Immigration Enforcement: Arrests, Detentions, and Removals, and Issues Related to Selected Populations

In January 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13768 that instructs the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to enforce U.S. immigration law against all removable individuals. In February 2017, the Secretary of DHS issued a memorandum (2017 DHS memo) establishing policy and providing guidance related to the Executive Order. Within DHS, ICE is responsible for providing safe confinement for detained aliens, including certain vulnerable populations.

GAO was asked to review ICE immigration enforcement priorities, including those for vulnerable populations. This report examines (1) ICE data on arrests, detentions, and removals from calendar years 2015 through 2018; (2) the policies in effect for selected populations and any changes ICE made to align these policies with the 2017 DHS memo; and (3) the extent to which ICE collects data on selected populations and what those data show.

GAO analyzed ICE data on arrests, detentions, and removals from calendars years 2015 through 2018; reviewed policies and documents on eight populations GAO selected based on ICE policies and input from organizations that represent various vulnerable populations; and interviewed agency officials.

The numbers of administrative arrests (arrests), detentions, and removals of aliens (people who are not citizens or nationals of the United States) by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) varied during calendar years 2015 through 2018, and increased overall for the period. Males, aliens from four countries—Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras—and convicted criminals accounted for the majority of ICE arrests and removals. The majority of detentions were made up of males, aliens from the same four countries, and non-criminals.

ICE has policies related to six of the selected populations GAO examined, including aliens who are: transgender, individuals with disabilities, individuals with mental disorders, juveniles, parents of minors, and pregnant. These policies provide guidance on identifying, detaining, caring for, and removing aliens in these populations. After issuance of the 2017 DHS memo, ICE removed language from its existing policies for individuals who are pregnant and parents of minors that it determined to be inconsistent with 2017 DHS memo.

Available ICE detention data show that detentions of transgender and pregnant individuals increased from calendar years 2016 to 2018 and detentions of individuals with disabilities increased from 2017 to 2018. Detentions at facilities staffed by ICE medical personnel of individuals with mental disorders and women who are nursing varied from calendar years 2015 to 2018. We found that ICE does not collect or maintain readily available data on detained parents or legal guardians of U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident minors, as required by ICE policy. Without such information, ICE headquarters officials cannot ensure that ICE officers are collecting and entering this information into the system as required by policy. ICE officials said they have considered actions to identify this population, but are no longer considering these actions as of October 2019. Maintaining these data in a readily available format could help ensure that ICE personnel identify, evaluate, and share information on this population.

GAO is recommending that ICE collect readily available data on detained parents or guardians of U.S. citizen and legal permanent resident minors. DHS did not concur with the recommendation. GAO continues to believe this recommendation is valid as discussed in the report.

In 2015, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) estimated the total  alien population in the United States was about 27.3 million; of that  number, DHS reported that about 12 million aliens were without lawful  status or presence. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE),  one of DHS’s component agencies, is responsible for identifying,  apprehending, detaining, litigating charges of removability against, and  removing aliens who are in the United States in violation of U.S.  immigration law. ICE conducts civil immigration enforcement actions,  which includes administrative arrests for civil violations of U.S.  immigration laws (arrests), detentions, and removals. ICE is also  responsible for providing accommodations and medical care to individuals  in detention with special needs or vulnerabilities, such as those who are  pregnant, elderly, or who have certain medical conditions. To maximize  its limited resources, ICE has prioritized certain groups of aliens for removal from the United States, such as individuals with criminal  convictions.

From January 5, 2015 through February 20, 2017, the Priority  Enforcement Program (PEP) directed DHS personnel to prioritize the  apprehension, detention, and removal of aliens from the United States  who pose a threat to national security, border security, and public safety,  among others. On January 25, 2017, the President issued Executive  Order 13768, Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States,  instructing federal agencies, including DHS, to ensure that U.S  immigration law is enforced against all removable individuals without  exempting classes or categories, among other things. In response, the  Secretary of Homeland Security issued a memorandum establishing  policy and providing guidance related to Executive Order 13768 in  February 2017 (2017 DHS memo). In accordance with both Executive  Order 13768 and the 2017 DHS memo, although aliens with criminal  history are prioritized for enforcement action, the department is  authorized to take action against any removable aliens encountered  during operations.

In 2018, we reported on ICE’s initial actions to implement Executive Order  13768. We reported that ICE reviewed its policies, regulations, and  forms relevant to enforcement priorities, rescinded prior enforcement  priority guidance, and issued new guidance directing application of the  new approach to immigration enforcement prioritization.

You asked us to review issues related to ICE immigration enforcement  priorities, and prosecutorial discretion decisions, including those that  relate to selected populations. This report examines (1) what ICE data  show about arrests, detentions, and removals from calendar years 2015  through 2018; (2) what policies are in effect for selected populations, and  what changes ICE made to align these policies with the 2017 DHS memo;  and (3) the extent to which ICE collects data on selected populations and  what those data show. For the purposes of our report, we selected eight  populations including aliens who are: lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender,  and intersex (LGBTI); individuals with disabilities; individuals with mental  disorders; juveniles; parents or legal guardians of minors; pregnant;  women who are nursing; or individuals who are elderly. We selected  these eight populations based on ICE policies that identify aliens with  special vulnerabilities and input from nongovernmental organizations  (NGOs) that serve or represent aliens with special vulnerabilities.

To address our first question, we analyzed individual-level data from the  ICE Integrated Decision Support (IIDS) database to determine the total  number of ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) arrests by  gender, country of citizenship, criminality, arresting program, and area of  responsibility between January 2015 (the start of PEP) and December  2018 (to include the first two years for the 2017 DHS Memo). We also  analyzed individual-level IIDS data to determine the total number of ERO  detentions and removals by gender, country of citizenship, arresting  agency, and criminality between January 2015 and December 2018. To  conduct our analysis of criminality, we used ICE’s determination of  criminality—criminal or non-criminal—which ICE determines by  conducting electronic criminal history checks.

To address our second question, we reviewed a master list of ICE  policies and interviewed officials to identify policies related to individuals  with special vulnerabilities. Based on this review as well as input from  NGOs that serve or represent various populations, we selected eight  populations including aliens who are: LGBTI, individuals with disabilities,  individuals with mental disorders, juveniles, parents or legal guardians of  minors, pregnant, women who are nursing, or individuals who are elderly.  To identify any changes ICE made to align its policies with the 2017 DHS  memo, we reviewed specific provisions in the executive order and  implementing memoranda. We then analyzed existing policies as well as  policies that ICE revised or rescinded to align with the 2017 DHS memo,  including policies related to prosecutorial discretion and selected  populations. We conducted interviews with officials from ICE  headquarters offices, including the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor,  Office of Policy, Homeland Security Investigations, as well as program  officials within ERO, including Domestic Operations, Fugitive Operations,  and Custody Management Divisions. We also conducted interviews with  representatives from NGOs that serve or represent our selected  populations to obtain their perspectives on how, if at all, the policies  affected the individuals they represent.

We conducted site visits to six selected ICE ERO areas of responsibility  (Atlanta, Dallas, Los Angeles, San Diego, St. Paul, and Washington,  D.C.) and interviewed ICE officials to obtain their perspectives on the  policy revisions. We selected these locations based on the prevalence of  arrests in fiscal year 2017, percent changes in arrests from fiscal year  2016 to 2017, and geographical dispersion. In each location we met with  ERO liaisons and officers responsible for monitoring and implementing  policy provisions for certain selected populations, as well as ICE medical  staff, among others. We met with six national organizations that serve or  represent immigrants as well as six state or regional organizations that  serve or represent immigrants in the locations we visited. We selected  these NGOs to reflect a range of types of populations served or  represented as well as based on their proximity to ICE areas of  responsibility we visited. The information obtained from our site visits  and interviews with the NGOs is not generalizable and may not be  indicative of the care provided to all populations at all detention facilities,  but provided insights into how the selected ICE areas of responsibility  conduct enforcement activities and implement immigration enforcement  policies.

To address our third question, we reviewed multiple data sources that  ICE uses to track information on certain aliens with special vulnerabilities  in detention and matched these data with individual-level detention data  from IIDS to determine what ICE data show about detentions of selected  populations between January 2015 and December 2018. We analyzed  this information, for six of the eight selected populations (aliens who are:  transgender, individuals with disabilities, pregnant, individuals with mental  disorders, women who are nursing, or individuals who are elderly), to  determine the total number of detentions; the number of detentions  resulting from ICE versus U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)  arrests; detentions by criminality; and the length of detention. We  excluded juveniles—aliens under the age of 18—from our analysis  because ERO is generally not responsible for detaining juveniles, unless  they were detained with their parent or legal guardian at an ICE Family  Residential Center. To determine the extent to which ICE maintains data  on detained parents or legal guardians of minors, we reviewed ICE  policies pertaining to detained parents, including those that set forth  requirements for tracking detained parents or legal guardians of U.S.  citizens and legal permanent resident minors. We interviewed ERO  officials about ICE’s data collection processes and any limitations with the  data it collects and maintains. We assessed ICE’s efforts to track this  population against agency policy.

To assess the reliability of the data used in each of our analyses, we  analyzed available documentation, such as related data dictionaries;  interviewed ERO officials knowledgeable about the data; conducted  electronic tests to identify missing data, anomalies, or erroneous values;  and followed up with officials, as appropriate. We determined the data  were sufficiently reliable for our purposes of depicting general trends in  detentions of selected populations. Appendix I describes our objectives,  scope, and methodology in greater detail.

We conducted this performance audit from November 2017 to December  2019 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Priority Enforcement Program. Under PEP, which was in effect from  January 5, 2015 until February 20, 2017, DHS personnel were directed  to, among other things, prioritize the apprehension, detention, and  removal from the United States of aliens who pose a threat to national  security, border security, and public safety, including convicted felons. It  further directed DHS personnel to prioritize for removal new immigration  violators and those who had been issued a final order of removal on or  after January 1, 2014 and to exercise prosecutorial discretion, as  appropriate, in accordance with these priorities and existing guidance. A  2011 ICE memorandum identified factors to consider when exercising  prosecutorial discretion, such as the length of the individual’s presence in  the United States, whether the person or person’s immediate relative has  served in the U.S. military, on the basis of humanitarian reasons such as  personal or family illness, among other factors.

Executive Order 13768. Executive order 13768, issued on January 25,  2017, focuses on immigration enforcement within the United States.  Among other things, the executive order lays out the administration’s  immigration enforcement priorities for removable aliens. Specifically, the  executive order prioritizes for the removal from the United States aliens  who are removable based on certain criminal and security grounds in the  Immigration and Nationality Act; as well as removable aliens who have  been convicted of, charged with, or committed acts that constitute a  criminal offense; have engaged in fraud or otherwise abused any  government program; or who are determined to otherwise pose a risk to  public safety or national security. In addition, it calls for the termination  of the PEP and reinstitution of Secure Communities. See table 1 for a  description of enforcement priorities for the removal of aliens from the  United States under PEP and Executive Order 13768.

The Secretary of Homeland Security issued the 2017 DHS memo to  implement Executive Order 13768. According to the 2017 DHS memo,  in addition to the priorities outlined in the executive order, the Director of  ICE, Commissioner of CBP, and Director of U.S. Citizenship and  Immigration Services may allocate resources to prioritize enforcement  activities as they deem appropriate, such as by prioritizing enforcement  actions against convicted felons or gang members. ICE issued a memo  further directing efforts to implement the executive order and apply the  guidance from the 2017 DHS memo. The ICE memo stated that ICE was  to review all existing policies and guidance documents and revise or  rescind relevant policies in order to ensure consistency with the executive  order. In addition, ICE’s Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA)  issued additional guidance to OPLA attorneys to implement the 2017  DHS memo. OPLA is responsible for providing legal advice, training,  and services to support the ICE mission, and for defending the interests  of the United States in the administrative and federal courts including  immigration court proceedings. See figure 1 for a timeline of DHS  memoranda and Executive Order establishing immigration enforcement  priorities from 2015 to 2018.

