you commissioner. today's briefing is going to feature 14 distinguished speakers. they are going to provide points of view on this topic. we've asked each speaker to allow us to break it up into panels. federal one consist of agencies. guidelines and standards will be reviewed there in terms of care provided to the detainees. panel two is going to consist of private detention facilities invoke questions of standards of care there. panel three will touch on legal challenges associated with immigration detention facilities and panel four will conclude with civil rights associated with immigration detention centers. during the briefing each panelist will have seven minutes to speak. after panelists make their presentations, commissioner will have an opportunity to ask questions. in order to maximize the amount of time we ask everyone to be as brief as possible including my fellow commissioners. you're going to notice speakers there's a system of warning lights here. when the light turns from green

to yellow that means you start. two minutes remaining you're going to see a yellow light. unlike when we're driving instead of running yellow light you will speed up though, because the red light starts soon. when the red light hits, you have to stop. we're trying to provide as much time as possible for interaction. i know you'll help me abide by that. once the opportunity comes, be as concise as possible. finally the record of this hearing is going to remain open 30 days. if panelists or members would like to submit materials they can either mail them to u.s. commission on civil rights, office of civil rights evaluation at 131 -- i'm sorry 1331 pennsylvania avenue northwest. that's 1331 pennsylvania avenue northwest suite 1150 washington, d.c. 20425 or via e-mail at public comments at usccr.gov. with those business of housekeeping out of the way, let

me introduce our first panel. our first panelist megan mack, director of the office of civil rights and liberties at the department of homeland security. our second panel istist franklin jones at border protection. thirst pabloist anna marie bena, principle adviser and director in the office at the u.s. department of health and human services. finally our fourth panelist is mr. cech landkevin landy, immigration customs enforcement at u.s. department of homeland security. miss may. >> i do that let me swear and affirm you all. raise your right-hand side, please. i ask you swear and affirm the information you're about to provide to us is true and honest to the best of your belief. is that correct? >> good morning. thank you chairman castro and to the commission for hosting and

convening this important meeting today. i'm from the office of homeland security. my office is truly unique. it was created by homeland security act to ensure civil rights and liberties of persons are not diminished by efforts, activities and programs aimed at securing the homeland. every day my staff and i work to fulfill that mission. both by providing policy advice on civil rights and civil liberties, issues to department leadership and by investigating complaints and other allegations received by public about the issues. we work collaboratively with u.s. customs and border protection and u.s. immigration and customs enforcement to ensure civil and human rights and civil liberties are incorporated for immigration related programs, policies and operations throughout the department. complaints related top application detention are the

largest share we investigate. crcl as my office is called our efforts on immigration detention have been of great importance to me personally. i came to the department from the american bar association where i led commission on immigration there and worked on detention issues including access to counsel and other detention issues. i understand today's briefing is to help you consider equal protection in the administration of justice in our immigration detention facilities. my colleagues and i will address detention standards and prison rape elimination act which you identified as subjects of interest. in addition since the subject of equal protection including detention lies at the heart of my office's role i wanted to spend a moment on two other topics to which we devote substantial resources. language access and appropriate treatment for persons with serious mental or medical health issues or disabilities. on language access, the

department recognizes its responsibility to communicate with detainees in a language they can understand. this requires affirmative states tonight sure effective communication. having interpreters and services readily available, having appropriate staff trained to use them and having the right policies and procedures in place for language access. this means avoiding relying on bilingual stat not trained for interception and fellow employees aren't relied on for interpretation. in context of sexual assault and response where stakes are especially high the requirements of the department's rule under prison rape elimination for language access are very specific. i note we face a particular challenge in providing appropriate language for detainees who speak languages spoken only in relatively small communities where commercial interpretation services are more difficult to engage and to detainees who aren't literate in any language and can't be served

by communication of written. they have taken steps for individuals with serious medical p in our system. reasonable to detainees with disabilities to ensure they participate fully in the programs and services offered across the party including in detention. so for example, in 2013, ice issued a directive on segregated housing that ensures review of all long-term placements in a segregated housing unit. a substantial additional requirements for initial and regular review of detainees in segregated housing who have a serious medical or mental health condition or disability. skipping a little bit because kevin landy is an expert on this. i turn briefly to rape limb

anything and isis. departmentwide regulations in march 2014 to prevent, detect respond sexual assault in dhs confinement facilities. while dhs had components in place before priya to prevent sexual abuse, created uniformed safeguards against sexual abuse in ice and cbc custody. my colleagues will discuss implementation of regulations within their components in more detail. from my office's perspective we operate a departmentwide working group to facilitate consistency and implementation where that's appropriate and assist components on various priya issues where we can. crcl involved in isis 2008 and 2011 performance-based standards or pnds and family residential standards which accomplish most of the safeguards number rated under priya. isis also revising its standards

for additional priya requirements and my office providing other technical assistance. i emphasize we understand and take seriously our responsibility to ensure not only that the right policies in place and priya and detention and real improvement over their predecessors but also we follow the policies and practice and right mechanism in place to consider policy changes when needed. com popts have policymaking monitoring inspection offices and program and crcl provides another form of monitoring and oversight as well as recommendations on policy practice and training. while our work reaches across he the department a substantial share we receive and recommendations we make involve icp detention. on the subject of unaccompanied children as the commission is aware, the united states experienced a humanitarian crisis along southwestern border last spring and summer particularly in the texas rio grande valley. as tens of thousands of

unaccompanied children crossed the border. in the immediate crisis dhs focused on getting adults and children, many of whom had undertaken a dangerous journey into a safe and secure environment where they could be processed. skipping more for hhs to cover. while some children we mand in custody more than three days we undertook government wide response to address crisis which included establishment of unified coordination group that brought assets of multiple agencies to bear on the situation. unaccompanied children are inherently vulnerable so we placed a high priority on identifying any protection concerns unaccompanied children from contiguous companies who don't present protection concerns -- excuse me under trafficking reauthorization act of 2008 when dhs encounters unaccompanied child from contiguous company such as mexico, the child is screened to

identify potential victims of human trafficking and determine whether the child has a fear of persecution if returned to his or her home country. dhs as a matter of policy conducts screen on all unaccompanied screening regardless of country of origin. >> we'll come back and ask you questions on those topics, i promise. >> thank you distinguished members. thank you for allowing me to be here today. i appreciate the opportunity to speak with you about actions of border protection to implement standards to prevent tech and respond to sexual abuse and assault in confinement facilities. we identify them asprey, a standards to highlight efforts committed to ensure safety of all individuals in our custody.

detention standards have been important to cdp. we're committed to responding to sexual abuse in all facilities. fully embraced priya standards built in our facilities. standards that became affect ensure appropriate mechanism in place to prevent and respond to protect in dhs confinement facilities. on may 6th current commissioner issued zero tolerance sexual abuse policy to workforce which prohibits all forms of sexual abuse of individuals in custody including in holding facilities, during transportation and during processing. immediately applying implementation of the policy cdp appointed interim prevention of sexual assault coordinator to begin coordinating our efforts across the agency. cbp created a new position,

which was when we had selected permanent coordinator who should be joining organization with me in the next few days. efforts to implement have been moving swiftly and we have ebb joyed great support from all of the operational components across cdp. cdp office of border patrol, field operation, air and marine and internal affairs have all issued guidance to their staff on the dhs priya standards. notification of field personnel is key to success of standards. cdp developing train for all persons who have contact with detainees in cdp holding facilities and interact during processing of adults and minors. will underscore employee obligation for preventing, detecting and responding to

sexual abuse as well as provide techniques and methods for communicating with individuals who are victims of sexual abuse. detainees are third parties can report incidents or allegations of mistreatment without fear of retaliation as stated in our policy. in addition in an effort to ensure that detainees are able to report sexual abuse allegation to third parties posters were developed and shipped to all cdp holding facilities across the country displaying telephone number of the dhs office of the inspector general. all sexual abuse allegations must be reported to the commissioner's situation room and the joint in tech, which is a dhs facility for teching in allegations managed by ice and cdp. employees who violate prohibitions against sexual abuse will be subjected to disciplinary action other

corrective action upon proof of violation up to removal of federal service. i want to thank you for providing me with the opportunity to outline actions taken by cdp to implementation prea and i welcome comments and questions and look forward to continuing this dialogue owned what we consider to be this most pressing issue. >> thank you, mr. jones. miss bennett. >> i'd like to thank the commission for inviting office of refugee settlement to discuss responsibilities for providing care and services for unaccompanied children. >> speak a little closer into your mike, please. >> today i'd like to share general information on the kids that come into our care and custody as well as standards of care and services and briefly discuss published final role on preventing detecting and responding to sexual abuse and harassment. unaccompanied children or children who enter united states unaccompanied by parent or legal

guard yanet without immigration status come when they are referred by another agency, usually department of homeland security. once dhs identified a minor as unaccompanied child they transfer the child to one of the care provider facilities. they currently have approximately 124 care provider facilities in 15 states. in fiscal 2014, orr placed 50,000 children in its care providing facilities, the vast majority came from honduras, guatemala and el salvador. mexico less than 2% and all combined less than 3% from federal agencies. demographic breakdown changed from previous years. female unaccompanied children and children under 14 years of age. in previous years approximately 25% of the population was female

while in fiscal year 2014 females made one-third of the population. also fiscal year 2013 approximately 27% of the population was under 14 while in previous years percentage range from 17 to 24%. orr has a network of care provider facilities across u.s. that provide various levels of care, homes providers, residential treatment, staff care providers, which are kind of a medium care facilities, transitional foster care and long-term foster care. a very small number of children placed in secure facilities if they have committed dangerous crimes or pose a danger to themselves or others. vast majority of children are housed in our shelter facilities. all permanent care providers are state licensed facilities licensed to provide residential services to minors.

