Skip to main content
Center for Human Rights, Jackson School of International Studies, University of Washington

Compliance Theater: The NWDC’s Unenforced Contract

Featured icon with purple background and white paper and pen icon, for the NWDC's Unenforced Contract report

July 16, 2025

This report is part of a series regarding Human Rights Conditions at the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma, Washington, based on ongoing research efforts and released to highlight initial findings in the urgent context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Contents:

• Introduction
• Background, Methodology, and Human Rights Standards
• Sanitation of Food and Laundry
• Allegations of Medical Neglect
• Use of Solitary Confinement
• COVID-19 and Health Standards
• Reporting of Sexual Assault and Abuse
• Uses of Force and Chemical Agents
• Patterns of Neglect in TPD Response to Abuse and Assault
• NWDC’s Unenforced Contract
• Research Update: Three Years of Cleanliness Concerns, No Consequences
• Research Update: Charles Leo Daniel’s Death at NWDC in Context
• Research Update: Ongoing Concern for TPD Response to Crimes in Immigration Detention

← Previous section: Patterns of Neglect in Tacoma Police Department Response to Abuse and Assault

Compliance Theater: The NWDC’s Unenforced Contract

Summary of Findings

  • The contract between ICE and GEO Group for operation of the Northwest ICE Processing Center/NWDC expires in September 2025; in the current climate, it is likely to be renewed for an extended period.
  • The contract includes extensive enforcement mechanisms and references to ICE standards, which are cited by ICE in response to criticisms of conditions at the facility.
  • UWCHR has filed multiple FOIA requests over a period of years for various categories of records mandated under the facility’s contract, but in many cases ICE has responded that the required records do not exist; Members of Congress have also been unable to obtain records required under the contract.
  • Despite documented failures to uphold contract standards, GEO Group has never been sanctioned by ICE under the terms of the contract.

Introduction

In recent years, the UWCHR has published a series of research reports documenting abusive conditions within ICE’s[1] Northwest Detention Center, also known as the Northwest ICE Processing Center, in Tacoma. Many, if not all, of these abuses are prohibited under the terms of the contract for operating the facility, and ICE leadership often points to the existence of the contract itself as a way to deflect criticism, rather than engaging with the actual substance of the critiques. For example, ICE Seattle Field Office Director Cammilla Wamsley recently responded to a journalist’s inquiry about abuses by saying, “This is a lovely facility… There are requirements under the performance-based national detention standards that the contractor is held to.”[2] But if problems that violate the contract–such as the overuse of solitary confinement, sexual abuse and assaults, and excessive uses of force–not only occur, but endure, this suggests that core elements of the contract are not being upheld.

Given that the contract is set to expire in September 2025, it is important to understand how and why the contract enforcement process is failing to ensure that facility conditions comply with basic standards.

While our previous reports have focused on the conditions within the facility, this report focuses instead on the infrastructure for accountability that has allowed these poor conditions to persist. Our central finding is that despite repeated incidents of abuse in violation of its published standards, ICE has taken no action to sanction GEO for failing to uphold the terms of the contract. In addition, we found that ICE claimed that many of the records which are required for compliance monitoring simply did not exist; the agency sustained this repeatedly in response to UWCHR’s FOIA requests, and similarly refused to provide these records to the office of Senator Cantwell (D-WA), which inquired about them repeatedly. Ultimately, it is impossible for us to know whether they are telling the truth about the existence or non-existence of records required to enforce the contract; all we can know is that the sole mechanism for accountability envisioned under the terms of the contract–the withholding of payment to GEO–has not occurred, despite enduring evidence of abuse at the facility. In this sense, the contract’s extensive rules, continual inspections, and apparently-unused internal reporting mechanisms amount to little more than “compliance theater,” intended to pantomime adherence to standards rather than protect those who are detained or employed at the facility.

Background

The NWDC is not a federal facility, but rather a civil detention site operated for profit by Florida-based GEO Group, Inc. under contract with ICE. GEO owns the land and buildings of the detention center, and has run the facility since acquiring it from its original owner in 2005. The current contract between GEO and ICE began September 28, 2015, and is scheduled to end on September 27, 2025;[3] it awarded GEO a minimum of $700 million over ten years.[4]

Today, there is reason to believe a new contract for the operation of this facility may be in the works; last year, ICE solicited bids on new contracts for the facility, and records obtained through FOIA suggest that GEO submitted a proposal.[5] While the publicly-available portions of these records do not specify an end date for the proposal, in December 2024 ICE stated that it anticipated soliciting bids for a detention facility in the state of Washington extending until 2040.[6] This year, the process of detention contract acquisition has been streamlined pursuant to President Trump’s January 20, 2025 Executive Order, rendering it even less transparent than before.[7] Yet given the possibility of a new contract extending to 2040, it is important to understand how the facility’s existing contract has operated for the past decade. Clearly, no new contract should be signed without an analysis of the workings of the existing one.

