Transcripts For CSPAN2 Oversight Hearing Of ICE Detention Fa

Subcommittee had in arraigning todays hearing arranging todays hearing. I. C. E. Declined to sit on the same panel with knack mote toe nakamoto, the contractor it chose. The departments lack of cooperation makes it more challenging for congress to do its job. At a meeting with dhs leaders, its important to the subcommittee to bring everyones voices together. Thats how we can best identify challenges and find ways to solve them. This issue is particularly important to me as two of i. C. E. s facilities detain upwards of 1300 migrants from in my home district. I visited these facilities, and i have concerns about some of the conditions of confinement. And im not alone in having these concerns. Dhss own office of Inspector General last year found these processes for oversight and con finement were insufficient to stay compliance with i. C. E. s own standards. It might be that inspectors are set up to fail. For example, i. C. E. Has a contractor who is responsible for evaluating compliance with up to 42 standards composed of over 600 elements over the course of just a few days. As a result, these inspectors end up missing some clear violations of detention standards like a phone not drking properly. The oig also observed inspectors misreporting that detainees knew how to obtain assistance from i. C. E. Officers when those detainees had indicated the exact opposite. Of additional concern is the fact that even when these deficiencies are identified, vei. C. E. s processes have not insured that they are corrected. For example, i. C. E. Has Detention Service monitors on site at several detention eacilities to monitor compliance with detention standards. However, these monitors told the oig that when they identify violations, they have no meansd of enforcing corrective action. Instead of pressuring facilities f correct detissue says deficiencies orish shuing penalty issuing penalties, in some cases i. C. E. Grants waivers. For example, as the oig reports from october 2015 to june 2018, i. C. E. Only issued two financial penalties and granted 65 waivers, 63 of which of those wafers had no waivers had no end date. One of these waivers permitted locustty individuals to comingle with individuals with more serious criminal records. The standard that typically keeps these detainees separated or an important one that the directly impacts the safety of people in detention. Finally, i have concerns that inspections by the contractor announced far advance giving facilities the opportunity to clean things up just in time for inspection. I understand that the oig made several recommendations for i. C. E. To correct these issues, and i look forward to hearing what steps i. C. E. Has taken and thwhether they are leading to me sustained compliance with standards. I also look forward to hearing about the oversight work that the oig conducts at i. C. E. Facilities. The oversight work in in this space has been critical on shining to light of conditions of confinement. Serious violations of i. C. E. s standards the including food and service issues, endangering the health of detainees and inappropriate segregation practices infringing on detainees safety. However, the cove of the inspections is limited by its lack of subject Matter Experts like medical doctors. Im encouraged by the fact that the oig is developing a plan to contract with such experts who could engage in this oversight work, and i hope to hear that this plan is bringing being put into action. I want to thank the witnesses who are hereut today, and i look forward to your testimony. The chair now recognizes Ranking Member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from texas, mr. Crenshaw, for an Opening Statement. Thank you, chairman, and thank you to all of our witnesses on both panels for being here today. Im pleased were holding this meeting, its extremely important. Kultiple pleas we were able to Work Together to resolve some of the problems to have the Key Stakeholders necessary for the productive hearing this issue deserves. It should be noted that it is longstanding practice not to have the agency and the contractors for that agency on the same panel, which is why we ended up having two different panels. Im also hopeful that the office of civil rights and Civil Liberties will still provide their testimony prepared for this hearing even though they were disinvited earlier this week. And i hope that in the future the agency over which we are conducting oversight in this case i. C. E would be the first to be invited to testify. This is an important issue to examine. I share the majoritys concern regarding the necessity of enforcing the standards for safety and security of i. C. E. Detainees. The health and wellbeing of those detained in the united dtates is not a partisan issue. Ive been very public in my praise for the department of Homeland Security and the individuals who work each day to keep our country safe. The men and women of u. S. Immigration and custommings foforcement have some of the toughest jobs in the department. I. C. E. Is tasked with enforcing u. S. Immigration law and removing individuals who pose a threat to the National Security, Public Safety or seek to exploit our immigration system. Their job is made even more idifficult when they are publiy and unfairly vilified by public sigures, a false narrative that is utterly reprehensible. Individuals primarily targeted for removal include convicted criminals, gang members, and those ordered to be removed by an immigration judge. As the flow of immigrants increases, the job of i. C. E. Becomes even more difficult. They must devote their resources to rooting out those that pose the biggest threat. However, those resources are esretched thin. The safe and secure detention of individuals prior to removal from the country is one of the most important duties that i. C. E. Devotes resources to. Although detention is primarily done through contractors, as the cency responsible for these individuals, i. C. E. Must insure that proper care is provided. I. C. E. Must use its oversight authorities as well as its contracting authorities to insure its detention standards ene met. I. C. E. Does its own inspections every three years and hires private contractors to do inspections annually. Additionally, i. C. E. Has individuals in a number of facilities who are taxed with opsite review odd of the daily review of the daily operations. It seems, as is streak ifly the case with government agencies, acere is a lack of communication and coordination among the divisions within i. C. E. My isi. My understanding that i. C. E. Has agreed with the recommendations of the Inspector Generals office andfi is workig to address these issues. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on how we can insure i. C. E. Detention standards are met in the future, and i yield back the balance of my time. Other members of the committee are reminded that under the committee rules, Opening Statements may be submitted for the record. I welcome our first panel of witnesses and thank them for joining today. Our fist witness is ms. Jenni nakamoto, president and sole owner of the Nakamoto Group incorporated. She has provided professional and administrative support to the federal government and private industry since 19903. Sr company contracts with nsc. E. To conduct inspections of i. C. E. s detention facilities. Our second witness, ms. Katherine hawkins, is the senior Legal Adviser for the constitution project at the project for government oversight. Her work focuses on National Security, immigration and human rights. Prior to her work at pogo, he serbed she served as National Security fellow for open the government. Without objection, the witnesses full statements will be incenterred in the report. I incenterred in the record. I inserted in the record. Ms. Nakamoto. [inaudible] thank you for the invitation to appear before this committee. I want to, first, aapologize for what appeared to be our resistance to come to this hearing to discuss the details of our work with i. C. E. Our contract has a clause within the contract, federal regulations, that forbids disclosure of these details, and we were hesitant to get involved at the us at the risk of our contract. The Nakamoto Group is a womanowned, minorityowned Small Business headquartered in frederick county, maryland. My great grandparents emigrated to the United States from japan. My maternal grandparents were both born in california, making them United States citizens. After pearl harbor the president ial order was issued to incars rate all japanese. My maternal family were living in california and had to anlinquish any property including any businesses that they had. They were given one trash bag to fill with personal items to take with them and had to leave Everything Else behind. Our family was spread out across the country. My maternal grandparents were in camps long enough to meet, fall in love, get married, have a baby my hour and become pregnant again with my aunt. They chose to move to a small town in southern new jersey where, ultimately, i was born. My father was born and raised in hilo, hawaii. My grandfather returned to japan soon after he was born. My father was the youngest in a large, broken home, and he was raised by several of his older brothers. My father served for more than 20 years in the United States rsmy. He served two tours in vietnam served on what was one of the first all japaneseamerican green beret units. We relocated to frederick where i grew up. Because my parents did not have a lot of work, i worked during high school and have been working since i was 15 years old. Shortly after high school, i was able to obtain a secretarial job with the government at the department of health and human services. I worked there for other six years before leaving to work with three other successful minorityowned Government Contracting firms. Ie learned about Government Contracting during those seven years, ands. I decided to take a chance and start my own company. I started this company in 2003. It was the same year that i lost my late husband the police suicide. I still volunteer for his fraternal order of police and have for over 20 years, serving as executive assistant to the executive board. The Nakamoto Group was certified in the