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

Conditions at the NWDC: Patterns of Neglect in TPD Response to Reports of Crimes

Patterns of Neglect in Tacoma Police Department’s Response to Reports of Crimes at the NWDC

April 24, 2025

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

Contents:

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

← Previous section: Uses of Force and Chemical Agents

“TPD Doesn’t Respond Here”: Patterns of Neglect in Tacoma Police Department’s Response to Reports of Crimes at the Northwest Detention Center

Although the exact number of people currently detained at the Northwest Detention Center[1] is not publicly known, reports suggest the current population is likely the highest it has been since 2020. In just the first three months of 2025, multiple hunger strikes have broken out, with detained people reporting to community-based advocacy organization La Resistencia that even as infectious disease spreads through the facility,[2] clean clothing, medical care, and food are in short supply. In this sense, the abusive conditions documented for eight years by the UW Center for Human Rights—such as the overuse of solitary confinement, the denial of access to quality medical care, poor hygiene and sanitation, frequent uses of physical force and chemical gases, and a lack of adequate responses to reported sexual abuse—not only persist, but may in fact have become even more acute as the facility approaches its maximum capacity of 1575 people.

In this report, however, we focus on responses by local authorities to reports of violence within the facility.

In 2022, we published a report examining the NWDC’s response to reports of sexual abuse. We found that despite consistent reports of sexual abuse and assault within the facility, both the requirements of federal law and the internal standards described in the contract governing the facility’s operations were routinely violated, resulting in a system where detained persons’ calls for help often went entirely unanswered. That report, titled “Calls to Nowhere,” centered on the responsibility of ICE and GEO.

In the present investigation, we examine all assaults reported at the facility, not just those of a sexual nature, and explore not what ICE and GEO do in response, but what Tacoma Police Department does—or, more often, doesn’t do—when violence against detained immigrants is reported on its watch. The title of this report, “TPD Doesn’t Respond Here,” is a quotation from one of the many Tacoma Police documents reviewed as part of this study, reporting an assault at the NWDC.[3] Although the Northwest Detention Center obtains its funding from the federal government, it is a private, for-profit business, not a federal prison; it is staffed by private guards employed by GEO Group, not law enforcement agents; and any crimes committed on its premises fall squarely in the jurisdiction of the Tacoma Police Department.

To examine TPD’s responses to reported assaults within the facility, UWCHR researchers amassed as exhaustive a collection as possible of documentation of reported incidents in the facility from January 1, 2015 to January 1, 2025, and then assessed the response(s) each reported incident received. Our findings are stark: of 157 reports of abuse or assault at the facility over ten years, only two were prosecuted. Both of these were cases in which facility personnel were the reported victims, despite the fact that in the overwhelming majority of cases reported, the reported victims were detained people. In fact, crimes reported by people detained at the NWDC were routinely ignored by the Tacoma Police Department, and/or “investigated” through a process so cursory as to involve no contact whatsoever with the alleged victim. In other cases, GEO or ICE officials discouraged TPD from investigating, and TPD went along—even in cases where facility guards themselves had reportedly committed violence against detained people.

For critics of carceral systems, it may be unsurprising that criminal justice authorities chose to deploy their investigative and punitive powers only in cases where detained people were alleged to be aggressors, rather than victims. Certainly, the tendency of police and prosecutors to contribute to the further criminalization, rather than the protection, of marginalized people has been well documented.[4] Yet we believe TPD’s pattern of neglect merits the attention of justice advocates, for several reasons:

  • While police and prosecutors may offer flawed mechanisms for violence prevention, the systematic nonresponse to reported crimes at the NWDC only further encourages the proliferation of abuse within the facility. While in detention, people have access to few, if any, alternative mechanisms of protecting themselves from harm, especially in cases where that harm is perpetrated by facility employees. If such cases are never so much as investigated, there are no mechanisms to prevent their repetition.
  • Reporting crimes and collaborating with law enforcement responses offer detained people some of the only legal tools available to protect themselves. For example, U-visas are available to victims of crimes who collaborate with criminal justice institutions; while there is no guarantee a visa will be granted in any given case, if police ignore crime victims altogether they deny them even the opportunity to request such relief. In other cases, attorneys for detained people have been able to obtain their conditional release from custody based on demonstrated danger inside the facility. While these cases, too, are few and far between, they represent some of the only mechanisms available to detained migrants—and they’re entirely off the table if the police fail to respond to crimes within the NWDC.
  • ICE and GEO’s standards claim legitimacy based on their collaboration with criminal justice authorities in the investigation of crimes. Our findings here show that in fact, ICE and GEO often deter police investigations, and that TPD regularly fails to push back or follow up. Coming to terms with this pattern of neglect requires us to recognize the fundamental illegitimacy of the safety standards inscribed in the contract for administering the NWDC.

By denying migrants an opportunity to be with their families, work, or enjoy basic civil liberties, any immigration detention facility inevitably causes harm to those locked within. Yet this harm is exponentially increased when conditions of incarceration tolerate violence, and when local authorities decline to, or are prevented from, responding to complaints of abusive conditions inside.

