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
• ICE Lowers Standards, Documents Reveal Gaps in Accountability for Sexual Abuse
• 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: NWDC’s Unenforced Contract

Scrapping the Standards: As ICE Lowers Detention Standards, Documents Reveal Gaps in Accountability for Sexual Abuse

Content warning: This report includes descriptions of sexual abuse and assault.

Introduction

Community leaders,^[1] advocates,^[2] and lawyers^[3] have long denounced the Northwest ICE Processing Center (NWIPC) as a site of violence. The University of Washington Center for Human Rights’ (UWCHR) research has repeatedly documented serious gaps between ICE’s claims of “zero tolerance” for abuse, and the realities of daily life inside facility walls.^[4] And in recent weeks, the recently-published new contract governing the facility suggests that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and GEO have chosen to narrow the gap between promises and reality by lowering their standards and further insulating themselves from accountability. This is unacceptable.

This new contract emerges on the heels of new documents about institutional responses to reported sexual abuse and assault at the facility, released to UWCHR through ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation against the Department of Homeland Security.^[5] Inasmuch as these new records continue to show that attempts to report violence within the facility frequently go ignored, they confirm our previous^[6] findings. But these new records also offer us a glimpse within the black box of facility operations: by allowing us for the first time to examine the internal investigations conducted by ICE and GEO in response to alleged sexual abuse,^[7] they permit us to understand why, and how, a system which appears rigorous on paper produces such dismal results. On the basis of analysis of these newly-received records, we identify three central mechanisms through which internal investigations fail:

1. Internal investigations that ignore key evidence
2. Failures to incorporate preventative measures
3. Failures to report crimes to law enforcement

While many organizations have long criticized the impunity with which this facility operates,^[8] to respond to these longstanding criticisms by abandoning standards rather than improving practices can only be understood as an attempt to make the NWIPC a law-free zone.

Methodology: The Long Struggle to Open the Black Box

This report has been years in the making. Since 2017, UWCHR has filed more than a hundred requests for information about NWIPC operations under the federal Freedom of Information Act. Due to unlawful or nonexistent responses, we have repeatedly been compelled to bring suit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to compel the disclosure of records which should be publicly available.

While our research has delved into many elements of detention conditions, we have been particularly interested in understanding responses to violence in the facility, and within that category, to responses to sexual abuse and assault, since this is the sole area where a federal statute–the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA)–establishes specific benchmarks that apply to immigration detention, as it does to other sites of confinement used by the US criminal justice system.^[9] In incorporating these statutory benchmarks, ICE standards have laid out a rigorous set of documentation requirements, which should, in theory, provide an ample “paper trail” through which to analyze the effectiveness of the facility’s efforts to ensure the safety of its workers and those in its custody.

Our 2022 report on sexual abuse and assault at the facility analyzed various categories of documentation we had fought to obtain through advocacy and litigation, culling reports of sexual abuse from various broader categories of reporting. For example, we had obtained copies of call logs documenting all incidents reported to national DHS hotlines,^[10] and collections of detainee grievances, combing through them to identify the incidents of alleged sexual abuse and assault; similarly, we had obtained a tranche of Significant Incident Reports and culled from them all reported “SAAPI”^[11] or PREA incidents. The comparison across these various record sets enabled us to conclude that many incidents were reported, but received no apparent response. From this we derived the report’s title, “Calls to Nowhere: Reports of sexual abuse and assault go unanswered at the NWDC.”

For many years, UWCHR sought records of ICE and GEO’s internal investigatory mechanisms for such incidents, seeking to understand the behind-the-scenes processes producing this apparent nonresponse. Beginning in 2021, we filed FOIA requests for four categories of records which we knew must exist because their creation was mandated under ICE’s own standards. These categories were:

• Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) audit reports reviewing and analyzing the detention center’s practices for compliance with national PREA standards.^[12]
• All sexual abuse investigations conducted by GEO at the NWDC/NWIPC.^[13]
• All sexual abuse incident reviews, and GEO responses to each review. Distinct from the investigation of the alleged abuse itself, this is a process designed to determine “whether changes to facility policy or practice could better prevent, detect, or respond to sexual abuse and assault.”^[14] As such, its aim is preventative. After each incident review, the facility contract requires the implementation of recommendations, or a documented reason why they were not implemented.^[15]
• All annual sexual abuse reviews conducted by GEO for the NWIPC. These are required under ICE’s PBNDS^[16] and the facility contract.^[17]

ICE’s responses to our requests for these documents were erratic and sometimes unlawful.

For example, on August 1, 2021, we filed a FOIA request^[18] seeking copies of all PREA Audits conducted for the Northwest Detention Center/Northwest ICE Processing Center during the August 20, 2019 to August 19, 2022 audit cycle; ICE policy is to publicly post all PREA audits “once they become available,” but audits for this period had, at the time, not been published anywhere.^[19] ICE initially acknowledged our FOIA request, but one month later, we received an email from ICE notifying us that our FOIA request had been closed, without explanation.^[20] However, the FOIA statute requires that requestors be notified as to what search was performed pursuant to their request, and what the results of that search were; to simply close a case without explanation is unlawful. We wrote to ICE appealing this summary closure. They did not acknowledge our appeal; the case simply remained closed and we received no further correspondence.

In other cases, for example with our request for annual sexual abuse reviews,^[21] ICE claimed the documents we sought did not exist, even though their own standards mandate their creation. We refiled our request for annual sexual abuse reviews multiple times, but ultimately were faced with litigation as our only possible recourse.

We also sought the assistance of Senator Maria Cantwell’s office, whose staff attempted to obtain these same five types of documents via the DHS Congressional Liaison, but were ultimately unsuccessful (with the exception of the PREA Audits we had requested, which by September 2024 had been publicly posted on ICE’s website^[22]).

Eventually, the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP) chose to take the case to court. In January 2026, we received what ICE claimed was the final of nine installments pursuant to this litigation. Based on a careful analysis of those records, we believe that some important records remain missing,^[23] yet attempts to address this were stymied by the partial government shutdown in early 2026; as of this writing, settlement discussions have yet to resume.

However, the records received to date–both through this litigation, and other UWCHR research, some of which has been published in other reports, and some of which remains ongoing–permit us to assemble the most complete record available to date of sexual abuse and assault incidents reported^[24] at the NWIPC.

Using this information, we compiled a spreadsheet of all 229 known reports of sexual abuse or assault reports from January 1, 2015 to February 25, 2025, culled from our review of 13 different types of documentation.^[25] Using the date and reported characteristics of the cases as described, we were in many cases able to match up the same case reflected in different types of documents. This is valuable, because it allows researchers to track the responses to a specific incident as they wend their way through different institutional procedures designed to prevent sexual abuse. At the same time, this matching process is imperfect; in some cases, key documents about some incidents have yet to be released, and in others, it is not clear whether multiple documents refer to the same incident or multiple incidents. (Internal incident and tracking numbers, which could have eliminated such doubts, are redacted prior to disclosure.) For this reason, we cannot draw precise quantitative conclusions from this data about the number of sexual abuse incidents which were reported or which occurred during the roughly ten year period under study. However, we can share general trends about the types of cases and ways they were handled, and we can report details about specific cases for which ample information was available from multiple sources. We offer that, followed by a discussion of its importance in the context of current contract discussions, in the below.

