The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention system depends on hundreds of jails, prisons, and other facilities largely owned as well as run by others — some by local government agencies and others by private, for-profit companies. Using beds in these facilities that are widely scattered across the country, ICE manages a large complex system with daily flows of individuals both into as well as out of ICE custody. In addition, an even larger number of individuals already in ICE custody are continually being transferred among these facilities.

A total of 325,209 individuals left ICE custody last year, while 39,082 were still detained at the end of FY 2015[1]. The reasons for which individuals were released from ICE custody varied markedly by detention facility. Nationally, the most common reason for leaving ICE custody was because a detainee was being deported; this reason was listed in 55 percent of recorded departures last year. The next largest group were detainees released on bond or on their personal recognizance while their cases were pending. Others were released because their cases had concluded and they had been found to have a lawful right to remain in the country.

According to detailed government records on each individual who entered, left, or remained in ICE custody during fiscal year 2015, the agency used a total of 637 different facilities last year. While many of these 637 detention facilities were concentrated along the southwest border with Mexico, one or more facilities existed in every one of the fifty states, as well as Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands and the Northern Mariana Islands. Some of these were temporary holding rooms, others were designed for long term stays. Some held only a single person on one occasion during the entire year, others had tens of thousands pass through their doors during this same period. For facilities on which daily costs were available in the records released by ICE, per diem rates ranged from as low as $30 per bed for a short-stay (under 72 hours) facility to a high of $168.84 per day, with lower rates for high volume usage.

This report presents an overview of ICE's custody system, and accompanies a series of reports covering each detention facility. The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University developed the database on which these reports are based using the stay-by-stay records from each detention facility that at least one individual entered, left or stayed at during the past year. These detailed records were obtained by TRAC through Freedom of Information Act requests to ICE.

Table 1 summarizes the types of facilities ICE relied upon last year. While a total of 325,209 individuals left ICE custody last year, the total number of individuals "booked out" of ICE facilities during FY 2015 is a great deal larger: 699,268. The difference between these two figures represents the number of times individuals were transferred among facilities. All totaled, there were 374,059 recorded transfers among ICE facilities during FY 2015. Thus each detainee experienced, on average, at least one transfer to another facility.

Roughly one-third of these book-outs involved ICE holding or staging facilities — facilities generally designed for short-term stays. About five percent of the book-outs were from specialized facilities for housing juveniles, and one to two percent were a variety of other facilities including medical hospitals.

The remaining book-outs were from ICE Service Processing Centers (15%), privately owned Contract Detention Facilities (15%), and government owned detention facilities (28%) that ICE made use of through intergovernmental service agreements (IGSAs).

Table 1. Number of Times Detainees Booked Out by Type of ICE Detention Facility During FY 2015

Type of Facility**	Number Booked Out			Percent
Type of Facility**	Total	Transfer*	Departure*	Total	Transfer*	Departure*
Total	699,268	374,059	325,209	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
Holding/Staging Facility	248,485	141,367	107,118	35.5%	37.8%	32.9%
IGSA Facility	195,237	109,544	85,693	27.9%	29.3%	26.4%
ICE Service Processing Center	105,171	55,888	49,283	15.0%	14.9%	15.2%
Contract Detention Facility	104,821	53,127	51,694	15.0%	14.2%	15.9%
Juvenile Facility	33,944	3,053	30,891	4.9%	0.8%	9.5%
Other	9,616	9,344	272	1.4%	2.5%	0.1%
Federal Bureau of Prisons Facility	1,102	893	209	0.2%	0.2%	0.1%
Medical Facility	887	840	47	0.1%	0.2%	0.0%
U.S. Marshals Service Office	5	3	2	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%

* Individuals could be booked out to "transfer" to another facility, or could be leaving ICE custody ("departure") when deported or released. For additional details, see Reasons for Departures from ICE Detention.
** For additional information about each facility type, see About the Data.