These findings are particularly timely. ICE’s current contract with GEO Group for operations of the facility concludes in September 2025; the federal government anticipates receiving proposals beginning April 1, 2025.[5] At the very least any new contract for operations of this facility should include enforceable provisions to ensure an adequate response to crimes occurring within facility walls, including independent access to information about such responses to ensure their effectiveness.

Similarly, the Tacoma Police Department should take immediate action to ensure its responses to detained immigrant crime victims conform to the organization’s stated values, including its commitment to nondiscrimination.[6]

Background: How the system is supposed to work

In theory, at the NWDC as at other immigration detention centers, an abundance of interlocking accountability mechanisms exists to prevent and respond to violence. To begin with, ICE and GEO policies mandate the reporting of all potential crimes to local law enforcement such that police can independently investigate them; and layered upon this, ICE and GEO also offer their own set of procedures to investigate, punish, and prevent the repetition of violence within the facility. This two-track system for responding to reports of violence is described in detail in ICE’s 2011 Performance-Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS), revised in 2016, and further reinforced in the contract between ICE and the GEO Group to operate the NWDC.[7] In theory, this builds in a system of intentional redundancy, in which law enforcement and ICE/GEO take action along two separate tracks to ensure the safety of all those held or employed at the Tacoma facility. In practice, things work quite differently; but before exploring where the system fails, we explain below how it is intended to operate, according to ICE/GEO, the Tacoma Police Department, and the office of the Pierce County Prosecutor.

 

Processes of addressing abuses and assaults reported at the NWDC

Flow chart showing processes of addressing assaults and sexual assaults reported at the NWDC, as described in the Background section of this paper.

Figure 1: Processes of addressing assaults and sexual assaults reported at the NWDC. Separate processes are envisioned by local law enforcement and ICE/GEO. Per ICE guidelines, local law enforcement investigation must be completed before ICE/GEO conducts internal review. In practice, the system often works differently, as described below. 

ICE rules distinguish between assaults of a sexual and non-sexual nature, requiring more elaborate internal documentation in the former case, in compliance with the federal Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). In cases of sexual abuse or assault, ICE specifies that once an allegation is brought to a GEO officer’s attention, they must immediately notify the ICE personnel on site, and report any abuse that is potentially criminal to the Tacoma Police Department for investigation.[8], [9] In cases of non-sexual assault, ICE’s rules require notification of the Tacoma Police Department and an initiation of an administrative (internal, conducted by GEO) investigation once TPD’s investigative process concludes.[10]

It is important to note that in both cases, the rules require that TPD be notified prior to the undertaking of any investigation to determine the credibility of the report received, and furthermore, that any internal (GEO) investigation be put on hold until the conclusion of TPD’s process so as not to impact its outcome.[11] In other words, as noted above, ICE’s published standards envision a two-track investigation system, in which TPD’s process proceeds independent of, and prior to, GEO’s.[12], [13], [14] The purpose of this sequencing is, according to the PBNDS, “to ensure that the criminal investigation is not compromised by an internal administrative investigation.”[15]

The Tacoma Police Department follows its own policies to investigate reported crimes.[16] Calls to 911 (or to TPD’s non-emergency number) are answered by South Sound 911; once the operator discerns the call is about an assault, the caller is connected to TPD, where a dispatcher assigns a case/incident number and a patrol officer to respond. The patrol officer responds to the assignment by initiating a general report, which is reviewed and approved by a sergeant; if warranted, it is then referred to the Criminal Investigations Division (CID), where if it is determined to be “workable” based on information initially gathered, it is assigned to a detective. Upon the conclusion of the detective’s work, the case could be closed (no further information/no further follow up), or referred to the prosecutor’s office for their consideration for trial.

In addition to responding to the particulars of each case, prisons and detention centers are also required by federal law (PREA) to take proactive action to prevent the repetition of sexual abuses or assaults. At the NWDC, for example, GEO 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.”[17] 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 this decision in a written response. Both the review itself and the facility’s response must be forwarded to ICE’s Field Office Director for transmission to the ICE PSA Coordinator.[18] Furthermore, all investigations and reviews are to be compiled and evaluated once per year in an annual review process.[19] In this way, investigative processes should, if followed properly, result not only in accountability for responsible parties, but also generate feedback to promote operational improvements that prevent future violence.

Methodology

In this research, we set out to answer two research questions:

  • What types of abuses/assaults are being reported within the NWDC, and with what frequency?
  • To what extent do the various authorities (GEO guards, ICE supervisors, and local law enforcement) investigate reported incidents? To what extent does the prosecutor’s office pursue accountability for incidents of violence? What are the factors by which cases are excluded from consideration at each step along the way?

To do so, first we gathered records of all assaults and sexual abuse incidents reported to the Tacoma Police Department as occurring at the NWDC from January 1, 2015 to January 1, 2025. In Tacoma, all calls to 911 and to TPD’s non-emergency number are answered by South Sound 911. During the ten-year period under investigation here, South Sound 911 dispatch logs report 1348 total call records coded as originating at or involving the Northwest Detention Center/NW ICE Processing Center, or an average of approximately 11 calls per month. Of these, 172 calls were coded by South Sound911 as reporting assaults, rapes, or other sex crimes.[20] UWCHR researchers requested all available records for each of these incidents, including audio recordings,[21] CAD[22] incident inquiries (detailed logs including an abbreviated transcript of the call and initial dispatch activity), and resulting TPD incident reports. After excluding 66 cases as irrelevant or duplicative, this resulted in a total of 157 cases for further analysis.[23]

 

Excerpt from a 911 log document showing call log with names and identifying information blurred out.

