DEPORTATION UNLIMITED: THE SANTA BARBARA PROBATION DEPARTMENT-ICE PARTERSHIP TO DEPORT IMMIGRANT JUVENILES Preliminary Findings: 11/30/12 Russell Trenholme, IMPORTA Santa Barbara Found on-line at www.importasb.org From one of many internal memos demonstrating the Probation Department s hidden policy towards Santa Barbara juveniles: Deport as many as possible!
Anecdotal accounts circulating in the Santa Barbara immigrant community suggest that the Santa Barbara County Probation Department strives to deport the maximum number of undocumented juveniles regardless of the severity of the crimes of which they are accused, whether they are convicted or not, and without any consideration of their ability to function in their home country county or the effect on them and their families on their deportation. To ascertain the validity of these widely-held views, IMPORTA decided to submit a request for documents to the Santa Barbara County Probation Department under provisions of the California Public Records Act (PRA). Subsequently, in order to place the data received in perspective, similar requests were made to the Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego County Probation Departments. The results were mixed. In no case were documents delivered within the statutory 15 day period; in fact, no response at all was received from the Ventura County Probation Department. Orange County complied relatively quickly with a full range of statistical data on inputs (admissions) to its juvenile facilities, notifications to the immigration police (ICE), ICE interviews and detainers requested, and actual deliveries of juveniles to ICE for deportation proceedings. Santa Barbara also provided a wealth of data, although the key data on inputs to its juvenile hall was lacking thereby resulting in a mistaken assumption that the extremely large number of notifications to ICE (of suspected undocumented juveniles) represented the totality of intakes. This report corrects that error using newly supplied data on intakes. Analysis of Documents Provided by Santa Barbara Probation CAP and Profiling: A great deal of attention has been paid to the Secure Communities Program used as a profiling-free biometric (fingerprint-based) tool for identifying persons booked into county jails. When a hit is made to a record in the Homeland Security database, the immigration police, ICE, request that a 48-hour detainer (or hold ) be placed on the inmate to allow time for it to take custody and place the inmate in deportation proceedings. There has been enormous opposition to Secure Communities because despite ICE claims that it targets only the worse criminal aliens, statistics reveal that many non-criminals or low-level offenders (many never convicted) are being deported leaving a trail of broken and destitute families behind. A bill known as the Trust Act passed both houses of the California legislature in the summer of 2012, and although Governor Brown vetoed the bill, he has pledged to sign a moderately revised version. The thrust of the bill is to forbid the placing of detainers on those accused of only minor offenses. 2
Secure Communities has been presented by ICE as a profiling-free means of identifying undocumented aliens, supposedly replacing the widespread use of the Criminal Alien Program (CAP) which uses profiling to identify inmates as suspected undocumented aliens who are then reported to ICE. (ICE responds as it does to Secure Community fingerprint hits, with a request that the facility to place a detainer on the inmate to allow ICE to take custody for deportation proceedings). Although CAP is rarely mentioned by ICE, it continues to play a leading role in many incarceration facilities. The documents provided by the Santa Barbara Probation Department under the PRA request demonstrate not only that CAP profiling is the principal tool used throughout the probation system to identify juveniles for ICE deportation but that the policies of the Probation Department are even more zealous than those of ICE. Although the word profiling is never used and CAP is never mentioned, it is clear that the department s program is a profile-based CAP-style program; figuratively, CAP on steroids. The following document analyses how the program works. Notifying ICE of Suspected Undocumented Juveniles Who Were Arrested But Were Not Admitted to a Facility: The policy documents provided provide a background for understanding the extremely high rates of intakes (admissions to facilities) and of deliveries of juveniles to ICE for deportation. The documents suggest that even more juveniles may have been deported than explicitly indicated. For example, paragraph G1 on page 7 of the Juvenile Hall Manual (p. 13 below) makes clear that all juveniles suspected of being undocumented are to be reported to ICE even if they were not booked into a facility. As will be shown in the following paragraph, the majority of juveniles arrested and referred to Probation are not booked into Juvenile