United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Committees

November 2014

ALTERNATIVES TO
DETENTION
Improved Data
Collection and
Analyses Needed to
Better Assess
Program
Effectiveness

GAO-15-26

November 2014

ALTERNATIVES TO DETENTION
Improved Data Collection and Analyses Needed to
Better Assess Program Effectiveness
Highlights of GAO-15-26, a report to
congressional committees

Why GAO Did This Study

What GAO Found

Aliens awaiting removal proceedings or
found to be removable from the United
States are detained in ICE custody or
released into the community under one
or more options, such as release on
bond and under supervision of the ATD
program. Within the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS), ICE is
responsible for overseeing aliens in
detention and those released into the
community. In 2004 ICE implemented
the ATD program to be a cost-effective
alternative to detaining aliens. ICE
administers the program with
contractor assistance using case
management and electronic monitoring
to ensure aliens comply with release
conditions—including appearing at
immigration court hearings and leaving
the United States if they receive a final
order of removal. The Joint
Explanatory Statement to the 2014
Consolidated Appropriations Act
mandated that GAO evaluate ICE's
implementation of the ATD program.

From fiscal year 2011 through fiscal year 2013, the number of aliens who
participated in the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE)
Alternatives to Detention (ATD) program increased from 32,065 to 40,864, in part
because of increases in either enrollments or the average length of time aliens
spent in one of the program’s components. For example, during this time period,
the number of aliens enrolled in the Full-service component, which is run by a
contractor that maintains in-person contact with the alien and monitors the alien
with either Global Positioning System (GPS) equipment or a telephonic reporting
system, increased by 60 percent. In addition, the average length of time aliens
spent in the Technology-only program component, which offers a lower level of
supervision at a lower contract cost than the Full-service program component
and involves ICE monitoring of aliens using either telephonic reporting or GPS
equipment provided by a contractor, increased by 80 percent—from about 10
months to about 18 months. In 2011, ICE recommended practices in guidance to
its Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) field offices to better ensure
cost-effective implementation of the program. For example, ICE recommended
that field officers move aliens who have demonstrated compliance under the Fullservice component to the less costly Technology-only component. GAO’s work
showed differences in ERO field offices’ implementation of the guidance.
However, ICE headquarters officials said that because of limitations in how they
collect and maintain program data, they do not know the extent to which field
officers have consistently implemented this guidance. ICE plans to institute new
data collection requirements to address these limitations and use these data for a
variety of purposes; however, ICE has not considered how to analyze these data
to monitor the extent to which ERO field offices are implementing the guidance.
Analyzing these data, once collected, could help ICE better monitor the extent to
which ERO field offices are implementing the practices in its guidance intended
to ensure more cost-effective program operation.

This report addresses (1) trends in
ATD program participation from fiscal
years 2011 through 2013 and the
extent to which ICE provides oversight
to help ensure cost-effective program
implementation, and (2) the extent that
ICE measured the performance of the
ATD program for fiscal years 2011
through 2013. GAO analyzed ICE and
ATD program data, reviewed ICE
documentation, and interviewed ICE
and ATD contractor officials.

What GAO Recommends
GAO recommends that ICE analyze
data to monitor ERO field offices’
implementation of guidance and
require the collection of data on the
Technology-only component. DHS
concurred with the recommendations.
View GAO-15-26. For more information,
contact Rebecca Gambler at (202) 512-8777
or gamblerr@gao.gov.

ICE has established ATD program performance measures to, among other
things, assess alien compliance with requirements to appear in court and leave
the country after receiving a final order of removal, but it has not collected
complete data for assessing progress against these measures. Specifically,
ICE’s ATD contractor collected data for the Full-service component, and from
fiscal years 2011 through 2013, these data showed that over 99 percent of aliens
with a scheduled court hearing appeared in court as required. However, ICE did
not collect similar performance data to report results for aliens enrolled in the
Technology-only component—which composed 39 percent of the overall ATD
program participants in fiscal year 2013—because when the program was first
created, ICE officials stated that they envisioned that most aliens would be in the
Full-service component with data tracked by the contractor. ICE plans to expand
the contractor’s role in data collection but does not plan to require collection of
performance data for aliens enrolled in the Technology-only component; rather
ICE plans to leave it to the discretion of field officials as to whether to require the
contractor to collect these data. Without requirements to collect these data, ICE
may not have complete information to fully assess program performance.

United States Government Accountability Office

Contents

Letter

1
Background
ICE Expanded the ATD Program and Changed Program Use, but
Has Not Monitored Implementation of Guidance Intended to
Help Ensure Program Cost-Effectiveness
ICE Has Established Program Performance Measures for the ATD
Program, but Has Not Collected Complete Data for Assessing
Progress against All of These Measures
Conclusions
Recommendations for Executive Action
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

6

30
36
36
37

Appendix I

Comments from the Department of Homeland Security

39

Appendix II

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

41

13

Tables
Table 1: Number of Times U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) Released Aliens under Various
Options, Fiscal Year 2013
Table 2: Detention Facility Bookings and Enrollments under
Release Options, Fiscal Years 2011 through 2013
Table 3: Average Length of Time Aliens Spent in the Alternatives
to Detention (ATD) Program in Days, Fiscal Years 2011
through 2013
Table 4: Average Cost per Alternatives to Detention (ATD)
Program Participant Day, Fiscal Years 2011 through 2013
Table 5: Alternatives to Detention Program Goals and Results
Related to Removal of Aliens from the United States,
Fiscal Years 2011 through 2013
Table 6: Performance Rates for Aliens in the Full-service
Component of the Alternatives to Detention (ATD)
Program, Fiscal Years 2011 through 2013

Page i

8
16
17
20
33
35

GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

Figures
Figure 1: Alternatives to Detention Program Requirements
Figure 2: Number of Aliens Participating in the Alternatives to
Detention (ATD) Program from Fiscal Years 2011 to 2013
Figure 3: Alternatives to Detention (ATD) Enrollments from Fiscal
Years 2011 to 2013
Figure 4: Number of Aliens Terminated from the Alternatives to
Detention (ATD) Program from Fiscal Years 2011 to 2013
Figure 5: Reasons for Termination from the Full-service
Component of the Alternatives to Detention Program,
Fiscal Years 2011 through 2013
Figure 6: Court Appearance Rate for Aliens Enrolled in the Fullservice Component of the Alternatives to Detention
Program, Fiscal Years 2011 through 2013

12
14
15
22
24
30

Abbreviations
ATD
BI
DHS
EOIR
ERO
GPS
ICE
INA
RCA
TRUST Act

Alternatives to Detention
Behavioral Interventions, Inc.
Department of Homeland Security
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Enforcement and Removal Operations
Global Positioning System
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Immigration and Nationality Act
Risk Classification Assessment
Transparency and Responsibility Using State Tools Act

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the
United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety
without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain
copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be
necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.

Page ii

GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

441 G St. N.W.
Washington, DC 20548

November 13, 2014
The Honorable Mary Landrieu
Chairman
The Honorable Dan Coats
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Homeland Security
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate
The Honorable John Carter
Chairman
The Honorable David Price
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Homeland Security
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives
For more than a decade, the federal government has been exploring costeffective alternatives to immigration detention that would provide
appropriate federal oversight for some of the over 1.5 million aliens in
fiscal year 2013 who, if not detained in a detention facility, were released
into the community. 1 The Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is responsible for such
oversight and implemented the Alternatives to Detention (ATD) program
in 2004 to be a cost-effective alternative to detention that uses case
management and electronic monitoring to ensure adult aliens released
into the community comply with their release conditions—including
requirements to appear at immigration court hearings—and comply with

1

The 1.5 million aliens represent the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) caseload in fiscal year 2013 as reported in
DHS, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Enforcement and Removal
Operations, Fiscal Year 2013 Report to Congress (Feb. 28, 2014). Of this number, ICE
reported that 36,379 aliens were in detention at the end of fiscal year 2013 and the
remaining aliens were released into the community. Detention facilities include those
facilities ICE manages in conjunction with private contractors or under agreements with
state and local governments.

Page 1

GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

final orders of removal from the United States. 2 Congress has increased
funding for operation of the ATD program from $3 million in fiscal year
2003 3 to $91.4 million in fiscal year 2014. 4
ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) enforces the nation’s
immigration laws by identifying and apprehending aliens, detaining these
individuals when legally required or otherwise appropriate during the
course of their immigration proceedings, and upon completion of those
proceedings, ensuring that aliens who receive a final order of removal
leave the United States. ERO prioritizes the apprehension, arrest, and
removal of aliens from the United States who are convicted criminals,
pose a threat to national security, are fugitives or obstruct immigration
controls, or are recent border entrants. Based out of 24 field offices and
186 suboffices located throughout the country, ERO is also responsible
for supervising aliens who are not held in detention facilities, but instead
are released to the community under ATD or other release conditions,
such as being released on bond. ERO’s ATD Unit provides guidance and
coordinates program implementation across participating ICE ERO field
offices that administer the program, with the assistance of a contractor
that provides technological and case management services. ERO field
officials’ responsibilities include ensuring that detained and nondetained
aliens comply with requirements to appear in court for their immigration
hearings, which are administered by the Department of Justice’s
Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). 5 At 59 EOIR immigration

2
In removal proceedings initiated by DHS, an immigration judge determines whether an
alien is removable from the United States as a result of being deemed inadmissible under
section 212(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)) or
deportable under section 237(a) of the INA (8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)), and, if removable,
whether such alien is eligible for relief or protection from removal under section 240 of the
INA (8 U.S.C. § 1229a) or the United Nations Convention Against Torture. See
Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
or Punishment, art. 3, Dec. 10, 1984, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85. Obligations of the United States
under article 3 of the Convention Against Torture were implemented pursuant to the
Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-277, div. G, tit.
XXII, ch. 3, subch. B, § 2242, 112 Stat. 2681, 2681-822, 2681-823. See Regulations
Concerning the Convention Against Torture, 64 Fed. Reg. 8478 (Feb. 19, 1999).
3

149 Cong. Rec. H707, H885 (daily ed. Feb. 12, 2003).

4

160 Cong. Rec. H475, H930 (daily ed. Jan. 15, 2014).

5
Under the authority of the Attorney General, EOIR interprets and administers federal
immigration laws by conducting immigration court proceedings, appellate reviews, and
administrative hearings. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a; 8 C.F.R. pt. 1003.