Figure 2: An excerpt from a South Sound 911 CAD log obtained through a public records request by the University of Washington Center for Human Rights. CAD (Computer-Aided Dispatch) logs are created for every South Sound 911 call and include an abbreviated transcript of the call and initial dispatch activity. This log documents a call from a person who is detained at the Northwest Detention Center (NWDC) reporting physical abuse by two facility guards and requesting medical aid, to which Tacoma Police Department (TPD) responds, “Not TPD jurisdiction, let staff know they can handle the complaint in house.”

UWCHR researchers coded these incidents by characteristics such as the identity of the reporting party, suspect, and victim (ICE or GEO employee; detained person; or other); whether Tacoma Police Department made direct contact with the victim or suspect based on 911 dispatch logs and TPD incident reports; whether TPD resources were assigned for follow up, as indicated by the presence of multiple or updated TPD incident reports, collection of additional evidence, or explicit reference to assignment of individuals or units for further investigation; and whether the case was referred for prosecution, and eventually prosecuted, by the Tacoma Municipal Prosecuting Attorney or the Pierce County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office.

To understand this documentation in context, UWCHR researchers also spoke to individuals in detention; a representative of the Tacoma Police Department; Pierce County Prosecutor Mary Robnett; members of Tacoma’s Human Rights Commission; representatives of Rebuilding Hope, the community sexual assault program referenced in ICE and GEO audits; and leaders in the migrant justice movement, especially those from La Resistencia.

Findings

Assaults at NWDC

We do not know how many assaults actually happened at the NWDC during the ten year period under study here—or even how many assaults were reported using all of the available reporting mechanisms, since ICE has not yet responded to many of our requests for information. For this reason, we focus on incidents reported to the Tacoma Police Department, although we know that less than half of all crimes are typically reported to the police,[24]with some studies suggesting even lower reporting rates in areas with newly arrived immigrant populations.[25] From within detention, reporting rates are likely to be lower still, as it is not possible for detained people to call 911 from inside the NWDC, unless a guard does so on their behalf.[26] Furthermore, posters displayed in the facility and the National Detainee Handbook direct victims of sexual abuse to report it to ICE rather than the police.[27]For these reasons, UWCHR researchers suspect that the number of assaults examined here is an undercount of actual incidents.

On the other hand, it is also possible that some detained people over-report crimes by fabricating incidents that did not occur; our research surfaced multiple phone communications between facility personnel and TPD in which NWDC employees suggested that detained people were making up stories because they believed this could earn them some legal benefit, and both police and prosecutors echoed this suspicion in interviews. Given the limited data available to UWCHR researchers, we do not attempt to make determinations about the credibility of reported incidents in this report.

The incidence of reported crimes varied widely from year to year, as seen in Figure 3. The population of the facility also varied significantly over the past decade, given the pandemic and shifting immigration enforcement strategies; while the overall number of calls originating at the facility is closely correlated with average facility population, the number of calls relating to assault and sexual assault is not.

However, our focus here is not on the reporting of assaults, but on how authorities respond to such reports.

 

Figure 3: Bar chart of South Sound 911 calls involving NWDC, January 1, 2015 through January 1, 2025 (assault, rape, and sex crimes only). Rates of 911 calls reporting violent assaults at NWDC varied year-to-year, from a minimum of four in 2015 to a maximum of 31 in 2023. No calls were categorized as reporting rape during 2021 and 2022. While the overall rate of 911 calls reporting incidents at the facility is closely correlated with the average detained population, the rate of calls reporting assault, rape, or sex crimes is not. Source: South Sound 911 CAD logs.

 

 

Figure 4: Pie chart of 911 calls reporting assaults and sexual assaults at NWDC by victim identity. 139, or 89%, of calls involved detained people as the reported victim; 17, or 11%, of calls involved detention facility staff as victims. One call involved a detained person’s lawyer as the reported victim. The total number of calls analyzed was 157. Source: South Sound 911 and TPD records coded by UWCHR researchers.

Accountability through the criminal legal system

In the criminal legal system, we traced each reported incident’s path through five levels from reporting, through investigation, to prosecution. Of the 157 total cases reported to TPD, only two reached the prosecution stage. At each step in the process, some cases failed to advance: 59 cases never advanced beyond the initial report, reflected in CAD logs or 911 audio; 69 cases never advanced beyond a single TPD report. In 11 cases, TPD resources were apparently assigned for follow-up, but the case did not proceed further. A total of 16 cases were referred for prosecution; of these, in 14 cases, no charges were brought. A total of 2 cases were eventually prosecuted, both by Pierce County Prosecuting Attorney. (As of April 9, 2025, records remained pending in a total of 7 cases.)

Of course, we should not expect 100% of reported incidents to be prosecuted; it is entirely possible that some reports were appropriately deemed unreliable, or that even in cases where crimes occurred, insufficient evidence remained to permit prosecution. Our concerns, therefore, do not stem from the quantitative number of prosecutions, but from the clear patterns that emerge upon examination of why individual cases failed to advance at each stage in the process. We describe these patterns below.

