
bcaJth lIlJd
arc gO\·o:ming
n regulatory
rquJllOr} bodi
ICE has
authority to csui>lisb
establish orallc:r
or aller such standards.
baI no inhemu
1Dbcrcn: a1tbont)SlIDlfards.. nor does
docs the agency
II:ftlC'} directl)'
10 pro\
ide input
to do so. ICE relies
cmr'oy persons
pct"IOfK qualified
rd~ upon thc
the profcssional$
proraiioolJs of
and USPHS 10
coordinate with
OlHS aDd
to roordinate
....ith olhcr
ocba" health
heah.h ocganizations.
orpnintims such as
IS the
!be CDC.
COCo in
detem'llning and appl>,ng
disease prevClltl(K\
appl)"Ulg healthcare
he:l:.theare and dlscue
pre,;mlJOn sandards
we btllC'c
beliC"'e the cunml
currenl detention
standard is
the mo:lIcal
Wluk: "e
ddemtoo swxbrd
i5 sufficienlto
SUffiCIC0110 meet
mechcal needs of
detam~ ICE COfllmuc:s
continues to
10 be rommiued
commilled to
10 tmpnn
and care
ICE delC1ltion
in~ standards
C~ at
itt aU
facilities. To that
believes doclon
docton. and medical staff
dw end,
cni. ICE bdiC'o'($
salT mu~
mu.Jl be cognizant
C'optDnl ofdiseases
unique to immigrant
on is pncoca!.
pmclical, so as 10
to promote ellfly
Imn'llgranl populauons,
populallons. as much &$
my detection
dctecIlOII of
has askoo. DrtiS
training tool
di~ Acco.-ding]y,
. C«lfdmgly. ICE htiaskcd
OIHS to develop
&:-.clop aIlnining
Iool to enhance
mhance the
field's awareness and evlydetecbon
early detection of
m ahens
f ~ that
dw might
mlgtn be
bt pm'alent
allem from
&om panlcular
DIHS has Ilhiscd
a(hiscd ICE Uw
that it
.ro~hic locales. OIHS
II is willing
",llinK to
10 seck
sec" ad\~ce
ad',ce from the
!he COC
CIX' and
other subjecl-maner
subject-maller n:pms.
cxpens_ lJ5
as it has
done in the past, 10
tool. ICE will
h3s don
to develop
~clop this lraining
lrainifll 1001.
follow-up with
DIHS to ensure lhis
Ihis traming
training is
Iol.lth DillS
IS conducted.


that this recommendation be considered resoh·ed
It is requested
requCSlcd th31lhis
resolved and closed.
Rec:ommendation 3: ~Re'
~Re, iR
ise medi"al
medinl inl.ll~e
intake Urffnlllg
screening forms
formJ Knd
lind ph)"sicltl
pb)'lilul exam
quesllonnalres 81 delelllioD
dl'tenlloD fadlilie1llo
facilities 10 iodude
include queslioDs
questions regarding the
Ihe detain«'s
dellintt"s fami!}
h Istol')' of t)sliCt'rtO!ib.
c)"SI ict'rcosis.,..

ICE Response: ICE concurs in pari and disagrees in pari
p,m'l with
....'Ilh the
Ihe recommendation.
l'«OmmcndIlIIOn. ICE agrees
re\ iew il!i
its medical intake fonns
forms and
that DIHS ~hould
should revicw
lind physical exam
e,~am forms
ronns in
fn order 10 beucr
certain diseases lhal
that mil)'
ma)" allo.... us to pro\ide
provide beller medical
cure to our detained
Idenllfy ccnlllll
l1u..d iclilelirc
DIHS' inlake health screening fonn
form was developed by medical professionals
profesSIOnals for the
Ihe purpose of
identifying Ihose
those medicul
medical issues thaI
that pose Ihe
the lV\-'lllCSI
grealest risk (0
to an
un ovcrnll
oVCTltIl detention
dctcnllon facility
popul:uion. The h"lllih
health screcmng
screening 10015
tools presently
prcscntly in usc
use include
mclude questioltnaires
questionnaires concerning family
health hislori~
histories and
llnd there
therc is mfficicni
sufficient space on Ihc
thc forms
fonns to
10 mcmorialil.c
mcmoriilh/c any
1mI' information
provided so as
lIS to llIcn
alen medical professionals ofnny
ofany possible
that arc
possible: problems
nrc not
nOI rcadily
apparem. Oblammg
Obtaining a falmly
family hlSlOT)'
history of Cysl1=OSIS
cysticercosis is
many imponant
IS one of man)'
Imponanl pIeces of medical
lhc currenl
current intake
Inllke form. That
Thai fonn
ronn is
idcr may oolloct
collect using the
infoml:ltion ....
'" hlch
hieh a medical pro\ ider
primanly used 10
to quickly COUCCI
collect signs or SyntplDffiS
symptoms for which aDst.'fious
K'nOUlIi illness may
rna)' be the
Ihe cause.
observed. more proba1l\'e
quesnOTIs can be
signs and symptoms be obser\'ed.
Should these ligns
pl'ObalJ'c and specific
spoctfk qut:sllOns
askcd to help Identify
identify and poniblydiagoose
possibly diagnose an illness.

ICE Policies Related To Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration 

Detention Facilities 

Page 40

Appendix B
Management’s Comments to the Draft Report

Rebtcd to
to Det3inee
~n« Deaths
Deaths and
and the
dlc Onnighl
(hersighl of
OIG DrufI.
Draft Report
Report -ICE Policies
Policies Related
II. 2008
Immigralion Dnenoon
Detention Fu:ilitlc:s'
Fat::ilities.·'~ dall".d
dated Ju_
Jan. II.


~:r on
00 quesllons
qUCSllOM thai
IIw arc
arc nol
not only
001) related
n:bU.'d to
lO family
family history
Our CUl'Ten1
current lnu.le
mtakc ibrm
fonn lS
is based largely
Je.l medical
nacdK:al professionals
dlagnose: an
an Illness.
Illness. In
of \'arious ~
diseases. bul
bUI !O)mplomsIbm
symptoms thai mll)
may lead
to diagnose
\lOC nOie
llOIe that
thai even
mother had
had been
the spet:lfic
specific case dcscribed
described in the Iq)Of1.
repon. we
ifassummg the mother
tluII the
tbeDli\idaal of
d~i it
It is
is not
not C'ident
C'\;d!:fj how
diagnosed ~llhC)~
wilh C)"Sticerw$J$ and that
indh'idual ~
this diagnosis.,
10 family
f.;unily btory
of C)'5tiCCfC'ClSIS would
~'OUkI have
including alpo."Cific
a specific q",CSlIOll
question aplicitly
explicitly Jdakd
related 10
history ofcysticercosis
contlCl.1) noIes.
.... nothing
notlurif ICE
ICE c:ould
resuhed lD
in adiITtnm
II diffC'fC'll.t oweome.
outcome, As your~
your report
lhere was
tk:a1h or
of IIa person
person with
"lib this
dlIs serious
KriouJ pre-existing
ha\c done
done 10
to ~-au
prevent dus
this unfort:ulWe
unfortunate death

fiwd population
pop"larioo that
Uw comes into
\tuo ICE
ICC custody
nlSIOd)' on
OlD aa daily
Considering. the 1afKe.
large, di\I;nC.D
di\enie. iIIld 'CI)
\'ery fluid

