How do federal agencies (HHS, DHS, ICE) currently track unaccompanied migrant children and what reforms have been proposed since the 2023 audits?
Executive summary
A 2024–2025 series of DHS and HHS oversight products found that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) lacks a reliable, end‑to‑end system to locate and monitor unaccompanied alien children (UACs) after transfer to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) — a problem spotlighted by an Office of Inspector General (OIG) management alert and subsequent reporting that counted hundreds of thousands of transfers and tens of thousands of missed court appearances [1] [2] [3]. Agencies have since proposed and begun discrete fixes — updated memoranda of agreement, new data‑sharing automations, welfare checks and four specific ICE recommendations — but critics say these are incremental and do not create a single authoritative tracking system [4] [5] [3].
1. How the handoff and basic tracking currently work — legal framework and agency roles
Federal law and interagency memoranda place initial custody and screening with DHS components at the border, then require transfer of UACs to HHS’ Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) for placement with sponsors or foster care, with ICE retaining immigration enforcement responsibilities that include monitoring appearances in court and welfare concerns; the most recent DHS–HHS Memorandum of Agreement was signed in 2021 and frames those responsibilities [6] [4]. ICE itself rarely detains children and relies on ERO coordination to “ensure the timely and safe transfer” to ORR under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), while ORR handles placement and release logistics [6].
2. Where tracking breaks down — what the 2023–2024 audits found
The DHS OIG’s management alert and related audits documented concrete gaps: ICE transferred more than 448,000 UACs to HHS from FY 2019–2023 but could not account for the locations or status of many after release, and more than 32,000 failed to appear for immigration court hearings in that period, with hundreds of thousands never served Notices to Appear (NTAs) or showing incomplete sponsor addresses in records, undermining ICE’s ability to monitor welfare or trafficking risk [2] [1] [5]. Oversight reporting found ICE was relying on ad‑hoc workarounds — spreadsheets, emails and manual processes — instead of a centralized, validated case‑management feed from ORR [3] [7].
3. Agency responses and stopgap measures since the audits
ICE and DHS publicly disputed parts of the OIG characterization while acknowledging problems and announcing operational steps: ICE said it has started automating information sharing about court attendance and set up a public‑facing email inbox with HHS for notifications, and DHS formed teams to conduct welfare checks and coordinate with state and local law enforcement to locate UACs [3] [8] [9]. HHS’ OIG has concurrently continued audits of ORR grantees and release procedures to assess whether ORR’s controls and vetting meet safety standards, signaling parallel accountability efforts within HHS [10].
4. Concrete reform proposals and OIG recommendations since 2023
The DHS OIG laid out four clear recommendations aimed at improving ICE’s monitoring: review and revise ICE–HHS information‑sharing agreements; develop processes to identify and correct inaccurate or incomplete ICE system data; create a plan to resolve the backlog of unserved NTAs for UACs; and update ICE guidance so officers know how and when to elevate safety concerns about UACs — reforms framed as near‑term fixes rather than a wholesale redesign [5]. Reporting and advocacy outlets note additional suggested reforms outside ICE’s remit, including changes to ORR sponsor vetting and recordkeeping, but those fall under HHS OIG audits and policy reviews rather than ICE operational control [5] [10].
5. The politics, limits and the missing big picture
Policy debates expose competing agendas: enforcement officials emphasize court integrity and trafficking prevention, while child‑welfare advocates emphasize trauma‑informed placement and privacy; critics warn that automations and welfare checks cannot substitute for a unified, secure data architecture that respects children’s safety and due process [8] [3]. Oversight products document operational fixes and modest structural recommendations, but none of the sources reviewed describe the creation of a single interoperable system owned jointly by DHS and HHS, and reporting shows ICE continues to rely on manual remedies while HHS conducts its own compliance audits [1] [10].
6. What reporting does not show and why it matters
Public documents and coverage enumerate transfers, missed hearings and recommended fixes, but available sources do not show a completed implementation plan with timelines, metrics or cross‑agency governance for a unified tracking solution; therefore it is not possible from these sources to assess whether recommended reforms will fully close the monitoring gaps or how privacy and child‑protection concerns will be balanced in any new data system [5] [10].