How to Build a Future Without Family Detention

Families held at the Dilley Family Residential Center Conduct Demonstration in January. Photo Credit: Brenda Bazán, AP

For decades, leaders in both parties have argued that once families are released into communities while seeking asylum, it becomes difficult to deport them if they do not qualify for legal status. As a result, since 2001 nearly every administration has relied on family detention to hold families pending deportation, even though few cases can be resolved within the 20-day limit for detaining families without a final removal order.

President Trump is now going a step further by targeting families already in the United States, including some with legal status. His administration appears to be using detention as a pressure tactic, effectively coercing families to self-deport. While neither party has gotten this issue right, there is no justification for detaining families when more effective alternatives exist. We know this because we have worked directly on policies designed to enforce immigration laws while ensuring families are treated humanely.

Any leader planning to run for president in 2028 should be developing a serious plan for how to address families in the immigration system. If lawmakers and midterm candidates begin normalizing more effective and humane alternatives to family detention, a future administration could have the political support and resources needed to phase out long-term family detention for good. The alternatives we have worked on provide a framework for moving families through the immigration system without long-term detention.

Alternatives to Detention Provide a Framework

When an immigrant is not detained, they are typically released under certain conditions, such as paying a bond or reporting regularly to ICE. Another option is what ICE calls an Alternative to Detention, or ATD. Currently, ICE operates a single ATD program, run by a private prison contractor. The program allows single adults and families to remain in the community while their immigration cases are pending.

ICE’s longstanding ATD program relies on electronic monitoring, such as ankle monitors, wrist-worn devices, or smartphone-based GPS tracking. Participants must also check in regularly with ATD contractors, either in person or by phone. Success of this program is measured by compliance with court appearances, ICE check-ins, and removal when ordered. Historically, ATD programs have reported compliance rates exceeding 90 percent.

The premise behind ICE’s ATD program is straightforward: not every immigrant needs to be confined to ensure compliance with immigration proceedings. Detention space can be reserved for people subject to mandatory detention, those who fail to meet reporting requirements, or those who pose a threat to public safety or national security.

In practice, however, ICE’s traditional ATD program does not function as a true alternative to detention. Instead, it often amounts to invasive monitoring for people who would not otherwise be detained, are likely to comply with the immigration process regardless, and do not warrant additional surveillance by the government.

Because ATD is already embedded in the enforcement system, meaningful reform could make it a practical alternative to long-term family detention. With the right structure and safeguards, families could be supervised in their communities while their cases are resolved. While ICE has historically contracted with for-profit entities to operate its ATD program, past programs prove that a reformed ATD could be run by non-profits or local governments.

What Alternatives to Family Detention Have Been Tried in the Past

There have been multiple efforts to reduce or replace family detention through Alternatives to Detention, but none became a lasting substitute. Each initiative showed that families can comply with immigration proceedings while living in the community, yet all were cut short by political shifts. Though temporary, these programs offer a roadmap for Congress to build something more durable.

Obama’s Family Case Management Program (FCMP): As the Obama administration confronted mounting criticism of large-scale family detention, ICE launched the FCMP in 2016 as an alternative. Rather than being detained, families were paired with intensive case management services. Participants received legal orientation, education about their rights and responsibilities, regular ICE check-ins, and referrals to community resources such as medical care and schooling. When families received final orders of removal, the program helped them return safely and plan for life back home. The theory was that people responded better to guidance and support than to detention.

Available data indicated that the vast majority of participants appeared for court hearings and ICE appointments, demonstrating that detention was not necessary to ensure compliance. But the program was administered by a private contractor that also operated detention facilities, raising concerns about conflicting incentives. The Trump administration terminated FCMP in 2017, before most families completed their cases, preventing meaningful long-term evaluation of its cost, scalability, or long-term effectiveness.

Congress’s Case Management Pilot Program (CMPP): During President Trump’s first term, Democrats in Congress sought to revive the family case management model, but ultimately funded a new initiative outside of ICE. CMPP was created to test how case management would work if administered by an office not directly responsible for immigration enforcement.

