we receive and recommendations we make involve icp detention. on the subject of unaccompanied children as the commission is aware, the united states experienced a humanitarian crisis along southwestern border last spring and summer particularly in the texas rio grande valley. as tens of thousands of unaccompanied children crossed the border. in the immediate crisis dhs focused on getting adults and children, many of whom had undertaken a dangerous journey into a safe and secure environment where they could be processed. skipping more for hhs to cover. while some children remain in dhs custody more than three days we undertook a government wide response to address the crisis which included establishment of unified coordination group that brought assets of multiple agencies to bear on the situation. unaccompanied children are

inherently vulnerable so we placed a high priority on identifying any protection concerns unaccompanied children from contiguous companies who don't present protection concerns -- excuse me under trafficking reauthorization act of 2008 when dhs encounters unaccompanied child from contiguous 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 con ducks this screening on all unacomp anied children regardless of country of origin. >> we'll come back and ask you questions on those topics, i promise. >> thank you. >> chairman castro, thank you and distinguished members of civil rights, thank you for allowing me to be here today. i appreciate the opportunity to speak with you about actions of border protection to implement standards to prevent tech and respond to sexual abuse and

assault in confinement facilities. we refer to them as dhs prea standards and to highlight efforts in this area. committed to ensure safety of all individuals in our custody. detention standards have been important to cdp. we're committed to preventing, detecting and responding to sexual abuse in all facilities. fully embraced prea standards built on our prior policies. standards that became affect may 6, 2014, ensure appropriate mechanisms are in place to prevent, detect and respond to sexual abuse in dhs confinement facilities. on may 6th, current commissioner issued zero tolerance sexual abuse policy to the cbc work force which prohibits all forms of sexual abuse of individuals

in custody including holding facilities during transportation and during processing. immediately upon implementation of the policy cdp appointed interim prevention of sexual assault coordinator to begin coordinating our efforts across the country. cbp created a new position, which was when we had selected permanent coordinator who should be joining organization with me in the next few days. efforts to implement have been moving swiftly and we have ebb joyed great support from all of the operational components across cdp. cdp office of border patrol, field operation, air and marine and internal affairs have all issued guidance to their staff on the dhs prea standards. and zero tolerance policy. notification of field personnel is key to success of implementing prea standards and dhs standards. cdp developing train for all

persons who have contact with detainees in cdp holding facilities and interact during processing of adults and minors. they will underscore employee obligation for preventing, detecting and responding to sexual abuse as well as provide techniques and methods for communicating with individuals who are victims of sexual abuse. detainees are third parties can report incidents or allegations of mistreatment without fear of retaliation as stated in our policy. in addition in an effort to ensure that detainees are able to report sexual abuse allegation to third parties, posters were developed and shipped to all cdp holding facilities across the country displaying telephone number of the dhs office of the inspector general. all sexual abuse allegations must be reported to the commissioner's situation room and the joint in tech, which is

a dhs facility for teching in misconduct allegations managed by ice and cdp. cdp employees who violate prohibitions against sexual abuse will be subjected to disciplinary action other corrective action upon proof of violation up to removal of federal service. i want to thank you for providing me with the opportunity to outline actions taken by cdp to implementation prea and i welcome comments and questions and look forward to continuing this dialogue owned what we consider to be this most pressing issue. >> thank you, mr. jones. miss bennett. >> i'd like to thank the commission for inviting office of refugee settlement to discuss responsibilities for providing care and services for unaccompanied children. >> speak a little closer into your mic, please. >> today i'd like to share general information on the kids that come into our care and custody as well as standards of

care and services and briefly discuss published final role on preventing, detecting and responding to sexual abuse and harassment. unaccompanied children or children who enter united states unaccompanied by parent or legal guardian without immigration status come into our care when they are referred to us by another agency usually department of homeland security. once dhs identified a minor as unaccompanied child they transfer the child to one of the care provider facilities. o.r.r. currently has approximately 124 care provider facilities in 15 states. in fiscal 2014, orr placed 57,496 children in its care providing facilities, the vast majority came from honduras, guatemala and el salvador. children from mexico accounted for less than 2% of the total

and all combined less than 3% from federal agencies. demographic breakdown changed slightly from previous years with an increase in the number of female unaccompanyied thirn and the children under 14 years of age. in previous years approximately 25% of the population was female while in fiscal year 2014 females made one-third of the population. also in fiscal year 2014, approximately 27% of the population was under 14 while in previous years percentage range from 17 to 24%. o.r.r. has a network of care provider facilities across u.s. that provide various levels of care including shelters, group homes, therapeutic providers, residential treatment, staff care providers, which are kind of a medium care facilities, transitional foster care and long-term foster care. a very small number of children placed in secure facilities if they have committed dangerous crimes or pose a danger to

themselves or others. vast majority of children are housed in our shelter facilities. all permanent o.r.r. care providers are state licensed facilities licensed to provide residential services to minors. this means that are state licensing and orr. state licensing cover anything from reporting sexual abuse to providing nutritious meals and snacks, the number of square feet the children have in their rooms and services provided and much more. when a child is referred to orr from dhs, orr has intake specialists that must make placement determination for each child within the network that is the least restrictive setting and one in the best interest of the child. orr will identify any special needs the child may have and determine the best and most appropriate placement for the child.

for example, orr uses transitional foster care to house children under the age of 12 or teens pregnant or parenting so they may receive specialized care and services. when unaccompanied children's program was transfered from the former u.s. immigration and naturalization service from department of homeland -- to department of children's services o.r.r. became bound by settlement agreement which set forth minimum standards and services that must be provided to all unaccompanied children. orr is tasked with providing 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 proceedings. while the child is in orr care, he or she receives array of services state licensing standards. when a child is admitted to orr care, trained care service providers conduct assessments of

the child including screenings interviews, interviews with the child's family interviews with potential sponsors. this assessment used as first round of screening to determine whether the child that any immediate needs and whether the child has been the victim of abuse, crime or of trafficking. while children are in our care, each child receives an initial medical examination and medical and dental and mental health, educational services, daily recreational activities. also know your rights presentations and legal service screenings and for some, legal services which is something we've been broadening recently. access to religious services, regular telephone calls with family members, case management services which include services to identify a parent or relative or other appropriate sponsor for release, individual service planning assistance and weekly and individual counseling sessions. we seek to place children awaiting removal proceedings with a 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 potential sponsors to ensure the sponsor is safe and suitable for the child including background checks interviews with sponsors, review sponsors ability to care for the child's well-being. in fiscal year 2014, approximately 95% of the children were released to a sponsor. of some that weren't released some were remanded to homeland security when they reached 18. others became available for immigration status, some returned voluntarily or were removed to country of origin. finally i'd like to discuss briefly orr's final rule that covers standards to prevent, detect and respond to sexual abuse and sexual harassment involving unaccompanied children. orr published interim final role on december 24th, 2014 and accepting public comments for 60 days, about february 23rd.

as an interim final rule, the rule became effective upon publication and orr care provider facilities will have six months to implement the rule and come into compliance with it. this rule includes comprehensive set of standards organized into 11 categories that cover topics such as prevention planning training and education, reporting, medical and mental health care and data collection. the standards built on enhanced existing state and local laws, regulations and licenses st. standards. the rule applies to all orr facilities excluding secure care providers and individual foster homes. all secure care providers are to follow justice regulation and homes subject to o.r.r.'s policies and procedures and state licensing standards not subject to ifr because they are community-based placement. our care provider facilities are already complying with many

portions of the rule because of their state licensing requirements, but the rule will ensure that care providers are taking all the necessary and required steps in a formalized process to fully ensure prevention, detection and proper response to any allegations or instance of sexual abuse or 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 assistant director of office of detention policy and planning. odpp established in 2009 to help coordinate efforts to reform immigration detention system. our national immigration detention system expanded rapidly in the last 20 years growing from average daily population of less than 7500 detainees to over 33,000. 7500 detainees in 1995.

this growth presented challenges to ice. in 2009 dhs announced broad and long-term effort to reform 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 initiatives both by emp lemting short-term improvements and identifying long-term solutions to further agencies civil detention priorities. groups have included developing facilities more appropriate for the agencies detained population and improving conditions at existing facilities, reducing the number of people transferred away from their families, communities and attorneys, ensuring detainees received adequate health and mental health care and necessary oversight. the commission asked i discuss two specific forms in particular, 2011 national standards and implementation of dhs prea regulations.