this means that are state licensing and orr. state licensing cover anything from reporting sexual abuse to providing nutritious meals and snacks, the number of square feet the children have in their rooms and services provided and much more. when a child is referred to orr from dhs, orr has intake specialists that must make placement determination for each child within the network that is the least redistributive setting and one in the best interest of the child. orr will identify any special needs the child may have and determine the best and most appropriate placement for the child. for example, orr uses transitional foster care to house children under the age of 12 or teens pregnant or parenting so they may receive specialized care and services. when unaccompanied children's program transferred from former u.s. immigration and

naturalization service from department of homeland -- to department of children's services orr came bound by settlement agreement which set forth minimum standards and services that must be provided to all unaccompanied children. orr is tasked with providing custody until a safe and suitable sponsor is found to provide care and physical custody for the child while the child waits for his or her proceedings. while the child is in orr care he or she receives array of services state licensing standards. when a child is admitted to orr care trained care service providers provide assessments of the child including screens, interviews, interviews with child's family interviews with potential sponsors. this assessment used as first round of screening to determine whether the child that any immediate needs and whether the child has been the victim of abuse, crime or of trafficking. while children are in our care

each child receives an initial medical examination and medical and dental and mental health, educational services, daily recreational activities. also know your rights presentations and legal service screens and for some legal services which is something we've been broadening recently. access to religious services regular telephone calls with family members case management services which include services to identify a parent or relative or other appropriate sponsor for release, individual service planning assistance and weekly and individual counseling sessions. we seek to place children awaiting removal proceedings with a prnt or relative or another appropriate sponsor. most children do have a parent or other relative already living in the u.s. and orr assesses potential sponsors to ensure they are safe and suitable for the child including background checks, interviews with sponsors, reviews sponsors ability to care for the child's

well-being. in fiscal year 2014 approximately 95 per% of the chirp were released to a sponsor. of some that weren't released some were remanded to homeland security when they reached 18. others became available for immigration status, some returned voluntarily or were removed to country of origin. finally i'd like to discuss briefly orr's final rule that covers standards to prevent detect and respond to sexual abuse and sexual harassment involving unaccompanied children. o rchl r published interim final role on december 24th 2014 and accepting public comments for 60 days, about february 23rd. as an interim final rule, the rule became effective upon publication and orr care provider facilities will have six months to implement the rule and come into compliance with it. this rule includes comprehensive set of standards organized into

11 occasion that cover prevention, planning, training and education reporting, medical and mental health care and data collection. the standards built on enhanced existing state and local laws, regulations and licenses st. petersburg. the rule applies to all orr facilities excluding secure care providers and individual foster homes. all to follow justice regulation and homes subject to orr's policies and procedures and statelening standards not subject to ifr because they are community-based placement. our care provider facilities are already complying with many portions of the rule because of their state licensing requirements, but the rule will ensure that care providers are taking all the necessary and required steps in a formalized process to fully ensure prevention, detection and proper response to any instance of

sexual abuse and harassment. >> mr. landy. >> chairman castro members of the commission on civil rights, thank you for the opportunity to discuss recent detention reform initiatives at immigration and customs enforcement. my name is kevin landy, i'm assistant director of office of detention policy and planning. odpp established in 2009 to help coordinate efforts to reform detention system. our national immigration detention system expanded rapidly in the last 20 years growing from average daily population of less than 7500 detainees to over 33,000. 3300 detainees in 1995. this growth presented challenges to ice. in 2009 dhs announced broad and long-term effort to reform immigration system. the goal of this reform was to ensure conditions of confinement would be consistent with civil

nature. it was established to spearhead initiatives both by implementing short-term improvements and identifying long-term solutions to further agencies civil detention priorities. groochlts have included developing facilities more appropriate for the agencies detained population and improving conditions at existing facilities reducing the number of people transferred away from their families communities and attorneys, ensuring received adequate health and mental health care and necessary oversight. the commission asked i discuss two specific forms in particular, 2011 national standards and implementation of dhs prea regulations. the 2011 standards are the most updated standards. to develop these i wokd with stakeholders including nongovernmental organizations in ice field offices as well as in particular you mentioned.

in 2011 improves upon safeguards and protections contained in earlier versions of detention standards in a number of ways including additional medical and mental health services, increased access to legal services enhanced religious opportunities, stronger protecteds for detainees with limited english proficiency and disabilities stronger safeguards against sexual abuse and assault and stronger protections for vulnerable populations including women individuals with mental illness and victims of abuse. pbs 2011 currently applies to 60% of population including ice facilities that specifically house ice detainees which are known as dedicated detention facilities. for a facility to move to new detention standards ice must engage in negotiations and execute contract negotiations. this is a long process but ice is pursuing traditional

nondedicated facilities with priorities given to facilities housing largest population. next i will discuss ice's work implementing dhs prea regulations. prior to issuance of prea regulations, ice developed strong safeguards against sexual abuse or assault in agency policies and detention standards. ice's 2008 and 2011 incorporate preventive measures screening staff training and detainee education as well as requiring effective response to all incidents of sexual abuse and assault. mai 2012 ice issued agency wide directive on sexual abuse and intervention which established zero tolerance policy for sexual abuse and all individuals in ice custody and outlined duties of agency employees. requires timely allegations, effective monitoring of all incidents of sexual abuse or

assault. pursuant to the 2012 ice directive, ice appointed agency assault coordinator along with multiple coordinators in field office. comprehensive on assault prevent and intervention for all ice employees who may have contact with detainees and develop detainee awareness materials on ice's sexual assault policies. in march 2014 as you've heard from megan dhs promulgated regulations under prea. this rule built upon existing agency policies and practices outlined robust requirements for intervention reporting and investigation. ice is currently compliant applicable to the agency. in may 2014, ice updated its original directive on sexual abuse and assault prevention to incorporate several requirements not already covered by the original policy.

in september 2014 ice promulgated a new policy integrating prea requirements specifically applicable to ice short-term holding facilities. in regards to prea's application to ice facilities prea requires all new, renewed or subsequently modified detention facility contracts incorporate prea standards. ice will also proactively pursue opportunities for incorporating prea standards and other detention facilities including all facilities. at the current time requirements binding at six detention facilities including all three of ice's family residential facilities. however, it's important to note sexual assault safeguards contained in preahor 2011 already apply to approximately 80% of the agency's ample daily population. this number in 95% of the agency's average daily population when excluding those detainees held in u.s. marshall service contracted facilities

which are covered by department of justice prea regulations. final note i would like to quickly highlight a few additional reports. megan referred to our recent directive review of use of segregation for ice detainees. this very progressive policy established procedures for review and oversight by ice field offices and headquarters of decisions to place any ice detainee in segregated house are for 14 days or more or placements in segregation for any length of time in the case of detainees with health factors or special vulnerabilities. any such segregation placement reviewed on ongoing basis by headquarters offices as well as field offices. we also completed nationwide deployment of new automated risk classification assessment. this tool improvements transparency and uniformity and custody classification decisions, identifying vulnerable populations and prioritization of detention resources. finally ice made great strides reducing long distance transfers of detainees increasing

detention capacity where it's most needed and issuing a policy in 2012 that regulates and limits transfers. these steps ensure that detainees can remain close to their families and attorneys and also prevents disruptions to ongoing immigration proceedings. we continue to strive for additional reforms in these and other areas and we will continue to ensure that the conditions at ice detention facilities are safe humane and appropriate for the nature of our detained population. i'd like to thank the commission again for its interest in immigration detention and for the opportunity to provide the statement. >> thank you, mr. landy. we'll now open it up to questions for commissioners. as i always do, i will attempt to be fair in apportioning the time. if commissioners want to ask a question, flag for me your interest and i will make a list and try to call on everything in an orderly fashion i will take commission chairman's privilege and ask the first questions.