Small Business administrations 8a program in 2004. We successfully graduated certification in 2013. The first contract awarded to my company was in 2004 to maintain a hotline which provides either free or low Cost Health Care to kids through state Childrens Health Insurance Program within the United States and its territories. We still maintain that contract after 15 years, and it now includes another hotline entitled 311 baby which helps expectant and and new mothers with information via phone and text. For the last 15 years, we have obtained lo gist ins logistics contracts. Fromg 20062007 we had a contrat with the food and Drug Administration to help them hire dispan ins to in hispanics to increase diversitying within their work force. Our most current and longstanding logistics contracts has been withg the office of rural health policy, statistics forr the National Advisory committee on rural health and human services. We also provide logistics for several other policy meetings regarding telehealth in Rural America from 20102013. In 2005 we obtained a contract with the nowdissolved office of the federal detention trustee which was a department under the department of justice. We won a place within a blanketed Purchase Agreement to provide detention expert support systems to the office of the federal detention trustee. Using performancebased detention standards, we sent onteams to provide expert, specialized service, consultation by conducting facility review of nonfederal contract jails ises and detentin facilities which house detainees. In 2007 we were asked to attend a meeting at i. C. E. Headquarters where we were asked to perform onsite Monitoring Services and provide monthly Technical Assistance and included fulltime monitors for 40 of the largest i. C. E. Detention facilities monthly, quarterly, biannual reviews of other, smaller facilities. The goal was to insure that the facilities were in compliance with theci standards. I. C. E. Piggybacked on that existing contract that we had at the time at the department of justice, and we did this type of work for them from 2007 til 2010. Ms. Nakamoto, your time is up. If you want to include a few seconds of concluding remarks. Ice Detention Centers have oversight by dhs and they are annual inspections by the group and onsite monitors and inspections by different offices with an ice and inspections by the dh Inspector Generals office of civil rights and Civil Liberties. This sounds like inspections but the system is failing to ensure compliance withh detention standards. The Nakamoto Groups inspection occurred most often are the only ones that contribute to contracts. They often fail to uncover serious violations. S. Other inspections have a more thorough but they often remain hidden from congress and the public, in ice failed to make changes they recommend. As a result inhumane and unsafe conditions can persist for years. In some cases the violations rise to the level of deliberate indifference to detainees which is unconstitutional. To illustrate the problems i will describe the findings of three of the largest detentionrg facilities. In september 2018 dh as Inspector General reported on an unannounced inspection of the Detention Center in california. They found sheets braided into nooses and 15 detainee cells. An adequate medical care in a recent solitary confinement. The Nakamoto Group the next month conducted its own previously announced inspection tand they not only found that they were in compliance of 40 of 48 detention standards but the Inspector General of writing and in erroneous and inflammatory report. They dismissed the nooses of the housekeeping violation not as a suicide risk destroying the fact that the detainees hung himself on march 2019. Recently uncovered third investigation by the office of civil rights and civil liberti liberties. See rcl assisted in 2015 and november 2017. In 2015 they were nice that the medical leadership was not content. In 2017 they found no evidence that corrections were made to address this issue. This led to in their words inadequate detainees medical care at the resulted in medical injuries including bone deformities in detainee deaths. Mentally ill detainees were being placed in solitary confinement instead of being treated, for shocking length of time. Overuse of solitary is a problem throughout the ice system. Sometimes it has fatal consequences. As someone who committed suicide at the steward Detention Center in georgia and made 17 and july 2018. [inaudible] suffered from schizophrenia and instead of receiving psychiatric treatment both were placed in solitary confinement for weeks with symptoms growing more and more alarming. They hung themselves and their isolation cells. Ks despite the two deaths the Nakamoto Group inspectors found that they were in compliance with all ice detention standards in both 2017 and 2018. Inadequate medical care led to another death of the ice Detention Center in aurora, colorado. [inaudible] went into methadone withdrawal when he arrived there and for two weeks he grew worse and worse and the medical staff he was exaggerating them or making them even when he cannot sit up. There many other credible reports for medical neglect including one case where detainees were treated fed sores were so infected that is like had to be amputated. Despite all this evidence the Nakamoto Group inspectors found that aurora was in compliance with 4141 detention standards in both 2017 and 2018. Let me close the steps congresse can improve ice detention. Number one, congress should require teach us to impose financial conferences for document and violations of detention standards, and which type of inspection uncovers them. Number two, the 2017th dhs found a policy that individuals known to be suffering from physical or Mental Illness were disabled, elderly, pregnant or nursing or whose detention is otherwise not in the Public Interest rate congress require teach us to reinstate. There were three, congress should binding restrictions on tedious ability b to expand attention. Number four progress should strengthen the authority and transparency of the office of rights and Civil Liberties. Thank you very much. All the witnesses think them for their testimony and remind each member that he or she will have five minutes to question the panel. I now can agonize with supper ll toquestions. Thank you for being here today and recognize your concern abt the contracts but your ice contract does not permit you from testifying. Correct . Spirit correct. But this is public. As i have noted in my Inspector General<\/a> last year found these processes for oversight and con finement were insufficient to stay compliance with i. C. E. s own standards. It might be that inspectors are set up to fail. For example, i. C. E. Has a contractor who is responsible for evaluating compliance with up to 42 standards composed of over 600 elements over the course of just a few days. As a result, these inspectors end up missing some clear violations of detention standards like a phone not drking properly. The oig also observed inspectors misreporting that detainees knew how to obtain assistance from i. C. E. Officers when those detainees had indicated the exact opposite. Of additional concern is the fact that even when these deficiencies are identified, vei. C. E. s processes have not insured that they are corrected. For example, i. C. E. Has Detention Service<\/a> monitors on site at several detention eacilities to monitor compliance with detention standards. However, these monitors told the oig that when they identify violations, they have no meansd of enforcing corrective action. Instead of pressuring facilities f correct detissue says deficiencies orish shuing penalty issuing penalties, in some cases i. C. E. Grants waivers. For example, as the oig reports from october 2015 to june 2018, i. C. E. Only issued two financial penalties and granted 65 waivers, 63 of which of those wafers had no waivers had no end date. One of these waivers permitted locustty individuals to comingle with individuals with more serious criminal records. The standard that typically keeps these detainees separated or an important one that the directly impacts the safety of people in detention. Finally, i have concerns that inspections by the contractor announced far advance giving facilities the opportunity to clean things up just in time for inspection. I understand that the oig made several recommendations for i. C. E. To correct these issues, and i look forward to hearing what steps i. C. E. Has taken and thwhether they are leading to me sustained compliance with standards. I also look forward to hearing about the oversight work that the oig conducts at i. C. E. Facilities. The oversight work in in this space has been critical on shining to light of conditions of confinement. Serious violations of i. C. E. s standards the including food and service issues, endangering the health of detainees and inappropriate segregation practices infringing on detainees safety. However, the cove of the inspections is limited by its lack of subject Matter Experts<\/a> like medical doctors. Im encouraged by the fact that the oig is developing a plan to contract with such experts who could engage in this oversight work, and i hope to hear that this plan is bringing being put into action. I want to thank the witnesses who are hereut today, and i look forward to your testimony. The chair now recognizes Ranking Member<\/a> of the subcommittee, the gentleman from texas, mr. Crenshaw, for an Opening Statement<\/a>. Thank you, chairman, and thank you to all of our witnesses on both panels for being here today. Im pleased were holding this meeting, its extremely important. Kultiple pleas we were able to Work Together<\/a> to resolve some of the problems to have the Key Stakeholders<\/a> necessary for the productive hearing this issue deserves. It should be noted that it is longstanding practice not to have the agency and the contractors for that agency on the same panel, which is why we ended up having two different panels. Im also hopeful that the office of civil rights and Civil Liberties<\/a> will still provide their testimony prepared for this hearing even though they were disinvited earlier this week. And i hope that in the future the agency over which we are conducting oversight in this case