screeria -- nigeria. - by the inauguration

ceremony for colorado governor john hickenlooper. the u.s. commission on civil rights hosted its series of panels examining the nation's use of immigration detention facilities. speakers included government officials discussing how the facilities are created and ultimately maintained. the commission also looked at the legal challenges that the detention centers pose as well as other methods that could be used for immigration enforcement.

>> going to call the meeting to order. good morning, everyone. welcome. i'm charm marty castro of the u.s. commission on civil rights. i really would like to welcome everyone with us today, those testifying, members of the audience as well as those joining us via audio link as well as first time ever live streaming by the commission of a hearing or briefing on one of our civil rights topics. this is an effort by us to make our work more transparent and open to the public. we hope to continue to grow how we use technology to allow americans across the nation, or anywhere else they might be in the world, to access us using technology skills and capabilities. today we are going to be conducting a briefing on the state of civil rights at immigration detention centers as well as the condition of the border children who arrived this summer at our borders. today i'm being joined by commission vice chair and new

vice chair patricia timmons goodson as well as commissioners narasaki, heriot, actonberg, yaki. commissioner joining us by phone. the purpose of the hearing, as i indicated, is going to be to examine equal protection concerns we have raised with department of homeland security and immigration, customs and enforcement over treatment of adult and minor detainees in representative detention centers across the country held under federal law. experts you'll see at the course of this briefing are going to talk to us about both the issues that they face from the government perspective as well as ngo perspective and other activists and individuals who have information to share with us on this important topic. from a personal perspective, i want to once again reiterate a thanks to all of my colleagues for approving this hearing. this is an issue that's been important not only to me but to

the commission. the commission has looked at the issue of immigration for many years starting in 1980 with our seminal report on tarnished golden door. again in 2003, we looked at civil rights of migrant communities. in addition, our state advisory committees have also looked at this topic. we have been committed to ensuring all individuals in this country including immigrants documented and undocumented have their rights enforced and due process concerns addressed. under my chairmanship, i'm proud and pleased to say this is not the first time we've addressed the issue of civil rights and immigration. we went down to alabama for the first time a field hearing in many years to bring forward those individuals who were in favor of, as well as opposed to, the state enforcement laws that were sb 1070 types from alabama, from south carolina, georgia, utah, and were able to talk not only to advocates but

also to those individuals who are proposing these laws and dig deep down and find the issues and the implications that these laws had. on discrimination, on hate crimes, on bullying, and on lack of access to educational opportunities for immigrants. that report will be coming out this fiscal year. we also wrote to the president and director of homeland security on the occasion of the border children, the refugee children coming this summer expressing our concerns not only about the due process that should be afforded to these children but also based on allegations and reports and complaints such as this by the midwest immigrant justice center, national immigrant justice center, aclu and others, detailing allegations of sexual and physical abuse of these children. in addition, when president obama announced his deferred action, the expanse of deferred action in his executive action, a majority of this commission commended him for that action. that will certainly affect the

civil rights not only of immigrant families but mixed families of immigrant and u.s. citizens. finally our state advisories remain very active on this issue. illinois state advisory issued a report in december on the implications of comprehensive immigration reform to immigrant communities in illinois. so this hearing today is extremely important to us in the history of our commitment to examining issues of civil rights and immigration. as the son and grandson of mexican immigrants this is a particularly important topic to me. while the individuals who are in custody and detention are as diverse as the world, parts of the world in which they come, it is clear many of them, majority of them are latinos. as first latino chair of the u.s. commission on civil rights i feel a personal commitment to look at this issue. it is broader than that. as a nation built upon immigrants i think every one of us is just a few generations away from a family member who came from somewhere else we

have a commitment to freedom and to liberty. we have to ensure when individuals are in our care and custody, the best of our ability as a nation, we ensure their human rights and civil rights and dignity are enforced. we can't allow this to be outsourced. we do know there's opportunities when our prison system contracted out to private entities that does not allow our government or people to outsource and contract out our commitment to civil rights. today we're going to look closely at that issue as well. ultimately this is an issue that affects all americans. and so as we proceed today, i want to thank those of you who are participating today. we want to have a robust and thorough discussion of the issue. we also want to be mindful of the opportunities where we can explore innovation. we want to be able to ultimately present to the present and congress, as is our right and duty and obligation, a report on what we gather here today to recommend to the president and