the 2011 standards are the most updated version of ice standards. to develop these i worked with stakeholders including nongovernmental organizations in ice field offices as well as in crcl in particular as megan mentioned. in 2011 improves upon safeguards and protections contained in earlier versions of detention standards in a number of ways including additional medical and mental health services, increased access to legal services, enhanced religious opportunities, stronger protection for detainees with limited english proficiency and disabilities, stronger safeguards against sexual abuse and assault and stronger protections for vulnerable populations including women, individuals with mental illness and victims of abuse. pbs 2011 currently applies to 60% of population including ice facilities that exclusively house ice detainees which are known as dedicated detention facilities.

for a facility to move to new detention standards ice must engage in negotiations and execute contract modifications. this is a long process but ice is pursuing traditional nondedicated facilities with priorities given to facilities housing largest population. next i will discuss ice's work implementing dhs prea regulations. prior to issuance of prea regulations, ice developed strong safeguards against sexual abuse or assault in agency policies and detention standards. ice's 2008 and 2011 incorporate preventive measures screening, staff training and detainee education as well as requiring effective response to all incidents of sexual abuse and assault. in may 2012, ice issued an agency wide directive on sexual abuse and assault intervention

which established zero tolerance policy for sexual abuse and all individuals in ice custody and outlined duties of agency employees. it requires timely allegations, effective monitoring of all incidents of sexual abuse or assault. pursuant to the 2012 ice directive, ice appointed agency wide prevention of sexual assault coordinator along with multiple coordinators in field office. comprehensive on assault prevent and intervention for all ice employees who may have contact with detainees and develop detainee awareness materials on ice's sexual assault policies. in march 2014 as you've heard from megan, dhs promulgated regulations under prea. this rule built upon existing agency policies and practices outlined robust requirements for prevention, intervention, reporting and investigation. ice is currently compliant

with all dhs 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 promulgated a new policy integrating prea requirements specifically applicable to ice short-term holding facilities. in regards to prea's application to ice facilities prea requires all new, renewed or subsequently modified detention facility contracts incorporate prea standards. ice will also proactively pursue opportunities for incorporating prea standards and other detention facilities including all dedicated facilities. at the current time requirements are binding at six detention facilities including all three of ice's family residential facilities. however, it's important to note sexual assault safeguards contained in prea or 2011

already apply to approximately 80% of the agency's average daily population. z this number in 95% of the agency's average daily population when excluding those detainees held in u.s. marshall service contracted facilities which are covered by department of justice prea regulations. as a final note, i would say like to quickly highlight a few additional reports. megan referred to our recent directive review of use of segregation for ice detainees. this very progressive policy established procedures for review and oversight by ice field offices and headquarters of decisions to place any ice detainee in segregated house are for 14 days or more or placements in segregation for any length of time in the case of detainees with health factors or special vulnerabilities. any such segregation placement reviewed on ongoing basis by headquarters offices as well as field offices. we also completed nationwide deployment of new automated risk classification assessment.

this tool improves transparency and uniformity and custody classification decisions, identity fiing vulnerable populations and prioritizeization of deif he thinks 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 take commission chairman's privilege and ask the first questions. four specific questions. i appreciate your testimony today and the efforts your agencies appear to be putting into this topic but i'm reminded of two years ago for our other statutory enforcement report on military sexual assault. we had a number of generals and admirals sitting on the first panel. all of them told us great things they were doing to prevent military sexual assault and yet after that issues continued to come to light. significant and serious issues about our men and women in uniform being abused despite all 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 challenges that are being faced by your agencies and complying with or at least enforcing these policies. you know, i referenced at the beginning of the complaint filed by the justice center and aclu filed by others and addressed to you, miss mack i'm sure you saw this, list some appalling things that happened to children, unacomp anied children, sexual abuse, physical abuse a whole serieses of things not in keeping with who we are as a country. i'd like to know what has been done by your agency or any agencies here to investigate these allegations and to address them. >> thank you chairman castro. in the first half of fiscal -- first my office takes these complaints very seriously and we've worked through the years with regular meetings with nongovernmental organizations to make sure we're hearing all the

complaints that are out there that we can gather. we visit detention facilities on a regular basis. i've made a priority of going to family detention facilities as they are being brought online. my staff will be there next week to review the facility and see how the conditions of confinement are there. when we receive a complaint from an organization like nijc, miss mccarthy or from other organizations we follow up with the person who has sent the complaint, we ask any questions. we open investigations so in the first half of fiscal 2014, for example, about half of the new investigation that we opened were 71 out of the 149 we opened pertained to ice detention. more than 20 others involved cdp ports of entry and checkpoints and unaccompanied children. we have a team of experts on contract with my office in a variety of areas including medical and mental health care,

conditions of confinement, environmental safety and other areas. they come with us to facilities. the staff their review of the files, medical files. they pull files. if they see a problem, they pull more files. we went to artesia, new mexico last november, and then karnes in december. dealey will be the third major large new facility we visited. the experts submit reports to us and we work with ice. we make recommendations and work with ice to resolve issues that we found there. >> as it relates to these in particular were you able to determine whether they were justified, corrective action taken, how were specific complaints related to unacomp anied children listed in the complaint from aic addressed? >> i don't believe our recommendations have been finalized. the process is those are

protected under privilege until we hear back from ice or cdp about the complaints. i can check to be sure but i don't believe those complaints we have final recommendations on those. once we have final recommendations we report out in our final report and quarterly reports to congress. >> we can expect at some point specific -- something specific to address these issues. >> should be in annual quarterly report, don't issue findings in a report on each individual complaint, there are probably 400 complaints we do a year. what we do is compile them by topic in our annual report. you can see annual reports online. we'll be happy to send the most recent reports. >> njc 1 specifically what happened on those individual complaints, would they be able to obtain that information or who does it go to, specific information about the allegations? >> i'm not aware they have been forwarded. that's the only way i'm aware of a report could be attempted to be obtained. the reports are within the government in order to make improvements within the

government and information we report out in the annual report to congress is far more general. we do a closed letter to individual complainants. nijc will get a closed letter that does provide more detail of that's addressed to them specifically how the complaint was resolved. >> in earlier remarks talked about anti-trafficking law and border control for noncontiguous or contiguous countries like mexico, for example, making determinations for the unacomp anied children, whether they had a fear of going back whether there was a trafficking issue which allowed them to stay. i have a hard time figuring out how a border patrol agent can make a determination in most instances done by immigration judge with due process. could you elucidate me on that. >> the responsibility and franklin may have more to add to this. >> anyone who has something to add, feel free. >> i'll start. the responsibility is for screening not for adjudication of a claim. credible fear, to find a

credible fear, i'm sure miss mccarthy could speak to the issue as well. >> i'd like to hear what the government has to say about it. >> we screen for fear. it's a simple questionnaire we provide and go through. officers go through the questions. if someone expresses a fear under our law we're required to find a credible fear. then they have more rights to not be returned. as i said in my remarks contiguous countries are the ones we screen initially. the other countries will be screened when they go to hhs custody but we screen them as a matter of policy. franklin, i don't know if you want to add. >> as a matter of practice they are providing a checklist, go through a checklist. they give the individual their rights and the assessment -- the agent is not responsible for making -- or allowed to make an assessment if the individual indicates that he or she meets the requirement then that individual has to be referred for additional screening.

