Appendix A

Scope and Methodology

The Audit Committee directed the California State Auditor to examine city, county, or other local government detention centers that contract with ICE, including determining the actual costs of detaining individuals covered by these contracts and whether requirements for housing detainees were met. Table A lists the objectives that the Audit Committee approved and the methods we used to address them.

Table A
Audit Objectives and the Methods Used to Address Them
Audit Objective		Method
1	Review and evaluate the laws, rules, and regulations significant to the audit objectives.	Reviewed and evaluated laws, rules, regulations, contracts, and cooperative agreements significant to detention facilities that house detainees and unaccompanied children.
2	Determine the roles and responsibilities, if any, of Community Corrections, or other state or local entities in overseeing contract jails.	Reviewed laws and regulations that establish the roles and responsibilities of Community Corrections, the Attorney General, and county grand juries to oversee detention facilities; as well as the roles and responsibilities of Social Services to oversee community care facilities. We also interviewed Community Corrections staff and reviewed available reports on detention facilities, reviewed county grand jury reports on detention facilities, and interviewed Social Services staff and reviewed available reports on community care facilities.
3	Identify and evaluate for the past five fiscal years the number of individuals detained in contract jails for reasons of immigration status, and the duration and the amount of state and local funding used for these detentions. Determine the extent to which those costs include expenditures to expand contract jail facilities.	Reviewed data from a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in ICE’s FOIA library that included a listing of all facilities used by ICE to house detainees to identify detention facilities in California with contracts to house detainees for ICE, which we present in Figure 1. Analyzed demographic data from July 1, 2013, through June 30, 2018 for those detention facilities in California to determine the number, age, nationality, and sex of individuals detained for reasons of immigration status, as well as the duration of their stay at the detention facility. Reviewed data on ICE payments for detainees and detainee costs. Compared the annual ICE payments with annual detainee costs, or the contracted per-diem rate with average daily costs of detainees. We interviewed staff and reviewed budget documents to identify the source of state and/or local funding used, if any. However, because the counties commingle funding we could not identify the specific funding sources used to cover detainee expenses. Interviewed city and county staff regarding facility expansion, reviewed Community Corrections’ documentation of detention facility construction financing awards, and reviewed applicable construction project documentation.
4	For a selection of contract jails holding current or recent contracts with ICE to detain individuals for reasons of immigration status, determine the following:	We selected the following detention facilities: Theo Lacy Facility in Orange County West County Detention Facility in Contra Costa County Yolo Juvenile Facility in Yolo County Adelanto Detention Facility in the City of Adelanto
	a. The amount of federal revenue the contract jails receive in exchange for detaining individuals on ICE’s behalf and how that revenue is being used to fund jail operations and services. In addition, if revenue is used to fund inmate programs, identify the programs and determine whether the programs are available to immigration‑related detainees.	Reviewed monthly invoices from the selected detention facilities to ICE for the past five fiscal years in order to determine the amount of federal payments received for housing ICE detainees. Reviewed federal funding awards to Yolo County for the Refugee Resettlement program from the last five fiscal years. Obtained expenditure records of accounts into which cities and counties deposited ICE payments, and analyzed the records to identify the uses of ICE payments. Interviewed city and county staff regarding programs, and obtained detainee handbooks to identify the programs and services available to detainees and quarterly reports to identify the programs and services available to unaccompanied children. Reviewed federal inspection reports during our audit period.
	b. The extent to which ICE contracts include monetary limits or caps for any categories of expenses, such as detainee medical care. If the contracts include such limits, determine whether counties and cities provide for such expenditures in excess of those limits.	Examined the ICE and Refugee Resettlement contracts and determined whether a monetary limit or cap exists for any spending category. Orange County has a limit on its spending for prescription medications for ICE detainees. Yolo County has a limit on its total spending for unaccompanied children based on the federal funding from Refugee Resettlement. For Orange and Yolo counties, obtained expenditure data and determined whether the spending has been within the limit for the past five fiscal years.
	c. Whether the contract jails’ actual costs for detaining individuals covered by these contracts have exceeded the federal revenue received in exchange for doing so. Identify the sources of state, local, or other funding that counties and cities have used to cover those extra expenses.	Interviewed key staff at the counties regarding actual detainee costs. Obtained Orange County’s and Contra Costa County’s detainee cost analyses. We then compared the identified detainee costs with ICE revenue or the contracted per‑diem rate. However, because the counties commingle funding we could not identify the specific funding sources used to cover detainee expenses. Interviewed staff at Adelanto to confirm that the city does not spend local or state money on the Adelanto Detention Facility. Interviewed staff and obtained documentation from Yolo County. We compared Yolo County’s expenditures with the federal funding it received. Reviewed Yolo County’s budget proposals to Refugee Resettlement.
	d. The extent to which contract provisions and jail protocols include requirements for housing immigration-related detainees in locations other than those used for state criminal detainees and inmates, and whether those requirements are met and are consistent with state and federal law.	Reviewed contracts, detention standards, detention facility policies and procedures, and available federal inspection reports to determine whether policies and procedures for housing detainees or unaccompanied children were consistent with requirements. Reviewed Adelanto’s ICE contract to confirm that only ICE detainees are housed at the Adelanto Detention Facility. For Yolo County, obtained policies and procedures, reports with program data and descriptions, and Refugee Resettlement inspection reports to determine whether Yolo County housed detainees in compliance with requirements.
	e. To the extent possible, determine whether and to what extent immigration-related detainees contribute to overcrowding in contract jails. Also determine whether contract jails have been forced to displace or release individuals facing or convicted of nonimmigration‑related criminal charges due to overcrowding caused by the detention of individuals for immigration purposes on behalf of ICE.	Reviewed the capacity and population of the selected detention facilities. Reviewed laws and available policies for early release of inmates and determined whether detention facilities activated early release protocols. Reviewed Community Corrections’ records of early releases during the audit period.
5	To the extent possible, identify and summarize age and other demographic information for immigration-related detainees between 2013 and 2018. Determine how many, if any, of such individuals died while in custody and the causes of those deaths. Determine how many of those who died were detained for civil immigration cases.	See method for Objective 3 regarding demographic information. Interviewed city and county staff regarding detainee deaths while in custody and reviewed available ICE documents. Identified individuals that died while in custody within the demographic data we obtained from auditees. We present this information in Appendix C on page 45.
6	Review and assess any other issues that are significant to the audit.	For the three California cities with intergovernmental agreements with ICE (Adelanto, McFarland, and Holtville), we reviewed the following: Contracts between the city and ICE. Contracts between the city and the private operator. City council meeting minutes, agendas, and other documents that identified the reasons these cities entered into the contracts. Reviewed federal inspection reports for the three subcontracted detention facilities.