Prosecutorial Discretion. Prosecutorial discretion is the longstanding  authority of an agency charged with enforcing a law to decide where to  focus its resources and whether or how to enforce, or not to enforce, the  law against an individual. Due to limited resources, ICE cannot respond  to all immigration violations or remove all persons who are determined to  be in the United States without legal status, and therefore, must exercise  prosecutorial discretion in the enforcement of the law. In accordance with  the DHS, ICE, and OPLA memos, agents and officers are to exercise  prosecutorial discretion on a case-by-case basis based on the individual  facts presented in consultation with the head of the field office, and  prosecutorial discretion is not to be exercised in a manner that exempts  or excludes a specified class or category of foreign nationals from  enforcement of the immigration laws.

ICE’s ERO conducts civil immigration enforcement actions, which  includes administrative arrests, detentions, and removals.

Arrests. ERO arrests aliens for civil violations of U.S. immigration  laws. Through the Criminal Alien Program, ICE identifies and arrests  potentially removable aliens who are incarcerated within federal,  state, and local prisons and jails. The National Fugitive Operations  Program identifies and arrests removable aliens who are at-large.

ICE does not detain all aliens it arrests, due to lack of bed space,  among other factors. To inform custody decisions for aliens who are  arrested and not subject to mandatory detention, ICE guidance  requires officers to consider certain factors, including risk of flight, risk  of harm to public safety, and special vulnerabilities. For example,  individuals with a physical or mental illness or disability, or individuals  who fear being harmed in detention based on their sexual orientation  or gender identity may be considered for release or alternatives to  detention (ATD) based on these special vulnerabilities. The ATD  program requires that, among other things, aliens released into the  community agree to appear at all hearings and report to ICE  periodically.

Non-detained Unit. ERO is also responsible for supervising and  ensuring that aliens who are not held in detention facilities comply  with requirements to appear in immigration court for their  administrative removal proceedings. ICE uses one or more release  options when it determines that an alien can be released from ICE  custody—including bond, order of recognizance, order of supervision,  parole, and on condition of participation in the ATD program. Total  ATD enrollment numbers ranged from about 29,000 in calendar year  2015 to over 78,000 in calendar year 2018. ICE does not track  specific characteristics of individuals enrolled in ATD programs,  including aliens who are pregnant, nursing, disabled, elderly, primary  caregivers of minor children, among others.

ICE may also release aliens on bond or an order of recognizance who  do not pose a threat to public safety, present a low risk of flight, and  who are not required to be detained. In addition, in rare instances,  ICE may release an alien on an order of supervision when there is no  significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable  future. For example, ICE may not be able to coordinate travel  arrangements for certain aliens with final orders of removal who are  from countries with which the United States does not have repatriation  agreements. An alien subject to a final order of deportation or removal  may also request a stay of deportation or removal. ICE may also  release certain aliens on parole for urgent humanitarian reasons or  significant public benefit, or for a medical emergency or legitimate law  enforcement objective, on a case-by-case basis.

Detentions. ICE is responsible for providing safe, secure, and  humane confinement for detained aliens in the United States who may  be subject to removal while they await the resolution of their  immigration cases or who have been ordered removed from the  United States. This includes aliens transferred to ICE from CBP who  were apprehended at or between ports of entry. In fiscal year 2019,  ERO oversaw the detention of aliens in 147 facilities authorized to  house detainees for over 72 hours. ICE manages these facilities in  conjunction with private contractors, state and local governments, and  through contract with another federal agency.

Within ERO, ICE Health Service Corps (IHSC) is responsible for  providing direct medical, dental, mental health care, and public health  services to detainees in 20 facilities authorized to house detainees for  over 72 hours. Facilities serviced by IHSC include service processing  centers, contract detention facilities, dedicated intergovernmental  service agreement facilities, and family residential centers. IHSC  medical staff are to monitor and implement policy provisions related to  pregnant and mentally ill detainees. At detention facilities that are not  staffed with IHSC personnel, similar services are provided by local  government staff or private contractors and overseen by ICE.

Removals. ICE removes aliens who have been determined to be  removable and not eligible for any requested relief or protection  pursuant to an administrative final order of removal. A removal is  defined as the compulsory and confirmed movement of an  inadmissible or deportable alien out of the United States. ICE  removals include both aliens arrested by ICE and aliens who were  apprehended by CBP and transferred to ICE.

ERO operates across 24 areas of responsibility nationwide and each area  of responsibility is led by a field office director. Each ERO field office  director is required by ICE policy to designate supervisory level  employees to serve, as a collateral duty, as field liaisons for their area of  responsibility tasked with monitoring and implementing the provisions of  policies for certain selected populations. These field liaison roles include  the LGBTI Field Liaison, Child Welfare Field Point of Contact, Supporting  Disability Access Coordinator, and Juvenile Coordinator.

In addition to ERO and OPLA, ICE Homeland Security Investigations  (HSI) conducts worksite enforcement operations among other law  enforcement operations such as oversight of the Student and Exchange Visitor program. This includes arresting undocumented workers and  employers who knowingly hire them. We did not include HSI worksite  enforcement arrests in our analysis of ICE arrest data because we were  unable to identify the number of unique arrests in these data for the  purpose of depicting general arrest trends.

ERO Arrests, Detentions, and Removals Varied during Calendar Years 2015 through 2018, Increasing Overall

ERO arrests, detentions, and removals varied during calendar years 2015  through 2018, and increased overall for the period, as shown in figure 2.  Specifically, males, aliens from four countries—Mexico, Guatemala, El  Salvador, and Honduras—and convicted criminals accounted for the  majority of ICE arrests and removals. The majority of ICE detentions  were made up of males, aliens from the same four countries, and non- criminals. See appendix II for additional information on ERO arrests,  detentions, and removals by gender, country of citizenship, arresting  agency, and criminality.

ERO Arrests. The number of ERO arrests varied from calendar years  2015 through 2018 but increased overall from 112,870 in 2015 to 151,497  in 2018, see figure 2 above. Male aliens, citizens of four countries— Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras—and arrests of aliens  from state and local jails, through the Criminal Alien Program, accounted  for the majority of these arrests each year from 2015 through 2018.  Further, ERO arrests increased in all ERO areas of responsibility from  calendar years 2015 and 2016, when PEP was in effect, to calendar  years 2017 and 2018, following implementation of the 2017 DHS memo.  Arrests of convicted criminals accounted for the majority of arrests in all  areas of responsibility during both periods. However, as shown in figure  3, the proportion of arrests of convicted criminals decreased in each area  of responsibility due to an increased number of arrests of non-criminals  following the implementation of the 2017 DHS memo. See appendix II  for additional information on ERO arrests by gender, country of  citizenship, arresting agency, and criminality.

ERO Detentions. The number of ERO detentions varied from calendar  years 2015 through 2018 but increased overall from 324,320 in 2015 to  438,258 in 2018. Male aliens and citizens of four countries—Mexico,  Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras—collectively accounted for most  ERO detentions. The majority of detentions resulted from CBP arrests  at or between ports of entry. While the number of ERO detentions of  convicted criminals stayed relatively stable from 2015 to 2018, the  number of detentions of non-criminals increased from 171,856 in 2015 to  279,469 in 2018 and accounted for the majority of ERO detentions each  year, as shown in figure 4. See appendix II for additional information on  detentions by gender, country of citizenship, arresting agency, and  criminality.

For the purposes of this report and our presentation of ICE data, we refer  to potentially removable aliens without criminal convictions known to ICE  as “non-criminals” and aliens with criminal convictions known to ICE as  “convicted criminals.” According to ICE officials, administrative arrests of  non-criminals include individuals who have been charged but not  convicted of a crime as well as those with no prior criminal history.  According to ICE, ICE officers electronically request and retrieve criminal  history information about an alien from the FBI’s National Crime  Information Center database, which maintains a repository of federal and  state criminal history information, and other sources. We used ICE’s  determination of criminality for our analysis.

ERO Removals. The number of ERO removals varied from calendar  years 2015 through 2018 but increased overall from 231,559 in 2015 to  261,523 in 2018. Male aliens and citizens of four countries—Mexico,  Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras—collectively accounted for most  ERO removals.  The majority of removals resulted from CBP arrests at  or between ports of entry. While removals of both convicted criminals  and non-criminals increased overall, removals of convicted criminals  accounted for the majority of removals each year, see figure 5. See  appendix II for additional information on removals by gender, country of  citizenship, arresting agency and criminality.

ICE Has Operational Policies for Certain Selected Populations, and Revised Its Policies As Needed to Align with the 2017 DHS Memo

According to ICE officials, in early 2018, ERO conducted a review of all  existing policies and related documents to help ensure alignment with the  2017 DHS memo, resulting in operational policies related to six of the  eight selected populations discussed in this report. The six policies in  effect as of July 2019 for the selected populations provide direction and  guidance to ERO officers on the identification, detention, care, and  removal of aliens who are: individuals with mental disorders, transgender,  individuals with disabilities, parents of minors, pregnant, and juveniles. Of  the six policies in effect, three were not impacted by the 2017 DHS memo  and ERO did not make changes to these policies; two were impacted by  the 2017 DHS memo and were revised to remove language ERO  determined to be inconsistent with the memo; and guidance on managing  juveniles was first issued after the 2017 DHS memo. For the remaining  two populations, ERO does not have a separate policy on care provided  to detainees who are nursing and as a result of the policy review,  rescinded a prior policy related to exercising prosecutorial discretion for  elderly individuals, as shown in figure 6.

Individuals with Mental Disorders. In May 2014, ICE issued a memo  titled Identification of Detainees with Serious Mental Disorders or  Conditions, which sets forth procedures to assist ICE and detention  facility personnel in identifying detainees with serious mental disorders or  conditions in order to assess appropriate facility placement and  treatment. To identify individuals with mental disorders, ICE’s national  detention standards require facilities to conduct an initial medical  screening for all detainees, including a documented mental health  screening, a 14-day full medical assessment, with mental health  components, and timely referral for follow-up mental evaluations,  diagnosis, and treatment. ICE’s policy also requires detention facilities  to notify ICE field office directors of detainees with specified serious  mental disorders. In addition, the policy requires that relevant personnel  meet regularly to monitor the cases of detainees with serious mental  disorders until their removal or release. ERO officials in all six areas of  responsibility we visited said that these meetings are conducted weekly or  biweekly with attorneys, medical staff, and ERO management staff to  discuss and evaluate the needs of each detainee’s medical care and  security needs. According to ICE, this memo did not need to be revised to  align with the 2017 DHS Memo. Our analysis of ICE data shows that the  number of detentions of individuals with mental disorders at IHSC-staffed  facilities varied from calendar years 2015 through 2018 but increased  overall from 8513 to 8796 individuals.

Transgender Individuals. In June 2015, ICE issued a memo titled  Further Guidance Regarding the Care of Transgender Detainees, which  provides guidance regarding the placement and care of transgender adult  detainees in ERO custody. This memo provides guidance for initial  processing of transgender detainees who voluntarily disclose their gender  identity to detention officers. Further, when a detainee self-identifies as  transgender, the memo directs ERO officers to make individualized  placement determinations to ensure the detainee’s safety, and to ensure  the facility chosen for placement is able to provide appropriate care for  the individual, and to the extent practicable to consider the availability of  medical personnel who have experience providing care and treatment to  transgender detainees, including the delivery of hormone therapy.

This memo also directs ERO to designate a National LGBTI Coordinator  to serve as the primary point of contact and subject matter expert for ERO  regarding the care and treatment of detainees in ERO custody who self- identify as transgender. Specifically, the National LGBTI Coordinator is to  evaluate and report information from all relevant ICE data systems  regarding the demographics, care, and custody of transgender detainees  and ensure field compliance with the provisions of this memo, among  other things. Further, each field office is required to have a LGBTI Field Liaison, appointed by the Field Office Director. The memo directs LGBTI  Field Liaisons to provide regular updates to the national ERO LGBTI  Coordinator and ERO Headquarters on the progress of implementing and  maintaining the provisions of this memo, which includes determining the  appropriateness of facilities to house transgender detainees. In addition,  the memo requires certain detention facilities to convene a meeting no  later than 72 hours after a transgender detainee’s arrival to the facility to  assess medical, psychological, and housing needs. During our site  visits, officers in three of the six areas of responsibility we visited said that  they conduct these meetings with relevant ERO management staff and  medical officials in accordance with the memo.

