4.6 Article

Evaluation of the US detention standards to protect the health and dignity of migrants: a systematic review of national health standards

Journal

BMJ OPEN
Volume 13, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-069949

Keywords

ETHICS (see Medical Ethics); HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION & MANAGEMENT; Health policy; Organisation of health services; Protocols & guidelines

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This research evaluates the completeness of detention standards across US agencies to protect migrant health and dignity. The study highlights disparate standards based on agency mandates and facility contracts. It emphasizes the need to ensure public health rights and services for migrants in all spaces and for any length of time, and suggests the development of comprehensive and consistent standards or alternatives to detention.
Objective The US government detains hundreds of thousands of migrants across a network of facilities each year. This research aims to evaluate the completeness of standards across US detention agencies to protect the health and dignity of migrants. Design Five documents from three US agencies were examined in a systematic review: Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE; 3), Customs and Border Protection (CBP; 1) and Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR; 1). Standards within five public health categories (health, hygiene, shelter, food and nutrition, protection) were extracted from each document and coded by subcategory and area. Areas were classified as critical, essential or supportive. Standards were measured for specificity, measurability, attainability, relevancy and timeliness (SMART), resulting in a sufficiency score (0%-100%). Average sufficiency scores were calculated for areas and agencies. Results 711 standards were extracted within 5 categories, 12 subcategories and 56 areas. 284 standards of the 711 standards were included in multiple (2-7) areas, resulting in 1173 standards counted as many times as each was included. On average, 85.4% of standards were specific, 87.1% measurable, 96.6% attainable and 74.9% time-bound. All standards were considered relevant. CBP standards were the least sufficient across all other SMART components, when compared with ICE and ORR. Conclusions There are disparate detention standards based on agencies' mandates and type of facility contracts. Migrants should be ensured of their public health rights and services in all spaces they occupy, and for any length of time regardless of who manages the facility. As long as detention remains a policy, the US should develop comprehensive, consistent and complementary standards for all detention facilities or pursue alternatives to detention.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available