Source: Analysis of the Audit Committee’s audit request number 2018-117, as well as information and documentation identified in the column titled Method.

Assessment of Data Reliability

In performing this audit, we relied on electronic data files that we obtained from local governments and private operators of detention facilities that house detainees. These electronic data files related to counties’ cost estimates for the detention facilities where they housed detainees, Orange County’s expenditures for prescription medication, and counties’ detainee population counts. The U.S. Government Accountability Office, whose standards we are statutorily obligated to follow, requires us to assess the sufficiency and appropriateness of computer-processed information that we use to support our findings, conclusions, or recommendations. To perform this assessment, we reviewed the methodology the counties used to develop their cost estimates and found them to be reasonable, with the exception of Contra Costa’s, which we discuss here in the report. However, we did not perform completeness or accuracy testing on the data so they are of undetermined reliability. We reviewed supporting documentation for Orange County’s expenditures for prescription medication, and we found the data to be sufficiently reliable for calculating annual totals. We corroborated the counties’ detainee population data with information from Community Corrections’ inspection reports, but we did not perform completeness and accuracy testing, so they are of undetermined reliability. We recognize that these limitations may affect the precision of the numbers we present, but there is sufficient evidence in total to support our audit findings, conclusions, and recommendations.

Appendix B

Demographic Information of Detainees and Unaccompanied Children Housed in Detention Facilities in California
Fiscal Years 2013–14 Through 2017–18

The Audit Committee directed us to identify and summarize demographic information for detainees held in California. Table B.1 presents the information we gathered from the eight local government detention facilities in California that agreed to house detainees for ICE during the audit period. Table B.2 presents the information for unaccompanied children placed at Yolo Juvenile Facility. The Otay Mesa Detention Center is privately owned and operated by CoreCivic (formerly known as Corrections Corporation of America) and contracts directly with the federal government to house detainees. Thus, neither the State nor any local government has contractual involvement with Otay Mesa. While we made an FOIA request for demographic information to ICE concerning detainees at this facility, we did not receive a response as of February 20, 2019.

Table B.1
Demographic Information on Detainees Housed in Detention Facilities in California
Data From July 1, 2013, Through June 30, 2018
FACILITY*	CITY OR COUNTY/PRIVATE OPERATOR	AVAILABLE BED COUNT	TOTAL DETAINEES	AVERAGE AGE	PERCENT MALE	MEXICO	GUATEMALA	EL SALVADOR	HONDURAS	INDIA	OTHER^†
						COUNTRY
Adelanto Detention Facility	City of Adelanto / GEO	1,940	34,081	35	92%	55%	8%	7%	5%	5%	20%
Imperial Regional Detention Facility	City of Holtville / IVGC / MTC	640	15,381	31	91	13	8	6	10	33	30
James A. Musick Facility	Orange County / NA	958	16,453	34	91	55	10	9	5	4	17
Theo Lacy Facility	Orange County / NA	958	16,453	34	91	55	10	9	5	4	17
Mesa Verde Detention Facility	City of McFarland / GEO	400	10,000	36	84	71	5	6	4	1	13
Rio Cosumnes Correctional Facility	Sacramento County / NA	165	6,493	37	98	70	5	8	3	1	13
West County Detention Facility^‡	Contra Costa County / NA	269	8,701	34	78	57	8	8	4	1	22
Yuba County Jail	Yuba County / NA	210	6,616	36	92	58	2	0	0	0	40

Source: Contracts and other documents from facility operators.