gc:DC1'1I family
fmuly mahcal
rnecbcaJ historY
h~ information.
tnfomuuon. itLt isbbasis. and
and !he
the £act
faC'! thai
lhat 0lIf
our currttI
CUrTeIlt rorm
fann sobat5
soliells general
of family
ramil) histOry
hiiUJl10 ofcysticercosis
of C)SliCO'·COSU is
i$ Wa.m1IIled
~Jtr...ncd on
DOt d.:.
cI ar ..
Yo ~
a ipC'Cific
specific d.:;;;j~
designation or
mW;c rorms
liJrni is
IS lhe
the rmst
appmpn.a1e manner
manna' 10
lei respond
respond to
IG this
forms or that:smcndir:lg
that ammding the fonn
most appropriate
or O(ber
other dl5CaSe5
diseases that mll)
may be common
particular d~
disease Of"
c:ommGrI in de\c1oping
dc\dop'ng countries.
also noIC
note tNI
thai your
your rrlimce
rchance on r..o
two journals CIted
cited In
m the
a basis
C alsG
lbc report
rqlOI1 as
baIlS for
for singling
'"sling out
KJWnal studied
J1.udic:d ncurocysticcrcosis
famil)' hls1of)'
history of C>"til;aW5ls
cysticctWSis is mispt.:ed.
misplaced. Thl:
The fll'Sl.
first journal
srx·~"C. penod.
pcnod StY
W John
JoM M.
certalll Oregon bospluU
hospitals O\·CS'.
over a six-year
discharge mfonnanOll
infonnation from ccrtam
in 0rrgrNr..
Oregon. 1995-1000.
/995-2000, E"EJtG1'c
ncs. ,I"eurory-sticeroosis
\tI<ron't1ll'l'rt'O.tU i1r
l,nMlOl. 0; Dlsr
DI5t' A'>E'>
4.. r~ (2004).
journal I"C'\c.kd,
rC\<ealed tlW!he
\hilt the annual n1ll1lbo'"
number of
of DCWOC)'SllCO'C05l5
neucocysticercosis did
cases or
did not
not change during
the stud)'
S1udy pmod,
penod, dcspllC
despne the Hispzuc:
Hispanic popuLanon
populalion mcreasing
lI'lCI"easmg in
an Oregon
Oregon by an
an estimated
$Imdtcd 67·/
11te SCXO!1d
second joumaI
journal DOlts
notes 1Iw
thai '1"11c:rc:i~s
c)'Stercicosis iis IIOtlWionally
not nalionally reportable,
n:p<Jrablc, few
f~ local
local jurisdictions
require reponing
reporting of
of it,
it, and sunelilancc
surveillance systems
S)'Stenls ha\e
have rarel)·
rarely been implemented.
ImplmcntC'd Sec
SN Frank
Frank J.
... n..c
rlOI ~ Dlsr.ASES
DI<;£A5r<; (2007).
Sor.~llo, /JriJrJujroM
Oeaths from C)"$licwcam.
CySliarcosis, Lnilm
United Slllll'.f,
Stales. E\lrlta,,(,I
E\lERQt'G l!'of!
also concluded that
Ihal c}'stcn'icosis
cyslcrcicosis remains
n:m:llllli an unconmlon
uncommon fonn
f()ffil ofprtmature
ofpremalurc death
dc:Dth in
liS pTn"aknc::c
prevalence is unknown,
the United
Uniled Sllltes
States and
and lIS
Your report
report makes
makes anecdot.:il
anecdotal and general COOclU5iollli
conclusions :abouI
about the
thc possible growth of
of cysticercosis.
uJlOn which
which you rei)'
rely make
makc no such finding. In fact.
hut hath
both articles
articles upon
facl, in one anicle
ankle citcd
ciled within
article, 1M
the author
author concludes thai
that the dc!C'Clion
detection ofncuroc)'Sticercosis
the To\\
nes 'If11c1c,
ofl1l:uroc:)1illceroosls isIS based
pnmarily on
on the
the advancement
advancemenl oflcchnology
of technology thm
thai ddcCtcd
dClcctcd IhlS
Ih,! dlSCllSC
dlJlCll!IC In
1n immigrants
lmml!ll"lI.nts arriving
amving in
also A.C. White,
the Uniloo
UnitL'd Stules
Stutes in
in lhc
the 19705
1970s and 19805.
I980s. See, ulso
While, Jr., Nellrrx")'l'lllwco~'is:
NCIlf'UCpllrcrcosi$. Updwes
011 f:p,dl'1Il10/0g)'.
J:.puJ('/IIiology, Pm!logr!ll('sis.
PfiI!loge"esis, Diagaosis.
Diagllosis, (I/Id
and !of(l/IagcmclI!.
Managemelll. 51 A'l\.
A\/.... R~v.
R~v_ M.u.
Mi-n. 187
(2000) (finding
(finding thlilthree
thatlhrc<: developments Icc!
led to the recognition ofnellro<:ysticcrcosis
of nCllrocys!iccrcosis as
IIg aa major
of neurologic discllse:
disease; I)
I) dc'·c1opmcnl
de\'e1opmcnt of
of computerized
computcrized brain
Clluse ofncurologic
brnill studies
studies (MRh
(MRIs nod
und CAT
scans); 2)
2) IllT£c
large numbers
numbcn; orruml
of rum I immigrants
from developing countries
eountriM; amvmg
nmvmg m
m thc Unitcd
StutL'S during
during the
the 19705
1970s and
and 19SOS;
1980s; and
and 3) more IlCcurnlc
DCCUntte diagnosis lind
and ro:..'POrting
n:poning in
ill foreign
counlnes 10
10 demonstrate
demonstrate prevalence 10
in L:nin
Latin Amenca.
America, Africa.:llld
Africa. and Asia.)
In addition.
addition. ....we
belie...e DIHS·
DlHS CommitmC1ltto
commilmentto enhance!hc
enhance the medical
field's awareness and
e bclie\c
medical ficld'llIwat"C'ncSi
and early
diseases thai
that mIght
mIght be
be prt\'alent
pre\'alenl In
m aliens
aliens from panicular
detecllon or
partIcular geographiC
geographIC locales
locales is
is aa
These medical
medical professionals
professionals are
arc in
in !hi:
the best
to ldl'tlUf)identify all
major step
stcp fol'\\lll'l!.
forward. These
~ position
pl)§Luon 10
all diseases
that ma),
may be
be of
to mdi\iduals
individu31s in
in our
our cu5!Ody.
custody, and
311d those
thost diseases
concern to
dlSellSCS should
sho~ld not
not be
be limited
limned to
cyslicercosis only.
only. This
This commitment
cOmmil.lllenl i!
is o~lhDOd
outlined In
III Rcoommcndallon
Recommcndation 112,
abo\ c. We
Itl, 8OO\c.
Yo Calso
address your tonCcmI
concerns about
about c)'Sticercosis
that Ihc
the bcsIlIIppro3Cb
best 3pproach to
to address)'OlU
c)"5tiem:osU; Of
or infectious
infcctlous diseases

ICE Policies Related To Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration 

Detention Facilities 

Page 41

Appendix B
Management’s Comments to the Draft Report

ECT: DIG Draft Report "ICE Policies Related tu
to Dctaim:e
Detainee Deaths alld
and the 0\
ersight of
Immigration Dctclllion
dmed Jan. [[.
Detention Facilities," dated
II, 2008
Page 6
n,:evaluatc the current
currcnt medical fonns in order to detennine whether
request that OTHS
DJHS reevaluate
is to rcqucstlhllt
amending thcse
these (omls
fonns is appropriate. In this regard,
regard. we hope Ihese
these additional educntional
educational efforts
and reviews will allow ICE to providc
provide the most appropriate level
lcvel of medical care for individuals
in our custody. At this poim in time; ho\\ever,
howc\"cr. ICE cannot
I;l1l1not concur with the specific
recommcndation to include questions regarding a family history of cysticercosis for the
thc reasons
noted aOO\'c.
It is requested that this recommendation be conSidered
considered resolved and closed.