i. C. E would be the first to be invited to testify. This is an important issue to examine. I share the majoritys concern regarding the necessity of enforcing the standards for safety and security of i. C. E. Detainees. The health and wellbeing of those detained in the united dtates is not a partisan issue. Ive been very public in my praise for the department of Homeland Security<\/a> and the individuals who work each day to keep our country safe. The men and women of u. S. Immigration and custommings foforcement have some of the toughest jobs in the department. I. C. E. Is tasked with enforcing u. S. Immigration law and removing individuals who pose a threat to the National Security<\/a>, Public Safety<\/a> or seek to exploit our immigration system. Their job is made even more idifficult when they are publiy and unfairly vilified by public sigures, a false narrative that is utterly reprehensible. Individuals primarily targeted for removal include convicted criminals, gang members, and those ordered to be removed by an immigration judge. As the flow of immigrants increases, the job of i. C. E. Becomes even more difficult. They must devote their resources to rooting out those that pose the biggest threat. However, those resources are esretched thin. The safe and secure detention of individuals prior to removal from the country is one of the most important duties that i. C. E. Devotes resources to. Although detention is primarily done through contractors, as the cency responsible for these individuals, i. C. E. Must insure that proper care is provided. I. C. E. Must use its oversight authorities as well as its contracting authorities to insure its detention standards ene met. I. C. E. Does its own inspections every three years and hires private contractors to do inspections annually. Additionally, i. C. E. Has individuals in a number of facilities who are taxed with opsite review odd of the daily review of the daily operations. It seems, as is streak ifly the case with government agencies, acere is a lack of communication and coordination among the divisions within i. C. E. My isi. My understanding that i. C. E. Has agreed with the recommendations of the Inspector General<\/a>s office andfi is workig to address these issues. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on how we can insure i. C. E. Detention standards are met in the future, and i yield back the balance of my time. Other members of the committee are reminded that under the committee rules, Opening Statements<\/a> may be submitted for the record. I welcome our first panel of witnesses and thank them for joining today. Our fist witness is ms. Jenni nakamoto, president and sole owner of the Nakamoto Group<\/a> incorporated. She has provided professional and administrative support to the federal government and private industry since 19903. Sr company contracts with nsc. E. To conduct inspections of i. C. E. s detention facilities. Our second witness, ms. Katherine hawkins, is the senior Legal Adviser<\/a> for the constitution project at the project for government oversight. Her work focuses on National Security<\/a>, immigration and human rights. Prior to her work at pogo, he serbed she served as National Security<\/a> fellow for open the government. Without objection, the witnesses full statements will be incenterred in the report. I incenterred in the record. I inserted in the record. Ms. Nakamoto. [inaudible] thank you for the invitation to appear before this committee. I want to, first, aapologize for what appeared to be our resistance to come to this hearing to discuss the details of our work with i. C. E. Our contract has a clause within the contract, federal regulations, that forbids disclosure of these details, and we were hesitant to get involved at the us at the risk of our contract. The Nakamoto Group<\/a> is a womanowned, minorityowned Small Business<\/a> headquartered in frederick county, maryland. My great grandparents emigrated to the United States<\/a> from japan. My maternal grandparents were both born in california, making them United States<\/a> citizens. After pearl harbor the president ial order was issued to incars rate all japanese. My maternal family were living in california and had to anlinquish any property including any businesses that they had. They were given one trash bag to fill with personal items to take with them and had to leave Everything Else<\/a> behind. Our family was spread out across the country. My maternal grandparents were in camps long enough to meet, fall in love, get married, have a baby my hour and become pregnant again with my aunt. They chose to move to a small town in southern new jersey where, ultimately, i was born. My father was born and raised in hilo, hawaii. My grandfather returned to japan soon after he was born. My father was the youngest in a large, broken home, and he was raised by several of his older brothers. My father served for more than 20 years in the United States<\/a> rsmy. He served two tours in vietnam served on what was one of the first all japaneseamerican green beret units. We relocated to frederick where i grew up. Because my parents did not have a lot of work, i worked during high school and have been working since i was 15 years old. Shortly after high school, i was able to obtain a secretarial job with the government at the department of health and human services. I worked there for other six years before leaving to work with three other successful minorityowned Government Contracting<\/a> firms. Ie learned about Government Contracting<\/a> during those seven years, ands. I decided to take a chance and start my own company. I started this company in 2003. It was the same year that i lost my late husband the police suicide. I still volunteer for his fraternal order of police and have for over 20 years, serving as executive assistant to the executive board. The Nakamoto Group<\/a> was certified in the Small Business<\/a> administrations 8a program in 2004. We successfully graduated certification in 2013. The first contract awarded to my company was in 2004 to maintain a hotline which provides either free or low Cost Health Care<\/a> to kids through state Childrens Health<\/a> Insurance Program<\/a> within the United States<\/a> and its territories. We still maintain that contract after 15 years, and it now includes another hotline entitled 311 baby which helps expectant and and new mothers with information via phone and text. For the last 15 years, we have obtained lo gist ins logistics contracts. Fromg 20062007 we had a contrat with the food and Drug Administration<\/a> to help them hire dispan ins to in hispanics to increase diversitying within their work force. Our most current and longstanding logistics contracts has been withg the office of rural health policy, statistics forr the National Advisory<\/a> committee on rural health and human services. We also provide logistics for several other policy meetings regarding telehealth in Rural America<\/a> from 20102013. In 2005 we obtained a contract with the nowdissolved office of the federal detention trustee which was a department under the department of justice. We won a place within a blanketed Purchase Agreement<\/a> to provide detention expert support systems to the office of the federal detention trustee. Using performancebased detention standards, we sent onteams to provide expert, specialized service, consultation by conducting facility review of nonfederal contract jails ises and detentin facilities which house detainees. In 2007 we were asked to attend a meeting at i. C. E. Headquarters where we were asked to perform onsite Monitoring Services<\/a> and provide monthly Technical Assistance<\/a> and included fulltime monitors for 40 of the largest i. C. E. Detention facilities monthly, quarterly, biannual reviews of other, smaller facilities. The goal was to insure that the facilities were in compliance with theci standards. I. C. E. Piggybacked on that existing contract that we had at the time at the department of justice, and we did this type of work for them from 2007 til 2010. Ms. Nakamoto, your time is up. If you want to include a few seconds of concluding remarks. Ice Detention Centers<\/a> have oversight by dhs and they are annual inspections by the group and onsite monitors and inspections by different offices with an ice and inspections by the dh Inspector General<\/a>s office of civil rights and Civil Liberties<\/a>. This sounds like inspections but the system is failing to ensure compliance withh detention standards. The Nakamoto Group<\/a>s inspection occurred most often are the only ones that contribute to contracts. They often fail to uncover serious violations. S. Other inspections have a more thorough but they often remain hidden from congress and the public, in ice failed to make changes they recommend. As a result inhumane and unsafe conditions can persist for years. In some cases the violations rise to the level of deliberate indifference to detainees which is unconstitutional. To illustrate the problems i will describe the findings of three of the largest detentionrg facilities. In september 2018 dh as Inspector General<\/a> reported on an unannounced inspection of the Detention Center<\/a> in california. They found sheets braided into nooses and 15 detainee cells. An adequate medical care in a recent solitary confinement. The Nakamoto Group<\/a> the next month conducted its own previously announced inspection tand they not only found that they were in compliance of 40 of 48 detention standards but the Inspector General<\/a> of writing and in erroneous and inflammatory report. They dismissed the nooses of the housekeeping violation not as a suicide risk destroying the fact that the detainees hung himself on march 2019. Recently uncovered third investigation by the office of civil rights and civil liberti liberties. See rcl assisted in 2015 and november 2017. In 2015 they were nice that the medical leadership was not content. In 2017 they found no evidence that corrections were made to address this issue. This led to in their words inadequate detainees medical care at the resulted in medical injuries including bone deformities in detainee deaths. Mentally ill detainees were being placed in solitary confinement instead of being treated, for shocking length of time. Overuse of solitary is a problem throughout the ice