Hall. (A Referral is a request that the Probation Department take over jurisdiction from local law enforcement and determine how and where the arrested juvenile is to be taken into the juvenile justice system; an intake or admission is an actual booking into a juvenile facility. An explanation of the specialized vocabulary of the juvenile justice system is found at the end of this report.) The number of referrals to Probation by month is found on p. 24 below; the number of those actually booked into Juvenile Hall were provided by Steve Lira in the last week of November 2012. The annual totals are large: in 2009, 5,641 juveniles were referred, 2,203 were booked into a facility (intakes), leaving 3,438 who were not admitted; in 2010, 5,249 were referred and 2,126 booked, but 3,123 were not admitted; in 2011, 4,522 The article in the November 29, 2012 issue of the Santa Barbara Independent cites Probation Officials as suggesting that many of the juveniles delivered to ICE were not deported, but rather were sent home or placed in refugee centers. This is untrue: almost every juvenile delivered by Probation is placed in removal proceedings and eventually deported regardless of whether he or she is allowed to stay with his or her family or is placed in a Refugee home on an interim basis. Delays in the system may result in deportations after the juvenile turns 18 but even with a good lawyer which few Latino immigrant juveniles can afford it is rare to escape deportation.,. 3
were referred, 2,703 were booked, and 2,703 not admitted; and in the first six months of 2012, 1,812 were referred, 821 booked, and 991 were not admitted. Thus in each year from 2008 on, there were far more juveniles not admitted than juveniles admitted to Juvenile Hall; the total number is 10,255 over the three and one half year period compared with a total of 6,969 intakes to Juvenile Hall over the same period. Page 23 provides an example of the documents used to calculate reports (notifications) to ICE, detainers, and (on some pages) yearly totals of deliveries to ICE for deportation (euphemistically termed releases ). A tabulation of the data from these documents shows 430 reports to ICE over the three and one half year period (lines marked NULL where no detainer was requested, and bearing a date of the detainer when it was requested). 430 detainers requested represents about 6% of the 6,969 juvenile intake bookings. On the other hand, it appears that the Probation Department does not track what ICE does with juveniles reported to ICE but not booked into a facility. If the 6% is applied to the 10,255 referred but not admitted juveniles over the same period, approximately 615 additional juveniles, many arrested for minor offenses, would also have been reported to ICE as a result of profiling during processing. (This assumes that probation officers adhered to the rigid policies imposed upon them by Senior Deputy Kelly Baro in her memo shown on p. 17, and discussed below. We have no means of knowing how many of these juveniles ended up in ICE deportation proceedings as a result of departmental notifications. But if the strict departmental requirements for reporting juveniles regardless of their admission to Juvenile Hall are being followed, the already high numbers of juveniles shown as reported and eventually deported would increase Minor Crimes, Dismissed Cases,: The probation department makes no allowance for the severity of the crime that the juvenile is accused of, of acquittals or dismissed cases, nor does it take account of any conditions or circumstances relevant to the future well-being of the juvenile being reported to ICE; all suspected juveniles are reported to ICE for deportation on an equal basis. Page 8 of the policy manual (p. 13 below) states that in addition to reporting suspected undocumented juveniles to ICE, the staff must re-contact ICE within 24 hours to determine if ICE received the notification. Incorrect Interpretation of ICE Detainers: Paragraph 3a of the same page states the erroneous view that it is ICE that places the detainer on the reported juvenile; in fact, ICE only requests the facility holding the inmate place a 48-hour detainer on him or her to permit ICE agents to take custody for the purposes of deportation. Federal appellate courts have ruled that an ICE detainer request does not require that the facility place a detainer on the 4
