U.S. Marshals Service: Actions Needed to Better Identify and Address Detention Condition Concerns
Fast Facts
The U.S. Marshals Service detains about 60,000 people a day who are awaiting federal trial or sentencing. While it doesn't operate jails, it does partner with public and private detention facilities. The service assesses detention conditions at these facilities.
We found shortcomings in its oversight. For example, many deputies who reviewed state and local facilities hadn't received required training. Additionally, some facilities didn't meet some standards for 3 years in a row, including food safety standards.
Our 8 recommendations address these issues and more.
We recently added federal prison management to our High Risk list.
Highlights
What GAO Found
The Department of Justice's (DOJ) U.S. Marshals Service (Marshals Service) uses onsite facility reviews and grievance processes to identify and address concerns related to conditions at private and local detention facilities that house individuals in its custody. However, detention operations could be improved.
Facility reviews. Marshals Service has implemented processes to conduct onsite reviews of facilities to assess whether they meet federal standards for healthcare, sanitation, and other detention conditions. However, deputies who conduct local facility reviews have limited guidance on how to complete them. Moreover, many deputies have not received required training because Marshals Service has not offered training since 2020 (see figure). Although Marshals Service has efforts underway to revise its training, it has not developed a plan and time frames to complete the revisions and ensure deputies receive it.
Percentage and Number of Marshals Service Deputies Who Conducted Local Detention Facility Reviews in Fiscal Year 2023 and Had Not Completed Facility Review Training
Grievance processes. Individuals may submit grievances to facilities or inquiries directly to Marshals Service. However, agency officials told us they have not analyzed the data they collect to determine trends—such as the nature or volume of inquiries related to individuals at certain facilities. For example, GAO analysis of Marshals Service inquiry data submitted from January 2018 through June 2023 found that at least 20 detention facilities received multiple inquiries about prison rape. In addition, at least 20 detention facilities received multiple inquiries about harassment. Marshals Service could routinely analyze such information to determine if changes are needed to improve detention operations.
Marshals Service has not fully incorporated key steps to assess its detention operations. For example, Marshals Service has a performance goal that private facilities meet minimum detention standards and assigns them ratings based on facility reviews. Private facilities have received overall ratings indicating they met minimum standards from 2018 through 2023, according to Marshals Service budget documents. However, Marshals Service does not have a similar goal for local facilities. According to Marshals Service data, some local facilities did not meet certain detention standards. For example, in fiscal year 2023, reviews found that an outside source had not inspected about 10 percent of facilities for food safety within the past 12 months, and about 7 percent of facilities had signs of insects. Establishing a performance goal for the conditions at local detention facilities would help Marshals Service better assess and monitor these facilities.
Why GAO Did This Study
Marshals Service is responsible for ensuring the safe and humane housing of the nearly 60,000 individuals in federal custody who are awaiting trial or sentencing on any given day. Marshals Service does not own or operate jails, but it partners with private facilities, local governments, and DOJ's Bureau of Prisons to detain these individuals. Strengthening management of federal prisons was added to GAO's high-risk list in 2023.
GAO was asked to review Marshals Service's oversight of facilities it uses to detain individuals. This report assesses the extent to which Marshals Service (1) has implemented mechanisms to identify and address concerns related to detention conditions, and (2) incorporates key steps to assess the performance of its detention operations.
GAO analyzed agency documents; assessed training, facility review, and inquiry data; observed deputy U.S. Marshals conduct reviews of six (of about 1,000) local facilities and contractors conduct a review of one of five private facilities; and interviewed agency officials and federal defenders who represent individuals in custody.
Recommendations
GAO is making eight recommendations, including that Marshals Service develop guidance as well as a plan with time frames to provide deputies with training; routinely analyzes available detention operations data; and establish performance goals for the conditions at local detention facilities. Marshals Service concurred with the recommendations.
Recommendations for Executive Action
| Agency Affected | Recommendation | Status |
|---|---|---|
| United States Marshals Service | The Director of the Marshals Service should ensure that the Prisoner Operations Division develops and implements a plan with timeframes to ensure that deputy U.S. marshals who conduct detention facility reviews complete annual training. (Recommendation 1) |
USMS concurred with this recommendation. As of December 2024, USMS reported taking steps to implement this recommendation. For example, USMS officials reported that in August 2024 the USMS Deputy Directory required all Deputy United States Marshals who conduct detention facility reviews (DFR) to immediately complete the annual DFR training prior to conducting a DFR. In addition, USMS plans to complete and deploy a formal DFR training course by March 2025. To fully address this recommendation, USMS needs to provide documentation of completing and deploying a formal DFR training course and establishing a policy that requires annual DFR training.
