Department of Homeland Security
Office of Inspector General

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 


OIG-10-63

March 2010

Office of Inspector General

U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Washington, DC 20528

Homeland
Security
MAR - 4 2010
Preface
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) was
established by the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296) by amendment
to the Inspector General Act of 1978. This is one of a series of audit, inspection, and
special reports prepared as part of our oversight responsibilities to promote economy,
efficiency, and effectiveness within the department.
This report addresses the performance of 287 (g) agreements between Immigration and
Customs Enforcement and state and local law enforcement agencies. It is based on
interviews with employees and officials of relevant agencies and institutions, direct
observations, and a review of applicable documents.
The recommendations herein have been developed to the best knowledge available to our
office, and have been discussed in draft with those responsible for implementation. We
trust this report will result in more effective, efficient, and economical operations. We
express our appreciation to all of those who contributed to the preparation of this report.

~~o(.~
Richard L. Skinner
Inspector General

Table of Contents/Abbreviations 

Executive Summary .............................................................................................................1
 

Background ..........................................................................................................................2
 

Results of Review ................................................................................................................5
 

Overview of the 287(g) Program ...................................................................................5 

ICE and LEAs Have Not Complied With All Terms of 287(g) Agreements ................7 

287(g) Performance Measures Do Not Align With Program Objectives ......................8 

Recommendations....................................................................................................9 

ICE Needs to Establish Guidance for Supervising 287(g) Officers and Activities .....10 

Field Office Staffing Plans Need to Incorporate 287(g) Supervisory 

Responsibilities ......................................................................................................10 

Recommendations............................................................................................11 

ICE Needs to Ensure Consistency in 287(g) Supervision .....................................12 

Recommendation .............................................................................................13 

ICE Needs to Enhance 287(g) Program Oversight ......................................................14 

A Comprehensive Review Process Is Needed to Assess Ongoing 287(g) 

Agreements ............................................................................................................14 

Recommendations............................................................................................15 

Steering Committees Have Not Been Used to Assess Immigration Enforcement 

Activities ......................................................................................................................15

Recommendation .............................................................................................16 

Suitability Reviews Have Not Been Performed Consistently................................16 

Recommendation .............................................................................................18 

Guidelines for Handling Complaints and Allegations Against 287(g) Officers 

Need To Be Developed..........................................................................................18 

Recommendations............................................................................................19 

ICE Needs to Ensure Proper Guidance and Supervision for Variations

Within the Jail Enforcement and Task Force Program Models.............................19 

Recommendation .............................................................................................21 

More Frequent Inspections of 287(g) Program Sites Could Improve Overall 

Program Operations ...............................................................................................21 

Recommendation .............................................................................................22 


Table of Contents/Abbreviations 

Application Review and Selection Process Needs to Be Enhanced ............................22 

Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Considerations Are Not Consistently 

Weighed in the 287(g) Application Review and Selection Process ......................22 

Recommendations............................................................................................24 

Data from ICE Field Offices Need to Be Fully Evaluated During the 287(g) 

Application Review and Selection Process............................................................24 

Recommendation .............................................................................................25 

ICE Needs to Establish 287(g) Data Collection and Reporting Requirements to
Address Civil Rights Issues .........................................................................................25 

Recommendation ...................................................................................................27 

287(g) Training Does Not Fully Prepare Officers for Immigration Enforcement
Duties ...........................................................................................................................27
 

287(g) Basic Training Does Not Satisfy MOA Requirements ..............................27 

Recommendations............................................................................................29 

Hands-On Training in Immigration Systems and Processing Needs to Be 

Increased ................................................................................................................30 

Recommendation .............................................................................................31 

Knowledge of Immigration Benefits and Protections Needs to Be Reinforced ....31 

Recommendation .............................................................................................32 

287(g) Officers Did Not Consistently Complete Refresher Training....................32 

Recommendation .............................................................................................33 