four specific questions. i appreciate testimony and efforts your agencies appear to be putting into this topic but i'm reminded of two years ago for our other statutory enforcement report on military sexual assault. we had a number of generals and admirals sitting on the first panel. all of them told us great things they were doing to prevent military sexual assault and yet after that issues continued to come to light. serious issues about our men and women in uniform being abused despite purported policies and procedures that were put in place. i'm a little concerned about that here as well. it sounds great what you're doing yet we continue to see challenges that are being faced by your agencies and complying with or at least enforcing policies. i reference if he beginning of the complaint filed by justice

center and aclu filed by others and addressed to you, miss mack, i'm sure you saw this list some appalling things that happened to children, unaccompanied children, sexual abuse physical abuse, a whole series of things not in keeping with who we are as a country. i'd like to know what has been done by your agency or any agencies here to investigate these allegations and to address them. >> thank you chairman castro. in the first half of fiscal -- first my office takes these complaints very seriously and we've worked through the years with regular meetings with nongovernmental organizations to make sure we're hearing all the complaints that are out there that we can gather. we visit detention facilities on a regular basis. i've made a priority of going to family detention facilities as they are being brought online. my staff will be there next week to review the facility and see hugh conditions of confinement

are there. when we receive a complaint from an organization like nijc miss mccarthy or from other organizations we follow up with the person who has sent the complaint, we ask any questions. we open investigations so in the first half of fiscal 2014 for example, about half of the new investigation that we opened were 71 out of the 149 we opened pertained to ice detention. more than 20 others involved cdp ports of entry and checkpoints and unaccompanied children. we have a team of experts on contract with my office in a varieties of areas including medical and mental health care cancer conditions of confinement, environmental safety and other areas. they come with us to facilities. the staff their review of the files, medical files. they pull files. if they see a problem, they pull more files. we went to artesia, new mexico

last december and karnes in december. dealey will be the third major large new facility we visited. the experts submit reports to us and we work with ice. we make recommendations and work with ice to resolve issues that we found there. >> as it relates to these in kick were you able to determine whether they were justified corrective action taken how were specific complaints relates to unaccompanied children listed in the complaint from aic addressed. >> i don't believe our recommendations have been finalized. the process is those are protected under privilege until we hear back from ice or cdp about the complaints. i can check to be sure but i don't believe those complaints we have final recommendations on those. once we have final recommendations we report out in our final report and quarterly reports to congress. >> we can expect at some point specific -- something specific to address these issues.

>> should be in annual quarterly report, don't issue finnings in a report on each individual complaint, there are probably 400 complaints we do a year. what we do is compile them by topic in our annual report. you can see annual reports online. we'll be happy to send the most recent reports. >> njc 1 specifically what happened on those individual complaints would they be able to obtain that information or who does it go to specific allegations. >> i'm not aware they have been forwarded. that's the only way i'm aware of a report could be attempted to be obtained. the reports are within the government in order to make improvements within the government and information we report out in the annual report to congress is far more general. we do a closed letter to individual complainants. nic will get a closed letter that does provide more detail of that's addressed to them specifically how the complaint was resolved.

>> in earlier remarks talked about anti-trafficking law and border control for noncontiguous or contiguous countries like mexico for example, unaccompanied children whether they had a fear of going back, whether there was a trafficking issue which allowed them to stay. i have a hard time figuring out how a border patrol agent can make a determination in most instances done by immigration judge with due process. could you elucidate me on that. >> the responsibility and franklin may have more to add to this. >> anyone who has something to add, feel free. >> i'll start. the responsibility is for screening not for adjudication of a claim. credible fear, to find a credible fear, i'm sure miss mccarthy could speak to the issue as well. >> i'd like to hear what the government has to say about it. >> we screen for fear. it's a simple questionnaire we provide and go through. officers go through the questions. if someone expresses a fear under our law we're required to find a credible fear.

then they have more rights to not be returned. as i said in my remarks contiguous countries are the ones we screen initially. the other countries will be skreepd when they go to hhs custody but we screen them as a matter of policy. franklin, i don't know if you want to add. >> as a matter of practice they are providing a checklist go through a checklist. they give the individual their rights and the assessment -- the agent is not responsible for making -- or allowed to make an assessment if the individual indicates that he or she meets the requirement then that individual has to be referred for additional screening. >> if they don't meet the requirement, who makes the determination? >> the agent based on how they answer the questions of the questions are, series of questions that rise to the level of what we consider to be the standard for alleging credible

fear. so they do have to answer a series of questions. depending on that answer, initially for citizens of mexico then returned to mexican consulate. >> so it is the agent that makes that determination? >> well, it's the process, i would say, and not the agent. the answers determine the outcome and not a subjective belief of the agent that determines the outcome. >> can we ask mr. jones to supply us with the questionnaires? >> that would be great. would you be able to provide us with that? >> yes. it is a form. i believe i can to the extent it's not privileged. >> i would imagine it shouldn't be privileged but i'd be surprised if a document like that would be privileged. i'm sure we can work out a situation where you can provide that to us. >> okay. but it may well be in terms -- >> we don't need filled out one, just blank one to see what kind of questions these are asking. >> i would ask, have a moment

hcr working with ice reviewing the form. i don't know where that process is but i know the form has been subject -- people have had a look at it. i think it's googleable even if the government doesn't release it. >> it is a public form. i'm trying to remember the number. >> i appreciate that. recently received here at the commission a number of complaints, copies of complaints that were submitted involving religious freedom submitted by arab american -- american arab anti-discrimination committee involving religious freedom at the stewart facility. are any of you aware of these complaints? >> it's very possible my organization has gotten them, we have a close relationship with adc. >> when do you handle -- >> i can submit that within the time that's allowed but i don't know off the top -- >> before you leave i'm going to hand these to you and make sure if you could please commit to take a close look at these. these are significant serious issues. >> of course. >> finally i want to ask one

thing we didn't hear from you all that is important to us in this investigation the treatment of transgender individuals. it's our understanding the largest agency that has custody of transgender individuals is department of homeland skurtd. any of you talk a little about the treatment of transgender individuals in detention facilities. >> yes. i can start and maybe megan will have something to add. ice has been progressive in this area. i'll try to remember all the different areas they address protection of transgender detainees. first of all in our detention standards we require individualized az pents for any transgender detainees arriving at a facility, regarding, for example, the idea of housing, classification decisions as to what housing unit to place them in may not be based solely on biological anatomy of the

individual but must take into account that individual's gender identity. let me move forward a little earlier in the process the actual apprehension possess. after somebody has been apprehended they are screened. during book in officer gets application risk assessment tool part of book in module, therefore preserved electronically. the officer is required to ask initially questions about whether a variety of special vulnerabilities apply. one of those special vulnerabilities is whether that individual might fear for their safety in detention due to their gender identity or sexual orientation. so that's a factor taken in immediately. with respect to treatment in detention, the medical care standard of the detention guarantees a right to hormone therapy for individuals who need it for treatment and even in

facilities not covered by that standard, the corps is vinl atlanta to ensure they receive necessary hormone therapy. in our segregation directive, which we have mentioned, the policy indicates no one may be placed in segregation solely due to being transgender. we can't have a default policy anyone transgender inherently vulnerable, there has to be an individualized assessment in all cases. we immediately becomafter wear when somebody transgender is placed in -- at any given time one average transgender detainee is in segregation in our entire system for more than 14 days at a time. we don't know -- those are the

statistics that i can recall most easily. we have a special housing unit in the los angeles area dedicated to the bisexual and transgender detainees individuals who prefer a transfer even across the country for that facility, related to safety transgender housing count, afforded that opportunity, many long distance offered their choice for that unit. and we have an on going working group in this area consider additional forms on these issues including adopting the most progressive policies. there are a couple of jails in the entire country that have essentially transgender committees. i think afternoon was tcc if i'm not mistaken.

i don'terly what that stands for. but a committee of health care providers, security staff and administrators. in this case it might include ice professionals. this is policies that exist at other jails which we're considering, carefully consider treatment options and housing options for transgender individuals. so it's an issue we're very aware of and respond to any concerns or allegations we hear which we to hear from time to time from ngos or attorneys about individuals. >> thank you, mr. landy. i'm sure my colleagues will have follow-up questions on that. before i turn it over to commissioner yaki, miss and other colleagues on the commission are planning to pay a visit to detention centers. we would hope we could ask for each of your assistance to facilitate the visit. could we count on that? >> yes. >> miss mack is nodding yes.