According to ICE officials, the transgender care memo did not need to be  revised to align with the 2017 DHS Memo. The transgender care memo  states that field office directors may exercise prosecutorial discretion for  transgender individuals who are not subject to mandatory detention.  Field ERO officers in five of the six areas of responsibility we visited  explained that ERO generally does not detain transgender individuals  unless their criminal histories warrant detention, in accordance with the  memo. Specifically, officers in three of these five areas of responsibility  reported that transgender individuals are likely to be released on bond or  under an order of supervision. However, in the sixth area of responsibility,  one ERO officer observed an increase in the detention of transgender  individuals beginning in early 2017, which the official attributed to the  revised priorities described in the 2017 DHS memo. In addition, attorneys  from three NGOs we met with also observed an increase in the detention  of transgender individuals or described ongoing challenges related to a  decrease in the availability of dedicated transgender housing facilities.

They also provided anecdotes of transgender clients who had been  detained or who experienced challenges obtaining access to appropriate  medical care while in detention. Our analysis of ICE data shows that the  number of detentions of transgender individuals increased from 237 in  calendar year 2016 to 284 in calendar year 2018.

While ICE does not have separate policies for aliens who are lesbian,  gay, bisexual, or intersex, the national LGBTI coordinator and LGBTI field  liaisons also serve as subject matter experts for the care and treatment of  these detainees. In addition, the transgender care memo prohibits  discrimination or harassment of any kind based on a detainee’s sexual  orientation or gender identity. As such, ERO officers may take steps to  protect a detainee who expresses safety concerns based on their sexual  orientation, according to ERO officials. According to ERO officers in five  of the six areas of responsibility we visited, they do not ask detainees  about sexual orientation unless the individual voluntarily discloses this  information. Additionally, ERO officers in the same five areas of  responsibility stated that they do not take sexual orientation into  consideration for detention or housing decisions, unless an individual  specifically requests protective custody due to safety concerns or  harassment.

Individuals with Disabilities. In December 2016, ERO issued a directive  titled Assessment and Accommodations for Detainees with Disabilities,  which establishes policy and procedures for ERO to oversee and  communicate with detention facilities on the identification, assessment,  and accommodation of detainees with disabilities. According to this  directive, ERO field leadership is to notify detention facilities in each area  of responsibility of their existing obligations under federal law to  accommodate detainees with disabilities. These obligations include  maintaining a process to identify these detainees through observation,  assessments, screenings, and self-identification; notifying detainees of  their right to request accommodations; and establishing a process to  inform a detainee of the final decision on the request for  accommodations, including whether the facility will provide alternative  accommodations that are equally effective as those requested; among  other things.

In addition, this directive requires ERO to designate an ERO disability  access coordinator who is to serve as the primary point of contact and  subject matter expert for ERO headquarters and the field regarding the  accommodation of, and communication with, detainees with disabilities in  ERO custody. Among other duties, the ERO disability access coordinator  is responsible for evaluating information from all relevant ICE data  systems regarding the identification, care, approved accommodations and  custody of detainees with disabilities; as well as maintaining records of  detainees with communication and mobility impairments, including  records of denials of detainee requests for accommodations by facilities.  According to the directive, detainees with communication impairments  include detainees with hearing, visual, and speech impairments (e.g.,  detainees who are deaf or hard of hearing, blind, or nonverbal).  Detainees with mobility impairments include detainees with physical  impairments who require a wheelchair, crutches, prosthesis, cane, other  mobility device, or other assistance. Accommodations for these  impairments may include accessible showers, Braille material, or note  takers for persons with physical and sensory impairments, among other  things. The ERO disability access coordinator is also responsible for  helping to ensure compliance with the provisions of this directive.

Field office directors are required to appoint at least one supervisory-level  employee to serve as the supporting disability access coordinator for  each area of responsibility. Supporting disability access coordinators are  responsible for serving as the main point of contact for their field office  regarding compliance with federal law and DHS, ICE, and ERO  regulations, detention standards, policies, and procedures related to  detainees with disabilities. Supporting disability access coordinators are  also responsible for collaborating and communicating with ERO  headquarters, field office, detention facility, and health care personnel to  monitor the care and treatment of detainees with disabilities, among other  things. In all six areas of responsibility we visited, supporting disability  access coordinators and medical staff told us that they track detainees  who receive accommodations for communication and mobility  impairments by recording the accommodation on a form that they submit  to ERO headquarters.

According to ICE, the Assessment and Accommodations for Detainees  with Disabilities directive did not need to be revised to align with the 2017  DHS Memo. This directive states that it is meant to implement and  complement the requirements of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of  1973 and states that detainees with disabilities will be provided an equal  opportunity to access, participate in, or benefit from in-custody programs,  services, and activities, and that detainees with disabilities will be  provided with auxiliary aids and services as necessary to allow for  effective communication. Further, the directive states that a field office  director may consider releasing from ICE custody a detainee with an  impairment or disability who is not subject to mandatory detention. ERO  officers in five areas of responsibility we visited reported that they consult  with the supporting disability access coordinator, medical staff, or a  supervisor to determine whether local detention facilities are able to  provide appropriate accommodations. Our analysis of ICE data shows  that the number of detentions of individuals with communication and  mobility impairments increased from 434 to 530 in calendar years 2017 to  2018.

Parents or Legal Guardians of Minors. In August 2017, ICE issued a  policy titled Detention and Removal of Alien Parents or Legal Guardians,  which provides guidance regarding the detention and removal of alien  parents and legal guardians, including those with children who are U.S.  citizens and legal permanent residents and parents with ongoing cases in  family court or child welfare proceedings in the United States. This  policy directs ERO to designate a child welfare coordinator to serve as  the primary point of contact and subject matter expert for all ICE  personnel regarding child welfare issues related to detained alien parents.  The child welfare coordinator is also responsible for evaluating  information from all relevant ICE data systems regarding detained alien  parents or legal guardians of U.S. citizen and legal permanent resident  minors and sharing appropriate information with field points of contact,  among other things. Specifically, this policy directs field office directors to make appropriate arrangements for detained parents to attend child  welfare proceedings. ERO officers in three of the six areas of  responsibility we visited stated that they coordinate visits to family courts  for the detained parent to appear at these hearings. The field office  director in each area of responsibility is to designate a field point of  contact to communicate with the child welfare coordinator and address  public inquires related to detained parents or legal guardians in ERO  custody.

The August 2017 policy superseded an August 2013 policy titled  Facilitating Parental Interests in the Course of Civil Immigration  Enforcement Activities, which ERO revised to align with the 2017 DHS  memo. In the revised policy, ERO removed language indicating that field  office directors should weigh whether an exercise of prosecutorial  discretion may be warranted for an alien who is a parent or legal guardian  of a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident minor or is a primary  caretaker of a minor, and to exercise such discretion as early as possible.  ERO officers in five of the six areas of responsibility we visited stated that  they typically do not detain parents of minors, unless criminal history  warrants detention. Attorneys we met with from a NGO that provides  services to immigrant families and refugees stated that they have  observed an increase in the number and length of detentions of parents  or legal guardians of minors since January 2017. We were not able to  identify trends in detention of detained parents because ERO does not  collect or maintain data on this population in a readily available format.

Pregnant Women. In December 2017, ICE issued a directive titled  Identification and Monitoring of Pregnant Detainees, which sets forth  policy and procedures to ensure pregnant detainees in ICE custody for  immigration violations are identified, monitored, tracked, and housed in an  appropriate facility to manage their care. According to ICE policy on  women’s health, pregnant women are identified upon arrival to a  detention facility because all women of childbearing age undergo a  pregnancy test during intake processing. According to the December  2017 directive, IHSC personnel are responsible for notifying the field  office director and IHSC headquarters, as soon as practical, when a  pregnant detainee is identified; monitoring the condition of pregnant  detainees, including the general health of the pregnant detainee and  medical condition of the fetus; and communicating with the field office  director about any specific risk factors or concerns. In addition, IHSC  personnel are to provide oversight and review of facility capabilities to  determine if the needs of a pregnant detainee can be accommodated and  recommend to the field office director when a transfer to another facility is  necessary for appropriate medical care. Further, IHSC personnel are to  develop and maintain a system for tracking and monitoring all pregnant  detainees.

This policy superseded an August 2016 version with the same title, which  ERO revised to align with the 2017 DHS memo, according to ICE officials.  In the revised version, ERO removed language stating that absent  extraordinary circumstances pregnant women will generally not be  detained by ICE. In five of the six areas of responsibility we visited, ERO  officers stated that unless mandatory detention is required, they still  generally avoid detaining pregnant women. In addition, ERO officers in all  six areas of responsibility we visited stated that they are less likely to  detain and may release a woman who is having a high risk pregnancy or  in the third trimester of her pregnancy. However, an official in the sixth  area of responsibility noted that under the revised policy, pregnant  women may be detained during the third trimester, if she is likely to be  removed quickly and has medical clearance to fly. Officers in two of the  six areas of responsibility we visited noted that pregnant women may also  be released on bond, under an order of supervision, or other non- detention options, after assessing the facts of the case. Attorneys and  policy advocates we met with from three NGOs that represent a range of  immigrant populations stated that they have observed increases in the  detention of pregnant women since January 2017. Attorneys from another  NGO we met with provided anecdotes of cases of pregnant detainees  who experienced medical challenges, including miscarriages while in  custody. Our analysis of ICE data shows that the number of detentions  of pregnant women varied, but increased overall, from 1380 in calendar  year 2016 to 2098 in calendar year 2018.

Juveniles. In April 2018, ICE issued the Field Office Juvenile Coordinator  Handbook to guide ERO staff in processing, transporting, managing, and  removing juveniles—persons encountered by ERO who have not reached  18 years of age. Field office juvenile coordinators, who serve as local  subject-matter experts on juvenile matters for each area of responsibility,  provide policy guidance to ERO personnel within their areas of  responsibility, and assist with case review and custody redeterminations.  Field office juvenile coordinators are also required to coordinate with  other federal agencies including the Office of Refugee Resettlement,  where juveniles designated as unaccompanied alien children are typically  transferred. According to ERO policy, unaccompanied alien children  apprehended by ERO or transferred into ERO custody by CBP are to be  placed in the care of the Office of Refugee Resettlement within 72 hours  of identification, if they are not repatriated at the border. The Field Office  Juvenile Coordinator Handbook was released after the 2017 DHS memo  and aligns with the 2017 DHS Memo.

According to officers in four of the six areas of responsibility we visited,  ERO does not target juveniles for arrests, unless they have criminal  records. For example, officers we met with in one area of responsibility  stated that ERO typically does not target juveniles in that location, unless  they are affiliated with gangs, because they are unlikely to pose a public  safety threat. Our analysis of ICE data shows that the number of arrests  of juveniles varied, but increased overall, from calendar years 2015  through 2018. We excluded juveniles from our analysis of individual ICE  detention data because ICE is generally not responsible for detaining  juveniles, as discussed above.

Nursing Women. While ICE does not have a separate policy on the care,  detention, or removal of women who are nursing, the 2017 Directive on  Women’s Health Services provides guidance to IHSC staff on the delivery  and administration of health services to this population. According to this  directive, women who are nursing are identified during initial processing  before being placed into custody at a detention facility because ERO  officials and medical personnel are required to ask women if they are  breastfeeding. Medical personnel make recommendations pertaining to  the detention of women who are nursing, and in most cases, these  detainees are placed in IHSC-staffed facilities. IHSC personnel record  and use this information to monitor the care and needs of women who are  nursing, according to IHSC officials. In five of the six areas of  responsibility we visited, officers stated that they typically do not detain  women who are nursing, unless their criminal histories warrant  detention. Specifically, health officials in one of the five areas of  responsibility explained that if a nursing mother is detained, she is  typically released within a few hours or placed on bond or order of  supervision. Our analysis of ICE data shows that the number of  detentions of nursing women at IHSC-staffed facilities varied from  calendar years 2015 through 2018 but increased overall from 157 in 2015  to 381 in 2018.