>> if they don't meet the requirement, who makes the determination? >> the agent based on how they answer the questions of the questions are, series of questions that rise to the level of what we consider to be the standard for alleging credible fear. so they do have to answer a series of questions. depending on that answer, initially for citizens of mexico then returned to mexican consulate. >> so it is the agent that makes that determination? >> well, it's the process, i would say, and not the agent. the answers determine the outcome and not a subjective belief of the agent that determines the outcome. >> can we ask mr. jones to supply us with the questionnaires? >> that would be great. would you be able to provide us with that? >> yes. it is a form. i believe i can to the extent it's not privileged. >> i would imagine it shouldn't be privileged but i'd be surprised if a document like that would be privileged.

i'm sure we can work out a situation where you can provide that to us. >> okay. but it may well be in terms -- >> we don't need filled out one, just blank one to see what kind of questions you are asking. >> i would ask, have a moment hcr working with ice reviewing the form. i don't know where that process is but i know the form has been subject -- people have had a look at it. i think it's googleable even if the government doesn't release it. >> it is a public form. >> i appreciate that. recently received here at the commission a number of complaints, copies of complaints that were submitted involving religious freedom submitted by arab american -- american arab anti-discrimination committee involving religious freedom at the stewart facility. are any of you aware of these complaints? >> it's very possible my organization has gotten them, we have a close relationship with adc. >> when do you handle --

>> i can submit that within the time that's allowed but i don't know off the top -- >> before you leave i'm going to hand these to you and make sure if you could please commit to take a close look at these. these are significant, serious issues. >> of course. >> finally i want to ask one thing we didn't hear from you all that is important to us in this investigation, the treatment of transgender individuals. it's our understanding the largest agency that has custody of transgender individuals is department of homeland security. any of you talk a little about the treatment of transgender individuals in detention facilities. >> yes. i can start and maybe megan will have something to add. ice has been progressive in this area. i'll try to remember all the different areas they address protection of transgender detainees. first of all, in our detention standards we require individualized assessments for

any transgender detainees arriving at a facility, regarding, for example, the idea of housing, classification decisions as to what housing unit to place them in may not be based solely on biological anatomy of the individual but must take into account that individual's gender identity. let me move forward a little earlier in the process, the actual apprehension process. after somebody has been apprehended they are screened. during book in officer gets information through the risk assessment tool which is part of our book in module therefore preserved electronically. the officer is required to ask initially questions about whether a variety of special vulnerabilities apply. one of those special vulnerabilities is whether that individual might fear for their safety in detention due to their gender identity or sexual orientation. so that's a factor taken in

immediately. with respect to treatment in detention, the medical care standard of the detention standard guarantee as right to hormone therapy for individuals who need it for treatment and even in facility that is are not covered by that standard, the service service corps is individual lent to ensure they receive necessary hormone therapy. in our segregation directive, which we have mentioned, the policy indicates no one may be placed in segregation solely due to being transgender. we can't have a default policy anyone transgender inherently will be vulnerable. there has to be an individualized assessment in all cases. we immediately become aware when somebody transgender is placed

in segregation and we look at those cases very carefully. statistics indicate, at any given time on average, one transgender detainee is in segregation in our entire system for more than 14 days at a time. we don't know -- those are the statistics that i can recall most easily. those cases are rare. we have a special housing unit in the los angeles area dedicated to the bisexual and transgender detainees, individuals who prefer a transfer even across the country for that facility, related to safety, rather thn than being in a housing unit. they are offered their choice for that unit. and we have an on going working group in this area, consider

additional forms on these issues including adopting the most progressive policies. there are a couple of jails in the entire country that have essentially transgender committees. i think the acronym was tcc, if i'm not mistaken. i don't recall what that stands for. but a committee of health care providers, security staff and administrators. in this case it might include ice professionals. this is policies that exist at other jails which we're considering, carefully consider treatment options and housing options for transgender individuals. so it's an issue we're very aware of and respond to any concerns or allegations we hear, which we do hear from time to time from ngost or attorneys about individuals. >> thank you, mr. landy. i'm sure my colleagues will have follow-up questions on that. before i turn it over to

commissioner yaki myself and other colleagues on the commission are planning to pay a visit to detention centers. we would hope we could ask for each of your assistance to facilitate the visit. could we count on that? >> yes. >> miss mack is nodding yes. thank you, i appreciate that. i'll ask my assistant to give you these complaints and the documents we asked for, you can send that to our office of civil rights investigation. commissioner yaki. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman and thank you for your leadership in holding this briefing. i have a question, i guess, that starts with mr. landy and may filter out to some other folks here and probably elsewhere and other panels. i want to focus a little about the mandate that congress has to maintain a level of not less than 34,000 detention beds at any given appoint in time. i imagine in policy and planning, having to figure out a way to ensure that number

affects not just whether or not you can physically do it but from a logistical point of view how is it that you get to that point. in other words, one of the criticisms, for example, is that the actual number of violent offenders -- violent as in real violence are in these facilities somewhere in the very low teens or single digit range and there's a criticism that in order to meet that mandate, the department is reaching down, so to speak, to get people who may have dui or marijuana or some other nonviolent offense. i don't want to put you on the spot but i guess i will, which is -- i know in a former life, the now president of uc, but then homeland secretary janet

napolitano went to congress and said we need to deal with this quota situation. i just want to know how -- two parts, how does this quota drive your department's policy and how do you think it would be different, do you believe if that quota were removed? >> well, with respect to the question as to who is being apprehended and whether it requires us to apprehend individuals who are not priorities, as you probably know in 2011, director john morton issued priorities policy which has very recently been replaced by a department -- dhs executive action which clearly lays out enforcement priorities for ice. it's certainly not limited to people who have been convicted of violent crimes. it includes people, for example, who committed aggravated felonies of any type, people who have been convicted of three or

more misdemeanors, not traffic offenses. people who have been convicted of at least one significant misdemeanor and also immigration -- certain types of immigration violators. people who received a final order after january 1 of 2014. so not necessarily criminals at all. people who have entered the country after january 1, 2014. the statistics from prior years under morton directive showed ice was able to fell it's ice -- it's detention bets with priority, people who fell into one of the priority categories. a very large percentage of that category are going to be border crossers, especially during these years a massive influx across rio grande valley of adults, adult individuals. and it was difficult to find detention capacity during the

height of those surges, which are seasonal, it was difficult to find sufficient detention capacity. many don't have prior criminal convictions. but our statistics have indicated that 97% roughly at times of the average daily population of our system met one of these priorities or their detention was mandatory by law. other than that with respect to quota driving policies, the administration has not supported 34,000 quota. congress expects -- congress appropriates resources for that detention capacity and expects ice to use those resources for that number of bets. i'm not part of enforcement removal component of ice

responsible for apprehensions. it is the case that in recent years has been able to achieve that 34,000 number notwithstanding fluctuations during the course of the year. by the end of the fiscal year the average typically has been around 34,000, something we're striving to do with congress' dir ektive. i can't speak to exactly how they are able to arrive at that target beyond the fact they are working hard to comply with enforcement priorities. >> thank you. thank you very much. this question aimed at mr. jones and miss mack. we heard a lot of criticism about handling of persons coming over the border not just during the surge but in other points as well. the question i have, there are

two, one when you talk about this questionnaire, part of me was, for lack of a better word laughing a little bit because you're asking questions about people who may be semiliterate, probably not conversant english. my question is how do you assure that they fully understand what these questions mean in terms of what our objective standards are. i understand you say we have a form. the answers determine what we do or not. but facts indicate 83% of these folks, especially during the surge we are sent home without a hearing, without a judge. they were turned away. the number seems very, very high. maybe it's justified 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 answering system, do you have that in place? how do you assure answers you're getting are real and true answers. i can tell you from my own experience dealing with asylum seekers in other countries, sometimes you need to ask cultural issues, can you really ask about rape, can you ask them about other family members. are they afraid any answer they give to you is going to be communicated back to their home country. so maybe they tend not to be as truthful as they should be. how do your agencies deal with that issue for people who are coming over and getting into that questionnaire phase? >> i think the chairman's question pertained to mexican nationals, so with regard to mexican nationals, all of the border patrol agents speak spanish.

and they are, they are trained at the academy and 50% of the border patrol are hispanic dissent. and they are first, second generation americans, as well. so while we cannot be certain as to whether or not the person being interviewed is providing a truthful answer, but the agents are trained to process within policy, if you will. and so that's the thing that we focus on as an agency that we're consistent, that we are fair and that we ensure that everyone is properly interviewed. >> but do you -- i guess what i'm asking is, do you have someone, for example, who understands country conditions in a certain region in mexico. in columbia venezuela guatemala, nicaragua. are there people there who could maybe provide a context for the

answers to say, for xamping, this person they say they come from village x. and you would understand if working with a refugee group that village x was a subject of a horrific cartel murder, something like that. how do we, how do you determine that the cultural geographic, and, i guess, human context of what it is that they may be trying to express to an official of a government that they're unfamiliar with and, you know, i think it's great that there are a high number of latino members of your force that you have. but how do you make sure they're really truly grounded and what it is these people may be trying to or want to communicate but maybe afraid to communicate to someone operating under the color of law. >> well, at the executive level, yes, we are familiar with the conditions throughout mexico and in the various communities within mexico.