Page 2

GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

courts across the country, immigration judges conduct court hearings to
determine whether aliens should be removed from the country under an
order of removal, granted voluntary departure, or allowed to remain in the
United States under a form of relief, such as asylum. 6
Since the ATD program was first implemented, ICE has made changes to
align the program with agency priorities and program goals—with some
key program changes occurring around 2011. The Joint Explanatory
Statement to the 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Pub. L. No. 11376) mandated that GAO provide a report evaluating ICE’s implementation
of the ATD program, including any recommendations for how the program
could be improved. 7 This report addresses the following questions: (1)
What were the trends in ATD program participation from fiscal years 2011
through 2013, and to what extent does ICE provide oversight to help
ensure cost-effective program implementation? (2) To what extent has
ICE measured the performance of the ATD program for fiscal years 2011
through 2013?
To determine the trends in ATD program participation and to what extent
ICE provides oversight to help ensure cost-effective program
implementation, we analyzed data for ATD program costs and
performance provided by ICE and its contractor; reviewed relevant federal
laws and DHS documents including ICE policy memorandums,
congressional budget justifications, and ICE’s teleconference meeting
notes regarding the ATD program; and conducted interviews at ICE and
its contractor headquarters and 4 of 24 ERO field office locations.
Specifically, we analyzed ICE and contractor ATD program data from
fiscal years 2011 through 2013, including data on costs, enrollments,
terminations from the ATD program, and average length of time enrolled
in the program, to determine program trends over time. We analyzed data
from fiscal years 2011 through 2013 to determine trends in the most
recent fiscal years in which complete data were available. Using these

6

For provisions governing the conduct of removal proceedings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a and
8 C.F.R. pts. 1003, 1240. In some cases, aliens may be permitted to depart voluntarily in
lieu of or prior to completion of removal proceedings. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c. Aliens in
removal proceedings may apply for relief or protection from removal if they meet the
criteria for doing so and, for purposes of asylum, are able to establish that they are
refugees within the meaning of section 101(a)(42)(A) of the INA (8 U.S.C. §
1101(a)(42)(A)). See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158, 1229a(c)(4).
7

160 Cong. Rec. H475, H930.

Page 3

GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

data, we also calculated the average ATD program cost per day per alien.
We could not compare this cost per day for aliens who are released under
other conditions, such as being released on bond, because ICE does not
capture cost data associated with these release options. We also
reviewed the Department of Justice’s EOIR data on the length of time
aliens spend in immigration proceedings before receiving their final
disposition. We assessed the reliability of these data by interviewing or
soliciting written responses from ICE and EOIR officials regarding their
oversight of their respective databases, as well as the ATD database
maintained by ICE’s contractor, and reviewed the data for any missing
data fields, entries with values beyond expected ranges, or other entries
that appeared to be unusual. We determined that the data were
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. We also interviewed
ICE and contractor headquarters officials regarding (1) how ICE has
structured the ATD program and how ICE officials decide which aliens to
place in the ATD program and at what supervision level; (2) how ICE
officials determine when to terminate an alien from the ATD program or
one of the program’s components; 8 (3) changes to program
implementation over time, including future plans; and (4) benefits and
challenges of the program. In addition, we interviewed ICE ERO field
office officials and contractor officials in four locations—Dallas, Texas;
Los Angeles, California; Las Vegas, Nevada; and St. Paul, Minnesota—
regarding their implementation of the program. 9 We selected these offices
on the basis of various factors, including the (1) size of the program at
each office, (2) geographic location, (3) program components offered, and
(4) recommendations from cognizant DHS officials. While we cannot
generalize the results of our interviews to all ICE ERO field office
locations, officials we interviewed provided us with a general overview
and perspective on how ICE implements the ATD program at the selected
locations. In addition, we compared ICE’s management of the ATD

8

The ATD program includes two components—the Full-service and Technology-only
components. The Full-service component is operated by a contractor and includes a
higher level of supervision of aliens than the Technology-only component, which is
operated by ICE, utilizing the contractor’s systems and equipment.
9

We did not interview contractor officials in one location because this location did not have
a local contractor office.

Page 4

GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

program against standards in Standards for Internal Control in the
Federal Government. 10
To determine how ICE measured the performance of the ATD program
for fiscal years 2011 through 2013, we analyzed DHS documents,
congressional budget justifications, and ICE’s teleconference meeting
notes regarding the ATD program. We also analyzed ICE and ICE
contractor data from fiscal years 2011 through 2013 related to ATD
program performance, including data on court appearances, removals
from the United States, and other performance metrics. To assess the
reliability of these data, we interviewed ICE and ATD contractor
headquarters officials regarding database oversight and reviewed the
data for any missing data fields, entries with values beyond expected
ranges, or other entries that appeared to be unusual. We determined that
the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report, except
for certain limitations as noted later in our report. For example, because
of limitations in some of the performance data, we were not able to
assess some aspects of performance results for one component of the
ATD program or compare performance data of aliens in the ATD program
with performance data for the rest of the nondetained population. We also
interviewed ICE and contractor officials in headquarters and the 4 ICE
ERO field office locations to obtain their perspectives on performance
metrics and future plans for data collection. Additionally, we compared
ICE’s management of the ATD program against standards in Standards
for Internal Control in the Federal Government. 11
We conducted this performance audit from March 2014 to November
2014, 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.

10
GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1, 1999). The standards state that an agency’s internal controls
should provide reasonable assurances that operations are effective and efficient and that
management directives are carried out.
11

GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states
that agencies should develop mechanisms to reliably collect data that can be used to
compare and assess program outcomes related to entire program populations.

Page 5

GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

Background
EOIR and ICE Roles in
Managing Aliens

Within the Department of Justice, EOIR immigration judges conduct
hearings to determine whether an alien is removable from the United
States and whether he or she is eligible for a form of relief or protection
from removal. If an immigration judge determines that an alien is
removable from the United States and not eligible for relief or protection
from removal, including voluntary departure, the immigration judge can
issue an order of removal. The removal order becomes administratively
final when all avenues for appeal with EOIR to remain in the United
States have been exhausted or waived by the alien, and the alien is to be
removed from the United States. 12 Once an order of removal is final, ICE
is responsible for carrying out the removal. In fiscal year 2013, ICE
reported removing 368,644 aliens from the United States.
While immigration judges have the authority to make custody
determinations, ICE also makes the initial decision as to whether to detain
aliens in ICE custody or release them to the community pending removal
proceedings, subject to certain laws. 13 The Immigration and Nationality
Act, as well as other legislation, requires that under specified
circumstances ICE detain certain aliens, including those arriving without
documentation or with fraudulent documentation, those who are
inadmissible or removable on criminal or national security grounds, and
those aliens subject to a final order of removal. 14 Even if not required to
do so, ICE may detain aliens who it believes pose a threat to public safety
or are flight risks, with the option for some aliens to be subsequently
released. In fiscal year 2013, ICE booked 440,557 aliens into detention
facilities.

12

See 8 C.F.R. § 1241.1.

13

Removal proceedings usually arise when DHS alleges that an alien is inadmissible to
the United States, has entered the country illegally by crossing the border without being
inspected by an immigration officer, has violated the terms of his or her admission, or
otherwise falls into one of the classes of deportable aliens under section 237 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182, 1227, 1229. Immigration
proceedings may begin after ICE receives custody of an alien from another law
enforcement agency. ICE may receive custody of aliens from other DHS or ICE entities,
such as the Homeland Security Investigations or U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

14

8 U.S.C. §§ 1225, 1226, 1226a, 1231.

Page 6

GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

ICE uses one or more release options when it determines that an alien is
not to be detained in ICE’s custody—including bond, order of
recognizance, order of supervision, parole, and on condition of
participation in the ATD program.
If an alien is not a threat to public safety, presents a low risk of flight,
and is not required to be detained, ICE may release him or her on (1)
a bond of at least $1,500 or (2) an order of recognizance that requires
the alien to abide by specified release conditions but does not require
the alien to post a bond. 15
DHS may release an alien on an order of supervision, despite such
alien being subject to a final order of removal, where there is no
significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future,
because, for example, travel documents are not forthcoming. 16 An
alien subject to a final order of deportation or removal may also
request a stay of deportation or removal. 17
ICE may 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. 18
Finally, an alien can also be placed in the ATD program, which
requires that, among other things, aliens released into the community
agree to appear at all hearings and report to ICE periodically. 19

•

•

•

•

In fiscal year 2013, ICE released aliens under these various options
113,690 times, as shown in table 1.