The Use of Interpreters Is Inconsistent ..................................................................33 

Recommendations............................................................................................34 

ICE Needs to Increase the Availability and Accuracy of 287(g) Program

Information ..................................................................................................................34

There Are Barriers to Obtaining 287(g) Program Information..............................35 

Recommendations............................................................................................36 

ICE Needs to Improve the Accuracy of 287(g) Program Information 

Provided to the Public............................................................................................36 

Recommendation .............................................................................................37 

Inadequate Information Is Available on the Complaint Process ...........................38 

Recommendations............................................................................................38 


Table of Contents/Abbreviations 

287(g) Program Information and Training for LEA Supervisors Can 

Improve the Operating Environment .....................................................................39 

Recommendation .............................................................................................40 

287(g) Officers Need More Consistent Access to DHS Information Systems............40 

Recommendation ...................................................................................................42 

Additional Issues Identified .........................................................................................42 

ICE Has Used Unauthorized Detention Facilities to Detain Aliens Identified 

Through the 287(g) Program .................................................................................43 

Recommendation .............................................................................................43 

ICE Vehicles Have Been Underutilized ................................................................44 

Recommendation .............................................................................................44 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis ......................................................................45 


Table

Table 1: 287(g) Program Funding.................................................................................4 

Table 2: 287(g) Encounters and Removals...................................................................6 

Table 3: Jurisdictions Participating in the 287(g) Program ........................................83 


Appendices
 

Appendix A:
Appendix B:
Appendix C:
Appendix D:
Appendix E:
Appendix F:
Appendix G:

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology.......................................................62 

Management Comments to the Draft Report .......................................64 

287(g) Application and Approval Process...........................................77 

ICE ACCESS Programs.......................................................................79 

287(g) Program Jurisdictions...............................................................83 

Major Contributors to This Report ......................................................86 

Report Distribution ..............................................................................87 


Table of Contents/Abbreviations 

Abbreviations
ACCESS
CIS
CLAIMS
DHS
DOJ
DRO
ENFORCE
GAO
ICE
IDENT
IEA
IGSA
IT
JEO
LEA
LESC
MOA
NFTS
NGO
OCIO
OI
OIG
OPR
OSLC
REPAT
TFO
U.S.C.

Agreements of Cooperation in Communities to Enhance Safety and
Security
Central Index System
Computer Linked Application Information Management System
Department of Homeland Security
Department of Justice
Office of Detention and Removal Operations
Enforcement Case Tracking System
Government Accountability Office
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Automated Biometric Identification System
immigration enforcement agent
Inter-Governmental Service Agreement
information technology
jail enforcement officer
law enforcement agency
Law Enforcement Services Center
Memorandum of Agreement
National File Tracking System
nongovernmental organization
Office of the Chief Information Officer
Office of Investigations
Office of Inspector General
Office of Professional Responsibility
Office of State and Local Coordination
Removal of Eligible Parolees Accepted for Transfer
task force officer
United States Code

OIG
 

Department of Homeland Security
Office of Inspector General

Executive Summary
The Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and
Customs Enforcement delegates federal immigration enforcement
authorities to state and local law enforcement agencies through its
authority under section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act, as amended. The Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance,
and Continuing Appropriations Act of 2009, and accompanying
House Report 110-862, require that we report on the performance
of 287(g) agreements with state and local authorities.
287(g) agreements set general parameters for program activities and
establish a process for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to
supervise and manage program activity. Pursuant to Memoranda of
Agreement with state and local law enforcement agencies,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement permits designated officers
to perform certain immigration enforcement functions.
We observed instances in which Immigration and Customs
Enforcement and participating law enforcement agencies were not
operating in compliance with the terms of the agreements. We also
noted several areas in which Immigration and Customs Enforcement
had not instituted controls to promote effective program operations
and address related risks. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
needs to (1) establish appropriate performance measures and targets
to determine whether program results are aligned with program
goals; (2) develop guidance for supervising 287(g) officers and
activities; (3) enhance overall 287(g) program oversight; (4)
strengthen the review and selection process for law enforcement
agencies requesting to participate in the program; (5) establish data
collection and reporting requirements to address civil rights and civil
liberties concerns; (6) improve 287(g) training programs; (7)
increase access to and accuracy of 287(g) program information
provided to the public; and (8) standardize 287(g) officers’ access to
Department of Homeland Security information systems.
We are making 33 recommendations for Immigration and Customs
Enforcement to strengthen management controls and improve its
oversight of 287(g). Immigration and Customs Enforcement
concurred with 32 of the recommendations.