Elderly Individuals. ICE no longer has a policy guiding the detention or  care of elderly detainees. According to ICE guidance on assessing individuals with special vulnerabilities during the intake process, ICE  generally considers someone to be elderly starting at age 65. However,  the guidance instructs agents and officers to assess whether these  individuals have physical indicators of infirmity or fragility caused by old  age when making decisions regarding detaining or releasing them. In  February 2018, as part of its effort to align internal policies with the 2017  DHS memo, ERO rescinded a 2009 policy directing officers to  administratively close cases of non-criminal fugitives who are 70 years  old or older for humanitarian/health reasons. ERO officers in five of the  six areas of responsibility we visited reported that they do not target  individuals who are elderly and continue to consider criminal history and  medical condition when deciding whether to detain them. For example,  officials in one of these five areas of responsibility explained that  someone who committed an aggravated felony would be subject to  mandatory detention regardless of age, but if the individual has a serious  medical condition, such as advanced cancer, ERO may decide to release  them from custody because the agency would be responsible for the cost  of their medical treatments while they are in custody. Officers in the sixth  area of responsibility said they have started to detain individuals who are  elderly following the issuance of the 2017 DHS memo, but noted that they  coordinate with the courts to expedite these hearings before an  immigration judge who may order the release of an elderly detainee.  Attorneys we met with from a NGO that provides services to immigrant  families and refugees stated that they have observed an increase in  detentions of individuals who are elderly, and only those with serious  medical issues were considered for release. Our analysis of ICE data  shows that the number of detentions of individuals who were elderly  varied, increasing overall, from 882 in calendar year 2015 to 1159 in  calendar year 2018.

Data Indicate Detentions of Selected Populations Varied, Increasing Overall; but ICE Lacks Readily Available Data on All Detained Parents or Legal Guardians of Minors

Available ICE data show that detentions of most of the selected  populations in our review varied between calendar years 2015 and  2018. Specifically, detentions of transgender individuals and pregnant  women increased from calendar years 2016 to 2018, after ICE began  collecting data for these populations. Similarly, detentions of individuals  with disabilities increased from 2017 to 2018, after ICE began collecting  data for this population. Detentions of individuals with mental disorders  and nursing women at IHSC-staffed facilities varied from calendar years  2015 to 2018. Finally, detentions of individuals who were elderly varied,  increasing overall during the same timeframe. We were unable to obtain  data on parents or legal guardians of minors in ICE custody because ICE  does not collect or maintain data on this population in a readily available  format.

ICE Data Show Detentions of Most Selected Populations Varied, Increasing Overall

Detentions of Transgender Individuals Increased from 2016 through 2018; the Majority Resulted from CBP Arrest and Were Detentions of Non-Criminals

ICE began collecting and maintaining data on transgender individuals  who voluntarily disclose their gender identity to ICE officers in November  2015, as previously discussed. ERO officials said they use these data to  monitor the placement and care of transgender individuals in ICE  custody, in accordance to ICE’s memo on Further Guidance Regarding  the Care of Transgender Detainees. These data show that the number of  detentions of transgender individuals increased from calendar years 2016  through 2018, as shown in table 2. Detentions resulting from CBP  arrests accounted for about half of the total detentions of transgender  individuals in 2016 and 2017, increasing to 69 percent in 2018.

Also shown in table 2, detentions of non-criminal transgender individuals  increased from calendar years 2016 through 2018, increasing from 46  percent of total detentions of transgender individuals in 2016 to 71  percent in 2018. Detentions of non-criminal transgender individuals  include both detentions of individuals with pending criminal charges  (ranging from 12 to 24 percent) and individuals with no recorded criminal  history (ranging from 76 to 88 percent). Detentions resulting from CBP  arrests comprised most of these detentions (ranging from 77 to 91  percent). Detentions of transgender individuals with criminal convictions  decreased over the same period, and most resulted from ICE arrests  (ranging from 71 to 84 percent).

For the purposes of this report and our presentation of ICE data, we refer  to potentially removable aliens without criminal convictions known to ICE  as “non-criminals” and aliens with criminal convictions known to ICE as  “convicted criminals.” According to ICE officials, administrative arrests of  non-criminals include individuals who have been charged with, but not  convicted of a crime, (we refer to these as “aliens with pending criminal  charges”), as well as those with no prior criminal history, (we refer to  these as “aliens with no recorded criminal history”). According to ICE, ICE  officers electronically request and retrieve criminal history information  about an alien from the FBI’s National Crime Information Center  database, which maintains a repository of federal and state criminal  history information, and other sources. We used ICE’s determination of  criminality for our analysis.

Detentions of Individuals with Disabilities Increased from 2017 to 2018; the Majority Resulted from ICE Arrests and Were Detentions of Convicted Criminals

ICE began collecting and maintaining data on certain detainees with  disabilities–i.e., those with communication and mobility impairments— who disclosed their impairment or who were identified by facility staff as  having an impairment in January 2017, in accordance with its directive,  titled Assessment and Accommodations for Detainees with Disabilities.  These data show that detentions of individuals with disabilities increased  from calendar years 2017 to 2018, as shown in table 3. Detentions  resulting from ICE arrests accounted for the majority of these detentions  (70 percent in 2017 and over 50 percent in 2018).

Also shown in table 3, detentions of convicted criminals with disabilities  decreased from calendar years 2017 to 2018, and accounted for the  majority of total detentions of this population (67 percent in 2017 and 53  percent in 2018). Most of these detentions resulted from ICE arrests (89  percent in 2017 and 72 percent in 2018). Detentions of non-criminals in  this population increased from calendar years 2017 to 2018. Detentions  of individuals with no recorded criminal history accounted for most  detentions of non-criminals in this population (71 percent in 2017 and 79  in 2018 percent), and the majority resulted from CBP arrests (68 percent  in 2017 and 74 percent in 2018).

ICE began collecting and maintaining data on pregnant women in ICE’s  custody in June 2015. IHSC officials said they use these data to monitor  the condition of pregnant women in ICE custody, including the term of the  pregnancy, general health of the pregnant detainee, and medical  conditions of the fetus, in accordance to ICE’s directive on Identification  and Monitoring of Pregnant Detainees. These data show that the number  of detentions of pregnant women varied, but increased overall from  calendar years 2016 through 2018, as shown in table 4. Detentions  resulting from CBP arrests accounted for most of the total detentions of  pregnant women each year (ranging from 90 to 96 percent).

Also shown in table 4, detentions of non-criminal pregnant women varied  from calendar years 2016 through 2018, but increased overall. Detentions  of non-criminal pregnant women accounted for most of the total  detentions of pregnant women each year (ranging from 91 to 97 percent),  and detentions of women with no recorded criminal history accounted for  almost all of these detentions (ranging from 96 to 99 percent). Detentions  of convicted criminal pregnant women also increased overall for the  period.

ICE began collecting and maintaining data needed to identify individuals  with mental disorders at IHSC-staffed facilities in August 2013.  According to IHSC officials, ICE does not collect these data for non-IHSC  staffed facilities, in part because many of these facilities do not have  electronic health records. However, IHSC personnel are notified of  detainees with mental disorders at non-IHSC staffed facilities and these  individuals may be transferred to another facility if the current facility is  unable to provide appropriate care. While we were not able to present the  overall number of detentions of individuals with mental disorders in ICE  custody, we reviewed available ICE data to indicate the number and  characteristics of detentions of individuals with mental disorders at IHSC- staffed facilities. These data show that the number of detentions of  individuals with mental disorders at IHSC-staffed facilities varied from  calendar years 2015 through 2018, as shown in table 5. Detentions  resulting from CBP arrests accounted for the majority of these detentions  (ranging from 53 to 67 percent) in 2015, 2016, and 2018. In 2017,  detentions resulting from ICE arrests accounted for the majority (51  percent) of these detentions.

Also shown in table 5, detentions of non-criminals with mental disorders  varied from calendar years 2015 through 2018. These detentions  accounted for the majority of total detentions of individuals with mental  disorders in 2015, 2016, and 2018 (ranging from about 53 to 58 percent).  Detentions of individuals with no recorded criminal history accounted for  most detentions of non-criminals for this population (ranging from 79 to 92  percent), and most resulted from CBP arrests (ranging for 77 to 97  percent). Detentions of convicted criminals with mental disorders varied  over the period and the majority resulted from ICE arrests (ranging from  71 to 79 percent).

IHSC began collecting and maintaining data needed to identify women  who are nursing at IHSC-staffed facilities, which is where ICE typically  detains women who are nursing, in August 2013. These data are used to  monitor the care and needs of women who are nursing, according to  IHSC officials. While we were not able to present the overall number of  detentions of nursing women in ICE custody, we reviewed available ICE  data to indicate the number and characteristics of detentions of nursing  women at IHSC-staffed facilities. These data show that the number of  detentions of nursing women at IHSC-staffed facilities varied from  calendar years 2015 through 2018, as shown in table 6. Detentions  resulting from CBP arrests accounted for most of the detentions of  women who were nursing each year (ranging from 98 to 99 percent).

Also shown in table 6, detentions of both non-criminal and convicted  criminal nursing women at IHSC-staffed facilities varied from calendar  years 2015 through 2018. Detentions of non-criminal women who were  nursing accounted for most of the total detentions of nursing women at  IHSC-staffed facilities each year (ranging from 98 to 99 percent), and  detentions of women who were nursing with no recorded criminal history  accounted for almost all of these detentions (ranging from 99 to 100  percent), and resulted from CBP arrests (ranging from 98 to 100 percent).

From calendar year 2015 through 2018, ICE collected and maintained  data on a detainee’s date of birth and is able to identify whether an  individual is elderly, defined as someone who is over 65 years old, by  calculating the individual’s age at the time they are detained. ICE does  not collect or maintain specific data on whether an individual is elderly  because it does not have a separate policy for elderly detainees. Rather,  ICE considers an individual’s health, criminal history, and other factors  when making detention determinations, according to officials. ICE data  show that the number of detentions of individuals who were elderly  varied, but increased overall from calendar years 2015 through 2018, as  shown in table 7. Detentions resulting from ICE arrests accounted for  the majority of detentions of individuals who were elderly each year  (ranging from 64 to 71 percent).

Also shown in table 7, detentions of both non-criminal and criminal  individuals who were elderly varied from calendar years 2015 through  2018, and increased overall. Detentions of convicted criminals accounted  for the majority of detentions of individuals who were elderly each year  (ranging from 65 to 74 percent) and most of these detentions resulted  from ICE arrests (ranging from 82 to 85 percent). Detentions of  individuals who were elderly with no recorded criminal history accounted  for most detentions of non-criminal individuals who were elderly (ranging  from 80 to 91 percent), and the majority resulted from CBP arrests  (ranging from 70 to 74 percent).

ICE Does Not Readily Know How Many Parents or Legal Guardians of U.S. Citizens and Legal Permanent Resident Minors It Has in Custody

While ICE collects information on detained parents or legal guardians,  including those of U.S. citizens and legal permanent resident minors, this  information is not maintained in a readily available format that would allow  ICE to systematically identify such detained parents and ensure officers  are collecting information on this population as required by policy.  According to ICE officials, before making custody determinations, ICE  officers are instructed to inquire whether arrested aliens are parents or  legal guardians of minors, including parents of U.S. citizen and legal  permanent resident minors. ICE officers are to enter this information in a  separate tab in the ENFORCE Alien Detention Module, a subsystem  within ICE’s data system for recording information about individuals in its  custody. This information on detained parents, however, cannot be  readily searched to identify all detained parents or legal guardians in  custody. Therefore, ICE does not know how many detained parents or  legal guardians are in custody, including parents of U.S. citizen and legal  permanent resident minors, during any given time.