system. Sometimes it has fatal consequences. As someone who committed suicide at the steward Detention Center<\/a> in georgia and made 17 and july 2018. [inaudible] suffered from schizophrenia and instead of receiving psychiatric treatment both were placed in solitary confinement for weeks with symptoms growing more and more alarming. They hung themselves and their isolation cells. Ks despite the two deaths the Nakamoto Group<\/a> inspectors found that they were in compliance with all ice detention standards in both 2017 and 2018. Inadequate medical care led to another death of the ice Detention Center<\/a> in aurora, colorado. [inaudible] went into methadone withdrawal when he arrived there and for two weeks he grew worse and worse and the medical staff he was exaggerating them or making them even when he cannot sit up. There many other credible reports for medical neglect including one case where detainees were treated fed sores were so infected that is like had to be amputated. Despite all this evidence the Nakamoto Group<\/a> inspectors found that aurora was in compliance with 4141 detention standards in both 2017 and 2018. Let me close the steps congresse can improve ice detention. Number one, congress should require teach us to impose financial conferences for document and violations of detention standards, and which type of inspection uncovers them. Number two, the 2017th dhs found a policy that individuals known to be suffering from physical or Mental Illness<\/a> were disabled, elderly, pregnant or nursing or whose detention is otherwise not in the Public Interest<\/a> rate congress require teach us to reinstate. There were three, congress should binding restrictions on tedious ability b to expand attention. Number four progress should strengthen the authority and transparency of the office of rights and Civil Liberties<\/a>. Thank you very much. All the witnesses think them for their testimony and remind each member that he or she will have five minutes to question the panel. I now can agonize with supper ll toquestions. Thank you for being here today and recognize your concern abt the contracts but your ice contract does not permit you from testifying. Correct . Spirit correct. But this is public. As i have noted in my Opening Statement<\/a> i you are responsible for nakamoto inspectors are doing 42 standards that include over 400 elements in just a few days. The almighty is not the only or even the first to do to raise concerns about that process. More than three years ago the Council Recommended<\/a> that ice move away from a broad checklist for inspections. Does ice current statement of work allow the company to conduct thorough inspections . They do but all my staff has to not only go through the checklist but they have to know the standard and know the actual information within the standard within the component within the standard. 600 elements in three days, to have time to get that done . G yes. You have enough inspectors . Yes you dont need a narrower scope to make sure youre verifying all those items . No. The three days on site are to perform interviews with detainees, staff and to see the facilities themselves. The rest of our report writing we are pulling all of it together happened after we lea leave. How then to explain the reports in the oig report that, for example, the phone was not working and they neglected to check and see if there phone was directing them to forgive them the ability to make a complete . I dont know or have all the oig report memorized but i know that my staff checked into ited. What about file document and should be reported as complete without checking the file . My staff checked the files according to the standard. Are you disputing the oig report on that connect. Im not disputing it but telling you my staff know what they have to look at within the standards. What about cdl licenses being reported as existing without confirming that documentation . I dont agree with that but my staff always checks for the the credentialsta within the standards are always checked by the staff. Oig was incorrect in making that observation . I believe, i guess if they said we didnt then what about only in interviewing detainees who speak english or using a guardne to interpret in spanish . Someone who is in charge of guarding the facility. There are different ways to find out ways of what is going on at the facility and the interview process is informal and some of it ishe formal ice. We have in fact that the oig report came out we have since formalized the interview process as a suggest. Heavy formalize the process for making certain you have enough spanishspeaking inspectors . Yes, we have a Language Line<\/a> we are able to use at any facility. In terms of spanish speaking. Inspectors that do you have a system for that . I dont understand what you are asking. You dont have a system for establishing is someone if an inspector does speak spanish if they are claiming to. We have about a quarter of our staff that speaks spanish spirits as they speak spanish so how do you confirm that . They ask the detainees questions in spanish. But you dont do you speak spanish . I do not. Can you then determined that using correct language canin. Okay. T quickly to move on. Ice has conferred with oigs recognition for finding or redefining the scope of work. Why hasnt nakamoto . Why hasnt nakamoto to revise the statement of work. To revise the statement of work . So you have more time or more targeted in yourr in evaluating those elements. I mean, weve been doing this for a long time. We do this for other agencies. The same amount of time is on site. I dont we never said we needed more time. I will recognize my colleague mr. Crenshaw from texas. Thank you. Chairwoman, i will follow up with that line of questioning about the more time issue because it seems from our perspective that nakamoto inspectors said to, i believe, the director general that there is more time required and is that not what you have heard . Im that there is more time more time for inspections in order to meet the criteria for all those bullet points you have to hit. I mean, my staff have not complain about the amount of time they have. Mp they have the three days onsite and thats how long they have not complain to you specifically about it . From other reports they have said that. So, its at least something to think about or at least get feedback from your own stephan, i believe because there does seem to be quite a few of the requirements that perhaps theres not enough time to look into. If that is the case then restructuring the requirements is certainly in line, four days and set of relays is not exactly a huge stretch of the imagination is something we could easily do. Y so, aside from the time difference do your employees into your inspectors come to you with other issues . M maybe regarding the inspection process, is not clear enough and weve established you think they have enough time but what else . We work closely with ice. My team worked very closely with ice. If there are any issues that come up thenm we have a Good Relationship<\/a> with letting ice know what the issues are. What about the oig report . Generally speaking you dont have to go into specifics because you dont have it interview but generally speaking what issue do you agree with or disagree with and that report . I think thatt what they see t the time they are there or what they looked at could be different from what we are looking at. We are looking at things from a different perspective. Our team knows what to look for when they go on site so they are based off whatever they are seen in the are basing off of their past experiences and over 35 Years Experience<\/a> and detention management so they know what they are looking at when they walk into a room. I will go to you mr. Hawkins because he said things that were shocking. For instance, the news is what you said that you all found nooses which the Nakamoto Group<\/a> did not find it when you expand on that . How many nooses are we talking about it whatin the implication there . Sure. As a point of clarification i was conveying the oig reports finding. Do you know how many nooses . It was 15 of 20 and i do think ui you proceeded to connect that to suicide so the application is that theres almost a factory line of the nooses being created for suicide. Which is probably not the case but that was the location in your statement. Yeah, my statement was brief but if you look at the report my organization did on this disput would it be logical to think that the sheets were being braided for the reasons that the Nakamoto Group<\/a> claimed they were which was privacy within the cells . Is that possible . It would be important to clarify that we Say Something<\/a> like theres a bunch of nooses found in a facility. Its a pretty important equivocation. Right . My organization said that n the Inspector General<\/a> said that they were merely used for privacy. Thats an important clarification. Eris stuff gets outif of hand. You also mentioned suicides which in other facilities are terrible but were you connectine deficiencies noted later which were not caught by the inspectors that were directly connectedre to those incidences . Yeah, i think medical care and Mental Health<\/a> care. According to ice standards or according to your standards . According to ice standards. Can you get more detail on what were talking about. I refer you to the detainee death review for the gimenez joseph case. It became public recently. I dont know the detainee death review for the other detainees who committed suicide of stuart is publicly available. I would encourage the committee to request a copy of that to get details on that. Ha thank you. The chair recognizes for five minutes the gentleman from new jersey, is Watson Coleman<\/a>. You for being here. R thank you for your testimony. Miss nakamoto, how many employees do you have that are inspectors . Could you put your microphone on please . Sorry. We have 45 parttime employees and 12 fulltime employees. How many facilities do you have a contractual relationship with ice to do whatever it is i will ask you that you do . How many facilities. Our contract is with ice but how many facilities . Us smack as many as they asked us to inspect. Did you have any limit with what were being contracted to da 50 of the 200 facilities or whatever . They do it in intervals and 120 year. At least of facilities . Of facilities. With 45 parttime inspectors and 12 fulltime . What are the credentials that these inspectors are supposed to have . They have to have within our statement of work it declares what the credentials have to be. Im asking you what they have to be . They have to have ten Years Experience<\/a> in a correctional setting and have to be warden and we have wardens and superintendents of corrections. Did they do the inspections or do they oversee other inspections that are done . They do the inspections. And if so what is this threeday limitation . Is this something that the concept calls for or is this something you decided was the best practice and. s which in the contract and we have a similar contract with the doj and its the same thing. When a contract were not with isis . With ice, im sorry. March . What is the value of your contract . I dont have that in front of me. What do you estimate it to be or who do have with on death . Who is with you from your staff . My Vice President<\/a> and my chief Financial Officer<\/a>. And your chief Financial Officer<\/a> should ought to be able to whisper in your ear with the value of your contract. 