Recommendation 4: -Revise
nOllfication section of ICE's
ICt:·... detainee
~Revlse the
Ihe notification
derainee death standard 10
thai the agency
Ilgenc)' and
detention partners
report a delainee's
detaincc's death in states
stales that
ensure Ihal
lind its
ilS delenlion
panners reportll
require nOlificatioo
In the
of II deub
deRlh in custody. Documentation of
fhis reponing
nOlil'icatlon in
Ibc e\'eot
e\'eDt ora
should appear in aII delainee's
del:linee's rile."
ICE Response: ICE concurs in pan and disagrees in part
pan with the
thc recommendation. We
Wc belicvc
that notific<ltions
notifications to state
,tate official,
\"ery important,
imponanL but believe that
thm our currcnt
CUITClll ,tandard
officials are vcry
standard makes
this requirement clear. Upon the death
de.1lh ofa detainee within an ICE facility. including IGSAs, a
medical examiner
e.~lIminer of the local jurisdiction is summoned to pronounce
pronouncc the dcath. This process
notilic3tioll pursuant to OIG's
constitutes notification
DIG's recommendation
recommend:uion since it is the responsibility of this
sworn public official to make any further notifications as required by state law. Similarly, in
those instances whcn a detainee dies \\hile
h05pital ami
lit a hospital. it is the responsibility of the hospitnl
\"'hilc at
the physician who makes the dedarnILoD
declaration ofdeath to make any additional notificarions
notifications as
n:quired by
b)' state or local law.
It is imponant
impoltant to note that in the elISe
case referenced in the repon
report -where
- wherc the proper Slllte
st3te officials
wcre not
nOl made aware of the death -a
- a loclll
local official was properly llotified
lIotified but had fuiled
failed to funher
report the death to the state
slate officials as required under New Mexico laws and regulations. We do
believc a revision 10
nOl believe
to our standard could have cured this official's failure to follow the la\\ in
his jurisdiction.

Based upon this mfommtion.
infonnation. it is requestcd
that this recommendation be considered TCoolved
and closed.
ulldentllnding with the
Recommendation 5: "Seek to enler into a memorandum of understanding
Department of Justice, Office of Federal DetenlioD
Detention Trusl«
Truslee thai
tbat establishes a process that
OFIJT and ICE 10 regularly share information resulting from faeili!")'
enables OFDT
fadli!)' site ,-isiu:'
[n fact.
OFOT and has coordinated with OFDT in Ihe
the pas\.
past. Presently,
fact, ICE meets regularly with DFDT
there are
an:: no barriers to OFDT obtaining facility inspection rCPOMS
rCJlons alld
lind OFDT has ncver
nevcr (x:ell
denied access to any infonnation
infornlution it might lleed
need for its own mission or strntegic
slTategic objectives.
Nevertheless. ICE will request
that OFOT
OFDT agree
af,'Tcc 10 a Memorandum of Understanding regarding
iacility site visits and ICE will
wiU work toward aII bl:1.ter
better working relation,hip
relatioll5hip with DFDT,
timelmess of
health care delivery,
on issues of mutual interest.
interest, such as timeliness

ICE Policies Related To Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration 

Detention Facilities 

Page 42

Appendix B
Management’s Comments to the Draft Report

SlWECT: DIG Draft Rcpon "ICE Policies Related
Rel:uc:d 10 Detainee
DculInc:c Deaths
Dealh. and Ihe
Overslghl of
Immigruuon Dctemion
IX'lcmion Facililics.··
FlICililies,.·· daled
dated Jan.
Jail II. 2008
Page 77

OIG n:port
I'q)On eomxlly
cornxtly indicatcs
indicates thai
that ICE
and omT
OFDT hn\'e
hD.\'!: difT..
-rcnt S1andardS. it seems to
While the DIG
indicate that
Wt enhanced sharing of
infonnation "ill
loI.iU primarily benefit ICE. We bchC'\e
beliC'\.e we ha\e
information wllh
Wllh OFDT. panicularly
par1ICU!arl)' aboUl
aboUI the R('C
RCC We also bchC'le
bchC\e thai
shared valuable mfonnatlOl'J
OFOT can
Cllll bencfil
lx:nclil greatly
gn:ally from our own
O\\-n le\
iews of ICE facilities
fllCilitiCi because \loe
\\e ha\'c
hD.\'e such rigorous
0\ might policies.
polJcies. although this
lhis was not
00{ discussed
disl:ussed in the repon. These
Tb~ ovmlghl
OVmlghl policies tnclude
hlnng thlrd-pany
third-part), experts bearlf1g
beanng experiencc
c:xpcncncc similar to thc
the C:l:pcncncc
c:tpcnence OFOT
Of-TIT lalulrcs
talU1TC5 of ilS
ill> o",n
Quahly Assurance
AMUnlrK"e Spceill.!ists.
We nou:
the defim:ncics
RCC were
note that
thaI many of
deficu:ncic:s identified
ldrnlified by ICE's inspocuon
mspccuon ofw
of the RC'C
\\.m: 00{
identified in OFOT
OFDT rcpons.
~ ICE's inspection under
und.., . our own
o....-n rigorous
riserous sllll1dan!s
stunJards direclly led 10
decision 10 mt\O\'e
removc all dewllCC$
d~necs fiom
from RCC by August
Augusa 5,
S, 2007. OFOT's
ofthc: RCC
facilily '"
ere 1101
l10I thc
the impetus
Impetus for
our decision. Still.
Still, we
Wi: bcliC\e
bcliC\c we CIUl
('UIl aIW3}S
always bcndil
benefit from the
R'\'iews OFDT
ornT CondUCIS
eonduclS al
at f;Kililies
facililie-s housing ICE detainees
<kta.inees as o\'ersi1jht
o\'might ofdettnllon
ofde:tnmon faciliues
fxilllles is
an ongoing
onpllng endeavor
t'fIdca\'or that reqUIres
n:qUII'CS conltnual
continual R'finemenl.
)'our rqx>r1
repon COrTec1ly
correctly noted, OFDT
omT conducted
condlX':ted IWO
1.....0 1"C\,c\\.S
m.1C\loS oflhe
of the RCC OFOT
orDT assIgned
assigned the
As }'Our
RCC an
lUl "at
~:u. riskrisle rating in its SeplcmbcT
Scplembcr 2006 moniloring rcpon.
n:pon. OFOT
omT eonducted.
conducted. follo.....-up
Slie visll
tn February 2007,
2007. and.
and determined thai RCC operations
oper:1tions "ere
\\ere :acceptable
acceptable, An OFOT
fol1o\\ -up revie¥o
reviC\\ noted that the
!.he facility had problems in discrete
discrete: areas
omT determined
these: areas relale 10
to minimum
mimmum mluiremenlS
10 ensure Ihal detamees
detilmce5 arc
housed in a safe, secure,
sc:curc, and
Ilnd humane
humllrll;' environment
c:n... ironmcnlll5
b) OFDT's
ornT'li FcdcnJl
Fcekral Performance
as ddefined
fin by
2007, U.S. District Coun
Coon ChiefJudge
Chie:fJudge MlIJ'1ha
Based Detention Standards Review Book. In June 2007.
VftSqu1.'7 and
nnd your office rorwarrled
forwarded to
10 ICE allegations
alleganons concerning thc
!tec thaI
that ",c
\loe bchC\ed
were beyond OFOT's basic standards.

