estionnaire, i was -- part of me was, for lack of a better word, laughing a little bit. you're asking questions about people who may be literate, semi-lit rat. probably not conversant in english english. and 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 ef e we have a form. the answers determine whether we do or not. but the facts seem to indicate that 83% of these folks, else 13esh89ly ly especially during the zurj surge, without a hearing, without a judge just based on being turned away and that number seemed very, very high. and maybe it is 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 that you're getting are real. i can tell you, from my own experience dealing with asylum seekers in other countries sometimes you need to ask. there are cultural issues about can you really ask them about rape, can you ask them about other family members? are they afraid that any answer that they give to you is going to then be communicated back to their home country. so they tend not to be as truthful as they should be. >> 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 so that's the thing we focus on as an agency that we are con sis tent and that we are fair and ensure that everyone is properly interviewed. >> do you have someone, for example, who understands country conditions in a certain region of mexico, in columbia, in venezuela venezuela, in nicaragua, there are people there who could maybe provide a context for the

answers. this person, they say they come from village x. you would understand if working with a refugee group that village x was the subt of horrible cartel murder or something like that. how do you determine 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 the high number of latino members of your force that you have. how do you make sure that they're really truly grounded and what it is that these people may be trying to or want to communicate but maybe afraid to communicate to operate under the corridor of law. >> yes, we are familiar with the various communities in mexico.

at 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. that is a core principle of cdp. i can't speak to the individual office's of assessment. but i can speak to what we ask them to do. >> this question is for mr. jones. and it kind of follows up on the direction in which commissioner yaki has been hinting. 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 detate any e detail any problems that have arisen arisen, the discipline 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, vice chair: the selection process is we

advertise for border patrol agents, if you will, probably twice a year. we have a federal flaw that we have to have on board at any given time. i think the number is 21364 to protect a few. >> is it a ratio? >> no, it's just a flat number by congressman dated that we have a specific number of border patrol agents on board at any -- always. so our turnover is about tweeb between 2 1/2, 3% at any given year. >> the selection process is rigorous. there are structural interviews physical examinations for

offices before they're hired. they have to successfully complete before their e they are assigned to the field. once they're assigned to the field, they're put into a field training program for the next two years and the field training supervisors are assigned to train them. so it takes over 2 spsz 1/2 years to be considered fully trained to be a border patrol agent. >> how many of your agents are fully trained? >> presently, everyone is fully trained, except those who are either in the academy or are still in the field training program. so that number would be in the low hundreds at any given time, because of the attrition rate

and in the back field. so that number would be low. it would be something we could find, but it's not something that we actively track. the next part of your question dealt with performance or conduct issues. i would say that we have the same or similar rate of misconduct as you'd find in the general population or general work force. we have a standard of conduct that we apply. we have in our office of internal affairs is assigned along with the office of the i.g. to investigate serious allegations of misconduct, inappropriate behavior. and, in all instances, all allegations are investigated. if they are proven, then corrective action is taken. >> thank you. >> mr. landy what determines

detention? >> you mean, who is it that decides -- >> no what factors? that you hold a person in detention? >>. >> well, i mentioned the priorities that are established when i.c.e. office was the officers in the interior of the country. they make initial decisions regarding who to am remend based on those priorities. most i.c.e. apprehensions within the interior of the program. >> i think i'm referring mostly to border crossings.

usually, border patrol. sometimes cvp has poins of entry. and cvp puts them into or sends them to i.c.e. and puts them for i.c.e. to take custody of them. typically, they are in expedite or removal proceedings by law. it means that detention is mandatory if they're in expedite removal proceedings. if they are able to adjudicate their claims with an officer. but typically and there are always assessmenteds for

humanitarian reasons particularly at the border is placed in detention. >> i don't have those numbers. >> does anybody have those numbers? would you have those numbers? would your office or your agency have them? >> i.c.e. might have those numbers. >> can you secure those and send them to us in the 30 days? >> sure. >> typically if an adult were released, it would only have been because they were having a fear of persecution. >> mr. franklin -- jones i'm sorry, mr. joans. >> no problem. >> okay.

zero tolerance sexual assault policy have the same source of law? >> it is a restating in the commissioner's policy. >> when you say private contractors for cvp. >> for detoengs. >> okay. cvp, we don't do detention, if you will. we only hold individuals for the amount of time necessary to process them and transport them to i.c.e. in extenuateing circumstances -- does anyone on the panel have an answer to that? >> i can take it. if you're referring to

immigration detention facilities, that's right. the d.h.s. regulations require that prea apply when a detention facility contract is either signed, renewed or modifiesed. that was modelled with d.o.j. technically, stabd arded are not legally binding. >> do you know which ones have not volunteered to take those?

>> i mechxed that 95% of our population is covered. so right off the bat, and the sexual assault safeguards in 2011 are very comprehensive. and comparable to us. >> to the extent in which they're trying to comply with d.h.s. standards it's not something we're always aware of. i would say that would be more likely the case with some of our more larger contracts. >> i wouldn't site e cite that. i'm personally not citing that as an assertion that particular -- i don't want to give you the impression that i think that that's happening in a particular number of cases. i don't know.

i can tell you precisely how many facilities are adocumenting our detention standards. also, with respect to county jails, they're also governed by regulations. i don't know how many of those county jails have chosen to comply with that. >> there's a detainee who's suffered an sexual assault in a facility to have a right to sue o private contractor? >> i couldn't speak to what legal rights they would have in that situation. >> does anyone know? >> we just have a yes. i've got a couple along this line.

>> sduring influx this summer, it's my understanding that the city called counties to take as many of these children as they could. are you aware of that? >> i don't think i understand the question. >> i was going to ask when you take the children and place them in foster care and things like that. >> i's not state or county foster care. it's funded. so they're still in our custody and still in the o.r. care provider network. >> they're run through nongovernmental organizations. not through the state or county

fostercare system. >> 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 in determination? >> we don't see the families. >> my understanding is that typically that does not happen. >> could it happen? >> i'm not aware of it happening. but it's possible. >> i have some more questions, but i'll yield. we'll come back. mr. landy along the lines of commissioner clandy involving questioning of contract

facilities and specifically, for-profit. reports that we've seen show that there are abuses as of 2014 and a number of cca facilities. and those are still under contract with dhs. reports show that that's not terminating contracts with sufficient facilities. what does it take to determine a contract with an agency that is deficient in these areas of protection of rights? an ichlt c.e. inspection for two years. i.c.e. conducts annual inspections of ilgts facilities. in fact, we have several layers

of oversight. i.c.e. has withdrawn from deif he thinks facilities where it was troubled, regardless of whether or not it failed one or more inspections. i.c.e. hant drawn from deif he thinks facilities whether it was drawn from individual or a serious incident that occur edred. >> are there reports that are generated? >> of the inspections? with respect to determinations? i don't know if any publicly available reports of when i.c.e. is withdrawn from facility. but that's not necessarily because they failed two consecutive inspections. in fact, from my knowledge of those instances where it has occurred, more often than not, it's because they've failed consecutive inspections. it's because of concerns that i.c.e. had.