inmate, and many facilities refuse to place detainers on those accused of low level crimes or on juveniles (also in the provisions of the Trust Act). Expiration of Detention: Paragraph 5a (p. 14 below) is confusing in that although it states that the juvenile is to be released at the expiration of the 48-hour detainer period, it also requires that ICE be contacted to ask that they fax a retraction of their detainer suggesting that release may be delayed if ICE responds that it is coming to take custody of the inmate. (The wording in 3a again demonstrates that the Probation Department has delegated its authority to place or refuse to place a detainer to ICE; in fact, ICE can only withdraw its request.) Paragraph 5c on page 9 (p. 15 below) clearly contradicts Department of Justice Policy (which governs immigration court proceedings) in that it allows a juvenile court judge (who has no immigration jurisdiction) to order detention for delivery to ICE for a longer period; at the expiration of the official 48 hour detention period, the juvenile will continue to be held pending review by Field Services and the facility SPO/Manager. ICE Access to Juvenile Files: The extent of cooperation with ICE is revealed by the requirement in the letter to all staff from Nancy Taylor- Farrah dated October 10, 2010 (p. 15 below) that any documents requested by ICE from a juvenile s file be copied and given to ICE. These documents include the intake questionnaire which contains information not only on the nationality of the juvenile but also on that of his caretakers (see p. 22 below) (It is also noteworthy that there is no provision for advising suspected juveniles that they have the right to remain silent or to have an attorney present when being interviewed by ICE police although their intake documents make their right to an attorney for their criminal trial clear.) No Exceptions Policy of Notification: A second memo (p. 16 below) dated January 27, 2011, and signed by Kelly Baro, Senior Deputy Probation Officer, reminds staff that it is imperative that the legal status of every juvenile brought to the facility be checked (apparently some staff experienced ethical or humanitarian qualms and thus had failed to report some suspected juveniles to ICE). Baro s continues: Just because a minor has been here numerous times or is a violation of probation does not mean that ICE does not need to be contacted. This is especially true of camp shipouts as there are a number of minors in that program that are considered illegal. As if he hadn t emphasized the mandate to report all suspected juveniles to ICE enough, his final paragraph repeats therequirement: Each time a minor is brought into custody a new intake form must be faxed regardless if it has been done numerous times before. 5
Over-reporting of Profiled Juveniles: Page 23 below shows a typical data page listing faxed reports of suspected juveniles and an end-of-year summary of deliveries to ICE. In this example, the first months of 2010 showed that only 2 of 24 reports to ICE resulted in the issuance of detainers suggesting that Santa Barbara Probation Department s zeal to deport juveniles exceeds even that of ICE (which is known throughout the immigrant rights community as a hot-bed of Tea Party anti-immigrant sentiment). It appears that rather than erring on the side of reasonable doubt, the Department s profiling policy is so broad that numerous juveniles who are legally in the United States or at least are of no interest to ICE are reported as suspected undocumented. In fact, the statistical spreadsheet at the end of this report reveals that Santa Barbara County s rate of notifications (reports) to ICE far exceeds that of other counties, including that of Orange County, generally regarded as the most anti-immigrant Probation Department in the state. Samples of Forms Employed to Report Suspected Undocumented Juveniles and ICE Detainer Request Forms: Pages 18 through 20 contain samples of: a notification-of-suspected undocumented youth report faxed to ICE; a document purportedly used to notify aliens of their right to contact their country s consulate; and an ICE detainer request. The second document, relating to right to speak to an alien s consulate as required by a UN convention, is tied to a method widely used in jails to trick inmates into revealing their immigration status: instead of simply posting the inmate s right to contact a consul of his or her country, the inmate is asked to comply with the UN convention by filling out a form asking for their place of birth and nationality. This trap for the uninformed (and surely for most juveniles) is described in a study issued by ACLU of Northern California. Another Trap: the Family Assessment Form: Page 21 below shows page 1 of the three-page Family Assessment, supposedly administered as a tool for helping the juvenile offender. However, this questionnaire asks both the juvenile and his or her caretakers for their nationality and their social security numbers. These questions innocently appear in the midst of other questions relating to health, socialization, etc. But this document goes into juvenile s file, and ICE agents know that by requesting a copy of it they will have all the evidence needed to prove probable cause for arresting juvenile and placing him or her in deportation proceedings, and also for gathering evidence against the adults mentioned on the form. There is no reason for asking for this information other than as a means of facilitating the juvenile s future deportation and the possible deportation of his or her caretakers. Who Approved the Profiling Policy? Is the rigidly enforced CAP profiling policy the result of a decision by the Probation Department s leaders, by the County Supervisors, or by someone higher up in the County administration? In response to the part of the PRA request seeking documents relevant to 6