What the documents show

Under the facility standards in force at the time of these incidents, GEO and ICE are required to follow a very detailed series of steps in response to every incident of reported sexual abuse or assault. As soon as an incident is brought to a GEO officer’s attention, even before assessing the credibility of the account they are required to notify the ICE personnel on site; those personnel are then required to immediately notify multiple other offices up ICE’s chain of command.^[26] Each of these steps should generate written documentation. GEO staff, in coordination with ICE personnel, are also responsible for reporting any abuse that is potentially criminal to the Tacoma Police Department (TPD) for criminal investigation.^[27]

Once notifications are complete, the standards require an internal investigation by the facility, as well as collaboration with any independent investigation undertaken by law enforcement.^[28] The internal investigation determines whether the incident is substantiated (confirmed to have taken place), unsubstantiated (unclear whether it took place, though it may have), or unfounded (concluded to have never occurred).^[29] These investigations generate detailed written reports.^[30]

In addition to investigations into each incident, the facility is required to conduct a review “following every investigation of sexual abuse or assault… to assess whether changes to facility policy or practice could better prevent, detect, or respond to sexual abuse and assault.”^[31] The facility is then tasked with implementing the recommendations generated by this review process, or, if it declines to do so, with documenting the reason for its decision in a written response.^[32] Furthermore, all investigations and reviews are to be compiled and evaluated once per year in an annual review process.^[33] These processes of institutional learning are important, as they compel staff to analyze factors that may contribute to the abuse, answering questions about the physical locations where documented abuses occur, staff practices in responding to abuse, and other factors which could lead to improved future outcomes.

UWCHR researchers reviewed approximately 6,000 pages of records released in response to the lawsuit brought by NWIRP, as well as four hours of video footage. These records included internal ICE and GEO documentation relating to approximately 172^[34] unique reported incidents from January 2015 through March 2025. Of these reports, 145 included information regarding ICE and GEO’s findings, with 19 reports determined to be substantiated, 90 unsubstantiated, and 36 unfounded. 112 reports involved allegations of abuse by detained people (18 substantiated), 51 involved allegations of abuse by facility staff (1 substantiated), and the remainder were unclear or lacked information about the identity of the alleged perpetrator.

Based on our analysis of these internal investigative and reporting documents, we identified three main areas of concern.

1) Some internal investigations ignore key evidence

As noted above, GEO is required to investigate all reported incidents of sexual abuse or assault; the key determination they are tasked with making is whether the incident was substantiated, unsubstantiated, or unfounded. As noted above, of the 145 cases where UWCHR received confirmation of GEO/ICE’s determination, only 19 were found to be substantiated.^[35]

In most cases, UWCHR does not have access to sufficient independent information to question the credibility of the determination. There are multiple cases, for example, where case files contain witness statements which contradict one another, and where GEO ultimately concluded the events in question were “unsubstantiated,” apparently as a result of these contradictions; given the challenges of assessing the credibility of witnesses based on on-paper summaries, we give GEO and ICE the benefit of the doubt in such cases. In other cases, written documents state that GEO’s review of video footage did not substantiate the detained person’s description of the incident, but the video in question was not provided to UWCHR so we cannot independently assess its content; here, too, we give GEO and ICE the benefit of the doubt. However, there were two unusual cases in which internal investigative processes concluded the reports were “unsubstantiated,” but for which unambiguous evidence was included among the documents released to UWCHR. We describe these two below.

The most egregious example is that of a Guatemalan detained man who reported being forced to perform oral sex on another detained man on four different occasions in June 2024–an account which was later upheld by DNA evidence. ICE documents note that the victim reported that three other detainees who acted as lookouts during these incidents later demanded oral sex from him as well. On one of these occasions, when the primary aggressor ejaculated into the victim’s mouth, he spit it out into a plastic bag which he saved as evidence. GEO documents show that when he initially reported the abuse to an officer, he was told that “someone” would come speak to him, but no one did; so on June 12, 2024, when it happened that the facility was visited by an auditor, he seized the opportunity to tell her he’d been sexually assaulted but received no assistance. The auditor reported this to a sergeant, who then contacted the Tacoma Police Department; TPD sent an officer the same day to speak to the victim and retrieve the semen sample.

More than two months later, on August 19, 2024, an officer from TPD’s Special Assaults Unit emailed the NWIPC warden, Bruce Scott, about the case. He wrote, “Dear Mr. Scott, Feel free to conduct your investigation however you wish with no request for restrictions from the law enforcement end. I have attached the initial police report regarding the incident. If possible I would like a copy of your investigation when it is complete. I appreciate your assistance and if you need anything done on my end please let me know.”  The email was memorialized in GEO’s internal investigation as follows: “TPD notified GEO that they were not going to investigate and deferred it back to GEO on 8/19/24 at approx 1:34 pm”; GEO’s internal investigation then concluded that the allegation of sexual assault was unsubstantiated.

However, in November 2024, TPD detective Keith Miner contacted Officer Mike Moon at the NWIPC to inform him that the semen sample had finally been sent to the lab, and that analysis of its results confirmed that the contents included human sperm matching the DNA of the individual identified by the victim as his rapist. In response, Officer Moon told TPD that neither victim nor perpetrator was at the facility anymore and their “whereabouts [were] unknown,” so TPD closed the case, concluding in its report, “Due to the involved individuals being deported out of the country, their whereabouts unknown, no good contact information for either subject, this case will be cleared resolved.”

This case is clearly unusual, inasmuch as it appears to be the only case in which a biological sample was analyzed. But the fact that the DNA analysis confirmed the victim’s account after the facility’s process had already discounted it as “unsubstantiated” suggests that the investigative process–in at least this case and perhaps others–lacked rigor.

A second case where evidence suggests a specious investigation involves a sexual relationship between a facility staff member and a detained man from Nicaragua; under federal law, a detained person cannot legally consent to such a “relationship.”^[36] While there are inconsistencies in ICE and GEO’s reporting of this case, there is ample evidence it occurred: the investigation surfaced more than 700 calls between the staff member and detained person, and hundreds of text messages rife with sexual banter and repeated comments like “I love you.”

According to ICE documents, the NWIPC Facility Administrator first became aware of this relationship when a GEO employee reported it anonymously on April 20, 2023; the Facility Administrator then reviewed video from April 16, 2023 showing the two individuals “in close proximity to one another for the majority of [the staffmember’s] shift,” but decided not to notify Tacoma Police Department because “no criminal conduct was alleged.”

According to a Significant Incident Report dated March 28, 2024, ICE did not become aware of this until March 27, 2024, at which point a commander from the health services sought to interview the detained victim, who declined the interview. By that time, the staff member was no longer employed at the facility, though GEO’s own internal investigation, which is dated May 2, 2024, contains conflicting information as to the date of her resignation; on one page it says she resigned on January 5, 2023 (which is impossible, given that the two were seen interacting on video on April 16, 2023), and on another page, it says she resigned on April 28, 2023. The text of the resignation was included in the documents provided to UWCHR, but does not include the date.

Regardless of the date of the employee’s resignation, however, the dozens of pages of communications provided to UWCHR make it amply clear the relationship occurred, yet the investigation was sloppy, conducted months after the incident was initially reported, and inexplicably concluded that the allegation of an inappropriate relationship was unsubstantiated, despite dozens of pages of romantic messages exchanged between the staff member and detainee. The pages also note that “ERO Seattle did not notify local law enforcement of the allegation as the alleged incident was not criminal in nature.” We return to this question of the harm caused by failing to refer cases to law enforcement in the below.

2) Failure to adhere to requirements to adopt preventative policies

As noted above, both the facility contract and the Performance-Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS) to which it refers require ICE/GEO to carry out preventative practices in response to reports of sexual abuse or assault; both individual sexual abuse incident reviews and annual sexual incident reviews require staffmembers to assess whether the location of abuse, group dynamics, staff response, or other factors may have contributed to the abuse in question, and hence whether those factors can be changed to prevent future abuses.

Despite the fact that policy requires the creation of Sexual Abuse Incident Reviews for every reported case (except those adjudicated to have been unfounded), Sexual Abuse Incident Review Forms^[37] were only released to NWIRP for 58 of the estimated universe of 172 alleged incidents. Of the 58 provided, only 5 included recommendations for improvements, and no annual Sexual Abuse Incident Review was provided to enable researchers to assess whether those recommendations had ever been implemented.

While in theory it is possible that no improvements were identified because none were necessary–in other words, that the facility was functioning perfectly and could have done nothing to avoid the harm experienced–this conclusion is not supported by GEO’s own conclusion that, as noted above, 19 reported incidents of abuse did, in fact, occur. Indeed, just as the individual case investigations, in at least some cases, appear to have ignored key evidence, it appears likely that the process of institutional self-criticism may also have been skirted.

