U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Office of Professional Responsibility
Inspections and Detention Oversight Division
Washington, DC 20536-5501

Office of Detention Oversight
Compliance Inspection

Enforcement and Removal Operations
ERO San Francisco Field Office
Mesa Verde Detention Facility
Bakersfield, CA

January 12–14, 2016

COMPLIANCE INSPECTION
for the
MESA VERDE DETENTION FACILITY
Bakersfield, California
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Overall Findings...................................................................................................................2
Findings by Performance Based National Detention Standard (PBNDS) 2011 Major
Categories ............................................................................................................................3
INSPECTION PROCESS .............................................................................................................4
DETAINEE RELATIONS ............................................................................................................5
INSPECTION FINDINGS
SECURITY
Admission and Release ........................................................................................................6
Custody and Classification System ......................................................................................6
Sexual Abuse and Assault Prevention and Intervention ......................................................7
Special Management Units ..................................................................................................7
Staff-Detainee Communication ...........................................................................................9
Use of Force and Restraints ...............................................................................................10
CARE
Food Service ......................................................................................................................10
Medical Care ......................................................................................................................11
ACTIVITIES
Telephone Access ..............................................................................................................11
JUSTICE
Detainee Handbook ............................................................................................................11
Grievance System ..............................................................................................................12
Law Libraries and Legal Material......................................................................................13
*
*
*
*
*
INSPECTION TEAM MEMBERS

(b)(6), (b)(7)c

Office of Detention Oversight
January 2016
OPR 201601768

Inspections and Compliance Specialist (Team Lead) ODO
Inspections and Compliance Specialist
ODO
Inspections and Compliance Specialist
ODO
Contractor
Creative Corrections
Contractor
Creative Corrections
Contractor
Creative Corrections
Contractor
Creative Corrections
1

Mesa Verde Detention Facility
ERO San Francisco

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Office of Detention Oversight (ODO) conducted a compliance inspection of the Mesa Verde
Detention Facility (MVDF) in Bakersfield, California, from January 12 to 14, 2016. 1 MVDF
opened in March 2015 and is owned and operated by the GEO Group Incorporated. The Office
of Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) began housing detainees at MVDF in March
2015 pursuant to an Intergovernmental Service Agreement (IGSA), under the oversight of
ERO’s Field Office Director (FOD) in San Francisco.
ERO staff members are not assigned
Capacity and Population Statistics
Quantity
to the facility. A Detention Services
Manager is not assigned to the ICE Detainee Bed Capacity 2
400
facility. A Warden is responsible for Average ICE Detainee Population 3
361
oversight of daily facility operations Male Detainee Population (as of 01/12/2016)
274
and is supported by (b)(7)e personnel.
Female Detainee Population (as of 01/12/2016)
88
The GEO Group Inc. provides
medical and food services. The facility holds no accreditations at the time of inspection.

OVERALL FINDINGS
This is ODO’s first inspection of the MVDF under
the Performance- Based National Detention
Standards (PBNDS) 2011. ODO reviewed the
facility’s compliance with 16 standards and found
the facility compliant with four standards. ODO
found 43 deficiencies in the remaining 12 standards,
19 of which were priority components. Finally,
ODO identified five opportunities where the facility
initiated corrective action during the course of the
inspection. 4

Inspection Results

FY
(PBNDS 2011)

Standards Reviewed

16

Deficient Standards
Overall Number of
Deficiencies
Deficient Priority
Components

12

Corrective Actions Initiated

5

43
19

1

Male and female detainees with low, medium low, medium high and high security classification levels are detained
at the facility for longer than 72 hours.
2
Data Source: ERO Facility List Report as of December 28, 2015.
3
Ibid.
4
Corrective actions, where immediately implemented, best practices and ODO recommendations, as applicable,
have been identified in the Inspection Findings section and annotated with a “C”, “BP” or “R”, respectively.