immediatc aclion ill
in response
n:sponsc to thesc
these:: allcgations
alkgalions of misconduct and
lind serious
ICE took immediate
slationed full-time
rull-timc ORO officers IUld
and supcn isors at lhe
the filCility
facility and mct
mel daily
deficiencies. ICE sllltioned
stafTto ensure
with RC'C stafflo
c:nsurc these ISSUes were resolved In Plans
I'lans of ActIon.
Actlon, ICE
ICC conducted R'gular
lIudilS orthe
of the facility
facilily and
lIIId reponed
reported all deficiencies
dcficicm:il'S 10
to RCC stafTduring
staffdUring mandalory
mlmdatoty daily meetings.
After overseeing
overseemg much ofRCC's
of RCC's day-to-day
daY-lo-day operatIons.
operatlons, no appreciable
Il.pprecHlble improvemems
improvements \\ere
made that assured
Il.~surcd ICE
I('E thaI
that its detainees remained in a safe.
safe, secure, humane environment.
Cll\'lronmen1. As
correctly noted in
1M your rcpon.
rcpDrt, all ICE detainCl::s
dctainees were rcrnovcd
rcmo\'oo from the RCC facility.
fa~ilily. ICE has
it docs nOI
nOlified OFDT that
not intend
intc:nd to
10 renew a conlract
contrncl with
\\,lh thc
the: RCC until that
thnt facility
facihty meets
our standurds.
simply, OFOT's basic reviews would not havc
have made a difTerence
dlfferctlcc in our decision 10 remove
Ihesc detainees. We do not believe your recommcndation should be primllrily
primarily bascd
based on lhe
peculiar events
c\'enls that
thllt occurred at the
ReC by comparing
companng OFDT's
OFD r's review
teVlew lind
and ICE's
ICC's oversight of
the RCC. We note that
dillt U.S. Man;hals'
Man>hals' prisoners
prisonl'r5 remain at
the RCC facility.
fllCility. The faetlhal
faClthltl U.S.
.\Ilarshals prisoners
pric;oners remam at the RCC
ReC and
:md ICE detainees
delainees have
have been removed Stresses
stresses that
differing standards
~tlll1dllrds often result is different rcsulls.
requested Ihatthis
that Ihis recommendarion
recommendation be considered rcsoh'ed
resch'cd and open until ICE provides liS
IlIt is requCSted
that OFOT
OrOT agree 10 aII \icmorandum
'vfcmornndum of Lndcrslandmg
Lndcrstandlng regarding
rcganhng thc
the shanng of facihly
VISllS repons.

ICE Policies Related To Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration
Detention Facilities 

Page 43

Appendix B
Management’s Comments to the Draft Report

Related to
(0 Detainee
DelalOee Deaths
Dealhs and
and the:
lhe Ov(:rsight
Oversight of
OIC Draft Report "ICE Policies Related
Immigration Delention
Facilitics," dated Jan.
Jan, 11,2008
II, 2
Detention Facilities,"
Page 8

IIIt is
considered resolved
I't'SOI"'ed and open until
until such
such time
time lIS
as ICE
is reqUCSled
requested thai
that ihis
this TttOmmcndlllion
reeommCJ1dation be considered
provides DIG
OIG with the ).iOU
MOU solieilll.tion.
ise monitoring prolocols
protocols ltnd
.lad medicltl detenlion
detention starldard
,tandllrd 10
Recommendltlion 6: ~Rev
require sampling and continuous oversighl the 14-dll~' physical exam standard across
ICE's detention facililles,"
\\111 use
combInatIOn of
with the recommendauon.
recommendation. ICE
ICE will
a combination
ICE Response:
Response: ICE concurs \\llb
and emurc
ensure that
l4-day examination
to address llns
this recommendation and
tbe l4-day
following in order
order 10
standard is follo\\
First, contractod
contracted on-site oversight
ed. First.
O\etSlght stalTwill
surr.....ill be required
required to
10 conduct
conduct regular
the facilnlcs
facilities they
compliance with
sampling and monllonng
monitoring at Ihe
OV"C'nCC to determine
detemllne levcls
IC\'els of
with the
lhey ovCJ"see
l4-day e){aIll \\
indo\\. standard. For those facilities
facililies that arc
arc: serviced
se....,coo by
by aI regional
tt'gIonal COlllractor,
sampling will be conducted remotely. Seeond.
Second, the OPR Detention
DetentIon Facility
FXIIIlY Inspection
InspCCllOn Group
monitoring.. Finally,
Fillll1l), OPR
OPR will
of its compliance monitoring,
(DFIG) \\;1111150
will also examine this area as pan
part ofia
Program (SIP)
(SIP) survey
to tlus
this recommendatlon
recommendation on the Self Inspection Program
include a question
question as 10
instmments pnor
prior 10
to the ne.xt
next DRO
SlP rcportlng
reporting cycle.

is requested
requested that this rccommeDdation
recommendation be considered resolved
IiII is
n::solved and open
open until
until such
such time
lime as
as ICE
can dcmonstnlle
demonstrate thatlhe
that the required sampling and monitoring arc
are taking
laking place.
Recommend:uion 7: -Rev
monitoring polities
policies and other
ise mODiloring
orher guidance
guidanC'e given
gr.'tn 10
to reviewers
regarding Ihe
the materilility
materiality of site
visit nport
reporl findings to ensu
re that
ill' visir
tbal standards,
stand.ards. such
such as
scr«ning and olbers
others ",Iated
relaled to access
tuberculosis scrtt'oing
leem to medical care, weigh
""ei~b more hell\'i!)'
huv'il}' on
'I compliance starus.··
aa facillt)
ICE Response:
Response: ICE
ICE concurs
concurs wiih
with the recommendation,
recommendation. Loder
Under the
lhe current
current annual
annual review
process, llI't:a5
areas thaI
that ha"'e
have significant life-safety eonS~'quenccs
consequences are
arc weighed
\\"eiWicd more
more heavily than
than olher
items when
when asSIgning
assigning final
final ratings or detennining overall compliance level.
le\el, In this
lhis way,
way, itil is
faciHlY to
to rccche
rccei..e an overall acceptable rating
nIting despitc
possible for
for aa facility
despite deficiencies in
tn a8 narrow
new performallce-based
perfom13nce-based delention
programmatic area.
area. As
As pan
part of ICE's IIC\\
detention standards,
s\aI1dnrds, meaningful
assigned to each standard so as to
performancc indicalOrs
indicators will be asSIgned
10 generate aa final
final score or
or rating
facility's overall
overall pcrfonnancc
performance that is bolh
both llCCUrllle
accurate lind
and credible,
a facility's
cl'Cdible, Lastly,
Laslly, we also
also note
nOlI' that
any life
life and
and safety
safety deficiencies
deficiencies found during an inspection must be corrected belore
before the
inspection team leaves
leaves the
the facility,
requested that
that this
this recommendation be
be considered rcsol\ed
resolved and open pending
IIIt isis requested
pendmg the
the agencyagenc)"of the new pcrfonnance-based
performance-based delention
detention standards.
wide implcmCntlUion
implementation oftltt:
stlindards, ICE
ICE will provide aa
these new
new standards
standards to
to OIG
OlG to
to fully
fully close
close the
the recommendation,
copy of
"Require reviewers
reviewers IlrC'parlng
preparing monitoring
monitoring rqlOrls
Recommendation 8:
8: -Require
reports 10
to use
use narrlltives
narratives 10
illuminate speci:alare:as
special areas of
of (ODeern
concern aDd
and prO\
additional details
aboul issues
idl' IddltioDlil
detlils about
is~uCli relc\'ant
rel(\'lInl to
10 aa
compliance stltUS.
's C'Ompliance
ICE concurs
concurs WIth
with thIS
thi5 recommendation
recommendation. We
We began
use these
these narrath'es
ICE Response:
Response: ICE
began to
to use
namuvcs to
provide lhe
the reader
reader with
with Unportanl,
important, rdevanl
relevant infonnation
information coIICl'11ling
concerning facility
reviews late
facililY rcviC\\s
laiC last
last year.
As ran
part of
of ICE's
ICE's Improved
improved management
management and
and o'<ef!lIght
oversight ofdetentIon
of detention facilities,
f3Cilities. ICE
ICE implemented
implemellled aOJ.