congress how we can better and how we can improve the opportunities to care for those individuals in our care and custody. we do not want to see more people being held in solitary confinement. we don't want to see further reports of abuse and trauma that some of the children have alleged occurred to them. today we want to find out from you what is being done to address those in the future so that a year from now the system that we have in place is better and stronger and fairer as a result of the work of this commission in collaboration with each and every one of your agencies and organizations. with that said, i'm going to allow one of our commissioners to make a disclaimer of her participation here and then i'll go through the housekeeping of how the actual briefing will occur. commissioner naraski. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate this. i applaud chairman castro for suggesting this briefing on the state of civil rights at immigration detention

facilities. this is an extremely important and timely topic particularly in light of the plans of some in congress to continue to mandate a detention bed quota and the administration's expansion of detention of families with children. last year's temporary but dramatic flow of unaccompanied minors from central america fleeing harm and seeking asylum in the u.s. spotlights the need for the government agencies to be extremely thoughtful about who is detained and how we can better employ alternatives to detention, particularly when women, children, and families are involved. it has also added even greater urgency to the need for government to do everything it can to oversee detention facilities so that the conditions of detention are consistent with international human rights standards, federal and state laws and our highest values of compassion as americans. i would like to thank everyone who will be testifying today as well as those who are planning

to submit written testimony through the commission's website. i would also like to thank the commission's hard-working staff for their excellent preparation of today's hearing. even though i can't ask questions, i did read everything. unfortunately because of federal rules i have to recuse myself from today's hearing because of my relatively recent work on behalf of civil rights, human rights and immigrant rights group working to limit immigration detention. prior to becoming a commissioner last july when i was appointed by president obama. so while i will not be able to ask questions, i do look forward to hearing everyone's testimony about such a grave issue facing our nation. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank 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 them up into

four different panels. panel one is going to consist of federal agencies and guidelines and standards will be reviewed there in terms of the care that is being provided to the detainees. panel two is going to consist of private detention facilities, invocal the questions of standards of care there. panel three is going to touch on legal challenges associated with immigration detention facilities. and panel four will conclude with the civil rights associated with immigration detention centers. during the briefing each panelist will have seven minutes to speak. after the panelists make their presentations, commissioners are going to 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.

again, we're just trying to provide as much time as possible for interaction. i know you'll help me abide by that. again, i ask my commissioners to, once the opportunity comes let us try to be as concise as possible. finally, the record of this hearing is going to remain open for 30 days. if panelists or members of the public would like to submit written materials, they can either mail them to the u.s. commission on civil rights, the office of civil rights evaluation at 1331 pennsylvania avenue northwest, suite 1150 washington, d.c., 20425. or via e-mail the at publiccomments@usccr.gov. with those bits 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 list is m.

franklin c. jones executive director for the privacy and conversety office at customs and border protection. our third panelist is miss anna marie bena, principal adviser and director in the office at the u.s. department of health and human services. finally our fourth panelist is mr. kevin landy, assistant director for detention policy and planning at immigration customs enforcement at u.s. department of homeland security. miss mack. actually, before i do that let me swear in and afirm you all. race your right hands, please. i ask you swear and affirm the information you're about to provide to us is true and accurate to the best of your knowledge and belief, is that correct? thank you all. proceed, miss mack. >> good morning. thank you, chairman castro, and to the commission for hosting and queening this important briefing today. . i'm from the office of homeland security. my office is truly unique. it was created by homeland

security act to ensure that the civil rights and civil liberties of persons are not diminished by the department's 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 from the public about those 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 into immigration-related programs, policies, and operations throughout the department. complaints related to immigration apprehension and detention are the largest share of complaints 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 the commission on immigration there and worked on detention issues including access to counsel and other detention conditions 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 immigration 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 steps to ensure effective communication. having interpreters and