>> there's different types of inspections that i said. the inspection is can you recollect theed by the office of detention oversight which is in the office of professional responsibility which is publicly available on our web site. the annual inspections are conducted, as far as i know, are not all publicly available. and if they're foya, they are available in our foya reading room on our web site. >> so foya is the process you suggest we use? >> oh to be sent to us publicly available now. that's my understanding if the commissioner made a request for additional reports. it's quite possible that i should provide those. >> i think we're going to request those, which i think contain a lot of information relevant to this investigation. just a point of clarification

your office did initially make a response ind kating that you're not going to take any further action? my hope is that you will take a closer look at these. was that a yes? let the record reflect that she's nodding yes? >> yes. >> commissioner, thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> ms. vin, i'd like to more clearly understand the nature of the treatment of the minors, both when brought into kugs day, during custody and after releesz. and, in particular, could you explain how it is assessments are made about what kinds of

educational needs that these children may have and how those needs are being fulfilled and how you know will these things are taking place. >> we do -- our facilities are being run by social workers. soically nations train staff and they do have the number of assessments that the children go through. we can share with you the various forms in conducting assessments. >> yeah, i think we'd like that. >> and then we do have a number for various issues such as trafficking. for children with certain issues, like disabilities or if they've been subject into trafficking or sexual abuse or a

crime, we do do home studies before we release them and require services after their release so that the care for them continues afterwards. and then we'll be able to provide all of the forms that go with that. what else can i tell you about post-release services. obviously, the number of kits has gone up greatly. so we're thinking about ways to improve and release the grades that children receive. >> if a child were not to be receiving the kind of services that he or she was deemed

entitled to which they were entitled entitled, is there the ability that someone miekt have to complain about that? or 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 to see what's happening with the facilities. we also have contracted care staff that check on the facilities, as well as the facilities staff and then also site visits and monitoring to follow up on what's happening with the that silties. there's a number of levels to do what they have to do. there are possibly closing facilities if what's happening is happening on a number of

different ways for reporting the sexual abuse. we're developing a new 800 number that's easy for the children to access without anyone knowing that they're doing the call. also many of the children also 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 here and having an eye 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 sbieted to the assistance of counsel, which is a fact that i understand that that is the case is there any kind of group of trained add voe cats that provide a series of

core supports and post-detained -- 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's going to know your rights presentation. we also have a video that also adds to the information that children receive. we recently started a grant in specific states to provide direct service to the children. i think by this summer we should have a request for proposals out fur legal service providers to come in and apply to provide legal representation to the children. >> do any of you have any drekt

impact on the judges who make the ultimate determinations about the asylum and other topics? >> i'll defer to -- i mean, our role is the care of the children. i mean include the legal services as part of that. but we don't have any effect on the immigration judges or hearings. >> the immigration within the department of justice, executive aufgs of immigration. >> um-hmm. >> is there any training that they received at your behest or do you provide them with any kind of overview investigation? about the nature of the phenomenon that we're

experiencing here? >> i'm actually not sure of what provision there is 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 acquire about. >> we have 15 minutes left and this is the order on the questions. >> to what extent do we require,

as a matter of law in 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 prea. i mean by that training. i mean by that access to records for information 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 were housed in a federal facility. >> so i don't want to try to skirt the question. but i will say as a header to what his response might e might be that there isn't a difference in the type of standards that apply.

he already responded to you about the legal qualifications. but i.c.e. applies their standards across the board. >> right. so our federal detention standards are established. federal government requirements. all of our private contractor facilities are here to the most recent, most rigorous level of the detention standards, which i mentioned. and those standards are measured across the board. but we do consider that federal policy. and we consider that agency policy, which is applied to our private contractor facilities through contractual modifications. and that has occurred in all instances. >> so everybody has to abide by prea and other humanitarian laws

that govern treatment of prisoners or 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 credibility eres. not yet. all of them are not yet governed contractually by prea. which is the same for the department of justice, private contractor facilities, as well. and, as i mentioned, d.h.s. prea regulations are more rigorous there that respect in toerms of requiring quicker application of prea. there's also a commitment that d.h.s. has made in the preamble

of the prea regulations that prea regulations will be applicable or that we will endeavor to make prea regulations applicable at all of our dedicated facilities which includes our private contractor facilities within 18 months of the effective date. >> kp you send to us a list of which facilities do or do not have prea as paut o of their contract? >> yes. >> could you turn your mic on? >> yes. >> there you go. >> prosesds of phasing in. these brea rules with facilities that are under contract. and i'm assuming the basic problem is these facilities are comp sated for their responsibleties.

snen e then you have to increase the compensation. i assume it's free to itch leapt the new standards or maybe even do it entirely if they think it's apreep rat even before the contract is rene gauched, such that there may be facilities implemented partially or fully, the new standards, even if that he're not guilty yet renegotiated contracts. is that right? >> that's correct. and, in fact we have been told by our larger and private contractor companies in terms of those that operate more of our facilities, that they had been undergoing and had been understood going to implement prea requirements in advance of the contractual modifications. but it's not guilty legally contractually binding until it's incorporated in the contract. and you're right, we might have to air dress requests for

additional compensation you should the contracts, if it had prea requiring the facility to incur addition nag cost. >> are you waiting until they're up for negotiation? >> it's required by law if the contracts are rene gauche yated or modified. and, beyond that, we are not required under the regulations to seek at additional facilities. >> so you're working on it, in other words? >> yes. >> thank you x mr. chairman. mr. landy, how are you? [ laughter ] >> i want to get back to the ogbt question. when we were talking about seg regated housing the los angeles facility, i think that was for transsexuals.

is that correct? >> yes. well, for gay, bisexual and transgender individuals. >> i've been in -- i have visited many prisons. i've not be e been in many. i mean, i've been in them. how is your seg reregated house e housing set up for l.g.b.t. people? >> we don't consider that seg regated housing. there is what is referred to and most facilities are segregation manening eagement unit which is often referred to as solitary confinement in which they are housed in individual cells. the housing unit i'm referring to is not that. it has free movement within the housing unit opportunities to co-mingle indoors and outdoor

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 respected to people transferred into that housing unit, it is voluntary. it's more like a prison as opposed to a county jail? >> it's the same requirements that apply to this housing unit as any other general population housing yublt. they're not confined to their cells. >> in that field office, that is within the los angeles field office. >> i guess what i'm trying to

get at is how do you treat l.g.b.t. not just transsexuals, but there must be -- if you're talking about transsexuals you even said i think a small number. but when we're talking about l.g.b.t., we may be talking about larger number. is that correct? squl probably. we don't ask people their sexual orientation or gender iet unless they wish to come forward and ind kat that -- and indicate it for some reason. >> is there a reason for that? that you don't ask? >> uch up . >> up until now, it's up to the individual to voisz that opinion. >> there may be and i don't know, i'm just asking, do you feel that they may want to conceal that for any particular

purpose from the authorities? and not ask for assistance protection in housing? >> yes. and up until now, if that's the case, i.c.e. would respected their wishes. >> thank you, commissioner. >> i just have one more question of ms. mack. you mentioned solitary confine confinement. in your statement. do you recall that? >> i believe i said egg e segseg ree regated housing. >> 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 tho e that kind of housing for more than 30 days? >> so i could find it. and, again, you're fortunate. mr. landy is the emt e exxpert in this area. but i can look and see if i can find what i said.