the decision to implement the current policy with respect to ICE the Department responded that there are no known documents relevant to the decision to implement the current policy with respect to ICE, ICE detainers, and or who to refer to ICE. If true, this suggests that the Probation Department s strictly-enforced profiling and deportation policy that is so damaging to Santa Barbara s large immigrant community is being pursued merely because it has been in operation so long that the department no longer has records indicating how it began or who approved it. This means that the Department is mindlessly executing policies never approved by current officials, elected or appointed. Of course, mindless execution of an immoral policy does not excuse those who execute it (as the failed defense of many war criminals demonstrates). The fact that no one in the Probation Department has stepping up to expose the deportation policy to public scrutiny is disheartening. Contrast with Procedures Used in Los Angeles County In an email to the author, dated November 28, 2012, Nick Welsh of the Santa Barbara Independent reported on a conversation he had with Beverly Taylor, Chief Probation Officer, and Steve DeLira, Chief Deputy Probation Officer. Welsh stated that Taylor was skeptical of the low number of ICE turnovers for Los Angeles County cited in the earlier (and now superseded) report. Page 27 below provides a copy of the document provided by the Los Angeles County Probation Department that was the source of these numbers. It states that only 5 juveniles were delivered to ICE in the first 6 (and 8) months of 2012 and only 6 in all of 2011 (data for 2010 and 2009 are pending). Thus Santa Barbara County, with a population of 60,898 Hispanic youths under age 18, now delivers four times as many juveniles to ICE for deportation than does Los Angeles County with a population of 1,488,499 Hispanic youths under age 18. (Population numbers are from the 2010 US Census.) Los Angeles County, with 24.4 times more Hispanic minors than Santa Barbara County, would have delivered approximately 269 juveniles for deportation in 2011 and 489 in the first 6 months of 2012 had its policies been those used by the Santa Barbara Probation Department. It should be recognized too, that the cited Santa Barbara Probation Department deliveries of minors to ICE may greatly underestimate the true situation, for the reasons discussed above (taking account of the number of referred but not admitted juveniles picked up by ICE for deportation after being reported to ICE by Probation. What policy differences can explain the fact that Santa Barbara County is now delivering Latino minors to ICE for deportation at a rate about 25 times that of Los Angeles County? Pages 25 and 26 contain documents outlining the Los Angeles procedures. The principal 7
difference is that the Los Angeles County Probation Department, rather than profiling juveniles and zealously reporting suspected undocumented youths to ICE via fax, turns the information over to the bench officer for the juvenile court who then decides whether to forward the information to the judge. The judge, in disposing of the case, then considers a list of alternatives to deportation: placing the juvenile on informal or formal probation; placement with a responsible adult; sending to camp; dismissing the petition (charges) in the interest of justice; or referring the juvenile to the Department of Children and Family Services. Only the judge makes the regarding the juvenile s future, and the number of deportations show that the alternative of reporting the juvenile to ICE for deportation is rarely chosen. Both the Dream Act, which has received majority support in both houses of Congress, and the recent administratively implemented DACA program recognize and address the injustice and inhumanity of deporting minors who were brought to the United States by their parents, who often have little or no knowledge of their home country, and who often have neither a means of support there nor the necessary linguistic and cultural knowledge to survive on their own (and thus become easy prey for the drug syndicates). The Los Angeles County policy uses a deliberative and compassionate system to seek out the alterative that is in the best interest of the juvenile, and this process almost never results in delivering the juvenile to ICE for deportation. The Santa Barbara Policy indiscriminately profiles juveniles and currently results in the deportation of the highest number of youths relative to population of any of the counties studied, including the deportation rate of the notorious Orange County Probation Department. The Santa Barbara policy of fanatical profiling of every youth it comes into contact with and then reporting the youth to ICE for deportation is repugnant to all modern ethical standards and contradicts the universal mandate that juvenile authorities act in the interest of the juvenile. Little wonder that the Probation Department s fanatical deportation hidden from the public, never being mentioned in the Department s literature, press releases, or on its website. 8