ICE Policies Related To Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration 

Detention Facilities 

Page 44

Appendix B
Management’s Comments to the Draft Report

SUBJECT: OIG Draft Repon "ICE Policies Relaled
Related 10
to Detainee Oe3ths
Dc:alhs and the (hmight
(h.might of
ImmlgT3uon Detention
DC'tentloll FacilitJes:'
Jan. II.
I J. 2008
FadlilIes:' dated Ian.
Page 9

robust detention
dctennon complianu
October 2007,
2007. under lhe
the immediate O\tnlght
compliantt program in (ktober
o~ersight of
ORO Detention
Dctemion Standards
Complil1l1Cc J.:nit
un annual
wmual external
Staodanls Compliance
(DSClJ). The program includes an
inspection program to be performed by contracted inspccton.
inspectors ofCre:tlllle
ofCrealive Corrections, Inc. This
contr.iCtN inspectional
inspec:tional force is comprised of
correctlonaJ facility
forme!' wardens.
wardens, nurses.
nurses, correctIonal
personnel. and olhi:r
other subject-matter
subject-maIler expertS.
t.'<petlS. This program has
Iw eliminated
climil\llled the need
nCl.'d to assign
collateral inspection compliam;e
complillrlCc duties to more th:uI
th:a.n 400 ORO officm
offiem Each inspection
mspeclion repon
that are extcnsi"e
gl~y contaInS
conlalllS narra!l\'CS
rIlllTa1l\'CS tlult
L"Xlc:nsi~e and spexify:
specify; I)
stMdanI not bt.-ing
any standanl
being flli:t;
met; 2) those
areas ofdelio:icncy
me Cl1U51:
J) !he
ofdeficiency mon
that ... en:
en;: the
CllllSC of
the facilit)'s
facility's non-eompli=;
non-eompliance; lU1d
and 3)
the correcli"e
have to be completed 10 return lhe
:tCtIOns that
th:tt ....
ould halle
the fucihl)'
comphanc.e. OSCL
DSCl,; staffofficers
facility 10
to complianu.
also distill the salient POints
points of
appropriatc personnel
the repons and task
wk the appropriate
pnsooncl ....ith
~ith initialing
cotTeCth'e action
It is reqUc:5too
considered resolved
n:soh'ed and ciosal.
requested th2t
that this n;wmmcnda1ion
recommendation be OOIlsidered
closed. A copy of an
inspecuon by Cre3IIve
Creative Corrections..
Correaions. Inc
undC1" separate
~te lettcrbead
dcmonstr:tte the
Inc. will be sent wxIer
letterhead to demonstrate
actions in this area.

Rtrommtndllllion 9: WDevtlop
-~'rlop a
stlDdard tbll
rrqulrt'S faeiJilits
facUllies housing
bousing ICE dftalnrn
III standard
thai rtquirH
delaion'S 10
revie~ function.implemenl an inlfmll
inltmal revie¥o

ICE Response: ICE concurs in pan and disagrees in
m pan ....
lth thiS recommendation. We have
implemented aII procedure
to pro"ide
proccthm: that
tlw.t requires a facility 10
pro...ido:- a detailed
d..1ailcd plan
phll1 ofaction
of action after
n:eei"ing an annual revie>\.
reviev. in order
onic:r 10
to addres.s
add~ arty
defiCICDCICS, We disagree 10
any and all noted defiCiencies.
to lhe
flJCility can
indcpcodentl} lake
take such
¥o ithout the input and
extL'flt that
thlll a local facilit)
CUll independentl)
Iiuch remedial action \\ithoutthe
assisl:lI1ce of subject-matter
SUbJCCI-ffiJUCT expertS
stand3rds Md
experts trained in our detention standards
and policies.
We note that our
oW" standards
sUlCldards are
lite nOliQITul
national standards. Accordingly.
Accordingly, ICE sm....cs
strives to pro....
con...isll:IlI, umfonn conditions
condltJons ofconfinenlent
exc~ those standards 11\
ofconfinement that meet or exceed
at e\ery
ICE detainees.
c!l;:1ainccs. To meet
this goal, we have Quality Assurancc
AssurJIlCC specialists from
facility housing TCE
the Nllkarnoto
at 31
) I large
Nakamoto Group on-site :tl
l:trge IGSAs and
Mel expect
<::\pect these speciali5ts
specialists to be lit
III all
III! of our
major !GSAs
IGSAs by the end of the year.
ycar. These Quality
Qualit)' Assurance professionals:lre
profession:lls:lre responsible for
reviewing ua facility's perfommItce.
pcrfomJancc. ICE has also contracled
contracted with Creative
Creati....c Corponltions
Corporations to
re..icws ofour facilities. These
conduct annual reviews
TIlese thinl-pllny
third-pany re\ iewcrs
icwen; allow ICE to obtain 1Illtrue
und uecuratc picture
picturc of
the pcrfonnllJlcc
pcrfonnance of our facilities.
facilities, while althe
at the same lime
tIme malDtaining
mamtainmg a
level of
sturldarili. Wc
We do 11m
care pursuant
to our standards.
not believe
believc II loelil
local facility can
ClIO sdfsclfmonLlor its
Its J'lerfonnance
perfonnance against
againST our n:trion:tl
pany experts.
national standards withoUlthe
wilhoUlihe input of third party
expens. a
hcad4Uut1crs component.
componcnt. and the added level
Icvel of ovcrsight
ovcrsiyht the Detention
DetcnTion facilities
Facilities Inspection
Group and your office may provide. We believe these
thesc independent
independcllt reviewers will produce more
reliable reportS
rt.'pons Ihan
than would /Ia process conducted by a facility's
candid, consiSlent.
consistent, and
lind reliablc
faclhly's own
Our current
CUlTCnt pf/lClicc
pfllclicc lKldn.--sscs
Ilddresscs the concern you l1Iised
raised in your recommendation. When
deficiencies are identified during annu:al
annual reviews. facilities
facilitit>S arc
urc required
to submit
subntit II Plan
PllUl of
Aetion (POA) thai
that idcntifies
id;:ntilics the correcti\
coTTCCti\ e action to be taken 10
to remedy all areas ofconcern.
at the HQ leveL
Once the POA is approved
appro\'ed allhe
level, the
thJ:' field office
offiee is required to
\0 ,:nsure
ensure that
mal all
deficiencies have been corrected within
\\ithin 90 day!;
days ofnotification
ofnolification lhat
that the POA is appro\·ed.
Additionally..... hen the noted
notoo deficiencies arc
are 5e\CTC
se~ere enough to result in an on:rall
overall faung
rating of

ICE Policies Related To Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration
Detention Facilities 

Page 45

Appendix B
Management’s Comments to the Draft Report

Draft Report
Rcpon "ICE Polici~
Policies: Relatalto
Rclatalto Detainee
Detainee: Deaths and the Oversight
OversIght or
01G Drafl
Immigration Detention Facilities..Facilities. ~ dated Jan. 11.2008
I I. 2008
Pagc 10
up inspection of
the facility
fadlit)' ....
ill be required
"deficient~ or ":11
"at risk" being assigned. a full follo.....
orIast annual rc\"il.'\\.
.... i1hin six·months from the
mi: date
dale oflait