>> i actually have it here. the department has taken many steps with serious medical and mental health conditions who are in civil and immigration detention. and the obligation to provide appropriate, reasonable accommodations to detainees with disables to ensure that they can participate fully in the programs and services offered across the department, including in detention. so for example, a 2013 i.c.e. issued a directive often called solitary confinement that ensures regular review of long term placements and special housing unit that has substantial, additional requirements for initial and regular review of detainees in special housing who have a serious medical or mental health condition or disablt. >> yes. and so that's something that, indeed, mr. landy worked long

and hard on 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 on. >> well, what i'm trying to get at is, again mr. landy, are these people placed in sol tarp e tear by themselves all day? or are they allowed to walk around and mix in the yard and things like that? that wasn't very clear to me in this statemented. >> this is a hallmark of -- this is a hallmark of most adult detention or correctional facilities. it's typically in segregated housing. individuals are kept and are housed in their own cells and opportunities for a co-mingling are limited. and, in some cases and probably i would say in most cases,

someone in segregated housing does not have the opportunity to co-mingle. certainly, the e they have the opportunity to communicate with each other. but they're not physically in the same place. seg regated housing is 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 the person has been found gmt. or for the safety and security of other detainees, staff or the individual himself or herself. >> commissioner, i'm sorry to cut you off. madame vice chair and then we're going to close with the vice director. >> mr. landy, you are, indeed a popular fella here today. it's clear that a e anotherll that's been said is that our government relies very heavily on their decisions.

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 sat fill satisfies the current enforcement standard. >> i.c.e. works with the enforcement removal op ragts e rations. it requests jail cost statements and other nfgsz regarding whatever the that silty or contractor is claiming his costs to be. those are review. there are a determination on the final rate.

>> after that process is completed, is there any monitoring to ensure that the proportion of the moneys of the per diem rate is being allocated towards services for the detainee and the orr all condition of the facility? >> well, there are actually a number -- several layers of oversight which, specifically with respect to the contract the contract mechanism provides that there is a contract officer representative on site responsible for ensuring that all aspects of the contract are complied with. not just detention standards, but typically, 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 that i.c.e. has, both the office of

detention oversight, the annual contract -- i'm sorry, the annual inspections against stand e standards by e.r.o. as well as on site detention monitors which are placed at a large number of our facilities and those are full time.

>> i don't know that immediately, but i have think that that will be pretty easy for us to find out. we may have to work with our partners at d.o.j. and dhs. but are you looking specifically for the state approvals or are you looking at the actual application? >> i would like both. just to see how many are actually being submitted in comparison to the mum e number of kids that are kumpbtly being taken care of through the foster care system and, ultimately, to see the approval rate. overall. >> i'm not sure about the state

approvals. >> correct. that can be kind of secretive. but 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 on a regular basis to ensure that they understand what factors should be considered? and what type of protections can be provided. >> i know there's a lot underway on that. i think c ix s was doing a training for judges. and hhs is also -- we just started to put out regional o.o.r. representatives. so not specifically on unaccompanied children, but all of the kids that we work with. so we have regional rep zen tifrs out. and they're starting to reach out to the state court judges. >> thaing to panel one. we appreciate it. you're free to stay and listen to the rest of the hearing today. we're going to transition now from panel 1 to panel 2. so we ask our staff to come and

change the name plait etes and ask panel members to get up. we're calling the meeting back into order. thank you all for being here for the continuation of our briefing on the condition -- civil rights conditions on immigration detention centers and the current state of the children who came to us this summer as refugees seeking asylum in our communities tlout theist. our afternoon panel is going to be presenting to us on a number of topics that are going to affect the issues that we've been talking about this morning, as well. but they're also going to elaborate on some of the work that they're conducting. so what i'd like to do is introduce and then swear in the panel. our first panelist is ms. maurisa bono. our second panelist is karen lucas, associate director for

advocacy at the american immigration lawyer's asoelgsuation. and our third and final e finalpanelist is david cue. i'll ask you all to raise your right and and swear or affirm that the information you're about to provide to us is true and accurate to the best of your belief. is that correct? >> yes. okay. >> thaing. >> thaing. >> make sure your mic is on. >> there you go. >> is that -- >> yes. >> can you hear me now? [ laughter ] >> yes. >> good afternoon, commissioners. thank you for inviting the mexican american legal defense abds educational fund to provide testimony in this briefing today. moldoff is a civil rights rightsologizationrights organization but conducts advocacy and, when necessary, litigation. protecting and promoeting the civil rights of latino imgrants who are residing in the united states remains a core priority

for moldof ferks. >> at the 3578ly deif he thinks facility located in carnes county, texas. first, i'd like to emphasize that family detention is not the status quo in the united states. it's a relatively new phenomenon that has been fraught with controversy and abuse, as you've heard and will hear more about today. last july again, as you've heard, i.c.e. and customs enforcement, i.c.e. immigration and customs enforcement react today an influx of immigrants at the southern borders by converting preexisting federal facilities to family detention centers for women and children under the age of 17. before that time, there was only one family deif he thinks etention

center in the u.s. today there are three including carnes. when carnes opened its doors on augustcarnes opened their doors, texas authorities worked to coordinate pro bono services for women and children who were detained there. and almost immediately we began receiving complaints about conditions and complaints about sexual abuse at that facility. maldef, in addition to the university of texas school of law immigration clinic and civil rights clinic, the refugee protection program of human rights first, and a law office sent an administrative complaint to the department of homeland security and i.c.e. on september 20, 2014, summarizing the allegations and the conditions that we had heard about at the facility. the abuse allegations cited in

the complaint include the exploitation of vulnerable women by facility guards and staff such as removing the women from their cells late at night or in the early morning hours to engage in sexual conduct in different parts of the facility and then attempting to cover up the conduct after the fact calling the detainees novias or girlfriends and requesting sexual favors in exchange for money and promises of assistance with pending immigration cases and in some cases shelter, when and if the women were released and also fondling, groping and kissing female detainees in front of other detainees including children. the prison rape elimination act

makes it illegal for detention guards to ten gauge in any sexual conduct with detainees in their custody. the incidents of sexual abuse harassment and the hostile unsafe work environment violate federal law and regulation and they also subject the detainees to conditions that are punitive and unconstitutional under the due process clause of the fifth amendment. we received formal responses from i.c.e. and the dhs office of civil rights and civil liberties on october 29th and december 4th of 2014 respectively stating that investigations are ongoing. it is also our understanding that the office of the inspector general was conducting an investigation in october, although we don't have the outcome of that investigation and we don't know if that investigation is still pending. regardless, the federal response

