The Evidence
What the 99% really means
The often-cited 99% figure is real, but it comes from specific, well-resourced programs. Here is all of it, including the parts that cut against us.
| Program | Result | Caveat |
|---|---|---|
| Family Case Management Program (FCMP), 2016–17 | 100% court attendance, 99% compliance with ICE check-ins and appointments (ICE-reported, as of Mar. 30, 2017); 23 of 954 (2%) absconded[33] | Vulnerable families; most still in proceedings when the program ended in June 2017, so the evaluation is limited[32] |
| ISAP II “full-service,” FY2011–13 (GAO) | 99% appeared at court hearings; 95% at final removal hearings[32] | No comparable data for technology-only participants (39% of 2013 enrollees) |
| Non-detained immigrants, FY2008–18 | 83% attended all hearings; 96% of those with lawyers[34] | General population |
| ATD at scale today | Absconder rate 16.2% (FY2021), 8.1% (FY2022), 12.8% (FY2023)[3] | GAO found ICE’s measures incomplete; most of its ten recommendations still open in mid-2026[35] |
Bottom line. Intensive, service-rich case management with legal orientation has produced court-appearance rates of 99% or higher in documented programs. Lighter, technology-only supervision at very large scale has lower and less well-measured compliance. ISAE must be built around what produced the high rates: a real case manager, access to counsel, and stabilizing services. Enhanced case management is already capped at 40 participants per case specialist,[3] and claims that one agent can handle “hundreds” of cases could not be verified. Caseload capacity is something to measure in the pilot, not assume.