NA = Not applicable.

* The Otay Mesa Detention Center is privately owned and operated by CoreCivic (formerly known as Corrections Corporation of America) and contracts directly with the federal government to house detainees. While we made a FOIA request for demographic information to ICE, we have not received a response as of February 20, 2019.

^† Other includes countries not listed and entries where the country was not specified.

^‡ We identified some errors and inconsistencies in Contra Costa County’s data. However, because it is the only source of the information, we present it here.

Table B.2
Demographic Information on Detainees Housed in Detention Facilities in California
Data From July 1, 2013, Through June 30, 2018
FACILITY	OPERATOR	AVAILABLE BED COUNT	TOTAL CHILDREN	AVERAGE AGE	PERCENT MALE	MEXICO	GUATEMALA	EL SALVADOR	HONDURAS	OTHER
						COUNTRY
Yolo County Juvenile Detention Facility	Yolo County	24	340	16	100%	44%	9%	16%	29%	2%

Source: Contracts and other documents from facility operators.

Additionally, the data we received from the other facilities are not standardized. For instance, facilities reported citizenship, country of birth, country of origin, nationality and similar terms, all of which we categorized as country. Table B.3 and Table B.4 present information regarding the duration of stay. We defined a stay at a detention facility as each instance of an individual arriving at and leaving the facility during our audit period (July 1, 2013, through June 30, 2018). In the data, we encountered individuals who had multiple stays at the same facility. Additionally, we found instances of the same individuals appearing in different facilities. Because we provide the demographic information as background information and did not use it to draw conclusions, we did not assess the reliability of the data.

Table B.3
Duration of Stay for Detainees Housed in Detention Facilities in California
Data From July 1, 2013, Through June 30, 2018
	DURATION OF STAY RANGES (DAYS STAYED)
FACILITY	0 TO 1	2 TO 30	31 TO 100	101 TO 365	366+
Adelanto Detention Facility	16%	37%	27%	18%	2%
Imperial Regional Detention Facility	8	47	28	15	2
James A. Musick Facility and Theo Lacy Facility	1	37	39	20	3
Mesa Verde Detention Facility	37	31	22	9	1
Rio Cosumnes Correctional Facility*
West County Detention Facility^†
Yuba County Jail	30	39	19	11	1

Source: Facility operators.

* We did not include duration of stay data for Rio Cosumnes Correctional Facility because it was not comparable to the other facilities’ data and would have required significant manual reformatting.

^† We did not include duration of stay data for West County Detention Facility because it included numerous errors and inconsistencies.

Table B.4
Duration of Stay for Unaccompanied Children Housed in Detention Facilities in California
Data From July 1, 2013, Through June 30, 2018
	DURATION OF STAY RANGES (DAYS STAYED)
FACILITY	0 TO 1	2 TO 30	31 TO 100	101 TO 365	366+
Yolo County Juvenile Detention Facility	2%	16%	65%	15%	2%

Source: Yolo County.

Appendix C

Detainee Deaths in Custody
Fiscal Years 2013–14 Through 2017–18

The Audit Committee directed us to determine how many, if any, of the individuals identified in the demographic information summarized in Appendix B died while in custody, what the causes of those deaths were, and whether the individuals who died were detained for civil immigration cases. Table C presents the information we gathered about the number of individuals who died while in custody.

Table C
Deaths in Custody
DETENTION FACILITY NAME	NUMBER OF DEATHS	CAUSE OF DEATH	TYPE OF DETENTION
Adelanto	5	Cardiogenic shock (condition in which the heart suddenly cannot pump enough blood to meet the body’s needs), massive right ventricular infarction (heart attack), and severe ischemic heart disease (reduced blood flow to the heart)	Civil Immigration*
		Liver and kidney failure^†	Civil Immigration*
		Hypoxic encephalopathy (brain dysfunction caused by insufficient oxygen to the organ tissues) due to hanging	Civil Immigration*
		Upper gastrointestinal bleeding from esophageal varices (enlarged veins in the lower esophagus), cirrhosis (scarring of the liver), and heroin and alcohol abuse	Civil Immigration*
		Pending^‡	Civil Immigration*
Otay Mesa	2	Hypertensive and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (heart condition related to high blood pressure and heart disease in the blood vessels)	Unknown^§
Otay Mesa	2	Sudden cardiac death (sudden, unexpected loss of heart function, breathing, and consciousness), acute coronary syndrome (a range of conditions associated with sudden, reduced blood flow to the heart), multivessel coronary artery disease (blockages in several of the heart’s main arteries) due to arteriosclerotic vascular disease (a blood vessel disease)	Unknown^§

Source: ICE’s documentation of deaths in ICE custody and detainee death reviews; ICE contracts; Mayo Clinic’s health information.

* Facility houses immigration detainees who are only held to assure their presence throughout the immigration process and are not charged with criminal violations.

^† This is a preliminary cause of death; source documentation does not include a final cause of death.

^‡ ICE has not made final cause of death information public.

^§ Facility holds individuals charged with federal offenses and detained while awaiting trial or sentencing, a hearing on their immigration status, or deportation.