i'll ask my assistant to give you these complaints and the documents we asked for, you can send that to our office of civil rights investigation. commissioner yaki. >> thank you very much mr. chairman and thank you for your leadership in holding this briefing. -of- question i guess that starts with mr. landing and may filter out to some other folks here and probably elsewhere and other panels. i want to focus a little about the mandate that congress has to maintain a level of not less than 34,000 detention beds at any given appoint in time. i imagine in policy and planning, having to figure out a way to ensure that number affects not just whether or not you can physically do it but from a logistical point of view how is it that you get to that point. in other words, one of the criticisms for example is that the actual number of violent

offenders -- violent as in real violence are in these facilities somewhere in the very low teens or single digit range and there's a criticism that in order to meet that mandate, the department is reaching down, so to speak to get people who may have dui or marijuana or some other nonviolent offense. i don't want to put you on the spot but i guess i will, which is -- i know in a former life, now president of uc homeland secretary janet napolitano went to congress and said we need to deal with this quota situation. i just want to know how -- two parts. how does this quota drive your department's policy and how would it be different, do you believe, if that quota were removed? >> well with respect to the

question as to who is being apprehended and whether it requires us to apprehend individuals who are not priorities, as you probably know in 2011 director john porton issued priorities policy which has very recently been replaced by a department -- dhs executive action which clearly lays out enforcement priorities for ice. it's certainly not limited to people who have been convicted of violent crimes. it includes people, for example, who committed aggravated felonies of any type, people who have been convicted of three or more misdemeanors, not traffic offenses. people who have been convicted of at least one significant misdemeanor and also immigration -- certain types of immigration violators.

people who received a final order after january 1 of 2014. so not necessarily criminals at all. people who have entered the country after january 1, 2014. the statistics from prior years under morton directive showed ice was able to fell it's detention bets priority to people who fell into one of the occasion. a very large percentage of that category are going to be border crossers, especially during these years a massive influx across rio grande valley of adults adult individuals. and it was difficult to find detention capacity during the height of those surges, which are seasonal it was difficult to find detention. many don't have prior criminal convictions. but our statistics have indicated that 97% roughly at

times of the average daily population of our system met one of these priorities or their detention was mandatory by law. other than that with respect to quota driving policies, the administration has not supported 34,000 quota. congress expects -- congress appropriates resources for that detention capacity and expects ice to use those resources for that number of bets. i'm not part of enforcement removal of ice responsible for apprehensions. it is the case that in recent years has been able to achieve that 34,000 number notwithstanding fluctuations during the course of the year. by the end of the fiscal year the average typically has been around 34,000 something we're

striving to do congress's directive. i can't speak to exactly how they are able to arrive at that target beyond the fact they are working hard to comply with enforcement priorities. >> thank you. thank you very much. this question aimed at mr. jones and miss mack. we heard a lot of criticism about handling of persons coming over the border not just during the surge but in other points as well. the question i have, one, when you talk about this questionnaire, part of me was for lack of a better word laughing a little bit because you're asking questions about people who may be semiliterate probably not conversant english. my question is how do you assure

that they fully understand what these questions mean in terms of what our objective standards are. i understand you say answers determine whether we do or not. but the facts seem to indicate that 83% of these folks especially during the search were being sent home without a hearing, without a judge, based on being turned away. that number seems very, very high. and maybe it's just fine or not. but in the absence of knowing that there are culturally competent individuals present to be able to help deal with the translation question and answer system, do you have that in place? and how do you assure that the answers you're getting are real and true answer? i can tell you that from my own experience dealing with asylum seekers in other countries,

sometimes you need to ask -- there are cultural issues about can you ask about rape. can you ask about the other family members? are they afraid that any answer that they give to you is going to be then communicated back to their home country so maybe they tend not to be as truthful as they should be. so how does your -- how do your agencies deal with that issue for people who are coming over and getting into that questionnaire phase? >> i think the chairman's question pertained to mexican nationals so with regard to mexican nationals, all of the border patrol agents speak spanish. and they are train at the academy and 50% of the border patrol are hispanic dissent. and they are first, second generation americans, as well. so while we cannot be certain as

to whether or not the person being interviewed is providing a truthful answer, but the agents are trained to process within policy, if you will. and so that's the thing that we focus on as an agency that we're consistent, that we are fair and that we ensure that everyone is properly interviewed. >> but do you -- i guess what i'm asking is, do you have someone, for example, who understands country conditions in a certain region in mexico. >> and nicaragua, are there people there who could maybe provide a context for the answers to say, for example, this person they say they come from village x. and you would understand if working with a refugee group that village x was a subject of a horrific cartel murder, something like that. how do we, how do you determine

that the cultural geographic and, i guess, human context of what it is that they may be trying to express to an official of a government that they're unfamiliar with and, you know, i think it's great that there are a high number of latino members of your force that you have. but how do you make sure they're really truly grounded and what it is these people may be trying to or want to communicate but maybe afraid to communicate to someone operating under the color of law. >> well, at the executive level yes, we are familiar with the conditions throughout mexico and in the various communities within mexico. the individual agent level, i cannot speak to that. what i can say is that they are trained to be consistent in terms of how we process people and to treat people with dignity and respect. and that is a core principle of

cbp. as to their understanding of the higher political or socioeconomic situations and as to why people are coming to us, i can't speak to the individual offices assessment. but i can speak to what we ask them to do. >> moving on to the last chair and then we can come back. madame vice chair? >> thank you very much, mr. chair. this question is for mr. jones. and it kind of follows up on the direction in which the commissioner has been headed. but it would appear that the custom and border officers are critical players in this immigration process, and the screening and the selection and the training of those individuals would be equally as

important. i'd like for you to talk to us, please, mr. jones, about the selection, the training. of your officers and the supervision that would go along with that. and then, i'd ask you to detail any problems that have arisen. the kinds of disciplinary actions that have been taken or could be taken in connection with problems that arise. and then after you answer that, i might have another follow-up. but go ahead, please. >> thank you, ma'am, thank you, vice chair. the selection process is we advertise for border patrol agents if you will, probably twice a year. we have a federal floor in terms of the number of border patrol agents that we have to have on duty at any given time. i think the number is 21,364.

>> a ratio? >> no flat number by congressman dated we have a specific number of agents on board at any -- always. and so we -- our turnover is between 2.5% to 3% any given year. majority of our turnover would be border patrol agents who are leaving to take other law enforcement positions primarily with i.c.e. if you will. we do a lot of training on behalf of i.c.e. but the selection process is vigorous in terms of there's testing, there is structured interviews. physical examinations for offices before they're hired. and upon hire, all border patrol agents are -- attend our basic training academy. and they have to successfully complete the academy before they are actually considered to be border patrol agents or assigned to the field.

once they're assigned to the field, they're putting into a field training program for the next two years and the field training supervisors are assigned to, to train them. for the next two years. and so it takes, two years to be considered over two years, because of the time spending, so 2 1/2 years to be considered fully trained to be a border patrol agent. >> well, how many of your agents are fully trained? >> presently everyone is fully trained except those who are either in the academy or still in the field training program so that number would be in the low hundreds on any given time because of the attrition rate and then the back fill. it's not something we actively track. and so, the next part of your question dealt with performance or conduct issues.

i would say we have probably the same or similar rate of misconduct as you find in the general population, in the general workforce. we have a standard of conduct we apply. we have in -- our office of internal affairs is assigned to along with the office of the ieg, misconduct and inappropriate behavior. and in all instances all allegations are investigated. and if they are proven, then corrective action is taken. >> thank you. >> commissioner? >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. landy, what determines detention? >> i think your mike went off. >> thank you. what determines detention? >> you mean who is it that decides whether someone? >> no, what factors? that you will hold a person in detention?

>> well, i mentioned the priorities. that have been established department policy. when i.c.e. officers who are doing the apprehension in the interior of the country, they make initial decisions regarding who to apprehend based on those priorities. most i.c.e. apprehensions within the interior of the country are through the criminal alien program. typically i.c.e. will apprehend people who either have been convicted or serving time in prisons or jails or -- >> i think i'm referring mostly to border crossings. >> okay. >> we all know that if somebody has an order to leave and doesn't leave, you arrest them. >> border crossers are typically apprehended, of course, by cbp. usually border patrol. sometimes cbp ports of entry. and cbp puts them into -- or

sends them to i.c.e., puts them into for i.c.e. to take custody of them. by law, that means that detention is mandatory. if they're expedited removal proceedings. if they request asylum, then they are certainly granted the legal protections and are able to adjudicate their claims, including an initial screening by asylum officer with uscis. and typically, there are always exceptions for humanitarian reasons, typically, an adult apprehended at the border is placed in detention under expedited removal proceedings. >> of those amnesty type of claims, the people who are released from detention pending a hearing, how many appear for the hearing? >> i don't -- i don't have those numbers.

