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.
Where are ICE detainees held?
Executive Summary
ICE detainees are held in a sprawling network of federal, county, and privately operated facilities across the United States, with locations listed on ICE’s roster and hundreds of contract and intergovernmental sites in many states [1] [2]. Recent tallies show tens of thousands in custody and a concentration in states like Texas, Louisiana, and California, while oversight and visitation patterns vary by agency and facility type [3] [1] [4].
1. Why the United States Looks Like a Patchwork of Detention Sites — and What that Means for Where People Are Held
The available analyses paint a picture of a decentralized detention system where ICE detainees are housed in a mix of federal facilities, county jails under intergovernmental service agreements, and privately run contract detention centers; ICE’s own lists provide named examples such as Abyon Farmville Detention Center in Virginia and Adams County Correctional Center in Mississippi [1] [2]. This fragmentation means custody is not concentrated in a single kind of institution but spread across many jurisdictions and operators, with operational differences — from visitation hours to health protocols — shifting by site and local policy [1]. That structure complicates oversight and makes a unified national snapshot harder to assemble because local detention contracts and historical facility lists (some dating back to 2009) remain part of the operational landscape [2].
2. How Many People Are in ICE Custody and Where Most Are Held — Recent Counts and State Hotspots
Recent reporting indicates tens of thousands of people in ICE detention, with a TRAC Immigration figure of 59,762 as of September 21, 2025, and the majority concentrated in a few states including Texas, Louisiana, and California [3]. These state-level concentrations reflect border enforcement patterns and the location of large contract facilities as well as state and local agreements that allow ICE to house people in county jails and other sites. The presence of high numbers in particular states underscores how regional policies and facility capacity directly shape the geography of detention, producing hotspots where the system’s scale, detention conditions, and legal services capacity intersect [3].
3. Who Runs the Facilities — Multiple Agencies and a Blurred Chain of Custody
Analyses identify three distinct federal actors connected to immigration detention: Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), each managing different populations and facility types [5]. CBP typically oversees short-term border processing sites, ICE operates longer-term immigration detention facilities and contracts, and ORR cares for unaccompanied children in separate shelters; the practical effect is overlapping responsibility with different legal standards and oversight mechanisms. This multi-agency arrangement affects where detainees are held because transfer practices and the allocation of cases among agencies determine which facilities are used and under what rules, complicating accountability and public understanding [5].
4. Oversight, Visits, and the Role of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman — What the Records Show about Monitoring
The Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman (OIDO) conducts case management and site visits across a wide set of locations, with analyses noting over 500 locations nationwide and regular visits in states such as Arizona, California, and Texas [4]. Visitation hours and monitoring practices are described as subject to change for operational or public-health reasons, with COVID-era contingencies still influencing access in some places [1]. The presence of OIDO teams and stated visit schedules suggests formal monitoring exists, but the decentralized facility network, mixed operators, and dated facility lists mean oversight coverage can be uneven and dependent on resources, policy priorities, and interagency cooperation [4] [2].
5. What’s Missing from the Public Record and Where Different Interests Might Shape the Picture
The analyses reveal gaps and potential agendas: facility lists include legacy entries (a 2009 list appears in recent compilations), and some source dates are missing even while counts or claims reference specific recent dates like September 21, 2025 [2] [3]. Advocacy groups, government actors, and data aggregators each have incentives that shape emphasis — government lists highlight named sites and operational details, oversight offices emphasize visit coverage, and independent trackers focus on detention counts and geographic concentrations. These differing priorities produce complementary but partial pictures; compiling a fully current national map requires reconciling dated lists, agency rosters, and independent tallies to account for closures, contract changes, and transfers [1] [2] [3].