the individual agent level, i cannot speak to that. what i can say is that they are trained to be consistent in terms of how we process people, and to treat people with dignity and respect. and that is a core principle of cbp. as to their understanding of the higher political or socioeconomic situations and as to why people are coming to us, i can't speak to the individual offices assessment. but i can speak to what we ask them to do. >> moving on to the last chair and then we can come back. madame vice chair? >> thank you very much, mr. chair. this question is for mr. jones. and it kind of follows up on the direction in which the commissioner yaki has been headed.

but it would appear that the custom and border officers are critical players in this immigration process, and the screening and the selection and the training of those individuals would be equally as important. i'd like for you to talk to us, please, mr. jones, about the selection, the training. of your officers and the supervision that would go along with that. and then, i'd ask you to detail any problems that have arisen. the kinds of disciplinary actions that have been taken or could be taken in connection with problems that arise. and then after you answer that, i might have another follow-up. but go ahead, please. >> thank you, ma'am, thank you, vice chair. the selection process is we

advertise for border patrol agents, if you will, probably twice a year. we have a federal floor in terms of the number of border patrol agents that we have to have on duty at any given time. i think the number is 21,364. give or take a few. >> a ratio? >> no, flat number by congress mandated we have a specific number of agents on board at any -- always. and so, we -- our turnover is between 2.5% to 3% any given year. majority of our turnover would be border patrol agents who are leaving to take other law enforcement positions primarily with i.c.e., if you will. we do a lot of training on behalf of i.c.e. but the selection process is vigorous in terms of there's testing, there is structured interviews. physical examinations for offices before they're hired.

and upon hire, all border patrol agents are -- attend our basic training academy. and they have to successfully complete the academy before they are actually considered to be border patrol agents or assigned to the field. once they're assigned to the field, they're putting into a field training program for the next two years and the field training supervisors are assigned to, to train them. for the next two years. and so it takes, two years to be considered over two years, because of the time spending, so 2 1/2 years to be considered fully trained to be a border patrol agent. >> well, how many of your agents are fully trained? >> presently, everyone is fully trained except those who are either in the academy or still in the field training program so that number would be in the low hundreds on any given time

because of the attrition rate and then the back fill. that number would be low. it's something we could find, but it's not something that we actively track. and so, the next part of your question dealt with performance or conduct issues. i would say we have probably the same or similar rate of misconduct as you find in the general population, in the general workforce. we have a standard of conduct we apply. we have in -- our office of internal affairs is assigned to, along with the office of the ieg to investigate allegations and misconduct and inappropriate behavior. and in all instances, all allegations are investigated. and if they are proven, then corrective action is taken. >> thank you. >> commissioner kladney? >> thank you, mr. chairman.

mr. landy, what determines detention? >> i think your mic went off. >> thank you. what determines detention? i mentioned the priorities, our established policy. >> when the officers doing the apprehension in the interior of the country they make additional decisions regarding who to apprehend based on those priorities. most ice apprehensions within the superior of the country are through the criminal alien program.

typically i.c.e. will apprehend people who either have been convicted or serving time in prisons or jails or -- >> i think i'm referring mostly to border crossings. >> okay. >> we all know that if somebody has an order to leave and doesn't leave, you arrest them. >> border crossers are typically apprehended, of course, by cbp. usually border patrol. sometimes cbp ports of entry. and cbp puts them into -- or sends them to i.c.e., puts them into, for i.c.e. to take custody of them. by law, that means that detention is mandatory. if they're expedited removal proceedings. if they request asylum, then they are certainly granted the legal protections and are able to adjudicate their claims, including an initial screening by asylum officer with uscis. and typically, there are always exceptions for humanitarian

reasons, typically, an adult apprehended at the border is placed in detention under expedited removal proceedings. >> of those amnesty type of claims, the people who are released from detention pending a hearing, how many appear for the hearing? >> i don't -- i don't have those numbers. >> does anybody have those numbers? would you have those numbers? would your office or your agency have those? >> i.c.e. might have the numbers. >> can you secure those and send them to us in the 30 days? >> sure. so you're referring to to people released after apprehension at the border? >> yeah. pending a hearing on your status. >> typically if an adult were released after having been apprehended at the border, it would only be because they've been determined to have a credible fear of persecution. the detention is no longer mandatory. >> i understand all that.

i wanted to know the number. >> okay. mr. franklin, mr. jones. zero tolerance sexual assault policy have the same force of law? >> in terms of administrative policy, yes. it is a re-stating, if you will, of the standard in the commissioner's policy. so reinforcing the standard. >> but your private contractors haven't adopted pria willingly? you have to negotiate that into a contract? >> when you say private contractors for cbp. >> for detention. >> we don't do detention, if you will. we only hold individuals for their amount of time necessary to process them and transport them to i.c.e. >> does anyone on the panel have an answer to that? >> i could take it. i gather, if you're referring to immigration, detention

facilities, that's right. the department, i'm sorry, the dhs pria regulations require that pria apply when a detention facility contract is either signed, renewed or substantively modified. that was modeled after d.o.j., pria regulations, although it's more aggressive and the regulations do not have the clause about requiring to be adopted modification. >> so your contractors won't just comply with that until they're required to under contract? >> well, a number of contractors have already been adopting prior to the contract negotiation. but technically standards are not legally binding on those facilities until they're incorporated. >> do you know which ones have not volunteered to take those?

>> well -- i mentioned that 95% of our non-doj facility population is covered by 2011 protections. so right off the bat. and the sexual assault safeguards are very comprehensive. and comparable to what's in dhs pria. >> do you know which contractors are not adopting those voluntarily. >> facilities are not typically, if to the extent they're trying to comply with dhs standards in the absence of a contract modification, it's not something we're always aware of. i would say that, you know, that would be more likely to be the case with some of our larger -- >> so you don't know who does and who doesn't? >> i'm personally not citing that as an assertion that particular -- i don't want to give you the impression that i think that's happening in a particular number of cases.

i don't know. i can tell you precisely how many facilities have contractually adopted it. i can tell you precisely how many facilities have adopted our different detention standards, including pbnds. and they are also governed by doj. so i don't know how many of those county jails have chosen to comply with that. >> does a detainee who suffered an assault or sexual assault in a facility have a right to sue a private contractor? >> i couldn't speak to what legal rights they would have in that situation. >> does anyone know? >> may i still continue, mr. chairman? >> another question.

i've got a couple along this line and i'm going to give it to the commissioner for a bit. >> thank you. during the influx this summer of all the minors, it's my understanding that the government called cities and counties and asked them to take as many of these children as they could. is that -- are you aware of that? no. >> i don't think i understand the question. we notified cities and counties when we were opening or expanding facilities. >> i was going to ask about when you take, get the children and place them in foster care and things like that. >> the -- >> how does that function? >> the foster care for the unaccompanied children is actually funded by orr. it's not standard foster care. folks are often confused with that. it's funded, so there's they're still in o.r. custody and still in the o.r. care provider network.

>> do you run your own program? or is it run through localities? >> they're run through nongovernmental organizations or private organizations, not through the state or county foster care system. >> if i can ask someone. if a mother shows up with three or four children and say they have a relative in america and you are detaining the mother and the three or four children, are the -- if the mother wants, can the children be placed with the relative pending her determination on detention? >> i have to defer to the dhs folks. because we don't see the families. >> my understanding is typically that does not happen. the children would stay with the parent or parents with whom they cross the border. >> could it happen? is there any -- >> i'm not aware of it happening. it's possible i'm mistaken. >> i have more questions, but i'll yield. >> we'll come back. mr. landy, along the lines of commissioner and the initial questioning involving contract facilities and specifically for

profit companies according to the 2014 appropriations language, president obama ask that dhs not continue to contract with deficient contract facilities. reports that we've seen show that there are abuses as of 2014 at a number of cca facilities, for example, and those facilities are still under contract with dhs. other reports show that dhs is not terminating contracts with deficient facilities. what does it take to get dhs to terminate a contract with an agency that is deficient in these areas of protection of rights? >> i believe the provision you're referring to, it's been in appropriations law for many years is that if a detention facility fails an inspection, an i.c.e. inspection for two consecutive years, i.c.e. may no longer use that facility and i.c.e. scrupulously follows that policy. in fact, we have several layers of oversight in addition to the annual inspections. i.c.e. has withdrawn from