1. TPD apparent disinterest in cases where detained people are victims

 

Figure 5: Pie charts depicting 911 calls reporting assaults and sexual assaults at NWDC by victim identity and whether South Sound 911 and TPD records indicate that TPD officers made contact with the victim (either by phone or in person). In cases where the reported victim was a detained person, 64% of the time, TPD apparently made no contact with the victim. In cases where the reported victim was detention facility staff, TPD records indicate that contact was made with the victim in 88% of cases. (One case with victim “Other” is excluded from this analysis.) Source: South Sound 911 and TPD records coded by UWCHR researchers.

In more than 60 percent of cases in which a detained person was the reported victim of an assault, TPD made no apparent contact with the victim at all. TPD was also less likely to generate a police report in response to cases involving detained people as reported victims. In contrast, in the vast majority of cases in which facility staff were the reported victim of an assault, TPD did speak directly with the victim and was more likely to generate a police report.

Some examples of cases exemplifying this trend include:

  • On June 26, 2016, a detained person called to report that a GEO officer was sexually harassing him. When TPD called back, they were unable to connect, and apparently no additional follow-up was undertaken.
  • On May 26, 2018, an ICE officer called to report a sexual assault of one detained person by another. Records show that the TPD officer taking the call did not even inquire as to the name of the alleged victim, making any further inquiry impossible.
  • On June 13 and 14, 2018, an attorney from the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project called repeatedly to report assaults against her client by an officer at the facility. According to TPD records, she reported that her client had been beaten on the head with a flashlight by a GEO officer, and that this had been occurring every few days for months. There is no indication that TPD made any attempt to speak with the victim.
  • On April 2, 2024, a detained man called to report inappropriate touching by a GEO officer. On the audio recording of the call, the TPD dispatcher can be heard asking for his call back number, to which he responds, “I don’t have a number, I’m detained at the facility.” The officer put him on hold so she could talk to a supervisor, but returned to the call saying, “I put in a call for officers to contact you, I don’t know how they’d be able to do that since you’re detained.” There is no record that TPD made further contact with the victim.
  • Similarly, on April 15, 2024 a detained person called to follow up on a previous sexual assault complaint he had filed on April 3, alleging sexual assault by a guard. He explained by phone that when he originally called, TPD said someone would be sent to go see him, but that was ten days ago and no one ever came. Reviewing department records, the dispatcher says “it looks like they did try to contact you but would be unable to.” She asks if he is reachable by phone, but he says that the officer would have to show up in person to talk to him. There is no record of anyone at TPD ever following up with him. On June 21, 2024, the same man’s attorney called TPD to report the incident again. On the basis of her call, a TPD officer and a detective finally went to the facility in person and spoke to a GEO officer about the incident, who shared his analysis of what transpired. They never spoke to the alleged victim. This case was referred to the Pierce County prosecutor’s office without any victim contact. The prosecutor’s office declined to file charges.

2. GEO discourages or preempts TPD investigation

In many cases, GEO acted in ways that discouraged TPD from investigating. This happened in two main ways: first, while they called to report an incident as required under policy, GEO or ICE personnel often told TPD that the police did not need to investigate because facility personnel were doing so “in-house”; this frequently led police to take no further action. Second, in some cases GEO or ICE denied TPD access to the alleged victim or disparaged the victim’s credibility.

Among the cases reviewed, UWCHR found 64 instances of this behavior by GEO or ICE personnel. And records show that this behavior appears to have an impact on TPD’s handing of the case; in cases where GEO or ICE was recorded as having made such statements, TPD was less likely to generate a police report[28].

In many cases, when reporting an incident GEO told TPD that they were only doing so to comply with their policy to report crimes. Frequently, they would state that they were simply calling to get a case number to include on their internal reporting – and TPD would comply with this request, issuing a number but taking no action to follow up. For example:

  • On April 13, 2018, a GEO officer called to inform TPD that a detained person who identified as trans had reported a sexual assault. He said he would call back if GEO determined that a crime took place, but “just wanted to fulfill mandatory reporting requirement today.”
  • On May 26, 2018, an ICE officer called to report that a detained man said he had been assaulted by another detained person. Notes from the call indicate that the dispatcher was told “no indication the claim is valid, just need a call number.” The TPD provided a case number but did not even note the victim’s name or the circumstances of the assault.

The problem here is not GEO’s mandated reporting, but TPD’s lack of response. Indeed, the requirement that facility personnel serve as mandatory reporters for potential sex crimes within the facility is a positive step, but only if TPD actually acts in response; our data shows that they often do not.

GEO investigation supplants TPD’s

In other cases, TPD appears to have taken GEO’s assertion that an internal investigation was underway as reason to do nothing. As noted above, ICE policies specifically seek to avoid this outcome, specifying that GEO’s investigation should only commence once TPD’s investigation concludes. In practice, however, the opposite occurred in dozens of cases: TPD declined to initiate an investigation because GEO or ICE claimed they were already doing so on their own. For example:

  • On November 22, 2017, an ICE Assistant Field Office Director called to report the alleged assault of one detained person by another. The CAD Incident Inquiry documenting the call concludes with a note that “ICE Detention center will conduct in house investigation.” There was never a police report filed.
  • On February 10, 2020, a paralegal called TPD to report that a client in the detention center had been forcibly kissed by another detained person. The CAD Incident Inquiry concludes, “Internal investigation in progress.” There is no record that TPD spoke to the alleged victim or conducted any further investigation.