>> does anybody have those numbers? would you have those numbers? would your office or your agency have those? >> i.c.e. might have the numbers. >> can you secure those and send them to us in the 30 days? >> sure. so you're referring to to people released after apprehension at the border? >> yeah. pending a hearing on your status. >> typically if an adult were released after having been apprehended at the border, it would only be because they've been determined to have a credible fear of persecution. the detention is no longer mandatory. >> i understand all that. i wanted to know the number. >> okay. mr. franklin, mr. jones. zero tolerance sexual assault policy have the same force of law? >> in terms of administrative policy yes. it is a re-stating, if you will, of the standard in the commissioner's policy. so reinforcing the standard.

>> but your private contractors haven't adopted pria willingly? you have to negotiate that into a contract? >> when you say private contractors for cbp. >> for detention. >> we don't do detention, if you will. we only hold individuals for their amount of time necessary to process them and transport them to i.c.e. >> does anyone on the panel have an answer to that? >> i could take it. i gather if you're referring to immigration, detention facilities, that's right. the department i'm sorry the dhs pria regulations require that pria apply when a detention facility contract is either signed renewed or substantively

modified. that was modeled after d.o.j., pria regulations, although it's more aggressive and the regulations do not have the clause about requiring to be adopted modification. >> so your contractors won't just comply with that until they're required to under contract? >> well, a number of contractors have already been adopting prior to the contract negotiation. but technically standards are not legally binding on those facilities until they're incorporated. >> do you know which ones have not volunteered to take those? >> well -- i mentioned that 95% of our non-doj facility population is covered by 2011 protections. so right off the bat. and the sexual assault safeguards are very comprehensive. and comparable to what's in dhs

pria. >> do you know which contractors are not adopting those voluntarily. >> facilities are not typically if to the extent they're trying to comply with dhs standards in the absence of a contract modification, it's not something we're always aware of. i would say that you know, that would be more likely to be the case with some of our larger -- >> so you don't know who does and who doesn't? >> i'm personally not citing that as an assertion that particular -- i don't want to give you the impression that i think that's happening in a particular number of cases. i don't know. i can tell you precisely how many facilities have contractually adopted it. i can tell you precisely how many facilities have adopted our different detention standards, including pbnds.

and they are also governed by doj. so i don't know how many of those county jails have chosen to comply with that. >> does a detainee who suffered an assault or sexual assault in a facility have a right to sue a private contractor? >> i couldn't speak to what legal rights they would have in that situation. >> does anyone know? >> may i still continue mr. chairman? >> another question. i've got a couple along this line and i'm going to give it to the commissioner for a bit. >> thank you. during the influx this summer of all the minors, it's my understanding that the government called cities and counties and asked them to take as many of these children as they could. is that -- are you aware of that? no. >> i don't think i understand the question. we notified cities and counties

when we were opening or expanding facilities. >> i was going to ask about when you take, get the children and place them in foster care and things like that. >> the -- >> how does that function? >> the foster care for the unaccompanied children is actually funded by orr. it's not standard foster care. folks are often confused with that. it's funded, so there's they're still in o.r. custody and still in the o.r. care provider network. >> do you run your own program? or is it run through localities? >> they're run through nongovernmental organizations or private organizations not through the state or county foster care system. >> if i can ask someone. if a mother shows up with three or four children and say they have a relative in america and you are detaining the mother and the three or four children, are

the -- if the mother wants, can the children be placed with the relative pending her determination on detention? >> i have to defer to the dhs folks. because we don't see the families. >> my understanding is typically that does not happen. the children would stay with the parent or parents with whom they cross the border. >> could it happen? is there any -- >> i'm not aware of it happening. it's possible i'm mistaken. >> i have more questions, but i'll yield. >> we'll come back. mr. landy, along the lines of commissioner and the initial questioning involving contract facilities and specifically for profit companies according to the 2014 appropriations language, president obama ask that dhs not continue to contract with deficient contract facilities. reports that we've seen show that there are abuses as of 2014 at a number of cca facilities

for example, and those facilities are still under contract with dhs. other reports show that dhs is not terminating contracts with deficient facilities. what does it take to get dhs to terminate a contract with an agency that is deficient in these areas of protection of rights? >> i believe the provision you're referring to, it's been in appropriations law for many years is that if a detention facility fails an inspection, an i.c.e. inspection for two consecutive years, i.c.e. may no longer use that facility and i.c.e. scrupulously follows that policy. in fact, we have several layers of oversight in addition to the annual inspections. i.c.e. has withdrawn from detention facilities where it was troubled. whether -- regardless of whether or not it failed one or more inspections, has withdrawn if it was traveled by either individual, sorry, either a single serious incident that

occurred or series of violations or just of poor conditions in general. that has happened, certainly. >> are there reports generated of the inspections? >> of the inspections? >> that resulted in determination of whether or not to keep a facility? >> with respect to terminations, i don't know if any publicly available reports of when i.c.e. has withdrawn from facilities. but that's not necessarily because they failed two consecutive inspections. in fact, frank, from my knowledge of those incidences where it has occurred more often than not it's not because they have failed consecutive inspections, it's because of concerns that i.c.e. had and they acted proactively. >> if someone like us wanted to see the results of these inspections, where would we get that information? >> well, the -- there's different types of inspections that i said. the inspections conducted by the office of detention oversight which is in the i.c.e. office of professional of responsibility, publicly available on our website. the annual inspections conducted

by ero as far as i know are not all publicly available. some of them have been, and if they are, ver available on our website. and they more of them can be foyaed. >> where you suggest, the process we use to get those? >> you know, i don't know whether -- oh, i'm not -- to the extent which are publicly available now, that's my understanding. if the commission made a request for additional inspection reports, you know, it's quite possible that i.c.e. would provide those. i don't know. >> i think we're going to request those. i think they contain a lot of information relevant to this investigation. just a point of clarification. i'm going to give you these documents about the complaints from the community. your office did initially make a response indicating that you're not going to take any further action at the time. so my hope is that you will take a closer look at these and do take some action on the subject that is raised here. is that a yes?

record reflecting it's not a yes. >> yes. >> thank you. >> commissioner? >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> i'd like to more clearly understand the nature of the treatment of the minors. both when brought into custody, during custody, and after release. and in particular, could you explain how it is assessments are made about what kinds of educational needs and /or special education needs, for example, that these children may have and how those needs are being fulfilled, both while they're in custody and after

custody release. and how you know. whether these things are taking place. >> we do our facilities are run by social workers. clinicians, trained staff, we have a number that children go through. we can share with you the various forms that we used in conducting the assessments. >> yeah, i think we'd like that. then we do have a number of various issues for trafficking or abilities. for children with certain things, with certain issues, like disabilities or if they've been subjected to trafficking or sexual abuse or a crime we do do home studies before we release them and required post release services after their release so that the care for them continues afterwards. so i think to get a -- to get a good picture we're very shortly, hopefully, today, hopefully monday going to be

posting a new policy guide that talks about the care and the services of the children receive in the facilities. and then we'll be able to provide all of the forms that go with that. what else can i tell you? you want to know about post release services. which is something we're very interested in. obviously the number of kids has gone up greatly. and we're thinking about ways to improve and increase the post release that the children received. >> and so, if a child, for example, were not to be receiving the kind of services that he or she was deemed entitled to which they were entitled. is there the alternate that someone might have to complain about that? what's the procedure that one would pursue if one were not receiving the services to which he or she was entitled?

>> yes. we have a number of levels. where we're able to go in and check on what's happening in the facilities. so we have o.r. federal field specialists who go into the facilities regularly. federal staff that are visiting facilities weekly. and we also have contracted care staff that check on the facilities as well as the facility staff and then at headquarters. desk monitoring and also site visits and what's happening in the facilities. there are a number of levels to the review we're able to do. and if something is found that's incorrect, there'll be corrective actions for the facilities or possibly closing facilities, what's happening is not happening we're working on a number of different ways for reporting the sexual abuse. we're developing a new 800 number that's easier for the children to access without anyone knowing that they're doing the call. but also, they also have many of the children have individual attorneys.

we also have legal service providers that go into the facilities regularly. so there are a lot of people who are providing care and having an eye and look on what's happening with the children in addition to just the facility staff. >> i recognize that there are not these children and as other detainees are not entitled to the assistance of counsel, which is a fact that i bemoaned, but i understand that that is the case. is there any kind of group of trained advocates that, you know, provide a series of core supports for these detainees and post detainee protection for the protection? >> yes. we have -- we have a number of programs in the works right now. so we do have the know your rights presentations.

we have a contractor that does go in and provide know your rights presentations to the children. we also have a video that was recently developed that also adds to the information that children receive. and we recently started a grant to provide actual direct service to the children. it isn't retired by statute. but one of our goals is to increase the individual representation for the children. we have -- i think by this summer, we should have a new request for proposals out for service providers to come in and apply to provide legal representation to the children. >> do you -- any of you have any direct impact on the -- on the judicial, the judges who make the ultimate determinations about asylum and other topics.