15

See 8 U.S.C. § 1226; 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1. DHS may set a bond, which may also be used
in conjunction with other release conditions, such as placement in ATD. Upon the alien’s
request, an EOIR immigration judge may redetermine the amount of bond set by DHS.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(d)(1).

16

See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a); 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.4, 241.5, 241.13, 241.14. ICE officers
determine the frequency with which aliens released on an order of supervision must report
to ICE.

17

See 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.6, 1003.2(f), 1003.23(b)(1)(v).

18

See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A); 8 C.F.R. §§ 212.5, 235.3(b)(2)(iii).

19

Upon the alien's request, an EOIR immigration judge may review the alien's placement
in ATD in some instances. See 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(d)(1); Matter of Aguilar-Aquino, 24 I. &
N. Dec. 747, 753 (B.I.A. 2009).

Page 7

GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

Table 1: Number of Times U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
Released Aliens under Various Options, Fiscal Year 2013
Release option

Enrollment

Bond

40,714

Order of recognizance

29,672

Order of supervision

13,108

Parole
Alternatives to Detention
Total

6,242
23,954
113,690

Source: GAO analysis of ICE data. | GAO-15-26

Note: The data in the table above include the number of times that ICE decided to release aliens
under these options in fiscal year 2013. It does not include aliens who were released under these
options in prior fiscal years, and still remain under these options. Further, because aliens may be
released under more than one option—either concurrently or at different times—these data may
contain duplications.

To assist ICE officers in their decisions whether to detain aliens in ICE
custody or release them, ICE developed an analytical tool known as the
Risk Classification Assessment (RCA). The RCA, which ICE fully
deployed in February 2013, considers several factors related to an alien’s
public safety and flight risks—such as criminal history, prior removal data,
ties to the local community, and gang affiliation—and recommends each
alien for detention or release. An ICE officer reviews the RCA results
along with other factors, such as an alien’s final order status, and, after
obtaining supervisory approval, makes a custody determination. ICE
officials stated that they generally do not use the RCA for aliens that ICE
must detain by law or that are likely to be removed from the United States
within 5 days. 20

Overview of the ATD
Program

ICE created the ATD program in 2004 as another condition of release to
help ensure that aliens released into the community appear at their
immigration proceedings. The ATD program seeks to provide an
enhanced monitoring option for those aliens for whom ICE, or an
immigration judge, has determined that detention is neither mandated nor
appropriate, yet may need a higher level of supervision than that provided

20

In fiscal year 2013, the RCA recommended 15,162 aliens for release out of 168,087
total recommendations; the RCA was deployed in February 2013.

Page 8

GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

by the less restrictive release conditions. 21 When reviewing an alien’s
case for possible placement in ATD, officers are to consider the alien’s
criminal history, compliance history, community and family ties, and
humanitarian concerns. ICE may require participation in the ATD program
as a condition of the alien’s release during immigration proceedings, or
upon receipt of the alien’s final order of removal or grant of voluntary
departure.
For fiscal year 2003, ICE was allocated $3 million for alternatives to
detention to promote community-based programs for supervised release
from detention. 22 Subsequently, ICE created the first iteration of the ATD
program in 2004 across eight cities; this iteration ran until 2009 and
consisted of three separate programs operated by ICE and two
companies under separate contracts. 23 These three programs provided
varying levels of alien supervision intended to help improve alien
attendance rates at scheduled immigration court proceedings. By the end
of 2009, the ATD program expanded to all of the 24 ICE ERO field offices
and 5 of 186 suboffices.
ICE initiated the second phase of the ATD program in 2009 with a 5-year
contract with a private contractor and consolidated the program into a
single contract with two components—Full-service and Technologyonly. 24 Behavioral Interventions, Inc. (BI), the contractor, operates the
Full-service component out of stand-alone sites or out of ICE offices—
currently in 45 cities. 25 To be eligible for the Full-service component,

21

In limited circumstances related to ongoing class action litigation, EOIR immigration
judges can order aliens released subject to “reasonable conditions of supervision,
including electronic monitoring if necessary.” Rodriguez v. Robbins, 2012 WL 7653016, at
*1 (C.D. Cal. 2012), aff’d, 715 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2013).

22

149 Cong. Rec. H707, H885.

23

Under this initial phase of the ATD program, the Intensive Supervision Appearance
Program began in 2004 and the Enhanced Supervision/Reporting program began in
2007—both of which were operated by contractors. The Electronic Monitoring program
was operated by ICE.

24

According to ICE officials, ICE officially began using the terms “Full-service” and
“Technology-only” in January 2011, prior to which the programs were known as the
Intensive Supervision Appearance Program and Electronic Monitoring program,
respectively.
25

In fiscal year 2013, the Full-service component was available in 44 cities. ICE expanded
Full-service into Fresno, California, in fiscal year 2014.

Page 9

GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

aliens must be at least 18 years old and generally must reside within
about 75 miles of the contractor’s office, depending on the field office.
The contractor maintains in-person contact with the alien, which includes
requiring periodic office visits and conducting unscheduled home visits,
and monitoring the alien with either Global Positioning System (GPS)
equipment or a telephonic reporting system. 26 The contractor also
provides case management services, which may include helping aliens
understand the legal process, acquiring travel documents, and developing
travel plans; reminds aliens to attend immigration proceedings; and
handles initial alerts and violations for aliens. 27 Last, the contractor
documents aliens’ attendance at court hearings and compliance with
electronic monitoring and in-person supervision requirements. ICE
officers are ultimately responsible for removing aliens from the United
States and responding to program violations.
Generally, ICE field officials make all decisions about the appropriate
level of supervision and type of technology for aliens. Under the current
program, an alien’s status in immigration proceedings generally dictates
the required number of office visits and unscheduled home visits by the
contractor for aliens in the Full-service component. 28 For example, aliens
whose immigration proceedings are still ongoing (known as pre-order
under the ATD contract) must visit the contractor’s office once every 2
weeks and be subject to home visits once every 4 weeks. When an alien
receives a final order of removal (known as post-order), the frequency of
required visits doubles, and an alien with a pending appeal must visit the
office and is subject to home visits once every 4 weeks. 29 Further, ICE
officers may enroll aliens in ATD who were detained and subsequently

26

An alien enrolled in the telephonic reporting voice verification program will receive an
automated telephone call at periodic intervals, which will require the alien to call the
system back within a certain time frame; the computer will recognize the biometric
voiceprint and register the “check-in”. It is not the purpose of the voice verification system
to locate an alien.

27

The contractor forwards alerts to ICE if the contractor cannot resolve them or for
informational purposes.

28

ICE officers can change the level of supervision regardless of where an alien is in his or
her immigration proceedings, per a contract modification. According to contractor officials,
this is typically done in special circumstances.

29

As of June 2014, 71 percent of the alien population in the Full-service component of
ATD was pre-order, 24 percent was post-order, and 4 percent was in appeal. The
remaining aliens were in post-order custody review.

Page 10

GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

released into the community after a post-order custody review; the level
of supervision determined for these aliens depends on whether their
removal from the United States is significantly likely in the reasonably
foreseeable future. 30
ICE ERO field office officials manage the Technology-only component of
the ATD program, which is available in 96 locations, utilizing the
contractor’s systems and equipment. 31 The Technology-only component
offers a lower level of supervision at a lower contract cost than the Fullservice component and allows ICE to monitor aliens’ compliance with the
terms of their release using either telephonic reporting or GPS equipment
provided by the contractor. 32 ICE officers are responsible for providing
case management, in addition to removing aliens from the country and
responding to violations. In locations where Full-service and Technologyonly are available, ICE officers can de-escalate aliens from the Fullservice component to the Technology-only component (or vice versa) at
their discretion. For both components, ICE officers determine when an
alien’s participation in the program should be terminated. ICE terminates
aliens from the ATD program who are removed from the United States,
depart voluntarily, are arrested by ICE for removal, or receive a benefit or
relief from removal. ICE may also terminate an alien from the program
when aliens are arrested by another law enforcement entity, abscond, or
otherwise violate the conditions of the ATD program. Further, ICE may
terminate an alien from the program if ICE officers determine the alien is
no longer required to participate. The program requirements for the
various levels of supervision for aliens in the Full-service and Technologyonly components are shown in figure 1.

30

ICE ERO field officers are required to conduct a post-order custody review within 90
days of the date an order of removal becomes administratively final. ICE can still detain an
alien after 90 days if it expects travel documents for an alien to be forthcoming in the
reasonably foreseeable future. ICE is required to review cases for post-order aliens who
are not likely to be removed in the foreseeable future and are held in detention for 180
days after receiving a final order and release aliens pending removal, barring special
circumstances, such as an alien being a risk to the community or unlikely to comply with a
removal order, or posing a significant threat to national security or a significant risk of
terrorism. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a); 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.4, 241.13, 241.14.

31
These 96 locations include all 45 sites that support the Full-service component. As of
April 2014, 76 out of 96 possible cities had at least one alien who was enrolled in the
Technology-only component at any point during the year.
32

According to ICE officials, these cost data are considered privileged as confidential
business/commercial information, and therefore are not presented in this public report.