This pattern is particularly concerning in cases where the alleged assailant is a member of the facility staff, since this could create motivation for the facility’s internal investigation to be less than rigorous. For example:

  • On February 15, 2018, a detained man’s wife called TPD to report her husband had been assaulted by facility guards. Two TPD officers were dispatched to the NWDC to investigate the alleged assault, which took place in the context of a hunger strike involving dozens of detained people. Because the victim of the assault only spoke Spanish, TPD relied on a GEO officer to serve as interpreter during their investigation of the incident. The victims’ handwritten account of the incident is included in the police file; in his own words, he describes the GEO officer as responding to a collective hunger strike with violence and racial hatred, grabbing one detained person by the neck, and hitting him [the victim] in the face, causing injury to his left eye. Under oath in federal court, the victim later indicated he was “punched with a closed fist,” and that other hunger strikers were choked and thrown against walls.[29] Yet the TPD officers, responding to the account of the incident received through GEO’s interpretation, summarized their conclusions as follows, “One detainee resisted and pushed back towards [the GEO officer] so the detainee was grabbed around the shoulder area. During this struggle it appears [the victim] was inadvertently poked in the left eye.” The case was not referred to the prosecutor’s office nor investigated further by TPD.

After the Tacoma Police Department officers left the facility, the victim was placed in disciplinary segregation, a punitive form of solitary confinement, for 20 days.[30] This appears to have been retaliation for his having spoken to the police. The ACLU sought and successfully obtained a court order ordering his release from solitary and protecting him from further violations of his First Amendment rights,[31] but none of the GEO officers involved were held accountable in this case.

  • On March 29, 2018, an ICE officer called to report that a detained person claimed he had been groped by a physician at the facility. Records show that TPD contacted the ICE officer, and were told that “they strongly suspect this is a bogus report… are doing [their] own investigation, [reporting party] was given call number only.”
GEO deters reporting or investigation of crime

At times, GEO guards took active steps to deter investigations by TPD, either by disparaging the credibility of the alleged victim or by denying TPD investigators access to the victim. While considering the credibility of a victim’s account is a legitimate part of a police investigation, in some of these cases TPD apparently decided victims were not credible before even contacting them.

This tendency is particularly worrisome in cases where the accused person was a GEO employee, thus creating a clear conflict between the company’s interests and an open investigation. In at least one case, a detained man’s wife called TPD to report that her husband had been fondled by a facility guard, but that guards refused to allow him to use the phone to report the crime.

For example:

  • On August 20, 2018, an ICE officer called TPD to report that a female detained person said she had been raped by a GEO officer. TPD assigned the case to an officer, but the follow up consisted of a phone call to ICE, in which ICE reported that the alleged victim was bipolar and delusional. No attempt appears to have been made to speak to the victim.
  • On October 31, 2019, an ICE officer reported a female detained person gave testimony in court that she had been groped by a GEO officer while in a transport van taking her back to the facility from the hospital. The ICE officer reported that the “victim has extensive history making false reports against authority figures.” TPD apparently made no attempt to contact her.
  • On June 15, 2023, TPD records show that a detained person called to report he was being repeatedly bullied by other detained people within the facility and that staff was doing nothing to address the situation. TPD notes indicate that police were not allowed to enter the facility to investigate, so they instead called the victim by phone, but were cut off and unable to reconnect. No further investigation occurred.
  • On July 14, 2023, a GEO sergeant called to report that a destined person reported sexual abuse by a physician assistant. When a TPD officer called the facility GEO told them the victim was “unable” to speak with him. No further investigation was conducted.
  • On March 22, 2024, a detained man called TPD twice to report that he was assaulted by another detained person in the yard. After the second call, a GEO officer called TPD a third time, stating that the report was false, motivated by the victim’s likely desire to ask for a stay of removal. The TPD officer on the call responded, “I’ll take note of this that you’re handling it in house.” TPD never spoke to the victim.

3. TPD claims it lacks jurisdiction to investigate crimes at NWDC

 The Tacoma Police Department has jurisdiction over crimes occurring within the detention facility, just as they would over crimes occurring elsewhere in the city of Tacoma. Yet they sometimes told those calling to report a crime–both facility staff and detained people alike–precisely the opposite. On at least 15 occasions, records indicate that officers told 911 callers that TPD did not have jurisdiction over crimes committed at the facility, or referred them to various federal authorities or the detention facility itself. This occurred at least 12 times from 2021 through 2024.