to these allegations has been woefully deficient under the protocol and regulations. we understand that some victims or witnesses of the abuse have either been deported or released on bond eliminating their ability to engage and participate in the investigation effectively. although at least one of the detained women reported this conduct to facility personnel, to our knowledge, no action has been taken to stop or prevent the abuse. instead, it's our understanding that at least three of the employees there who allegedly engaged in the unlawful acts are still employed at the facility, still have their jobs as we sit here today. as recently as december 1st and december 4th, the ward of the texas facility and representative from the geo group, the private correctional company that operates the facility, provided public testimony to the county commissioner's court stating that the allegations were unfounded, that an investigation had been concluded and that the

allegations were completely unfounded, even though on literally precisely those days we received communications from the federal government stating that the investigation was ongoing. these are all serious violations of pria that put women and children at risk. we respectfully request that this commission recommend the proper implementation, supervision and monitoring of the protocol as detailed in our written submitted testimony to this commission. put simply, this is exactly why family detention doesn't work. at this facility, the fact that sexual abuse occurred, likely occurred and is potentially still occurring shows that either a policy is not in place or that it is not being properly supervised, monitored or implemented. in the rush to detain families, the federal government has failed to protect the health and safety of these women and children. but instead of pausing family detention and figuring out what

needs to be done differently, and better to ensure the safety of this community, the government has pushed to expand. thank you for your time today and i welcome your questions either now or at a later time. >> thank you. miss lucas. >> thank you. on behalf of the american immigration lawyers association, i want to thank the commission for holding this briefing and for inviting us to speak. we're really grateful for the oversight and the engagement of the commission on the issue of immigration detention and i'm very pleased to hear that you are interested in going to visit some detention facilities. i would encourage you to go to a family detention facility. we have practitioners, volunteer members on the ground and they're happy to meet with you and provide you any information that you need. the administration's recent

massive expansion of family detention requires your immediate attention. the mass detention of asylum seeking mothers and their children, many still breast drzfeeding infants, violates the civil rights of hundreds of families who have fled violence from the northern triangle region of central america. by the middle of next year the administration will be detaining nearly 4,000 children and mothers, a 40-fold increase in use of detention for families. beginning in july of last year, members from across the country responded to the urgent need and for and indeed the lack of legal representation at the first family detention facility built after the surge in the summer in

new mexico by traveling at their own expense to the middle of nowhere in new mexico and even working 18 to 20 hours a day, seven days a week volunteers were barely able to meet the demand for legal help. i would just note here that the new detention facility in dilley is going to have far more detainees than the artesia facility had. the project, the ala immigration council, artesia pro bono project, still continues to represent families detained in artesia and are now being held at cairns and at dilley. i only have time to make a few remarks. i hope that i can channel the passion of our volunteer attorneys, as well as the pain of their clients. first, i just want to focus

really briefly on who these detainees are. the vast majority of the children and mothers who are being held in these family detention facilities are asylum seekers who would qualify for protection under u.s. and international law. that is who they are. we know this because the ala immigration council project has won 14 out of 15 of their asylum hearings on behalf of these women. we know this because in the first months of dilley being open on the ngo tour that we took of the facility, 80% of the women who were currently in that facility had already expressed a fear of returning to their home countries. the reality is that family detention incarcerates with policies specially designed to make release as difficult as possible and to make deportation as quick as possible. the most vulnerable individuals -- children and asylum seekers.

wlo we have a moral and legal obligation to protect. it is also important to note that more than half of the detainees in these family facilities are children. the average age of a child detained at artesi was just 6 1/2 years old and currently there is a 20-day-old child. it's the narrowest circumstances unlawful pursue want to a 1997 settlement agreement in the flores litigation. secondly, i want to be more concrete about some of the ways in which family detention deprives detainees of due process. it rushes individuals through an expedited removal process that often results in legitimate legal claims falling through the cracks. it detains indigenous language

speakers for months. the detention of anyone without an individualized assessment not on the basis of what she personally has done or will do but to send a message to other people in another country does not even begin to complete the due process limit to take away somebody's liberty. across the board attorneys who have served clients in artesia and now at carnes and dilley. and let's be clear. the massive outpouring of pro

bono assistance that we saw at artesia and that resulted in so many asylum victories is not sustainable or easily rep pli kabl for dille which is doubling to 1,000 beds. there is no way to provide advocate representation for these detainees. and without counsel without a judge, isolated in detention and run as quickly through the system, there is no meaningful opportunity to seek protection period. i included in my testimony a list of recommendations that i urge the commission to consider. but the first and foremost and fundamental recommendation is to bring about an end to family detention. thank you. i look forward to your questions. >> mr. stacy? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm director for the human rights campaign, america's

largest civil rights organization working on behalf of lgbt equality. i'm honored to speak today about the state of civil rights at immigration detention facilities. one additional note. i must attend a white house meeting on hate crimes later this afternoon so i apologize for leaving slightly early from here. i will make four key points in my oral testimony. lgbt people are particularly vulnerable to sexual abuse in institutional settings. second, the united states has obligations under the international treaties. transgender detainees should not be faced with the choice of administrative segregation for staying in facilities unsafe with their gender identity. lgbt people are particularly

vulnerable to abuse when they enter into institutional settings and constitute a high-risk population. bureau of justice statistics found homosexual and bisexual men report ten times the rate of sexual victimization compared to the straight inmates. the statistics are worse for transgender inmates. in december of 2014, 24.1% of transgender inmates in state and federal prisons were victims of abuse by an inmate and 17% by state. 16.7% by a staff. under the convention against torture the united states has obligation to prevent against all forms of it degrading, inhumane or degrading punishment. in response, congress enacted

prea in 2003. the department of homeland security finally promulgated its own rules in march 2014. unfortunately, the dhs rules failed to adequately protect lgbt persons. two examples provide greater clarity. first, while doj regulations mandate transgender persons have the opportunity to shower separately from others, dhs limited this protection by adding a vague and unexplained qualifier "when operationally feasible." second, although dhs regulations mandate that detention center should not base decisions on housing, for example, solely on identity documents, or physical anatomy, the rules merely require that they "consider" the detainees' gender self-identification. in contrast, this is less protection than the department of justice and their regulations state a transgender intersex inmate's own views with respect

to his other safety shall be given serious considering. too often, albeit with a laudable goal of protecting transgender detainees from abuse or violence, non-punitive segregation is used. it can cause lasting and emotional physical harm. in september 2013, i.c.e. issued a new director that segregation be used as last resort. however, dhs -- while dhs has taken implementation seriously, many transgender detainees still face that untenable choice. remain silent when they're fearful of their own safety or speak out and risk segregation. in addition to the 2013 directive, i.c.e. has made some progress to the goal of providing detainees with protecting from sexual assault with its 2011 performance based national detention standards. unfortunately, implementation has been slow. in addition, dhs' office of civil rights and liberties has identified a system to identify track and investigate claims of