Four-County Comparative Data California, and especially Southern California, has a long history of racism that dates back at least to the anti-chinese agitation of the mid and late nineteenth century. Highlights include the burning of Los Angeles Chinatown by municipal authorities in the early twentieth century, the incarceration of Japanese Americans during the Second World War (with the enthusiastic support of Governor Earl Warren), and repeated instances of anti-mexican, anti-asian, and anti-filipino violence and discrimination. In 1994, the voters of California overwhelmingly voted for Prop 187 which would deny social services, even public schooling, to undocumented children. Recent polls indicate that a majority of white voters continue to support Prop 187, although the decline of white voting power has rendered such an initiative impossible to pass today. Thus it is not surprising that Orange and San Diego Counties, long bastions of conservative political views, should have the reputation among immigration rights groups and experts in the mistreatment of immigrant youths by probation departments as among the worst in the state. The Orange County Probation Department, in particular, has been singled out as an exemplar of hostile treatment of immigrant youth and a high level of cooperation with ICE in the deportation of undocumented Latinos. Thus it is useful to compare to performance of the Santa Barbara Probation Department against that of the Orange County Probation Department. Fortunately, the Orange County Department responded to the PRA request with full statistics on intakes, reports to ICE, ICE detainers, and turnovers of suspected undocumented juveniles to ICE for deportation. The spreadsheet found on page 31 compares the performance of all four counties probation departments using the Orange County Department s data as the basis of comparison. The expected values given in the second column for each year are based on the assumption that the other counties performed with respect to their juvenile population as Orange County performed. To arrive at the expected values required adjustment of the Orange County data to take account of differences in the size of the predominant relevant juvenile populations (Hispanics under age 18). The third column for each year, labeled difference, compares each county s actual numbers (when available) with the county s expected numbers. The differences are expressed as percentages: 100% would indicate parity with Orange County; less than 100% indicates lower relative numbers than those of Orange County, and greater than 100% indicates higher relative numbers. For example, a difference value of 50% would represent a situation in which the county s number was just half that expected were the County to mirror Orange County s performance, whereas a difference value of 300% would indicate 9
that the county s number is three times what would be expected if the county mirrored Orange County s performance. The relative adjustment coefficients for each county were calculated by comparing the relative numbers of Hispanic minors (Hispanics<18) in each county as given in the 2010 Census. This was felt to be a reasonable basis because the overwhelming number of intakes in all counties, with the possible exception of Los Angeles, were of Hispanic minors, and almost all reports to ICE, detainers, and deportations are of Hispanic juveniles. (The actual deliveries to ICE for Los Angeles County are so low that a decrease in the relative population size to account for the greater number of minors of other races would not materially alter Los Angeles County s extremely low percentage of expected releases to ICE.) The relative adjustment coefficients, based on 2010 Census data giving the number of Hispanic minors are as follows: Orange County s base population of under 18 Hispanics=343,767; San Diego County (329,986), 96% of Orange County; Los Angeles County (1,488,499), 430% of Orange County; Santa Barbara County (60,898), 18% of Orange County. (Thus the expected values were calculated using, respectively, 0.96, 4.3, and 0.18 as coefficients of Orange County data.) How Does Santa Barbara County Compare? The statistical comparison, with expected values adjusted as described above to relative population size (Hispanics<18), indicates that Santa Barbara County Probation in 2012 is delivering 2.3 times as many juveniles to ICE for deportation as would be expected if its department mirrored the behavior of the Orange County Probation Department. This is sharply up from 2009 and 