Evaluation of the US detention standards to protect the health and dignity of migrants: a systematic review of national health standards.

OBJECTIVE: The US government detains hundreds of thousands of migrants across a network of facilities each year. This research aims to evaluate the completeness of standards across US detention agencies to protect the health and dignity of migrants. DESIGN: Five documents from three US agencies were examined in a systematic review: Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE; 3), Customs and Border Protection (CBP; 1) and Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR; 1). Standards within five public health categories (health, hygiene, shelter, food and nutrition, protection) were extracted from each document and coded by subcategory and area. Areas were classified as critical, essential or supportive. Standards were measured for specificity, measurability, attainability, relevancy and timeliness (SMART), resulting in a sufficiency score (0%-100%). Average sufficiency scores were calculated for areas and agencies. RESULTS: 711 standards were extracted within 5 categories, 12 subcategories and 56 areas. 284 standards of the 711 standards were included in multiple (2-7) areas, resulting in 1173 standards counted as many times as each was included. On average, 85.4% of standards were specific, 87.1% measurable, 96.6% attainable and 74.9% time-bound. All standards were considered relevant. CBP standards were the least sufficient across all other SMART components, when compared with ICE and ORR. CONCLUSIONS: There are disparate detention standards based on agencies' mandates and type of facility contracts. Migrants should be ensured of their public health rights and services in all spaces they occupy, and for any length of time regardless of who manages the facility. As long as detention remains a policy, the US should develop comprehensive, consistent and complementary standards for all detention facilities or pursue alternatives to detention.

The United States detention system for migrants: Patterns of negligence and inconsistency.

The United States of America (US) detains more migrants than any other nation. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detain adults and families under the Department of Homeland Security, while unaccompanied minors are housed under the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) within the Department of Health and Human Services. Migrants are subject to the standards and oversight of each individual agency and facility where they are detained. This paper presents an analysis of whether the current US migrant detention system upholds the standards of each agency to maintain the health of migrants. A review of peer and grey literature, along with interviews with key informants (KI) who had worked in or visited ICE, CBP, or ORR facilities since January 2018 were undertaken. Analysis of the literature review and KI interviews covered five thematic areas: health, protection of vulnerable populations, shelter, food and nutrition, and hygiene. Thirty-nine peer-reviewed publications and 28 US Office of Inspector General reports from 2010 to 2020 were reviewed. Seventeen KI interviews were conducted. Though all three detention agencies had significant areas of concern, CBP's inability to abide by its health standards was particularly alarming. The persistence of low compliance with standards stemmed from weak accountability mechanisms, minimal transparency, and inadequate capacity to provide essential services. We have five recommendations: (1) expand independent monitoring and evaluation mechanisms; (2) standardize health standards across the three agencies; (3) develop a systematic evaluation tool to help external visitors, including members of Congress, assess the degree of implementation of standards; (4) enforce consequences for private contractors who violate standards; and (5) restrict the use of waivers that allow detention facilities to circumvent compliance with standards. Ultimately, the US federal government should explore and implement alternatives to detention to maintain the health and dignity of the individuals under its care.

Remote Cameras Reveal Experimental Artifact in a Study of Seed Predation in a Semi-Arid Shrubland.

Granivorous animals may prefer to predate or cache seed of certain plant species over others. Multiple studies have documented preference for larger, non-native seed by granivores. To accomplish this, researchers have traditionally used indirect inference by relating patterns of seed removal to the species composition of the granivorous animal community. To measure seed removal, researchers present seed to granivorous animals in the field using equipment intended to exclude certain animal taxa while permitting access to others. This approach allows researchers to differentiate patterns of seed removal among various taxa (e.g., birds, small mammals, and insects); however, it is unclear whether the animals of interest are freely using the exclusion devices, which may be a hindrance to discovering the seed dishes. We used video observation to perform a study of seed predation using a custom-built, infrared digital camera and recording system. We presented native and non-native seed mixtures in partitioned Petri dishes both within and outside of exclusion cages. The exclusion cages were intended to allow entrance by rodent taxa while preventing entrance by rabbits and birds. We documented all seed removal visits by granivorous animals, which we identified to the genus level. Genera exhibited varying seed removal patterns based on seed type (native vs. non-native) and dish type (open vs. enclosed). We documented avoidance of the enclosed dishes by all but one rodent taxa, even though these dishes were intended to be used freely by rodents. This suggests that preference for non-native seed occurs differentially among granivorous animals in this system; however, interpretation of these nuanced results would be difficult without the benefit of video observation. When feasible, video observation should accompany studies using in situ equipment to ensure incorrect assumptions do not lead to inappropriate interpretation of results.