Office of Detention Oversight
January 2016
OPR 201601768

2

Mesa Verde Detention Facility
ERO San Francisco

FINDINGS BY PBNDS 2011 MAJOR CATEGORIES
PBNDS 2011 STANDARDS INSPECTED 5

DEFICIENCIES

Part 1 – Safety
1.2 - Environmental Health and Safety

0

Part 2 – Security
2.1 - Admission and Release
2.2 - Custody Classification System
2.5 - Funds and Personal Property
2.11 - Sexual Abuse and Assault Prevention and Intervention
2.12 - Special Management Units
2.13 - Staff-Detainee Communication
2.15 - Use of Force and Restraints
Sub-Total

3
2
0
5
10
2
3
25

Part 4 – Care
4.1 - Food Service
4.3 - Medical Care
4.4 - Medical Care (Women)
4.6 - Suicide Prevention and Intervention
Sub-Total

1
1
0
0
2

Part 5 – Activities
5.6 - Telephone Access
Sub-Total

3
3

Part 6 – Justice
6.1 - Detainee Handbook
6.2 - Grievance System
6.3 - Law Libraries and Legal Material
Sub-Total

6
5
2
13

Total Deficiencies

5

43

For greater detail on ODO’s findings, see the Inspection Findings section of this report.

Office of Detention Oversight
January 2016
OPR 201601768

3

Mesa Verde Detention Facility
ERO San Francisco

INSPECTION PROCESS
Every fiscal year, the Office of Detention Oversight (ODO), a unit within U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), conducts
compliance inspections at detention facilities in which detainees are accommodated for periods
in excess of 72 hours and with an average daily population greater than ten to determine
compliance with the ICE National Detention Standards (NDS) 2000, or the Performance-Based
National Detention Standards (PBNDS) 2008 or 2011, as applicable.
During the compliance inspection, ODO reviews each facility’s compliance with those detention
standards that directly affect detainee health, safety, and/or well-being. 6 Any violation of written
policy specifically linked to ICE detention standards, ICE policies, or operational procedures that
ODO identifies is noted as a deficiency. ODO also highlights any deficiencies found involving
those standards that ICE has designated under either the PBNDS 2008 or 2011, to be “priority
components.” 7 Priority components have been selected from across a range of detention
standards based on critical importance, given their impact on facility security and/or the health
and safety, legal rights, and quality of life of detainees in ICE custody.
Immediately following an inspection, ODO hosts a closeout briefing in person with both facility
and ERO field office management to discuss their preliminary findings, which are summarized
and provided to ERO in a preliminary findings report. Thereafter, ODO provides ERO with a
final compliance inspection report to: (i) assist ERO in working with the facility to develop a
corrective action plan to resolve identified deficiencies; and (ii) provide senior ICE and ERO
leadership with an independent assessment of the overall state of ICE detention facilities. The
reports enable senior agency leadership to make decisions on the most appropriate actions for
individual detention facilities nationwide.

6
7

ODO reviews the facility’s compliance with selected standards in their entirety.
Priority components have not been identified for the NDS.

Office of Detention Oversight
January 2016
OPR 201601768

4

Mesa Verde Detention Facility
ERO San Francisco

DETAINEE RELATIONS
ODO interviewed 25 detainees, each of whom volunteered to participate. None of the detainees
made allegations of mistreatment or discrimination. The majority of detainees reported being
satisfied with facility services, with the exception of the complaints below:
•

Environmental Health and Safety:
Allegation: One detainee alleged there was a foul smell in the A-dorm. Several inspectors
also noticed the smell during the facility tour.
Action Taken: ODO reported the concern to facility maintenance. Facility maintenance
acknowledged the concern and began actively working on the issue during the inspection.
The problem was resolved prior to the end of the inspection.

•

Food Service:
Allegation: Two detainees alleged the same items are served multiple times a day, with the
menu repeating too frequently.
Action Taken: ODO reviewed the menu and confirmed that the menu was certified by a
nutritionist. Although the menu does indicate that rice and beans are listed on the menu daily
as an additional starch and protein, they are not the primary starch and protein for each meal.
Additionally, after reviewing the menu, ODO confirmed that the menu was certified by a
nutritionist.

•

Medical Care:
Allegation: Three detainees alleged they had issues with the length of time it took for the
scheduling of a medical visit.
Action Taken: ODO reviewed the three detainees’ medical files and found all three detainees
received medical care within the required response time. One of the three detainees was seen
regularly for treatment of an injury that occurred prior to the inspection.