sexual violence and provide avenues for redress including monetary compensation. however, the problem is not statistics, it is not procedures in place for reporting and tracking sexual assaults but it is the slow pace of policy changes and education that would address these needs of the lgbt detainees. to that end, hrc urges swift progress. this can be done in several ways. first dhs must fully implement detention standards. this means dhs should ensure that all facilities comply with the agency's prea regulations including private contracting facilities and that appropriate prea audits take place at each facility in a timely manner. given the heightened risk of sexual assault using limited resources to detain transgender individuals should knob be a priority except for cases involving serious public safety concerns. in cases where statute requires

mandatory custody, dhs should categorize alternative forms of detention such as home confinement and community based supervision as detention even for those subject to mandatory custody. this would remove non-dangerous lgbt individuals from oftentimes dangerous confinement facilities. for the commission, we hope the commission will use this briefing at additional meetings with dhs, if necessary, to understand challenges confronting dhs as the agency works to increase accountability, attention and implementation. accordingly, the commission should ask the government accountability office to investigate reports of sexual assault and violence acts against lgbt detainees as well as steps being taken to protect lgbt detainees from unique and pervasive harassment. the commission should ask dhs for a report on progress made related to transgender detainees. this includes improved training, identifying lgbt detainees in screening, appropriate placement, separate shower

access, and consideration of lgbt status in sexual assault incident reviews. finally, the commission should request a written response from dhs on the status of implementing each recommendation from the 2004 gao report on prevention and detection of sexual assault and abuse in dhs confinement facilities. dhs received a copy of the draft report and concurred with all of the recommendations except one, knowing that it would implement through 2015. mr. chairman and members of the commission, thanks again for the opportunity to testify today and we really appreciate the fact that you are looking into this really serious problem and we hope your recommendations will help improve the situation for lgbt detainees and other detainees. >> thank you, mr. stays tea stacy. i will now open it up to commissioners. >> mr. stacey were you here this morning when i asked the

question about lgbt and i was given an answer that they have a facility by los angeles? were you here? >> i was not here this morning, no. >> so, i asked the gentleman whether they asked people when they come into the country when they initially interview them whether they're lgbt. he said no. at lunch we were talking. should they disclose -- should the government disclose that there is a facility for lgbt people in the governmental system? >> to those people or should they ask them whether they -- i mean how should they approach these issues? >> sure. well obviously the privacy of lgbt people is something that is relevant here. merely asking folks about their sexual orientation and gender identity is not problematic, from our perspective. whether folks are required to

disclose that is a different story. we certainly would have concerns about that. but giving detainees options for how they are detained is certainly something we would take a look -- want to take a look at. some detainees have greater concerns about their safety and that's why the standards adopted by doj are more desirable and better than standards dhs uses because giving serious considerations to the detainee's own sense of perceived risk. >> so you would have no problem with those questions or disclosure, the government saying any have this facility and leave it up to the detainee. >> i think that's right that we would -- i think obviously we want to take a look at what -- how that's phrased and make sure that people understand that they have privacy concerns and they are not required to disclose. >> the statistics you were using were statistics for state and federal prisons, not detention centers. right?

>> they are not adequate or any data really around i.c.e. detention centers. >> miss bono, how would you change family detention? >> i don't think there is a way -- i don't think there is a workable way to detain women and children. especially with the population that's doubly vulnerable because they're coming from backgrounds where they've already been victims of such horrific violence and exploitation. before the system that's currently in place evolved, women and children who came in to this country and had pending immigration cases were often monitored electronically. and that system worked just fine and very appropriately. as miss lucas said, these women are currently being detained without any consideration as to whether or not they pose a threat to the community and whether or not they pose a flight risk.

>> right. so you would just use electronics. is that correct? >> i think there are much less restrict riff alternatives to family-based detention. >> what else besides electronics? you said other less restrict restrictive stuff. >> releasing women on bond and to sponsors in the community until their immigration cases are resolved. >> and if the women and children have no family in the states, how would they support themselves pending resolution? >> how would they support themselves? i can't speculate how families would support themselves outside of the detention facilities. but i'm certain after meeting with and speaking with these women an children on the ground, that these mothers would much prefer to be in the community and to have their children in public schools and to be outside of a prison-like setting than to be detained with their kids.

>> so they would find a way, is what you're saying? >> they all do. >> miss lucas, one question. two family facilities, cairns and dilley. if we were to choose one to go to, which do you think would be the best for us to see? >> oh, goodness. well, i think that would depend on the timing. the dilley facility is only in temporary structures right now. and so it's not up to capacity yet and the full structures have not been built and so i would wait on dilley until we see what the full new structures would look like. so if you were going to go tomorrow, i would say cairns. >> thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. chair. miss lucas, you indicated that there are widely divergent bond amounts set by the immigration judges at artesia.

you've gone to great lengths giving us examples of specific bond amounts. i know that in the state court system, as well as in the federal system, the court is often governed by guidelines or recommended bond amounts. are you aware of whether there are any such guidelines for bonds set by the immigration judges? and if there are not, might that be a way to begin addressing the divergence in bonds? >> that's a great question. i actually don't know if there are guidelines. i can find that out for you. nationally, the immigration judges -- the average bond amount was about $5,200. and -- i mean even outside the

con particulars of family detention, immigration bonds will greatly vary. i agree that -- and as far as guidelines, i would say that the best guidance on appropriate bond amounts is the existing case law because there is bia case law on factors to consider for bond. and so matter of battell is a 1970s case that has been the foundation of what is relevant of bond in the immigration context. and that is public safety risk and flight risk. and there's more information. the case law has developed more aspects of both of those things as to what is appropriate to consider and what isn't. so that is where i would like to. >> commissioner? >> miss lucas, and perhaps the other two attorneys as well, we

heard in the last panel from the representative of the immigration project of the aba that detainees, i think specific to the family context, or it may have been detainees in general -- and you can correct me as to which one it was -- were six or seven times more likely to have their asylum petitions granted if they were represented by counsel. does than sound familiar? >> i'm wondering -- i recognize, and it has been pointed out a number of times, that because this is a civil proceeding and not a criminal proceeding albeit a distinction

without some significant difference, in my own view -- but we'll put that aside for a moment -- there is no constitutional right, shall we say, to representation by counsel. however, it seems to me that a number of sins could be avoided are if somehow we were in a position to see to it that at least of families, mothers and children, were somehow provided consistently with legal representation. and i'm wondering what kinds of

legal theories have been propounded by your organizations, either in a court of law or cases that have been made to public policy makers who have the ability to alter these laws in appropriate ways. i'm wondering what kinds of legal theories you have that might aid us in examining the merit to the claim that legal representation would only have to go to those seeking those subject to criminal prosecution as compared to the civil penalty that's involved in repatriation, if you will.