3) Failure to report to law enforcement

It is not possible to call 911 from the phones or tablets to which people detained at the NWIPC have access; this means detainees at the facility are unable to call for emergency assistance without asking the assistance of facility staff.^[38]However, internal agency documents confirm what we found in our 2025 report on Tacoma Police Department’s responses to crimes reported at the facility: facility personnel frequently decline to notify law enforcement even when asked.

 

A Detainee Formal Grievance Form, obtained by UWCHR through records requests, describes multiple instances of sexual harassment endured by the filer of the grievance. In the “Action requested by detainee” section, the filer explicitly asks to notify the Tacoma Police Department. Cross referenced documents show that in response to this grievance, staff at the NWIPC chose not to inform law enforcement because the staff considered it to be “a non-physical allegation.”

For example, on multiple dates in August and September 2023, a detained man from Mexico reported being sexually harassed in the rec yard of the NWIPC, where another detained man repeatedly exposed himself and masturbated while making suggestive comments to him. His written grievance asked for the incident to be reported to the Tacoma Police Department, but a message from the facility’s SAAPI coordinator noted, “At this time, in accordance with previous directive from ICE, TPD will not be contacted due to this being a non-physical allegation.”

As this example illustrates, facility personnel frequently note in internal documents that they chose not to inform law enforcement in cases where detained people reported a sexual abuse that staff considered to be “less than criminal” in nature. This occurred in at least 54 of the 172 cases released to NWIRP and reviewed by UWCHR. These reported abuses, which ranged from verbal threats to voyeurism to unwanted but apparently less than forceful touching, may appear “minor” compared to acts of penetrative rape, but clearly fit within the definition of sexual abuse included in PREA and incorporated into DHS policy. That definition includes “threats, intimidation, harassment, indecent, profane or abusive language, or other actions or communications, aimed at coercing or pressuring a detainee to engage in a sexual act.”^[39] As such, physical force between individuals is not necessary to trigger the protections the law requires.

There are many examples of this pattern. To cite just a few:

• On March 14, 2024 a detained man from Romania reported that he had experienced sexual harassment by another detainee. He explained that the other man, in the past, had touched him and said he loved him; this time, while he was showering the man came and suddenly opened the shower curtain to see him naked, and again said that he loved him. Notes from a meeting at which this incident was discussed the next day indicate that the detained man said guards observed the incident on CCTV cameras and took action in response, moving the aggressor to a different pod; this addressed the alleged victim’s fear for his safety. However, an ICE memo about the incident dated May 6, 2024, shows that a GEO Lieutenant “determined not to notify the Tacoma Police Department because this incident was not deemed criminal in nature.”
• On April 5, 2024, a detained woman from Mexico reported that another detainee had approached her from behind and hugged her, touching under her breasts, on her thigh and leg, and made comments about her body. Video footage confirmed the victim’s account, and the accused person admitted having hugged her but claimed it was consensual. GEO concluded that the incident was substantiated, but “GEO did not contact the Tacoma Police Department as they will not investigate PREA allegations not involving serious physical assault.”
• On April 27, 2024, a detained man from the United Kingdom reported that on multiple occasions when he would shower, the same three or four detained men would stand outside the shower, watch him, and make sexually suggestive comments. According to GEO documents, no video was available, and the accused men denied the allegation, so it was ultimately determined to have been unsubstantiated and TPD was not notified.

Furthermore, the documents shared with UWCHR include mention of two cases of staff-on-detainee abuse. One case, discussed above, includes voluminous evidence that the occurrence of a romantic relationship between staff and detainee is beyond question; but as noted above, it was never reported to law enforcement or to state licensing bodies.^[40]

A second, separate case is much less clearly documented in the records released to UWCHR. A “disciplinary action form” dated May 28, 2024 reports the dismissal of a Detention Officer as a result of the investigation of an allegation made on April 29, 2024 of staff-on-inmate sexual abuse. The details of what sort of abuse occurred are not included, though an apparently related document, which makes reference to an allegation of sexual abuse by staff against a detained person raised on April 29, 2024, lists the abuse as occurring in multiple areas, and at multiple times, and indicates that the staff person involved is “no longer employed here.” The disciplinary action form indicates that, “The investigation has been concluded and found to be substantiated.” But just as in the aforementioned case of staff-on-detainee sexual abuse, the case was not referred to the Tacoma Police Department.

A Disciplinary Action Form from GEO reporting the dismissal of a Detention Office at the NWIPC for “Violation of GEO Policy 5.1.2-Zero Tolerance Policy Towards Sexual Abuse & Harassment Date(s) of Violation: 4/29/24.”

Sexual abuse of an inmate in federal custody is, in fact, a crime under 18 U.S.C. § 2243(b), a federal statute which applies to immigration detention as well as other forms of federal custody.^[41] GEO’s own Policy and Procedure Manual notes that “Sexual conduct between staff members and detainees, contract personnel or volunteers and detainees, regardless of consensual status is prohibited and subject to administrative and criminal disciplinary sanctions.” (emphasis added.) Yet in at least two documented cases of such abuse, TPD was never informed that this crime had occurred. In one of these two cases, the documents further note that state licensing authorities were also not informed.

The facility’s silence in response to such serious offenses sows deep doubt about its commitment to “zero tolerance.” Aside from criminal prosecution, the records show no evidence that any action was taken to prevent the rehiring of the responsible individuals by other detention facilities, correctional or educational institutions, or employers where they might in the future be granted responsibility for the protection of a vulnerable population. 

Cast against this stark betrayal of the public trust, ICE’s apparent decision in March 2026 to lower its standards is cause for grave concern. We turn, in the below, to the terms of this new contract.

New contract, lower standards

According to documents recently posted on government contracting website sam.gov and ICE’s own website, on March 26, 2026 ICE issued a seven-month “bridge” contract to GEO on a non-competitive basis “while the long-term strategy is finalized.”^[42] This new contract, 70CDCR26D00000026, governs operations from March 28, 2026 to October 27, 2026; it replaces the previous contract, HSCEDM -10 – D – 00015, which governed facility operations from September 24, 2015, to March 27, 2026.^[43] The terms of the new contract are governed by three documents: the five page contract and Performance Work Statement posted as separate documents on ICE’s FOIA Library,^[44] and the National Detention Standards,^[45] which the contract’s Performance Work Statement references as the set of guidelines by which the facility is expected to operate.

This is a very significant change, both for the NWIPC and for ICE detention as a whole. ICE’s National Detention Standards (NDS) represent a significantly less strict set of guidelines than the Performance-Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS) by which the facility has been, in theory, operating to date. Historically, ICE has applied the less demanding NDS standards to “non-dedicated facilities,” meaning state or locally-owned or run jails or prisons from which ICE rents bed space. As the agency opened more of its own “dedicated” facilities–places that could be expected to operate by ICE’s rules, because they only housed ICE detainees–it rolled out new, more rigorous “performance based” standards, incorporating an approach advocated by the American Corrections Association (ACA). These more stringent “performance based” standards, published as the PBNDS initially created in 2008, and later revised in 2011 and 2016, were applied to “dedicated” facilities like the NWIPC.^[46] When discussing detention standards, Congress repeatedly pushed ICE to ensure that all agency facilities were subject to the more rigorous standards^[47]–and ICE agreed, in 2017 indicating that the PBNDS was already in force at all of its dedicated facilities and was being progressively incorporated into all new contracts at non-dedicated facilities.^[48]

This began to change under the first Trump administration, when rather than continuing the expansion of the PBNDS standards to cover all ICE detainees, the government chose to revise the NDS, incorporating the requirements of federal law regarding sexual abuse and assault, but substantially downgrading other requirements.^[49] This lowering of standards then accelerated in early 2025, when the second Trump administration began eliminating major elements of its previous infrastructure for facility oversight,^[50] and issuing executive orders which mandated the broad expansion of detention capacity across the board.