For example:

  • On April 25, 2019, a formerly detained person called to report that they had been assaulted while in the facility, but that the internal investigation into what happened had been insufficient; their attorney had therefore instructed them to report the assault to the police. The CAD Incident Inquiry of the call notes that police responded, “Per Lt. Kirby, internal investigation done and if R/P [reporting party] wants more he should request it be with a federal branch ie. ICE / FBI.”
  • On July 14, 2021, a detained person reported that he was choked and assaulted by multiple other detained people. The TPD response was recorded as “refer to NW Detention Center, that crime would be handled by federal.”
  • On April 21, 2022, a detained person reported an assault by one detained person against another inside the facility; TPD responded that it was not TPD’s jurisdiction and “passed on a message to” the NWDC for their information.
  • On July 28, 2022, and then again on August 16, 2022, a detained man called to report he had been assaulted by two other detained people. In response to the first call, TPD noted “Detention Center staff will have to call, refer to them.” The alleged victim called back later because NWDC officers had directed him to the police, but notes indicate he was again told this was not a matter for TPD. The records state, “Contracted federal facility, report should be handled by federal police,” and “spoke with Sargeant Stephenson, inmate will be advised to contact ICE directly.”
  • On March 12, 2024, an attorney’s assistant called 911 to report an assault at the NWDC in which one detained man was punched in the head by another; according to the caller, the latter man was taken to the hospital and diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury. When a TPD officer called the facility in response, they were told that “they just had an incident and they are busy.” Ten days later, the legal assistant called TPD again, asking why they had not responded. The resulting police report states, “I did not interview [the victim] since he is currently being detained at a federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement processing center (NW Detention Center) and the incident happened inside the processing center.”
  • On November 18, 2024, a detained person called to report that he had been assaulted by two facility guards and that he was bruised on the forehead and ribs. The caller stated that he wanted medical aid. South Sound 911 records note that Tacoma Fire Department was advised of the request, but reported, “upon TFD interview, [detained person] already checked on by [detention facility] staff, TFD not responding.” The CAD log concludes, “Not TPD jurisdiction, let staff know they can handle the complaint in house. Sgt. Notified.” No TPD report was completed for the incident.

Conclusion

Conditions are critical within the NWDC today, and outside facility walls, we are all witness to a still-unfolding series of federal government policies that revel in the cruel and public dehumanization of immigrants. In this context, the prospect of improved conditions inside the privately-run Northwest Detention Center may seem remote. But there’s more to this picture.

In recent years, local and state government agencies in Washington have stepped up to play an increasingly important, and long overdue, role in regulating conditions within the Northwest Detention Center. In light of federal intransigence under Democratic and Republican administrations alike, Washington’s state Legislature has passed three laws to address abusive conditions within the facility.[32] Washington’s Department of Labor and Industries (DOL) and Department of Health (DOH) have increasingly asserted their regulatory authority by conducting—and/or attempting to conduct—inspections of the NWDC.[33] And this has followed the Attorney General’s successful suit against the company for violations of the state’s minimum wage.[34] Each of these efforts has been fought vigorously by the GEO Group, not because the company cannot afford to pay the fines it faces—it has acknowledged reaping profits of about $20 million per year from its operation of the NWDC[35]—but because these steps represent incursions into the sheer lawlessness on which its profit model, implemented across the nation, is based.

Yet Washington knows better. Our so-called “sanctuary state” law, Keep Washington Working,  mandates that our state and law enforcement agencies decline to participate in federal enforcement of civil immigration law, even when ICE requests such collaboration. More than an idle declaration, UWCHR research has shown that this law has made a real impact, even if areas for improvement remain. Tacoma has declared itself a “welcoming city,”[36]and as recently as January 2025, promised that “The Tacoma Police Department’s role is to protect all members of the community, regardless of immigration status.”[37] Furthermore, the Tacoma Police Department has taken steps to improve some aspects of its work with immigrants, for example by instituting the use of a language line for interpretation in response to suggestions by the City of Tacoma’s Commission on Immigrant and Refugee Affairs.[38]

These Washington values are worthy of protection and promotion. When the conduct of government agencies—in this case, the Tacoma Police Department—fails to uphold them, there is need for corrective action. Today, UWCHR calls on the City of Tacoma and its police department to adopt immediate measures to ensure that the systematic disregard of immigrant rights documented here stops now, such that all Washingtonians can enjoy equal protection of the laws.

Appendix

Table I: Data collection process

Total South Sound 911 incidents coded as originating at NWDC January 1, 2015 – January 1, 2025 1348
Incidents categorized as reports of assault, sex crimes, or rape 172
Additional incidents categorized as reports of threats, informational; or coinciding with dates of sexual assault allegations reported by ICE 58
Total incidents for which we requested records via South Sound 911 & Tacoma Police Department 230
Incidents excluded as irrelevant or duplicative 66
Records requests pending or denied due to ongoing investigation 7
Total incidents analyzed 157

 

Table II: Data summary grouped by victim identity

Reports of assault, sex crime, and rape involving NWDC, Jan. 1 2015 – Jan. 1 2025 (N = 157)
Victim Is Detained Person No

n = 18

11%

 Yes

n = 139

89%
Suspect is Detained Person n Percent n Percent
… No 0 0% 26 19%
… Yes 18 100% 113 81%
TPD Contact WithVictim n Percent n Percent
… No 3 17% 89 64%
… Yes 15 83% 50 36%
TPD Report Generated n Percent n Percent
… No 4 22% 58 42%
… Yes 14 78% 81 58%
Source: South Sound 911 and Tacoma Police Department records analyzed by University of Washington Center for Human RIghts

 

Notes

[1] Following a rebranding in 2019, this facility is also known as the Northwestern ICE Processing Center, or NWIPC.