>> i can start. a couple of things i would say on that. first is that immigrants in removal proceedings have a right to have counsel at their own expense. it is not a right to appointed counsel or counsel paid for by the government which is the critical distinction between the criminal and civil context. and that is why the impediments to meaningful access to counsel and meaningful representation by counsel that we saw at artesia and continue to see at cairns and dilley are such a problem because when they do have pro bono representation or in the rare circumstance they can pay for representation, they have the right to access to counsel. the other thing i'll say is that

from a list perspective, there is nothing in the immigration nationality act to prevent are the government from funding counsel for immigrants in removal proceedings and there is a smap peep small pilot project that the government does work on now for the unaccompanied children, the am eechltericorps initiative. but we have advocated for years for a much broader government funded counsel for the most vulnerable populations in immigration proceedings. and honestly, in immigration proceedings, period. >> i have a few questions. >> i was hoping for additional comment from the other two attorneys. >> i don't have anything to add other than to emphasize what i suspect you've already heard, at least in part, this morning, the similarities between are the judicial system and the

immigration context and the judicial system in the criminal context. so even though we have this civil/criminal distinction, the concerns about the constitutional rights of immigrants are still very much the same. >> earlier today we heard from folks from the federal government, as well as the private prison companies, cca, about all these great policies that are in place and what's being done there to make sure that these facilities are compliant and places that are not going to result in the kind of abuse and violation of rights that we've heard testified to by other people. it seems to me that, as been said earlier, there is a big disconnect there. you all are on the ground on this issue. what's going on here? why do we have one picture that's being painted to us by those that are running the prisons, and quite another picture being painted by individuals who are kept in

those prisons? >> well, in texas you always say, you talk the talk, but can you walk the walk. and i think it is very nice to have a policy on paper or posted on the wall, but it's completely powerless if it is not being properly enforced and i think a lot of the disconnect comes from are the shell game when this is part of a federal program but implementation is occurring through a private contractor and a private contractor that's used to -- that runs its business primarily for criminal correctional facilities and doesn't necessarily have the proper expertise and background for the detention of women and children. and so i suspect training -- proper training for facility employees and proper supervision are a big part of the problem here.

>> either of you have -- >> well, i said there are sort of two issues. one is, are the policies that are in place adequate. ed it the prea standards that went into effect in 2014 we feel particularly in regards to transgender detainees are inadequate to meet those needs even if they were being implemented fully. at the same time, there's a question of implementation. i think cultural competency to deal with lgbt detainees is a serious issue. then in particular when you deal with transgender detainees it is an even more serious issue, especially when you think about folks who are on the ground actually detaining people and making these decisions. there is certainly bias that creeps in. sometimes not even subtly. but sometimes more subtly. but i think largely there is a real ignorance of how to appropriately handle a transgender detainee.

just one example. if you have a male facility and you bring in a transgender woman into that facility, first of all, that's not an appropriate placement right there. but people are being placed in that situation. but then to treat that transgender detainee, even if had that inappropriate circumstance and in that place where they probably shouldn't be, you want to treat them with really real serious respect. well, one factor is, what clothing are you going to make them wear? all of the clothing that is going to be at that male facility is going to be male clothing. right there you are already not treating that transgender woman with the sort of respect that the policies require, that common sense requires, and that human decency requires. so i think it is both -- are the policies adequate and then is the cultural competency really even getting anywhere close to the depth and breadth that it

needs to be. >> i'll get to you, commissioner. i've just got a few more questions. to each of you, earlier there was mention the concept of mirandizing the immigrants. because right now, if someone is detained, they don't know what rights they have. ideally someone will tell them somewhere along the process. obviously that doesn't often happen. what do you all think about this idea of providing the immigrants that are being detained with knowledge of their rights right at the beginning of that custody? and if so, if you think that's a good idea, how would we actually go about accomplishing that from your perspective? >> it is critical especially because these women and children are coming from countries that be don't have these same types of constitutional rights. in their minds, it is not even a possibility. it doesn't even occur to them that they might have the rights that we have in our government, in our system. and i'm sure miss lucas has some points on this, but i would also

say to the extent that that's provided, it is very important that it be provided not only in spanish, but in the indigenous languages, because as miss lucas mentioned, that's a very -- it's been large barrier to these women getting access to what little, few legal services there are there in place. >> miss lucas? >> yes, i would fully agree with that. i think that giving any immigrant in proceedings -- at the border, in detention -- knowledge of their rights is critically important. and there are some good models for this. karen gruzay, who testified earlier, talked about the legal orientation program. we fully support that, think it is a great thing. we would also like it to be national. i think, too, there is an obligation on border patrol to

do a better job with giving the immigrants who are apprehended by border patrol an understanding not only of their rights, but of their obligations and responsibilities, and also to give it in the language that they can understand. part of the problem with expedited removal is that it's fast. and so the first moments and the first contact that immigration enforcement officers have with immigrants is critical. if an individual does not express their fear, know that they have the right to express their fear, know what's going to happen if they do express their fear, if they don't know that as early on in the process as possible, they -- the avenue to asylum is closed for them. so i would advocate for much more information as early as possible. >> would this need to be done by legislation or could it be done, in your opinion, by executive order of the president?

>> i do not think it would have to be done legislatively at all. i think this is well within the administration's authority to create new protocols and also to expand the legal orientation program to get ngos into border patrol facilities so they can meet with individuals who are being held in the short-term detention facilities and that they can, as individuals who are not affiliated with the government, have much more honest conversations and productive conversations with the detainees. >> thank you. >> i just want to echo that. i think it is really important to let people know of their rights on the front end. but i think also having third parties that can come in and talk with them about their rights and help them to understand that. i think it is one thing to inform people and that's a good first step. but i think the additional steps are to make people understand that in the context of lgbt

detainees who are particularly vulnerable or who have experienced sexual assault, an extra level of engagement with a third party they can trust is critical in getting good outcomes. >> you have the floor. >> thank you very much, mr. chair. i want to start off just by stating and maybe it's rather obvious that there is a schizophrenia in the way that the obama administration has dealt with the issue of immigration and that you have -- even in this particular situation, you have them on one hand saying we don't want this bed mandate. we don't want the 34,000 bed mandate. yet at the same time they're building the 2,400-bed facility that when it is not at full capacity is going to be under pressure to put more people in them. and probably exceed the 3,400-bed mandate. it is one of those things that kind of drives me crazy about the administration.

until this particular instance, when we talk -- i kept making this point earlier in the hearing. that had to do with the fact that these are families that we're talking about. these are not hardened criminals. these are not -- these are people who, for reasons that they need to be able to articulate to whatever legal standard we decide is applicable -- but nevertheless, there is something compelling them to leave their native land to come here and seek a better life, whether it was oppression, whether it was fear of gangs, whether it was fear of domestic violence, whenever it is. and it bothers me that we have, in many ways criminalized them from the moment that they walk across our border in a way that we did not do when we were flooded with refugees from europe or flooded with refugees

from asia. they were not put in standard-issued prison jumpsuits, for example, for their duration of the state whether it was at angel island or ellis island. i think what the chairman said is very important and i think it is important for you to articulate to us that if the administration chooses to at least have this interdiction policy for families, they should at least realize that because they are families and there is a different way that we should deal with it, that there is a -- it should provide other safeguards for these families that perhaps -- you hate to single out anything, but for this one i think it is warranted because of these extraordinary circumstances. if the administration has the ability. we need your help in looking at the law to help us formulate these positions to provide for on-site aljs that includes a right -- a right to counsel, not