By mid-2025, the contract solicitations that emerged revealed that the previous policy of holding new contracts to the higher PBNDS standard had been abandoned.^[51] At the time, border czar Tom Homan said this was being done in order to allow more locally-owned facilities to be eligible to partner with ICE for detention, thus expanding the agency’s overall detention capacity^[52]–but the fact that standards have been lowered at NWIPC, a facility to which PBNDS had already been applied for over a decade, shows that the reason standards are being lowered is not to bring more facilities online: it’s just to lower standards, period.

What’s more, because the contemporary NDS represents a standard weaker than the 2000 version of the NDS, which governed the NWIPC until the introduction of the PBNDS in 2010,^[53] the current contract may incorporate the weakest standard for conditions ever applied to the facility since its opening in 2004.

Below, we describe some of the specific points on which standards have been lowered. This is not intended as an exhaustive discussion of the differences between the PBNDS and the NDS; as each set of standards is hundreds of pages long, to compare them comprehensively would require a far more detailed analysis. Rather, this is a brief overview of key points in the contract, its Performance Work Statement, and the referenced NDS, where current standards deviate from the previous standards in ways that are particularly relevant for human rights.

Worse standards in new contract

Applicability of Local and State Laws

For Washingtonians, perhaps the most significant of the facility’s new standards is the new contract’s explicit prohibition on facility management responding to state and local laws. “If any conflicts between federal, state, or local laws or rules arise,” the new contract reads, “the federal rules shall be followed. Nothing in this performance work statement is intended to, or shall be construed to be, a waiver of federal supremacy or the immunity of the Government or its support service provider, the contractor. Otherwise, applicable or more stringent state or local laws or regulations shall not apply to the performance under this contract when they would directly or indirectly regulate, dictate, or control the support-service provider’s performance under these standards.”^[54]

By contrast, the previous contract included language specifically instructing the facility operators to follow state and local law: “All services must comply with the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and all applicable federal, state, and local laws and standards. Should a conflict exist between any of these standards, the most stringent shall apply.”^[55] It goes on to reiterate, “The Contractor agrees to accept and provide for the secure transport, custody, care, and safekeeping of detainees in accordance with the State, and local laws, standards, policies, procedures, or court orders applicable to the operations of the facility.”^[56]

Given that Washington’s state legislature has passed laws mandating minimum health and safety standards at the facility and requiring its inspection by the state’s Department of Health–legislation recently upheld in federal court^[57],[58]–and that the facility has already been repeatedly inspected by Washington State Labor and Industries,^[59] as well as the Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department,^[60] this appears to be an attempt to directly invalidate such efforts. This is reinforced with language regarding the requirement that GEO comply with inspections, which explicitly names the entities permitted to carry out “approved” inspections, and does not mention the State Department of Health: “DHS, ICE, federal entities, and ICE-approved third-party inspectors (e.g., contracted support for conducting inspections) will conduct scheduled and unscheduled audits and inspections of performance to ensure contract compliance. Approved inspectors shall always have full access to the federal facility and in all areas of performance.”^[61]

Similarly, as regards safety standards, the contract omits mention of the existence of state or local standards, stating only, “A safety program shall be maintained in compliance with all applicable Federal laws, statutes, regulations, and codes.” (PWS, p. 7) and “The Service Provider shall comply with all applicable federal laws and all applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards.” (PWS, p. 8) And as regards sanitation, the contract reads, “The Service Provider shall comply with the requirements of the OSHA and all codes and regulations associated with 29 CFR 1910 and 1926. The Service Provider shall comply with all applicable ICE, federal laws, statutes, regulations, and codes.” (PWS, p. 12).

The new contract explicitly and repeatedly uses the language “federal facility” to refer to the detention center, although the NWIPC is a privately-owned business which courts have found must follow rules, such as minimum wage laws, which apply to private businesses in our state.^[62]

There are only two points in the contract where the relevance of local or state laws is mentioned. First, the contract says GEO must have a business license, stating, “The Service Provider must (depending on the state’s requirements) be licensed as a qualified security service company in accordance with the requirements of the district, municipality, county, and state in which the federal facility is located.” (PWS, p. 8). And second, the contract appears to recognize the ability of local and state governments to confer authority to use force for security purposes. It stipulates that, “The Service Provider shall obtain the appropriate authority from state or local law enforcement agencies to use force as necessary to maintain the security of the federal facility.”^[63]

Facility population

The justification for the awarding of the contract without a competitive bidding process specifically states that, “The facility must have a capacity of up to 1,635 detainees.” However, local zoning rules have historically capped the facility’s population at 1,575.^[64] From the contract, it is not clear how ICE intends to expand the facility’s capacity without running afoul of such rules.

It is possible they intend to do so by creating a holding cell, where standing detainees are not included in the population count. The contract reads, “The Service Provider shall provide for ICE processing/holding space operated in accordance with ICE policy 11087.2 ‘Operations of ERO Holding Facilities’.”^[65] (PWS, p. 6) and the notes requirement of space for a [redacted] number of “standing aliens.” It is not clear whether this implies that those held in “holding facility” conditions within the NWIPC would not count toward the overall population of the facility, and could perhaps represent a way ICE aims to increase the facility’s overall population.

Under the previous contract, bed-day was explicitly defined as “Bed-day means a detainee that occupies a bed in a housing unit or a detainee in custody for at least 4 hours in either a holding cell or staging area (not both).”^[66] and no mention was made of holding space to be operated under the ICE policy for holding facilities.^[67] In the new contract, the definition of bed-day does not specifically include those in in a holding cell or staging area,^[68] but it is unclear whether that means individuals held in such circumstances would count toward the total detained population or not.

Medical care

Concerns about the timely provision of emergency medical care are already acute at the NWIPC, and may become even more so now that the facility’s new contract specifically states that, “In the event that an alien at the federal facility is found to have a medical condition that requires medical care beyond the scope of the service provider’s health care provider, the service provider shall notify ICE and request transfer of the alien from the federal facility. The service provider shall permit ICE reasonable time to make alternative arrangements for the alien.” (PWS, p. 5).^[69]

Under non-emergency circumstances, a “reasonable” delay to enable the provision of alternate arrangements may, in fact, be medically acceptable. But UWCHR’s research has already documented a serious demand for emergency medical services at NWIPC; over the course of 2025, for example, at least 140 911 calls were placed regarding calls for emergency medical assistance at the facility,^[70] and multiple organizations have already reported that detained people are already denied the opportunity to obtain emergency medical assistance during times of critical need.^[71] The previous contract, HSCEDM-15-D-00015, did not include this “reasonable time” language, suggesting that a new barrier is being introduced which may result in further delays in care.^[72]

The National Detention Standards permit much broader leeway to individual detention facilities to determine the quality of health care available to detained people than the PBNDS. For example, where the PBNDS mandated that “A detainee who is determined to require health care beyond facility resources shall be transferred in a timely manner to an appropriate facility,”^[73] and “A transportation system shall provide timely access to health care services that are not available at the facility,”^[74] the current NDS merely states that facility personnel should be trained in “the facility’s established plan and procedures for providing emergency medical care including, when required, the safe and secure transfer of detainees for appropriate hospital or other medical services.”^[75] In other words, the NDS does not specify what the facility’s “plan and procedures” should contain, only that its personnel should be trained to adhere to whatever they are.

Relatedly, the new contract states that in cases where a detained person is hospitalized, “An officer, or officers, shall keep the detainee under constant supervision 24 hours per day until the detainee is ordered released from the hospital, or at the order of the COR. The Service Provider shall then transport the detainee to the detention site.”^[76] This would appear to deny detained people the opportunity to be examined privately by medical providers. The previous contract included similar, though less definitive language about hospitalizations, saying “Twenty-four hour custody shall be maintained, with constant visual observation when practicable.”^[77] (emphasis added).