The 2015 contract contains extensive detail regarding facility conditions. It mandates that GEO operate the facility in accordance with ICE’s Performance-Based National Detention Standards 2011 (PBNDS 2011, last revised in 2016). However, while the PBNDS does represent a thorough, comprehensive set of guidelines, it does not have the force of law. This means that while the agency says it expects GEO to adhere to the agency’s standards in running the NWDC, in cases where GEO fails to uphold these standards, ICE independently decides what, if anything, to do in response. As a for-profit business, GEO has a financial incentive to maximize profit by cutting corners–providing less food, for example, or cleaning the facility less frequently. In theory, however, the contract imposes a contravening financial incentive for upholding high standards, because it grants ICE the right to withhold payment from GEO if conditions are not met. Indeed, this is the only mechanism for accountability in the current contract. That is why it is important to examine its use–or nonuse, as the case may be.

In the pages that follow, we examine this as a two-step process. First, what are the information flows that ICE has relied upon to discern whether the agency’s standards are being upheld? And second, what has the agency done in cases where that information reveals that the standards are not being upheld?

Information: ICE’s Tools for Monitoring Conditions

Throughout the duration of the current contract, a long list of organizations have regularly inspected the NWDC to check its compliance with ICE’s published standards.[8] These inspections are mandated under the contract, and conducted by offices including ICE’s Office of Detention Oversight (ODO), and its Custody Management Division (CMD), which contracts with the Nakamoto Group, a private company, as well as DHS’ Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman (OIDO)[9] and its Office of the Inspector General.[10] [11] These processes generate data about the facility’s operations, including reports which are made available to the public in redacted form. The facility has passed most of these inspections, though the January 2023 audit for compliance with federal law regarding sexual abuse and assault did result in the facility being placed on a 180-day corrective action period due to lack of compliance on multiple measures.

 

Figure 1: Excerpt from the 2023 PREA Audit, page 2, showing a summary of audit findings including a list of twelve areas where GEO failed to meet PREA standards.

In addition to official inspections, however, ICE has its own practices and personnel designated to ongoing monitoring of contract compliance. These include the Contracting Officer (CO) and Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR), who are specifically assigned to the NWDC contract and charged with “(a) conducting site visits to assess the facility and detainee health and welfare conditions, (b) reviewing documentation, and (c) interviewing the Contractor’s personnel and/or detainees.”[12] The COTR, in particular, is physically located onsite to ensure ease of participation in ongoing dialogue to identify and address concerns as they arise.

Without access to the entirety of the COTR’s records, of course, it is impossible to know the full extent of their efforts to uphold contract terms, particularly through onsite observation or interviews. However, the contract also contains numerous provisions that require GEO to generate written records for ICE’s use in regularly reviewing contract compliance. Below is a list of those most directly relevant to human rights concerns:

  • Monthly Status Reports:
    • The contract requires that “The contractor shall prepare and submit a Monthly Status Report concurrently with each invoice presented for payment to the COR [Contracting Officer’s Representative]. The report shall cover the term for which the invoice is submitted and shall list any significant events that occurred during the reporting period with respect to the accomplishment of the tasks, a summary of what work was accomplished, problems and resolutions.”[13]
  • Use of Force Incident and After Action Reports:
    • The contract mandates that detention officers file and submit written reports to the Warden/Facility Director of the NWDC written before leaving their shifts for any uses of physical force while at their post. The contract also mandates that the Warden/Facility Director provides all Use-of-Force Incident Reports after reviewing and approving them to the ICE Contracting Officer Representative within 24 hours of the incident.[14]
    • The Contractor is also required, in accordance with the ICE PBNDS, to form an After Action Review Team to review any use of physical force by an Officer and assess its appropriateness; and “[a]n After Action Report must be submitted to the COR within 30 days of the incident, with corrective actions noted, if applicable.” The contract also requires the Contractor to share video footage of any use of physical force by officers with ICE.[15]
  • Injury Reports:
    • The contract mandates that GEO notify the COR about all incidents that result in physical harm to or threaten the safety, health, or welfare of any person at the facility; within 24 hours of any such occurrence the contractor is required to submit a follow-up written report to the COR. The contract also mandates that the contractor submit a monthly injury report containing the name, time/date, location, circumstances, care rendered, current status, Worker’s Compensation status, and reference to identification of the previously mentioned written reports.[16]
  • Sexual Abuse or Assault Reports:
    • Per the terms of the facility contract, incidents of alleged sexual abuse or assault should generate at least three types of written documentation: Significant Incident Reports, generated within 24 hours of an allegation coming to light;[17] and, following the completion of any criminal investigation by the Tacoma Police Department, an administrative investigation (called a “sexual abuse incident review”) conducted by facility personnel;[18] and an annual sexual abuse review, in which the facility evaluates all incidents occurring in the prior year to determine what preventative actions could be taken in the future.[19] 

To gauge the extent to which these mechanisms are being used effectively, to ensure contract compliance, UWCHR submitted FOIA requests for all of the above written documents, as well as many others, throughout the duration of the current contract.