In accordance with a currently recurring Congressional reporting  requirement, ICE generates a semi-annual report on removals of parents  of U.S.-born citizen children. However, officials explained that they must  review this information manually to generate the report and added that  ICE is not required to report in an aggregate way on detained parents of  U.S. citizen or legal permanent residents. ICE also tracks individual cases  requiring specific actions, such as arranging transportation for parents to  attend child welfare proceedings or accommodating visitation for parents  with mandated child visitation schedules. However, according to ICE  officials, these parents represent a small proportion of all parents in ICE  custody.

ICE’s policy on Detention and Removal of Alien Parents or Legal  Guardians requires ICE personnel to enter information into ENFORCE  once a detained alien has been determined to be a parent or legal  guardians of a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident minor. As  previously mentioned, this policy also requires the Child Welfare  Coordinator to evaluate information from all relevant ICE data systems  regarding detained parents or legal guardians of minors, including parents  of U.S. citizen and legal permanent resident minors, and share  appropriate information with the ERO field points of contact. ICE’s policy  further states that in pursuing the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws  against parents of minors, ICE personnel should remain cognizant of the  impact enforcement actions may have on U.S. citizen or legal permanent  resident minors.

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government call for design  of any data collection to collect quality information, and for management  to use quality information to make informed decisions and evaluate the  entity’s performance in achieving key objectives and addressing risks.  Because information entered into ICE’s data system on detained parents  or legal guardians, including those of U.S. citizen or legal permanent  resident minors, is not maintained in a readily available format, ICE  headquarters officials cannot ensure that ICE officers are collecting and  entering this information into the system as required by policy. According  to ICE officials, the agency had previously considered implementing a  system update to readily identify certain detained parents of minors, but  as of October 2019 is no longer considering this update. Collecting and  maintaining information in a readily available format on detained parents  of U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident minors could help ensure that  ICE personnel can identify, evaluate, and share information on this  population, as required by ICE policy. In addition, collecting and  evaluating this information would provide greater transparency regarding  the impacts of ICE’s enforcement actions on U.S. citizen or legal  permanent resident minors.

In 2015, DHS reported that about 12 million aliens were residing in the  United States without lawful status or presence, which includes parents of  U.S. citizen, legal permanent resident, and alien minors. Through its  policies, ICE has established the importance of collecting and maintaining  information on detained parents and legal guardians of U.S. citizen and  legal permanent resident minors. However, because ICE has not  implemented a process to collect or maintain this information in a readily  available format, it does not have reasonable assurance that it can  identify all detained parents and legal guardians of U.S. citizen and legal  permanent resident minors. Therefore, ICE cannot evaluate and share  this information and ensure its officers are collecting information on this  population in accordance with its policy. Implementing a process to collect  and maintain this information in a readily available format would allow ICE  to better assess the impacts of its enforcement actions on U.S. citizen  and legal permanent resident minors and help improve ICE oversight  efforts.

The Director of ICE should implement a process to collect and maintain  data in a readily available format on detained parents or legal guardians  of U.S. citizen and legal permanent resident minors to ensure that  information on this population is entered into ICE’s data system as  required by policy. (Recommendation 1)

We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to DHS. DHS  provided comments, which are reproduced in appendix XI. DHS also  provided technical comments, which we incorporated, as appropriate.  DHS did not concur with our recommendation.

Specifically, in its comments, DHS stated that data on detained parents or  legal guardians of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents are  available to approved EARM users and that we did not identify any  problems with the quality of the data. However, as we noted in our report,  these data are not readily available because ICE’s data on family  relationships, including parents or legal guardians of U.S. citizens and  legal permanent resident minors, can only be accessed by manually  reviewing each separate case file in EARM. To that end, we or anyone  else wishing to do so are unable to determine whether there are problems  with the data as ICE is not able to provide aggregate data that would  allow us to assess the quality or to report on these data.

In its comments, DHS states that ICE does not have any requirement or  need to aggregate data on this particular group and doing so would not  better inform ICE’s decision making processes. However, as noted in the  report, ICE’s policy states that in pursuing the enforcement of U.S.  immigration laws against parents of minors, ICE personnel should remain  cognizant of the impact enforcement actions may have on U.S. citizen or  legal permanent resident minors. Without making these data readily  available, ICE is not able to account for the overall impact of its  enforcement actions on U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident minors  whose parents or legal guardians have been detained. Additionally,  headquarters and field officials we met with during the course of this  review agreed that having this information readily available would be  useful. They also explained that ICE was developing a method to better  track and report on primary caregivers of children. However, in October  2019, ICE officials stated that the agency is no longer considering this  improvement.

We continue to believe that collecting and maintaining information in a  readily available format on detained parents or legal guardians of U.S.  citizen or legal permanent resident minors could help ensure that ICE  personnel can identify, evaluate, and share information on this population,  as required by ICE policy. Without such data, ICE headquarters officials  cannot ensure that ICE officers are collecting and entering this  information into the system as required. In addition, collecting and  evaluating this information would provide greater transparency regarding  the impacts of ICE’s enforcement actions on U.S. citizen or legal  permanent resident minors.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, and the Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland  Security. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO  website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-8777 or goodwing@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Office of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the  last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in  appendix XII.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This appendix provides additional information on our objectives, scope,  and methodology. Specifically, our objectives were to examine the  following questions:  1.  What does ICE data show about ICE arrests, detentions, and  removals from calendar years 2015 through 2018?  2.  What policies are in effect for selected populations and what changes  did ICE make to align these policies with the 2017 DHS memo?  3.  To what extent does ICE collect data on selected populations in  detention and what do these data show?

To address our first question, we analyzed individual-level data from the  U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Integrated Decision  Support (IIDS) database, to determine the total number of ICE  Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) administrative arrests  (arrests), detentions, and removals from January 2015 (the start of the  Priority Enforcement Program) through December 2018 (to include the  first two years for the 2017 DHS Memo). ERO conducts civil immigration  enforcement actions, which includes arrests for civil violations of U.S.  immigration laws, detentions, and removals.

Arrests. We analyzed individual-level arrest data from IIDS to  determine the total number of ERO arrests for each calendar year  2015 through 2018. We examined multiple data fields from the  individual-level arrest data, including alien file number, family name,  given name, gender, country of citizenship, arrest date, area of  responsibility, and criminality, among other variables. Because aliens  may have multiple arrests, we used alien number and arrest date to  identify the unique number of arrests rather than the number of unique  aliens who were arrested. We excluded from our analysis arrest  records that had a missing alien number, an invalid alien number— i.e., that included all zeroes or had duplicate alien number and arrest  date combinations—or records that indicated test in the name fields.  We analyzed these data to determine total numbers of arrests by  gender, country of citizenship, criminality, arresting program, and area  of responsibility.

To determine the number of arrests by gender, we analyzed IIDS  individual-level arrest data. We also analyzed these data to  determine the number of arrests by criminality for each gender,  using ICE’s determination of criminality for our analysis, as  discussed below.

To determine the number of arrests by country of citizenship, we  analyzed IIDS individual-level arrest data. ICE obtains country of  citizenship data from arrest reports, which may be based on  documentation or self-reported.

To determine the number of arrests by criminality, we analyzed  IIDS individual-level arrest data. For the purposes of this report  and our presentation of ICE data, we refer to potentially  removable aliens without criminal convictions known to ICE as  “non-criminals” and aliens with criminal convictions known to ICE  as “convicted criminals.” According to ERO officials, arrests of  non-criminals include individuals who have been charged but not  convicted of a crime as well as those with no prior criminal history.  According to ICE, ICE officers electronically request and retrieve  criminal history information about an alien from the FBI’s National  Crime Information Center (NCIC) database, which maintains a  repository of federal and state criminal history information. ICE  officers are also able to manually enter criminal history information  in ICE’s data system if they discover additional criminal history  information that was not available in NCIC. ICE officers may also  check for criminal convictions committed outside the United  States, on a case-by-case basis. Most of the ICE data we  reviewed indicated criminal or non-criminal history, where criminal  included convictions, and non-criminal included both pending  criminal charges and other immigration violations. Therefore,  wherever we referred to criminality, we used ICE’s determination  of criminality—criminal or non-criminal—for our analysis.

To determine the number of arrests by arresting program, we  analyzed IIDS individual-level arrests data to determine the  number of arrests at-large in the communities by ICE’s fugitive  operations teams and those resulting from an incarceration in  federal, state, and local prisons and jails through the Criminal  Alien Program.

To determine the number of arrests by ERO area of responsibility,  we analyzed IIDS individual-level arrests data for calendar years  2015 through 2018. We also used these data to calculate the  proportion of arrests of convicted criminals by ERO area of  responsibility. We compared the number of arrests across the 24  ERO areas of responsibility to examine the differences in  enforcement actions between the years the Priority Enforcement  Program were in effect (2015-2016) and the years immediately  following implementation of the DHS memo (2017-2018). We  excluded from our analysis arrest records that had a missing or  unknown area of responsibility.

We also analyzed IIDS individual-level arrest data to determine the  total number of arrests of juveniles during calendar years 2015  through 2018. Because aliens may have multiple arrests, we used  alien number and arrest date to identify the unique number of arrests  rather than the number of unique aliens who were arrested. We  excluded from our analysis arrest records that had a missing alien  number, an invalid alien number—i.e., that included all zeroes or had  duplicate alien number and arrest date combinations. We used these  data to determine the total number of arrests of juveniles by age and  gender.

Detentions. We analyzed individual-level detention data from IIDS to  determine the total number of ERO detentions during calendar years  2015 through 2018. We examined multiple data fields from the  individual-level detention data, including alien file number, person id,  family name, given name, gender, country of citizenship, arresting  agency, criminality, detention facility, book-in date, book-out date,  release reason, and length of stay, among other variables. Because  aliens may have multiple detentions, we used alien number and initial  book-in date fields—i.e., the first date the individual is taken into ICE  custody—to identify the unique number of detentions rather than the  number of unique aliens who were detained. We excluded from our  analysis arrest records that had a missing alien number or had an  invalid alien number—i.e., that included all zeroes. We analyzed  these data to determine total numbers of detentions by gender,  country of citizenship, arresting agency, and criminality.

To determine the number of detentions by gender, we analyzed  IIDS individual-level detention data. We also analyzed these data  to determine the number of detentions by arresting agency—ICE  or U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)—and criminality for  each gender. We included all detentions resulting from both ICE  and CBP arrests because ICE is responsible for detaining certain  aliens apprehended by CBP at or between ports of entry. To  conduct our analysis, we used ICE’s determination of criminality— criminal or non-criminal—which ICE determines by conducting  electronic criminal history checks, as previously discussed.

To determine the number of detentions by country of citizenship,  we analyzed IIDS individual-level detention data. ICE obtains  country of citizenship data from arrest reports, which may be  based on documentation or self-reported.

To determine the number of detentions by arresting agency, we  analyzed IIDS individual-level detention data for detentions  resulting from ICE arrests and those resulting from CBP arrests at  or between ports of entry.

To determine the number of detentions by criminality, we analyzed  IIDS individual-level detention data. We also examined the extent  to which detentions varied by criminality and arresting agency. To  conduct our analysis, we used ICE’s determination of criminality— criminal or non-criminal—which ICE determines by conducting  electronic criminal history checks, as previously discussed.

Removals. We analyzed individual-level removal data from IIDS to  determine the total number of ERO removals during calendar years  2015 through 2018. We examined multiple data fields from the  individual-level removal data, including alien file number, family name,  given name, gender, country of citizenship, criminality, arresting  agency, and removal date, among other variables. Because aliens  may have multiple removals, we used alien number and removal date  to identify the unique number of removals rather than the number of  unique aliens. We excluded from our analysis removal records that  had a missing alien number, an invalid alien number—i.e., that  included all zeroes, or had duplicate alien number and removal date  combinations, or records that indicated test in the name fields. We  analyzed these data to determine total numbers of removals by  gender, country of citizenship, arresting agency, and criminality.