The program was housed within DHS’S Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) and implemented through grants to nonprofit organizations. It was designed to compare the effectiveness of case management with traditional ATDs. Some people were placed on the standard ICE monitoring, while others received community-based case management services through CRCL with no electronic monitoring. The goal was to measure compliance outcomes across models.

Because the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties had not previously operated a program of this scale, implementation was slow, and participants were not enrolled until well after Biden was in office. Just as the program began to gain traction, President Trump shut it down after returning to office. But data obtained through FOIA litigation by the Kennedy Human Rights Center showed that among the 2,099 individuals served, 98 percent showed up for their court hearings:

These programs show that case management works, and reaffirms existing data that the majority of immigrants comply with their immigration proceedings. Yet neither program ran long enough to become permanent, or to be truly tested over the life-cycle of an immigration case.

Biden’s Alternatives to Family Detention

ICE leadership under the Biden administration ultimately ended family detention, but the effort was gradual and never framed as a central White House priority. The administration focused on managing rising border crossings, and policy success was often measured primarily by border numbers rather than long-term compliance or case resolution.

The Dedicated Docket for Families: To accelerate adjudications, the administration created a dedicated docket intended to resolve family asylum cases within one year. If cases moved faster, families wouldn’t need prolonged detention or extended supervision, and those who did not qualify for relief could be removed before establishing deeper community ties.

Families on the dedicated docket were placed on ICE’s traditional ATD program. At the same time, ICE funded a new Family Group Legal Orientation Program through the Department of Justice to provide legal services to the families going through the process. Because funding flowed through ICE rather than the Department of Justice, attorneys could not provide individualized legal advice.

Court appearance rates for families on the dedicated docket were higher than for those outside it, but the program faced operational challenges. Because it relied on existing ATD infrastructure, it remained tied to private prison contractors and did not incorporate intensive case management designed specifically to increase compliance. Identifying families who were eligible for the docket was also difficult, and while some cases were resolved within a year, appeals often stretched far longer. ICE has never released comprehensive data on outcomes, making it hard to fully evaluate the program’s effectiveness. Still, one clear benefit was that families with children were able to stay in their communities, supported by relatives, neighbors, and service providers.

Young Adult Case Management Program (YAMCP): ICE also developed a program that paired young adults between the ages of 18 and 20 with case management services, did not include electronic monitoring, and required participants to check in at locations separate from ICE offices — spaces designed to be welcoming rather than intimidating. While ICE did not publish formal outcome data, the program appeared to successfully identify victims of trafficking and abuse and provided support to young people through the immigration process without detention.

During FY 2024, ICE enrolled 5,111 participants in YACMP, referred more than 9,135 participants to various social service organizations, and conducted 4,593 human trafficking screenings. Additionally, program operators referred 29 cases with indicators that these young adults were victims of possible human trafficking to Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) for additional investigation.

Despite promising signs, the program ended because of internal resistance within ICE and external pressure from private detention contractors. Even in its short run, it proved that community-based case management could provide meaningful support for vulnerable populations who may otherwise be sent to detention.

Family Expedited Removal Management (FERM): In the final years of the Biden administration the most significant program combined expedited asylum processing with community supervision. Under FERM, families who entered at the border and were processed for expedited removal, were placed into this program if they expressed a fear of returning to their home country. These families were released into the community on a traditional ICE ATD program. The head of household was placed on electronic monitoring, and the family traveled to their chosen location in the interior. There, they checked in with an ATD provider and attended credible fear interviews at a local USCIS office.

Under a Biden-era rule allowing asylum officers to issue final asylum determinations, some families received full asylum decisions within 60 days of arrival. Those who did not pass their credible fear interviews were held briefly, generally less than 72 hours in a hotel, before removal. FERM significantly shortened the time families spent in legal limbo while allowing them to remain in community settings rather than detention facilities. Even when the result was removal, many cases were resolved in weeks instead of months or years. In early data, there were more returns though FERM than with comparative family detention usage. However, FERM also had its flaws, as each case timeline was too compressed and curfews imposed on families were unnecessary.

