Immigration detainee report falls short on abuse

An audit report released on Dec. 22, 2006 by the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) documents many areas in which facilities housing immigration detainees failed to meet the minimum standards for care established by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Critics of the report say it mostly ignores the most serious reports of abuse, instead focusing on relatively minor problems in the treatment of detainees. "This isn't a serious report. It's basically a whitewash that specifically does not address the many reports of abuse of detainees," said Eric Lerner of the New Jersey Civil Rights Defense Committee (NJCRDC). OIG spokesperson Tamara Faulkner declined to comment on the report, saying only that the DHS preferred to let the report speak for itself. The report does not deal with the entire detention system, but only five facilities, allowing DHS officials to claim that the results are not representative of a systemic failure. The five facilities subjected to the audit were Berks County Prison (BCP), Leesport, PA; Corrections Corporation of America Facility (CCA), San Diego, CA; Krome Service Processing Center, Miami, FL; Hudson County Correction Center (HCCC), Kearny, NJ and Passaic County Jail (PCJ), Paterson, NJ. These facilities fall into three categories. Krome is one of eight service processing centers operated by ICE. CCA is a contract detention facility, meaning that it is operated by a private contractor and exists only to house detained immigrants. BCP, HCCC and PCJ are state and local jails used by ICE in exchange for monetary reimbursement. According to the report, all are charged with providing "adequate and appropriate custody management of immigration detainees until a decision is rendered regarding their removal." Only one of the facilities–Krome–complied with all requirements related to health care. At two of the facilties, some detainees did not receive the initial medical examination required upon arrival, while at the other two facilities, a lack of documentation made it impossible for auditors to determine whether or not the examinations took place. In addition to failing to provide initial medical screenings, three facilities failed to comply with their own policies regarding response time for non-emergency medical requests. The same facilities also largely failed to handle hunger strikers and detainees on suicide watch according to ICE standards. Only CCA complied with the standards for care of hunger strikers at all, and three facilities failed to monitor some detainees on suicide watch every 15 minutes as required by ICE. The report further states that facilities housing immigration detainees are also required to maintain environmental health conditions "at a level that meets recognized standards of hygiene." Detainee interviews revealed 127 health complaints. Three types of health complaints were received including complaints involving rats, mice and cockroaches at BCP and PCJ and poor ventilation at all facilities except Krome. Detainees at HCCC and PCJ also complained of poor food service including dirty food trays and cold or undercooked food. Auditors were reportedly given a grievance form, signed by 57 detainees, stating that ten people became ill from eating undercooked chicken. In addition to detainee complaints regarding health and environmental conditions, auditors also reported a failure to document detainees' written requests and respond to them within the 72 hours allowed by ICE standards. Further problems with documentation include failure to document grievances and incident reports, inmate processing forms and classification sheets. Only CCA followed ICE guidelines for documentation, troubling because this documentation is the only way to record a detainee's time and experiences in facility custody. Many detainees complained about excessive disciplinary action taken against them. According to regulations at BCP, non-severe disciplinary actions can include counseling, a warning or reprimand, loss of privileges for up to four days or 24-hour confinement to a cell. Of 146 disciplinary actions reviewed by OIG auditors, 120 imposed 24-hour lockdowns. One detainee reported being locked down for "wearing a religious head garment." There were also several incidents of physical abuse included in the report, including a female detainee at CCA who reported being sexually assaulted by a contract guard during a work detail. The guard was fired by the facility, meaning that ICE was not required to respond to the incident. Two detainees at HCCC claim that a correctional officer used a cell phone to photograph detainees coming out of the bathroom and shower. This report was denied by officials. Lerner described the report as "cursory," telling AGR that the report originally began as a broad effort that would include actual interviews with detainees and individual reports of abuse. According to Lerner, the scope was then deliberately limited, leading to the exclusion of interviews and reports of abuse, other than the few mentioned above. This was not for a lack of information according to an NJCRDC press release stating that "information gathered by [NJCRDC] from hundreds of detainees over a period of five years illustrates a clear pattern of punitive treatment at the hands of local officials, including the use of attack dogs, guard beatings and rapes, and systematic food and heat deprivation. Detainees in NJ and elsewhere have been held in dungeon-like, overcrowded, filthy, and vermin-infested conditions and have resisted with hunger strikes and attempted suicides." According to Lerner all of this information was provided to the OIG with the expectation that it would be included in the report. Compounding problems with excessive punishment and abusive guards is the fact that three facilities failed to provide detainees with access to legal materials as required by ICE standards. Furthermore, only Krome adhered to ICE standards regarding access to telephones and privacy to make calls. Detainees at two facilities complained that some of the phones in visitor areas did not work at all. At PCJ during the summer of 2005, there were reportedly six instances in which detainees actually had to file formal grievances to request emergency phone calls just to notify their families that they had been detained. All four facilities failed to provide private telephones for detainees to call their lawyers. In most instances other detainees, guards or both could overhear conversations. This could be a deterrent to detainees who wish to complain about inadequate care or abuse at the facilities but fear reprisal from guards or other detainees. All of this isolates detainees from outside support, increasing the unaccountability of officials inside the facilities. "The report highlights what advocates have been reporting on for years–that in many places the detention standards are not followed, resulting in detainees being denied access to lawyers and proper medical care," said Christina DeConcini, Policy director at the National Immigration Forum, a pro-immigrant advocacy organization in Washington. "This is the only prison population that does not have a right to government-appointed counsel. The standards were designed to ensure that, at a minimum, immigration detainees are able to make free phone calls to volunteer attorneys. Among other findings, this report highlights that this isn't happening." Adding to problems with accountability is a failure to document grievances and/or respond to grievances within a prescribed time frame. In fact, at HCCC an official told auditors that they were not even aware of a 5-day requirement to respond to grievances even though it is outlined in the HCCC detainee handbook. According to the report, all five facilities covered in the report distributed handbooks to detainees that did not "explain the process for reporting allegations related to abuse or civil rights violations to the … OIG." Not only are facilities expected to provide detainees with handbooks containing this information, but the handbooks are also required to explain detainees' rights, responsibilities and rules. This information was not included at all at HCCC and PCJ and auditors could not determine whether all detainees received handbooks containing that information at BCP or CCA. According to the report, informing detainees of their rights is especially important because they are in "administrative custody versus punitive correctional custody and are afforded rights and privileges specifically germane to their custody status." Five BCP officials told auditors that they were unaware of specific ICE standards for detainees and that they had been trained to treat inmates and detainees the same. Also, four senior CCA correctional officers told auditors that officers at the facility "had no knowledge of ICE's policies and procedures pertaining to ICE detainees." Due to inadequacies of the report, the NJCRDC plans to release its own report in conjunction with the Bill of Rights Defense Committee. Their report will include detainee testimony about specific incidents of abuse and civil rights violations. "This totally inadequate report emphasizes our contention that the only way to end the abuse of detainees is to end this totally unconstitutional system of detention," Lerner told AGR, adding that there is "no way to reform a system where the Bill of Rights is flouted."