telephone 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 staff who are not qualified to provide interpretation and ensuring that fellow detainees aren't relied on for interpretation. in the context of sexual assault prevention and response where the stakes are especially high, the requirements of the department's rule under the prison rape elimination act for language access are very specific. i note we face a particular challenge in providing appropriate language access for detainees who speak languages spoken only in relatively small communities where commercial interpretation services are substantially more difficult to engage, and to detainees who aren't literate in any language and can't be served by translation of written materials. the department has taken many important steps to acknowledge the special vulnerabilities of individuals with serious medical and mental health conditions who are in our civil rights -- civil

immigration detention system. and the obligation to provide appropriate and reasonable accommodations to detainees with disabilities to ensure they can participate fully in the programs and services offered across the department, including in detention. so for example, in 2013 i.c.e. issued a directive on segregated housing that ensures regular review of all long-term placements in a segregated housing unit. and 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 the prison rape elimination act and isist's i.c.e. regulation standards. department wide regulations in march 2014 to prevent, detect, respond sexual assault in dhs confinement facilities. while dhs had components in

place before prea to prevent sexual abuse, the dhs regulations created uniform effective safeguards against sexual abuse in i.c.e. and cbp custody. my colleagues will discuss implementation of regulations within their components in more detail. from my office's perspective, we operate a department-wide working group to facilitate consistency in implementation where that's appropriate, and we assist the components on various prea issues where we can. crcl was also involved in the development in isis 2008 and 2011 performance-based standards or pnds and family residential standards which accomplish most of the safeguards enumerated under prea. i.c.e. is also revising its standards to incorporate additional prea requirements, and my office is providing technical and other required assistant. i emphasize we understand and take seriously our responsibility to ensure not only that the right policies in

place and prea and the detention standards are real improvements over their predecessors, but also that we follow the policies and practice and that we have the right mechanisms in place to consider policy change when needed. the components have their own policymaking monitoring inspections offices and programs and crcl provides another form of monitoring and oversight as well as recommendations on policy, practice, and training. while our work reaches across the department a substantial share of the complaints we receive and recommendations we make involve i.c.e. and cdp 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 and adults traveling with 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 remain in custody more than three days we undertook a significant government-wide response to address the crisis, which included establishment of a unified coordination group that brought the assets of multiple federal 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 countries who don't present protection concerns -- excuse me. under the trafficking victim protection reauthorization act of 2008, when dhs encounters an unaccompanied child from a contiguous country 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 the screening on all

unaccompanied children, regardless of country of origin. . >> miss mack i'll ask you to wrap up. we'll come back and ask you questions on those topics i promise. >> thank you again. >> mr. jones. >> chairman castro, thank you. and distinguished members of the u.s. commission on civil rights thank you for allowing me to be here today. i appreciate the opportunity to speak with you about the actions taken by u.s. customs and border protection to implement the standards to prevent and respond to sexual abuse and assault in confinement facilities. we refer to them as dhs prea standards. to highlight our efforts in this area, cdp is committed to ensuring the 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. cdp has fully embraced the dhs

prea standards which build on our prior policies. the prea standards which became effective on may 6th 2014, ensure that appropriate mechanisms are in place to prevent, detect, and respond to sexual abbas in dhs confinement facilities. on may 6th, current commissioner kerlakowsky issued a zero tolerance sexual abuse policy to the workforce which prohibits all forms of sexual abuse of individuals in cbp's 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. cbp's efforts to implement have

been moving swiftly and we have enjoyed great support from all of the operational components across cbp. cbp's office of border patrol, field operations, air and marine and internal affairs have all issued guidance to their staff on the dhs prea standards and the zero tolerance policy. notification to field personnel is key to the success of implementing the prea standards and to enforce the dhs standards. cbp is developing training for all of the persons who have contact with detainees in cbp holding facilities and who interact during the processing of adults and minors. the training will underscore employee obligations for preventing detecting, and responding to sexual abuse, as well as providing techniques and methods for communicating with individuals who are victims of sexual abuse. detainees or 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 cbp hold facilities across the country displaying the 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 misconduct allegations that's managed by i.c.e. and cbp. cbp employees who violate the prohibitions against sexual abuse will be subjected to disciplinary action or corrective action upon proof of violation, up to removal from federal service. i want to thank you for providing me with the opportunity to outline actions being taken by cbp to implement