Transparency

The downgrading of ICE’s claims to transparency are clear in the text of the contract itself. The new contract states, “For inquiries regarding ICE detainee information or ICE’s usage of this agreement, there shall be no public disclosures regarding this agreement made by the Provider (or any subcontractors) without review and approval of such disclosure by ICE.”^[78] The previous contract also included language prohibiting disclosure of the contract itself without ICE’s permission,^[79] but did not extend that prohibition to “detainee information.”

Similarly, in the case of a detainee death, the new contract assigns the responsibility for communicating with the local medical examiner to ICE, whereas the previous contract assigned it to GEO.^[80] This appears part of the same strategy of limiting the public disclosure of information as much as possible.

Accountability

The new contract offers GEO, as a contractor, assurance that the U.S. federal government will shoulder significant responsibilities if the company is named as a defendant as a result of its work at the NWIPC. It reads, “In the event a lawsuit is filed against the service provider, in which any claim or allegation contests the legality or propriety of the service provider’s performance of its obligations under the agreement or a lawsuit is filed as a result of an alleged administrative error, omission, or intentional act of the Federal Government, ICE, if it determines the service provider abided by the terms of this Agreement during the activity alleged in such lawsuit, will promptly request, and use its best efforts to endorse, and recommend that the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), as appropriate, should, but is not limited to, move to either have the service provider dismissed from such suit; have ICE substituted as the proper party defendant; or to have the case removed to a court of proper jurisdiction.”^[81]

By contrast, the previous contract made it clear that GEO Group, not ICE, would be the party held accountable in any litigation arising from facility operations: “The Contractor shall save and hold harmless and indemnify the Government against any and all liability claims, and cost of whatsoever kind and nature for injury to or death of any person or persons and for loss or damage to any Contractor property or property owned by a third party occurring in connection with or in any way incident to or arising out of the occupancy, use, service, operation, or performance of work under the terms of this contract, resulting in whole or in part from the acts or omissions of the Contractor, any subcontractor, or any employee, agent, or representative of the Contractor or subcontractor.”^[82]

While the body of research by UWCHR and other parties makes it clear that both ICE and GEO bear responsibility for poor conditions at the NWIPC, the marshalling of federal government resources and potential claims of sovereign immunity clearly constitute impediments to accountability for abuses at the facility.

Potential positives in new contract

There are some areas in which the new contract introduces new language which could be positive for human rights. Below, we identify two.

Requirement of natural light

The new contract requires “abundant natural light throughout the federal detention facility,”^[83] an element not addressed in the previous contract. It is unclear how this will be provided given that large areas of the facility lack windows to the outside world.

Non-segregated Protective Custody for Vulnerable Populations

The new contract also requires the provision of protective custody options, other than segregation–and contains specific requirements as regards the programming in and staffing of these units.^[84] This is not mentioned at all in the previous contract, where “protective custody” is discussed only in regards to assignment to administrative segregation, commonly known as solitary confinement.^[85] Were the contract’s provisions for non-segregated protective custody to be fully implemented, this would represent a significant improvement in the treatment of vulnerable populations at the NWIPC; past UWCHR research has shown that many detained people are placed in administrative segregation because of mental illness or as in response to their own request because of safety concerns.

Conclusions

Given UWCHR’s own findings that ICE’s apparently-rigorous conditions–including those about sexual abuse and assault, which are codified in federal law–were routinely flouted throughout the duration of the NWIPC’s previous ten-year contract, it may seem ironic to now express concern that the rules have changed; after all, we found little evidence that they were being upheld in any meaningful way.

Yet thanks to the efforts of many Washington organizations, institutions, and policymakers, some significant progress was made during this period: the State brought successful litigation against GEO Group for failing to pay detained workers the minimum wage, compelling the back payment of workers and the abandonment of what had been a practice many likened to forced labor;^[86] sustained pressure by grassroots organizations, especially La Resistencia, and Members of Congress led to an unannounced inspection of the facility by the DHS Office of the Inspector General in 2023, which led agency leadership to commit to addressing certain deficiencies;^[87] and local and state agencies, including the Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department, Labor and Industries and the Department of Health, have sought to carry out inspections of the facility under state law. While the state’s Department of Health has yet to be allowed access, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld Washington’s 2023 law compelling the Department to carry out inspections at the NWIPC, leading many to conclude that the path was now clear for its implementation.^[88]

To create a new contract which not only incorporates substantially weaker standards, applying a watered-down version of standards originally designed to apply to facilities over which ICE cannot assert control, but which expressly disavows the legitimacy of state and local law, creates a truly dangerous situation. In sum:

• The NWIPC’s new contract, 70CDCR26D00000026, requires that GEO adhere to the National Detention Standards, a weaker set of guidelines than ever applied before at this facility since its opening in 2004.
• The contract also states that where state and local laws apply more demanding standards than those required at the federal level, state and local laws are to be ignored.
• This comes at a time when DHS has gutted its own mechanisms for oversight of detention conditions; while never particularly effective, they are now borderline nonexistent.

While people detained within this facility are already extremely vulnerable, this places them in a situation of even more grave danger.

No matter what the latest contract says, Washington state should stand for human rights.

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

Notes

^[1] See for example “Hunger Strike at Tacoma NWDC Calls for Humane Treatment and Shutdown of Facility,” La Resistencia, October 18, 2019, https://laresistencianw.org/2019/10/18/hunger-strike-at-tacoma-nwdc-calls-for-humane-treatment-and-shutdown-of-facility/; and Rico Moore, “In Toxic Detention,” The Nation, May 15, 2025, https://www.thenation.com/article/environment/margin-tacoma-toxic-detention/; and Sharon Yoo, “Conditions inside Northwest ICE Processing Center ‘a nightmare,'” King 5, October 31, 2025, https://www.king5.com/article/news/community/facing-race/washington-immigration/nightmare-conditions-inside-ice-detention-center-tacoma/281-1c20754c-93c6-4514-a989-e39ce5cf89d3.

^[2] See for example Naomi Ishisaka, “In Tacoma, a detention center where people become ‘invisible,’” The Seattle Times, April 1, 2024, https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/in-tacoma-a-detention-center-where-people-become-invisible/; and Seattle University School of Law International Human Rights Clinic and OneAmerica, Voices from Detention: A Report on Human Rights Violations at the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma, Washington, June, 2008, p. 34-61, https://www.ipjc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/DRFinal.pdf.

^[3] See for example Sharon Yoo, “Detainees sue GEO Group, allege sexual assaults, beatings and cover-ups at Tacoma ICE facility,” King 5, February 5, 2025, https://www.king5.com/article/news/politics/immigration-news/geo-group-lawsuit-northwest-ice-processing-center/281-a41284cb-4ca4-4cc2-8bda-69e94c952358; and Eunice Lee, “Detained Immigrants Hungry for Justice, Literally,” ACLU, March 13, 2014, https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/detained-immigrants-hungry-justice-literally.

^[4] See UWCHR, Conditions at the NWDC: Reporting of Sexual Abuse and Assault, May 16, 2022, https://jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/2022/05/16/nwdc-assault-abuse-reporting/.

^[5] UWCHR gratefully acknowledges the support of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project in bringing this case to court, after our previous attempts to obtain these documents without litigation came up short.

^[6] See UWCHR, Conditions at the NWDC: Patterns of Neglect in TPD Response to Reports of Crimes, May 16, 2022, https://jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/2025/04/24/conditions-at-the-nwdc-patterns-of-neglect-in-tpd-response-to-abuse-and-assault/; UWCHR, Conditions at the NWDC: Reporting of Sexual Abuse and Assault, May 16, 2022, https://jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/2022/05/16/nwdc-assault-abuse-reporting/; and UWCHR, NWDC Conditions Research Update: Ongoing Concern for TPD Response to Crimes in Immigration Detention, October 19, 2025, https://jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/2025/10/29/nwdc-conditions-research-update-ongoing-concern-for-tpd-response-to-crimes-in-immigrant-detention/.