detention facilities where it was troubled. whether -- regardless of whether or not it failed one or more inspections, has withdrawn if it was traveled by either individual, sorry, either a single serious incident that occurred or series of violations or just of poor conditions in general. that has happened, certainly. >> are there reports generated of the inspections? >> of the inspections? >> that resulted in determination of whether or not to keep a facility? >> with respect to terminations, i don't know if any publicly available reports of when i.c.e. has withdrawn from facilities. but that's not necessarily because they failed two consecutive inspections. in fact, frank, from my knowledge of those incidences where it has occurred, more often than not, it's not because they have failed consecutive inspections, it's because of concerns that i.c.e. had and they acted proactively. >> if someone like us wanted to

see the results of these inspections, where would we get that information? >> well, the -- there's different types of inspections that i said. the inspections conducted by the office of detention oversight, which is in the i.c.e. office of professional of responsibility, publicly available on our website. the annual inspections conducted by ero as far as i know are not all publicly available. some of them have been, and if they are, ver available on our website. and they, more of them can be foyaed. >> where you suggest, the process we use to get those? >> you know, i don't know whether -- oh, i'm not -- to the extent which are publicly available now, that's my understanding. if the commission made a request for additional inspection reports, you know, it's quite possible that i.c.e. would provide those. i don't know. >> i think we're going to request those. i think they contain a lot of information relevant to this investigation. just a point of clarification. i'm going to give you these

documents about the complaints from the community. your office did initially make a response indicating that you're not going to take any further action at the time. so my hope is that you will take a closer look at these and do take some action on the subject that is raised here. is that a yes? record reflecting it's not a yes. >> yes. >> thank you. >> commissioner? >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> i'd like to more clearly understand the nature of the treatment of the minors. both when brought into custody, during custody, and after release. and in particular, could you explain how it is assessments are made about what kinds of educational needs and /or special education needs, for example, that these children may

have and how those needs are being fulfilled, both while they're in custody and after custody release. and how you know. whether these things are taking place. >> we do our facilities are run by social workers. clinicians, trained staff, we have a number that children go through. we can share with you the various forms that we used in conducting the assessments. >> yeah, i think we'd like that. then we do have a number of various issues for trafficking or abilities. for children with certain things, with certain issues, like disabilities or if they've been subjected to trafficking or sexual abuse or a crime, we do do home studies before we

release them and required post release services after their release so that the care for them continues afterwards. so i think to get a -- to get a good picture, we're very shortly, hopefully, today, hopefully monday going to be posting a new policy guide that talks about the care and the services of the children receive in the facilities. and then we'll be able to provide all of the forms that go with that. what else can i tell you? you want to know about post release services. which is something we're very interested in. obviously the number of kids has gone up greatly. and we're thinking about ways to improve and increase the post release that the children received. >> and so, if a child, for example, were not to be receiving the kind of services that he or she was deemed entitled to which they were

entitled. is there the alternate that someone might have to complain about that? what's the procedure that one would pursue if one were not receiving the services to which he or she was entitled? >> yes. we have a number of levels. where we're able to go in and check on what's happening in the facilities. so we have o.r. federal field specialists who go into the facilities regularly. federal staff that are visiting facilities weekly. and we also have contracted care staff that check on the facilities as well as the facility staff and then at headquarters. desk monitoring and also site visits and what's happening in the facilities. there are a number of levels to the review we're able to do. and if something is found that's incorrect, there'll be corrective actions for the facilities or possibly closing

facilities, what's happening is not happening, we're working on a number of different ways for reporting the sexual abuse. we're developing a new 800 number that's easier for the children to access without anyone knowing that they're doing the call. but also, they also have many of the children have individual attorneys. we also have legal service providers that go into the facilities regularly. so there are a lot of people who are providing care and having an eye and look on what's happening with the children in addition to just the facility staff. >> i recognize that there are not these children and as other detainees are not entitled to the assistance of counsel, which is a fact that i bemoaned, but i understand that that is the case. is there any kind of group of trained advocates that, you know, provide a series of core supports for these detainees and post detainee protection for the

protection? >> yes. we have -- we have a number of programs in the works right now. so we do have the know your rights presentations. we have a contractor that does go in and provide know your rights presentations to the children. we also have a video that was recently developed that also adds to the information that children receive. and we recently started a grant to provide actual direct service to the children. it isn't retired by statute. but one of our goals is to increase the individual representation for the children. we have -- i think by this summer, we should have a new request for proposals out for service providers to come in and apply to provide legal representation to the children. >> do you -- any of you have any

direct impact on the -- on the judicial, the judges who make the ultimate determinations about asylum and other topics. >> o.r.r. doesn't. i'll defer to -- i mean, if our role is the care of the children and we include the legal services as part of that, but we don't have any affect on the immigration judges or hearings. >> the immigration courts are within the department of justice, executive office of immigration. >> is there any training that they receive at your behest, or do you provide them with any kind of overview information about the nature of the phenomena that we're

experiencing here? >> i'm actually not sure to what extent there is that communication or provision by i.c.e. of background information for immigration judges beyond what would typically be happening in the course of adjudications where i.c.e. attorneys are regularly interacting with immigration judges. but that's something i'd be happy to inquire about. >> thank you. >> we have 15 minutes left, and this is the order on the next questions. commissioner has one quick question. we'll follow it up with commissioner, vice chair and the staff director. >> thank you very much, mr. chair. this goes -- i hope to ms. mack. i'm not quite sure what your purview is. because the question i'm asking is -- follows up on what commissioner -- and chairman castro were talking about, which was, to what extent do we

require as a matter of law and contract that the protections that someone would be affording in a federal facility are afforded at a private facility, as well? and i mean by that not just pria. i mean by that, training, i mean by that, access to records for inspection that are -- that apply to federal, federal agencies. what is it that we require as a part of our contract right now to ensure that people who we send to these private for profit institutions are afforded at least the same kinds of rights and protections as they would if they are housed in a federal facility? >> so i don't want to try to skirt the question, kevin will have more information on that, but i will say kind of as a header to what his response might be that there isn't a difference in the type of standards that apply. you know, he already responded to you about us not being aware about the legal obligations of a

contractor, for example. but, i.c.e. applies their standards across the board to facilities where they are in place. >> right. so our federal detention standards are easily established. federal government requirements. all of our private contractor facilities adhere to the most recent, most rigorous level of the detention standards. which i mentioned, and those detention standards are intended to apply robust safeguards across the board. but we do consider that federal policy. we consider that agency policy, which is applied to our private contractor facilities through contractual modifications. and that has occurred in all instances for the private contract. >> so everyone has to abide by pria, abide by other humanitarian laws that govern

the treatment of prisoners of -- not prisoners, detainees if they were in federal versus a private? >> right. well, with respect to the private contractor facilities, all of them are governed by our most recent detention standards. not yet all of them are not yet governed contractually by pria. in that pria is rolled out gradually through, it has to be applied through contract modifications. it's not -- it's not immediately at applicable to our private contract facilities, which is the same, which is the same for department of justice private contractor facilities, as well.

and as i mentioned, pria regulations are more rigorous in that respect in terms of requiring quicker application of pria. there's also a commitment that dhs has made in the preamble of the regulations that regulations will be applicable, or that we will endeavor to make preregulations applicable at all of our data facilities, which includes our private contractor facilities within 18 months of the affected date. >> just -- could you please send to us a list of which facilities do or do not currently have pria as part of the contract? >> yes. >> all right. >> commissioner harriet? >> i guess i'm on the same topic. >> could you turn your mike on? >> thank you. >> there you go. >> i just want to clarify -- >> it won't go on. >> there we go. process of phasing in. these rules with facilities that are under contract. and i'm assuming the basic

problem is these facilities are compensated for their responsibilities if you up the responsibilities, then you have to increase the compensation and that's why the renegotiation has to occur. but i also assume a facility is free to either begin to implement the new standards or maybe even do it entirely if they think it's appropriate, even before the contract is actually renegotiated, such there may be facilities that are implementing partially or fully the new standards, even if they're not, not yet renegotiated contracts. is that right? >> that's correct. and, in fact, we have been told our larger private contractor companies in terms of those that operate more of our facilities that they had been undergoing and have been undergoing to implement the requirements in advance of the contractual modifications. and you're right that we might have to address requests for additional, additional compensation under the

contracts. if pria requires the facility to incur additional costs. >> what drives the speed to which the contracts are renegotiated? are you waiting for some period of time when they are up for renegotiation or is it just a question of, you know, you're doing this as quickly as you can? >> well, it's required by law if the contracts are renegotiated or modified. and then beyond that, we will also, although, not require under the regulations, we do intend to proactively seek implementation at additional facilities. >> you're working on it, in other words? >> yes. >> followed by the vice chair of the staff director. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. landy. how are you? i want to get back to the lgbt question. >> mm-hmm. >> you were talking about segregated housing. los angeles facility, i think