To determine the number of removals by gender, we analyzed  IIDS individual-level removal data. We also analyzed these data to  determine the number of removals by arresting agency and  criminality for each gender. To conduct our analysis, we used  ICE’s determination of criminality—criminal or non-criminal—which  ICE determines by conducting electronic criminal history checks,  as previously discussed.

To determine the number of removals by country of citizenship,  we analyzed IIDS individual-level data. ERO obtains country of  citizenship data from arrest reports, which may be based on  documentation or self-reported.

To determine the number of removals by arresting agency, we  analyzed IIDS individual-level removal data for removals resulting  from ERO arrests and those resulting from CBP arrests at or  between ports of entry.

To determine the number of removals by criminality, we analyzed  IIDS individual-level removal data. To conduct our analysis, we  used ICE’s determination of criminality—criminal or non-criminal— which ICE determines by conducting electronic criminal history  checks, as previously discussed.

We determined that the data used in each of our analyses were  sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report by analyzing available  documentation, such as related data dictionaries; interviewing ICE  officials knowledgeable about the data; conducting electronic tests to  identify missing data, anomalies, or erroneous values; and following up  with officials, as appropriate.

We also analyzed arrest data from Homeland Security Investigations  (HSI) worksite enforcement to determine the total number of criminal and  administrative arrests conducted by HSI worksite enforcement between  January 2015 and December 2018. We were unable to use these data for  the purposes of reporting the total number of arrests by HSI worksite  enforcement for each calendar year. Specifically, we identified  combined arrest, charge, and conviction dates in the same field, among  other issues, which limited our ability to identify the number of aliens  arrested by HSI as a result of worksite enforcement operations each year.

To address our second question, we reviewed a master list of ICE  policies and interviewed policy officials to identify policies related to  individuals with special vulnerabilities. Based on this review as well as  input from nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that serve or  represent various populations, we selected eight populations including  aliens who are: lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI),  individuals with disabilities, juveniles, parents or legal guardians of  minors, pregnant, individuals with mental disorders, women who are  nursing, or individuals who are elderly. To identify the changes ICE made  to align these policies with the 2017 DHS memo, we reviewed specific  provisions in the executive order and implementing memoranda. We then  analyzed existing policies as well as policies that ICE revised or  rescinded to align with the 2017 DHS memo, including policies related to  prosecutorial discretion and selected populations. We conducted  interviews with officials from ICE headquarters offices, including the  Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, Office of Policy, Homeland Security  Investigations, as well as program officials within ERO, including  Domestic Operations, Fugitive Operations, and Custody Management  Divisions. We met with six national organizations that serve or represent  immigrants as well as six state or regional organizations that serve or  represent immigrants in the locations we visited to obtain their  perspectives on how the policies affected the individuals they represent.  The perspectives of NGOs are not generalizable and my not be indicative  of care provided at all detention facilities. We selected these NGOs to  reflect a range of types of populations served or represented as well as  based on their proximity to ICE areas of responsibility we visited, see  table 8 for more information on the organizations we interviewed.

We conducted site visits to six selected ICE ERO areas of responsibility  (Atlanta, Dallas, Los Angeles, San Diego, St. Paul, and Washington,  D.C.) and interviewed ICE officials to obtain their perspectives on the  policy revisions. We selected these locations based on the prevalence of  arrests in fiscal year 2017, percent changes in arrests from fiscal year  2016 to 2017, and geographical dispersion. Specifically, we identified  locations that had the highest arrest numbers in fiscal year 2017 or the  largest percentage increases in arrests from fiscal years 2016 to 2017,  and then selected locations that provided wide geographical  representation. In each location we met with ERO liaisons and officers  responsible for monitoring and implementing the provisions of policies for  certain selected populations, as well as detention and deportation officers  and supervisors who oversee the detention and removal of aliens,  including those with special vulnerabilities. We also met with ICE medical  staff in areas of responsibility with this position. In one area of  responsibility, we limited our visit to a detention facility and met with the  staff at that facility due to its proximity to another area of responsibility we  visited. The information obtained from these site visits is not generalizable  and may not be indicative of care provided to all populations at all  detention facilities, but provided insights into how selected ICE areas of  responsibility conduct enforcement activities and implement immigration  enforcement policies.

To address our third question, we reviewed multiple data sources that  ICE uses to track information on certain aliens with special vulnerabilities  in detention and matched these data with IIDS individual-level detention  data to determine what ICE data show about detentions of selected  populations between January 2015 and December 2018. To conduct our  analysis, we first excluded records that contained missing alien numbers  or alien numbers that were all zeroes. Then, we matched each data  source to the IIDS detention data using alien number and excluded  additional records we were unable to match. Because aliens may have  multiple detentions, we compared the admission or book-in date from  each data source with the book-in dates from the IIDS detention data, and  excluded additional records with dates beyond 30 days apart. We  analyzed this information to determine the total number of detentions for  six of the eight selected populations (aliens who are: transgender,  individuals with disabilities, pregnant, individuals with mental disorders,  nursing, and elderly); and the number of detentions resulting from ICE  versus CBP arrests; as well as detentions by criminality and the length of  detention for each of these six populations. We excluded juveniles from  our analysis because ERO is generally not responsible for detaining  juveniles. To determine the extent to which ICE maintains data on  detained parents or legal guardians of minors, we reviewed ICE policies  pertaining to detained parents, including those that set forth requirements  for tracking detained parents or legal guardians of U.S. citizens and legal  permanent resident minors. We also interviewed ERO officials about  ICE’s data collection processes and any limitations with the data it  collects and maintains. We assessed ICE’s efforts to track this population  against agency policy.

To conduct our analysis of criminality for each population, we used ICE’s  determination of criminality—criminal or non-criminal—which ICE  determines by conducting electronic criminal history checks, as previously  discussed. We also analyzed IIDS data on criminal charges for detentions  of aliens that resulted from ICE arrests to determine the type of charges  (e.g., immigration-related or other criminal charges) associated with these  detentions. To conduct our analysis on length of detention, we  compared initial book-in date with the most recent book-out date to  calculate the total days in detention for each of our selected populations.

Transgender Individuals: We matched ERO records for transgender  detainees from calendar years 2016 through 2018 with IIDS  individual-level detention data to determine the total number of  detentions of transgender individuals, as well as the number of  detentions by arresting agency, criminality, and length of detention.  We excluded 4 of the unique transgender detainee records for 2016,  33 for 2017 and 27 for 2018. These records were excluded because  we were unable to match these records to the IIDS individual level- detention data using alien number and book-in date combinations.  According to ICE officials, this may be due to data entry errors. Our  analysis is based on those records we were able to match: 228 for  2016, 241 for 2017, and 277 for 2018. ICE also recorded 55  transgender detainees in 2015; however, we excluded these records  from our analysis since ICE did not collect complete data on this  population in 2015. For the LGBTI population, ICE only collects and  maintains data on transgender individuals in detention. Therefore, we  were only able to analyze data for this subset of the LGBTI  population.

Individuals with Disabilities: We matched ERO records for  individuals with communication and mobility impairments in ERO  custody during calendar years 2017 and 2018 with IIDS individual- level detention data to determine the total number of detentions of  these individuals, as well as the number of detentions by arresting  agency, criminality, and length of detention. We excluded 5 of the  unique detainee records for 2017, and 1 for 2018 because we were  unable to match these records to the IIDS individual level-detention  data using alien number and book-in date combinations. According to  ICE officials, this may be due to data entry errors. Our analysis is  based on those records we were able to match: 424 for 2017, and 516  for 2018. When ICE began collecting these data, it included aliens  who were placed in detention prior to January 2017. We excluded 99  records for this reason from our analysis since ICE did not collect  complete data on this population prior to January 2017.

Pregnant Women: We matched ICE Health Service Corps (IHSC)  records for pregnant women in ERO custody during calendar years  2016 through 2018 with IIDS individual-level detention data to  determine the total number of detentions of pregnant women, as well  as the number of detentions by arresting agency, criminality, and  length of detention. We excluded 60 of the unique pregnant  detainee records for 2016, 20 for 2017 and 32 for 2018 because we  were unable to match these records to the IIDS individual-level  detention data using alien number and book-in date combinations.  According to ICE officials, this may be due to data entry errors. Our  analysis is based on those records we were able to match: 1,377 for  2016, 1,150 for 2017, and 2,094 for 2018. ICE also recorded 675  pregnant detainees in 2015; however, we excluded these records  from our analysis since ICE did not collect complete data on this  population in 2015.

Elderly Individuals: We analyzed data records in IIDS for elderly  individuals (those 65 years or older at the time of initial book-in) in  ERO custody during calendar years 2015 through 2018 to determine  the total number of detentions of elderly individuals, as well as the  number of detentions by arresting agency, criminality, and length of  detention. According to ERO, the agency does not maintain separate  data records for elderly individuals in ERO custody; however, ERO  officials were able to identify these detainees by calculating their age  at the time they were detained. We excluded 4 of the unique elderly  detainee records for 2015, 3 for 2016 and 4 for 2018 because we  were unable to match these records to the IIDS individual-level  detention data using alien number and book-in date combinations.  According to ICE officials, this may be due to data entry errors. Our  analysis is based on those records we were able to match: 863 for  2015, 736 for 2016, 763 for 2017, and 1,132 for 2018.

Individuals with Mental Disorders and Nursing Women: We  matched IHSC records for individuals with mental disorders and  nursing women detained at IHSC-staffed facilities during calendar  years 2015 through 2018 with IIDS individual-level detention data to  determine the total number of detentions of each of these populations,  as well as the number of detentions by arresting agency, criminality,  and length of detention. Because ICE did not maintain data on  individuals with mental disorders or nursing women detained at the  over 200 non-IHSC staffed facilities, our findings for these two  populations are not generalizable, but provided valuable insights into  these detentions. We excluded 207 of the unique detainee with  mental disorders records for 2016, 850 for 2017, and 1,233 for 2018  because we were unable to match these records with the IIDS  individual-level detention data using alien number and book-in date  combinations. Our analysis is based on the unique detainee with  mental disorders records we were able to match: 8,138 for 2015,  9,466 for 2016, 8,643 for 2017, and 8,501 for 2018. Similarly, we  excluded 2 of the unique nursing detainee records for 2015, 3 for  2017 and 5 for 2018 for the same reason. Our analysis is based on  the unique nursing detainee records we were able to match: 157 for  2015, 399 for 2016, 564 for 2017, and 381 for 2018. According to ICE  officials, this may be due to data entry errors.

We assessed the reliability of the data used in each of our analyses by  analyzing available documentation, such as related data dictionaries;  interviewing ERO officials knowledgeable about the data; conducting  electronic tests to identify missing data, anomalies, or erroneous values;  and following up with officials, as appropriate. We determined the data  were sufficiently reliable for depicting general trends in detentions for the  selected populations.

We conducted this performance audit from November 2017 to December  2019 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Appendix II: Enforcement and Removal Operations Arrests, Detentions, and Removals, 2015-2018

The number of Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO)  administrative arrests (arrests) by gender, country of citizenship, ICE  enforcement program, criminality, and area of responsibility from  calendar years 2015 through 2018.

The number of detentions by gender, country of citizenship, arresting  agency, and criminality from calendar years 2015 through 2018.

The number of removals by gender, country of citizenship, arresting  agency, and criminality from calendar years 2015 through 2018.

We analyzed individual-level Immigration and Customs Enforcement  (ICE) data to identify ERO arrests, detentions, and removals during  calendar years 2015 through 2018.

