How does Fatal Neglect define and count deaths in ICE custody, and how does that methodology compare with ICE's own reports?
Executive summary
Fatal Neglect — the joint 2016 report by the ACLU, Detention Watch Network and the National Immigrant Justice Center — defines and tallies deaths by examining specific in-custody fatalities and the agency documents and inspections tied to them, focusing particularly on eight deaths from 2010–2012 in which ICE’s own reviews found medical non‑compliance to be a contributing factor [1] [2]. That approach contrasts with ICE’s official reporting practice, which publishes formal “in‑custody” death reports under DHS rules but generally counts only deaths that occur while someone remains in ICE custody (and thus can exclude people released shortly before they die), a gap public advocates and researchers say leads to undercounting [3] [4] [5].
1. What “Fatal Neglect” counts and why — a case‑driven, document‑based approach
Fatal Neglect does not present a raw, agency-style national audit; rather, it compiles and analyzes case studies and deaths for which ICE inspection or death‑review documents identify failures in medical care, centering its analysis on a discrete set of in‑custody deaths (notably eight deaths from 2010–2012) and the corresponding Office of Detention Oversight and medical review records obtained through FOIA and inspections [1] [6] [2]. The report’s methodology relies on public records, mortality reviews, inspection reports and investigative journalism to trace whether ICE medical standards were followed and to determine when substandard care likely contributed to death — an investigative framing meant to expose patterns of neglect rather than produce a simple annual death count [6] [7] [8].
2. How ICE defines “in‑custody” deaths and what it reports publicly
ICE’s publicly posted death reports follow statutory and budgetary reporting requirements set by DHS appropriations and internal directives, and since FY2018 ICE has published death reports after each in‑custody fatality in accordance with those requirements [3]. Internal reviews and mortality assessments are performed by ICE Health Service Corps and other components — for example, an OIG review of FY2021 deaths references IHSC mortality reviews for deaths in custody [9]. ICE’s count, however, is tethered to the legal definition of deaths occurring while a person remains in ICE custody, which means the formal roll typically excludes people released shortly before they die or deaths tied to related enforcement actions outside the detention environment [3] [5].
3. Where methodologies diverge — scope, selection and evidentiary standards
The chief methodological split is scope: Fatal Neglect selects deaths for deeper scrutiny based on whether ICE’s own documents signal medical failures, using FOIA‑obtained files and inspection narratives to interrogate individual cases and systemic patterns, whereas ICE’s reporting mechanism is a rules‑based log of in‑custody fatalities with internal investigatory follow‑ups that are not always fully public [1] [6] [3]. Advocates and oversight groups say ICE investigatory reports frequently omit facts, permit loss of evidence (such as overwritten video), and sometimes release detainees or witnesses around the time of investigations — practices Fatal Neglect and later reports argue can distort the official record and lower the official death count [10] [4] [11].
4. Credibility, transparency and the practical impact of counting choices
Fatal Neglect’s strength is its forensic, case‑centric challenge to agency narratives: by tying deaths to documented non‑compliance and medical review findings it paints a pattern of preventable fatalities and argues for reform, a claim reinforced by later joint reports concluding many deaths were likely preventable [12] [10]. ICE’s reports carry institutional authority and satisfy statutory reporting but, as outside researchers and a peer‑reviewed analysis have noted, they can systematically undercount deaths associated with detention when people are released shortly before death or when investigatory information is withheld or redacted, which affects accountability and public health monitoring [3] [4] [5].
5. What remains unsettled and why the two approaches matter
Fatal Neglect illuminates problems the agency’s raw counts can obscure, but it is limited to the cases and documentary trails pursued by its authors and therefore does not function as a comprehensive alternative numerical series; conversely, ICE’s official reports provide ongoing global tallies but — according to watchdogs, medical reviewers and academic studies — can understate the toll because of definitional exclusions and transparency gaps [1] [3] [10]. Both approaches are necessary to understand deaths tied to immigration detention: Fatal Neglect surfaces patterns and systemic failures through selective case analysis [6] [2], while ICE’s reports establish the baseline official record that independent reviewers and lawmakers continue to challenge on methodological and transparency grounds [9] [4].