How do independent databases (newsrooms, NGOs) compile and reconcile deaths across Border Patrol and ICE custody?
Executive summary
Independent databases—run by international organizations, newsrooms, and NGOs—compile deaths linked to Border Patrol and ICE custody by assembling public records, medical examiner reports, agency releases, media accounts, and field reporting, then reconciling disagreements through cross-checking, FOIA requests, and local partnerships [1] [2] [3]. Those efforts expose systematic gaps and conflicting definitions between federal reporting systems and independent datasets, forcing third-party projects to adopt transparent methodologies and note uncertainty where records disagree [4] [5] [6].
1. What these independent databases aim to capture and why it differs from agency rosters
Independent projects track any death plausibly tied to migration or custody—deaths on the route, deaths after encounter with Border Patrol, and deaths while detained by ICE—because official agency lists use narrower, agency-specific criteria and legal definitions that can omit hospital deaths, post-release fatalities, or cases labeled “not in custody” [1] [4] [5]. The Missing Migrants Project explicitly includes migrants who die in transport accidents, violent attacks, or medical complications during journeys and uses context like belongings and cause of death to include unidentified decedents, a broader scope than many federal internal tallies [1] [7].
2. The raw sources independent databases rely on
These databases stitch records from county medical examiners and coroners, sheriff’s offices, Mexican search-and-rescue units, NGO field teams, local news reports, and sometimes survivors’ interviews—sources the IOM and Migration Data Portal say are critical on the U.S.–Mexico border [1] [7]. NGOs such as Humane Borders and No More Deaths compile county medical examiner feeds and local reporting to map recoveries and circumstances, and newsroom projects supplement that with investigative FOIA-obtained documents and interviews [3] [5].
3. How reconciliation and verification work in practice
Reconciliation typically follows a triangulation model: match identifiers (name, date, location), verify cause and custody status against medical examiner files, compare with agency reports like CBP OPR or ICE death notifications, and flag unresolved discrepancies for follow-up; when records are absent or contested, groups use FOIA requests and local partnerships to obtain autopsy reports or sheriff’s logs [4] [8] [6]. The IOM stresses evaluating location, cause, and migration history together rather than relying on a single indicator, explicitly noting media reports and local authorities as complementary sources [1] [2].
4. Common points of disagreement and why they persist
Discrepancies arise because CBP and ICE apply different “in custody” thresholds and reporting timelines, hospitals may not be logged as custody events, and agency internal systems have been criticized for missing or misclassifying cases—problems documented in CBP materials and NGO comparisons that found OPR and internal systems undercount or label incidents differently [4] [5] [9]. Federal statutes and programs like the Death in Custody Reporting Act create reporting obligations but state and federal compliance is uneven, encouraging independent teams to rely on medical examiners and media to find omitted deaths [10] [11].
5. How datasets handle classification, duplication, and uncertainty
Project teams adopt transparent metadata: flagging confidence levels, recording multiple possible causes, noting “in custody” vs. “CBP-related” distinctions, and annotating when agency narratives conflict with medical examiner findings; some NGOs publish both their raw incidents and a comparison column showing how agency databases categorized the same cases [2] [5]. Methods to avoid double counting include unique identifiers, spatial-temporal matching, and conservative inclusion rules when identifying migrants from skeletal or partial remains, echoes of IOM methodological guidance [1] [2].
6. The limits of independent reconciliation and why transparency matters
Independent databases can expose gaps and patterns that agencies miss, but they cannot always resolve every contested case—autopsies may be sealed, FOIA returns delayed, and agencies may legally withhold certain records—so responsible projects document uncertainties and provide methodological notes rather than definitive corrections [8] [6]. The practical outcome: independent reconciliation builds pressure for better official reporting while providing policymakers, journalists, and families a more complete, if still imperfect, account of deaths linked to Border Patrol and ICE custody [5] [12].