Background
In September 1996, Congress authorized the executive branch to
delegate immigration enforcement authorities to state and local
government agencies. The Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 19961 added section 287(g) to the
Immigration and Nationality Act.2 Under Section 287(g), the
Secretary of Homeland Security is authorized to enter into
agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies for the
purpose of delegating immigration enforcement functions to select
officers.3 The law requires that this delegation of immigration
enforcement authorities be executed through formal, written
agreements.
The federal government did not enter into any 287(g) agreements
with state or local jurisdictions until 2002. Over the next 4 years,
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) delegated
immigration enforcement authorities to six jurisdictions. After
2006, however, increased interest in interior immigration
enforcement at the state and local levels and more dedicated
funding for federal 287(g) program efforts brought substantial
growth to the program. As of June 2009, DHS had 66 active
agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies (LEA)
in 23 states, and 833 active 287(g) officers.
The agreements are executed in the form of a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) between the Assistant Secretary for
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the participating
agency’s authorized representative. 287(g) agreements authorize
participating officers to exercise a range of immigration
enforcement functions that differ in terms of the program’s model
and function. The MOAs define the scope and limitations of the
authority to be designated to the LEA.
MOAs identify 287(g) personnel eligibility standards, training
requirements, and complaint-reporting procedures. The MOAs
require state and local participants to enter program data into ICE
information systems, and abide by federal civil rights statutes and
regulations, including Department of Justice (DOJ) “Guidance
Regarding the Use of Race by Federal Law Enforcement
1

P.L. 104-208, sec. 133, Sept. 30, 1996. 

Codified at 8 U.S.C. 1357(g). 

3
The text of 8 U.S.C. 1357(g) specifically names the Attorney General, rather than the Secretary of 

Homeland Security, as having this authority. However, this and other immigration enforcement functions
 

of the Immigration and Naturalization Service were transferred to the Department of Homeland Security 

under the Homeland Security Act of 2002. (6 U.S.C. 251.)
 

2

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 2

Agencies.” The agreements permit LEAs to perform immigration
enforcement activities only under ICE supervision, and allow ICE
to suspend or revoke participating officers’ authority at any time.
MOAs also indicate which of two ICE program models the
jurisdiction is to use. ICE authorizes participating jurisdictions to
employ a jail enforcement model, task force model, or a
combination of the two.
�	 Jail Enforcement Model. Under this model, 287(g) officers
working in state and local detention facilities identify and
process removable aliens who have been charged with or
convicted of an offense. ICE refers to 287(g) officers
operating in these settings as jail enforcement officers (JEO).
JEOs generally work under the supervision of ICE Office of
Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) personnel.
�	 Task Force Model. Under this model, 287(g) officers
identify and process removable aliens in community
settings. They do so during their regular duties as patrol
officers, detectives, or criminal investigators; or in close
coordination with ICE in task force settings. ICE refers to
these 287(g) officers as task force officers (TFO). TFOs
work under the supervision of ICE Office of Investigations
(OI) personnel.
287(g) officers are authorized to question aliens as to their
immigration status and removability, serve warrants for
immigration violations, and issue immigration detainers for state
and local detention facilities to hold aliens for a short time after
completing their sentence. 287(g) officers prepare charging
documents for ICE agents’ signature that are used in immigration
courts, processing aliens for removal, and transporting aliens to
ICE detention facilities. Many are also authorized to arrest aliens
attempting to unlawfully enter the United States, as well as aliens
already unlawfully present.
In July 2009, ICE released a new template for 287(g) agreements
to replace existing agreements. ICE announced that only
jurisdictions with newly signed agreements would be permitted to
continue enforcing federal immigration laws, and provided 90 days
for participating LEAs to sign a new agreement based on this
template. As of October 2009, ICE had signed agreements with 61
LEAs based on the revised MOA template. ICE had agreed in
principle with 6 other LEAs on the terms of the new MOA