•

Staff-Detainee Communication:
Allegation: Eight detainees alleged they had minimal or no contact with their ICE/ERO
Detention Officer (DO).
Action Taken: ODO observed postings in the housing unit with scheduled hours and days
ICE/ERO is available for contact by detainees. ERO provided ODO with Facility Liaison
Visit Checklists dating back to the opening of the facility. The checklists document the
names of detainees contacted during scheduled and unscheduled visits. The request log
documents two of the aforementioned detainees submitted two requests each for ERO visits.
There is no record the other six detainees’ submitted requests. A review of the checklists
revealed five of the eight detainees, including the two detainees who submitted requests,
were visited during scheduled and unscheduled visits. During the inspection, ODO observed
ERO staff meeting with detainees in their housing units.

Office of Detention Oversight
January 2016
OPR 201601768

5

Mesa Verde Detention Facility
ERO San Francisco

INSPECTION FINDINGS
SECURITY
ADMISSION AND RELEASE (AR)
Though no admissions were observed during the inspection, the process was evaluated through
staff interviews, a review of 30 detainee files and inspection of the property room. An Order to
Detain (Form I-203) was not present in the files of two detainees (Deficiency AR-1 8).
At the time of the inspection, “Know Your Rights” and Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA)
videos were shown to detainees; however, there was no orientation video as required by the
standard (Deficiency AR-2 9).
Corrective Action: The facility recently produced an English-version orientation video
which ODO confirmed is compliant with the requirements of the standard. Once the
Spanish version is available, it will be provided to the local ICE/ERO Field Office for
approval. (C-1)
The facility uses a form to document receipt of the detainee handbook, but in many cases, the
form was missing documentation of the date, the detainee’s name, A-number, and whether they
received the English or Spanish version (Deficiency AR-3 10).
CUSTODY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (CCS)
ODO observed Level 1 and Level 3 detainees commingling in the video teleconferencing area.
The video teleconferencing area is an enclosed area with five rooms used to conduct remote
hearings with immigration judges. A Level 3 detainee was in an unsecured room in this area,
while three Level 1 detainees were seated in the hallway immediately outside the room
(Deficiency CCS-1 11).
A review of 30 detainee files revealed that in 12 cases, reclassification assessments were not
completed 60 to 90 days after the date of the initial classification or every 90 to 120 days
thereafter (Deficiency CCS-2 12).

8

“An Order to Detain or an Order to Release the detainee (Form I-203 or I-203a), bearing the appropriate ICE/ERO
Authorizing Official signature, must accompany each newly arriving detainee.” See ICE PBNDS 2011, Standard,
Admission and Release, Section (V)(E). This is a priority component.
9
“All facilities shall have a method to provide ICE/ERO detainees an orientation to the facility as soon as
practicable, in a language or manner that detainees can understand.” See ICE PBNDS 2011, Standard Admission
and Release, Section (V)(F). This is a priority component.
10
“As part of the admissions process, the detainee shall acknowledge receipt of the handbook and supplement by
signing where indicated on the back of Form I-385 (or on a separate form).” See ICE PBNDS 2011, Standard,
Admission and Release, Section (V)(G)(4).
11
“Low custody detainees may not be comingled with high custody detainees.” See ICE PBNDS 2011, Standard,
Custody Classification System, Section (V)(F)(1). This is a priority component.
12
“The first reclassification assessment shall be completed 60 to 90 days after the date of the initial classification.”
See ICE PBNDS 2011, Standard, Custody Classification System, Section (V)(H)(1).