The Number of Arrests Varied during the Period, Increasing Overall. The  number of ERO arrests varied from calendar years 2015 through 2018,  and increased more than 30 percent overall for the 4-year period (from  112,870 arrests in 2015 to 151,497 arrests in 2018). During the two  years Priority Enforcement Program (PEP) was in effect, the number of  ERO arrests varied little, decreasing 5 percent from 2015 to 2016.  Following issuance of the 2017 DHS memo, ERO arrests increased 41  percent from 2016 to 2017, and stayed relatively the same from 2017 to  2018.

Arrests by Gender. Each year from calendar years 2015 through 2018,  arrests of males accounted for the majority of ERO arrests (ranging from  92 to 93 percent), as shown in figure 7.

Arrests by Country of Citizenship. Each year from 2015 through 2018,  ERO arrests of citizens of Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, and  Honduras collectively accounted for about 86 percent of all ERO arrests,  with individuals from Mexico accounting for the majority (ranging from 59  to 65 percent), as shown in figure 8. All other individual countries  collectively accounted for about 14 to 15 percent of total arrests each  year.

Arrests by ICE Enforcement Program. Arrests of individuals from  federal, state and local prisons and jails, through the Criminal Alien  Program, accounted for the majority (ranging from 72 to 76 percent) of  ERO arrests each calendar year from 2015 through 2018, as shown in  figure 9. Arrests of individuals at-large through Fugitive Operations  (ranging from 17 to 19 percent) and other programs accounted for the  balance of the arrests each year. Criminal Alien Program arrests also  accounted for most of the increase in ERO arrests in calendar years 2017  and 2018 (see figure 9).

Arrests by Criminality. As shown in figure 10, the number and  proportion of ERO arrests of non-criminals aliens increased each year  from calendar years 2015 through 2018. For the purposes of this report  and our presentation of ICE data, we refer to potentially removable aliens  without criminal convictions known to ICE as “non-criminals” and aliens  with criminal convictions known to ICE as “convicted criminals.”  Specifically, the arrests of non-criminals increased from 13,494 (12  percent of total arrests) in 2015 to 51,513 (34 percent of total arrests) in  2018. According to ERO officials, arrests of non-criminals include  individuals who have been charged with but not convicted of a crime as  well as those with no prior criminal history.

The number of ERO arrests of convicted criminals stayed relatively stable  from calendar years 2015 to 2018, ranging between about 91,000 and  107,000. Each of these years, arrests of convicted criminals comprised  the majority of total arrests, but decreased from 88 percent in 2015 to 66  percent in 2018. Most arrests of convicted criminals resulted from the  Criminal Alien Program (ranging from 76 to 80 percent), followed by  Fugitive Operations (ranging from 15 to 19 percent).

Arrests by Areas of Responsibility. The number of ERO arrests  increased in all ERO areas of responsibility when comparing calendar  years 2015 and 2016, when PEP was in effect, to calendar years 2017  and 2018, following implementation of the 2017 DHS memo. These  increases ranged from less than 1 percent increase in the Los Angeles  area of responsibility to a 99 percent increase in the Miami area of  responsibility. Arrests of convicted criminals accounted for the majority of  total arrests in all areas of responsibility. However, the proportion of  arrests of convicted criminals to total arrests decreased in all areas of  responsibility from 2015 and 2016 to 2017 and 2018. This decrease is  partially due to the increase in the number of ERO arrests of non- criminals in all areas of responsibility during these years.

Table 9 presents total numbers of ERO arrests for each of ERO’s 24  areas responsibility nationwide. It also presents the percentage of arrests  of convicted criminals by area of responsibility for calendar years 2015  and 2016 combined and calendar years 2017 and 2018 combined.

The Number of Detentions Varied, Increasing Overall. The number of  ERO detentions varied from calendar years 2015 through 2018, and  increased more than 30 percent overall for the 4-year period (from  324,320 detentions in 2015 to 438,258 detentions in 2018). ERO  detention data include detentions resulting from both ICE and CBP  arrests. During the two years PEP was in effect, the number of ERO  detentions increased 13 percent, from 324,320 in 2015 to 366,740 in  2016. Following issuance of the 2017 DHS memo, ERO detentions  decreased 15 percent from 2016 to 2017 (from 366,740 to 310,309  detentions), and increased 41 percent from 2017 to 2018 (to 438,258  detentions).

Detentions by Gender. Each year from calendar years 2015 through  2018, detentions of males accounted for the majority of ERO detentions  (ranging from 74 to 81 percent), as shown in figure 11.

Detentions by Country of Citizenship. Each year from 2015 through  2018, ERO detentions of citizens of Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, and  Honduras collectively accounted for the most detentions (ranging from 84  to 89 percent). All other individual countries collectively accounted for 11  to 16 percent of total detentions each year, as shown in Figure 12.

Detentions by Arresting Agency. Detentions resulting from CBP arrests  at or between ports of entry accounted for the majority of ERO detentions  each year from calendar years 2015 through 2018 (ranging from 52 to 71  percent). Detentions resulting from CBP arrests also accounted for most  of the variation in detentions from year to year, as shown in figure 13.  Detentions resulting from ICE arrests varied little from 2015 to 2016,  increased in 2017, and then varied little from 2017 to 2018.

Detentions by Criminality. As shown in figure 14, the number of ERO  detentions of non-criminals varied, but increased overall from calendar  years 2015 to 2018. These detentions accounted for the majority of total  ERO detentions each year (ranging from 53 to 64 percent). The variation  in the number of detentions of non-criminals was partially due to  fluctuations in detentions that resulted from CBP arrests.

The number of ERO detentions of convicted criminals stayed relatively  stable from 2015 to 2018, and accounted for the minority of total ERO  detentions (ranging from 36 to 47 percent). The majority of these  detentions resulted from ICE arrests (ranging from 64 to 76 percent)  rather than CBP arrests.

The Number of Removals Varied, Increasing Overall. The number of ERO  removals varied from calendar years 2015 through 2018, and increased  13 percent overall for the 4-year period (from 231,559 removals in 2015  to 261,523 removals in 2018). ERO removal data include removals  resulting from both ICE and CBP arrests. During the two years PEP was  in effect, the number of ERO removals varied little, increasing 6 percent  from 2015 to 2016. Following issuance of the 2017 DHS memo, ERO  removals decreased 12 percent in 2017, and increased 21 percent from  2017 to 2018.

Removals by Gender. Removals of male aliens accounted for most of  ERO removals (about 90 percent) each year from calendar years 2015  through 2018, as shown in figure 15.

Removals by Country of Citizenship. In addition, from calendar years  2015 through 2018, ERO removals of citizens of Mexico, Guatemala, El  Salvador, and Honduras collectively accounted for most of the removals  each year (ranging from 90 to 94 percent). Citizens of all other countries  collectively accounted for 6 to 10 percent of total removals each year, as  shown in figure 16.

Removals by Arresting Agency. Each year, removals resulting from  CBP arrests at or between ports of entry accounted for the majority of  total ERO removals (ranging from 60 to 74 percent). ERO removals  resulting from CBP arrests also accounted for most of the variation in total  removals from year to year, as shown in figure 17.

Removals by Criminality. The number and proportion of ERO removals  of non-criminals varied, but increased overall, from calendar years 2015  through 2018, as shown in figure 18. Specifically, removals of non- criminals increased from 40 percent of total removals in 2015 to 43  percent of total removals in 2018. Most removals of non-criminals  resulted from CBP arrests (ranging from 80 to 95 percent), rather than  ICE arrests.

ERO removals of convicted criminals varied, increasing overall, from  calendar years 2015 to 2018, and accounted for the majority of total ERO  removals each year (ranging from 55 to 60 percent). Removals of  convicted criminals resulted from CBP and ICE arrests at approximately  equal levels.

Appendix III: Enforcement and Removal Operations Arrests, Detentions, and Removals of Males, 2015-2018

This appendix presents the overall number of Enforcement and Removal  Operations (ERO) administrative arrests (arrests), detentions, and  removals of males from calendar years 2015 through 2018, including the  number of arrests by criminality and the number of detentions and  removal by criminality and arresting agency. We analyzed individual- level Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) data to identify ERO  arrests, detentions, and removals of males during calendar years 2015  through 2018.

The Number of Arrests of Males Generally Increased. The number of  ERO arrests of males varied from calendar years 2015 through 2018 but  generally increased by 32 percent across the period, as shown in figure  19. During the two years the Priority Enforcement Program (PEP) was in  effect, between calendar years 2015 and 2016, the number of ERO  arrests remained stable, decreasing by about 5 percent in that period.  The following year, after the issuance of the 2017 DHS memo in February  2017, ERO arrests increased by about 40 percent from calendar years  2016 to 2017, and decreased by less than 1 percent in calendar year  2018.

Arrests of Males by Criminality. During the same time, the proportion of  ERO arrests of convicted criminal males decreased each year from 90  percent of total arrests of males in calendar year 2015 to 69 percent in  calendar year 2018, as shown in figure 19. For the purposes of this  report and our presentation of ICE data, we refer to potentially removable  aliens without criminal convictions known to ICE as “non-criminals” and  aliens with criminal convictions known to ICE as “convicted criminals.”  Conversely, the proportion of ERO arrests of non-criminal males  increased each year, from 10 percent of total arrests of males in calendar  year 2015 to 31 percent of total arrests in calendar year 2018. According  to officials, arrests of non-criminals include individuals who have been  charged with but not convicted of a crime as well as those with no prior  criminal history.

For the purposes of this report and our presentation of ICE data, we refer  to potentially removable aliens without criminal convictions known to ICE  as “non-criminals” and aliens with criminal convictions known to ICE as  “convicted criminals.” According to ICE officials, administrative arrests of  non-criminals include individuals who have been charged with but not  convicted of a crime as well as those with no prior criminal history.  According to ICE, ICE officers electronically request and retrieve criminal  history information about an alien from the FBI’s National Crime  Information Center database, which maintains a repository of federal and  state criminal history information, and other sources. We used ICE’s  determination of criminality for our analysis.

Detentions of Males Increased Overall. The number of ERO detentions  varied from calendar years 2015 through 2018, but increased overall by  32 percent over the period, as shown in figure 20. ERO detention data  include detentions resulting from both ICE and U.S. Customs and Border  Protection (CBP) arrests. During the two years PEP was in effect, the  number of ERO detentions of males increased by more than 8 percent  from calendar years 2015 to 2016. Following the issuance of the 2017  DHS memo, the number of male detentions decreased by more than 8  percent in calendar year 2017, and increased again in calendar year  2018, by over 32 percent.

Detentions of Males by Arresting Agency. Detention of males resulted  from both ICE and CBP arrests from calendar years 2015 through 2018,  as shown in figure 20. For all the years in this period, except calendar  year 2017, detentions resulting from a CBP arrest at or between ports of  entry account for the majority of the detentions of males (ranging from  about 58 to 63 percent). In calendar year 2017, detentions resulting from  ICE arrests accounted for about 56 percent of all male detentions.

Detentions of Males by Criminality. During the same time, the number  and proportion of ERO detentions of convicted criminal males varied,  ranging from 45 to 57 percent of all detentions of males, as shown in  figure 21. The majority of these detentions resulted from ICE arrests,  ranging from 66 to 77 percent of all convicted criminal male detentions.

The number of ERO detentions of non-criminal males also varied, ranging  from 43 to 55 percent of all detentions of males. Detentions of non- criminal males primarily resulted from CBP arrests, which ranged from 69  to 93 percent of detentions of non-criminal males between calendar years  2015 and 2018.

Removals of Males Increased Overall. The number of ERO removals of  males varied from calendar years 2015 through 2018, but increased  overall by 14 percent over the period, as shown in figure 22. ERO  removal data include removals resulting from both ICE and CBP arrests.  During PEP, which was in effect from calendar years 2015 and 2016, the  number of ERO removals of males increased by about 6 percent. From  calendar years 2016 to 2017, following the issuance of the 2017 DHS  memo, the number of these removals decreased by more than 11  percent, then increased by more than 20 percent in calendar year 2018.

Removals of Males by Arresting Agency. From calendar years 2015 to  2018, the majority of ERO removals of males resulted from CBP arrests  at or in between ports of entry (ranging from 58 to 72 percent), as shown  in figure 22.