[2] La Resistencia, @laresistencianw, 2024, “New signage at NWDC confirms Varicella (the virus that causes the chicken pox) inside the facility!”, January 16, 2024, http://www.instagram.com/laresistencianw/p/DE5hVQBzl7W/?img_index=1

[3] The referenced document is an April 29, 2023 CAD Log reporting an assault at the facility.

[4] See, for example: Angela Y Davis and Dylan Rodriguez, “The Challenge of Prison Abolition: A Conversation,” Social Justice 27, no. 3, 81, (2000): 212–18. http://www.jstor.org/stable/29767244.; Angela Y. Davis, Are Prisons Obsolete? (New York: Seven Stories Press, 2011).; Elizabeth Jordie Davies, Jenn M. Jackson, and Shea Streeter. “Bringing Abolition in: Addressing Carceral Logics in Social Science Research.” Social Science Quarterly 102, no. 7 (August 10, 2021): 3095–3102. http://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13022.; Mariame Kaba and Andrea J. Ritchie, No More Police., (The New Press, 2022).; Sara Wakefield and Christopher Uggen, “Incarceration and Stratification.” Annual Review of Sociology 36, 1 (April 2010): 387–406, http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102551.

[5] Department of Homeland Security, Acquisition Planning Forecast System, December 4, 2024, accessed  February 28, 2025, http://jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2025/04/Forecast-Record-_-Acquisition-Planning-Forecast-System.pdf

[6] The Tacoma Police Department’s policy on nondiscrimination states that, “Members will endeavor to ensure that Police services provided by the Department are available to all persons in the community on an equal basis without regard to a person’s race, religion, gender, ethnicity, age, disability, politics, national origin, sexual orientation or other personal characteristics or view points. No member shall deny access to Police service, or provide a lower level of Police service than is reasonable by the Department to any person based solely on any personal characteristics or viewpoints. No member shall engage in the practice of race-based profiling or any other type of discrimination within the scope of their daily contact with individuals in the community or anyone driving or moving about the city streets or neighborhoods.” (see Tacoma Police Department, Professional Standards, Section 14, p. 6, http://cms.cityoftacoma.org/police/Tacoma_Police_Department_Policies.pdf)

[7] See Contract Number HSCEDM -10 – D – 00015 included in State of Washington v. The GEO Group Inc, No. 3:2017cv05806 – Document 202 (W.D. Wash. 2017), p. 49: “The contractor shall perform all services in accordance with ICE 2011 Performance-Based Detention National Standards (PBNDS) optimals and enhanced recreation, Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), American Correctional Associate (sic) (ACA) Standards for Adult Local Detention Facilities (ALDF) and Standards Supplement, Standards for Health Services in Jails, latest edition, National Commission on Correctional Health (NCCHC), and state and local laws on firearms at all times.”

[8] See U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement Agency, 2011 Operations Manual ICE Performance-Based National Detention Standards [PBNDS], 2011, p. 138, http://www.ice.gov/detain/detention-management/2011: “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.”

[9] In its 2019 audit of the facility, Creative Corrections noted that it is GEO practice to contact the Tacoma Police Department in every case of sexual abuse alleged at NWIPC, allowing the police make the determination as to whether a crime was committed. See Creative Corrections, Department of Homeland Security, PREA Audit: Subpart A DHS Immigration Detention Facilities Audit Report, 2019, p. 7, http://www.ice.gov/doclib/foia/prea_audit/NorthwestIPCJan2020.pdf.

[10] The PBNDS states, “A serious incident that may constitute a criminal act shall be referred to the proper investigative agency as appropriate, and administrative investigations shall be suspended pending the outcome of that referral” (PBNDS, p. 214). Assault is categorized as the “greatest offense category” on ICE’s internal disciplinary scale, for which sanctions include not only potential criminal prosecution and punishment, but also consequences to be administered within the facility such as assignment to disciplinary segregation (PBNDS, p. 224).

[11] 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.” On assaults of a non-sexual nature, PBNDS requires that “A serious incident that may constitute a criminal act shall be referred to the proper investigative agency as appropriate, and administrative investigations shall be suspended pending the outcome of that referral” (PBNDS, p. 214).

[12] 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.”

[13] 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).

[14] See State of Washington v. The GEO Group Inc, No. 3:2017cv05806 – Document 202 (W.D. Wash. 2017), DHS PREA Standard (included in NWDC Contract), p. 203; see also PBNDS, p. 139: “Upon conclusion of a criminal investigation where the allegation was substantiated, or in instances where no criminal investigation has been completed, an administrative investigation shall be conducted. Upon conclusion of a criminal investigation where the allegation was unsubstantiated, the facility shall review any available completed criminal investigation reports to determine whether an administrative investigation is necessary or appropriate.”

[15] PBNDS, p. 140.

[16] These steps were explained to UWCHR by Capt. Corey Darlington of the Tacoma Police Department. Interview of Captain Corey Darlington by Angelina Godoy, October 18, 2024.

[17] PBNDS, p. 128.

[18] PBNDS, p. 141.

[19] 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.”