Office of Detention Oversight
January 2016
OPR 201601768

6

Mesa Verde Detention Facility
ERO San Francisco

SEXUAL ABUSE AND ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION (SAAPI)
Interviews with facility and contract staff and review of available policies determined no facilityspecific written SAAPI policy and procedures were in place (Deficiency SAAPI-1 13).
Interviews with facility and contract staff and review of the detainee handbook revealed, the
facility did not designate a SAAPI coordinator (Deficiency SAAPI-2 14). An interview with the
facility’s Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) Coordinator revealed the PREA Coordinator was
unfamiliar with SAAPI and the standards requirements.
A review of the Prevention of Sexual Assault and Abuse Policy and interview with facility staff
determined the facility does not have a multidisciplinary team to respond to sexual abuse, which
may include a sexual assault response team (Deficiency SAAPI-3 15).
A review of the facility’s PREA/Sexually Abusive Behavior and Prevention training revealed
employees, volunteers and contract personnel do not receive training on the SAAPI Program in
accordance with the standard (Deficiency SAAPI-4 16).
A review of the facility’s PREA/Sexually Abusive Behavior and Prevention training revealed it
did not contain all the required elements outlined in the standard (Deficiency SAAPI-5 17).
SPECIAL MANAGEMENT UNITS (SMU)
No records were kept for detainees placed in the temporary holding cells prior to July 2015.
Available documentation from July through the time of the inspection found 25 detainees were
placed in the cells, 12 of the detainees were held in excess of 72 hours. In July 2015, a GEO
form equivalent to a segregation order was implemented; however, review found the orders did
not detail the reasons detainees were segregated (Deficiency SMU-1 18). In many cases, only
“pending investigation” was recorded; in others, no reason was documented.
13

“Each facility administrator shall have written policy and procedures for a Sexual Abuse or Assault Prevention
and Intervention Program….” See ICE PBNDS 2011, Standard, Sexual Abuse and Assault Prevention and
Intervention, Section (V)(A). This is a priority component.
14
“The facility administrator shall designate a Sexual Abuse and Assault Prevention and Intervention Program
coordinator to….” See ICE PBNDS 2011, Standard, Sexual Abuse and Assault Prevention and Intervention, Section
(V)(B). This is a priority component.
15
“Facilities should use a coordinated, multidisciplinary team approach to responding to sexual abuse, such as a
sexual assault response team (SART), which in accordance with community practices, includes a medical
practitioner, a mental health practitioner, a security staff member and an investigator from the assigned investigative
entity, as well as representatives from outside entities that provide relevant services and expertise.” See ICE
PBNDS 2011, Standard, Sexual Abuse and Assault Prevention and Intervention, Section (V)(H).
16
Training on the facility’s Sexual Abuse or Assault Prevention and Intervention Program shall be included in
training for employees, volunteers and contract personnel and shall also be included in annual refresher training
thereafter.” See ICE PBNDS 2011, Standard, Sexual Abuse and Assault Prevention and Intervention, Section
(V)(E). This is a priority component
17
“Training shall include: prevention, recognition and appropriate response to allegations or suspicions of sexual
assault involving detainees with mental or physical disabilities….” See ICE PBNDS 2011, Standard, Sexual Abuse
and Assault Prevention and Intervention, Section (V)(E)(8). This is a priority component.
18
“Prior to a detainee’s actual placement in administrative segregation, the facility administrator or designee shall
complete the administrative segregation order (Form I-885 or equivalent), detailing the reasons for placing a
detainee in administrative segregation.” See ICE PBNDS 2011, Standard, Special Management Units, Section
(V)(A)(2)(b). This is a priority component.

Office of Detention Oversight
January 2016
OPR 201601768

7

Mesa Verde Detention Facility
ERO San Francisco

A review of the segregation orders for the detainees showed signatures were not consistently
found to document whether a copy was issued to the detainee. Orders for 22 of 25 detainees
placed in holding cells since July 2015 did not include detainee signatures. In the other three,
“Refused” was documented in the acknowledgement of receipt section. Facility staff
acknowledged detainees are not given copies of the orders (Deficiency SMU-2 19).
An interview with facility staff and review of facility procedures revealed, a copy of the
administrative segregation order is not provided to the Field Office Director or his designee
(Deficiency SMU-3 20).
A review of the segregation log, procedures and interview with staff revealed, a supervisor does
not conduct a review within 72 hours of the detainee’s placement in administrative segregation to
determine whether segregation is still warranted (Deficiency SMU-4 21).
A review of the segregation log revealed the log did not consistently record the detainee’s names,
A-numbers and dates of release (Deficiency SMU-5 22).
A review of the segregation log found checks of detainees were documented every 30 minutes,
but not on an irregular basis (Deficiency SMU-6 23).
An interview with facility staff and review of procedures revealed segregated detainees are not
permitted to use the visiting room during normal visiting hours (Deficiency SMU-7 24).
An interview with facility staff and review of procedures revealed detainees housed in
segregation do not have the same law library access as the general population (Deficiency SMU8 25).