alxnc. ICE has already de\Clopcd
de...clopcd aII polK)'
As slated
staled abo\"c.
polky thaI
that ....
iIl place Quality .'\ssur.:mce
professionals in large
!large IGSAs.
IGS..o\s. These Quality Assurance
Assur.:mce professionals are
uc: responsible for
perfonnanu. IrE
specialistS on-site
revi~mg a faGllity's
faeility's perfonnanc~.
currently has these Quailty
Quality Assurance spc:cialists
JI large facilities
facililies and expects all
IlIIJ;c IGSAs to be SIa(fed
\\ ilh theso;:
these professionals
profe»iona15 b)<
ail :10
40 large
slafTed with
in 31iarge
th= indcpeooetlt
ind~CfIt n:\
i~c:o ....
.... i11 prod~
produe>: mot"t
consistc:nl.. and
July 2008. We bc-liC"·{"
belie\e lheso:
more candid, conSIstent.
rc:l11lble reports thnn
\\oold a process conduclCd
facil1ty's own
than would
conducted by aII facillly'
0'*11 personnel
We concur that there
there: needs
oeeds 10
disagnoc 10
to be a sound internal R:\oiC\\
reviC"\lo mechamsm. but
....e disagree
to the
reviev. procCSll
process should be conducted
by facility penQlVlCI.
personnel. Put
simply, ....
extent that the n:viC\\
conductoo b)'
Pul simply. do 001
process by a facility ....
ill c:nsUll:
ens~ that ICE maintains
53fe and humane
bi:li\.""c an int<:maI1"e\1C\\
intcmal R'il:¥> pnK"CSS
mainlluns safe
conditIOns ofconfinonc:nl
consistCllI With
ual1OTll.1 detcfl1lon
dcu:nllon Slandanls.
ofconfinement consistent
with our
OUT national

mfonnation. it wques>ed
Based upon this mfonn.nion.
requested ttw
th.:lt Ibis
this recommendallon
recommendation be
be' considered resolw:d
resoh'ed and
d""""El"pedil~ all Decl'$sa~'
n~a~ dbcussion
diJIruulon and rewurttS
Recommendation 10: ~.:):pl:'ditf
to dl"elop
de\elop aI s)stem
of ekdronic
electronic heallh
health rrcord
rec:ord for ICE
ICE: detainees.

ICE Response: ICE concurs ....-ith
with the
thc recommendation.
recommendalion, Currently. ICE is "'orking
\\oorkmg ....
ith DIHS
infonnlltlon technology
tcdwology expcns 10
w facilitate the dcploytllt'l1t
deploymCl1t ofc1cclroltic
h....lth fI..'tords
and information
ofelectronic health
records for
Implement such as system muSt
musl first
ICE delainees.
detainers. This process of obtaining the technology to Implemoll
Ilppro.....\1 by DHS' In\<cstment
In...cstmCl11 Rc...
icv.' Board. ICE will
\\0 ill ",on..
\\oor!.. diligenlly
diligently ....
ith other
otlter DHS
be approved
'" ilh
deplo)"TIlent ofelectronic health records as soon as possible.
components to ensure
ens~ deplo}ment
II is rcqucstt'llthal
requested Ihal this fC(;ommendation
rcsolH'd and
und closed.
n:commendation be considered rcsohcd
Kecummi:ntl:lIlon 11:
II: "Work
Dh'islon of IImmleratlon
Unllh Sen'ices
Ser.-Jc~~ 10
···Work wllh
with the I)i\'ision
mml~ration lleallh
to identify
stafhhortages, and then "'ork
work "'ith
",ilh ICE's clinkal
clinical partncrs
partncn 10 develop and
all clinical
Implement a slrategy
slrat~gy 10
to till
011 clinical starr
staff shortagH
shortages at
immigralion dtll'nlion
detenlion facilitlfS.

ICI.:. Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. ICE's hellhhcllre
heahhcllre service providers are
to lhc
the effecls
effeels of the nalional
national shortage
heallhCll.rc professionals. ICE
shor1agl' of quali
lied heallhcare
rCE is
not immune lo
complele a strategic
slIlltegic plan IhlltwjJJ
presently working with DIHS 10
to complete
thaI will meet
the intelll of the
rceommcndsllon. The issues currently hemg
being explored by the stratewc
stnllewc plan includes:


officer of
the USPHS:
Hirinl! addilional hcalthcare recruiters.
rel.TUitcrs. including aII commissioned officcr
icwing current medical staffing profiles to detennine
detenntne how closely staff
slafr qualifications
ww industry standards;
the areas ofaccrcdiU1tion.
of accreditation. l'ms.
NDS, and
align in the:
Improving communication and prQl;eS5ing
prQ(:tSliing of background in\<cstigations:
iding hClllthean.:
incclllhcs such as signing
hcalthcare professional recruilment
recruitmenl and retention inccTllin:s
bonustS and SludOllloan
repa)ment. and
student loan repa)ment;
Collaborating with
hirin.l1, and
und plllCI."IIH."Ill
plllCCRlcnt of flK.'dical
medical professionals to
wilh the USPHS for the hiring
suppon ICE's detained
dctamed populations.

ICE Policies Related To Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration
Detention Facilities 

Page 46

Appendix B
Management’s Comments to the Draft Report

Detamee Deaths and the Overnight
Oversight of
DIG Drafl
Draft Repon
Report "ICE
""ICE Policies Related to Detainee
II, 2008
Immigration Detention
Detention Facilities:'
Facilities,'" datcd Jan. 11,
Page II
panners ha\'c
h:wc already implemented
implemented an
Consistent with
with this strategic plan. ICE and its climcal
clinical partners
quickly as
as possible.
aggressive hiring
hiring plan to
to ensure thatthesc
that these imponant positions are filled as quickly
unlil a formal
formal plan
plan to
ICE requests
requests that
that this recommendation be considered resolved and open until
address clinical
clinical staffing shortages is submiucd
submilled to DIG.
rnised in yourrcport
your rcpor1 for
for not
ICE would
would 1Iiso
also like to
to take
lake this opportunity to ;tddrcss
address the questions raised
by the
the ABA.
de\'eloping aa regulatory
regulatory scheme for the national detention standards as requested by
rcqul'SL ICE
ICE simply
As you
you corrcctly
corrcctly noted in your fl-port,
report, ICE continues to look into ABA's request.
detention facilities.
emphasizes that
that there has
has been Significant
significant progress in ICE's oversight of its detention
facililY oversight
oversight has
which O[G
DIG merely
merely ml'Tltioned
mentioned briefly,
briefly. ICE believes that our multi-layered facility
converting our
greatly Improved
improved the conditIons
conditions of confinement. ICE also notes that simply convening
impmvemcllt. Finally,
Finally, we
standards into
into regulations
regulutions docs
does nol
not m:cessarily
necessarily result ill action or improvement.
IGSA comractuallangoage
contrnctuallanguage to
to adhere
adhere to
disagree with
with the
the ABA's
ABA's contention that our
oor current
contrJctual language providcs
provides tcrmillation
Correllt [GSA
IGSA c011lraclUallanguagc
detention standards
standards in merely advisory. CUfTCnt
upon wrillen
wrinen nolice,
notice. 11,is
This language states the following:
the date of final signature by the
the ICE
This Agreement
Agreement shall become effcctivc
effcctive ulKln
opon thc
Service Provider and will
will remain
remain in
Contracting Officer
Offiecr and
and the all1horizcd
authorized signatory of
the SeIVice
llitless termmated
lermWllled 11/
1/1 writmg,
writtng. by
period nO/to
not 10 e.>;ceed
e.>:ceed .~ixty
suty (60) months, IIltless
effectJor 1I1I period
nmSI provide wriuC'I'
party. Either
Either parry
party //IllS/
I/O/ice ojits
aJits illlellliolt
intemiolt to
10 lerminate
rermil/uft' Ihe
the agreemelll.
SLtly (60)
(60) days in adm/Ice
aJl'QllCe oj
efJectil'e date oJJormal
the e./fectil'e
o/Jormal termi/wtion,
;ermiltation, or tile
lite Panie!1
Parries may
agree 10
10 aa shorter
shorter perIOd
period IIl/der
under t}le
procedures presCribed 11/
/)u: pnx'{'(!ures
l1/ Amell.'
ArtIcle X.
(emphasis added).
ICE isis gr:l1crul
grateful for the overview
ovelView and insight
insighl DIG
GIG has provided in its draft repon
cepon and
and we
we will
to ensure
ensure our facihties
facilities provide adequate
adequatc conditions ofconfinement.
continue to
orconfinement. Within
Within 90
90 days
days of
the issuancc
issuance of
DIG's final rcpon
repaM on this audit. ICE will gencrate
the OlG's
gencratc and submit to
to GIG
orG aa
Mission Action
Action Plan that spcci lies
fies the issues
issucs to be rc£olvcd,
resolvcd. the corrective
correctivc action
actIon to
to be
be taken,
taken, and
thc associated
associated deadlines for completion.