[20] Many calls by NWDC personnel to South Sound 911 are reported for informational purposes only; as a result, we also requested calls coded as “informational” to make sure we did not miss any reported assaults. At least three of 48 calls coded as “informational” did relate to allegations of sexual harassment or sexual assault at the facility, and are included in the collection of calls analyzed in this report. For the same reason, we reviewed seven calls originally coded as “threat,” one was related to an alleged assault. We also reviewed one call originally coded as “medical” which coincided with the date of an assault reported via other means, but which was unrelated. The total number of incidents for which we requested South Sound 911 and Tacoma Police Department records was 230. For a full breakdown of the data collection process involved in this report, see Appendix I.

[21] Per TPD policy, audio recordings are only preserved for 90 days, so we were only able to obtain such records for incidents in which researchers were able to file the request within 90 days of the incident’s occurrence.

[22] CAD is an acronym for Computer-Aided Dispatch. Quotes from CAD logs have been lightly edited for readability.

[23] An additional seven calls have not yet been analyzed because the records remain pending, as we have not yet received a complete response to our records request. In one of these cases, which South Sound 911 records categorize as a report of a rape on June 12, 2024, we have been told the records are not yet available because the case is under active TPD investigation.

[24] For a comprehensive review of this broad literature in criminology, see Min Xie and Eric P. Baumer, “Crime victim’s decisions to call the police: Past research and new directions”, Annual Review of Criminology 2, 1 (2019): p.217–240, doi:10.1146/annurev-criminol-011518-024748.

[25] Both Min Xie and Eric P. Baumer, “Neighborhood immigrant concentration and violent crime reporting to the police: A multilevel analysis of data from the National Crime Victimization Survey,” Criminology 57, 2 (May 2019): http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1745-9125.12204, and Carmen M. Gutierrez and David S. Kirk, “Silence Speaks: The Relationship between Immigration and the Underreporting of Crime,” Sage Journal 63, 8 (September 2015): http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0011128715599993, find that while rates of crime reporting among established immigrant communities are similar to among non-immigrants, areas experiencing a wave of recent arrivals have lower rates of reporting.

[26] It is possible for detained people to call TPD’s non-emergency number without a guard’s assistance, but only if they have funds on their account to cover the cost of the call.

[27] University of Washington Center for Human Rights, Conditions at the NWDC: Reporting of Sexual Abuse and Assault, May 2022, http://jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/2022/05/16/nwdc-assault-abuse-reporting/.

[28] In cases where GEO or ICE discouraged investigation in one of the two ways described, TPD generated a police report in 54% of the cases; whereas in cases where GEO/ICE did not discourage investigation, TPD generated a police report 70% of the time.

[29] ACLU of Washington, Jesús Chávez Flores v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, October 10, 2018.

[30] Jesus Chavez Flores v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al., Case 3:18-cv-05139-BHS-DWC (2018), http://jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2025/04/2018-06-20-dkt_54-2nd_amended_complaint.pdf

[31] ACLU of Washington, Jesús Chávez Flores v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, October 10, 2018.

 

[32] These laws are: HB 2596 (passed in 2020), calling for a study to examine the feasibility of local government exercising oversight of health and safety at the facility; HB 1090 (2021) mandating the closure of private detention centers including the NWDC, in large part due to concerns about conditions; and HB 1470 (2023) mandating improved health and safety conditions, and state oversight, of private detention centers including the NWDC. As of this writing, a fourth bill, HB 1232, has passed the House and is under active consideration by the State Senate.

[33] Grace Deng, “Court blocks state inspections of federal immigration facility in Tacoma,” Washington State Standard, March 11, 2024: http://washingtonstatestandard.com/2024/03/11/court-blocks-state-inspections-of-federal-immigration-facility-in-tacoma/

[34] Washington State Office of the Attorney General, “AG Ferguson: Jury finds GEO, for-profit operator of Tacoma ICE detention center, must pay detainee workers minimum wage”, October 27, 2021: http://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/ag-ferguson-jury-finds-geo-profit-operator-tacoma-ice-detention-center-must-pay

[35] McKenzie Funk, “An ICE Contractor Is Worth Billions. It’s Still Fighting to Pay Detainees as Little as $1 a Day to Work,” ProPublica, March 9, 2025, http://www.propublica.org/article/geo-group-ice-detainees-wage.

[36] City of Tacoma, Resolution 69116: A resolution authorizing the City of Tacoma to join the Welcoming Cities and Counties Initiative, which encourages communities to create more welcoming, immigrant friendly environments that maximize opportunities for economic growth and cultural vitality, February 17, 2015, http://cityoftacoma.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2168768&GUID=3D48DC1D-0514-4B1A-898C-2C7519440A24&Options=&Search#:~:text=A%20resolution%20authorizing%20the%20City%20of%20Tacoma,Counties%20Initiative%2C%20which%20encourages%20communities%20to%20create

[37] City of Tacoma, Tacoma Police Department’s Commitment to Public Safety and Adherence to RCW 10.93.160, January 28, 2025, accessed April 15, 2025, http://www.cityoftacoma.org/whats_going_on/tacoma_police_department_s_commitment_to_public_safety_and_adherence_to_r_c_w_10_93_160.

[38] Scott Brown, “Case Study: Police Use Interpreter App to Help During Emergency Calls,” Language Line Solutions, November 5, 2021, http://www.languageline.com/blog/case-study-police-use-interpreter-app-to-help-during-emergency-calls.