3 million. Thats a lot of money. Okay. Ms. Hawkins. Some of first of all, you are only testifying about the oig reports. Nothing that you or your organization has seen for yourself. Right . One of my colleagues has gone to [inaudible] buts my reporting relies mainly on government documents and a whole lot of phone interviews. In the facility that you mentioned was inadequate Mental Health<\/a> services inadequate and inadequate Something Else<\/a> i dont remember but are any of those the facilities that the Nakamoto Group<\/a> has a contract to inspect . Yes, some of the largest facilities so i think they are inspected on an annual basis an okay. Miss nakamoto, in 2009 i stated in facilities frequently found inspections and beginning in 2009 operations precluded dhs from continuing contracts for facilities if the two most recent overall performance evaluations received were less than adequate. In the last five years are you aware of any of the over 72 hour facilities that have received an overall final rating of less than two adequate . Did your inspections are you asking if we have an i am asking you if you have the knowledge of any of these facilities or of any facility you are responsible for inspecting that has received an overall final rating of less than adequate . Yes. How many . Six this year alone. What did you do with those findings . We put them in the report and submitted it to ice. And what has happened in those facilities . Well, one that i know off the top of my head had a follow on that we went back after they established a action plan and our team goes back in after so many days andr we have to go in and inspected again. Let me ask you real quick. I apologize,. I have 19 seconds. You are 20 over. Im sorry. Thank you so much i yield back. The chair recognizes the chair recognizes for five minutes the gentleman from nevada, ms. Titus. Thank you. I will yield some time to miss Watson Coleman<\/a> so she can finish her question. Thank you to my colleague. I just want to know with these facilities do they have two tetings with two sequential ratings of less than adequate . And if so, are they not supposed to lose their ability to serve in this capacity t and to your knowledge have any of them . Thats my question. Thank you. I dont know. I could get that information and submit it for the record and i dont have that information in front of me. Thank you. You. Ms. Hawkins,s, last month your organization released a report on the increased use of solitary confinementth or segregation ast is called by ice and according to the report the henderson Detention Center<\/a> which is in Southern Nevada<\/a> was among the otop 15 and they segregation 121 unique times, 121 unique placements and in 16 of those placements lasted more than 75 ldays. I wonder if you could explain what i said detention standards dictate regarding the use of segregation and if you are aware of any waivers that were granted by ice for compliance with the standards. Thank you for your question. S i can probably speak more generally to ices waiver process and segregation standards then pacific regard to the henderson facility. In general in 2013 ice directed that facilities reform their practice on segregation to improve reporting on when vulnerable detainees are placed in segregation or anyone displaced for a long time. And they try to use it as a last resort. They also recommended that facilities try to when a detainee is held in and mistreated segregation protective custody or for Health Reasons<\/a> or other reasons that are not punishment for a disciplinary infection that they should receive the same privileges that detainees and a general revelation received which would mean they dont spend 23 hours locked in their self. We have found is speaking to former ice officials and specters and others thatt that exception has not been to implement and in most facilities say that its just not practical for them to give people privileges in administrative segregation and most ice so these are deals and county jails they just continue toti have segregation meet in solitary and so that provision isnt being adequately implemented. Is that when they grant a waiver . Are there any standards for granting waivers . I dont know i think i would need to examine them more detailed inspections on the use of solitary and i dont know i if i know that on the website there is now a list of waivers and i dont know if its one of those or a general practice where it found to be technically compliance with the standard because the Tension Center<\/a> do tend to have less ability in their language. Is this something that miss nakamoto that you check when your inspectors go out to look into the use of solitary confinement . We do. There are standards within ice standards there are standards that are for segregation. Our staff goes through to ensure that standards are within compliance at facilities. Did you find those numbers highbe, 21 placements . Or in just a year and half. Segregation in solitary confinement are not the same. Well explain that to me what the differences. Well, segregation is there are different variances of segregation. It can be for disciplinary or for administrative and there are different types and within those types there are different components within the standards. Does not seem to me that you know much about this business. My time is up. We will do another round and i appreciate you folks would stay if they have other questions. I want to follow up announce first unannounced visit. Miss nakamoto, when you conduct an inspection for ice how much notice does the facility get . G i believe 60 days or 30 days. Missed hawkins when conducting an inspection is it better to announce or visit i had a time unannounced. Other things being equal its better to conduct an unannounced inspection and their, as you mentioned in your Opening Statement<\/a> there is a tendency to clean things up before the inspectors arrive. One caveat to that i know that the office of Inspector General<\/a> conduct unannounced actions that had been valuable in bringing conditions to light in the office of civil rights and civil liberty does tend to announce theirin actions further in advae but they do so in part because they bring independent experts along and so part of why they announced the inspection is to request that medical files be pulled for the medical inspector to interview to make sure that they are able to speak with the clinical staffre and they are doing a really indepth look and they do many fewer inspectionsnd than the Nakamoto Group<\/a> does. There can be a place for inspections announced in advance but if it will be a quick check to check the foodsd and things f that nature. Thank you. And mississippi and missouri they visited in stafford that prior to their arrival walls were painted, new curtains were put up and flowerbeds replaced outside. Do you think its wise to give facilities advance notice when conducting inspections . We currently have another contract with the Marshall Service<\/a> where we dont announce. Is that better . Us we just do what the contract does unannounced visits and or unannounced inspections and this says unannounced inspections. Ice we just do what it says in our contract. They announce thatey given your experience inspecting facilities do you find that you more regularly determine the true conditions of a facility if you are unannounced. I think so. Thank you. I will yield the rest of the recognize the gentleman from texas for five minutes, mr. Crenshaw. Thank you. Miss nakamoto, have you ever recommended that a facility the longer be utilized by ice or made specific recommendations about what must be improved at a facility and just try to get a sense of the process. What we do is we provide recognition based on whether or not facilities but the standards of the components within the standards met standards. To answer this titus question, i believe, none of these failed to consecutive inspections we never have that but we have had for all of the detainees were removed after a failed inspection. We recommend on every all of our reports what the final recommendation is based on however many components they met or did not meet. Okay. Over some of the most serious examples that you would site. Its good for everyone to understand. Life safety issues, medical issues. Food, those of the major things if theres a life safety issue then it would what would be an example of a life safety issue . F i dont know the standards by heart but if there are certain rules within the life safety issue that our life Safety Standards<\/a> like for example fire drills that are supposed to do and atills a certain way certain times and certain amount of times throughout the year so that is just an example of one of the things they have their safety inspector has to go through. I asked for examples because its for to realize we state the words life safety that can mean something very extreme when you say fire drills thats less extreme. Orth thats what im trying to get at it if you dont have any we dont have any. If going back to the scope one of the