The role of private companies in this detention system was not limited to facilities owned by for-profit corporations. ICE as well as other government agencies frequently engage private companies to operate their detention facilities. About half of all book-outs during FY 2015 were from facilities operated by private corporations. Once facilities used as temporary holding or staging facilities were excluded, the proportion rises to almost three out of four (72%) for regular facilities. These figures may underestimate the actual role of private companies since ICE did not release current information on who operated many of the facilities it used under intergovernmental service agreements.

As shown in Table 2, the firms with the largest role based upon the volume of usage (book-outs) last year were The GEO Group, Inc. (15%), Corrections Corporations of America (10%), and the Ahtna Corporation (10%)[2]. ICE records identified fourteen different companies involved in the detention business, although most of these played much smaller roles than these three dominant companies.

Table 2. Number of Times Detainees Booked Out During FY 2015
by Type of ICE Detention Facility and Operator

Facility Operator	Number Booked Out			Percent
	Facility Type			Facility Type
	Total	Holding/Staging	Regular	Total	Holding/Staging	Regular
All	699,268	248,485	450,783	100%	100%	100%
Government operated	352,281	229,716	122,565	50%	92%	27%
Private company operated*	341,562	18,769	322,793	49%	8%	72%
The GEO Group, Inc.	102,384	18,769	83,615	15%	8%	19%
Corrections Corporation of America	68,087	0	68,087	10%	0%	15%
Ahtna Corporation	67,870	0	67,870	10%	0%	15%
Emerald Companies	23,839	0	23,839	3%	0%	5%
Management and Training Corporation	19,452	0	19,452	3%	0%	4%
Doyon Government Group — Akal Security	14,711	0	14,711	2%	0%	3%
Asset Protection and Security Services	9,722	0	9,722	1%	0%	2%
Community Education Centers	8,031	0	8,031	1%	0%	2%
MVM Transport	7,182	0	7,182	1%	0%	2%
Akal Security	6,603	0	6,603	1%	0%	1%
LaSalle Corrections	4,792	0	4,792	1%	0%	1%
Immigration Centers of America	3,337	0	3,337	0%	0%	1%
Ahtna Technical Services, Inc.	3,188	0	3,188	0%	0%	1%
Valley Metro Barbosa Group	2,364	0	2,364	0%	0%	1%
Operator not known	5,425	0	5,425	1%	0%	1%

* ICE provided incomplete information on the operator of facilities it used, so the number operated by private companies is likely to be underestimated. Information was particularly incomplete for operators of holding/staging facilities.

ICE did not release information on the city or county where an individual was apprehended. However, ICE records did indicate that more than half (55%) had been transferred to its custody from the Border Patrol. In contrast, an ICE detainer had been placed on just over one in ten (11%) before being taken into custody[3]. Very few (0.2%) had been picked up through a 287(g) program by which local law enforcement agents are authorized to help enforce immigration laws through a special agreement with ICE. While TRAC requested further details on how the individuals arrived in ICE custody, the records that the agency released provided few details on how the remaining one third came into its custody.

Records that TRAC obtained tracked individuals from the time they entered until they left ICE custody. Unless released quickly, once in ICE custody people were often transferred to other facilities based in part on the availability of beds or whether they were being prepared for deportation. Because many of the detention facilities ICE uses were located along the southwest border with Mexico, many transfers were to facilities located in these border states.

Table 3 summarizes detention book-outs by the location of facilities that served as transfer points. At the top of the list is Texas, which accounts for more than one out of three transfer facility book-outs (35.9%). This is lower, however, than the Texas facilities' share of the final book-outs; these detention facilities accounted for half (50.4%) of the occasions in which individuals left ICE custody because they were deported or released.

Arizona and New Mexico also served as a release point much more often than as a transfer point to a facility located in a different state. Arizona accounted for 8.7 percent of transfers but 11.8 percent of departures. New Mexico facilities accounted for 1.3 percent of transfers but 4.7 percent of departures.