In the majority of cases, ICE responded to UWCHR FOIA requests by claiming that the very documents GEO was required to produce under the terms of the contract simply did not exist. For example, ICE claimed that monthly status reports did not exist, despite the contract requirement that they must be submitted alongside each monthly invoice seeking payment for services rendered;[20], [21] ICE repeatedly claimed that use of force incident and after action reports did not exist;[22] and ICE provided no injury reports for injuries sustained by detained people at the facility, and no monthly injury reports, despite their being required under the terms of the contract.[23] Similarly, ICE asserted that the individual sexual abuse incident reviews and annual sexual abuse reviews required under the terms of the contract did not exist.[24]

 

In the majority of cases, ICE responded to UWCHR FOIA requests by claiming that the very documents GEO was required to produce under the terms of the contract simply did not exist.

 

In some cases, we know this to be untrue because of relevant documents received pursuant to other FOIA requests. For example, UWCHR received Use of Force Incident Reports and Use of Force After Action reports for incidents which occurred on February 1, 2023; July 28, 2024; and February 27, 2025;[25] similarly, UWCHR received at least two dozen Significant Incident Reports documenting incidents of reported sexual abuse or assault throughout the duration of the contract.[26]

The most generous interpretation of ICE’s repeated assertion that the very documents required under the contract simply do not exist is that they may exist, but ICE is not sharing them with us; this would mean the agency is responding to FOIA requests in a manner that violates federal law, but may be vigorously monitoring facility conditions in secret. But if we take the agency at its word that it does not possess the documents required to monitor conditions, this would mean that ICE has allowed the facility to operate despite blatant noncompliance with contract requirements for many years.

In an attempt to figure out which interpretation is correct, UWCHR sought Congressional support from Senator Cantwell’s office in obtaining records regarding sexual assaults and uses of force at the NWDC. The Senator’s staff raised the issue with ICE ERO on September 10, 2024, but as of June 16, 2025, reported that they had not received any records.

Accountability: ICE’s actions to ensure compliance

The primary method ICE uses to enforce the terms of the contract is called a Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP). The QASP is a single-spaced 27-page document included as an attachment to the contract. It outlines the methods by which ICE is to access information about contract compliance; the specific metrics that will be used to assess GEO’s performance; and the financial penalties to be imposed in cases of unsatisfactory performance. These financial penalties, described in detail in the QASP, constitute the principal–arguably the only–penalty for any failure to uphold the contract’s terms.

In order to activate the process that could lead to a financial penalty, the ICE officers charged with overseeing the contract–known as Contracting Officers (COs) or Contracting Officers’ Technical Representatives (COTRs)–are required, under the terms of the QASP, to generate a Contract Discrepancy Report.[27] In some cases, Contract Discrepancy Reports that are not satisfactorily addressed by contractors can result in ICE withholding a portion of the contractor’s pay as a consequence, called a “Deduction” under the terms of the contract.[28]

UWCHR researchers requested copies of all Contract Discrepancy Reports produced under the terms of the NWDC’s current contract and were told that no such documents existed.[29] In litigation, however, ICE provided 78 pages of Contract Discrepancy Forms and related communications to UWCHR in December 2022. These forms, described in more detail in a 2023 research update, make it clear that ICE personnel were displeased by the lack of cleanliness at the facility, and conclude with an implicit threat to withhold 20 percent of GEO’s monthly payment until the situation is addressed, although there is no indication that this threat was carried out. Indeed, no correctional action plan was provided in response to the Contract Discrepancy Report, and no proposal was made to actually withhold payment. Despite this problem’s persistence for three years–according to the documents released–GEO was never sanctioned under the terms of the contract.

Senator Cantwell’s office was also unsuccessful in obtaining any records relating to actions taken by ICE to enforce its contract with GEO.

 

Figure 2: This 2019 Contract Discrepancy Report citing deficient janitorial services at the NWDC was received by UWCHR through FOIA litigation in December 2022. In a separate 2021 FOIA request for all Contract Discrepancy Reports during the contract period, ICE responded on May 10, 2024, asserting that no such documents exist.

Conclusions

In response to criticisms of conditions at the NWDC, ICE has pointed to the long list of detailed standards required under the terms of the facility’s contract with GEO Group. It is, in fact, true that the contract contains extensive requirements regarding detention conditions, and that those requirements should prevent the occurrence and persistence of the types of problems UWCHR and others have documented at the facility for many years. However, this research suggests that ICE is failing to take concrete action to hold GEO Group to those standards. Ultimately, in pointing to the contract’s existence but failing to enact its accountability mechanisms, ICE is engaging in another form of what has been called “compliance theater”: the agency stages elaborate rituals to suggest it is demanding GEO adhere to rigorous standards in running the facility, but the evidence simply isn’t there – neither in the facility’s actual conditions nor in the documentation that should exist if compliance is truly happening.

At a time when growing numbers of Washingtonians are expressing urgent concerns about the safety and well-being of neighbors locked inside the NWDC, it is important to recognize the depth of the problem, and not get trapped in a theatrics of opposition, engaging in stage-managed tours and other symbolic actions that convey concern, but fail to deliver results.