the prea and i welcome your questions and comments and look forward to continuing this dialogue on this, what we consider to be the most pressing issue. >> thank you, mr. jones. miss bennett. >> i'd like to thank the commission for inviting office of refugee settlement to discuss its 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 children that come into our care and custody, as well as the standards of care and services. and i'll also briefly discuss orr's recently published final rule on preventing detecting and responding to sexual abuse and harassment. unaccompanied children or children who enter the united states unaccompanied by a parent or legal guardian and without immigration status come into orr's care when they are referred to us by another federal agency, usually the department of homeland security. once dhs identified a minor as an unaccompanied child they

transfer the child to orr custody by transporting the child to one of orr's care provider facilities. orr currently has approximately 124 care provider facilities in 15 states. in fiscal 2014, orr placed 57,496 children in its care provider facilities. and the vast majority of the children came from honduras guatemala, and el salvador. children from mexico accounted for less than 2% of the total. and all other countries combined totaled less than 3% of all referrals from federal agencies. the demographic breakdown has changed slightly from 47 years with an increase in the number of female unaccompanied children and the number of children under 14 years of age. in previous years approximately 25% of the population was female while in fiscal year 2014 females made up approximately one-third of the population. also in fiscal year 2014, approximately 27% of the

population was under 14 while in previous years the percentage had ranged from 17% to 24%. orr has a network of care provider facilities across the u.s. that provide various levels of care including shelters group homes therapeutic providers, residential treatment centers, staff secure providers which are kind of a medium security facility transitional foster care, and long-term foster care. a very small number of children are placed in secure facilities if they have committed dangerous crimes or pose a danger to themselves or others. the vast majority of children, however, are housed in our shelter facilities. all permanent orr care providers are state licensed facilities that are licensed to provide residential services to minors. this means all oorr care provider facilities are overseen by state licensing facilities 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, to the services they're provided, and much more. when a child is referred to orr from dhs, orr has intake specialists that must make a placement determination for each child within the network that is the least restrictive setting and one that is in the best interests of the child. orr will identify any special needs that a 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 who are pregnant or parenting so that they may receive specialized care and services. when the unaccompanied children's program was transferred from the former u.s. immigration and naturalization service to the department of homeland -- to the department of health and human services oss became bound by the flores versus reno settlement agreement which set forth minimum standards and services that must

be provided to all unaccompanied children. orr is tasked with providing the care and 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 immigration proceedings. while the child is in orr care, he or she receives an array of services in accordance with the settlement agreement and state licensing standards. when a child is admitted to orr care, trained care service providers conduct assessments of the child including screenings, interviews, interviews with the child's family, interviews with potential sponsors. and then this assessment is used as a first round of screening to determine whether the child has any immediate needs and whether the child has been the victim of abuse, of a crime, or of trafficking. while children are in our care, each child receives an initial medical examination and medical and dental and mental health services, educational services, daily recreational activities. also know your rights presentations and legal service

screenings, and for some legal services which is something that 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 immigration removal proceedings with a parent or relative or another appropriate sponsor. most children do have a parent or other relative already living in the u.s. and orr assesses those potential sponsors to ensure the sponsor is safe and suitable for the child, including background checks, interviews with the sponsors, reviews of the sponsor's ability to care for the child's well-being. in fiscal year 2014, approximately 95% of the children were released to a sponsor. of the children not released to a sponsor some were remanded to

homeland security once they reached 18, others become eligible for legal immigration status, some children returned voluntarily or are removed to their country of origin. finally i'd like to discuss briefly orr's interim final rule that covers standards to prevent, detect, and respond to sexual abuse and sexual harassment involving unaccompanied children. orr published the internal final rule on december 24th 2014, and is accepting public comments for 60 days, about february 28ed. 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 categories that cover topics such as prevention planning training and education, reporting, medical and mental health care, and data collection. the standards build upon