19

“The administrative segregation order shall be immediately provided to the detainee in a language or manner the
detainee can understand, unless delivery would jeopardize the safe, secure, or orderly operation of the facility.” See
ICE PBNDS 2011, Standard, Special Management Units, Section (V)(A)(2)(f). This is a priority component.
20
“A copy of the administrative segregation order shall also be immediately provided to the Field Office Director or
his designee.” See ICE PBNDS 2011, Standard, Special Management Units, Section (V)(A)(2)(g).
21
“A supervisor shall conduct a review within 72 hours of the detainee’s placement in administrative segregation to
determine whether segregation is still warranted.” See ICE PBNDS 2011, Standard, Special Management Units,
Section (V)(A)(3)(a). This is a priority component.
22
“The SMU log shall record the detainee’s name, A-number, housing location, date admitted, reasons for
admission, status review dates, tentative release date (for detainees in disciplinary segregation), the authorizing
official, and date released.” See ICE PBNDS 2011, Standard, Special Management Units, Section (V)(C)(1).
23
“Detainees in SMU shall be personally observed and logged at least every 30 minutes on an irregular schedule.”
See ICE PBNDS 2011, Standard, Special Management Units, Section (V)(L). This is a priority component.
24
“Segregated detainees may ordinarily use the visiting room during normal visiting hours.” See ICE PBNDS 2011,
Standard, Special Management Units, Section (V)(R).
25
“In accordance with standard “6.3 Law Libraries and Legal Material,” detainees housed in administrative
segregation or disciplinary segregation units shall have the same law library access as the general population, unless
compelling security concerns require limitations.” See ICE PBNDS 2011, Standard, Special Management Units,
Section (V)(W).

Office of Detention Oversight
January 2016
OPR 201601768

8

Mesa Verde Detention Facility
ERO San Francisco

A review of the SMU log, procedures and interview with facility staff revealed, detainees in the
SMU for administrative reasons are not offered at least two hours of recreation outside their cells
each day; that recreation time should be scheduled at a reasonable time and provided at least
seven days per week (Deficiency SMU-9 26).
A detainee was housed in a medical observation cell for four days prior to transfer after selfidentifying as transgender. A review of the segregation order revealed placement was not by
direction of health care staff for medical or mental health reasons. The placement was for
protective custody as determined necessary by facility staff. The order did not state whether the
detainee requested protective custody, and whether a hearing concerning segregation was
requested (Deficiency SMU-10 27).
STAFF-DETAINEE COMMUNICATION (SDC)
A review of the facility handbook revealed the handbook does not include the contact
information for the ERO Field Office and the scheduled hours and days ERO staff is available to
be contacted by detainees at the facility (Deficiency SDC-1 28). Other deficiencies related to
information missing from the Detainee Handbook are reported under Detainee Handbook
starting on page 11.
A review of written procedures and interview with facility staff revealed the facility
administrator does not have written procedures to promptly route and deliver detainee requests to
the appropriate ERO officials by authorized personnel (not detainees) without reading, altering,
or delaying such requests and does not ensure the standard operating procedures accommodate
detainees with special assistance needs based on, for example disability, illiteracy, or limited use
of English (Deficiency SDC-2 29).
Corrective Action: Prior to the completion of the inspection the Detainee Request Forms
Policy was modified to address the actions to take when a request form is hand delivered
to facility staff. (C-2)