Ultimately, in pointing to the contract’s existence but failing to enact its accountability mechanisms, ICE is engaging in another form of what has been called “compliance theater.”

This lack of accountability is not unique to the Northwest Detention Center. Similar failures have been documented at many ICE facilities across the country; the Department of Homeland Security’s own Office of the Inspector General has publicly called on ICE to make greater use of the accountability mechanisms in its detention contracts.[30] While in theory, the U.S. system of checks and balances allocates oversight responsibilities to Congress, the reality is that under both Democratic and Republican leadership, Congress has failed to meaningfully exercise this responsibility. Members of Congress have demanded improvements, sometimes by writing pointed letters to federal officials;[31] sometimes by making visits to detention centers;[32] and sometimes by writing provisions for more inspections as conditions of funding in the Appropriations process,[33] but none of this has worked. The Tacoma facility has generated vociferous, longstanding demands for change from federal,[34] state,[35] and local[36] elected officials, but inasmuch as ICE continues to wield near-exclusive[37] decision making authority as regards conditions inside, Congressional visits to purportedly “inspect” conditions are their own form of compliance theater. In fact, enough is already known about conditions inside, and enough has been documented about their persistence, to conclude that no new contract should be signed and no new funds should be authorized for the continuance, let alone expansion, of immigrant detention.

Next section: Three Years of Cleanliness Concerns, No Consequences →

Notes

[1] ICE is the acronym for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, an agency housed within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

[2] See Gwen Baumgardner, “‘There are aspects of our job we have to do’: ICE Seattle director breaks silence on protests,” My Northwest, June 26, 2025, https://mynorthwest.com/mynorthwest-politics/ice-seattle-director/4103589

[3] U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, Contract Number HSCEDM-15–D–00015 included in State of Washington v. The GEO Group Inc, No. 3:2017cv05806 – Document 202 (W.D. Wash. 2017), November 17, 2017, https://jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2025/04/NWDC-GEO-ICE-Contract-WA-v-GEO-reduced-file-size.pdf

[4] See Nwauzor v. The GEO Group, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 21-36024, p. 7, https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/01/16/21-36024.pdf

[5] On August 14, 2024, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) published a Request for Information (RFI) for Multi-State Immigration Detention Services for the El Paso, Seattle, and San Francisco Areas of Responsibility (AOR); according to documents received by the ACLU pursuant to FOIA litigation (see GEO Group, email to ICE Contracting Officer, September 13, 2024, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2025/04/OAQ-Response-2024-ICLI-00047-Supplemental-Bates-A0258-A0510.pdf), GEO responded to this solicitation on September 13, 2024 with what appears to be a bid to extend its contract for the operation of the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma. ICE did not, in fact, publish a solicitation for this contract on April 1, but it did release a “strategic sourcing vehicle” (see “Emergency Detention and Related Services Strategic Sourcing Vehicle,” ICE, April 4, 2025, https://sam.gov/opp/eb0fc5c7014d4468a69aecefe6b322f6/view) calling for contractors to submit proposals for immigration detention and related services. This combined solicitation does not name the locations at which the detention services will be performed, so it is unclear whether it is related to the process of establishing a new detention contract in the Seattle area.

[6] In December 2024, ICE published a forecast solicitation (see U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Acquisition Planning Forecast System, 2024, https://jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2025/04/Forecast-Record-_-Acquisition-Planning-Forecast-System.pdf) which suggested that “ERO Seattle area field office requires a facility for the detention and transportation of ICE detainees located in the state of Washington in support of the ICE ERO-Seattle Field Office,” and indicated that a solicitation was expected on April 1, 2025 for a contract to continue until July 31, 2040. ICE did not issue a solicitation for a Washington-specific detention facility on April 1, 2025, though it did issue a broad “strategic sourcing vehicle” which did not specify locations for which services were being sought. See fn 5.

[7] President Trump’s Executive Order 14159 (Executive Office of the President, EO 14159, January 20, 2025, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/29/2025-02006/protecting-the-american-people-against-invasion), issued on January 20, 2025 ordered the expansion of detention; on April 1, 2025 ICE issued a “strategic sourcing vehicle” as an “emergency acquisition” under that order, bypassing some of the typical requirements in the contracting process. For discussion of how contracting is happening now, see Heather Hollingsworth and John Hanna, “Takeaways from AP’s reporting on shuttered prisons, mass deportation push and no-bid contracts,” AP News, June 16, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/immigration-detention-centers-ice-deportations-trump-32e830ffec3956e58977b0bec9c42614.

[8] The facility is also inspected by other entities screening conditions against their own, different, benchmarks, such as the American Correctional Association (ACA), which monitors compliance with ACA standards; the National Commission on Correctional Health Care (NCCHC), which certifies health care based on its own set of benchmarks; and the Department of Justice, which contracts out to private companies–often, the Nakamoto Group–to conduct audits of carceral facilities based on federal standards in PREA, the Prison Rape Elimination Act.