that was for transsexuals, is that correct? >> yes. well, for gay, bisexual and transgender individuals. >> okay. you know, i've been in, i have visited many prisons. i've not been in many. i've been in them. how is your segregated housing set up for lgbt people? >> well, we don't consider that segregated housing. there's, there's some -- what is referred to in most facilities as a segregation management unit, which is what is often referred to as solitary confinement, in which individuals are kept in individual cells. this housing unit i'm referring to is not that. it has the same features and of any other general population housing unit within the housing unit opportunities to co-mingle

both indoors and outdoor recreation among that group. it's just that they are separate from the rest of the population. in order to ensure their own protection. and, again, with respect to people transferred into that housing unit, it is voluntary. >> and it's not like a 23-hour a day indoor, one hour a day outdoor facility, it's more like a prison as opposed to a county jail? >> it's the same requirements that apply to this general population, sorry, to this housing unit as any other general population housing unit. they're not confined to their cells. so they're moving freely about. i haven't been there. in terms of their outside recreation, i don't know how

many hours they have, outside recreation. >> and do you do this for all lgbt people? >> not at all. not at all. in that field office that is the, within the los angeles field office. >> i guess what i'm trying to get at is how do you treat lgbt, not just transsexuals, but there must be, if you're talking about transsexuals, you're talking about, you even said, i think a small number. but when we're talking about lgbt, we may be talking about a larger number. is that correct? >> probably. we don't, we don't ask people their sexual orientation or gender identity unless they wish to come forward and indicate that they indicate it for some reason. >> is there a reason for that? that you don't ask? >> up until now, it's felt that it should be up to the individual to volunteer it. if they have a particular need, and that might be a medical need or it might be concern about one's own protection. >> do you think maybe, and i don't know. i'm just asking that they may want to conceal that for any particular purpose from the authorities.

and not ask for assistance protection in housing, that type of thing. >> yes, and up until now if that's the case, i.c.e. would respect their wishes. >> thank you, commissioner. >> i just have one, one more question of ms. mack. you mentioned solitary confinement. and in your statement, do you recall that? >> i believe i said segregated housing. >> segregated housing and you put solitary confinement. and then you said that was for people, and i really didn't understand that paragraph. who goes to that housing and then you said there's regular checks on those people and they could be up in that kind of housing for more than 30 days? >> so, i can find it, and again, you're fortunate mr. landy is

the expert in this area. >> but i can look and see if i can find what i said. >> you said -- i actually have it here. >> sorry. >> it says the department has taken many important steps to acknowledge the special vulnerabilities of individuals with serious medical and mental health conditions who are in civil and immigration detention and the obligation to provide appropriate reasonable combinations to detainees with disabilities to assure they can participate fully in the programs and services offered across the department, including in detention. so, for example, 2013 i.c.e. issued a directive on segregated housing often called solitary confinement that ensures regular review of long-term placements in special housing unit that has substantial, additional requirements for initial and regular review of detainees in special housing who have a serious or medical mental health condition or disability. >> yes, so that's something that, indeed, mr. landy worked long and hard on for some time and spoke to, as well, but that's the directive that requires certain procedures and

review be in place for people who are in housing for 14 days or longer or in these particular categories, anyone with a serious medical or mental health concern. and so -- >> well, my question -- what i'm trying to get at is, again, mr. landy, are they these people placed in solitary by themselves all day? or are they allowed to walk around and mix in the yard and things like that? i mean, that wasn't very clear to me in this statement. >> this is a hallmark of -- most adult detention or correctional facilities. and typically in segregated housing, individuals are kept in-house in their own cells and opportunities for co-mingling is limited. and in some cases, probably in

most cases in i.c.e. custody, someone in segregated housing does not have the opportunity to co-mingle. certainly they have the opportunity to communicate with each other, but they're not physically in the same place. it's typically, for one of two reasons, as a form of discipline, for people who have committed serious disciplinary infractions after there's been an adjudication by the facility. and that person's been found guilty of that infraction. or for the safety and security of either other detainees, staff, or the individual himself or herself. >> well, commissioner, i'm sorry i'm going to cut you off. madame vice chair and we're going to close with a question from the staff director. >> thank you very much, mr. chair. you are, indeed, a popular fellow here today. it's clear from all that's been said that our government relies very heavily on private prisons. and those, of course, are for profit concerns. but we rely heavily on them. when our government contracts

with one of these private prison companies, how is it that the government determines what is a sufficient per diem rate in order to ensure that the detention conditions that the facility satisfies the standard, the current enforceable standard? >> well, that is part of the contract negotiation process. i.c.e. has an office of acquisitions which works with the i.c.e. component and removal operations. it requests jail cost statements and other information regarding whatever the facility or contractor is claiming is cost to be. those are reviewed by the office of acquisitions and other offices. also including the office of chief financial officer. there's often negotiations regarding the reasonableness of the rate. and then a determination on a file rate.

>> after that process is completed, is there any monitoring to ensure that the proportion of the moneys of the rate is being allocated toward services for the detainee and the overall condition of the facility? >> well, there are actually a number, several layers of oversight. which specifically with respect to the contract, the mechanism provides there's a contract office representative on site responsible for ensuring all aspects are complied with. not just detention standards, but the contract has a number of other provisions. in terms of compliance with the detention standards themselves,

i mentioned that there are several different types of inspection programs i.c.e. has. the annual contract inspections against standards, as well as on-site detention monitors, which are placed at a large number of our facilities and those are full-time. those are full-time on-site monitor. so this is rigorous over site both for compliance, but they are required to be checking the contractors performance against the requirement itself. >> thank you, vice chair. we'll close the questioning of this panel with our staff director. >> good morning. the special immigrant juvenile status capabilities, i know that eoir is responsible for reviewing the application and also approving it to allow the child to remain in foster care in the united states, but it is the dependency court judge that

has to ensure that the appropriate language is included that will allow for the application to be submitted. for a review and approval. are you aware of how many unaccompanied minors have been found eligible for an application? and if so, how could we get that information? >> i don't know that immediately, but i think that will be pretty easy for us to find out. and we may have to work with our partners at doj and dhs. are you looking specifically for the state approvals? or are you looking at the actual sij application approvals? >> i would like both. just to see how many are actually being submitted and comparison to number of kids that are currently being taken care of through the foster care system and ultimately to see the approval rate. overall. >> i'm not sure about the state court approvals, how to gather

that information. >> so with -- correct, because that can be kind of secretive. but sometimes if it is available anywhere, i would like to see that, to see how many folks. one of the concerns is, is the training being provided to the dependency court judges on a regular basis to ensure they understand what factors should be considered? and what type of protections could be provided. >> i know there's a lot underway on that. i know that, i think cis was doing a training for judges and hhs also -- we just started to put out regional orr representatives. not specifically on the unaccompanied children, but all of the kids that we work with. so we have regional representatives out and they're starting to reach out to the state court judges. >> thank you very much. >> thank you to panel one. we appreciate it. and you're free to stay and listen to the rest of the hearing today. we're going to transition now from panel one to panel two. so we ask our staff to come and

change the name plates and ask members of our panel to begin to work your way up. we'll remain on the record, but we'll start again in a couple of minutes. 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, go, yellow, speed up, and red stop. before we proceed i want to introduce each one of our panelists. 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 mary meg mccarthy, 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. mr. takei? >> good afternoon and thank you mr. chairman and members of the commission. i.c.e. detention is a sprawling network of 34,000 detention beds and approximately 250 facilities composes of federal facilities, county jails and private prisons. immigration detention is

intended to be civil and nonpunitive. its purpose is not to punish but simply to secure appearance at immigration proceedings and transport for removal when applicable. in practice, however, i.c.e. detention facilities overwhelmingly consist of jails and jail-like facilities. almost half of i.c.e. detainees are literally kept in jails. app although my remarks focus on state detention my statement addresses the short term custody facilities operated by a customs and border protection. cbp has a serious need for greater accountability. the scale of its short term detention system is unknown and standards governing conditions are not public. oversight authority within the agency is unclear. my written testimony identifies specific oversight and transparency mechanisms that the commission could push cbp to