^[7] UWCHR research has delved into all forms of abuse at the facility, not just that of a sexual nature. For example, see UWCHR, Conditions at the NWDC: Solitary Confinement, November 30, 2020, https://jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/2020/11/30/nwdc-solitary/; UWCHR, Conditions at the NWDC: Allegations of Medical Neglect, April 16, 2020, https://jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/2020/04/16/nwdc-medical/; UWCHR, Conditions at the NWDC: Uses of Force and Chemical Agents, August 14, 2023,

https://jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/2023/08/14/conditions-at-the-nwdc-uses-of-force-and-chemical-agents/; and other topics here. However, investigations into reported incidents of sexual abuse and assault are of particular interest because, unlike other types of abuse at the facility, specific responses to crimes of this nature are mandated by federal law. The Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) of 2003 explicitly requires not only the jails and prisons of the criminal legal system, but also other places of confinement including immigration detention centers, to adopt a detailed set of practices to respond to and prevent sexual abuse. As such, there is more rigorous reporting of such incidents, and–at least in theory–there should be higher incentives for facilities to comply with published standards.

^[8] See for example Resistencia NW, “Hunger Strikes: A Call to End Immigrant Detention,” Vimeo, September 20, 2017, https://vimeo.com/234736514; and Maru Villalpando Mora, “SWAT Unit Beats Immigrant Detainee Over a Sandwich,” Tribuno del Pueblo, March, 2023, https://tribunodelpueblo.org/swat-unit-beats-immigrant-detainee-over-a-sandwich/; and ACLU Washington, “ACLU and NWIRP Statement on Court Refusal to Release People at High Risk of COVID-19,” press release, March 19, 2020, https://www.aclu-wa.org/press-releases/aclu-and-nwirp-statement-court-refusal-release-people-high-risk-covid-19/; and Global Rights Advocacy, “Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Conducts Historic visit of Tacoma Immigrant Jail,” press release, October 23, 2024, https://www.globalrightsadvocacy.org/post/inter-american-commission-on-human-rights-conducts-historic-visit-of-tacoma-immigrant-jail.

^[9] For the most part, conditions in immigration detention are not governed by statute, leaving the terms of private contracts between DHS and private prison providers the only standards to which facilities are expected to adhere–and as UWCHR research has shown regarding the NWIPC, the conditions in those contracts are frequently flouted. Sexual abuse and assault, however, constitute an arguable exception, inasmuch as the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) of 2003 applies to civil detention centers as well as the jails and prisons of the U.S. criminal justice system. In 2014, DHS issued the following regulation and began a process of incorporating PREA standards into the guidelines governing its detention sites: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Standards to Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Sexual Abuse and Assault in Confinement Facilities, 2014, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2014-03-07/pdf/2014-04675.pdf.

^[10] Specifically, we obtained logs of incidents reported to DHS’ Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) and ICE Detention Reporting and Information Line (DRIL).

^[11] ICE Sexual Abuse and Assault Prevention and Intervention (SAAPI) is ICE’s program detailing procedures for preventing, reporting, responding to, investigating, and tracking incidents or allegations of sexual abuse or assault against those in ICE detention or holding facilities.

^[12] According to HSCEDM-15-D-00015, the contract for the NWIPC between the GEO Group and ICE, GEO is subject to regular audits of its compliance with the PREA Standards. According to DHS, “Immigration detention facilities covered by the DHS PREA Standards must be audited

within 3 years of adopting the standards, and at least once every 3 years thereafter.” See U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, Progress in Implementing 2011 PBNDS Standards and DHS PREA Requirements at Detention Facilities, 2017, p. 9,https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/ICE%20-%20Progress%20in%20Implementing%202011%20PBNDS%20Standards.pdf.

^[13] Under ICE’s Performance Based National Detention Standards, all cases of reported sexual abuse or assault must be investigated, and the investigation must be documented in writing: “Documentation of each investigation [will be] by written report, which shall include a description of the physical and testimonial evidence, the reasoning behind credibility assessments, and investigative facts and findings.” See U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, 2011 Operations Manual ICE Performance-Based National Detention Standards [PBNDS], 2011, p. 139-140,  https://www.ice.gov/detain/detention-management/2011.

^[14] PBNDS, p. 128.

^[15] From the contract: “The facility shall implement the recommendations for improvement, or shall document its reasons for not doing so in a written response.”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

^[16] “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.” PBNDS, p. 141.

^[17] The contract mandated the GEO Group, Inc. to “conduct an annual review of all sexual abuse investigations and resulting incident reviews to assess and improve sexual abuse intervention, prevention, and response efforts.” (Contract Number HSCEDM-15–D–00015, p. 206.)

^[18] 2021-ICFO-38176

^[19] ICE’s website says “ICE PREA audit reports are publicly posted as they become available.” See “SAAPI: Sexual Abuse and Assault Prevention and Intervention Program,” U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, accessed April 25, 2026,

https://www.ice.gov/prea#:~:text=ICE%20requires%20PREA%20posters%20to%20be%20displayed,assault%20*%20What%20to%20expect%20after%20reporting.

^[20] Department of Homeland Security, email to Angelina Godoy, September 29, 2022, https://jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2026/05/9.29.22-summary-closure-UW-Mail-Status-Update-for-Request-2021-ICFO-38176.pdf

^[21] 2021-ICFO-38175, 2024-ICFO-44097.

^[22] See U.S. Department of Homeland Security, PREA Audit: Subpart A, DHS Immigration Detention Facilities Audit Report, accessed April 28, 2026, https://www.ice.gov/doclib/foia/prea_audit/NorthwestIPCJan2020.pdf.

^[23] For example, to date we have yet to receive a single Annual Sexual Abuse Incident Form. The creation of such forms is mandated under ICE’s standards, but it is not clear whether they were omitted from disclosure by accident, or were in fact never created to begin with. (See 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.”)

^[24] It is important to note that we can only speak of reported incidents, since we lack the ability to independently assess the veracity of reported incidents, only note the way they were handled by relevant institutions, according to the documentation available to us.

^[25] These thirteen types are ICE Significant Incident Reports, DHS Reports of investigations, PREA Investigations, Sexual Abuse Incident Reviews from 11/1/2016 – 10/1/2024, GEO Notifications of Outcome of Allegation, documented 911 calls to the Tacoma Police Department, reports to the ICE DRIL hotline from 10/1/14-7/15/19, the DHS CRCL Complaint Log related to sexual abuse or assault from 1/6/14-9/27/19; grievances filed by detained people pertaining to sexual abuse or assault from 1/1/12-3/10/18; one audit by the Nakamoto Group covering the period 3/29/2016-3/28/2017; and two audits by Creative Corrections covering the periods 12/16/18-12/17/19 and 1/24/22-1/23/23.

^[26] See PBNDS, p. 128: “All allegations of sexual abuse or assault shall be immediately reported to ICE/ERO, and any other required entities based on the nature of the allegation.” And PBNDS, p. 140: “Staff members who become aware of an alleged assault shall immediately follow the reporting requirements set forth in the written policies and procedures.”

^[27] See PBNDS, p. 138: “It is the facility administrator’s responsibility to ensure that the incident is promptly referred to the appropriate law enforcement agency having jurisdiction for investigation (if the incident is potentially criminal) and reported to the Field Office Director, who shall report it to the OPR Joint Intake Center.” A 2020 audit of the NWIPC further noted that GEO’s practice is to contact the Tacoma Police Department in every case of sexual abuse alleged at NWIPC, allowing the police to make the determination as to whether the actions committed constituted a crime (See PREA Audit: Subpart A, DHS Immigration Detention Facilities Audit Report, p. 7).

^[28] See for example, PBNDS, p. 128: “The facility shall ensure that each allegation of sexual abuse or assault is investigated by an appropriate criminal or administrative investigative entity, and shall cooperate with all investigative efforts to ensure a thorough and objective investigation.”

^[29] Definitions of substantiated and unsubstantiated are as follows: “Substantiated allegation means an allegation that was investigated and determined to have occurred. Unsubstantiated allegation means an allegation that was investigated and the investigation produced insufficient evidence to make a final determination as to whether or not the event occurred.”(PBNDS, p. 139.)