main problems it seems in one of the reasons with the office of detention oversight find additional deficiencies in same facility is that the Nakamoto Group<\/a> did not and you have a much broader scope than they do. Is that the right things to do things . Co should the scopes be similar or the better they are different in order to or because there is overlap and whats your general take on the scope of inspections for the Nakamoto Group<\/a> as. The contract . And not comparing ourwh inspections is my understanding that there inspections is more targeted based off of something that is our report says it doesnt meet the standards within this many standards or whatever the may and their team and but the difference is they are sending in more people to inspect for less standards and less component because its a more targeted inspection of i see. Does that make your job more difficult when you get a much broader scope . I dont think it makes our job difficult but we have access to those reports and there has m mbeen an od oh inspection ate facility were going to and we get the report so we can see what findings they found and to make sure that they. I guess the question is about the thoroughness. If your scope so much more broad than otiose is there a lack of depth within the inspection that is subsequent to that scope connect. For our scope of work it talks to the whole amount of standards and all the ice detention standards. Ds they created all of the standards and they all must be reviewed annually. Ed the targeted inspections are just that. They are targeted. They are only looking at a certain youre saying youre comparing apples and orangesin o an extent. Okay. Take you. I have the rest of the time. Thank you. The chair organizes for five minutes the gentleman from new jersey, ms. Watson coleman. Miss nakamoto your inspections are involved which means the facilities know youre coming once a year. It there for three days. Yes. Physical like clockwork . Is it a year from the time you before or do they anticipate even if you dont call them and tell them . We receive our schedule from ice. Can you tell me quickav and n you list the other federal agencies you have a similar contact with from which you do inspections without notifying people in advance and what other agencies do you have contracts with . U. S. Marshals service and . Thats it . Yes. [crowd boos] thats your only other one . Yes. You aggressively disputed some of oigs repeated reporting in the letter rightdoublequote from your inspections of the facility directly responding to the oig findings for example, you allege oig findings in the facility regarding hanging nooses or whatever you call them and inadequate dental care was inaccurate and an embarrassmente to their office and ice. Is it part of your contract with ice to receive findings that the oig or other group find in there inspections of facilities and thats a yes or no. No. You said in your letter thati thateports include only which was verified what we were on site now standing any changes that may have occurred before or after the inspection and if your inspectors were at nakamoto in october 2018 how could we then dispute that that was observed by the oig by earlier. For example you claimed oig was wrong in noting the detainee in wiltshire and not left his wheelchair since his recent arrival and are not accepted the products in the bag given to him but your inspectors were not present for that inspection so how could you possibly claim that the oig findings were not true . My staff went back and looked at the record. Did you see the man sitting in the wheelchair or had he been moved . I must later. Finally your letter said dhs, ice Detention Program<\/a> dedicated to resources and they certainly dhave two ensure the proper care of ice detainees in compliance with the standards. Do you think its appropriate for your company to make that statement that suggests ice is doing every properly evenat thoh i know you are particularly a beneficiary of their resources . Do believe thats a reasonable position for you too take. It is kind of a yes or no. Can i take your silence as a y yes . Or a no . Ms. Hawkins, are you familiar with the letter . Yes. Did you all have a position on whether or notn it raised concerns about their objectivity . It did strike me as strange to see a criticism of a previous inspection in the nakamotoam inspection. I looked into this a bit when i wrote an articlee on ice inspections which was published earlier this yearsp and one of e criticisms that nakamoto made of the t oig inspection were that g did not have people with experience in detention or corrections and when i askeded around people said thats true it is possible that oig got certain details wrong or misunderstood things but then thats why it was so striking to see the reports fromm office of civil rights and Civil Liberties<\/a> which were from before both the oig report and the subsequent nakamoto reports and if anything there were more critical than the oig wascr. Thank you both for your testimony. Y im now going to our second panel of witnesses and thank you for joining us today. Our first witness is ms. Diana shaw, special reviews and evaluations. At the dhs office of Inspector General<\/a> and prior to serving ine this role mr. Shaw served im sorry okay. Sorry, i apologize. Thank you so much. I apologize. I now welcome a second panel of witnesses and thank you for joining today. Our first witness is ms. Diana shaw assistant inspector generam for special reviews and evaluations at dhs office of Inspector General<\/a>. Prior to serving in this role mr. Shaw served several leadership positions within the oig including aig for Legal Affairs<\/a> acting counsel to the ig, director of the special reviews group and acting aig for external affairs. Our second witness is the assistant director for custody and management and enforcement and removal operations of ice. Mr. Johnson began his career with former immigration and Naturalization Service<\/a> and 1992. Since transferring to ice headquarters and 2007 he served in a number of leadership roles including chief staff for the office of detention policy. Without objection the witnesses will statement will be inserted into the record. I now ask each witness to summarize his or herar statemens for five minutes beginning with foshaw. Chairwoman torres, making member consult members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to discuss oigs recent work regarding oversight of ice detention facilities. Nd ice responsible for overseeing the omission of detention of tens of thousands removable aliens. As of the summer ive had approximately 54000 beds occupied across proximally 200 detention facilities nationwide. These facilities were governed by standards that aim to establish consistent conditions of confinement in the detention facility. In an effort to ensure compliance with the standards ice developed a multilayered approach to detention oversight which includes accommodation of onsite monitoring and inspections performed by ice personnel and contracted service providers. These oversight activitiesit hae resulted in the certification and correction of numerous instances of noncompliance with standards. However, the volume of new and strepeat deficiencies identified through the oigs independent inspection raises questions about the overall effectiveness of ice multilayered oversight approach. Since fiscal year 2016 the oig has been conducting unannounced inspections of ice detention facilities and these unannounced inspections have a fight a range of deficiencies including unreported security incidences dangerous mishandling of food and dilapidatedsphe ethical conditions and unaddressed security risks. For instance, oig staff found that staff at the county correctional facility in new jersey had failed to report twice a loaded handgun discovered by a detainee in a facility bathroom. At the Processing Center<\/a> in california facility at which at least several suicide attempts by hanging wereg made in less than one year oig inspectors observed braided bedsheets for two asd nooses by center staff and detainees and 15 of the 20 cells revisited. Serious issues like these raise questions about the effectiveness of ice multilayered approach. He prompted the oig to review the entities involved in providing oversight at each layer. One layer is the Nakamoto Group<\/a>. Its a private company with which ice contracts to annually inspect facilities holding ice detainees. I the time of our review nakamoto was inspecting about 100 facilities a year to evaluate compliance with 3942 detention hundreds. Ice office of detention oversight or oto provides another layer of oversight and at the time of our review audio was inspecting approximately 30 facilities a year to determine tcompliance with 1516 core standards. Finally ice station Detention Service<\/a> managers or dsm onsite with select facilitiesel that continuously monitored coan the oigs work has revealed shortcomings within each layer of the system. For instance the inspection scope outlined in ice contract is much too broad for short thorough inspections. As a result, nakamoto inspections do not always fully examine actual conditions at the facilities or identify all compliance deficiencies. On audio uses effective methods to thoroughly inspect facilities however, audios inspections are relatively infrequent making it difficult for oto to ensure facilities are addressing all deficiencies. Finally, while the dsm provide sponsite monitoring facilities frequently i divide deficiencies and proposed corrective actions have no authority to compel instrumentation. As a result it falls to ice field offices some of which may be resistant to working with the dsm to implement necessary changes. The challenges the oig has identified of the oversight system rendered it less effective than it could be. Meanwhile, ice continues to spend millions of dollars on attention oversight without achieving comprehensive consistent compliance. Ice can and should be doing more. Francis, ice did not fully utilize tools available to it to drive compliant among its contractors and our recent review of Ice Management<\/a> of detention contracts but ice is failing to usese quality assurae tools and impose consequences for contract noncompliance. Moreover we found instead of