[9] See here for the report issued on findings from the OIDO’s NWDC inspection in 2022: Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman, OIDO Inspection of Northwest ICE Processing Center, November 20, 2024, https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2024-12/24_1120_oido_inspection-report-northwest-ice-processing-center.pdf.

[10] The OIG conducted an unannounced inspection at the NWDC in October 2022; see Office of Inspector General, Results of an Unannounced Inspection of Northwest ICE Processing Center in Tacoma, Washington, May 22, 2023, https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2023-05/OIG-23-26-May23.pdf.

[11] State and local government entities have also attempted to inspect the facility, with partial success. See here and here for more information. Although the contract mandates that the facility be run in compliance with state law, it does not provide specific mechanisms for reacting to the results of such audits and inspections.

[12] See U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Sample Performance Work Statement Detention Services Seattle Area Contract Detention Facility HSCEDM-09-R-00003, p. 3 of Attatchment 2 “Model Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan for Detention Services at the Seattle Area Contract Detention Facility,” https://jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2023/02/Performance-Work-Statement-Detention-Services-Seattle-Area-Contract-Detention-Facility.pdf

[13] U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, Contract Number HSCEDM-15–D–00015, Section F.4 “Reporting Requirements,” p. 99.

[14] See U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, Contract Number HSCEDM-15–D–00015, p. 84. The Use-of-Force Incident Report’s item number (A028) and their delivery requirements are further listed under the document: “Deliverables Of Written Documentation Detention and Transportation Service” on p. 171 of the contract, and further referenced in its Performance Work Statement, which states, “The respective Detention Officer shall immediately report all instances of use of physical force to his or her immediate supervisor. Prior to leaving his or her shift, the Supervisory Detention Officer shall prepare a written report and submit it to the Warden/Facility Director, who shall review, approve, and provide the report to the COTR or ICE-designee within 24 hours of the incident.” (See U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Performance Work Statement, p. 34, https://jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2023/02/Performance-Work-Statement-Detention-Services-Seattle-Area-Contract-Detention-Facility.pdf)

[15] U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, Contract Number HSCEDM-15–D–00015, p. 84. The same requirement is also referenced in the Performance Work Statement on p. 34.

[16] These requirements are listed on p. 84, 85, and 86 of Contract Number HSCEDM-15–D–00015. The Injury, illness, physical harm, or threat to safety, health, and welfare written reports’ item number (A031) and their delivery requirements are further listed under the section “Deliverables Of Written Documentation Detention and Transportation Service” on p. 171 of the contract.

[17] See U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Performance-Based National Detention Standards 2011 [PBNDS], revised 2016, p. 137, https://www.ice.gov/doclib/detention-standards/2011/pbnds2011r2016.pdf: “Staff members who become aware of an alleged assault shall immediately follow the reporting requirements set forth in the written policies and procedures.” These written policies and procedures include ICE’s Directive (see U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 11062.2: Sexual Abuse and Assault Prevention and Intervention, May 22, 2014, https://www.ice.gov/doclib/detention-reform/pdf/saapi2.pdf) which states, in Section 5.7(c), that when an incident occurs in ICE-ERO custody, the Field Office Director must “Notify the ICE Joint Intake Center (JIC) telephonically within two hours of the alleged sexual abuse or assault, and in writing within 24 hours via the ICE SEN Notification Database.”

[18] According to Contract Number HSCEDM-15–D–00015, p. 206, GEO must conduct a sexual abuse incident review after every investigation of sexual abuse at the NWDC. If the investigated allegation was not deemed unfounded, The GEO Group, Inc. must “prepare a written report within 30 days of the conclusion of the investigation recommending whether the allegation or investigation indicates that a change in policy or practice could better prevent, detect, or respond to sexual abuse. The facility shall implement the recommendations for improvement, or shall document its reasons for not doing so in a written response.” See also PBNDS, p. 139: “Upon conclusion of a criminal investigation where the allegation was substantiated, or in instances where no criminal investigation has been completed, an administrative investigation shall be conducted. Upon conclusion of a criminal investigation where the allegation was unsubstantiated, the facility shall review any available completed criminal investigation reports to determine whether an administrative investigation is necessary or appropriate.”

[19] According to Contract Number HSCEDM-15–D–00015, p. 206, GEO must “conduct an annual review of all sexual abuse investigations and resulting incident reviews to assess and improve sexual abuse intervention, prevention, and response efforts.” The results and findings of these reviews must be transmitted by The GEO Group, Inc. to the local Field Office Coordinator. See also PBNDS, p. 141: “Each facility shall conduct an annual review of all sexual abuse investigations and resulting incident reviews to assess and improve sexual abuse intervention, prevention and response efforts. If the facility has not had any reports of sexual abuse during the annual reporting period, then the facility shall prepare a negative report. The results and findings of the annual review shall be provided to the facility administrator, Field Office Director or his or her designee, for transmission to the ICE PSA Coordinator.”