Page 11

GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

Figure 1: Alternatives to Detention Program Requirements

In June 2014, ICE issued a request for proposal for the third phase of the
ATD program, to begin in September 2014, 33 which, according to the
request, is intended to provide ICE officers with more flexibility to
determine the appropriate level of supervision based on an alien’s history
and circumstances. Under the second phase of the program, the level of
alien supervision for Full-service participants is based on where the alien
is in the immigration process. For the third phase, the program’s goals are
to be to maintain a high court appearance rate and to remove aliens from
the United States after they receive final orders of removal.

33
The second ATD contract is scheduled to conclude in November 2014. The third
contract will begin prior to the conclusion of the second contract to allow time for any
needed transition.

Page 12

GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

ICE Expanded the
ATD Program and
Changed Program
Use, but Has Not
Monitored
Implementation of
Guidance Intended to
Help Ensure Program
Cost-Effectiveness

The number of aliens participating in the ATD program increased from
fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2013, in part because of increases in either
enrollments or the average length of time aliens spent in one of the
program’s components; and ICE changed the focus of the program to
align with changes in agency priorities. Pursuant to ICE guidance in 2011,
ICE also recommended that ERO field offices transition aliens among the
two ATD program components—or levels of supervision—to help facilitate
cost-effective use of the ATD program; however, ICE has not monitored
the extent to which ERO field offices have consistently implemented the
guidance. ICE plans to increase the average daily participation level of
both ATD program components with increased funding, but ATD program
officials stated that several factors affect their ability to identify future
capacity and expand the program.

The Number of Aliens
Participating in the ATD
Program Increased, in
Part, because of
Increased Enrollments and
Longer Times That Some
Aliens Spent in the
Program

ICE increased the number of aliens participating in the ATD program over
the last 3 fiscal years with some differences between the Full-service and
Technology-only components, and this increase, in part, can be attributed
to increased enrollments and the increased average length of time aliens
spent in the Technology-only component of the program. Specifically, the
total number of unique aliens who participated in the program increased
from 32,065 in fiscal year 2011 to 40,864 in fiscal year 2013, with most
aliens participating in the Full-service component, as shown in figure 2. 34
These numbers include all aliens in the ATD program for each of these
years—regardless of the year in which they were initially enrolled. The
increase in the number of aliens in the program over this time occurred
primarily in the Technology-only component. Specifically, the overall
number of aliens participating in the ATD program grew by 27 percent;
the number of aliens in the Technology-only component increased by 84
percent; and the number of aliens in the Full-service component
increased by 23 percent.

34
Aliens are counted once for each of the Full-service and Technology-only components,
regardless of whether they were enrolled in the component more than once in the same
fiscal year. Accordingly, if an alien was enrolled in both components, he or she would be
counted once for each component. However, the total number of aliens in the ATD
program is unique and does not include such duplicates.

Page 13

GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

Figure 2: Number of Aliens Participating in the Alternatives to Detention (ATD)
Program from Fiscal Years 2011 to 2013

Note: The figure represents unique aliens in the Full-service component and the Technology-only
component. Since aliens can be placed in both components in the same year, they may be counted in
both categories. The total number of aliens in the ATD program is unique and does not include such
duplicates.

During this time, the composition of aliens in the ATD program also
changed to align with agency priorities. Specifically, ICE shifted its overall
enforcement priorities with a June 2010 policy memorandum that detailed
the priorities for alien apprehension, detention, and removal as follows:
(1) aliens who pose a danger to national security or a risk to public
safety—including aliens convicted of crimes—and (2) recent illegal
entrants and aliens who are fugitives or otherwise obstruct immigration
controls. 35 ICE established such priorities because, as stated in the
memo, ICE has resources to remove only approximately 400,000 aliens
per year from the country, less than 4 percent of the estimated illegal
alien population in the United States. According to ICE data, about 50
percent of aliens in the ATD program met an ICE enforcement priority in

35

The policy laid out in this June 2010 memorandum was reiterated in a March 2011
memorandum which also included one additional statement.

Page 14

GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

fiscal year 2012, such as aliens convicted of crimes. As of April 2014, ICE
reported that about 90 percent of aliens in the ATD program met ICE
enforcement priorities and 51 percent were criminal aliens.
One factor contributing to the increase in ATD program participation was
that ICE generally increased the number of aliens it enrolled in the
program each year. Specifically, the total number of unique enrollments in
the ATD program increased by 26 percent—from 16,252 in fiscal year
2011 to 20,441 in fiscal year 2013—although there was a slight decline in
fiscal year 2012 before increasing in fiscal year 2013. 36 As shown in
figure 3, the increase from fiscal years 2011 to 2013 was due to
enrollments in the Full-service component—which increased by 60
percent during this time.
Figure 3: Alternatives to Detention (ATD) Enrollments from Fiscal Years 2011 to
2013

Note: The figure represents unique aliens in the Full-service component and the Technology-only
component. Since aliens can be placed in both components in the same year, they may be counted in

36

Since aliens can be placed in both the Full-service component and the Technology-only
component in the same year, they may be counted in both categories. However, the total
number of aliens in the ATD program is unique and does not include such duplicates.

Page 15

GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

both categories. The total number of aliens in the ATD program is unique and does not include such
duplicates.

Information on alien enrollments showed that the extent to which ICE
booked aliens into detention facilities or released them into the
community varied across fiscal years 2011 through fiscal year 2013, as
shown in table 2, although these enrollments were not unique. For
example, these enrollments include aliens who may have been enrolled in
both detention and one or more release options in the same fiscal year
and aliens who may have been booked multiple times into detention
facilities or released multiple times under the same option in the same
fiscal year.
Table 2: Detention Facility Bookings and Enrollments under Release Options, Fiscal
Years 2011 through 2013

Detention
Alternatives to Detention

2011

2012

2013

429,096

477,383

440,557

16,933

17,107

23,954

Other release options
Bond

40,408

47,091

40,714

Order of recognizance

9,693

16,633

29,672

Order of supervision

8,816

11,646

13,108

Parole

2,132

2,079

6,242

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) data. | GAO-15-26

Note: The table data include the number of times that ICE booked a person into detention or released
aliens under the Alternatives to Detention (ATD) program or other release options in each of the fiscal
years. These data categories are not mutually exclusive and can include duplicates for several
reasons. Aliens may be released into more than one category—either concurrently or at different
times. For example, an alien could be in detention prior to being released into the community,
released on an order of recognizance and enrolled in the ATD program at the same time, or released
and subsequently detained. Further, some aliens may have been detained or placed in detention or
under the same release option more than once in the same fiscal year. ICE has limited options for
how to place some aliens. For example, ICE may be required to detain some aliens.

During this time, ICE also expanded use of the ATD program across ERO
field office and suboffice locations. Specifically, ICE expanded use of the
Full-service component from 38 ERO field offices and suboffices in fiscal
year 2011 to 44 field offices in fiscal year 2013. 37 During this time, ICE
expanded the use of the Technology-only component from 70 to 76 ERO

37

In 2013, all but one Full-service location had a Technology-only component as well.

Page 16

GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

field office and suboffice locations that were actively using the
component. 38
Another factor contributing to the increase in the number of aliens in the
Technology-only component of the ATD program was an increase in the
length of time these aliens were in the program. While the average length
of time aliens spent in the ATD program has remained fairly constant,
differences existed across the program’s components. The average
length of time that aliens spent in the Full-service component decreased
by about 20 percent from fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2013, while the
average length of time increased nearly 80 percent for aliens in the
Technology-only component during this same time, as shown in table 3.
Specifically, aliens enrolled in the Full-service component in fiscal year
2013 spent about 10 months in the component, and those enrolled in
Technology-only in fiscal year 2013 spent about 18 months in this
component. 39 According to an ICE official, this difference is likely because
of guidance that directs field office officials to move compliant aliens from
the more expensive Full-service component to the Technology-only
component after 90 days, which is discussed later in this report.
Table 3: Average Length of Time Aliens Spent in the Alternatives to Detention (ATD)
Program in Days, Fiscal Years 2011 through 2013
Year

Full-service

Technology-only

Total ATD program

2011

398

302

382

2012

415

394

409

2013

312

542

383

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement contractor data. | GAO-15-26

ICE officials stated that how long an alien is in the ATD program before
receiving a final decision on his or her immigration proceedings depends
on how quickly EOIR can process immigration cases. According to EOIR
officials, the length of time before an alien receives a final decision has
been much longer for aliens released from detention under the ATD

38

In April 2014, 96 field offices and suboffices received training, and were eligible, for the
Technology-only component, but not all offices were actively using the component.
According to ICE officials, these locations may have officers trained in ATD use but are
based out of a detention facility and therefore would not have a nondetained population.

39

ICE reported that aliens spent an average of 29 days in detention in fiscal year 2013.

Page 17

GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

program or other release options, primarily because EOIR has prioritized
immigration cases for detained aliens, and because detained aliens are
less likely to be eligible for relief as many have been convicted of
crimes. 40 For example, EOIR data show that after DHS filed the charging
document, aliens in detention waited 41 days on average to have their
first court hearing and 82 days on average to receive a final decision in
fiscal year 2013. 41 In that same year, aliens released from detention
waited 281 days on average to have their first hearing and 770 days on
average—over 2 years—to receive a final decision. 42
While our analyses showed that the average daily cost of the ATD
program ($10.55) was significantly less than the average daily cost of
detention ($158) in fiscal year 2013, 43 the extent to which the length of
immigration proceedings affects the cost-effectiveness of the ATD
program varies under different scenarios. Specifically, we conducted two
analyses to estimate when the cost of keeping aliens in the ATD program
would have surpassed the cost of detaining an alien in a facility. Under
our first analysis, we considered the average costs of ATD and detention
and the average length of time aliens in detention spent awaiting an
immigration judge’s final decision, and found that the ATD program would
have surpassed the cost of detention after an alien was in the program for

40

In July 2014, EOIR refocused its resources and prioritized cases involving aliens who
have recently crossed the southwest border and whom DHS has placed in removal
proceedings, in addition to cases involving detained aliens.