^[30] See PBNDS, p. 139-40: “Documentation of each investigation [will be] by written report, which shall include a description of the physical and testimonial evidence, the reasoning behind credibility assessments, and investigative facts and findings.”

^[31] PBNDS, p. 128.

^[32] PBNDS, p. 141.

^[33] See 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.”

^[34] Above, we referred to a total universe of approximately 229 reported cases known to UWCHR during this period; the discrepancy between that number and this one is due to the fact that some cases reported to TPD, or to DHS hotlines, were not reflected in the set of documents released to NWIRP as part of this litigation.

^[35] This is much fewer than the total universe of cases, because a) some cases were reported to TPD, to DHS hotlines, or in detainee grievances but did not–based on documents released to UWCHR–appear to trigger an internal investigative process, and b) because in some cases, although an internal investigative process occurred, a final determination was not included in the documentation provided to UWCHR.

 

^[36] Specifically, 18 U.S.C. § 2243, prohibits “[w]hoever … in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody” from “knowingly engag[ing] in a sexual act with another person who is” “in official detention; and” “under the custodial, supervisory, or disciplinary authority of the person so engaging; or attempt[ing] to do” the same. Anyone who violates the statute faces a fine, a prison sentence of “not more than 15 years, or both.”

^[37] These are sometimes referred to as “After-action review reports;” both forms perform the same function, requiring facility staff to assess whether any factors related to group dynamics, facility infrastructure, staff response, availability of video evidence or other circumstances that may have contributed to the incident could be addressed to prevent recurrence.

^[38] For more on this see UWCHR, “TPD Doesn’t Respond Here”: Patterns of Neglect in Tacoma Police Department’s Response to Reports of Crimes at the Northwest Detention Center, April 24, 2025, https://jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/2025/04/24/conditions-at-the-nwdc-patterns-of-neglect-in-tpd-response-to-abuse-and-assault/.

^[39] U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 11062.2: Sexual Abuse and Assault Prevention and Intervention, 2014, p. 3, https://www.ice.gov/doclib/foia/policy/directive11062.2.pdf.

^[40] ICE’s PREA Closure form asks “In cases involving the reassignment or resignation of staff in lieu of termination for violating agency and/or, facility sexual abuse policies, determine if a reasonable effort was made to report that information to any relevant licensing bodies.” The response in this case is: “Captain [name redacted] stated GEO did not notify state licensing bodies of [name redacted]’s termination.”

^[41] See, for example, the prosecution of a case manager at Otay Mesa Detention Center (see United States Attorney’s Office Southern District of California, “Otay Mesa Detention Facility Case Manager Accused of Having Sex with Detainee,” press release, August 10, 2023,https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdca/pr/otay-mesa-detention-facility-case-manager-accused-having-sex-detainee.).

^[42] ICE Office of Acquisition Management, “Justification for Other than Full and Open Competition J&A-26-0102,” April 15, 2026, last accessed on on April 25, 2026, https://jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2026/05/NWIPCJOFOCRedacted.pdf.

^[43] U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Contract Number 70CDCR26D00000026, March 27, 2026, last accessed April 25, 2026, https://www.ice.gov/doclib/foia/detFacContracts/70CDCR26D00000026_NorthwestIPC_TacomaWA.pdf.

^[44] See U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, Performance Work Statement, Detention Services, Northwest Ice Processing Center, 2026, https://www.ice.gov/doclib/foia/detFacContracts/70CDCR26D00000026_NorthwestIPC_TacomaWA_Att1PWS.pdf.

^[45] See U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, National Detention Standards, 2025, https://www.ice.gov/doclib/detention-standards/2025/nds2025.pdf.

^[46] For a helpful discussion of the history of evolving detention standards, see American Bar Association, ICE Detention Standards: Immigration Detention Facilities’ Responsibilities and Detained Individuals’ Rights: A Guide for Practitioners, December 9, 2022, downloadable from https://share.google/MLdnEoS32cQLVjiCz.

^[47] In 2013, for example, according to the American Immigration Council, “Congress instructed ICE to implement the 2011 PBNDS at all facilities within a year.” (See Katy Murdza, “ICE Revises Its Standards for Some Detention Facilities,” American Immigration Council, December 2, 2019.)

^[48] “The agency continues, on an ongoing basis, to pursue implementation of these standards at additional nondedicated facilities, with priority given to those facilities housing the largest populations of ICE detainees. ICE requests that service providers adopt PBNDS 2011 for new facilities that are expected to house sizable ICE detention populations, and when their existing contractual agreements expire, when service providers seek equitable rate adjustments, or when other opportunities arise to modify the contract.” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Progress in Implementing 2011 PBNDS Standards and DHS PREA Requirements at Detention Facilities, January 17, 2027, p. 9, https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/ICE%20-%20Progress%20in%20Implementing%202011%20PBNDS%20Standards.pdf.

^[49] For a detailed breakdown of which provisions of the NDS were weakened in the 2019 revisions, see ACLU, Summary of Changes to ICE National Detention Standards, January 14, 2020, https://www.aclu.org/documents/summary-changes-ice-national-detention-standards.

^[50] Maxine Dexter, letter to Secretary Kristi Noem and Acting Director Todd Lyons, October 31, 2025,

https://dexter.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/dexter.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/md-ice-shutdown-oversight-letter-19.pdf

^[51] See “Congress must stop Trump’s exorbitant spending on new contracts for ICE detention & arrests,” National Immigrant Justice Center, April 8, 2025, https://immigrantjustice.org/blog/congress-must-stop-trumps-exorbitant-spending-on-new-contracts-for-ice-detention-arrests/.

^[52] See Ted Hesson, “ICE aims to lower US immigration detention standards to encourage more sheriffs to aid crackdown,” Reuters, February 1, 2025, https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-administration-aims-lower-immigration-detention-standards-let-more-jails-2025-02-01/.

^[53] ICE documentation shows that by 2010, inspections at the facility were carried out according to the standards of the PBNDS. See U.S. Department of Homeland Security Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office of Professional Responsibility, Office of Detention Oversight Compliance Inspection, 2012, https://www.ice.gov/doclib/foia/odo-compliance-inspections/2012northwest-detention-center-tacoma-wa-jan10-12.pdf.

^[54] Performance Work Statement, p. 4.

^[55] HSCEDM-15-D-00015, p. 56.

^[56] HSCEDM-15-D-00015, p. 58-59.

^[57] See Jake Goldstein-Street, “Despite court ruling, Washington still blocked from inspecting immigrant detention center,” KUOW, April 8, 2026, https://www.kuow.org/stories/despite-court-ruling-washington-still-blocked-from-inspecting-immigrant-detention-center.

^[58] Despite state law requiring inspections, GEO has turned the Washington Department of Health away ten times since 2023. On April 28, 2026, Governor Ferguson announced that Washington has filed suit against GEO to demand health inspectors be allowed in. See Bob Ferguson, “Governor Ferguson, Attorney General Brown seek court order to permit health inspections at Northwest ICE Processing Center,” April 28, 2026, https://governor.wa.gov/news/2026/governor-ferguson-attorney-general-brown-seek-court-order-permit-health-inspections-northwest-ice.

^[59] See Jaelynn Grisso, “Officials inspect Tacoma ICE detention center after legal battle,” Cascade PBS, January 5, 2025, https://www.cascadepbs.org/investigations/2025/01/officials-inspect-tacoma-ice-detention-center-after-legal-battle/.

^[60] See “Northwest ICE Processing Center,” Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department, accessed April 25, 2026, https://tpchd.org/info/northwest-ice-processing-center/.

^[61] Performance Work Statement, p. 5.