[20] UWCHR requested all Monthly Status Reports submitted under the terms of the contract from October 1, 2015 to August 1, 2021, in FOIA request 2021-ICFO-38172. The last known status of this request was “Assigned for Processing,” on June 29, 2024; subsequently, the PAL portal through which this request had been submitted vanished without a trace. While preparing this report, UWCHR submitted an official inquiry about the status of that missing request, and received an email on June 18, 2025, which reads “As of today, your request has been assigned to a processor and your request is being reviewed. If responsive records have been located, they will be reviewed for a determination of releasability. ICE FOIA apologizes for the delay in the processing of your request. Please be assured that one of the processors in our office will respond to your request as expeditiously as possible. We appreciate your patience as we proceed with your request.” On July 29, 2024, UWCHR submitted a new FOIA request, 2024-ICFO-44095, seeking copies of all Monthly Status Reports submitted under the terms of the facility’s contract. On January 26, 2025, ICE responded that no such records existed. We appealed, but on May 14, 2025, ICE upheld its previous determination that the records do not exist.

[21] In its responses to all FOIA requests, ICE includes boilerplate language referencing the possibility that records may exist but be unreleasable for security reasons. (“For your information, Congress excluded three discrete categories of law enforcement and national security records from the requirements of the FOIA. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(c) (2006 & Supp. IV (2010). This response is limited to those records that are subject to the requirements of the FOIA. This is a standard notification that is given to all our requesters and should not be taken as an indication that excluded records do, or do not, exist.”) However, it is not conceivable that security exemptions would preclude the release of these reports since pursuant to other FOIA requests, UWCHR has already received Significant Incident Reports for this period for incidents occurring at that facility. For this reason, it is not conceivable that the release of the Monthly Status Reports referencing significant incidents would threaten law enforcement or national security interests, because the significant incidents themselves had already been disclosed.

[22] As noted above, the contract requires two levels of written documentation of all uses of physical force at the facility; Significant Incident Reports, by which the incident itself is reported to ICE higher-ups, and After-Action reports, which document the outcome of a deliberative process designed to assess the reasonableness of the force deployed. On July 31, 2021, UWCHR submitted request 2021-ICFO-38168, seeking all Use of Force Incident Reports submitted for the duration of the contract; on December 12, 2023, ICE responded that no such records existed; UWCHR filed appeal 2024-ICAP-00258 since we have received copies of other ICE documents which show dozens of reported uses of force during this same period; our appeal was dismissed without notification. On June 29, 2024, we tried again, filing 2024-ICFO-44094, which remains pending as of this date. Separately, On August 1, 2021, UWCHR submitted request # 2021-ICFO-38170, seeking all copies of Use of Force After Action reports submitted for the duration of the contract; this request was last listed as “assigned for processing” on August 29, 2024, but subsequently vanished alongside dozens of other pending FOIA requests from ICE’s PAL portal.

[23] On July 31, 2021, UWCHR researchers submitted FOIA request 2021-ICFO-38167, which sought copies of both individual injury incident reports, and monthly injury incident reports, for the period from October 2015 to June 2021. This request vanished from ICE’s portal. In August 2022, UWCHR researchers also submitted 2021-ICFO-38171, which yielded 6 pages of documentation relating to two injury incidents in which workers at the facility were injured, but no information about injuries sustained by detained people, and no monthly injury reports, despite these being required under the terms of the contract. A third request, 2023-ICFO-27989, filed May 28, 2023, is still pending at the time of this writing.

[24] On August 1, 2021, in request 2021-ICFO-38173, UWCHR sought copies of all sexual abuse incident reviews performed under the terms of the contract from October 1, 2015 onward; ICE responded that no such documents existed, and sustained this under appeal 2022-ICAP-00538. On June 29, 2024 in 2024-ICFO-44096 we again sought copies of all sexual abuse incident reviews performed under the terms of the contract; this request remains pending as of this writing. On August 1, 2021, in request 2021-ICFO-38175, UWCHR sought copies of all annual sexual abuse reviews conducted under the terms of the contract; on June 15, 2022, we were informed by ICE that no such documents existed. On June 29, 2022, in 2024-ICFO-44097 we again sought copies of all sexual abuse incident reviews performed under the terms of the contract; this request remains pending.

[25] In these cases, UWCHR sought records pursuant to incidents in which force and/or chemical agents were reportedly deployed on July 23, 2020 (2023-ICFO-27991, still pending, and 2023-ICFO-27990, no documents); February 1, 2023 (2023-ICFO-17532, still pending, and 2023-ICFO-17556, still pending); July 28, 2023 (2024-ICFO-48971, SIR and After Action report released); and October 17, 2023 (2023-ICFO-16851, one SIR released). February 27, 2025, (2025-ICFO-23801, After Action report released).

