Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What are the living conditions like in ICE detention facilities, and how do they impact costs?
Executive summary
Reports and oversight documents show ICE detention conditions range from formally regulated under PBNDS/NDS to repeated documented failures—overcrowding, inadequate medical care, poor sanitation and use of ad hoc holding sites—while average daily detention costs reported by advocacy and legal groups range roughly from $164.65 per person per day to several billion dollars in total detention budgets (projected ADP cost $164.65; ICE annual detention budget ~ $2.5–3+ billion) [1] [2] [3].
1. Standards on paper, wide variation in practice
ICE and DHS say all facilities must follow national detention standards (NDS/PBNDS) and undergo inspections; the standards spell out requirements for food, hygiene, bedding, medical care and safety and note that implementing changes can incur explicit costs [4] [5]. But analysts and legal fact sheets caution that standards apply unevenly: privately run facilities and individually negotiated contracts mean compliance and quality vary widely [6] [7].
2. First‑hand and legal findings: squalid conditions and court interventions
Multiple outlets and litigants report conditions that courts have found deficient. For example, a federal judge ordered immediate remedies—bottled water, clean bedding, hygiene products and lawyer access—after detainees described squalid conditions at a Chicago‑area facility, with the judge ruling conditions “don’t pass constitutional muster” [8]. Advocacy groups and lawsuits likewise allege sewage, moldy food, medical neglect and other severe failures in some large facilities [9] [7].
3. Overcrowding, hidden sites and the shifting detention footprint
Reporting and research document an expanding, decentralized detention network that includes private prisons, local jails, hotels and holding rooms; many of these ad hoc or “holding” sites are less visible to public oversight and are associated with overcrowding and extended stays [10] [11] [12]. Inspectors and advocates warn that facilities operating beyond contractual capacity create risk for health, sanitation and access to services [12] [10].
4. Health impacts and risk factors inside facilities
Health analyses highlight repeated problems: inadequate medical and mental‑health care, preventable deaths, and instances where detainees present abnormal vital signs during EMS encounters—signals of serious health management failures [1] [3]. KFF and other reports emphasize that detention settings, particularly when overcrowded or understaffed, increase health risks for adults and children and complicate care delivery [12] [1].
5. Costs: per‑person accounting and large systemic expenditures
Advocacy and professional groups estimate per‑person daily costs and overall fiscal outlays. A projected average daily cost per adult detainee appears around $164.65, while national advocacy analyses put annual government spending for immigration detention in the billions—over $2.5 billion cited and other tallies above $3 billion—illustrating how facility type (family vs. adult), geography, contract terms and length of stay drive cost variability [1] [2] [3] [13].
6. How conditions and contracts drive costs (competing perspectives)
One argument: complying with PBNDS, adequate staffing and medical care raise operational costs—DHS and ICE cite budgets and contract negotiations that factor in facility size, staffing and required physical changes [4] [5]. Counter‑argument from advocates: privatization and profit motives inflate costs and encourage higher bed counts; moreover detaining people can be more expensive than community supervision or alternatives to detention [2] [3]. Analyses also note family detention raises per‑capita costs compared with standard adult detention [13].
7. Oversight, reporting gaps and contested narratives
ICE points to a “robust, multilevel oversight and compliance program” and routine inspections [5]. Critics argue oversight has been weakened at times, that holding facilities evade traditional inspections, and that less transparency enables abuses and under‑reporting of emergencies [11] [12]. These competing claims matter because where inspections and contract transparency are weaker, both human‑security risks and unforeseen fiscal liabilities (litigation, remediation, higher medical costs) increase [11] [14].
8. What the sources do not settle
Available sources document patterns (overcrowding, specific facility lawsuits, per‑day estimates and large aggregate spending) but do not provide a single, reconciled national number tying exact condition‑related cost overruns across all facilities, nor do they quantify precisely how much better compliance would cost versus current expenditures—those figures are “not found in current reporting” among the provided documents [4] [1] [3].
Conclusion: Formal standards exist, and both government and watchdog sources point to those standards as the benchmark for humane detention [4] [5]. Yet reporting, litigation and advocacy documents show systemic shortfalls—overcrowding, poor medical care and use of opaque holding sites—that affect detainee wellbeing and complicate the fiscal picture. Policymakers weighing costs must consider not only contract line items but also oversight, compliance, health‑care needs and potential legal liabilities detailed in the sources above [4] [1] [3].