2010 where the rate (difference value) was only 18% of the expected rate based on mirroring the performance of the Orange County Probation Department. In 2011 the delivery rate jumped to 64% of the expected value before reaching an unprecedented 231% in the first six months of 2012. The other counties reveal no significant increase from 2011 to 2012 and San Diego County actually shows a significant decrease in delivery numbers. The Santa Barbara Probation Department says that it has no explanation for the increase. Another result confirms the extreme commitment to the deportation of undocumented minors revealed by the policy documents delivered by the Santa Barbara Department and discussed above. This is the extraordinarily high number of juveniles reported to ICE for deportation: 349% of expected in 2009, 430% in 2010, 540% in 2011, and 447% for the first six months of 2012. In fact, the out-iceing of ICE is supported by the fact that the number of juveniles reported to ICE far exceeds the number of persons ICE deemed eligible for detainers compared with Orange County. In 2009, there 10
were more detainers issued than juveniles reported to ICE by Orange County Probation; in Santa Barbara, the 7% of those reported to ICE had detainers placed on them. In 2010 Orange County detainers again exceeded notifications, whereas only 15% of the Santa Barbara notifications resulted in detainers. In 2011, 97% of notifications resulted in detainers; in Santa Barbara County the figure was just 20%. In 2012, the Santa Barbara figure increased to 31%, but again Orange County saw more detainers issued than notifications. Thus ICE seems to have been more zealous in its deportation policy compared with the Probation Department, whereas in Santa Barbara the reverse has been the case. Nevertheless, the increase in the percentage of detainers and deportation arrests in Santa Barbara County over the period indicates a steady increase in ICE activity, which still lags the zeal to deport of the Santa Barbara Probation Department. (See pages 28, 29, and 30 for Orange County data sheets on intakes, notifications (referrals) to ICE, and detainers.) Santa Barbara County s virtual war on immigrant youth is attested to not only by the Probation Department s extremely high level of notifications to ICE of juveniles it comes into contact with but also through the disproportionately high level of intakes to its juvenile facilities compared to those of other counties. This is a function both of the number of arrests by local law enforcement which generate referrals but also to the practices of the Probation Department in deciding how many of the referred juveniles are to be admitted to a juvenile facility. (But remember that even those not admitted are reported to ICE if suspected of being undocumented.) The intake rates relative to population size are not only much higher than those of Orange County but also much higher than those of San Diego County which proportionately admits to its facilities even more juveniles than Orange County. The Santa Barbara rate was 340% of the Orange County rate in 2009, 329% in 2010, 290% in 2011, in 281% for the first six months of 2012. Unfortunately, we have no data on referrals for the other counties so no comparison is possible. Are these extraordinary intake rates the result of a far higher rate of criminality in Santa Barbara County than in Orange County? Obviously, on a gross statistical basis one would assume a correlation between reported juvenile crime rates and intake rates, but such rates can be inflated as a result of anti-immigrant bias and discrimination through arrests for minor charges such as disorderly conduct, public drunkenness, use or possession of small amounts of marijuana, petty shoplifting, etc. Although the matter requires more study, it is difficult to believe that a more rural county like Santa Barbara with many Latinos engaged in agriculture, a county in which the knife rather than the AK47 is often the weapon of choice, and where the murder rate is relatively low 11
compared with that of Los Angeles, Orange, or San Diego Counties, should have a level of significant juvenile crime that is three to five times higher than that of the other three counties. The reasonable (although preliminary) conclusion is that Santa Barbara County law enforcement is engaged in an unprecedented war on the County s Latino youths. That the Probation Department is fully complicit in this effort is indicated by its profiling and record high level of referrals to ICE. The apparent recent cooperation of the local ICE office in Lompoc with this war on Latino youth is suggested by the steady increase in the number of detainers issued, as well as the unprecedented number of young people currently being taken by ICE from Probation for deportation (2.3 times the Orange County rate). 12