California facilities, in contrast, were more often used as a transfer facility. While the southern end of the state borders Mexico, much of its territory does not. After Texas, facilities in that state were the second most frequently used as transfer points accounting for 18.6 percent of all transfer book-outs, but only 10.6 percent of those in which individuals left ICE custody.

As shown in Table 3, most states followed the California pattern, in which facilities more often served as transfer points rather than as the final destination before a person left ICE custody.

Table 3. Number of Times Detainees Booked Out of ICE Detention Facility During FY 2015 by State
(Click on a column header to sort)

State or Territory	Number Booked Out			Percent
State or Territory	Total	Transfer*	Departure*	Total	Transfer*	Departure*
All	699,268	374,059	325,209	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
Texas	298,242	134,432	163,810	42.7%	35.9%	50.4%
California	104,194	69,696	34,498	14.9%	18.6%	10.6%
Arizona	70,873	32,503	38,370	10.1%	8.7%	11.8%
Louisiana	37,683	18,806	18,877	5.4%	5.0%	5.8%
Florida	20,962	12,133	8,829	3.0%	3.2%	2.7%
New Mexico	20,119	4,788	15,331	2.9%	1.3%	4.7%
Georgia	19,936	12,430	7,506	2.9%	3.3%	2.3%
Illinois	19,144	15,303	3,841	2.7%	4.1%	1.2%
Virginia	10,391	7,794	2,597	1.5%	2.1%	0.8%
New York	10,212	5,024	5,188	1.5%	1.3%	1.6%
Pennsylvania	9,367	5,094	4,273	1.3%	1.4%	1.3%
Washington	7,398	4,908	2,490	1.1%	1.3%	0.8%
New Jersey	7,260	3,031	4,229	1.0%	0.8%	1.3%
Colorado	6,185	4,482	1,703	0.9%	1.2%	0.5%
Wisconsin	4,800	4,662	138	0.7%	1.2%	0.0%
South Carolina	3,966	3,749	217	0.6%	1.0%	0.1%
Michigan	3,402	1,852	1,550	0.5%	0.5%	0.5%
Minnesota	3,369	2,260	1,109	0.5%	0.6%	0.3%
Nevada	3,345	2,261	1,084	0.5%	0.6%	0.3%
Alabama	3,251	2,942	309	0.5%	0.8%	0.1%
Ohio	3,187	1,794	1,393	0.5%	0.5%	0.4%
Massachusetts	3,049	2,047	1,002	0.4%	0.5%	0.3%
Indiana	2,999	2,801	198	0.4%	0.7%	0.1%
North Carolina	2,989	2,763	226	0.4%	0.7%	0.1%
Utah	2,982	2,207	775	0.4%	0.6%	0.2%
Maryland	2,416	1,442	974	0.3%	0.4%	0.3%
Oklahoma	2,399	2,052	347	0.3%	0.5%	0.1%
Oregon	1,980	1,622	358	0.3%	0.4%	0.1%
Kentucky	1,967	1,364	603	0.3%	0.4%	0.2%
Nebraska	1,729	884	845	0.2%	0.2%	0.3%
Missouri	1,246	606	640	0.2%	0.2%	0.2%
Idaho	1,107	1,010	97	0.2%	0.3%	0.0%
Tennessee	1,058	990	68	0.2%	0.3%	0.0%
Puerto Rico	988	507	481	0.1%	0.1%	0.1%
Iowa	854	650	204	0.1%	0.2%	0.1%
New Hampshire	807	611	196	0.1%	0.2%	0.1%
Arkansas	602	567	35	0.1%	0.2%	0.0%
Kansas	595	245	350	0.1%	0.1%	0.1%
North Dakota	503	456	47	0.1%	0.1%	0.0%
West Virginia	368	356	12	0.1%	0.1%	0.0%
Delaware	286	272	14	0.0%	0.1%	0.0%
Wyoming	237	195	42	0.0%	0.1%	0.0%
Hawaii	217	7	210	0.0%	0.0%	0.1%
South Dakota	132	125	7	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Montana	99	83	16	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Vermont	92	83	9	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Connecticut	79	33	46	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Maine	77	72	5	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Guam	63	7	56	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Virgin Islands	31	29	2	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Alaska	24	23	1	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Northern Mariana Isl	5	5	0	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Mississippi	1	0	1	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Rhode Island	1	1	0	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%

* Individuals could be booked out to "transfer" to another facility, or they may leave ICE custody ("departure") when they are deported or released.