|
| United States Marshals Service | The Director of the Marshals Service should ensure that the Prisoner Operations Division develops guidance for deputy U.S. marshals on how to conduct a detention facility review. (Recommendation 2) |
USMS concurred with this recommendation. As of December 2024, USMS reported taking steps to implement this recommendation. For example, USMS officials note that it conducts annual Detention Contract Monitor Training Workshops, which provide detailed guidance and training on the monitoring of conditions of confinement in detention facilities utilized by the USMS. In addition, USMS plans to update relevant USMS policies and standard operating procedures. To fully address this recommendation, USMS will need to develop guidance deputy U.S. marshals can use during detention facility reviews.
|
| United States Marshals Service | The Director of the Marshals Service should ensure that the Prisoner Operations Division develops procedures on how district staff are to work with facilities to address deficiencies identified during reviews of state and local detention facilities. (Recommendation 3) | USMS concurred with this recommendation. As of December 2024, USMS reported taking steps to implement this recommendation. For example, USMS reported that it is updating policies to include a Detention Facility Review (DFR) standard operating procedure (SOP) providing deputy U.S. marshals guidance and procedures on how to address deficiencies. For example, the SOP is to require districts to request a corrective action plan (CAP) for deficient areas within the DFR, and to conduct a subsequent review to verify completion of the planned actions in the CAP, where applicable. In addition, if the detention facility fails to resolve negative findings, the DFR SOP is to require that the...
|
| United States Marshals Service | The Director of the Marshals Service should maintain complete and consistent detention operations inquiry data. (Recommendation 4) |
USMS concurred with this recommendation. As of December 2024, USMS reported taking steps to implement this recommendation. For example, USMS officials reported that USMS has updated data fields in its information system to require answers for certain data fields. In addition, USMS reported adjusting several drop-down options available to ensure consistency and minimize confusion when submitting prisoner inquiries. To fully address this recommendation, USMS needs to provide documentation of actions it has taken to maintain complete and consistent detention operations inquiry data.
|
| United States Marshals Service | The Director of the Marshals Service should take steps, as appropriate and feasible, to better ensure the independence of its facility review processes. (Recommendation 5) | USMS concurred with this recommendation. As of December 2024, USMS reported taking steps to implement this recommendation. For example, USMS reported that it is developing a detention facility risk assessment and risk mitigation tool that will help it make risk-based decisions on targeted facility reviews. In addition, USMS plans to authorize the use of cross district support in completing facility reviews for USMS districts located in the same state or region. Finally, USMS plans to engage with the Federal Bureau of Prisons and Immigration and Customs Enforcement to determine the practicality of coordinating facility reviews. To fully address this recommendation, USMS needs to provide...
|
| United States Marshals Service | The Director of the Marshals Service should establish performance goals for the conditions of state and local detention facilities that fully address all aspects of its detention operations strategic goal and objective. (Recommendation 6) |
USMS concurred with this recommendation. As of December 2024, USMS reports taking steps to implement this recommendation. For example, USMS officials reports that USMS has established goals to ensure safe and humane conditions in state and local facilities used by the USMS. In addition, USMS plans to run quarterly reports to measure performance, assess progress, and make informed decisions. To fully address this recommendation, USMS needs to provide documentation of establishing performance goals that fully address all aspects of its detention operations strategic goal and objective and efforts to routinely generate performance information.
|
| United States Marshals Service | The Director of the Marshals Service should ensure that the Prisoner Operations Division routinely analyzes available detention operations data, including detention facility performance and inquiry data, to identify problems, trends, best practices, and any needed changes. (Recommendation 7) | USMS concurred with this recommendation. As of December 2024, USMS reported taking steps to implement this recommendation. For example, USMS reported that it is generating quarterly and annual trend analysis on the amount and types of inquiries received by facility, so the data can be used to assist with analyzing detention facility performance and identifying problems and trends. In addition, USMS plans to review these trend analyses and determine whether additional oversight is warranted and will also assist USMS in developing best practices and updates to USMS policy-such as the Federal Performance Based Detention Standards and USMS private detention contract and Intergovernmental...
|
| United States Marshals Service | The Director of the Marshals Service should publicly report additional nonsensitive information on the results of its reviews of detention facilities. (Recommendation 8) |
USMS concurred with this recommendation. As of December 2024, USMS reported taking steps to implement this recommendation. For example, USMS plans to publish the number of Intergovernmental Agreements it holds with state and local detention facilities, publish the number of contracts with private detention facilities, and develop a summary review form of non-sensitive data that is collected during Detention Facility Reviews that can be made public. To fully address this recommendation, USMS needs to provide documentation of publicly reporting nonsensitive information on the results of its reviews of detention facilities.
|