Taken together, these efforts reveal a consistent pattern. Faster adjudications, targeted case management, and structured community supervision all reduced reliance on detention while maintaining compliance and enabling removal when appropriate. Unfortunately, due to Trump’s reelection and political resistance by private prison contractors, these efforts were all cut short. If lawmakers are serious about ending family detention, the lesson is not that these models failed. It is that reforms must be institutionalized and insulated from political swings if they are to replace family detention for good.

Recommended Legislative Fixes

Over the next few years, Congress can and should build a better system to manage families. There will still be points in the immigration process when brief custody is necessary, including initial processing after border apprehension, short-term custody before deportation flights, or time to complete paperwork and background checks. None of these situations, however, requires long-term family confinement to enforce immigration law. Here is how Congress can build alternatives without it:

1. Build a Real Alternative Case Management System for Families: Congress could create a robust case management and oversight program that both allows families to remain in the community while they go through immigration proceedings and coordinates their deportation if needed. A facilitated removal process can take into account things such as school year schedules and medical needs. The program could include access to counsel — ideally appointed counsel, or at minimum legal advice and friend-of-the-court support — to help families better assess their legal claims. This new system could be funded by reallocated OBBA funds, and would be significantly cheaper than family detention facilities. To reduce reliance on private prison contractors, this new system could be run by states and localities, or even non-profits. This model should have built-in community participation and give citizens and localities the ability to work directly with families who may eventually settle in the United States.

2. Allow Flexibility in Programs: For families who have support in the US or where case management may not be a good fit, Congress could also create ways to pay bonds, sureties, or allow U.S. citizens to sponsor people and ensure their compliance. Sponsors could include individuals, organizations, or religious institutions to vouch for families and assist them with compliance.

3. Codify the Asylum Officer Rule and Give Families a Non-Adversarial Adjudication of their Asylum Claim: To expedite the asylum process, Congress should legislate and improve the Biden-era rule that allows an asylum officer, rather than an immigration judge, to fully adjudicate an asylum case. This would allow for a faster non-adversarial process and prevent families from being forced to wait years for their cases to be heard, establishing ties in communities and making removal more difficult.

4. Continue Assisted Return with Financial Incentives and Reintegration Support: The Trump administration’s offer to pay $2,500 to families who choose to return is not inherently a bad thing for families who have no legal basis to remain in the country. This program could be strengthened to ensure it is not coercive, that families receive their compensation, and that families have supportive reception upon arrival in their home country and possible reintegration assistance if they choose to leave voluntarily.

5. Create Family Campuses for Newly Arrived Asylum Seekers: For families who just arrived and crossed the border illegally, Congress should create asylum reception centers that allow for dignity, due process, and expedited review of protection claims. These reception centers could be designed as smaller apartment style facilities where families can work on their legal case, have autonomy in their daily lives, and ensure their children have freedom of movement. All new facilities, standards, and staff should be assessed through a child welfare lens and the detention of children should never be used as a punishment or deterrent.

6. Create a Federal Housing Plan for Migration Emergencies: The United States has always faced migration emergencies, but each time, it reinvents a process to resettle immigrants quickly, typically generating intense political backlash. For example, rather than addressing the realities of the Venezuelan refugee crisis, the Biden administration allowed Venezuelans to be bussed into cities by hostile State governors and created a major housing challenge in cities like New York, Denver, and Chicago. But the Biden administration also showed that another way was possible. When over 70,000 Afghans were evacuated to the United States, the federal government provided temporary emergency housing, including for families, on military bases and in hotels. This gave families critical transition housing without burdening local communities. Congress needs to create emergency powers to allow DHS to use federal resources for emergency housing when necessary, and ensure that local communities are economically reimbursed or can benefit financially if DHS needs to scale up federal housing options foreign policy or national security reasons.