41

EOIR officials stated that they calculated these data for aliens who were detained when
the case was completed or, if the case was pending on April 12, 2014, on that date. These
aliens may not have been detained for the entire time leading up to the completion of the
case. These data show the average time between the filing of the charging document and
the first hearing where the first hearing took place in fiscal year 2013, as well as the
average time between the filing of the charging document and the immigration judge’s
decision, not including decisions following remands, where the decision was issued in
fiscal year 2013. A case may have more than one hearing.

42

These data do not include aliens who were never detained. EOIR officials stated that
they calculated these data for aliens who had been released from detention by the time
the case was completed or, if the case was pending on April 12, 2014, by that date. These
data show the average time between the filing of the charging document and the first
hearing where the first hearing took place in fiscal year 2013, as well as the average time
between the filing of the charging document and the immigration judge’s decision, not
including decisions following remands, where the decision was issued in fiscal year 2013.

43

The ATD program and detention cost per day estimates include personnel costs, but do
not include expenditures paid toward agency-wide overhead activities, such as rent or
information technology services.

Page 18

GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

1,229 days in fiscal year 2013—significantly longer than the average
length of time aliens spent in the ATD program in this year (383 days). 44
In our second analysis, we considered the average costs of ATD and
detention and the average length of time aliens spent in detention—
regardless of whether they had received a final decision from an
immigration judge—since some aliens may not be in immigration
proceedings or may not have reached their final hearing before ICE
released them from detention. ICE reported that the average length of
time that an alien was in detention in fiscal year 2013 was 29 days. Using
this average, we calculated the average length of time aliens could have
stayed in the ATD program before they surpassed the cost of detention
would have been 435 days in fiscal year 2013. 45 Our analyses of costs for
the ATD program from fiscal year 2011 through fiscal year 2013 showed
that the costs per day per alien in the ATD program increased to $10.55
in fiscal year 2013—which includes ATD personnel costs—after
decreasing in fiscal year 2012, as shown in table 4. 46 This compares with
the average cost of detention, which is $158 a day per alien, which
includes personnel costs. 47

44

Our analysis took into consideration the average daily cost of $10.55 for the ATD
program and the average daily cost of $158 for placing an alien in a detention facility. Our
analysis also considered the average time EOIR reported it took between DHS filing a
charging document and an immigration judge issuing a final decision. For aliens detained
at the time of the final decision—but who may not have been detained for the entire time
leading up to the completion of their case—the average was 82 days in fiscal year 2013.
Specifically, we multiplied the average cost of detention with the average time aliens
detained at the time of the final decision waited for his or her final decision, and divided
this number by the average cost of ATD.

45

Specifically, we multiplied the average cost of detention with the average time aliens
spent in detention, and divided this number by the average cost of ATD.

46
If an alien is enrolled in Full-service and also has electronic monitoring of GPS or
telephonic reporting, ICE counts him or her as having 2 participant days. To adjust for this
in our cost per day estimate, we reduced the number of Full-service participant days in
half. This cost estimate is higher than what ICE reports, as ICE’s estimate is based upon
the contract costs for ATD divided by the total number of participation days—it does not
include personnel costs. Our estimate incorporates both the cost of ATD personnel, as
well as the cost of the ATD contract.
47

ICE reports an official average daily cost for detention to be $118 a day, but this cost
does not include personnel costs. The detention personnel costs included in our analysis
include personnel who work at detention facilities, as well as support staff who support
detention-related activities but are not working at the detention facilities.

Page 19

GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

Table 4: Average Cost per Alternatives to Detention (ATD) Program Participant Day,
Fiscal Years 2011 through 2013
ATD program
Expenditures (Dollars in millions)
Participation days
Cost per participant day

2011

2012

2013

$64.8

$64.9

$85

8,061,113

8,297,148

6,045,144

$10.72

$7.83

$10.55

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement data. | GAO-15-26

Note: If an alien is enrolled in Full-service and also has electronic monitoring using Global Positioning
System or telephonic reporting, he or she is counted as having 2 participant days. To adjust for this in
our cost per day estimate, we reduced the number of Full-service participants in half, as reflected in
the table above.

ICE officials told us that while ICE received an additional $24 million
funding for the ATD program in fiscal year 2013, by the time it became
available, it was too late to expand capacity of the program. These
officials stated that they reprogrammed some of the additional funding,
and used the remaining on various ATD-related activities, such as
conducting trainings and purchasing new vehicles for ICE officers. 48

ICE Increased the Number
of Aliens Terminated from
the ATD Program, but Has
Not Monitored
Implementation of
Guidance to Help Ensure
Cost-Effective Program
Implementation

ICE increased the number of aliens terminated from the ATD program
since 2011 after guidance directed ERO field offices to more costeffectively use the ATD program; however, ICE has not monitored the
extent to which field offices have implemented the guidance. Under the
original ATD contract, ICE officials stated that aliens enrolled in the ATD
program generally stayed in the program from the time of enrollment
through completion of the immigration process (i.e., completion of a final
court hearing or, if ordered removed at the final hearing, removal from the
United States). However, concerned about the time it has taken for aliens
to complete immigration proceedings and the subsequent impact on ATD
program costs, ICE recommended in 2011 that ERO field offices help
facilitate cost-effective use of the ATD program. Pursuant to this
guidance, ICE officials recommended that field officials reserve more
intense and costly supervision options under the Full-service component
for (1) aliens who are newly enrolled in ATD who do not have an order of
removal or an immediate immigration court date and (2) aliens who have

48

ICE discussed and researched using funds for a kiosk pilot for the ATD program that
would allow aliens to check-in with ICE through kiosk machines, but no action was taken
to develop and implement the pilot.

Page 20

GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

already received a final order of removal from the country—the latter of
which is seen as a best practice, according to ICE. Specifically, pursuant
to ICE’s guidance, ICE recommended that ICE ERO field office officials
assess whether aliens in the Full-service component demonstrated
compliance with the conditions of their release, at least every 90 days,
and if so, terminate them from the Full-service component after 90 days
and de-escalate them to lower levels of supervision at a lower cost by
moving them to the Technology-only component of the ATD program. 49
Conversely, ICE recommended that ERO field office officials terminate
aliens from the Technology-only component who received their final order
of removal or grant of voluntary departure and escalate them to the Fullservice component so that ICE, along with the contractor, could more
easily monitor and ensure their departure. Subsequently, ICE increased
the number of terminations from the two components of the ATD
program. Specifically, as shown in figure 4, ICE increased the number of
terminations from the Full-service component by 82 percent and the
number of terminations from the Technology-only component by 299
percent from fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2013.

49

The guidance initially recommended that ICE officials review ATD cases every 180
days. However, after reviewing data on when aliens are most likely to abscond, officials
stated that the guidance was changed to at least every 90 days.

Page 21

GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

Figure 4: Number of Aliens Terminated from the Alternatives to Detention (ATD)
Program from Fiscal Years 2011 to 2013

Note: Since aliens could be enrolled in both the Full-service component and the Technology-only
component in the same year or may have been enrolled in the same component more than once in a
year, they may be counted multiple times if they were terminated more than once in a year.

ICE does not have complete data to identify the specific reasons field
officials decided to terminate aliens from the program and therefore
cannot determine whether ERO field offices are implementing the
guidance for changing an alien’s level of supervision between the ATD
program components with the goal of cost-effectively implementing the
ATD program. According to ICE officials, because the individual
circumstances for each alien’s case can vary, the decision to terminate or
change an alien’s level of supervision is made by the field officer, who
decides whether to keep aliens in the Full-service component, deescalate aliens from the Full-service component to the Technology-only
component, or terminate aliens from the ATD program entirely by placing
them in detention or releasing them under their own recognizance or
another release option. While ICE collects some data on the reasons for
termination decisions made by field officials, ICE does not collect data on
the specific reason why field officials would determine an alien is no
longer required to participate in the program. For example, our analysis of
termination data for the Full-service component showed that 13 percent of
terminations from the Full-service component were made after

Page 22

GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

confirmation of an alien’s removal and departure from the United States
or after the alien had been granted relief and benefits to remain in the
country, and another 15 percent of terminations were made for reasons
including that aliens had violated the terms of the ATD program, had
absconded, had been arrested, were pending departure, or other
reasons. However, it was unclear why ERO field office officials made
most terminations—71 percent—before the completion of the aliens’
immigration proceedings or removal from the United States, because the
reason provided was that a field official determined that an alien was no
longer required to participate in the program. 50 As a result, ICE officials
stated that they did not know if field office officials made the majority of
these terminations in response to its guidance recommending changing
the levels of supervision that could result in more cost-effective operation
of the program, or for other reasons. 51 Figure 5 shows the reasons for
Full-service terminations in fiscal years 2011 through 2013.

50

Percentages do not add to 100 because of rounding.

51

According to ICE officials, ICE officers can make these termination decisions for a
variety of reasons, including because an immigration judge temporarily removed a case
from an immigration judge’s calendar (administrative closure), changes in jurisdiction that
result from an alien moving to a location where the ATD program is not offered, and ICE’s
decision to change the level of supervision required for the alien. Although there is a
subcode for this category that would provide additional information on the reason for a
termination in this category, ICE officials stated that they were unable to query and
analyze these data.