[26] Despite having requested Significant Incident Reports for the entire period of the contract’s duration, due to ICE non-response UWCHR has only been able to review SIRs for certain periods. For example, through litigation, UWCHR has received copies of all Significant Incident Reports from January 1, 2015- September 1, 2019; and March 1, 2020-January 6, 2023. Through individual FOIA requests we have received SIRs for February 1-3, 2023; October 15-20, 2023; March 1-3, 2024; March 7-8, 2024; March 11-14, 2024; April 2, 2024; and July 28, 2024. Several other requests for Significant Incident Reports remain pending at this time.

[27] The process that occurs when ICE contract officers choose to file contract discrepancy reports and what occurs afterwards (with corrective action plans and financial penalties) is discussed in U.S. Government Accountability Office, Immigration Detention: Actions Needed to Improve Planning, Documentation, and Oversight of Detention Facility Contracts, January, 2021, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-149.pdf.

[28] See Contract Number HSCEDM-15–D–00015, p. 126: “Rather than withholding funds until a deficiency is corrected, there may be times when an event or a deficiency is so egregious that the Government deducts (vs. “withholds”) amounts from the Service Provider’s monthly invoice. This may happen when a significant event occurs, when a particular deficiency is noted multiple times without correction, or when the Service Provider has failed to take timely action on a deficiency about which he was properly and timely notified.”

[29] 2021-ICFO-37580, filed on July 7, 2021, sought copies of all Contract Discrepancy Reports for the NWDC/NWIPC filed by ICE Contracting Officer’s Representatives (CORs) between January 1, 2015 and the date of the request, all the corrective action plans developed by the facilities’ operators in response to the aforementioned discrepancy reports, and all the proposed financial penalties for the aforementioned discrepancy reports filed by the CORs of the NWDC/NWIPC and their outcomes. On May 10, 2024, ICE responded asserting that no such documents exist.

[30] U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General, ICE Does Not Fully Use Contracting Tools to Hold Detention Facility Contractors Accountable for Failing to Meet Performance Standards, January 29, 2019, https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2019-02/OIG-19-18-Jan19.pdf. See also: “Oversight of Immigration Detention: An Overview,” American Immigration Council, May 16, 2022, https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/fact-sheet/oversight-immigration-detention-overview/.

[31] Members of Washington state’s Congressional delegation have repeatedly issued letters to federal officials expressing concerns about detention conditions. For example, see Senator Maria Cantwell and Representative Adam Smith, letter to U.S. Department of Homeland Security Inspector General Dr. Joseph V. Cuffari, October 23, 2019, https://www.cantwell.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/10.23.19%20NWDC%20Letter%20To%20DHS%20Inspector%20General.pdf; “Senator Murray, Representative Smith, Members of Washington State Delegation Push for More Information on COVID-19 Relief Efforts at Northwest Detention Center,” press release,  May 12, 2020, https://www.murray.senate.gov/senator-murray-representative-smith-members-of-washington-state-delegation-push-for-more-information-on-covid-19-relief-efforts-at-northwest-detention-center/; Senator Edward Markey et al., letter to U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Acting Director Patrick J. Lechleitner, March 29, 2024, https://www.murray.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/letter_solitary_confinement_in_immigration_detention_32924.pdf; Representative Rick Larsen et al., letter to U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Acting Director Todd Lyons, April 4, 2025, https://lynnwoodtimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/ICE-and-DHS-to-Answer-Questions-about-Bellingham-Raid.pdf

[32] Members of Washington state’s Congressional delegation have also engaged in repeated visits to the NWDC. Most recently, Rep. Larson (D-WA) visited the facility on June 20, 2025 (see Rachel Showalter, “Rep. Larsen visits detained Whatcom County labor activist at ICE facility,” The Bellingham Herald, June 23, 2025, https://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/politics-government/article309240145.html); Reps. Jayapal (D-WA), Randall (D-WA) and Dexter (D-OR) visited the NWDC on May 30, 2025 (see Nina Shapiro, “Members of Congress pay surprise visit to WA immigrant detention center,” The Seattle Times, May 30, 2025, https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/members-of-congress-pay-surprise-visit-to-wa-immigrant-detention-center/). Staff from Senator Murray’s (D-WA) and Cantwell’s (D-WA) officers also visited the facility in 2024.

[33] In 2019, Congress created the Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman (OIDO) within DHS: “As an ombudsman’s office, OIDO is independent of the DHS Components over which it conducts oversight. The Ombudsman is neutral; its mission is to independently examine immigration detention to promote safe, humane conditions.” (See “About the Office of Immigration Detention Ombudsman,” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, March 17, 2025, https://www.dhs.gov/aboutoido.) The Trump administration reportedly shuttered the OIDO in March 2025. (See Nicole Sganga, Arden Farhi, Camilo Montoya-Galvez, Margaret Brennan, “DHS gutting offices that offer civil rights and immigration liaison services,” CBS News, March 21, 2025, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-administration-gutting-dhs-civil-rights-branch/.) In 2021, through the 2022 appropriations process, Congress tacked on a new requirement for more inspections, mandating that DHS’ Office of the Inspector General conduct inspections of detention facilities.