^[62] For a more detailed discussion of why the NWIPC should not be considered a “federal facility,” see Cheri Barrett, Wendy S. Martinez Hurtado, and Jennifer Lee Koh, Missed Opportunities: State and Local Authority to Regulate the Northwest Detention Center, 2020,https://jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2020/12/UW-Legal-Appendix-State-and-Local-Authority-NWDC-FINAL.pdf

^[63] This language also existed in the previous contract; UWCHR is not aware whether such authority was ever granted to GEO Group by Washington, Pierce County, or City of Tacoma authorities. See Contract Number HSCEDM-15–D–00015, p. 81; the language is identical. In the previous contract it was, however, followed with the sentence “The use of force by the Contractor shall at all times be consistent with all applicable policies of ICE PBNDS on Use of Force.” The new contract does not include any explicit statement about what policies govern the use of force.

^[64] See City of Tacoma Planning Commission, Correctional Facilities Interim Regulations PC Draft Recommendations (Revisions to TMC 13.06 Zoning), 2017,https://cms.cityoftacoma.org/Planning/Correctional%20Facilities/Correctional%20Facilities%20Interim%20Regulations%20PC%20Draft%20Recommendations%20(4-21-17).pdf. In December 2025, a new Tideflats Subarea Plan modified the zoning code in Tacoma’s port industrial area.  The detention center is now in a “Seaport Core Manufacturing District” and the zoning code was modified to say that “expansion of any nonconforming residential use or bed capacity and living space associated with a nonconforming community/civic facility…shall be strictly prohibited.” This is reflected in the zoning code: Its reflected in the zoning code here: https://ecode360.com/48472436 [See 13.06.010L.5.c.(3)(h)]

^[65] For this policy, see U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations, 11087.2: Operations of ERO Holding Facilities, 2024, https://www.ice.gov/doclib/foia/policy/directive11087.2.pdf.

^[66] Contract Number HSCEDM-15–D–00015, p. 50.

^[67] The previous contract did, however, mention the intake area. Although the current policy governing holding facilities dates from 2024 and thus would not have been in effect at the time of the previous contract’s signing, a predecessor policy existed since 2014 and was not referenced in the contract.

^[68] Performance Work Statement, p. 115.

^[69] This is somewhat undercut by a later section referencing GEO’s role in transporting detained people to a hospital, which reads, “The Service Provider shall, upon order of the COR [Contracting Officer’s Representative], or upon his or her own decision in an urgent medical situation, transport a detainee to a hospital location.” (Performance Work Statement, p. 15.)

^[70] This number reflects the number of calls coded “MED”  or “MEDCPR” by South Sound 911 emergency dispatchers.

^[71] See for example La Resistencia, @laresistencianw, “Yesterday around noon there were 2 calls made to 911 because of a medical emergency inside the Northwest Detention Center (NWDC). The conditions inside are unacceptable and the NWDC must shut down now!”, March 17, 2026, https://www.instagram.com/p/DV_pfgWCukD/; and Lilly Ana Fowler, “ICE detention center in Tacoma among those with the highest number of deaths,” KNKX Public Radio, June 25, 2024, https://www.knkx.org/social-justice/2024-06-25/ice-detention-center-in-tacoma-among-those-with-highest-number-of-deaths-aclu.

^[72] To be fair, a latter section referencing GEO’s role in transporting detainees to a hospital reads, “The Service Provider shall, upon order of the COR  [Contracting Officer’s Representative], or upon his or her own decision in an urgent medical situation, transport a detainee to a hospital location,” partially undercutting the earlier reference to allowing ICE “reasonable time.” (Performance Work Statement, p. 15.)

^[73] PBNDS, p. 258.

^[74] PBNDS, p. 258.

^[75] National Detention Standards, p. 116.

^[76] Performance Work Statement, p. 15.

^[77] Contract Number HSCEDM-15–D–00015, p. 87.

^[78] Contract Number 70CDCR26D00000026, p. 3.

^[79] The previous contract read: “There shall be no public disclosures regarding this contract made by the Contractor (or any subcontractors) without review and approval of such disclosure by ICE Public Affairs and express pennission granted by the ICE COR.” (Contract Number HSCEDM-15–D–00015, p. 382.)

^[80] The new contract reads, “If death is due to violence, accident surrounded by unusual or questionable circumstances, or is sudden and the deceased has not been under immediate medical supervision, ICE shall notify the coroner of the local jurisdiction to request a review of the case, and if necessary, examination of the body. ICE shall establish coroner notification procedures outlining such issues as performance of an autopsy, who will perform the autopsy, obtaining state-approved death certificates, and local transportation of the body. ICE shall ensure the body is turned over to the designated family member, the nearest of kin, or the consular officer of the detainee’s country of legal residence.” (p. 24) This can be compared to the similar, but not identical, language in the old contract: “If death is due to violence, accident surrounded by unusual or questionable circumstances, or is sudden and the deceased has not been under immediate medical supervision, the Contractor shall notify the coroner of the local jurisdiction to request a review of the case, and if necessary, examination of the body. The Contractor shall establish coroner notification procedures outlining such issues as performance of an autopsy; that will perform the autopsy, obtaining state-approved death certificates, and local transportation of the body. The Contractor, in coordination with the COR or ICE-designated employee, shall ensure the body is turned over to the designated family member, the nearest of kin, or the Consular Officer of the detainee’s country of legal residence.” (Contract Number 70CDCR26D00000026, p. 87.)

^[81] Performance Work Statement, p. 4-5.

^[82] Contract Number HSCEDM-15–D–00015, p. 105-106.

^[83] Performance Work Statement, p. 2.

^[84] The specific language from the contract includes the following: “The federal facility shall include at least one non-segregated (i.e., not a segregation housing unit) protective custody housing option for placing aliens who may benefit from a more supportive or specialized general population setting together by biological sex. This unit would be used as an alternative to prolonged placement in administrative segregation. The intended population for this housing option may include individuals who have been identified as having a vulnerability, at increased risk in detention, and/or who feel safer in a protective-custody-like setting (i.e., an alternative for those who request administrative segregation for protective custody reasons). The number of non-segregated protective custody housing options should appropriately reflect the federal facility population, and at a minimum, include both male and female housing options (if the federal facility houses female population)…” “Placement in non-segregated protective custody housing may be based on a range of factors, including but not limited to, request by an alien (in lieu of protective custody administrative segregation), behavioral health needs, cognitive impairments, age, disability, or other identified vulnerability…Non-segregated protective custody housing will operate like a general population unit in terms of freedom of movement, and ICE detention standards for general housing will apply. Aliens in non-segregated protective custody housing will have equal access to all federal facility services and programming available to aliens in general population housing and shall not include any limitations not applied to the general population. Non-segregated protective custody housing units shall be staffed by federal facility personnel who should be trained in working with vulnerable populations and trauma informed care. Staff-to-alien ratios are expected to be higher than in general population housing units to provide for heightened security and care. The housing unit personnel will provide additional assistance (as needed) to aliens, including an enhanced federal facility orientation in the alien’s language on federal facility programs and services and how to use various communication mechanisms (i.e., paper forms/requests, telephones, and tablets, where available) to communicate with federal facility staff, ERO, and external parties such as family and legal representatives. Additional programming applicable to the population in non-segregated protective custody housing units shall be offered.” (Performance Work Statement, p. 96-97.)

^[85] Contract Number HSCEDM-15–D–00015, p. 198-199.

^[86] See Mia Steinle, “Slave Labor Widespread at ICE Detention Centers, Lawyers Say,” POGO Investigates, September 7, 2017, https://www.pogo.org/investigates/slave-labor-widespread-at-ice-detention-centers-lawyers-say; and Washington State Office of the Attorney General, “Ninth Circuit affirms for-profit operator of Northwest ICE Processing Center violated labor law,” press release, January 16, 2025, https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/ninth-circuit-affirms-profit-operator-northwest-ice-processing-center-violated.

^[87] See U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General, Results of an Unannounced Inspection of Northwest ICE Processing Center in Tacoma, Washington, 2023, https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2023-05/OIG-23-26-May23.pdf.

^[88] See Jake Goldstein-Street, “Overturned court ruling clears way for Washington to inspect immigrant detention center,” Oregon Public Broadcasting, August 20, 2025, https://www.opb.org/article/2025/08/20/court-ruling-washington-immigration-detention-center/.