26

“Detainees in the SMU for administrative reasons shall be offered at least two hours of exercise per day, seven
days a week, unless documented security, safety or medical considerations dictate otherwise.” See ICE PBNDS
2011, Standard, Special Management Units, Section (V)(X)(1).
27
“If the segregation is ordered for protective custody purposes, the order shall state whether the detainee requested
the segregation, and whether the detainee requests a hearing concerning the segregation.” See ICE PBNDS 2011,
Standard, Special Management Units, Section (V)(A)(2)(e)
28
“The local supplement to the detainee handbook shall include contact information for the ICE/ERO Field Office
and the scheduled hours and days that ICE/ERO staff is available to be contacted by detainees at the facility.” See
ICE PBNDS 2011, Standard, Staff-Detainee Communication, Section (V)(A).
29
“Each facility administrator shall: Have written procedures to promptly route and deliver detainee requests to the
appropriate ICE/ERO officials by authorized personnel (not detainees) without reading, altering, or delaying such
requests. Ensure that the standard operating procedures accommodate detainees with special assistance needs based
on, for example, disability, illiteracy, or limited use of English.” See ICE PBNDS 2011, Standard, Staff-Detainee
Communication, Section (V)(B). This is a priority component.

Office of Detention Oversight
January 2016
OPR 201601768

9

Mesa Verde Detention Facility
ERO San Francisco

USE OF FORCE AND RESTRAINTS (UOF)
A review of documented use of force incidents and an interview with facility staff revealed
medical assessments are not conducted and documented on all detainees immediately following a
use of force incident (Deficiency UOF-1 30).
A review of documented use of force incidents and an interview with facility staff revealed
medical assessments are not conducted and documented on all staff involved immediately
following a use of force incident (Deficiency UOF-2 31).
A review of documented use of force incidents and an interview with facility staff revealed all
facility staff involved in use of force incidents do not provide reports to their shift supervisors
(Deficiency UOF-3 32).

CARE
FOOD SERVICE (FS)
There are no toilet facilities for detainees or staff within the food service area. ODO was
informed that staff use facilities throughout the facility and that, upon request, detainees use a
restroom in the medical department. Inspection of the medical department restroom found it was
not equipped with soap, paper towels, and hand-washing reminder signs (Deficiency FS-1 33).
Corrective Action: Prior to the completion of the inspection hand-washing reminder
signs were affixed to the restroom walls. The facility staff refilled soap containers and
paper towel dispensers to ensure detainees can properly wash their hands prior to
returning to work. (C-3)

30

“Upon gaining control of the detainee, staff shall seek the assistance of qualified health personnel to immediately:
Examine the detainee and immediately treat any injuries. The medical services provided and diagnosed injuries
shall be documented.” See ICE PBNDS 2011, Standard, Use of Force and Restraints, Section (V)(H)(2).
31
“Upon gaining control of the detainee, staff shall seek the assistance of qualified health personnel to immediately:
Examine any involved staff member who reports an injury and, if necessary, provide initial emergency care. The
examination shall be documented.” See ICE PBNDS 2011, Standard, Use of Force and Restraints, Section
(V)(H)(3).
32
“A written report shall be provided to the shift supervisor by each officer involved in the use of force by the end
of the officer’s shift.” See ICE PBNDS 2011, Standard, Use of Force and Restraints, Section (V)(H)(4).
33
“Adequate and conveniently located toilet facilities shall be provided for all food service staff and detainee
workers. Signs shall be prominently displayed. Soap or detergent and paper towels or a hand-drying device
providing heated air, shall be available at all times in each lavatory.” See ICE PBNDS 2011, Standard, Food
Service, Section (V)(J)(9)(c) and (e).

Office of Detention Oversight
January 2016
OPR 201601768

10

Mesa Verde Detention Facility
ERO San Francisco

MEDICAL CARE (MC)
A review of the intake form revealed the form only addresses situations in which the detainee
identifies as a transgender, but does not inquire into a transgender detainee’s gender selfidentification (Deficiency MC-1 34).
Corrective Action: Prior to the completion of the inspection the intake form was
modified to inquire into a transgender detainee’s gender self-identification. (C-4)

ACTIVITIES
TELEPHONE ACCESS (TA)
An observation of the telephones revealed the facility does not post, at each monitored telephone,
procedures on how to obtain an unmonitored call to court, legal representative or for the
purposes of obtaining legal representation. Notices on how to obtain an unmonitored call are
posted; however, they are located on a bulletin board, a significant distance away from
monitored phones (Deficiency TA-1 35).
An interview with facility staff and observation of the housing unit bulletin boards and other
posting areas revealed telephone access hours and updated telephone and consulate lists are not
posted in all detainee housing units (Deficiency TA-2 36).
ODO reviewed unit logs with facility staff and found no one inspects telephones on a daily basis
(Deficiency TA-3 37).