Page 23

GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

Figure 5: Reasons for Termination from the Full-service Component of the
Alternatives to Detention Program, Fiscal Years 2011 through 2013

Note: Since aliens could be enrolled in the Full-service component more than once in a year, they
may be counted twice if they were terminated more than once in a year.

In addition, ICE contractor data showed ERO field office officials may not
be following ICE guidance intended to help ensure cost-effective program
implementation. Specifically, data on the Full-service component of the
ATD program in fiscal year 2013 showed that the majority of aliens
terminated from the Full-service component were not subsequently
enrolled into the Technology-only component, as recommended by ICE
guidance. These data show that of 12,769 unique aliens terminated from
the Full-service component for the reason that ICE determined the alien
no longer needed to participate, 1,051—or 8 percent—were subsequently
enrolled in the Technology-only component. 52 ICE officials said that
because of the data limitations discussed above, they do not have
information necessary to analyze why ERO field offices were terminating
aliens from higher levels of supervision under the Full-service component
52

ICE officials stated that there could be additional subsequent enrollments in the
Technology-only component that were not captured in their data. For example, some
aliens who were terminated from the Full-service component in fiscal year 2013 may have
been subsequently enrolled in the ATD program in fiscal year 2014.

Page 24

GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

without subsequently enrolling them in lower-level supervision under the
Technology-only component as specified in the guidance. For example,
they could not determine how many of the cases terminated because ICE
decided the alien no longer needed to participate were a result of
something outside ICE’s control, such as an administrative closure, or
how many were terminated because ICE ERO field officers released the
alien under an order of recognizance rather than de-escalate the alien’s
level of supervision to the Technology-only component. 53 These data
would provide insight into how field officers are implementing ICE’s
guidance. In addition, ICE officials stated that they do not have data
available to determine how many aliens in the Technology-only
component were re-escalated to higher levels of supervision under the
Full-service component upon receiving their final order of removal from
the country—which ICE considers a best practice to ensure that aliens do
not abscond and do comply with requirements to leave the country—
because data maintained in its information system on final orders for
aliens in the Technology-only component are not reliable. ICE officials
said that data maintained in its information system on final orders for
aliens in the Technology-only component are not complete because field
officials do not have time to track these data given limited resources and
other priorities.
Our interviews with ICE officials in three of the four ERO field offices also
showed differences in how the ICE guidance was implemented. 54 Officials
from two field offices said that they had implemented changes to more
actively move aliens to higher and lower levels of supervision, as needed.
For example, officials in one field office said that they began generally
reviewing cases on a monthly basis and, after 30 days, often lowered the
level of supervision of aliens in the Full-service component from using
more expensive GPS to less expensive telephonic monitoring if an alien

53

In addition, during this time, ICE was directing its ERO field offices to terminate aliens
from the ATD program who were not likely removable from the United States, which may
have caused an increase in terminations. Although the ATD program, as initially
developed, was not intended to provide indefinite monitoring of nonremovable aliens, ICE
officials stated that they did enroll nonremovable aliens in the program until ICE changed
its program goal focus to removals from court appearances. ICE officials stated that this
change was made because they had already achieved a very high court appearance rate
and focusing on removals would also align with the agency’s overall strategic goals of
detaining and removing aliens.

54

One of the four field offices that we selected to interview did not have the Full-service
component.

Page 25

GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

had shown compliance during that time. These officials reported that after
90 days they often terminated aliens from the more expensive Fullservice component and moved them to the less expensive Technologyonly component or other release options. These officials reported reenrolling aliens who had received their final order of removal in the Fullservice component. Officials in the other of these field offices cited
implementing a similar practice of de-escalation and escalation of
supervision across the Full-service and Technology-only components,
with some differences. These officials reported generally reviewing cases
every 4 to 6 months and escalating all aliens in the Technology-only
component to the Full-service component 30 days before any court
hearing, and de-escalating these aliens back down to the Technologyonly component after the alien’s attendance at the hearing unless a final
order of removal was issued. They also said they had a practice to
consider enrolling aliens in ATD who are under all release options—not
just ATD—when they receive an order of removal. These officials stated
that they now review all aliens who receive a final order of removal for
possible enrollment in ATD—even if the alien was never previously in the
ATD program. According to ICE, Full-service supervision has proven to
be a best practice in ensuring successful removal from the United
States. 55 Officials in the other field office said that they changed their
practice of using Full-service enrollment to focus only on aliens who had
received their final order of removal to align with agency priorities.
Furthermore, the four field offices we selected for interviews were
generally consistent with national trends in placing the majority of aliens
in the Technology-only component on telephonic reporting—which has
lower associated contract costs than GPS. As of April 2014, 97 percent of
aliens in the Technology-only component and 52 percent of aliens in the
Full-service component were monitored via telephonic reporting, with the
remaining being monitored by GPS.

55

ATD contractor officials concurred with this general assessment, stating that they
believe that once the order of removal has been issued, it is often difficult to effectively
remove an alien when ICE or the contractor has lost contact with the alien because the
alien was terminated from the Full-service component of the ATD program. These officials
stated that they believe that the Full-service component of the ATD program allows ICE
officers to focus more on their law enforcement duties because the contractor case
manager can manage the nondetained population in virtually the same manner as an ICE
officer. However, as these officials stated, the contractor case manager has a much
smaller caseload than an ICE officer, which allows them to have a closer relationship with
the alien and they are able to follow up with aliens sooner and more often.

Page 26

GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

Under the new ATD program contract to be implemented in September
2014, ICE planned to address these data limitations but did not plan to
use these data to monitor the extent to which ERO field offices have
implemented the guidance for cost-effective program implementation
across field offices. ICE officials said the new ATD program contract will
require the contractor to maintain data on final orders; when an alien’s
supervision level changed; and for aliens that ICE determined are no
longer required to participate in the ATD program, the specific reason for
this determination. ICE officials stated that these data will provide them
with information on how long participants were monitored by the ATD
program before being de-escalated to lower levels of supervision or
terminated from the program and that these data can be used to establish
a better profile of a participant’s program life cycle and outcome. While
requiring the contractor to maintain these data is a positive step that will
help ICE collect more complete data on ATD participants, ICE officials did
not have a plan to analyze these data to monitor ERO field offices’
implementation of ICE guidance that is intended to ensure more costeffective use of the program. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal
Government states that an agency’s internal controls should provide
reasonable assurances that operations are effective and efficient. 56 The
standards also call for agencies to examine and use the information to
make decisions and monitor programs. Once additional data are collected
under the new ATD program contract, analyzing termination data—
specifically data on when an alien’s level of supervision changes and the
specific reasons for terminations from the ATD program—could help ICE
better monitor how ERO field offices are implementing the guidance to
cost-effectively use the ATD program.

ICE Officials Cited Factors
That Affect Future
Capacity and Expansion of
the ATD Program

ICE intends to increase the average daily participation level of both ATD
program components with increased funding, according to ICE’s fiscal
year 2015 budget justification; however, ATD program officials stated that
several factors affect their ability to identify future capacity and expand
the program. These officials said that one of these factors was limited
information for determining how many aliens who were detained or
otherwise released could have been considered suitable for the ATD
program. For example, ATD program officials said that ERO field office
officials who manage the ATD program have the ability to see the cases

56

GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.

Page 27

GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

that are referred to the ATD program, but not the cases that resulted in
the alien being detained in ICE custody or released under other options
after the RCA process is completed. Nationwide, the RCA tool
recommended that 91 percent of the 168,087 aliens processed by the
RCA in fiscal year 2013 be detained in ICE custody—some of whom were
subsequently eligible for bond—and that the remaining 9 percent (15,162
aliens) be released under ATD or other release options. However, ICE
field officials managing the ATD program may not have seen the cases
that resulted in detention or release and accordingly, are limited in their
ability to estimate to what extent ATD program capacity could be
expanded or changed in their location. To help increase the number of
cases referred for ATD program consideration, ICE has issued guidance
to its ERO field offices emphasizing that all nondetained criminal aliens
should be given priority consideration for ATD program enrollment.
Accordingly, this guidance directs the Criminal Alien Program and
Fugitive Operations teams that generate case referrals in the field to
coordinate with their local ATD component for enrollment consideration,
including aliens released on a bond. 57 ICE reported that field offices
coupling a bond with ATD as a condition of release have shown an
increased rate of success in alien removals from the United States.
Other factors that ICE officials identified as affecting their ability to identify
capacity and expand the ATD program are federal and state statutes and
agency guidance. For example, ICE reported that from fiscal year 2011 to
fiscal year 2013, 77 percent to 80 percent of aliens in detention facilities
were required to be detained under federal law, and were not eligible for
consideration in the ATD program. 58 In addition, federal law requires that
ICE maintain a minimum of 34,000 detention beds each day, 59 and as
part of its fiscal year 2015 budget justification, ICE reported that a
decrease in the number of detention beds required to be maintained
would result in an increase in the number of aliens who could be enrolled
in the ATD program. In regard to state statute, one state, for example,
passed a law whereby law enforcement officials have the discretion to

57

ICE’s Criminal Alien Program is designed to identify, process, and remove criminal
aliens from prisons across the United States, and the Fugitive Operations Program is
designed to pursue known at-large criminal aliens and fugitive aliens.