ICE Policies Related To Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration 

Detention Facilities 

Page 47

Appendix B
Management’s Comments to the Draft Report

,. ll<...
of 1I_,loa,1
II _,.
'la,..., af
' .....""


1." I "',m.,\I
II ,I"


.. ,,\~

u.s. Immigration
md Customs

I·(I! l'
1 1DII8

\1()R·"m \1 FOR:

J:m Borris
"e..-UI>rl Chief·OIG
ChI.:fOIG Liaison

.. RO\I

Reid t;;1j ~r
Willioun r R,"1J
'Clnr ~-1
<\~;In~ I)lr..


ln~pcLtor (jeneral
Timd~ ~oliJicUlion
'<>IJli"a1i"l:I (0
DH~ Office
Olli,,, uf
R~nJHl;! In1),'t31n,,'e Deaths
lei llelainee

(111 ~rI-

plc",>e e•.mlinue
10 en,urc
Ihal all
nutilications rL....el\e<!
."" <IJ. n;min<Jcr.
n.·fTllr".k:r. pl<."oL-o.:
<."unhm,,, II'
<."lbUf\." tlul
n.'':I,,,J allhe
<II U,,, Joint
regarding mt<>multM
infonmtion rebted
dealh flf
of aa detainee
hi Ie in
tenter regm:hng
rel3ted to the
Iftc de.ath
detail\« II
In 1("1II I cu,"ody
,UstOO' is
communicalcd J(l
10 the
OBS omcc
Inspector Gen.'rol
(DIG)I lekphollkally
lk:"UfUld~ "onunw,i".ucd
tho: DHS
om~ of Insp.."l:lor
h:lc:phi.Jru".1I1> (lIthe
at Ih\.·
lirsl a\ailablc opponunit\
rclc\'am inlormalion
0l'por1unll' In addihon.
aJdlliOn. all relc,an'
ml.>rmal"In concerning
'"''''...·nlln''' such
'u.:h deaths
d"ilth, ",ill
~11I be
tronsmiued un
th~ 1\<:'(1
bu,ine;,s u.a>
day as part
~ln the
nc'«l Iuoine""
p;u1 orthe
ullhc daily
Jail) DIG
OIG aocli\
.Jo..1i, il~ nOliJicmion
l)o.lIll'i1;uli,>n Please
cn~urc Ihal
,nat ,hi)
this irnpllnllflt
important pnx:...
~ ,)
is aJhcn.:J
adhcr... d In

ICE Policies Related To Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration 

Detention Facilities 

Page 48

Appendix C
Recommendation #1: Work with the Office of Inspector General to create a
policy that would lead to the prompt reporting of all detainee deaths to the
Office of Inspector General.
Recommendation #2: Work with the Division of Immigration Health
Services, the Centers for Disease Control, and other experts, to enhance
existing medical standards, rules for special needs individuals, and coverage
guidance related to infectious disease.
Recommendation #3: Revise medical intake screening forms and physical
exam questionnaires at detention facilities to include questions regarding the
detainee’s family history of cysticercosis.
Recommendation #4: Revise the notification section of ICE’s detainee death
standard to ensure that the agency and its detention partners report a
detainee’s death in states that require notification in the event of a death in
custody. Documentation of this reporting should appear in a detainee’s file.
Recommendation #5: Seek to enter into a memorandum of understanding
with the Department of Justice, Office of Federal Detention Trustee that
establishes a process that enables OFDT and ICE to regularly share
information resulting from facility site visits.
Recommendation #6: Revise monitoring protocols and the medical
detention standard to require sampling and continuous oversight of the 14-day
physical exam standard across ICE’s detention facilities.
Recommendation #7: Revise monitoring policies and other guidance given
to reviewers regarding the materiality of site visit report findings to ensure
that standards, such as tuberculosis screening and others related to access to
medical care, weigh more heavily on a facility’s compliance level.
Recommendation #8: Require reviewers preparing monitoring reports to use
narratives to illuminate special areas of concern and provide additional details
about issues relevant to a facility’s compliance status.
Recommendation #9: Develop a standard that requires facilities housing ICE
detainees to implement an internal review function.
Recommendation #10: Expedite all necessary discussions and resources to
develop a system of electronic health records for ICE detainees.
Recommendation #11: Work with the Division of Immigration Health
Services to identify all clinical staff shortages, then work with ICE’s clinical
ICE Policies Related To Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration 

Detention Facilities 

Page 49

Appendix C
partners to develop and implement a strategy to fill clinical staff shortages at
immigration detention facilities.

ICE Policies Related To Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration 

Detention Facilities 

Page 50

Appendix D
Comparison of Various Detention Standards

We compared various standards from ICE’s Detention Operations Manual, ACA’s PerformanceBased Standards for Adult Local Detention Facilities, Fourth Edition, and OFDT’s Federal
Performance-Based Detention Standards Review Book.
This analysis focused on standards of particular interest to this review. The following table outlines
and compares standards across the three organizations. The table is divided into three primary areas:
standards related to physical exams and access to care, standards related to detainee mortality, and
certain standards related to medical issues and grievances.

Standards Related to Physical Exams and Access to Care
Standard Element
Health Appraisals
In addition to general
regarding intake
screening when the
detainee is admitted
to a facility,
requirements include
a more detailed
medical exam of the
detainee within 14

Emergency Services

A health care provider will
conduct a health appraisal
and physical examination on
each detainee within 14 days
of arrival at facility. All
appraisals will be performed
according to National
Commission on Correctional
Health Care and the Joint
Commission on the
Accreditation of Health
Organization standards.
Standards for these exams
are not detailed.
In Service Processing
Centers and Contract
Detention Facilities, the InProcessing Health Screening
Form (I-794) is followed up
and the health care provider
will provide treatment
In local jails, a written plan for
the delivery of 24-hour
emergency health care is
required. No standards are
specified. Service
Processing Centers and
Contract Detention Facilities
will prepare plan in
consultation with the facility’s
routine medical provider. The
plan will include an on-call
provider, contact information
for local ambulances and
hospitals; and procedures for

A health care provider
will conduct a health
appraisal on each
detainee within 14 days
of arrival at facility. In
addition to following up
on the intake screening,
criteria regarding the
appraisal are discussed.

The facility director
ensures that medical,
dental, and licensed
health care professionals
complete mental health
assessments within 14
days of arrival. Criteria
are outlined by each
assessment for the
appraisals to be

A plan to provide 24-hour
emergency medical,
dental, and mental health
services is required.
Emergency evacuation
procedure is also
required. Criteria are
identified that includes
use of an emergency
medical vehicle,
hospitals, on-call
physicians, dentists, and
mental health

Ensures that written
policies and procedures
exist for emergency
health care, including
emergency evacuation
and transportation. A
plan to provide 24-hour
emergency response is
not identified. Criteria are
not identified for written
policies and procedures
that are to be in place.
However, staff will
practice medical

ICE Policies Related To Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration 

Detention Facilities 

Page 51

Appendix D
Comparison of Various Detention Standards

Requests for Medical

facility staff to use providers
consistent with security and
safety. Additionally, first aid
and medical emergency
standards and criteria are
Request slips will allow
detainees to request health
care services. Slips must be
received by medical facility in
a timely manner. If
necessary, detainees will be
provided with assistance in
filling out the request slip.
Clinical staff is to be available
on scheduled basis to
respond to requests.
In Service Processing
Centers and Contract
Detention Facilities, request
slips will be made freely
available for detainees to
request health care services
on a daily basis. Request
slips will be made available in
English, and the foreign
languages most widely
spoken among detainees. If
necessary, detainees will be
provided assistance in filling
out the request slip.