implement. since others have commented extensively on the obama administration's cruel and unnecessary policy of detaining central american immigrant families, i will just emphasize one of the inevitable consequences of this policy something that was only public a announced by ms. lucas today. next week, a baby girl in an i.c.e. detention facility will turn 1 month old. she and her mother have been in homeland security custody since she was 11 days old. the administration's decision to ovrs massively expand the detention of immigrant families with children means that many more newborns, toddlers and young children will experience milestones like this while incarcerated. the commission can play an important role by calling for an end to these family detention policies. when i.c.e. does not implement its detention reform

facilities, there are profound consequences. sexual abuse for example is far too common. in 2013 detained individuals face serious challenges in reporting sexual abuse. although we introduced regulations, they set no deadline for implementation at almost half of all i.c.e. excuse me, all i.c.e. detention beds. the commission can use its power to push i.c.e. to swiftly implement the rule across the board and enforce contracts if they fail to comply. just inserting pre language into facility contracts isn't enough though. here is one recent example that has not yet received coverage beyond a small local newspaper. just two weeks ago, a pennsylvania district attorney filed charges against a charge for self accounts, the victim is a 20-year-old woman who fled

from honduras with their 3-year-old son after her father beat her to cause her a miscarriage, raped her in front of her son and threatened her with torture and death. when she was sent to burke, a guard gave favors to her and her son and told her that he could help her with her immigration case. when he initiated sex with her, she did not feel comfortable saying no. because a guard can exercise so much control over the daily life of a detained person, including when she can eat, when she can sleep and when she can be punished, notions of consent have little meaning in this context. that's why pria treats any sexual contact by a guard as a form of sexual abuse, regardless of apparent consent. but authorities at berks did not understand this rule. rather than educate the women at berks about their rights under pria, the facilities announced new victim blaming policies

against wearing tight or revealing clothing. ultimate think blame for this grossly inappropriate response must fall on i.c.e. for failing to ensure that the facility staff understood and complied the pria's mandate. i.c.e. deserves credit for implementing and developing the 2011 performance based national detention standards which were described earlier. these represent major advances over i.c.e.'s prior detention standards. the pace of implementation however has been disappointing. in october of 2014, the gao found that almost half of i.c.e.'s detention beds, which constitute 85% of the facilities that i.c.e. relies on are not held to these standards. on both pria and the 2011 standards, the commission can investigate what implementation work ice has done and make recommendations for a firm deadline for a completion.

finally i wish to register the aclu's concern about the wide spread use of solitary confinement in i.c.e. detention. in 2013 i.c.e. implemented a new segregation policy directive. the question is whether it is working as contemplative and whether i.c.e. is using the information that it now collects under the directive to reduce the use of this inhuman practice. that remains unanswered. i.c.e. has not made any information publically available that would allow us to evaluate the agency's progress in implementing the directive. in sum, i.c.e. has made significant progress by adopting new regulations on sexual abuse solitary confinement and detention standards generally but issuing better policies is only the first step in reforming a sprawling detention system whose shortcomings continue to

result in serious, inhumane and unconstitutional consequences. the agency must devote resources to implementing these prols inging inging policies and make these efforts transparent to the public. in addition the department must dramatically reduce the size of the detention system, ending the unnecessary use of detention and making much greater use of effective, humane alternatives can assist i.c.e.'s detention or reform goals by rendering significant numbers of detention facilities unnecessary. thank you for your time. >> mr. libal. >> well, i also want to thank the commission for taking on this important and very timely issue. my remarks will focus mostly on conditions in civil detention centers in my state of texas.

because we have more immigration detention beds than any other state. however i do want to note that the criminal prosecution of migrants, mostly along the border, has resulted in what can really be considered a shadow immigration incarceration system that runs parallel to the civil immigration system. in fact since the initiation of the operation's streamline along program along the border, two immigration charges have been the most prosecuted offenses in the entire federal court system, accounting for more than 90,000 criminal prosecutions in 2013. in the last 30 years it has been noted the number of people held in the civil immigration system has exploded from a few hundred in the 1980s than more than 33,000 people detained on average each day last year. individuals in our nation's detention system include asylum seekers, women with children parents of u.s. citizen children long time legal permanent residents and recently

arriveing migrants. for the past five years it has been discussed today that a detention bed quota require that i.c.e. maintain a baseline number of immigration detention beds, today 34,000 on any given day. in texas, we have observed i.c.e. setting bond determinations for individuals in order to keep detention facilities full, essentially to meet the quota. the detention system is also increasingly operated by just a handful of for profit private prison corporations that exert tremendous influence in the development and operation of the detention system. just two companies the geo group and corrections corporation of america pragt eight of theoperate eight of the ten largest detention facilities in the united states. and nearly 60% of all beds are now operated for profit prison corporations. i.c.e.'s ability to cancel contracts with said companies is therefore very limited. even when multiple cases of

abuse that led to criminal prosecution of detention center staff the agency has been reluctant or unable to cut contacts with bad actors. i will also note that the use of labor within facilities, immigrant labor is widely used in both private and public operated immigrant detention facilities in order to service the facilities themselves. it is the common practice to pay $1 for a five-hour shift, so basically $1 per day in these facilities. unfortunately cases of abuse and misconduct are far from uncommon. poor conditions, sexual assault cases and allegations of abuse have plagued detention centers in texas. we toured the privately operated poke county detention center in livingston, texas in 2013 and found conditions that included inadequate medical

care, lack of access to legal service ofs and the absence of any meaningful program at all. men lived in camped dormitories, eating, sleeping, using the bathroom 23 hours per day confined in their cells for men similarly in conrow texas, a facility operated by the geo group led to a hunger strike last year. at least five detention centers in texas have seen allegations of sexual assault in recent years. in some cases with multiple assaults reported at the same facility. only at the will sy county detention center did i.c.e. actually end its contract in 2011. however, a month later the federal bureau of prisons entered into a contract with the facility to reopen the facility as a facility to incarcerate immigrants many of whom are convicts of reentering the country after deportation. we also i think like everyone have very serious concerns about the policy of detaining immigrant children in mass. we were involved in a campaign in 2006 to 2009 to end the administration to end that

policy by stopping the detention at hudo. however the number of family detention beds has exploded in recent months from under 100 last year to what will be more than 3500 at a pair of remote private prisons in south texas, karnes and dilley. we heard that even after families pass their credible fear interviews that they are not granted bond or otherwise released. a practice that is common with adults without children. attorneys in texas have dubbed this the mommy penalty. already many of the same problems that we saw at hudo are have reemerged. in september groups toured the karnes detention center and spoke with more than a dozen women there. we subsequently joined a complaint to dhs' office of civil rights and liberties documenting conditions of children losing weight due to stress and inadequate nutrition, unreasonable restrictions on movement of children, including disallowing infants

from crawling, a high number of male guards, a particular concern given that many of the women detained at karnes have experienced sexual violence and the history of sexual assault within immigration detention facilities and threats of punishment against women and children at the facility including threats of separation of children from their parents. no meaningful response to this complaint has been received to date. you heard ms. bono talk about the allegations of sexual assault and the lack of meaningful response to that complaint as well. even a 7-year-old with brain cancer could not escape i.c.e.'s detention drag net. sara beltran and her 7-year-old daughter fled violence in el salvador. they were detained at karnes. they passed their credible fear interview but i.c.e. would not release her family nor provide her the treatment that she needed after when doctors wrote to her expressing that her life would be in danger. it was only after her attorney contacted us and other

organizations in texas and went to the media that she was sara's was released. we make the following recommendations. first and foremost policy makers should prioritize policies that would significantly reduce the use of detention, including eliminates of the bed quota and including community based alternatives. to detention that are are rerestrictive possible. that holds doubly true for families. i.c.e. should end the practice of detaining immigrant families. immediately end its no bond policy for families and work to close rather than expand the carns and dilly detention centers. and further the government should reduce its reliance on for profit prisons including ending contracts with facilities with records of abuse. and penalizing contractors who have multiple instances of abuse in mismanagement in their facilities. thank you. >> miss mccarthy.