TRAC has compiled detailed reports on each of the 637 detention facilities that ICE used last year, covering each facility's use as a transfer point and as a final destination. Each report provides a wealth of details on when and where individuals first entered ICE custody, their length of stay at the facility, and the reasons they left ICE custody from that facility. In addition, a customizable listing provides the names of each facility and how many individuals were detained there last year, and provides the means to compare facilities of different types and in particular states. When per diem rates charged at the facility were released by ICE, these daily rates that ICE paid are also given.

The sections that follow present highlights on the facilities that saw the most individuals during fiscal year 2015.

Based on their use as transfer points, the top 25 facilities that ICE most frequently used are shown in Table 4. Note that the number of book-outs of 374,059 is larger than the number of individuals transferred (324,212) because some individuals passed through the same facility more than once during their custody period.

The Port Isabel Service Processing Center in Los Fresnos, Texas, was by far the busiest facility. It alone handled more than one out of every ten transfers. The Florence Staging Facility in Florence, Arizona was second, followed by the Harlingen Hold Room in Harlingen, Texas.

Texas was the location for 11 out of the top 25 transfer facilities. It was followed by California with five and Georgia with three. Arizona and Louisiana each had two, followed by Illinois and Florida with one each. Note that transfers can occur at the beginning as well as the end of the detainee's stay. The latter often occurs when the individual is being deported. Thus a state in which one or more large detention facilities are located may rank high because so many individuals are transferred from their facilities to departure points when they are being deported.

Based on the number of individuals who left ICE custody during the past year, the top 25 facilities that ICE used are shown in Table 5. A total of 14 out of the 25 were located in Texas, while fully 21 out of the 25 were located in the four states along the country's southwest border with Mexico. Arizona had four, California two, and New Mexico one. The remaining four were in Louisiana (2), Georgia (1) and Pennsylvania (1).

Two of the top three facilities — the Port Isabel Service Processing Center and the Harlingen Hold Room — are Texas facilities that were first and third, respectively, on the list of the top transfer facilities. The Otero County Processing Center in Chaparral, New Mexico was third highest in terms of the number of departures from ICE custody last year.

Table 4. Facilities Transferring the Largest Number of Individuals During FY 2015 — Top 25

Name of Facility	Book Outs	Individuals	City	State	Type of Facility
All	374,059	324,212
Port Isabel Service Processing Center	40,335	32,439	Los Fresnos	Texas	ICE Service Processing Center
Florence Staging Facility	18,264	15,865	Florence	Arizona	Holding/Staging Facility
Harlingen Hold Room	13,320	13,201	Harlingen	Texas	Holding/Staging Facility
Houston Field Office Holding Room	8,958	8,945	Houston	Texas	Holding/Staging Facility
Los Custody Case Holding Facility	13,532	7,185	San Pedro	California	Holding/Staging Facility
MVN Transportation — SNA	6,753	6,753	Rancho Cucamonga	California	Other Facility Type
San Diego (Otay-Mesa) Contract Correctional Facility	6,802	6,741	San Diego	California	Contract Detention Facility
Jena/ LaSalle Detention Facility	7,465	6,708	Jena	Louisiana	Contract Detention Facility
Laredo Processing Center	6,479	6,454	Laredo	Texas	Contract Detention Facility
Rio Grande Detention Center	6,350	6,337	Laredo	Texas	Contract Detention Facility
Alexandria Staging Facility	6,726	6,152	Alexandria	Louisiana	Holding/Staging Facility
South Texas Contract Detention Facility	5,707	5,700	Pearsall	Texas	Contract Detention Facility
Pecos Hold Room	5,459	5,459	Pecos	Texas	Holding/Staging Facility
El Paso Service Processing Center	5,189	5,097	El Paso	Texas	ICE Service Processing Center
Houston Contract Detention Facility	5,053	4,968	Houston	Texas	Contract Detention Facility
Adelanto Detention Facility	5,888	4,699	Adelanto	California	Intergovernmental Service Agreement
Dallas Field Office Holding Facility	7,375	4,586	Dallas	Texas	Holding/Staging Facility
Phoenix District Office Holding Facility	5,419	4,567	Phoenix	Arizona	Holding/Staging Facility
Krome North Service Processing Center	5,346	4,382	Miami	Florida	ICE Service Processing Center
Irwin County Detention Center	4,332	4,233	Ocilla	Georgia	Intergovernmental Service Agreement
Val Verde Detention Center	4,170	4,168	Del Rio	Texas	Intergovernmental Service Agreement
San Diego District Staging Facility	4,661	3,989	San Diego	California	Holding/Staging Facility
Stewart Detention Center	3,835	3,792	Lumpkin	Georgia	Intergovernmental Service Agreement
Broadview Service Staging (Hold Room)	5,286	3,378	Chicago	Illinois	Holding/Staging Facility
Atlanta District Office Holding Room	3,440	3,227	Atlanta	Georgia	Holding/Staging Facility