just -- and ability to have counsel but a right to counsel that may be subsidized or paid for with federal dollars. because we truly are interested in doing an expedited process than do it fairly. s it shouldn't be a one-way process where basically someone looks at you for a couple of days, you come in, you're scared of this person who's in whatever outfit -- you're in an orange jumpsuit. you don't know what's happened in the past few weeks or months while you've been waiting, then your fate has decided. it has to be a better and even playing field if we're going to be true to those things that in our country we have always been true to in terms of family immigration to these united states. so we need your help in looking at the law and saying the president has the ability through it the executive order pen -- which he is very fond of

right now -- to provide these sets of additional protections and safeguards for these families coming across our border and if you can do that, that would be very, very helpful to us. i guess that was more of a speech than a question. but if you react to it, i would enjoy it. >> well, you know, obviously i agree, our values are expressed in the way that we treat our most vulnerable. we do have laws in place to deal with populations who fear the threat of persecution in their home countries and the government is trying to circumvent those laws with an expedited deportation process and a no-bond policy for these families. so one place to start would be to follow the law and to follow the regulations that are in place, which say that discretion must be applied to determine whether or not these women pose a threat to public safety and whether or not they pose a flight risk. and so one place to start is

simply to follow the ina provision that's already in place which says that discretion must be applied. right now it is being unilaterally withheld. and so that's one very basic place we can start without creating any new guidelines or laws. >> did they issue regulations suspending that for this particular classification of folks who came in? or is this just sort of an unwritten policy that you are seeing applied across the board? >> it's just -- it's not any regulation. it is just a policy that's been created and applied. >> i take it, you folks have probably filed a suit on that, i would assume. >> why, yes. i didn't personally, but yes, there are others who have. the other thing that i'll say -- just a couple of things on that. so the policy of having no bond or an exceptionally high bond in all of the cases is actually written in the dhs affidavits in the packet that they submit to

the immigration judge when they're opposing bond in a bond hearing. so there are places in which it is expressed. it is not a regulation, but it is written down. and the other thing is that, i take your point about the disconnect between some of what the administration is doing with executive authority and the policy that seems to be in place for families. >> and just to interrupt you slightly, i mean i understand that the pressure at administration is under in these situations, but i just think that they reacted in such a way, way over to the other side. there's still a way with the wave of the magic pen in the oval office to balance it a little bit more. i mean i'd rather there not be any at all, but i understand the politics of the congress are such that the president's

ability to do that is somewhat constrained. but to the extent that he still has that ability he can make it a little -- make it a fairer fight. >> absolutely he can make it a fairer fight. but also in the new memoranda that came out of executive on detention policy and discretion that should be applied with respect to particularly vulnerable poll populations in detention and nursing mothers, primary caregivers, they are all part of existing dhs policy favoring release. all the administration would have to do is act on that, even with respect to these families. >> i'm going to move on to the vice chair. >> thank you. this is open to all. on the issue of the right to counsel of our most vulnerable

populations, i was reflecting on the context that we have throughout this nation a system set up wherein children, less than 18 years of age that are alleged to be neglected or dependent, petitions are filed and they are entitled to counsel and so i'm just wondering if there has been any exploration of that angle. i think an argument could be made that these youngs people are neglected abused dependent. what is there to stop state department, social services or even counsel from filing just

such a petition and, in most instances, they would be entitled to counsel. and i'm just wondering, has any thought been given to that way of proceeding or that analogy or is there something that we can learn in that context? >> at the beginning of this process, when we were looking at the conditions that made the environments unsafe and potentially dangerous for children. members of our working group did have conversations with the texas department of health and public safety. and the individuals that we spoke with told us that because these women and children were in federal custody, it wasn't really a state issue. but from our perspective, when you look at the state statutes governing licensing and child care, certainly there are some potential or there's an area for potential violations here.

and again, that's the problem we have with this shell game. we are talking about a federal custody situation, but these are children who would otherwise be protected by laws that are already in place, and i agree, it's a substantial and disturbing disconnect. >> and what i would say on that is that there are -- i can't agree more that there are very strong arguments for government funded counsel, a right to government funded counsel in the immigration context, no question. either because of the particular vulnerabilities of the individual, or because of the dire consequences of the outcome of immigration proceedings. in the criminal context, there are, of course, very dire consequences to what the

outcomes of your deportation. we're talking about people who have been fleeing for their lives. the question is do they get returned to a situation in which they may be killed or not? that is a very weighty consequence. and, of course, our supreme court has recognized that in padilla. and so you know in the criminal justice context, it is now a constitutional obligation for defense counsel to advise their clients about the immigration consequences of their plea or the immigration consequences of their case, precisely recognizing how dire immigration consequences can be. so we're on the way and i welcome any support for pushing the administration on government-funded counsel. >> we'll now move on to another

commissioner. >> a couple of us have spoke about getting a statement of rights together to give to these folks. and just before mr. stacey left that's what i asked him to do, and get us that information. i would ask both of you to please do that and i would also ask the folks who are on the next panel to do that and maybe we can combine your submissions and maybe we can get a majority of the commission to recommend that. not being an expert on immigration or detention -- well i do know about detention. but not in this concept. but if we could do that, i think that would be great. and so if you could write those up and i would assume send them -- i guess we should send them to whom? >> the immigration office of civil rights evaluation here at the commission. >> all right. thank you.

that's all i had. >> commissioner harriet? >> thank you, mr. chairman. miss lucas i'm curious about the numbers here and maybe you could help me. you mentioned that some of the detainees -- and i'm not sure if you were talking about carnes and dilley in particular but some detainees have attorneys that they retain themselves, some are pro bono and some don't have any attorneys at all. can you tell me how common it is that they can pay for their own attorney and how many have pro bono attorneys and how many have no attorneys at all and of those that have pro bono how did it get decided which detakeninees would end up with pro bono or not? was it through know your rights seminars that they filtered to the strongest cases? >> great questions.

okay. so i do not know how many of the family detainees in the family detention system have counsel. that -- i mean i.c.e. would -- well, i.c.e. wouldn't even know that. >> the first step might be a requirement that that information be documented. because i -- >> absolutely. >> -- i'm not aware of a place where i could google or look to find that information out. >> we do know from studies that have been done that i referenced in my written testimony in 2009 80% of detainees, the currently detained population in immigration detention, did not have counsel. so we're talking about a huge number. most detainees, immigration detainees never get counsel. so it's a really serious problem.

in terms of how individuals in detention do get counsel, there are a couple of different ways. there is the traditional model for lack of a better word, which is through a legal orientation program that does screen individuals who have for potential relief, potential avenues for relief and then those cases are referred out to private attorneys who are willing to take on the case pro bono. the artesia model, which our organization was involved in, was a completely different model from any other pro bono legal services model. we went in and said any woman who wants representation will get it. and the effort was enormous and gratifying and unlike anything i've ever seen.

that is very unusual and we had amazing outcomes for the women and children in artesia. but, again, all of our hearts break at the thought of how in the world we are going to help the women in a facility the size of dilley. >> thank you. >> i have a few more questions. earlier we were talking about -- you mentioned the shell game. let's say we get -- we're successful and we get folks their rights read to them early on and have lawyers that will be either provided to them pro bono or somehow paid yet we still see possibly this other shell game where clients are moved from facility to facility even though they have lawyers and their lawyers can't talk to them because they may not know where they are or they may be too far away. can you speak a little to that issue and the impact that it has and those folks that may be lucky enough to be represented?