>> good afternoon. thank you for this opportunity mr. chairman and members of the commission. i want to just tell you briefly about our organization which makes us somewhat unique. we represent approximately 10,000 immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers in our office so we have an office in illinois, indiana and one in d.c. our direct representation is what informs our advocacy and our impact litigation. my testimony -- written testimony, includes a number of case examples which is experiences that we've had in representing individuals, including survivors of human trafficking who are detained. earlier this morning, there was reference to some complaints that we filed with the office of civil rights and civil liberties. since 2011, we have filed three complaints. the most recent one in november of 2014.

we have yet to receive any response from the office of civil rights and civil liberties regarding those complaints. the first one was regarding treatment of lgbts and immigrant detention. the second one that was june of 2014 was about the abuse, documented abuse of 116 children, ages 5 to 17 years of age while in customs and border protection custody. and the most recent one was november 2014 regarding the failure of the screening process at the border to ensure those individuals eligible to apply for protection have the opportunity. i'm happy to discuss the recommendations we set forth in the complaints to the office of civil rights and civil liberty.

but what i'd like to focus my comments on tonight, is my colleagues today, my fellow panelists provided an excellent detailed portrait of the current immigration detention system, including the critical legal and civil rights concern regarding lack of access to counsel, lack of mental and medical health care and other civil rights challenges. with that fresh in mind, i have chosen to focus my comments on what i believe is one of the major underlying causes of the system's dysfunction. the sheer enormity. the government must stop detaining individuals who pose no threat to society. must stop using incarceration as a default immigration enforcement tool and discontinued policy making that

relies on the misguided perception that expanding detention deters migration. it doesn't. our clients have come back after being detained because they could not live safely in their home countries. the primary means to responsibly reduce the u.s. immigration detention systems dependence on incarceration is to expand alternatives to detention programs. also known as atds. the u.s. government must take a hard look at the population it detains. according to the commissioner of refugees, detention should only be used as a measure of last resort for the shortest appropriate period of time. we cannot and must not consider people, particularly families in detention. rather the system must assess the detention of each person. many people in detention are hard working mothers and fathers

whose detention places tremendous emotional and financial burdens on families, including punishing u.s. citizen children. for instance, in fiscal year 2012, an estimated 152,000 u.s. citizen children parents were detained and/or deported. those families were destroyed. further, many people in detention pose no risk to public safety. between 2009 and 2011, more than half of all individuals in detention had no criminal records. among those was a so so-called criminal history, nearly 20% were for misdemeanor traffic offenses. in 2014, as large numbers of children and families began coming to the united states seeking safety from violence in central america, dhs oversaw an unprecedented expansion, including that of mothers and children.

as you've heard, the administration continues on its current trajectory by this spring it will have capacity to detain about 3,800 mothers and children. an outrageous increase from fewer than 100 beds for mothers and children in the start of 2014. nijc rejects the secretary of homeland security jay promise that it is an affective deterrent to central american migration migration. it is unlawful and immoral to detain any person for the purpose of discouraging the future migration of others. moreover, as we have observed among the thousands of children and adult asylum seekers we have screened in the past year, the practice fails to deter. dhs should jettison political expedience as a basis for making

detention decisions and instead base custody on whether individuals pose threats to public safety or flight risk. release on bond or under services or ankle monitors that enables families to live in families where they can began to heal and connect with legal and mental health services. for more than a decade, we've advocated to reduce the unnecessary detention of noncitizens, working directly with the department of homeland security to develop a risk assessment tool. however, as recently reported by the un high commissioner for refugees, the commissioner warned while the assessment tool is an improvement, the tool is based on mathematical calculations. risks become a bureaucratic exercise and many only lead to

artificial assessments other than real ones. it appears to be heavily weighted in favor of detention. as a nation we must restore due process. we spend $1.44 billion annually detaining people. we could do better. thank you. >> ms. mcarthy we'll open that up for questions and i will sort of lead off and let my colleagues to go next. during the break in one of the panels you mentioned to me that you had some comments about mr. con roy of cca's comments in response to my question about prison labor. could you elaborate on that, please. >> so i was struck by how carefully his response was. he told you that cca does not use detainee labor for outside contractors in ice detention. but as mr. libel just pointed

out, there are tens of thousands of people everyday -- well, every year in ice detention facilities who are working to mop the floors, cook the food, clean the toilets. basically all the work that is required to keep the facility running for about $1 a day. this rate is something that was originally developed for pows. in fact, it was used for the japanese incarceration camps during world war ii so it's ironic that we're talking about this on this day but that rate has remained the same without adjustment for inflation since world war ii so you now have a situation where the ice detention system has affectively become the largest employer of undocumented immigrants in the united states. >> so what both of you -- mr. libel and mr. care are saying that in essence these

corporations like cca are keeping their costs down by employing their own prisoners who are undocumented and paying them substantially less than the minimum wage because otherwise they'd have to go out in the marketplace and hire american workers and pay them at least minimum wage to do this. >> exactly. there are benefits when you have a person in detention, it is an excruciating boring experience if it is a safe experience and scary if it is not. it is valuable to have some sort of labor program but it shouldn't be a labor exploitation program. if you're going to put people to work inside detention than they need to be paid a fair wage. >> i'll ask you all some of the same questions i asked the prior panel in terms of this idea that we're generating about mirandizing the detainees as

early in the process as possible. what are your thoughts on that and how it could be best affected? well, one thing that i want to address is the right to counsel. i think the earlier that counsel can be introduced, the better. the aclu along with a number of other organizations, including the american immigration counsel, the north west immigrant rights project. a law firm lockheart and gates is litigating a case about the rights of children to have appointed immigration counsel. the other issue is ensuring people have counsel at the earliest stage of the process. that is probably the best way to make sure people's rights are protected. >> yeah, i agree. the other thing, border screenings which was discussed earlier today -- [ inaudible ]

move very quickly in and out. that's what they tried to do in artesia with mothers and children. before there were attorneys there, they were moving and deporting hundreds of people so i think it's really important at that very first instance when somebody encounters law enforcement that they have access to counsel or at least information regarding their legal rights. i think it's more than just a pamphlet because you don't know if they speak or understand the language. as it has been said today, we have seen so many more children with indigenous languages coming into the system. you can't just hand a child from guatemala a know your rights booklet.

i child is going to have a very difficult time understanding their rights. we play game was them to help you can't just hand a child from guatemala a know your rights booklet. i child is going to have a very difficult time understanding their rights. we play game was them to help them understand their rights. it's got to be more than just handing them a piece of paper. >> i would defer to my attorney colleagues but our experience is that in some of the facilities that we have visited over the years do have legal programs and know your rights programs. other detention facilities in texas have no ngos at all. no legal pro bono law firm. no law school. nobody had been in that facility in 18 months when we went in there so people were getting no legal orientation, no legal

services at all. when asked if they had seen the video that i show of the legal orientation video that they show upon sort of entrance into the facility, some of the guys we visited remembered it but most of them were like yeah, i don't know. that was one of those things that they showed us so again, i think the legal orientation programs and know your rights training are something. they are nowhere near sufficient and some facilities don't even have those. >> it's not even the ice facilities. typically you end up in a different one first. the physical layout varies quite widely. typically they are congregate cells. they very rarely have a telephone that's immediately accessible to the detainees which causes problems with telephoning any sort of legal help line and also if they are facing any sort of sexual abuse situation to be able to contact

anybody without the assistance of a guard. the solitary policy directive that ice issued in 2013 is a very good policy. it's one of the few times that when it was announced, the aclu simply applauded it and did not pair that with a critique. >> that is amazing. >> as i said, the key challenge is implementing it across the board and making sure that they are transparent about what's going on with it at implementation because that information has not been distributed in any way. >> i want to talk about best practices in terms of alternatives to detention programs. i think one of the questions raised was where are these mothers and children going to go and we've seen in chicago and

other parts of the country where they have created homes. the sisters of mercy have really been at the forefront of this in terms of providing residential facilities really from the community to help women and children and men for that the maar who are released from detention. i think their alternatives to detention programs can function and that there are some best practices in terms of case management systems and support for those individuals while they are going through the immigration court system. so i think we've got a lot of resources that don't require best practices in detention. i would add one other piece too which is sisters of mercy. they fought long and hard to get into the detention facilities, county jails in the midwest to do professional care services. that has been a really good program and best practice not only when people are detained but at the point of deportation,

they have gone out to the broadview detention center that buses people to the airport and that's been very, very affective and meaningful for both of those individuals being deported as well as their families. >> i join everything that mary has said especially for the community based alternatives to detention ice systematically under invested in those programmed but where they exit, they produce fairly good results. >> i would just concur with that and if you come to texas we will show you some terrific immigrant places. >> great. thank you very much mr. chair. just to follow-up on that, there's some data points that i think would be helpful to the commission in developing this further. i think it -- i think about our experience in california in moving away toward incarcerating nonviolent offenders and how much the economics of that