Removals of Males by Criminality. From calendar years 2015 through  2018, ERO removals of convicted criminal males accounted for the  majority of removals each year, ranging from 58 to 63 percent of the total  removal of males, as shown in figure 23. The removals of convicted  criminal males were the result of both CBP and ICE arrests. For all the  years in this period, except calendar year 2017, removals resulting from a  CBP arrest account for the majority of the removals of convicted criminal  males (ranging from about 52 to 56 percent). In calendar year 2017,  removals resulting from ICE arrests accounted for about 56 percent of all  removals of convicted criminal males.

ERO removals of non-criminal males varied, increasing overall, from  calendar years 2015 to 2018, and accounted for the minority of ERO  removals of males each year (ranging from 37 to 42 percent). Most of the  removals of non-criminal males were as a result of CBP arrests, ranging  from 79 to 95 percent of all removals of non-criminal males.

Appendix IV: Enforcement and Removal Operations Arrests, Detentions, and Removals of Females, 2015-2018

This appendix presents the overall number of Enforcement and Removal  Operations (ERO) administrative arrests (arrests), detentions, and  removals of females from calendar years 2015 through 2018, including  the number of arrests by criminality and the number of detentions and  removals by criminality and arresting agency. We analyzed individual- level Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) data to identify ERO  arrests, detentions, and removals of females during calendar years 2015  through 2018.

The Number of Arrests of Females Generally Increased. The number of  ERO arrests of females generally increased more than 70 percent from  calendar years 2015 through 2018, as shown in figure 24. Between 2015  and 2016, the two years the Priority Enforcement Program (PEP) was in  effect, the number of ERO arrests remained stable, decreasing by less  than 1 percent in that period. Following the issuance of the 2017 DHS  memo, ERO arrests increased by 65 percent from calendar years 2016 to  2017, and increased by less than 5 percent in calendar year 2018.

Arrests of Females by Criminality. During the same time, the proportion  of arrests of non-criminal females increased each year from 43 percent in  calendar year 2015 to 63 percent of total arrests of females in calendar  year 2018. For the purposes of this report and our presentation of ICE  data, we refer to potentially removable aliens without criminal convictions  known to ICE as “non-criminals” and aliens with criminal convictions  known to ICE as “convicted criminals.” According to officials, arrests of  non-criminals include individuals who have been charged with but not  convicted of a crime as well as those with no prior criminal history.  Conversely, the proportion of ERO arrests of convicted criminal females  decreased each year from 57 percent in calendar year 2015 to 37 percent  in calendar year 2018, as shown in figure 24.

Detentions of Females Increased Overall. The number of ERO detentions  varied from calendar years 2015 through 2018, and increased more than  45 percent over the period, as shown in figure 25. ERO detention data  include detentions resulting from both ICE and U.S. Customs and Border  Protection (CBP) arrests. During the two years PEP was in effect, the  number of ERO detentions of females increased by more than 28 percent  from calendar years 2015 through 2016. Following the issuance of the  DHS memo, the number of detentions decreased by about 36 percent in  2017, then increased by over 77 percent in calendar year 2018.

Detentions of Females by Arresting Agency. Detentions of females  resulting from CBP arrests at or between ports of entry accounted for  most of the detentions of females each year from calendar years 2015  through 2018 (ranging from 84 to 94 percent), as shown in figure 25.

Detentions of Females by Criminality. As shown in figure 26, the  number of ERO detentions of non-criminal females varied, but increased  overall from calendar years 2015 to 2018. These detentions accounted  for most of the total ERO detentions of females each year (ranging from  87 to 92 percent). Most of the detention of non-criminal females resulted  from CBP arrests (ranging from 91 to 98 percent) rather than ICE arrests.

The number of ERO detentions of convicted criminal females stayed  relatively stable from calendar years 2015 through 2018, and accounted  for the minority of total ERO detentions (ranging from 8 to 13 percent).  CBP and ICE arrests accounted for approximately the same number of  detentions of convicted criminal females.

Removals of Females Increased Overall. The number of ERO removals  of females remained relatively stable from calendar years 2015 through  2018, but increased overall by 6 percent over the period, as shown in  figure 27. ERO removal data include removals resulting from both ICE  and CBP arrests. During the PEP, which lasted from calendar years  2015 and 2016, the number of ERO removals increased by more that 2  percent. From calendar years 2016 to 2017, following the issuance of the  2017 DHS memo, the number of ERO removals decreased by more than  14 percent, then increased by more than 20 percent in 2018.

Removals of Females by Arresting Agency. Each calendar year,  removals resulting from CBP arrests at or between ports of entry  accounted for most of the ERO removals of females (ranging from 80 to  90 percent), as shown in figure 27.

Removals of Females by Criminality. From calendar years 2015  through 2018, the majority of ERO removals were of non-criminal females  (ranging from 66 to 72 percent), as shown in figure 28. Most removals of  non-criminal females resulted from CBP arrests (ranging from 88 to 97  percent), rather than ICE arrests.

ERO removals of convicted criminal females varied, increasing overall,  from calendar years 2015 to 2018, and accounted for the minority of ERO  removals of females each year (ranging from 28 to 34 percent). The  majority removals of convicted criminal females also resulted from CBP  arrests (ranging from 56 to 71 percent).

Appendix V: Enforcement and Removal Operations Arrests of Juveniles by Age and Gender, 2015-2018

This appendix presents the overall number of Enforcement and Removal  Operations (ERO) administrative arrests (arrests) of juveniles—persons  encountered by ERO who have not reached 18 years of age—as well as  the number of juvenile arrests by age and gender. We analyzed  individual-level Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) data to  identify the number of ERO arrests of juveniles during calendar years  2015 through 2018.

The Number of Arrests of Juveniles Increased Overall. The number of  ERO arrests of juveniles increased overall by 53 percent from calendar  years 2015 through 2018, as shown in figure 29. During the two years  the Priority Enforcement Program was in effect, ERO arrests of juveniles  increased 47 percent (from 887 arrests in 2015 to 1,307 arrests in 2016).  Following issuance of the 2017 DHS memo, ERO arrests of juveniles  increased 76 percent in calendar year 2017 (2,294 arrests), and  decreased 41 percent in calendar year 2018 (1,361 arrests).

Arrests of Juveniles by Age. The proportion of arrests for juveniles of all  age groups—ages 0 to 6, 7 to 12, and 13 to 17—varied between calendar  years 2015 and 2018, as shown in figure 30. For instance, the proportion  of arrests of juveniles ages 0 to 6 between calendar years 2015 and  2018, ranged from 31 to 43 percent of the total number of arrests of  juveniles. The proportion of arrests of juveniles ages 7 to 12 ranged from  16 percent to 23 percent of total arrests of juveniles during this same  period while arrests of juveniles ages 13 to 17, during the same period  ranged from 34 percent to 50 percent of total arrests of juveniles.

Arrests of Juveniles by Gender. Each calendar year from 2015 through  2018, arrests of male juveniles accounted for the majority of ERO arrests  of juveniles (ranging from 57 to 66 percent), as shown in figure 31.

Appendix VI: Enforcement and Removal Operations Administrative Arrests by Country of Citizenship

This appendix presents the number of U.S. Immigration and Customs  Enforcement (ICE) Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO)  administrative arrests by country of citizenship for calendar years 2015  through 2018. Each year from 2015 through 2018, ERO administratively  arrested aliens from over 200 countries.

Appendix VII: Enforcement and Removal Operations Detentions by Country of Citizenship

This appendix presents the number of U.S. Immigration and Customs  Enforcement (ICE) Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO)  detentions by country of citizenship for calendar years 2015 through  2018. Each year from 2015 through 2018, ERO detained aliens from  over 200 countries.

Appendix VIII: Enforcement and Removal Operations Removals by Country of Citizenship

This appendix presents the number of U.S. Immigration and Customs  Enforcement (ICE) Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO)  removals by country of citizenship for calendar years 2015 through 2018.  Each year from 2015 through 2018, ERO removed aliens from almost 200  countries.

Appendix IX: Review of Available Criminal Charges for Detentions of Selected Populations Resulting from ICE Arrests

This appendix presents the number and type of criminal charges of U.S.  Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Enforcement and Removal  Operations (ERO) detentions of selected populations (aliens who are:  transgender, individuals with disabilities, pregnant, individuals with mental  disorders, women who are nursing, or individuals who are elderly)  resulting from ICE arrests. ICE administrative arrests of aliens for civil  violations of U.S. immigration laws include arrests of both aliens with prior  criminal convictions and those without prior criminal convictions.  According to ICE, ICE officers electronically request and retrieve criminal  history information about an alien from the FBI’s National Crime  Information Center (NCIC) database, which maintains a repository of  federal and state criminal history information. ICE officers are also able to  manually enter criminal history information in ICE’s data system if they  discover additional criminal history information that was not available in  NCIC. ICE officers may also check for criminal convictions committed  outside the United States, on a case by case basis.

To identify which convictions or charges were immigration-related for  these selected populations, we reviewed the criminal history information  recorded in ICE’s data system by ICE officers. m ICE collected data to  identify each of these populations beginning at different timeframes or  subsets within the population, as shown below. For information on the  number of detentions of selected populations resulting from ICE arrests  by criminal charge type, see tables 13 through 18.

Appendix X: Length of Detentions of Selected Populations

This appendix presents the length of U.S. Immigrations and Customs  Enforcement (ICE) Enforcement and Removal Operations detentions of  selected populations—aliens who are: transgender, individuals with  disabilities, pregnant, individuals with mental disorders, women who are  nursing, or individuals who are elderly. Available ICE data varied for  each of these populations because ICE began collecting these data at  different time periods. In addition, the length of some detentions from a  particular year may be undetermined because they were still ongoing at  the time of our review (as of May 15, 2019). We present available data for  each of the populations.

Detentions of Transgender Individuals. Based on available records  each year from 2016 through 2018, the majority of detentions of  transgender individuals were 90 days or less (ranging from 62 to 70  percent), as shown in table 19.

Detentions of Individuals with Disabilities. Based on available records  in calendar years 2017 and 2018, the majority of detentions of individuals  with disabilities were 90 days or less (56 and 65 percent, respectively), as  shown in table 20.

Detentions of Pregnant Women. From calendar years 2016 through  2018, the majority of detentions of pregnant women were 15 days or less  (ranging from 71 to 93 percent), as shown in table 21.

Detentions of Individuals with Mental Disorders at ICE Health  Service Corps-staffed facilities. Based on available records each year  from calendar years 2015 through 2018, the majority of detentions of  individuals with mental disorders at ICE Health Service Corps (IHSC)- staffed facilities were 90 days or less (ranging from 59 to 71 percent), as  shown in table 22.

Detentions of Nursing Women at IHSC-staffed facilities. From  calendar years 2015 through 2018, most detentions of nursing women at  IHSC-staffed facilities were 30 days or less (ranging from 77 to 97  percent), as shown in table 23.

Detentions of Elderly Individuals. Based on available records each  year from calendar years 2015 through 2018, most of the detentions of  elderly individuals were 90 days or less (ranging from 80 to 84 percent),  with the majority being of 30 days or less, as shown in table 24.

Appendix XI: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security

Appendix XII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact name above, Meg Ullengren (Assistant  Director), Carissa Bryant (Analyst-in-Charge), Hiwotte Amare, Michele  Fejfar, Eric Hauswirth, Dainia Lawes, Marycella Mierez, Heidi Nielson,  and Claire Peachey made key contributions to this report.

We reported on data and trends related to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activities in 2015–2018.

Arrests, detentions, and removals increased overall

Males; aliens from Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras; and convicted criminals made up the majority of ICE arrests and removals

Detentions of transgender, pregnant, and disabled individuals increased

However, data on detained parents or legal guardians of U.S. citizen or permanent resident minors is not collected in a readily available format, so we couldn’t report it. We recommended that ICE collect and make this data readily available, as required by ICE policy.