Additionally, back-up
facilities and providers
should be predetermined.

emergency plans; biannual trial runs are

All detainees are
informed about how to
access health care
services during the
process. This is
communicated orally and
in writing. Information is
translated into those
languages spoken by
significant numbers of
inmates. No member of
the correctional staff
should approve or
disapprove inmate
requests for health care

Detainees have daily
opportunities to request
health care services.
Detainee requests are
documented and are
triaged by a healthcare
professional within 24
hours on weekdays.
Appropriate health care
professionals triage
requests in a timely

Standards Related to Detainee Mortality
Standard Element
Detainee Deaths

ICE’s detainee death
standards articulate a variety
of notification requirements
for the facility and ICE staff.
Although mortality reviews by
the facility are not specifically
required, the overall policy
includes commendable levels
of detail about how the facility
and ICE are to address
detainee death cases.

ACA’s policy focuses on
notification of proper
authorities. Also, the
mandatory internal
review policy requires
that all deaths in custody
are to be examined by
the facility.

Suicide Prevention
All three entities
recognize the

Staff training requirements
are similar to ACA and OFDT.
Staff is required to observe

Staff is required to be
trained on suicide risk
and intervention. Mental

Like ICE and ACA, OFDT
stresses the importance
of notifying proper
authorities. Staff is to be
trained to respond to
serious illness or detainee
death. Examination of
required mortality reviews
are part of site visit
team’s assessment of
facility’s compliance.
Results of mortality
review are acted on
Policy specifically
requires that the facility is
to have a sufficient

ICE Policies Related To Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration 

Detention Facilities 

Page 52

Appendix D
Comparison of Various Detention Standards
importance of
training, observation,
and notification of

“imminently suicidal”
detainees no less than every
15 minutes.

health appraisals are to
include assessment of
suicide risk. Continuous
observation required for
suicidal inmates until
intervention by clinicians.

number of clinicians to
deal with suicidal cases.
Family members are to
be notified of an
attempted suicide.

Certain Standards Related to Medical Issues and Grievances
Standard Element
Dental Care,

Initial dental screening due
within 14 days. If dentist not
available, a physician,
physician’s assistant, or
nurse practitioner can
perform the assessment.

Dental Care, Routine

Routine care may be
provided for individuals
detained for more than 6
Kits are to be placed
according to ACA policy.

First Aid Kits


ICE’s process is outlined in
more detail than ACA and
OFDT standards. Facilities
are to use an informal
grievance process in an
attempt to resolve concerns
quickly, but detainees have a
right to file a formal written
grievance. Also,
requirements at Contract
Detention Facilities and
Service Processing Centers
are more detailed than for
county detention facilities.
One specific difference for
contract detention facilities
and service processing
centers is that only detainees
can file a grievance.

Initial dental screening
due within 14 days. A
dentist or trained
personnel under the
supervision of a dentist
should perform the
Requires “defined scope
of services” for detainees
without reference to
length of stay.
Designated health
authority and facility
administrator collaborate
to determine locations for
kits. Health staff
determines contents of
kits. Defibrillator must be
available to facility staff.
ACA’s grievance
standard does not have
specificity. Facilities are
required to have
grievance procedures
that include one level of
appeal, but specific
requirements are not

Like ICE’s policy, OFDT
standard does not require
that a dentist perform the

Routine care is to be
provided if the individual
is detained greater than
one year.
Not as specific as ACA.
Standard requires that
supplies for medical
emergencies are to be
readily available.

Grievance standard
includes many of the
elements found in ICE’s
standard, although an
informal process is not
specified. Standards in
other areas, such as
discrimination prevention,
require review of all
grievances alleging
discrimination based on
race, gender, religion,
and national origin.

ICE’s policy on staff-detainee
communication permits
detainees to make informal
ICE Policies Related To Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration 

Detention Facilities 

Page 53

Appendix D
Comparison of Various Detention Standards


Mental Health
In September 2006,
the Bureau of Justice
Statistics reported
that half of jail and
prison inmates have
mental health needs.

Special Needs
Detainees who have
certain specific
medical issues are
considered to have
“special needs.” The
concept is mentioned
by all three entities,
but defined differently
by each.

grievances to ICE. Formal
grievances are to be resolved
by the facility.
A detailed standard for “the
accurate diagnosis and
medical management” of
HIV/AIDS. The standard
requires that detainees with
active tuberculosis should be
evaluated for HIV infection.
Facilities are also directed to
report cases per state and
federal rules.
According to DIHS coverage
policy, follow-up care is
covered. HIV testing is
covered if a clinician
documents the need.
Initial health screening is to
include mental health
assessment. Facility staff is
to be trained to recognize the
signs and symptoms of
mental illness as a means to
decrease suicide risk. The
standard establishes that
mental health care will
generally be provided in a
hospital or community setting,
rather than the detention
The Officer in Charge is to be
notified when individuals are
diagnosed with special
needs. Examples of
conditions requiring “special
attention” are pregnancy,
special diets, medical
isolation, and AIDS.

A mandatory standard
that is not as specific as
ICE’s HIV policy. The
written plan required
under the standard must
include procedures for
surveillance, treatment,
and other areas.

Policy on chronic
conditions requires that
individuals with AIDS are
to receive regular care by
physicians who provide
for individual treatment

Establishes that an
“appropriate mental
health authority”
approves mental health
services. Standards are
to ensure that facility staff
can identify mental health
needs, proper care is
provided (generally
through referrals for
outside care).

OFDT standards include
additional details on
specific mental health
policies. For example,
OFDT provides details on
the contents of mental
health appraisals and the
need to provide needed
medications for routine
and emergency

Clinical and facility
personnel are to ensure
“maximum cooperation”
on individuals who are
chronically ill, disabled,
geriatric, or seriously
mentally ill. Special
needs individuals are
granted a hearing and
additional due process
steps before transfer to
another facility.

OFDT has the most
specific policy in this
area, including steps to
providing health care for
the special needs
population. These
include targeted physical
exams, use of chronic
care clinics, necessary
subspecialty visits, and
preventive care.

ICE Policies Related To Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration 

Detention Facilities 

Page 54

Appendix E
Major Contributors to this Report

William McCarron, Chief Inspector, Department of Homeland Security,
Office of Inspections
Darin Wipperman, Senior Inspector, Department of Homeland Security,
Office of Inspections
Jacob Farias, Inspector, Department of Homeland Security,
Office of Inspections

ICE Policies Related To Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration 

Detention Facilities 

Page 55

Appendix F
Report Distribution
Department of Homeland Security
Deputy Secretary
Chief of Staff
Deputy Chief of Staff
General Counsel
Executive Secretary
Director, GAO/OIG Liaison Office
Chief Security Officer
Assistant Secretary, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Audit Liaison
Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs
Assistant Secretary for Policy
Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs
Office of Management and Budget
Chief, Homeland Security Branch
DHS OIG Budget Examiner

Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees, as appropriate

ICE Policies Related To Detainee Deaths and the Oversight of Immigration 

Detention Facilities 

Page 56

Additional Information and Copies
To obtain additional copies of this report, call the Office of Inspector General
(OIG) at (202) 254-4199, fax your request to (202) 254-4305, or visit the OIG web
site at

OIG Hotline
To report alleged fraud, waste, abuse or mismanagement, or any other kind of
criminal or noncriminal misconduct relative to department programs or

Call our Hotline at 1-800-323-8603;
Fax the complaint directly to us at (202) 254-4292;
Email us at; or
Write to us at:
DHS Office of Inspector General/MAIL STOP 2600, Attention:
Office of Investigations - Hotline, 245 Murray Drive, SW, Building 410,
Washington, DC 20528.

The OIG seeks to protect the identity of each writer and caller.