>> o.r.r. doesn't. i'll defer to -- i mean if our role is the care of the children and we include the legal services as part of that, but we don't have any affect on the immigration judges or hearings. >> the immigration courts are within the department of justice, executive office of immigration. >> is there any training that they receive at your behest, or do you provide them with any kind of overview information about the nature of the phenomena that we're experiencing here? >> i'm actually not sure to what extent there is that communication or provision by i.c.e. of background information for immigration judges beyond what would typically be happening in the course of adjudications where i.c.e.

attorneys are regularly interacting with immigration judges. but that's something i'd be happy to inquire about. >> thank you. >> we have 15 minutes left, and this is the order on the next questions. commissioner has one quick question. we'll follow it up with commissioner commissioner, vice chair and the staff director. >> thank you very much, mr. chair. this goes -- i hope to ms. mack. i'm not quite sure what your purview is. because the question i'm asking is -- follows up on what commissioner -- and chairman castro were talking about, which was, to what extent do we require as a matter of law and contract that the protections that someone would be affording in a federal facility are afforded at a private facility as well? and i mean by that not just pria. i mean by that training i mean by that access to records for inspection that are -- that

apply to federal federal agencies. what is it that we require as a part of our contract right now to ensure that people who we send to these private for profit institutions are afforded at least the same kinds of rights and protections as they would if they are housed in a federal facility? >> so i don't want to try to skirt the question, kevin will have more information on that, but i will say kind of as a header to what his response might be that there isn't a difference in the type of standards that apply. you know, he already responded to you about us not being aware about the legal obligations of a contractor, for example. but, i.c.e. applies their standards across the board to facilities where they are in place. >> right. so our federal detention standards are easily established. federal government requirements.

all of our private contractor facilities adhere to the most recent, most rigorous level of the detention standards. which i mentioned and those detention standards are intended to apply robust safeguards across the board. but we do consider that federal policy. we consider that agency policy, which is applied to our private contractor facilities through contractual modifications. and that has occurred in all instances for the private contract. >> so everyone has to abide by pria, abide by other humanitarian laws that govern the treatment of prisoners of -- not prisoners, detainees if they were in federal versus a private? >> right. well, with respect to the private contractor facilities all of them are governed by our most recent detention standards.

not yet all of them are not yet governed contractually by pria. in that pria is rolled out gradually through it has to be applied through contract modifications. it's not -- it's not immediately at applicable to our private contract facilities, which is the same which is the same for department of justice private contractor facilities, as well. and as i mentioned pria regulations are more rigorous in that respect in terms of requiring quicker application of pria. there's also a commitment that dhs has made in the preamble of the regulations that regulations will be applicable or that we will endeavor to make preregulations applicable at all of our data facilities, which includes our private contractor facilities within 18 months of the affected date.

>> just -- could you please send to us a list of which facilities do or do not currently have pria as part of the contract? >> yes. >> all right. >> commissioner harriet? >> i guess i'm on the same topic. >> could you turn your mike on? >> thank you. >> there you go. >> i just want to clarify -- >> it won't go on. >> there we go. process of phasing in. these rules with facilities that are under contract. and i'm assuming the basic problem is these facilities are compensated for their responsibilities if you up the responsibilities, then you have to increase the compensation and that's why the renegotiation has to occur. but i also assume a facility is free to either begin to implement the new standards or maybe even do it entirely if they think it's appropriate, even before the contract is actually renegotiated, such

there may be facilities that are implementing partially or fully the new standards, even if they're not, not yet renegotiated contracts. is that right? >> that's correct. and, in fact, we have been told our larger private contractor companies in terms of those that operate more of our facilities that they had been undergoing and have been undergoing to implement the requirements in advance of the contractual modifications. and you're right that we might have to address requests for additional additional compensation under the contracts. if pria requires the facility to incur additional costs. >> what drives the speed to which the contracts are renegotiated? are you waiting for some period of time when they are up for renegotiation or is it just a question of you know you're

doing this as quickly as you can? >> well, it's required by law if the contracts are renegotiated or modified. and then beyond that, we will also although not require under the regulations, we do intend to proactively seek implementation at additional facilities. >> you're working on it, in other words? >> yes. >> followed by the vice chair of the staff director. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. landy. how are you? i want to get back to the lgbt question. >> mm-hmm. >> you were talking about segregated housing. los angeles facility i think that was for transsexuals, is that correct? >> yes. well, for gay, bisexual and transgender individuals. >> okay. you know, i've been in i have visited many prisons. i've not been in many. i've been in them. how is your segregated housing

set up for lgbt people? >> well, we don't consider that segregated housing. there's there's some -- what is referred to in most facilities as a segregation management unit, which is what is often referred to as solitary confinement, in which individuals are kept in individual cells. this housing unit i'm referring to is not that. it has the same features and of any other general population housing unit within the housing unit opportunities to co-mingle both indoors and outdoor reck recreation among that group. it's just that they are separate from the rest of the population. in order to ensure their own protection. and, again, with respect to people transferred into that housing unit, it is voluntary. >> and it's not like a 23-hour a

day indoor one hour a day outdoor facility, it's more like a prison as opposed to a county jail? >> it's the same requirements that apply to this general population sorry, to this housing unit as any other general population housing unit. they're not confined to their cells. so they're moving freely about. i haven't been there. in terms of their outside recreation, i don't know how many hours they have, outside recreation. >> and do you do this for all lgbt people? >> not at all. not at all. in that field office that is the, within the los angeles field office. >> i guess what i'm trying to get at is how do you treat lgbt not just transsexuals, but there must be if you're talking about transsexuals, you're talking about, you even said, i think a small number. but when we're talking about lgbt, we may be talking about a larger number.

is that correct? >> probably. we don't we don't ask people their sexual orientation or gender identity unless they wish to come forward and indicate that they indicate it for some reason. >> is there a reason for that? that you don't ask? >> up until now, it's felt that it should be up to the individual to volunteer it. if they have a particular need, and that might be a medical need or it might be concern about one's own protection. >> do you think maybe and i don't know. i'm just asking that they may want to conceal that for any particular purpose from the authorities. and not ask for assistance protection in housing, that type of thing. >> yes, and up until now if that's the case, i.c.e. would respect their wishes. >> thank you, commissioner. >> i just have one, one more question of ms. mack.

you mentioned solitary confinement. and in your statement do you recall that? >> i believe i said segregated housing. >> segregated housing and you put solitary confinement. and then you said that was for people and i really didn't understand that paragraph. who goes to that housing and then you said there's regular checks on those people and they could be up in that kind of housing for more than 30 days? >> so i can find it, and again, you're fortunate mr. landy is the expert in this area. >> but i can look and see if i can find what i said. >> you said -- i actually have it here. >> sorry. >> it says the department has taken many important steps to acknowledge the special vulnerabilities of individuals with serious medical and mental health conditions who are in

civil and immigration detention and the obligation to provide appropriate reasonable combinations to detainees with disabilities to assure they can participate fully in the programs and services offered across the department, including in detention. so, for example, 2013 i.c.e. issued a directive on segregated housing often called solitary confinement that ensures regular review of long-term placements in special housing unit that has substantial, additional requirements for initial and regular review of detainees in special housing who have a serious or medical mental health condition or disability. >> yes, so that's something that indeed, mr. landy worked long and hard on for some time and spoke to, as well, but that's the directive that requires certain procedures and review be in place for people who are in housing for 14 days or longer or in these particular categories anyone with a serious medical or mental health concern. and so -- >> well my question -- what i'm

trying to get at is, again, mr. landy, are they these people placed in solitary by themselves all day? or are they allowed to walk around and mix in the yard and things like that? i mean that wasn't very clear to me in this statement. >> this is a hallmark of -- most adult detention or correctional facilities. and typically in segregated housing, individuals are kept in-house in their own cells and opportunities for co-mingling is limited. and in some cases, probably in most cases in i.c.e. custody, someone in segregated housing does not have the opportunity to co-mingle. certainly they have the opportunity to communicate with each other, but they're not physically in the same place. it's typically, for one of two reasons, as a form of discipline, for people who have