JUSTICE
DETAINEE HANDBOOK (DH)
A review of the facility handbook reveals the handbook does not notify detainees of interpretive
services for essential communication (Deficiency DH-1 38).
A review of the facility handbook reveals the handbook does not notify detainees of the
availability of legal orientation programs (Deficiency DH-2 39).
34

“The screening shall inquire into the following: inquire into a transgender detainee’s gender self-identification and
history of transition-related care, when a detainee self-identifies as transgender….” See ICE PBNDS 2011,
Standard, Medical Care, Section (V)(J)(15). This is a priority component.
35
“If telephone calls are monitored, the facility shall: at each monitored telephone, place a notice that states the
following: the procedure for obtaining an unmonitored call to a court, a legal representative or for the purposes of
obtaining legal representation.” See ICE PBNDS 2011, Standard, Telephone Access, Section (V)(B)(3)(b).
36
“Telephone access hours shall also be posted. Updated telephone and consulate lists shall be posted in detainee
housing units.” See ICE PBNDS 2011, Standard, Telephone Access, Section (V)(C).
37
“Designated facility staff shall inspect the telephones daily, promptly report out-of-order telephones to the repair
service so that required repairs are completed quickly.” See ICE PBNDS 2011, Standard, Telephone Access,
Section (V)(A)(3).
38
“While all applicable topics from the handbook must be addressed, it is especially important that each local
supplement notify each detainee of: procedures for requesting interpretive services for essential communication….”
See ICE PBNDS 2011, Standard, Detainee Handbook, Section (V)(B)(3). This is a priority component.

Office of Detention Oversight
January 2016
OPR 201601768

11

Mesa Verde Detention Facility
ERO San Francisco

A review of the facility handbook reveals the handbook does not notify detainees of the contact
information for the ERO Field Office and the scheduled hours and days ERO is available to be
contacted by detainees at the facility (Deficiency DH-3 40).
A review of the facility handbook reveals the handbook does not notify detainees of procedures
to submit written questions, requests, or concerns to ERO staff, as well as the availability of
assistance to prepare such requests (Deficiency DH-4 41).
An interview with facility staff and review of the training curriculum revealed the facility
administrator does not address the contents of the ICE Handbook and local supplement in initial
and annual staff training (Deficiency DH-5 42).
An interview with facility staff and review of the policy revealed the facility administrator has
not established procedures to immediately communicate changes to staff and detainees regarding
the handbook, by posting changes on bulletin boards in housing units and other prominent areas
(Deficiency DH-6 43).
GRIEVANCE SYSTEM (GS)
A review of the facility’s grievance log showed on nine occasions detainees were not provided a
written or oral response within five days of receipt of the grievance (Deficiency GS-1 44).
A review of the facility’s grievance log revealed, on one occasion, an appeal decision was not
provided to the detainee within five days or receipt of the appeal (Deficiency GS-2 45).
A review of the facility’s grievance log revealed, on one occasion the facility did not have the
date the appeal was filed noted (Deficiency GS-3 46).
39