58

See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b)(1)(B)(iii)(IV), 1226(c)(1), 1226a, 1231(a)(2).

59

The Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2014 requires ICE to maintain a
level of not less than 34,000 detention beds. Pub. L. No. 113-76, 128 Stat. 5, 251.

Page 28

GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

cooperate with federal immigration officials by detaining an individual on
the basis of an immigration hold after that individual becomes eligible for
release from custody, only where certain criteria are met. 60 In regard to
agency guidance, ICE has instructed ERO field offices generally not to
enroll aliens who are not likely removable, as well as aliens who were
brought to the United States as children and may be eligible for the
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. 61
ICE officials stated that they did not plan to expand use of the ATD
program to additional ERO field office locations until after the new
contract was in place; however, officials reported that several factors
could affect whether a field office could be or is willing to implement the
program. For example, ICE reported in May 2014 that five field offices
had requested to implement the Full-service component in their office but
ICE did not approve the requests because the field offices did not have
the necessary resources to implement the program. Such resources
include officers’ time to respond to instances of alien noncompliance with
the terms of the program and review ATD cases and make supervision
and termination decisions.

60

Transparency and Responsibility Using State Tools Act (TRUST Act), Cal. Gov’t Code
§§ 7282, 7282.5 (2014). Under the TRUST Act, law enforcement officials may not detain
an individual pursuant to an immigration hold, where such individual is eligible for release
from custody, unless: (1) continued detention would not violate any other federal, state, or
local law, or local policy; and (2) any of the listed conditions under subdivision (a) are
satisfied. Section 7282.5(b) of the TRUST Act reiterates that where none of the specified
conditions under subdivision (a) are fulfilled, an individual who is eligible for release from
custody shall not be detained pursuant to an immigration hold.

61

Under this program, certain people who came to the United States as children may be
eligible for deferral of any removal action against them for a certain period of time.

Page 29

GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

ICE Has Established
Program
Performance
Measures for the ATD
Program, but Has Not
Collected Complete
Data for Assessing
Progress against All
of These Measures

ICE established two program performance measures to assess the ATD
program’s effectiveness in (1) ensuring alien compliance with court
appearance requirements and (2) ensuring removals from the United
States, as well as performance rates to evaluate the program’s
performance, but limitations in data collection hinder ICE’s ability to
assess overall program performance.
Compliance with court appearances. ICE established a program
performance measure in 2004 to monitor alien compliance with
requirements to appear at their immigration hearings. Data collected by
ICE’s ATD contractor for the Full-service component of the ATD program
from fiscal years 2011 through 2013 showed that over 99 percent of
aliens with a scheduled court hearing appeared at their scheduled court
hearings while participating in this component of the ATD program, with
the appearance rate dropping slightly to over 95 percent of aliens with a
scheduled final hearing appearing at their final removal hearing, as shown
in figure 6.
Figure 6: Court Appearance Rate for Aliens Enrolled in the Full-service Component
of the Alternatives to Detention Program, Fiscal Years 2011 through 2013

Note: Immigration and Customs Enforcement did not have court appearance program goals for the
Alternatives to Detention program in fiscal years 2012 and 2013.

Page 30

GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

However, ICE does not collect similar performance data or report results
on the court appearance rate for aliens enrolled in the Technology-only
component of the ATD program—which constituted 39 percent of the
overall ATD program in fiscal year 2013. According to ICE officials, the
agency did not require the contractor to capture similar data for the
Technology-only component because when the ATD program was
created, it was envisioned that most aliens would be in the Full-service
component for the duration of the immigration process, and data for
aliens in the Full-service component are collected by the contractor. 62 ICE
officials stated that they did not have sufficient resources to collect such
data for the Technology-only component, given other priorities.
ICE has taken steps to address the lack of data collection for the
Technology-only component. Specifically, during the course of our review,
ICE initiated a pilot program with its contractor in May 2014 to establish
improved data collection efforts, as well as expanded supervision options.
The pilot, which is being tested in eight cities, increases the role the ATD
contractor has in collecting and tracking data on aliens in the Technologyonly component. Specifically, the contractor tracks compliance with
release requirements, including court appearance requirements, for aliens
enrolled in the Technology-only component, as it already does for aliens
enrolled in the Full-service component. Under the new contract, ICE plans
to implement key aspects of the pilot across all program locations,
including giving ICE officers the ability to require the contractor to track
data on aliens in the Technology-only component—including data on
court appearances—to the contractor, according to the request for
proposal for the new ATD program contract. However, ICE officials will
not be required to have the contractor collect these data under the

62

Although we cannot compare the Full-service population with aliens in the Technologyonly population, EOIR does report some data to inform the court appearance rate for all
nondetained aliens who do not appear for their immigration hearings, but not specifically
for aliens in the ATD program or its components. Data reported in EOIR’s Fiscal Year
2013 Statistics Yearbook show that, in fiscal year 2013, of the 53,616 decisions rendered
by immigration judges for aliens who were never detained, 12,071 (23 percent) were
issued in absentia–where the alien did not appear at his or her hearing. This indicates a
court appearance rate of 77 percent. In that same year, for aliens who were once detained
but subsequently were released from custody, 9,343 of 28,061 decisions were issued in
absentia, for a lower court appearance rate of 67 percent. Aliens who were never detained
or released may include aliens in the ATD program.

Page 31

GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

contract. 63 While ICE’s plan to expand data collection for the Technologyonly component under the new contract is a positive step that will help
provide more information for assessing the performance of that program
component, ICE may not have complete data for assessing program
performance without requirements that ICE or contractor field staff collect
these data. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government
states that agencies should employ control activities to monitor their
performance. 64 More specifically, agencies should develop mechanisms
to reliably collect data that can be used to compare and assess program
outcomes related to entire program populations. Requiring ERO field
offices to collect, or have the contractor collect, court appearance data on
the Technology-only component of the ATD program would help ensure
that ICE has complete data for assessing the performance of that
program component as well as the overall ATD program, particularly in
light of ICE’s guidance issued in fiscal year 2011 directing field offices to
transition more aliens to the Technology-only component.
Removals from the United States. ICE established a new program
performance measure in fiscal year 2011 to assess the number of aliens
removed from the country who had participated in the ATD program. 65
ICE officials said the decision to replace the court appearance goal with
the removal goal was based on the fact that the court appearance rate
had consistently surpassed 99 percent and the program needed to
establish another goal to demonstrate improvement over time. For this
program performance measure, a removal attributed to the ATD program
counts if the alien (1) was enrolled in ATD for at least 1 day, and (2) was
removed or had departed voluntarily from the United States in the same

63

According to ICE officials, having the contractor track court appearance data for aliens in
the Technology-only component will be optional because some aliens in the Technologyonly program may have already received their final order and would not require the
contractor to track such data.

64

GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.

65

This removal goal was incorporated in DHS’s Future Years Homeland Security Program
for fiscal year 2011, according to ICE officials. The Future Years Homeland Security
Program lays out DHS’s plan for responsibly allocating resources within established
funding targets and provides an overview of the department’s strategic structure. Although
ICE officials stated that they subsequently maintained an overall goal for removals in the
Future Years Homeland Security Program, it is not specific to aliens who participated in
the ATD program. According to DHS’s fiscal year 2015 budget justification, the ATD
program aligns with ICE’s strategic plan for detaining and removing aliens seeking illegal
entry.

Page 32

GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

fiscal year, regardless of whether the alien was enrolled in ATD at the
time the alien left the country. As shown in table 5, ATD met its goal for
removals in fiscal years 2012 and 2013. 66 In fiscal year 2012, their goal
was to have a 3 percent increase from their fiscal year 2011 total, and in
fiscal year 2013, a 3 percent increase from their 2012 removal goal.
Table 5: Alternatives to Detention Program Goals and Results Related to Removal
of Aliens from the United States, Fiscal Years 2011 through 2013
Verified removals
Year

Goal

Total

Full-service Technology-only

2011

—

2,733

2,458

275

2012

2,815

2,841

2,340

501

2013

2,899

2,901

2,353

548

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement data. | GAO-15-26

Note: There was no removal goal in fiscal year 2011, as this was the baseline year.

Performance rates. ICE also uses four performance rates to evaluate
how well the ATD program is operating while aliens are participating in
the program. 67 These four performance rates (success rate, failure rate,
absconder rate, and removal rate)—though not measures of how well
aliens in the ATD program comply with court appearances or removal
orders—assess the status of an alien’s case at the time the alien is
terminated from the ATD program. These performance rates are based
on outcomes defined as favorable, neutral, and unfavorable.
66

We could not compare the performance data for alien removals under the ATD program
with data for alien removals under other release options for a variety of reasons. First, ICE
officials reported that the data on the number of aliens in the Technology-only component
of the ATD program who received a final order is not tracked, and accordingly, we would
not be able to determine the percentage of aliens in ATD who received a final order who
were removed from the country. Second, ICE officials said that similar data for other
nondetained aliens was either incomplete or untimely. ICE officials cited limited ICE staff
resources for monitoring these aliens as a reason for these data limitations.

67

According to ICE officials, although these rates are not included as part of their larger
homeland security goals, they may use these rates to respond to Questions for the
Record for Congress, Freedom of Information Act requests, and media inquiries—and
officials reported that they provide the methodology on how these rates are calculated, to
ensure transparency. In addition, according to ICE officials, further examination of these
rates can lead management to evaluate how the ATD program works to see how it can be
improved to most effectively meet the demands placed on ICE. For example, these
officials stated that an examination of the absconder rate over time was used to help the
agency determine when an alien was most likely to abscond from the program.