enhanced existing state and local laws regulations and licensing standards. the rule applies to all orr facilities excluding secure care providers and individual foster care homes. all to follow justice regulation and homes subject to orr's policies and procedures and state licensing start standards. but they're not subject to ifc because they're 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 the prevention, detection, and proper response to any allegations or instance of sexual abuse and section wall harassment. thank you. >> 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 the assistant director of the i.c.e. office of detention policy and planning. oddp was established in 2009 to help coordinate i.c.e.'s efforts to reform the immigration detention system. our national immigration detention system expanded rapidly in the last 20 years growing from an average daily population of less than 7500 detainees to over 33,000. sorry, 7,500 detainees in 1995. this growth presented challenges to i.c.e. in 2009 dhs announced broad and long-term effort to reform the imation immigration detention system. the goal of this reform was to ensure conditions of confinement would be consistent with civil nature of immigration detention. odpp was established to spearhead i.c.e.'s detention reform initiatives, both by implementing short-term improvements and identifying long-term solutions to further

agencies civil detention priorities. improvements have included developing facilities more appropriate for the agency's 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 reforms in particular the 2011 performance-based national detention standards and the implementation of dhs prea regulations. the pbns 2011 detention standards are the most updated version of i.c.e.'s standards. to develop these standards ice worked with stakeholders including nongovernmental organizations in ice field offices as well as crcl in particular, as megan mentioned. in 2011 improves upon safeguards and protections contained in is 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 protections 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. pbns 2011 currently applies to 60% of ice's average daily population, including all ice facilities that exclusively house ice detainees which are known as dedicated detention facilityies facilities. for a facility to move to new detention standards ice must engage in negotiations and execute contract modifications. this is a long process but ice is continuing to pursue implementation of these standards in additional nondedicated facilities with priorities given to the facilities housing the largest populations. next i will discuss ice's work implementing dhs prea regulations. prior to the issuance of prea

regulations, ice developed strong safeguards against sexual abuse or assault in both agency policies and facility key tension standards. ice's 2008 and 2011 incorporate preventive measures such as screening, staff training, and detainee education, as well as requiring an effective response to all incidents of sexual abuse and assault. in may 2012, ice issued an agency-wide directive on sexual abuse and assault prevention and intervention which established zero tolerance policy for sexual abuse and assault on 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 an agency-wide 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 developed 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 prevention, intervention, reporting and investigation. ice is currently compliant with all dh prea requirements 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 also promulgated a new policy integrating prea requirements specifically applicable to ice short-term hold facilities. in regards to prea's application to ice facilities prea requires

that all new renewed, or substantively modified detention facility contracts incorporate the prea standards. ice will also proactively pursue opportunities for incorporating the prea standards at other detention facilities including all dedicated facilities. at the current time, dhs prea requirements are contractually binding at six detention facilityies facilities, including all three of ice's family residential facilities. however, it's important to note sexual assault safeguards contained in prea or 2011 already apply to approximately 80% of the agency's average daily population. this number grows to 95% of the agency's average daily population when excluding those detainees who are held in u.s. marshal service contracted facilities which are covered by the department of justice prea regulations as a final note i would like to very quickly highlight a few additional forms. megan referred to our recent directive review of use of segregation for ice detainees.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 housing 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 is reviewed on an 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 in detention and custody classification decisions aids in 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 everyone in an orderly fashion. i will however -- i see commissioner tanaki take the 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 where you're sitting on the first panel, all of whom told us the great things they were doing to prevent military sexual assault. and yet, after that, issues continued to come to light. significant and serious issues about our men and women in uniform being abused despite all of the 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 that there are challenges that are being faced by your agencies in complying with or at least enforcing these policies. i referenced at the beginning of the complaint that was filed by the national justice center aclu, and others addressed to you, miss mack, i'm sure you saw this, that just lists some appalling things that happened to the children, unaccompanied children. sexual abuse, physical abuse just a whole series of things