Holding Facilities<\/a> accountable through available financial penalties ice frequently issued waivers to deficient facilities exempting them from having to comply with detention standards. Until ice fully elements appropriate corrective action ice multilayered approach to oversight will not be asre effective as it needs to be. This concludes my testimony and happy to answer questions. Thank you. And outright denies mr. Johnson to summarize the statement for five minutes. Chairwoman torres small, making member crenshaw, to stick with members off the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding the oversight of the detention facilities. Ice enforcement and removal operations manages and oversees the nations immigration Detention Center<\/a> system excuse me. One of most highly transient and diversified relations of any detention or correctional system in the world. Detainees placed in ice custody represent virtually every nation on earth at various security classification and the levels and often arrive at the custody with complex medical complex detention and medical needs. Er overtakes the Health Safety<\/a> and generally welfare of its detained revelation extremely seriously and is committed to continually evaluating and improving the care of detainee the care detainees receive. Through a robust Inspections Program<\/a> the agency ensures detention facilities use and does so with detention standards which are often much more rigorous than those that apply to other detained populations. These standards were promulgated and the cooperation with ice stakeholders and the American Correctional Association<\/a> and representatives of nongovernmental organizations to ensure that all individuals in ice custody are treated with dignity and respect and provided the best possible care. Rsar ice uses three sets of detention standards for its adult detained population the National Detention<\/a> standards and the s2000 performancebased National Detention<\/a> standards and as well as pbm weapon. All ice Detention Centers<\/a> specify the Living Conditions<\/a> appropriate for detainees and help to ensure safe and secure environment and cover such areas such as medical care food service, environMental Health<\/a> and safety and segregation and the useus of legal and religious services as well as visitation. Ice requirements exceed industry standards which is evident from the large number of local jails who are unwilling to meet the more rigorous requirements and have been elected to detain other populations. It was recently revised in 2016 to include important updates standards on disability assessment and accommodation as well as medical care. To ensure ice is detention the studies meet the requisite standards ice presides oversight for multilayered inspection and monitoring and ice conduct annual and biannual inspections of all facilities over a certain population and utilizes self inspection process for facilities with small populations or those that house detaining for 72 hours. Additionally, the oversightha, d jesse rcl and the dhs oig all conduct interviews and inspections and have open access to ice attention facilities. They also enlisted nakamoto to inspect facilities around the country this includes annuall inspections, pre occupancy, specialty reviews as ordered by using the applicable detention standards. Contract inspectors typically spend three days auditing each facility and in addition to an environMental Health<\/a> and safety subject Matter Expert<\/a> they also employ the services of a Health Professional<\/a> and detainee righ rights. When deficiencies are found during any inspection they work with field offices and facilities to ensure a timely and corrective actions are implemented. Ice greatly appreciates the work conducted by the oig regarding the inspection process and carefully evaluate its recommendations. In june 26 [inaudible] it did not lead to sustained compliance or systemic improvements and the ig made five recommendations with which ice concurred and which have been used to implement and improve our inspections process. In response to oigs finding ice is reevaluating the existing inspections scope and methodology in the statement of work for in the inspection contracts to ensure inspection procedures are adequately an appropriate resource to evaluate detention conditions. It also created a Quality Assurance<\/a> team consisting of seasoned federal employees to perform Quality Assurance<\/a> reviews off the contract inspections during each annual inspection. Ice is also developing a followup inspection process for select facilities where egregious or numerous deficiencies are identified updating and enhancing current procedures for verification of all corrective actions including better attracting corrective actions by facility and responsible field office. As well as developing protocols for dro offices to required facilities to implement formal corrective action plans resulting from deficiencies identified from his onsite monitors. Ice understands mr. Johnson, your time is expired if you want to conclude your sentence. Sure. Thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding this important matter and i look forward to answering questions. Thank you. I think the witnesses for their testimony and i will remind each member that he or she will have five minutes to present the panel. I will now recognize myself for questions. We talked about these 600 elements in the scope of work and it differs this process from the office of detention oversight or audio. We have a much narrower scope inspections and allows the system to more deeply assess the health and safety of detainees. Oig recommendations for ice is to revise the inspection scope and methodology for contracted inspectors within ice statement of work. Do you believe ice is current similar work keeps this contractors from fully compliant with the oversight response abilities connect. Based on our observations related to that report we found that it was an incredibly challenging goal that had been set for the inspectors to try to review the full scope of the 3942 applicable standards in a 3d time. With a five person team is a tall order and based on our experience and highly trained staff i think they felt they too would have struggled to try to meet those goals though the statement of work makes it difficult to get any deep dive into these issues. Should ice revise the statement of work to ensure quality inspections to assess compliance with detention standards . You can just say yes. Yes, thats our recommendation. Harassing plans to amend the new statement of work that satisfies your recommendation. That recommendation continues to be open and treated resolved meeting we are continuing to work with ice on their corrective action and we seeio iterations possible ways they might revise the scope but nothing definitive has been decided at this time and based on our most recent update because they are putting out requests for proposals on that contract i think that will potentially surround the process lightly but we would continue to suggest that regardless of who their contractor is a need to revise that statement of work to ensure they are getting detailed findings. You say he would sitd on the process you mean the rfp would go outgo with changing the scope of work and there may be a new contract without changing the scope of work . And speaking based on our understanding from what weve heard from ice but the latest update that we received was that they were putting out a request for proposal and so they had not provided a new update on the status of their revision to the statement of work. Does that concern you . I think based on the little bit i know about how contracts are done iou think its importat to have a clearly defined statement of work at least in mind when you go through that process. Thank you. Mr. Johnson, what is the status of the plans identified by ms. Shaw . As michelle stated where thee middle of a plan to increase or make the neededd improvements in our statement of work has been drafted in the current competition or in the new competition and we are expected to work within the next two months. Will you commit to finishing or revising the scope of work before finishing the process . Yes. The new requirements will be included in this new contract going forward. Correct. Ms. Shaw, are you planning any followup work to evaluate whether or not the nakamoto inspections have been improved . We currently dont have plan to work in that area but it is the case that is part of our recommendation follow up process and we are consistently obtaining updates from ice based on how well they are implement in their corrective action plan so we would expect to get updates through that process and we will continue our unannounced Inspections Program<\/a> next year and visit facilities, many of reviewed byave been nakamoto and that will give us another opportunity and is part of our pre inspection scope the work we do look at what they have found to evaluate whether t we are seeing corrections when we are onsite or not. P thank you. The short time i i left i want o bring up the issue of penalties versus waiver so in 2. 