How do ICE’s substantiation rates for sexual‑abuse allegations compare to other federal detention systems, such as the Bureau of Prisons, from 2018–2024?

1. ICE’s recorded substantiation rate and what it means

Researchers who digitized ICE “significant incident” reports counted 922 allegations reported to facility administration from 2018 to April 2022 and classified 118 (12.8%) as substantiated, where “substantiated” means the allegation was investigated and determined to have occurred ^[1]; that figure is the clearest published rate in the supplied reporting and is the basis for assessments of ICE’s performance on sexual‑abuse investigations during that window ^[1].

2. Federal definitions, measurement challenges, and comparability limits

The Bureau of Justice Statistics explains that “substantiated” is a legal/administrative determination based on a preponderance of the evidence (28 C.F.R.), and BJS collection programs (SSV, NIS, SSV fragments) offer multiple, non‑identical measures of sexual victimization, meaning administrative substantiation rates and survey prevalence figures are not directly interchangeable ^[2]. The supplied BJS materials and federal statistical tables mention ongoing methodological changes through 2024 but do not produce a single BOP substantiation percentage for 2018–2024 in these excerpts, so numeric cross‑system comparison using only the provided sources is not possible ^{[4] [3]}.

3. Historical context and prior government audits

Earlier government reviews found much lower substantiation patterns and reporting gaps: a 2013 GAO review found that in a sample of facilities only 7% of 215 immigration‑detention sexual‑assault allegations from 2009–2013 were substantiated and that field officials failed to report roughly 40% of allegations to ICE headquarters—findings that have been cited by advocates and legal groups to underscore systemic underreporting and investigative weaknesses ^{[5] [6]}. Comparing that earlier 7% to ICE’s 12.8% (2018–22) suggests a higher substantiation share in the more recent ICE facility reports, but differences in timeframes, data collection methods, and what was included (facility‑reported vs. HQ records) limit what that comparison can prove ^{[1] [5]}.

4. Reporting completeness, oversight, and competing narratives

Multiple watchdogs and advocacy groups argue ICE still undercounts and underinvestigates sexual abuse: PBS/Futuro reporting found that more than half of abuse allegations in recent years were directed at staff, and groups such as Freedom for Immigrants and the ACLU point to thousands of complaints and systemic failure to report or investigate, which would bias any administrative substantiation rate downward if incidents go unrecorded or are mishandled ^{[7] [8] [9]}. ICE, for its part, highlights adoption of DHS PREA Subpart A standards covering most of its ADP by FY2023 as progress toward stronger prevention and investigation protocols—an institutional claim that complicates simplistic headline comparisons ^[10].

5. Bottom line: what can and cannot be concluded from supplied documents

From the supplied sources, ICE’s facility‑reported substantiation rate for sexual‑assault allegations is 12.8% for Sept 2018–Apr 2022 ^[1]; earlier GAO work showed substantiation as low as 7% in a different earlier period ^[5]. The dataset does not include a clear, centralized BOP substantiation percentage for 2018–2024 nor fully harmonized measures across systems, so any definitive statement that ICE’s substantiation rate is higher or lower than BOP’s for 2018–2024 cannot be supported with the materials provided ^{[2] [3]}. The most responsible reading of the record supplied is that ICE’s published administrative substantiation rate is measurable and has improved relative to some prior samples, but serious questions about reporting completeness, differing methodologies, and ongoing oversight gaps mean that cross‑system comparisons require additional, harmonized data not present here ^{[1] [5] [10]}.