that are just not in keeping with who we are as a country. i'd like to know what has been done by your agency or any of the 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 closely through the years with regular meetings with nongovernment organizations in order to make sure we're hearing all of 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 beg brought online. my staff will be there next week to review the facility and see how the conditions of confinement are there. when we receive a complaint from an organization like nijc, ms. 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 investigations that we opened were 71 out of the 149 we opened pertained to either ice -- pertained to ice detention. more than 20 others involved cbp ports of entry and checkpoints and unaccompanied children. we have a team of experts on contract with my office in a variety of areas including medical and mental health care, conditions of confinement, environmental health and safety, and other areas. they come with us to facilities. so our staff facilitates really their review of the 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 detention facility we visited. and then 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 complaints in particular, were you able to determine whether they were justified, corrective action taken? how were those specific complaints as it relates to those unaccompanied children listed in the complaint from nijc addressed? >> i don't believe our recommendations have been finalized. the process is those are protected under deliberative privilege until we hear back from ice or cbp 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 annual report and our quarterly reports to congress. >> we can expect at some point specific -- something specific to address these issues. >> it should be in our annual or quarterly report. we don't issue findings publicly in a report on each individual complaint that we open. there are probably over 400 complaints that we do a year. so what we do is compile them by topic in our annual report.

and you can see the annual reports online. we'd be happy to submit the most recent reports. >> so in an organization like 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.i. that's the only way i'm aware of a report could be attempted to be obtained.a. that's the only way i'm aware of a report could be attempted to be obtained.'. that's the only way i'm aware of a report could be attempted to be obtained.d. 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. prompts 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, making determinations as to whether or not, for example, in the case of the the

unaccompanied children whether they had a forear 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 is being done by an 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 ms. 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 then under our law we're required to find a credible fear. then they have more rights under the -- to not be returned. as i said in my remarks the contiguous countries are the ones that we screen initially. the other countries will be screened when they go to hhs

custody, but we screen them as well as a matter of policy. franklin, i don't know if you want to add. >> as a matter of practice they are provided a checklist, if you will, the offices 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. it's based upon how they answer the questions. the questions are, if you will a 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. and depending upon that answer, initially for citizens of mexico mexico, they're then returned to the 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 it's not a subjective belief of the agent that determines the outcome. so that factors -- >> 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. certainly. >> 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 a filled-out one, we just need a blank one, okay? to see what kinds of questions you're 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. your staff could easily find it. >> it is a public form.

i'm trying to remember the number. >> i appreciate that. recently rewe received here at the commission a number of complaints, copies of complaints that were submitted involving religious freedom submitted to us by the arab american -- the 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. but i'm not aware -- >> 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

the department of homeland security. could you talk a little -- any of you talk a little bit about the treatment of transgender individuals in detention facilities? >> yes. i can start with that and maybe megan will have something to add. ice has been progressive in this area. i'll try to remember all the different areas in which our policies address protections of transgender detainees. first of all, in our detention standards we require individualized assessments for any transgender detainees arriving at a facility, regarding, for example, their ideal housing placements, custody and classification decisions as to what housing unit to place them in may not be based house and unit to place them in may not be based solely on the biological anatomy but must take into account the individual's gender identity. earlier in the process, after somebody has been apprehended i

mentioned that they're screened through during their book-in. the officer enters information through the risk classification assessment tool, which is a part of our book-in module and therefore is preserved electronically. the officers are required to ask, initially, a number of questions about whether any number of special vulnerableties apply. one of those special vulnerableties is whether that individual might fear for their safety due to their gender identity or sexual orientation. so that's a factor taken into account immediately. with respect to treatment while in detention the detention standards guarantees a right to hormone therapy for individuals needed for treatmented. and even in facilities that are not covered by that standard, our i.c.e. officer's core is very vigilant to ensure that individuals receive necessary hormone therapy.