“While all applicable topics from the handbook must be addressed, it is especially important that each local
supplement notify each detainee of: content and procedures of the facility’s rules on legal rights group presentations,
and the availability of legal orientation programs….” See ICE PBNDS 2011, Standard, Detainee Handbook, Section
(V)(B)(10). This is a priority component.
40
“While all applicable topics from the handbook must be addressed, it is especially important that each local
supplement notify each detainee of: contact information for the ICE/ERO Field Office and the scheduled hours and
days that ICE/ERO staff is available to be contacted by detainees at the facility….” See ICE PBNDS 2011,
Standard, Detainee Handbook, Section (V)(B)(14). This is a priority component.
41
“While all applicable topics from the handbook must be addressed, it is especially important that each local
supplement notify each detainee of: procedures to submit written questions, requests, or concerns to ICE/ERO staff,
as well as the availability of assistance to prepare such requests.” See ICE PBNDS 2011, Standard, Detainee
Handbook, Section (V)(B)(15). This is a priority component.
42
“The facility administrator shall provide a copy of the ICE Handbook and the local supplement to every staff
member who has contact with detainees, and shall address their contents in initial and annual staff training.” See
ICE PBNDS 2011, Standard, Detainee Handbook, Section (V)(D).
43
“While the handbook does not have to be immediately revised and reprinted to incorporate every change, the
facility administrator shall establish procedures for immediately communicating such changes to staff and detainees
through methods including but not limited to the following: posting changes on bulletin boards in housing units and
other prominent areas; notifying staff by memos and other means; and informing new arrivals during orientation.”
See ICE PBNDS 2011, Standard, Detainee Handbook, Section (V)(E)(1-3).
44
“Detainee shall be provided with a written or oral response within five days of receipt of the grievance.” See ICE
PBNDS 2011, Standard, Grievance System, Section (V)(C)(3)(b)(1)(b).
45
“The designated members of the GAB shall review and provide a decision on the grievance within five days of
receipt of the appeal.” See ICE PBNDS 2011, Standard, Grievance System, Section (V)(C)(3)(b)(2)(b).

Office of Detention Oversight
January 2016
OPR 201601768

12

Mesa Verde Detention Facility
ERO San Francisco

ODO reviewed a representative sample of 30 detainee detention files. On two occasions, a copy
of the grievance disposition was not placed in the detainee’s detention file (Deficiency GS-4 47).
Corrective Action: Prior to the completion of the inspection copies of the missing
grievance dispositions were placed in the referenced detainees’ detention files. (C-5)
ODO’s review of the process found that six grievances alleging staff misconduct were not sent to
ICE/OPR, Joint Intake Center and/or local OPR office for appropriate action (Deficiency GS5 48). ERO was notified of the allegations and decided not to forward the grievances to ICE/OPR,
Joint Intake Center and/or the local OPR office. ODO reported the six grievances to the Joint
Intake Center on February 3, 2016.
LAW LIBRARY AND LEGAL MATERIAL (LL&LM)
A review of the facility handbook reveals the handbook does not provide detainees with the
procedure for notifying a designated employee that library material is out of date (Deficiency
LL&LM-1 49).
A review of materials present in the law library revealed two binders with unpublished material
do not have the required cover page (Deficiency LL&LM-2 50).

46

“The GAB shall note the grievance log with the following information: date appeal filed….” See ICE PBNDS
2011, Standard, Grievance System, Section (V)(C)(3)(b)(2)(d).
47
“A copy of the grievance disposition shall be placed in the detainee’s detention file and provided to the detainee
within five days.” See ICE PBNDS 2011, Standard, Grievance System, Section (V)(D). This is a priority
component.
48
“Upon receipt, facility staff must forward all detainee grievances containing allegations of staff misconduct to a
supervisor or higher- level official in the chain of command. While such grievances are to be processed through the
facility’s established grievance system, CDFs and IGSA facilities must also forward a copy of any grievances
alleging staff misconduct to ICE/ERO in a timely manner with a copy going to ICE’s Office of Professional
Responsibility (OPR) Joint Intake Center and/or local OPR office for appropriate action.” See ICE PBNDS 2011,
Standard, Grievance System, Section (V)(F). This is a priority component.
49
“The detainee handbook shall also provide detainees with information regarding the procedure for notifying a
designated employee that library material is missing, out of date, or damaged.” See ICE PBNDS 2011, Standard,
Law Libraries and Legal Materials, Section (V)(E)(2).
50
“Unpublished material must have a cover page that: identifies the submitter and preparer of the material; clearly
states that ICE/ERO did not prepare and is not responsible for the contents; and provides the date of preparation.”
See ICE PBNDS 2011, Standard, Law Libraries and Legal Materials, Section (V)(F)(2)(a-c).

Office of Detention Oversight
January 2016
OPR 201601768

13

Mesa Verde Detention Facility
ERO San Francisco