>> absolutely. i can start. i know our attorneys see this outside of the family detention context as well but the closure of artesia and the movement of currently detained individuals from artesia to carnes and some eventually do dilley but initially to carnes was complete confusing. our attorney -- our lead attorney only got notice of a handful of those transfers before they would happen and we would get notice on a friday night of transfers that might happen saturday morning might happen monday, not exactly sure. it took our attorneys a long time to find out where their clients were. and when they got to the facility and were told that they had been released, some of

them -- some of them were still detained obviously. some of them had been released. but the question with respect to folks who had been released was on what grounds, were they paroled? you know, were they deported? what is the legal circumstance in which they found themselves? it created a great deal of fear for our clients because they did not know how to reach their attorneys to tell them that they were being transferred or once they were in a new facility they didn't know how to reach them. and it obviously interferes with the legal representation that we're giving our clients. >> i know you probably don't know the answer to all the transferees, but do you have any idea why some of the transfers were happening? >> these particular transfers were happening because they were winding down artesia. they were closing artesia, and the currently detained

population had to be moved, some of them had hearings that were scheduled for the weeks during which the transfers were going to be happening, and so we were able to negotiate a pace for those transfers that would allow the individuals to keep their merits hearings, that took a lot of work. and there was a lot of confusion during that process. >> how about in the nonartesian settings outside the family? do you know of any of those? >> i know that it is a problem but i don't have any direct knowledge to speak to it. >> it's incredibly expensive in the nonfamily context for an individual to pay for an attorney when their case gets moved out to new york, for example, or atlanta, and so inevitably, that individual is in a situation where they have to seek counsel in their new location, and that not only creates incredible costs, but potential delays on the case,

and inefficiencies in the case, you create a rapport and a relationship with your counsel. and all of a sudden you're in the position where you have to start at ground one. it's especially problematic when there are hearings set in a short time period, and that individual is faced with finding new counsel in an incredibly short time period. >> and what i'm trying to get at here, are there unjustified reasons for these people being moved around making it more difficult for their counsel to represent them? and perhaps another thing we could look at is prohibition on individuals who either have counsel or who may be close to a time of an important hearing. is there any discussion or have you heard of any initiatives such as that that have been ban

talked about? >> i think we can look at statistics about why individuals are about the things that aren't going right at federal facilities, either that are government run or run by for profit companies. but what are the things that they are doing right? are there some best practices out there that you've seen whether in a particular facility or in a particular issue that we might want to know about so that we can try to recommend their replication. >> you know in 2009 when the huddo facility was closed in the face of a very controversial lawsuit and public outcry. did something happen here? the public accounts of the

environment for the families at that detention facility, i think it's safe to say they differed very great than what we have seen. for example, there are no more orange jumpsuits. families are allowed to go outside. there are certainly pers of the day when period. the school children are provided with schooling. from what i understand, we can't say because we have not had access but children are evaluated and put through contack with the charter system. there are toys.

there's a common area. it's difficult -- you know one client who had i some interaction with who talk about every friday the families who were being released would line-up and her son would wait in line to be released and the guards would stop him right before they got out. whether or not you have a classroom, whether or not you have a facility, this is a prison like environment. the kids know that they are being detained. this is not an environment where children and families should be. sure x. a couple of things that

come to developed. one, a coupliers ago, a computerized tool with a hot oflot can do it and decide whether or not they should be detained. it's not perfect but it helps in a lot of circumstances to quantify a lot of these risks -- excuse me. sorry. to quantify some of the risks and we would recommend that the rca be used much more broadly. it's not currently used in family detention for example. unfortunately, in the rca, it cuts out the 60% of the currently detained population

that is under what ice considers to be mandatory detention so we would recommend changing the rca to help those folks and the other thing i can think of in terms of best practices necessarily in the world. there's a lot of best and use a lot of alternatives to the detention program. >> you can have the last question. >> thank you. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. i think ms. bone oe just said we don't know if we're evaluating the children right because we can't get the information. the question is obvious -- i

think the answer is obvious. should we recommend that the ice and government release compliance records to the public? or make them more transparent? >> yes absolutely. there's a lot of data and information about how detainees are treated and even, you know, just basic information about how and when they are detained. then it would be wonderful to weigh in on that and make the recommendation that those be made public. >> do you agree with that? >> yes, it can take months, sometimes up to a year to get anything that looks remotely close to complete records.

if we're luck iyy enough to get that and the delay of scores critical because of the expedited removal process but the time that we get information that we can act or move on a lot of families have already been sierkcycled through the process. >> mr. lucas my final question mr. chairman. at least i'm not making a speech. when you were responding to commissioner harriet's question about nobody knows how why what who how when you get a pro bone oe counsel. you said 80% do not. you said at one point your project gave everybody b during that time what was your success

rate of detensetion and staying in the united states. >> great question. it was at artesia and we said we would recommend any woman who wanted representation. anyone who sought representation. so there were many people at artesia who didn't have counsel and i didn't know who they were because our project didn't interact with them so there's a sort of blindspot in my knowledge about those people in artesia. i will say that 15 of our cases have gone to the fiemnal stage in the make or-or-break moment do you

get asylum or not. we've won 14 of them. i think it speaks to the importance of counsel but also the truth of the violence that these women are facing back home. >> thank you very much. i want to thank both of you for your testimony and mr. stacy before i call on panel three i want to take a point of personal privilege and say it's really great to see ms. bono here. she graduate edd from here and she was one of the recipients and i'm very proud of you and what you're doing. >> thank you.

>> our panelists are all still in place. our commissioners are all still in place. so we're going to begin with panel four. first of all thank you all for coming. most of you have been here all day. the system of warning lights. you have seven minutes to speak. green, speed up yellow slow down. red stop. before we proceed i want to introduce each one of our panlists. our first is the staff attorney for the american civil liberties union here representing the aclu. our second is the executive director of the grass roots leadership our third is the executive director of heartland alliances national immigrant justice center. i'll ask the three of you to raise your right hand and be sworn that you affirm that the information that you're about to provide to us is true and accurate to the best of your knowledge and belief; is that correct? >> yes okay good. >> good afternoon and thank you

mr. chairman and members of the commission. ice detention is a sprawling network of 34,000 detention beds and approximately 250 facilities composed of county facilities county jails and private prisons. it is intended to be civil and nonpunitive. it's purpose is not to punish but simply to secure appearance at immigration proceedings and transfer for removal when applicable applicable. ice overwhelmingly consist of jail and jail facilities. over half of detainees are literally kept in jail. my statement addresses the short term custody facilities operated by a custom and border protection. cbp has a serious need for greater accountability.