Table 5. Facilities with the Largest Number of Individuals Leaving ICE Custody During FY 2015 — Top 25

Name of Facility	Individuals Booked Out	City	State	Type of Facility
All Departures	325,209
Port Isabel Service Processing Center	27,535	Los Fresnos	Texas	ICE Service Processing Center
Harlingen Hold Room	18,808	Harlingen	Texas	Holding/Staging Facility
Otero County Processing Center	14,520	Chaparral	New Mexico	Intergovernmental Service Agreement
San Diego District Staging Facility	14,494	San Diego	California	Holding/Staging Facility
West Texas Detention Facility	13,938	Sierra Blanca	Texas	Intergovernmental Service Agreement
Alexandria Staging Facility	12,043	Alexandria	Louisiana	Holding/Staging Facility
Houston Contract Detention Facility	11,407	Houston	Texas	Contract Detention Facility
Florence Staging Facility	10,575	Florence	Arizona	Holding/Staging Facility
El Paso Service Processing Center	9,522	El Paso	Texas	ICE Service Processing Center
South Texas Contract Detention Facility	9,510	Pearsall	Texas	Contract Detention Facility
Florence Service Processing Center	8,148	Florence	Arizona	ICE Service Processing Center
Rio Grande Detention Center	7,071	Laredo	Texas	Contract Detention Facility
South Texas Family Residential Center	6,840	Dilley	Texas	Intergovernmental Service Agreement
Laredo Detention Center Hold Room	6,744	Laredo	Texas	Holding/Staging Facility
Eloy Federal Contract Facility	6,415	Eloy	Arizona	Intergovernmental Service Agreement
Phoenix District Office Holding Facility	6,203	Phoenix	Arizona	Holding/Staging Facility
Stewart Detention Center	5,763	Lumpkin	Georgia	Intergovernmental Service Agreement
Jena/ LaSalle Detention Facility	5,265	Jena	Louisiana	Contract Detention Facility
San Bernadino Hold Room	4,477	San Bernadino	California	Holding/Staging Facility
Montgomery County Jail	4,341	Conroe	Texas	Intergovernmental Service Agreement
Big Spring Hold Room	4,134	Big Spring	Texas	Holding/Staging Facility
Karnes County Residential Center	3,331	Karnes City	Texas	Intergovernmental Service Agreement
T. Don Hutto Residential Center	2,979	Taylor	Texas	Juvenile Facility
Dallas Field Office Holding Facility	2,941	Dallas	Texas	Holding/Staging Facility
York County Jail	2,735	York	Pennsylvania	Intergovernmental Service Agreement

New Data on 637 Detention Facilities Used by ICE in FY 2015