Postscript The data on intake rates suggests that this investigation should be followed up with an investigation of local law enforcement (comprising local police departments and the Sheriff s Department, including the County Jail operations. If there is indeed a general campaign of hostility towards Latino youth, the investigation would also have to treat the criminal justice system including the District Attorney s Office and the local judiciary, the education and recreation systems, and the structure and functioning of local elective government and appointed government. This is a major undertaking, but it appears justified in light of the disturbing findings relating to the covert deportation policy of the Santa Barbara County Probation Department. Note on prior report: These findings and conclusions are different from those found in the earlier report which used incorrect intake data for Santa Barbara County. The author takes responsibility for the error, although it must be added that the other counties provided clear data on intakes or admissions to juvenile facilities and the author assumed that he was provided with similar data for Santa Barbara County, and mistakenly assumed that the extremely high rate of ICE notifications (not explicitly labeled as such) were intakes. Note on vocabulary: The vocabulary used in the probation system is specialized and can lead to confusion and error. Petitions refers to charges filed against juveniles. Sustained Petitions are convictions. Referrals are arrest data sent to a probation department for consideration of whether or not to admit (intake) the accused juvenile to a juvenile facility. Notifications are generally faxes to an ICE field office providing the name of the suspected undocumented juvenile and inviting an ICE agent to come to the facility to interview the juvenile. Detainer or Hold refers to an order issued by the facility in response to a request by ICE that the inmate be held for 48 hours (excluding holidays and week ends) to give ICE time to pick up the inmate after his/her case is either dismissed or the sentence has been served. (Detainers are issued by the agency holding the inmate, juvenile or adult, not by ICE. Many jurisdictions refuse to issue detainers for low-level offenses, for juveniles, or for persons who have not been convicted. Santa Barbara County Probation honors all ICE detainer requests, and even notifies ICE of suspected undocumented youths who are not booked into a juvenile facility.) Note on documents received: Some of the document files are extremely large and are not suited for electronic transmission. If you wish to see these, you will have to view the original printed versions. However, most can be sent electronically. If you wish to view any of the documents, email your request to info@importasb.org Russell Trenholme, Executive Director, IMPORTA Santa Barbara 13
Documents and Spreadsheet 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Orange County Input Data (April, May, June 2012) 29
Orange County ICE Notifications ( Referrals ), Interviews, Releases 30
Orange County ICE Log Sheets Used to Calculate Number of Detainers 31
Probation and ICE: Statistical Comparison Using Orange County Data as Base Orange County San Diego County Los Angeles County Santa Barbara County 2009 Actual Expected Difference Actual Expected Difference Actual Expected Difference Actual Expected Difference Intakes 3,600 N/A N/A 6,260 3,456 181% pending 15,480 2,203 648 340% Notifications to ICE 164 N/A N/A 103 44 349% Detainers Issued 211 N/A N/A 12 38 32% Arrested by ICE 154 N/A N/A 70 148 47% pending 662 5 28 18% 2010 Intakes 3,592 N/A N/A 6,006 3,448 174% pending 15,446 2,126 647 329% Notifications to ICE 151 N/A N/A 117 35 430% Detainers Issued 189 N/A N/A 17 34 50% Arrested by ICE 126 N/A N/A 58 121 48% pending 542 4 23 18% 2011 Intakes 3,485 N/A N/A 5,765 3,346 172% 11,335 14,986 1,819 627 290% Notifications to ICE 144 N/A N/A 140 29 540% Detainers Issued 139 N/A N/A 28 25 112% Arrested by ICE 96 N/A N/A 70 92 76% 6 413 1% 11 17 64% 2012 1st 6 Months Intakes 1,621 N/A N/A 2,899 1,556 186% 5,394 6,970 77% 821 292 281% Notifications to ICE 87 N/A N/A 70 17 447% Detainers Issued 50 N/A N/A 22 9 244% Arrested by ICE 48 N/A N/A 20 46 43% 5 206 2% 20 9 231% Data was obtained by identical PRA requests to each county s Probation Department. Orange County supplied clear and complete data. San Diego County supplied data on intakes to juvenile facilities and releases to ICE custody (above, ICE Arrests ) in spreadsheet form, but other data was unavailable. Los Angeles County supplied only intake and release to ICE data for 2011 and the first six months of 2012, but has promised data for 2009 and 2010. Santa Barbara County supplied a variety of data which was originally misinterpreted, confusing notifications to ICE with intakes. The author did not realized that intake data (now shown above) was not supplied. The intake data for Santa Barbara County shown above was given to Nick Welsh by Steve DeLira of the Probation Department on 11/27/12 and was confirmed by the author in a conversation with DeLira on 11/28/12. 32