5 years ice has issued over to financial penalties but offered 65 waivers including allowing the use of pepper spray that is ten times more toxic than pepper spray and strip searches in nine different facilities that dont comport to ice hundreds and my own district remedied the commingling of detainees with varying criminal histories including stress levels. Mr. Johnson, what the point of standards is ice uses waivers to section noncompliance . I think its important to note that the only provisions that ice has ever issued waivers on the things that are certainly not of help mixed threat level isnt Health Safety<\/a> . Classification is important for housing and for recreation and i apologize. Im out of time. Thank you. I now organize the making member with a gentleman from texas, mr. Crenshaw for five minutes. Thank you. I want to continue your answer. Sure. Thank you. Historically, classification is generally held for housing as well ass recreation and those ae the areas where detainees or inmates generally are mostly vulnerable. In your specific instance the only waiver ofic a classificatis requirement had to do with whether an individual who is going from their housing unit or to the medical area needed to be escorted by an officer during the standards required. Thats an area that we waived in the past because it cuts against the whole idea of civil detention to escort level threes and it should be based on the threat that the particular detainee d poses as opposed to just the fact that he may have had marital dispute with his wife and that is why the individuals classified as a level three. I thank you have to look at the specific circumstances of the waiver before you can just conclude that that ice waiver is about made an individual unsafe or vulnerable because we never would grant e back in that example is not as assailing the case of violent criminals put in the cell with a nonviolent. That is correct. C classification is of housing would always be is there additional circumstances to the other waivers . La t mac sure. There are a number of waivers. A lot of waivers you granted are for things that are rigid in our standards 20 years ago that are no longer bound detention practices and the most popular waiver that we grant has to do with the barbershop provision which requires thath the barbershop be in a dedicated area of the facility. That thell barbershop has a i met is typically what the chairwoman alluded to is there additional explanation that would actually those particular waivers. She mentioned pepper spray. Im not familiar with the pepper spray but. Of the bond to the discussion of scope. It reports that theres too much scope for the contractors and very narrow scope for the odo and is the admonition particularly to do everything like the odo to narrow the scope or is there a middle ground that is the recommendation to do everything like photo d0, to narrow the scope . Or is there middle ground represented by the ig . Our recommendation was higher frequency of inspections. But maintain the scope they used . Did you recommend the same scope he used for Jenni Nakamoto<\/a> as well . We did not. We left it to ice to provide the work according to what they felt would allow them to make their standards. What is ices position on that . Our position is we have 39 or 42 standards depending on which version of the standards are applicable. What differentiates between those standards . The more robust standards are generally applicable at our dedicated facilities or close to nearly all ice detainees are more robust standards, tailored to those facilities. We have lower versions of the standards which are national detent of standards for our local jails with shared populations or relatively small ice population compared to the large inmate population. Is there any benefit to ensuring more consistency in inspections . From my perspective now. We are getting exactly what we expect out of our inspections. We have to inspect against all other requirements. We developed a checklist to identify the elements of each. Getting to the root causes of this, given the vast amount of detainees in custody, 54,000, to what extent does that put increased pressure on your operation in these facilities . We have to activate a lot of new facilities. For those, a learning curve for them to figure out what inspections require. For some of those folks it was challenging at times so it did impact the operation. Thank you. Thank you, Mister Johnson<\/a> for your testimony. How many employees do you have that oversee or work with these facilities that have detainees . I have 200 are so direct reports, focusing on detention, i would say half of those, 120. 100120. You are distinguishing them, to detention operations. How many facilities are you responsible for, ensuring that the standards of care are appropriate . Today we use 250 facilities. So 100 and 120 inspection people how do they determine . They do smaller facilities and Jenni Nakamoto<\/a> takes the larger facilities . Jenni nakamoto inspect all the facilities we use that house people for 72 hours. I have onsite Detention Service<\/a> managers at our largest facilities. They cover 50 facilities, and reach 70 of our population. There are 250 facilities altogether . That is correct. Of those have you had occasion to close any for deficiencies in service, unsafe conditions . We have closed several facilities. How many several . Over the last ten years. Tell me about the last three years. Three years, i dont recall offhand. Jenni nakamotos Group Provides<\/a> a report of their findings. Those are recommendations to your department. That is correct. Do you under any circumstances ignore their findings and recommendations . Generally now . Or never know . I recall one instance where we disagree with your recommendation and went back to them and explain our position. There is a mention in my briefing here that there was an instance where ice recommendations that came from Jenni Nakamoto<\/a> to you all, for an extended period of time over 100 days, did that comes your recommendation . I do remember a statement that there was an inspection sitting in draft status for an extended time. What is the time those recommendations stand waiting for a response from you all . Do you have a requirement . There is no requirement, to get those reports finalized sooner rather than later. What is the followup on telling a facility that it has x number of violations, what is the process for followup . The field office and the facility and serious life safety issue and corrective action plan in short order. For any sort of regular when you have these deficiencies brought to your attention and you tell the facility you have x number of days, what is your follow up . One you tell them to do you do . At our dsm facilities where we have onsite staff, we can ensure what they do was done. How many facilities have onsite staff . About 50. In that one facility fulltime folks spend the majority of time, they have another facility close by they have to provide coverage of. In the last couple years have you used financial penalty to get your facility to do what you need them to do to meet the standards . More than two. I heard earlier it only occurred twice. It has at least been 10 or 15 that i am aware of but we could get you a number. I asked Mister Crenshaw<\/a> if you want to the second round but it wasnt necessary. I am not quite sure why we are having all this consternation about inspections of facilities meeting standards and whether they are relevant and the standards are doable and make sense and why we dont have the followup we are supposed to have. My question, we need extra people or streamlining of operations or better commitment . Based on our recommendations the primary issue is a processed one including adequate followup, documentation to support claims by facilities they implemented corrective action. They need a more robust process for ensuring followup. Does that mean you need more staff . I would like to have more staff at our larger facilities to monitor conditions. The staff would be welcome. My last question. How do you do qualitycontrol checking of your contract, Jenni Nakamoto<\/a>. What i would say is 10 years ago the government used to inspect its own facilities but after a lot of criticism what do you do to ensure Jenni Nakamoto<\/a> is doing the job you ask them to do . Today, federal employees that accompany Jenni Nakamoto<\/a> on every inspection. They have a role in the process but they will at this point forward be monitoring the inspector to make sure they provide the services we are paying 4. Thank you to the witnesses in the first panel. I would ask unanimous consent to commit statements to the record from Civil Liberties<\/a> union. The American Immigration<\/a> Council International<\/a> justice center, government accountability, southern poverty law center, Transgender Law Center<\/a> and Asian American<\/a> advancing justice. Without objection so admitted. Members of the subcommittee may have additional questionss for the witnesses and we may ask that you respond expeditiously in writing to those questions. Without objection the committee record shall be kept open for ten days. Hearing no further business the subcommittee stands adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] coming up later a symposium on Supreme Court<\/a> clerks, recounting their time at the court, George Washington<\/a> law review and National Constitution<\/a> center forecasting this event, you can watch online, cspan. Org or listen with the free cspan radio apps. Today at 6 00 pm eastern live coverage of Hillary Clinton<\/a> and her daughter chelsea talking about their new book of gutsy women who inspired them. Watch our live coverage in washington dc today at 6 00 pm eastern. Booktv, cspan2. I will tell you we were very surprised that we found the millennial generation which will be 50 of the workforce in 2020 is at this stage of life the sickest generation of any cohort group and it relates six of that we 7 conditions for Mental Health<\/a> or Emotional Health<\/a> related conditions. Generally stemming from detachment issues, lots of virtual contact but not enough human contact. We are seeing chronic conditions arrive like high blood pressure, high cholesterol in that generation that we would expect to see in people 25 years or older. The ceo of Blue Cross Blue Shield<\/a> Association Talk<\/a> about Prescription Drug<\/a> costs and innovation on cspan at 9 00, 10 00 eastern. National institutes of Health Director<\/a> doctor Francis Collins<\/a> and other and i age leaders testify before House Appropriations<\/a> subcommittee on funding and research efforts. This is about 21 2 hours. The subcommittee will come to order. Thank you very much and apologize for being late. They take on a life of their own. I wanted to say good morning, welcome back to labor hhs, appropriations subcommittee. Let me say thank you on behalf of of the subcommittee for hosting members of the subcommittee for the site visit at the nih campus last week. We had a wonderful opportunity","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia803103.us.archive.org\/35\/items\/CSPAN2_20191004_134500_Oversight_Hearing_of_ICE_Detention_Facilities\/CSPAN2_20191004_134500_Oversight_Hearing_of_ICE_Detention_Facilities.thumbs\/CSPAN2_20191004_134500_Oversight_Hearing_of_ICE_Detention_Facilities_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240716T12:35:10+00:00"}