we, in our segregation directive directive, which we had mentioned, the policy ind kats that no one may be placed in segregation solely due to being transgender. that we cannot have a default policy that anybody who's transgender will inherently be vulnerable and there has to be an individualized assessment in all cases. and we immediately become aware when somebody who's transgender is placed in segregation. and we look at those cases very carefully. our statistics indicate that at any given time, on average, only one transgender detainee is in segregation in our entire system for more than 14 days at a time. we don't know -- i'm sorry. those are the statistics that i can recall most easily. but those cases are rare. we have special housing unit in

the loss angerer the los angeles area deaddicated to gay bisexual and transgender detainees, vinlindividuals who prefer a transfer even across the country, to that facility for their safety rather than being in a general population housing unit are afforded that opportunity. and we have transferred many people long distances at their choice to that unit. and we have an on going working group in this area. to consider additional reforms on these issues. including adopting the most aggressive policies. there are a couple of jails in the entire country that have essentially transgender committees. i think the acronym is t.c.c., if i'm not mistaken. i don't recall what that stands for, but like a committee of health care providers, security staff and administrators. in this case, it might include

i.c.e. professionals. this is the policies that consist in other jails which we're considering which carefully consider the treatment options and housing options for transgender individuals. it's an issue we're very aware of. and we respond of course to any concerns or allegations we hear, which we do hear from time-to-time, from attorneys about these individuals. >> thank you. before i turn it over to commissioner yaki, myself and some of my colleagues on the commission are planning to come pay a visit to some detention centers. and we would hope that we could ask for each of your assistance in facilitating our visit. could we count on that? >> yes. >> yes. thank you, we appreciate that. i'm going to ask my special assistant, ms. mack, to give you these complaints. and the documents that you asked for, you can send them to our office of civil rights division. commissioner yaki? >> thank you very much for your

leadership in holding this briefing. i have a question. i guess that starts with mr. laning and may fitlter out to some of the other folks here and maybe the panel. i want to speak to the mandate that congress has to maintain a level of not less than 34,000 detention beds in any given point in time. how is it that you get to that point? the number of violent figures, that is violent in real violence, are somewhere in the very low teens or even single digit ranges.

the department is reaching down, so to speak, to get people who maybe had a dchlt uchlt i. or marijuana or some other kind of non-violent offense. i don't want to put you on the spot, but i guess i will. i know that in a former life the now president of u.c. but then homeland secretary went and said we need to deal with this quota situation. i just want to know how -- two pars. how does this quota drive your departments policy? and how would it be different,do you believe, if that quota would be removed? >> 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

morton issued a professional policy which has already been replaced by a department, a dhs executive action. it's certainly not limited to people who have been convicted of violent crimes. it includes people, for example, who have committed aggravated felonies of any type. people who have been convicted of three or more misdemeanors not counting misdemeanors such as traffic senses. people who have been convicted of at least one significant misdemeanor. and also, immigration -- certain types of immigration violators. people who have received a final order after january 1 of 2014. so not necessarily criminals, people who have entered the country after january 1,2014.

the statistics in prior years show that i.c.e. was able to fell is fill its deif he thinks beds with priority, people who fell into one of the priority car e categories. it was difficult to find contention capacity during the height of those surges, which were seasonal. it was difficult to find detention capacity. 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

the quota driving policies, the administration has not supported the 34,000 quota congress expects. congress appropriates resources and expecteds ichlt.c.e. to use those number of resources for those beds. i'm not part of the number of enforcemented remooifl and operation within i.c.e. which is responsible for apprehensions. it is in the case that in recent years, ira has been able to more or less achieve that 34,0 0 number of notwithstanding puck e fluctuations within the end of the year. but i couldn't speak to how they're exactly able to arrive at that target, beyond the fact

that they're working very hard to comply with their enforcement priorities. >> okay, thank you very much. this question is aimed at mr. jones and ms. mack. frequent -- we've heard a lot of criticism about handling of persons coming over the border at the end. not just here in the surge, but another point, in other points, as well. the question i have -- there are two questions. one is when we -- when you talk about this questionnaire, 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