Page 33

GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

•

•

•

Favorable outcomes reflect cases where the final outcome of an
alien’s immigration proceeding resulted in either a verified departure
from the United States or a grant of relief and benefits to remain in the
country while the alien was an active participant in the ATD program.
Neutral outcomes do not reflect final outcomes of immigration
proceedings, but rather include aliens who are terminated from the
ATD program while awaiting departure, after being arrested, or
because ICE determined the alien no longer needed to participate in
the program—which could be because the case was administratively
closed, the alien moved to a jurisdiction that did not have the ATD
program, or ICE determined to lower or raise the alien’s level of
supervision by moving him or her to a detention facility or another
release option.
Unfavorable outcomes include aliens who were terminated from the
ATD program after absconding or violating program requirements.

Specifically, the success rate reflects the percentage of aliens whose
cases resulted in either favorable outcomes or neutral outcomes. This
rate essentially measures the ATD program’s effectiveness in being able
to track and monitor an alien while in the program, according to ICE
officials. The failure rate is the converse of the success rate, measuring
the percentage of unfavorable outcomes, including noncompliance with
program terms or absconding from the program. The absconder rate
measures the percentage of aliens whom ICE terminated from the
program as a result of aliens absconding from the program. The removal
rate approximates the percentage of aliens in ATD who will be removed
or depart after the completion of their immigration proceedings. ICE
calculates these rates for both its Full-service and Technology-only
components.
Using these performance rates, ICE reported that for the Full-service
component over the last 3 years, ICE, along with its contractor, was able
to track and monitor 90 percent or more of aliens until they were
terminated from the Full-service component of the ATD program, with
variance in the rate of aliens who had absconded from the program or
who were projected to be removed from the country. During that same
time, ICE reported improved ability to track and monitor aliens in the
Technology-only component from nearly 80 percent in fiscal year 2011 to
nearly 90 percent in fiscal year 2013. See table 6 for Full-service and
Technology-only performance rates over these last 3 years.

Page 34

GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

Table 6: Performance Rates for Aliens in the Full-service Component of the Alternatives to Detention (ATD) Program, Fiscal
Years 2011 through 2013

Performance metric

2011

2012

2013

Full- Technologyservice
only

Full- Technologyservice
only

Full- Technologyservice
only

Success rate: the percentage of all aliens terminated
from the ATD program whose departure from the
United States was verified or were granted relief or
were no longer required to participate in ATD, pending
departure, or arrested. This measure is not intended to
be an indicator for successful removal from the United
States or compliance with a court appearance; instead,
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
uses this rate to measure its ability to track and
monitor aliens when enrolled in ATD.

90%

79.8%

93%

88%

93.5%

89.5%

Failure rate: the percentage of all aliens terminated
from the ATD program who absconded or violated
terms.

10%

20.3%

7%

12%

6.5%

10.5%

Absconder rate: the percentage of all aliens
terminated from the ATD program who absconded
from the program.

8.6%

9.6%

5.6%

3.7%

5.3%

4.5%

84.1%

44.1%

84.9%

48.9%

79.2%

47.1%

Removal rate: the percentage of aliens whose
departure from the United States was verified divided
by the number of absconders and violators who have
received their final orders of removal, and aliens who
were verified to have departed the country.
Source: GAO analysis of ICE contractor data. | GAO-15-26

However, ATD program performance measures and rates provide limited
information about the aliens who are terminated from the ATD program
prior to receiving the final disposition of their immigration proceedings or
were removed or voluntarily departed from the country. Specifically, with
respect to program performance measures, ICE counts an alien who was
terminated from the program and was subsequently removed from the
United States toward his or her removal performance measure as long as
the alien was in the program during the same fiscal year he or she was
removed from the country.68 However, aliens who were terminated from
the program do not count toward court appearance rates if they
subsequently do not appear for court. Further, performance rates, for

68

According to ICE officials, after an alien is terminated from the ATD program, the
information obtained while the alien was in the program (i.e., contact information) may
assist ICE in locating an alien, as necessary, and accordingly, this is why these aliens are
included in the official removal count.

Page 35

GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

example, did not reflect whether the 87 percent of the aliens whom ICE
terminated from the ATD program in fiscal year 2013 were removed,
voluntarily departed from the United States, or were granted relief. 69 ICE
officials reported that it would be challenging to determine an alien’s
compliance with the terms of his or her release after termination from the
ATD program given insufficient resources and the size of the nondetained
alien population. In accordance with ICE guidance, staff resources are
instead directed toward apprehending and removing aliens from the
United States who are considered enforcement and removal priorities.

Conclusions

The ATD program is intended to help ICE cost-effectively manage the
aliens for whom ICE, or an immigration judge, has determined that
detention is neither mandated nor appropriate, yet may need a higher
level of supervision when released into the community until they are
removed from the United States or receive approval to remain in the
country. ICE has altered its implementation of the ATD program to
address the cost associated with keeping aliens in the program in light of
lengthy immigration proceedings. However, by analyzing data that ICE
plans to collect on supervision levels and specific reasons aliens are
terminated from the program, ICE could be better positioned to monitor
ERO field offices’ implementation of guidance intended to ensure costeffective management of the ATD program. Further, collecting reliable
data on both components of the program would help ensure that ICE has
more complete data for assessing the relative performance of these
program components as well as the overall ATD program.

Recommendations for
Executive Action

To strengthen ICE’s management of the ATD program and ensure that it
has complete and reliable data to assess and make necessary resource
and management decisions, we recommend that the Secretary of
Homeland Security direct the Deputy Assistant Secretary of ICE to take
the following two actions:
•

analyze data on changes in supervision levels and program
terminations to monitor ERO field offices’ implementation of ICE

69

Regarding aliens that ICE terminated from the Full-service component of the program,
these aliens may have been subsequently enrolled in the Technology-only component—
and in fiscal year 2013, about 8 percent of these aliens were enrolled in the Technologyonly component.

Page 36

GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

•

Agency Comments
and Our Evaluation

guidance intended to ensure cost-effective management of the
program, and
require that field offices ensure that ICE or contractor staff collect and
report data on alien compliance with court appearance requirements
for all participants in the Technology-only component of the ATD
program.

We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of Homeland
Security and Justice for their review and comment—both provided
technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. We provided
selected excerpts of this draft report to the ATD contractor to obtain its
views and verify the accuracy of the information it provided, and the
contractor had no technical comments. DHS also provided written
comments, which are summarized below and reproduced in full in
appendix I. DHS concurred with the two recommendations in the report
and described actions under way or planned to address them.
With regard to the first recommendation, that ICE analyze data on
changes in supervision levels and program terminations to monitor field
offices’ implementation of guidance intended to ensure cost-effective
management of the program, DHS concurred. DHS stated that ICE
recognized that, because of contractual limitations, information on
termination codes was not amenable to detailed reporting and analysis,
which limited the program’s ability to adapt and improve. To address this,
ICE established a requirement under its new ATD contract that
information on termination codes must be collected and reported and that
this would allow for more in-depth analyses that may yield avenues for
further program refinements. DHS provided an estimated completion date
of December 31, 2014. These planned actions, if fully implemented to
include monitoring of field offices’ cost-effective management of the
program, should address the intent of the recommendation.
With regard to the second recommendation, to require that field offices
ensure that ICE or contractor staff collect and report data on alien
compliance with court appearance requirements for all participants in the
Technology-only component of the ATD program, DHS concurred. DHS
stated that ICE was aware that this recommended enhancement would
greatly improve the program and that ICE began working in early fiscal
year 2014 to implement the enhancement while developing the
requirements for the new ATD contract. Under the new contract, ICE will
have the opportunity to select a variety of case management services,
including EOIR case tracking for any participant in the ATD program.

Page 37

GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

DHS provided an estimated completion date of December 31, 2014.
These planned actions, if fully implemented to include oversight on the
extent that field offices are ensuring that ICE or contractor staff collect
and report data on alien compliance with court appearance rates, should
address the intent of the recommendation.
We are sending copies to the Secretary of Homeland Security, the
Attorney General of the United States, appropriate congressional
committees, and other interested parties. 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 gamblerr@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. GAO staff who made significant contributions
to this report are listed in appendix II.

Rebecca Gambler, Director
Homeland Security and Justice

Page 38

GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

Appendix I: Comments from the Department
of Homeland Security
Appendix I: Comments from the Department of
Homeland Security

Page 39

GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

Appendix I: Comments from the Department of
Homeland Security

Page 40

GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff
Acknowledgments
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff
Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Rebecca Gambler, (202) 512-8777 or gamblerr@gao.gov

Staff
Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Lacinda Ayers (Assistant
Director), Tracey Cross, Landis Lindsey, David Alexander, Pedro
Almoguera, Frances Cook, Jon Najmi, Jessica Orr, and Eric Warren
made significant contributions to the work.

(441213)

Page 41

GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

GAO’s Mission

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions.
GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of
GAO Reports and
Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday
afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony,
and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted
products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

Order by Phone

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website,
http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm.
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

To Report Fraud,
Waste, and Abuse in
Federal Programs

Contact:
Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional
Relations

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 5124400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room
7125, Washington, DC 20548

Public Affairs

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, DC 20548

Please Print on Recycled Paper.