The Ombudsman Reacts to Feedback From U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Deborah Howell
Ombudsman
The Washington Post

Kelly Nantel
Press Secretary
Office of Public Affairs
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Dear Ms. Nantel:

As the ombudsman for The Post. I operate independently of the newsroom and management. I have looked at this complaint and asked about the reporting and documentation behind it and come to my own conclusions. The first part of the letter is in answer to some of the complaints in your letter. Then I have taken the four days of complaints posted on the ICE Web site and dealt with them individually, except in Part 4, where I put my answer at the end.

Because you have made a charge of unethical reporting, I will deal with that first. The series is extraordinarily well documented. The reporters operated well within the bounds of investigative journalism.

I often find that there is a serious difference in how journalists look at those bounds and how they are viewed by agencies or businesses or individuals being investigated. It is the nature of investigative journalism to be hard-hitting.

The series certainly did not condemn all medical personnel working for ICE or the Division of Immigration Health Services (DIHS) as irresponsible or incompetent. But it did point out many instances of incompetence or ineptitude or lack of care. Also, several times in the series, Division of Immigration Health Services medical officials are quoted bemoaning the lack of staff, fearing lawsuits and being critical of DIHS actions.

Reporters Dana Priest and Amy Goldstein were tipped that there were serious problems in health care for ICE detainees and decided to investigate. They first looked at the conditions without ICE's knowledge. Once they had gathered facts and documents, they came to ICE officials for comment.

ICE had ample say in the series, including that the amount spent on detainee health care has doubled in five years and that the number of deaths has decreased. But I wish the reporters had interviewed high-ranking ICE officials about the conditions they found.

You seem to say that quoting DIHS policy means that the policy is being enforced. But the series showed numerous documented cases where the policy obviously was ignored.

The reporters had thousands of official internal documents. I saw a number of them. The reporters did many interviews with employees or former employees of DIHS as well as detainees and their families and others with knowledge of the system. You also said in your letter that the reporters had not visited detention facilities. They did. Their visits just weren't "official."

I agree that the Jena reference should have been clearer; the memo quoted was written before the facility opened. But I disagree with your assertion that section in the story implied that detainees were at risk. It was showing the concern of then DIHS director that the facility was not going to be adequately staffed.