committed serious disciplinary infractions after there's been an adjudication by the facility. and that person's been found guilty of that infraction. or for the safety and security of either other detainees staff, or the individual himself or herself. >> well commissioner, i'm sorry i'm going to cut you off. madame vice chair and we're going to close with a question from the staff director. >> thank you very much, mr. chair. you are, indeed, a popular fellow here today. it's clear from all that's been said that our government relies very heavily on private prisons. and those, of course, are for profit concerns. but we rely heavily on them. when our government contracts with one of these private prison companies, how is it that the government determines what is a sufficient per diem rate in order to ensure that the detention conditions that the facility satisfies the standard

the current enforceable standard? >> well, that is part of the contract negotiation process. i.c.e. has an office of acquisitions which works with the i.c.e. component and removal operations. it requests jail cost statements and other information regarding whatever the facility or contractor is claiming is cost to be. those are reviewed by the office of acquisitions and other offices. also including the office of chief financial officer. there's often negotiations regarding the reasonableness of the rate. and then a determination on a file rate. >> after that process is completed, is there any monitoring to ensure that the proportion of the moneys of the

rate is being allocated toward services for the detainee and the overall condition of the facility? >> well there are actually a number, several layers of oversight. which specifically with respect to the contract the mechanism provides there's a contract office representative on site responsible for ensuring all aspects are complied with. not just detention standards, but the contract has a number of other provisions. in terms of compliance with the detention standards themselves i mentioned that there are several different types of inspection programs i.c.e. has. the annual contract inspections against standards as well as on-site detention monitors, which are placed at a large number of our facilities and those are full-time.

those are full-time on-site monitor. this is regular oversite both for compliance, but they are required to be checking the contractors performance against the requirement itself. >> thank you vice chair. we'll close the questioning of this panel with our staff director. >> good morning. the special immigrant juvenile status capabilities i know that eoir is responsible for reviewing the application and also approving it to allow the child to remain in foster care in the united states, but it is the dependency court judge that has to ensure that the appropriate language is included that will allow for the application to be submitted. for a review and approval. are you aware of how many unaccompanied minors have been found eligible for an

application? and if so, how could we get that information? >> i don't know that immediately, but i think that will be pretty easy for us to find out. are you looking specifically for the state approvals? or are you looking at the actual sij application. >> i would like both. just to see how many are actually being submitted and comparison to number of kids that are currently being taken care of through the foster care system and ultimately to see the approval rate. overall. >> i'm not sure about the state court approvals, how to gather that information. >> so with -- correct, because that can be kind of secretive. but sometimes if it is available anywhere i would like to see that, to see how many folks. one of the concerns is is the training being provided to the dependency court judges on a regular basis to ensure they understand what factors should

be considered? and what type of protections could be provided. >> i know there's a lot underway on that. i know that, i think cis was doing a training for judges and hhs also -- we just started to put out regional orr representatives. not specifically on the unaccompanied children, but all of the kids that we work with. so we have regional representatives out and they're starting to reach out to the state court judges. >> thank you very much. >> thank you to panel one. we appreciate it. and you're free to stay and listen to the rest of the hearing today. we're going to transition now from panel one to panel two. so we ask our staff to come and change the name plates and ask members of our panel to begin to work your way up. we'll remain on the record, but we'll start again in a couple of minutes.

more now from this event. next, panelists discuss immigration and refugee issues. >> wait for the other commissioners to arrive. they'll come up to speed quickly. thank you, again for being here this is panel 2. i trust most of you were here earlier and heard the housekeeping in terms of how the light system works. green go, yellow start wrapping up, red, stop, that's seven minutes and we will engage you in questioning as you probably saw over the last few minutes in what questions we have for each of you. first, what i'd like to do is introduce each of the panelists in the order that they are going to be testifying. our first panelist is mr. steve conroy, vice president of facilities management for corrections, corporation of america. our second panelist is the executive director of catholic charities at rio grande, good to

see you, sister. and our next panel of the media group, as always, good to see you, maria. and our fourth and final panelist is miss karen t.grises of the american bar association. i want you all to raise your right hand and swear and affirm that the information you're about to provide us is true and accurate to the best of your knowledge and belief. is that correct? thank you. mr. conroy, you have the mike. >> thank you. good morning. chairman castro, commissioners and fellow panelists. my name is steven conroy, and i'm the vice president of facility operations at cca. in that role, i oversee operational aspects of the majority of our i.c.e. facilities to include adherence to the pbnds in standards as well as other requirements of government partners. i'm a correction professional with over 30 years of experience in both public and private corrections settings. the last nine of which i have worked for cca.

i'd like to start by thanking the commission for providing me the opportunity to share with you cca's steadfast commitment to protecting the rights and dignity of all individuals entrusted to our care. nothing is more important to our company than the safety and welfare of those entrusted to our care. it is responsible we take very seriously. reflect a thoughtful commitment on a day-to-day and hour to hour basis in our facilities. these efforts are carried out in consultation with our government partners who also provide strong and direct oversight. uh i'll talk first about pria. cca has established a zero tolerance policy against all forms of sexual abuse and sexual harassment.

to enforce that policy we have adopted an aggressive plan to prevent, detect and respond to all allegations. our plan entails a focus on the preventions of incidents a focus on not just meeting, but exceeding our contractual requirements and a focus on continued improvement of our policies and practices. in the area of prevention, our primary focus is to take all necessary actions to prevent the detainees in our care from being sexually abused by another detainee or by staff. let me discuss a few examples of our prevention strategies. one, training of staff contractors and volunteers with solid policies and practices. two, educating detainees through orientation handouts, town hall meetings and one-on-one counseling. three, screening detainees upon admission if a victim and/or

predatory history and then using that information to house them appropriately. four installation and use of cameras and recording devices. fifth, notification of law enforcement of all sexual abuse allegations. there is no doubt in a staff member's mind what will happen each and every time an allegation is brought forward. cooperation with law enforcement and district attorney staff to ensure a successful case against perpetrators. seventh, termination of staff found at the cca level to have sexually abused detainees. we do not wait for arrest or conviction. in the area of exceeding contractual requirements. the second focus area of our zero tolerance policy against sexual abuse and harassment is a commitment to exceed what our government partners demand from us in their contracts. some examples of our above and

beyond practices include the development of a committee comprised of upper level professionals who meet after each allegation of sexual abuse to assist with the processing of the allegation and just as importantly, to ensure compliance with our policy. next, cca also established a pria hot line. in each facility that allows inmates to call into a dedicated hot line to report sexual abuse incidents alert staff that about situations that may be leading up to an assault or to request help for any reason. next, large relevant and eye-catching signage in all detainee living areas that clearly discuss sexual abuse in a straightforward manner and ways to report it. lastly, each facility receives an unannounced audit every year. and this audit is conducted by

an independently managed cca audit team. in the area of continual improvement, our zero tolerance philosophy means that we continually improve our practices and policies and invest our capital in technology and other types of equipment to give us the best opportunity to prevent these incidents from occurring. cca spends millions of dollars installing and maintaining cctv and recording systems throughout our facilities. we also install mirrors, signage and signage so that vulnerable areas of the physical plan can be viewed by staff more effectively. we also have third party review of our policies, practices, and training plans. now i'd like to discuss the pbnds standards. in addition to our aggressive zero tolerance approach to sexual abuse, our company also incorporates pbnds standards into the policies and

operational practices at every cca facility whether these standards apply. facilities operating under pbs standards are staffed by full-time i.c.e. personnel and audited by independent experts contracted by i.c.e. applying the pbnds standards across the nation is of crucial importance to, one, protecting the safety welfare dignity, and rights of the individuals entrusted to our care. two, meeting and exceeding the expectation of our government partners. and three, fulfilling our company's mission of mandating class-leading excellence in the services we deliver to our partners. to that end, we undertake internal efforts to support the consistent and predictable application of standards, cca policies procedures and operating practices. they include having subject matter experts working at the corporate level to coordinate

the application of standards. also include comprehensive operational audits conducted by independent corporate level auditors on an annual basis. and ongoing standards based self-monitoring by all of our facilities. in closing, i hope this information has given you an understanding of our company's commitment to protecting the safety dignity, welfare and civil rights of every individual entrusted to our care as well as the actions we take every day to fulfill that commitment. i'd like to once again thank the commission for this opportunity. >> thank you. >> thank you for the invitation and thank you for you, hearing you and your questions make me know this country is a very nice country to be in. thank you. the summer of 2014, the experience overwhelming waves of

immigrants, as we know, coming through our border. no one expected this great numbers of people to come. immediately, we at the catholic charities looked to see how we could help. first, the first wave of members came in june when we were trying to do something about this. the community responded to help the families who had been released to travel and had been dropped off at the bus station in texas. the immigrant families who had traveled for weeks sometimes for over a month on the journey north to safe haven. who experience all kinds of hardships and abuse emotional and physical dangers along the way in the journey found themselves in dire need of immediate care when they were dropped off at the bus station. through the generosity and compassion of many, we were able to provide for the immediate basic needs warm meal, shoes, warm jacket and a blanket and anything else they may need.