[34] See for example, statements from members of Washington State’s Congressional delegation about the facility: Senator Maria Cantwell, “Cantwell, Smith, Murray, and Jayapal Request Inspector General Investigations into Conditions at the NWDC,” Press release, November 29, 2018, https://www.cantwell.senate.gov/news/press-releases/cantwell-smith-murray-and-jayapal-request-inspector-general-investigations-into-conditions-at-the-nwdc; Seattle Times Editorial Board, “Feds should order health inspection of Tacoma ICE detention center,” The Seattle Times, August 13, 2024, https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/editorials/feds-should-order-health-inspection-of-tacoma-ice-detention-center/; Grace Deng, “Jayapal, Smith call for closure of for-profit immigration detention facilities,” KNKX, July 17, 2024, https://www.knkx.org/social-justice/2024-07-17/jayapal-smith-call-for-closure-of-for-profit-immigration-detention-facilities; Peter Talbot, “A dozen U.S. senators call on ICE, DHS to end misuse of solitary in immigration detention,” The Tacoma News Tribune, April 3, 2024, https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/article287294520.html; Adam Smith, Patty Murray, Pramila Jayapal, and Maria Cantwell, letter to Acting Director Ronald D. Vitiello, November 28, 2018, https://adamsmith.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/adamsmith.house.gov/files/2023-12/FINAL-Letter-to-ICE-on-Death-of-Mr.-Amar-at-NWDC.pdf; Representative Pramila Jayapal, “Jayapal Statement on Death of Detainee at the Northwest Detention Center,” press release, March 21, 2024, https://jayapal.house.gov/2024/03/21/jayapal-statement-on-death-of-detainee-at-the-northwest-detention-center/; and Representative Pramila Jayapal, “Jayapal Statement on Second Death at Northwest Immigrant Processing Center in 2024,” press release, October 30, 2024, https://jayapal.house.gov/2024/10/30/jayapal-statement-on-second-death-at-northwest-immigrant-processing-center-in-2024/

[35] HB 2640, passed in 2020, clarifies that the NWDC is not “essential public facility” under the state’s Growth Management Act, aiming to prevent its expansion (see “Governor Inslee Signs Bill Increasing Local Control Over Private Detention Facilities,” Columbia Legal Services, March 24, 2020, https://columbialegal.org/governor-inslee-signs-bill-increasing-local-control-over-private-detention-facilities/.); HB 2576, passed in 2020, mandated state and local oversight mechanisms to monitor and improve facility conditions (“Concerning private detention facilities,” HB 2576, 2019-20, https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=2576&Year=2019&Initiative=false.); HB 1090, passed in 2021, prohibits all private detention in the state (“Concerning private, for-profit detention facilities,” HB 1090, 2021-22, https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1090&Year=2021&Initiative=false.), but was declared unenforceable in 2023 (see David Gutman, “Northwest ICE detention center to remain open after WA law deemed unenforceable,” The Seattle Times, June 29, 2023, https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/northwest-ice-detention-center-to-remain-open-after-wa-law-deemed-unenforceable/; HB 1232, passed in 2025, mandates inspections of the facility by the State’s Department of Health (“Concerning private detention facilities,” HB 1232, 2025-26, https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/?BillNumber=1232&Year=2025&Initiative=false.).

[36] See, for example: “Council highlights detention center concerns,” Tacoma Weekly, September 16, 2024, https://tacomaweekly.com/council-highlights-detention-center-concerns-p8309-117.htm; City of Tacoma, Resolution No. 40636, August 4, 2020, https://cms.tacoma.gov/OEHR/Northwest%20ICE%20Processing%20Center/Resolution%20No%2040636.pdf; City of Tacoma, “Council Member Olgy Diaz Passes Resolution 41378 to Support Access to Phone Services for Detainees in the Northwest ICE Processing Center,” The Suburban Times, March 8, 2024, https://thesubtimes.com/2024/03/08/council-member-olgy-diaz-passes-resolution-41378-to-support-access-to-phone-services-for-detainees-in-the-northwest-ice-processing-center/.

[37] Federal district courts have provided a limited but meaningful exception to this rule, mandating an end to the facility’s “voluntary” work program (see David Gutman, “Tacoma prison must pay $23M for violating minimum wage, court says,” The Seattle Times, January 17, 2025, https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/tacoma-prison-must-pay-23m-for-violating-minimum-wage-court-says/), exercising limited oversight of its management of medically vulnerable populations during the COVID-19 pandemic (see NWIRP, “Immigrants’ Rights Organizations Reach Settlement in Case Brought to Protect Medically Vulnerable People Detained by ICE,” press release, May 30, 2023, https://www.nwirp.org/news-events/press-releases/posts/immigrants-rights-organizations-reach-settlement-in-case-brought-to-protect-medically-vulnurable-people-detained-by-ice/), and intervening in some individual cases (see for example Gene Johnson, “Lawsuit: Detained immigrant beaten for role in hunger strike,” The Seattle Times, February 23, 2018, https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/lawsuit-immigrant-beaten-for-role-in-hunger-strike-at-tacoma-detention-center/).