we also provided them with food, drink, for the next leg in their journey as they traveled to connect with relatives in different states throughout the united states. many of them had to travel for several days and had no money with them. so we were able to give them that. thanks to the city, the city government mobile showers were set up on the premises. it is amazing to see the faces of the families after they had the opportunity to shower. it was beautiful to see that. most importantly we helped restore the dignity and respect every human person deserves. families walking into our respite center at the sacred heart church in mcallen, texas, are welcome, smiles greeted from volunteers who shout out "welcome." the welcome alone begins the transformation of restoring the

dignity of these people, the families and the mothers and the children. they're moved to tears when they're welcomed. the community of the valley spearheaded by the charities are continuing and will continue to help those who are allowed to travel. some days there are more, some days there are less. today, more than 16,000 refugees have been helped from 13 different countries, the majority from hon dur ras, guatemala and el salvador. at the beginning of june, we were helping more than 200 individuals each day. while the numbers have dropped significantly. there are days when we receive close to 100 people today and some days that the numbers are just a handful of them. the numbers we held depend on the availability of space in the new holding detention facilities. for the most part, families are

detained and kept in these facilities rather than being immediately released to travel. among the overwhelming waves of immigrants are thousands of unaccompanied children. these children were not released like the family units, instead, they were kept in border patrol processing centers to be -- that became holding facilities until a proper up-to-code facility became available. in the early months of this year's wave of immigrants, the border patrol did not have a choice other than to keep the children detained for days, if not weeks. until the facility for unaccompanied children became available. i visited the facility in texas where great numbers of children were detained in those early months. my experience in that center was heartbreaking. it was very sad to see hundreds if not thousands of children of

very young ages detained in great numbers in small cells. the children's faces, looking through large glass windows, all tearful eyes, dirty and sad, traumatized. traumatized all i could think about is without the care and comfort of a family member. and then to imagine how these children feeling they're being detained under these conditions, packed up like little sardines with no space to even breathe. i recall a child begging me -- [ speaking foreign language ] please take me out of here. i can't breathe. seeing that child's face i can only imagine how scared and frightened they were all. the children gathered around me, their faces full of tears and i invited them to pray with me and they did. together we join in one prayer. it was a powerful experience.

so moving that even the officers who were witnessing the children's response commented as i walked out the cell, thank you for helping me see that they are human beings. yes, they are children. it is evident that the border patrol was not ready to respond to the overwhelming number of people who cross the border into the united states. the processing facilities were not adequately equipped to handle a great number of immigrants who kept arriving. unfortunately, the border patrol were not given any other option but to detain these children under these conditions. they did not have the proper facility space, number to handle children. border patrol facilityies became holding facilities by default. they said they were doing their best, but, unfortunately, for the children, it was not enough.

the children needed care and attention the border apatrol could not provide. eventually a facility for children was open but it took several months for the border patrol to come up with response to adequately care for the children. in those first few months this summer there was no other option but to care for the children at these small border patrol processing facilities. a child should not experience this type of hardship at any time. i am happy to say after many -- after my initial visit to the border patrol site, response from the border patrol officials has been great. border patrol agents became cooperative in working with catholic charities to meet the needs of families released from detention facilities. they are open to listen, to help, to improve the situation at hand. and i do some recommendations for consideration.

>> thank you, sister. >> thank you very much for asking me to speak today as someone who chose to become an american citizen it's like, wow, this is the highlight of my career, so thank you very much. i'm going to speak to you about what i saw when i was reporting on my pbs frontline 2010 to 2011. i want the record to reflect i have a new version of my speech, so please let that be the one that's included. one of the first meetings i had was with dora, then new york city commissioner of corrections, formerly of dhs. at homeland security she had taken on a review. detention facilities sprouting up in many states, almost overnight. her concern with oversight specifically with conditions of detention, she was inkreeged by what she had seen when as

commissioner of corrections in arizona she went to visit detention centers there. as someone with a ph.d. in corrections she wanted to know about oversight. as a journalist, the most important tools i have are my eyes and ears. the only way i can tell these stories is to actually have access. one of the big hindrances to reporting on this has been access to report on immigrants in detention, to have access to these detention facilities, both government run and private run. anyway, in her research dora told me she had uncovered chevrolet troubles piece of information. the detainees were being housed without any sense of requirements, legal requirements, for their care. many detention facilities had bad conditions. ave after her visit to willsie, she requested questionnaires from all detainees to see how

they saw the conditions of their detention. she asked all detainees to have their weight checked. she was concerned because of how skinny they looked. if they were not feeding the detainees, she thought, what else is going on? it was discovered that at least ten pounds were lost per detainee. we spoke to one young woman maria, who after having been released already more than six months was very specific in her complaints. the food was cold often spoiled, baloney sandwiches over and over. a strong sense of spes tisty in her complaints. the women were given one sanitary pad per day. it was not enough. when they ran out of toilet paper, they were told to soil their undergarments. they weren't allowed ak stoes a water fountain. she spoke about the temperature, it was either too cold or too hot. the structure had no windows no way to look outside. the one window that there was it was kind of like a circus tent structure. the one window there was there

was a red line around it so you couldn't get close to the window and you were punished if you did. there was a lot of shame in these stories. so getting them to talk to us on camera was very difficult. one woman reported being sexually assaulted at willsie. when she asked another officer what she should do about this, the officer said the safest thing you could do is to keep quiet. we spoke to a former guard who said she had witnessed another guard and a supervisor beating a detainee who had answered back to an insulting guard. she was told to take the badly injured man and put him on the first plane back to be deported to guatemala. she soon quit afterwards because of an unsafe work environment. we also spoke with andre who spoke of another trend we had heard about, which was the overmedication of detainees as a way to keep them sedated. she was overmedicated. claimed to be -- was asleep for 36 hours. fell off his top bunk, fell on his face, broke his eye socket and ruptured a testicle.

and soon after was released. when we did get inside to willsie, what i saw, although i was -- this was kind of disturbing. we were told if we were to sneak any detainee, we would be immediately escorted off the premises. as a journalist it immediately felt like a muzzle. i don't understand that when we're supposed to have access and have the best interest of everyone who's in our country. once i was there, i saw baloney sandwiches, canned fruit and beans. most of the people were just keeping their head down. saw the tents. i saw the windows with the red line around it. i saw a complaint box nailed shut so you couldn't actually put a complaint inside. one of our whistle-blowers who we interviewed soon after our visit to willsie confirmed she had been told about eight rapes that had occurred. she had actually -- a detainee had showed her the food they were eating.

when the food opened up, a napkin in this person's hand, there were live maggots and this is what they were served. i wish i could sit here and tell you that so in the years -- because we ran this frontline several years ago, that after all of that reporting and it being quoted and cited on the senate floor, that things had actually changed. unfortunately just on the celebration of martin luther king's birthday a couple weeks ago i was in the bronx reporting for latino usa and we met three separate women who didn't come together. who were now in the bronx. they told me they were neld a place commonly called [ speaking foreign language ] which means the ice box, the freezer. she said they were held wet and cold with no blankets. the guards joked with them to not ask for any more air conditioning, taunting them about the very cold conditions. they said they got three microwave burritos they were often still frozen and the water tasted like sulfur.

as a reporter i like to get the last minute information. as a matter of fact, walking into this building, i spoke to the first immigrant i saw. and i said, what can you tell me about what you know about the conditions in detention? she said -- she didn't want to because this is a very shameful thing. then she said, well, this is what i've heard today. they are cold they are hungry, they are scared they are fed rotten food. food for dogs. kids are meant to sleep on cement beds. they are treated like animals. they are made to feel like they are not humans. that's just this morning. thank you very much for this honor. >> thank you. >> good morning chairman castro and other members of this commission. on behalf of the american bar association i would like to

thank members of the commission for opportunities to share our views on several important issues as a part of this issue. my name is karen, i serve as az special adviser to the aba commission on immigration and i was formerly chair of that body. i want to be clear on the introduction that i'm not an employee of the aba. i don't work for the aba. my association with the aba is in a voluntary leadership capacity. i'm a lawyer here working in washington, d.c. with the recent influx of families and unaccompanied children from central america and along with the historically high rates of immigration detention in general there's a serious need to evaluate the u.s.'s system of immigration detention and the deleterious effects it has on individuals and families. the commission has my written testimony for the record. what i hope to do this morning is highlight a few things