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 3

template, but the MOAs for these LEAs were still pending final
approval by a local governing body.4
As shown in table 1, funding for the 287(g) program has increased
significantly on an annual basis since FY 2006, when $5 million
was allocated for ICE to facilitate agreements, to $54.1 million in
FY 2009.
Table 1. Allocated 287(g) Program Funding

Fiscal
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

Funding
in millions

Percentage
Change

$5.0
$14.4
$42.1
$54.1
$68.0

188%
192%
29%
26%

Source: ICE Office of State and Local Coordination.

ICE does not provide direct funding to participating jurisdictions,
although it does provide financing for officer supervision
activities, training, and related expenses, as well as information
technology (IT) equipment and services. Participating LEAs are
responsible for salaries and benefits of their personnel performing
immigration-related functions under the agreement. The LEAs are
also responsible for travel costs, housing, and per diem associated
with required training for participation in the program. ICE does,
however, reimburse some jurisdictions for housing aliens in ICE
custody at their facilities under separately negotiated InterGovernmental Service Agreements.
Within DHS, management and oversight of the 287(g) program
was initially provided by ICE OI. In December 2007, ICE
transferred these responsibilities to the newly formed Office of
State and Local Coordination (OSLC). In addition to setting
program policy and providing oversight, OSLC oversees budget,
asset management, and procurement services for the 287(g)
program. OSLC coordinates with the ICE Office of Training and
Development to design and deliver the 287(g) training program.
OSLC also facilitates other ICE operations with state and local
LEAs (see appendix D).
OSLC was initially staffed by eight detailed employees. OSLC
was authorized to hire eight employees in FY 2009, and requested
4

Refer to appendix E for a list of participating jurisdictions.
The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 4

funding for an additional 21 for FY 2010. As of June 2009, OSLC
had five full-time employees, 12 detailed staff members, and nine
contractors.
OI and DRO field offices provide day-to-day supervision and
support for 287(g) officers. The ICE Office of the Chief
Information Officer (OCIO) furnishes and installs IT equipment,
and provides technical support for 287(g) officers’ DHS system
access needs.

Results of Review
Overview of the 287(g) Program
A primary objective of the 287(g) program is to enhance the safety and
security of participating communities. Our review identified several
aspects of the 287(g) program that are working to achieve program
objectives, as well as challenges that may reduce its effectiveness.
Benefits of the 287(g) Program
DHS officials describe the 287(g) program as a force multiplier for
ICE. According to ICE OI agents, 287(g) officers provide
assistance such as following up on leads and performing
investigative research and surveillance. DRO staff acknowledged
the positive effect that 287(g) officers have had on their workload by
identifying removable aliens, conducting interviews to determine
alien status and removability, preparing charging documents, and
entering alien information into ICE information systems. Assistance
from 287(g) officers gives ICE greater flexibility in directing its
immigration law enforcement resources and functions.
Immigration enforcement efforts under the 287(g) program
account for a significant portion of nationwide ICE removal
activity. 287(g) officers identified 33,831 aliens who were
removed from the United States by ICE in FY 2008, which
represents 9.5% of all ICE removals during that fiscal year. In
addition, the cross-designation of state and local patrol officers,
detectives, investigators, and correctional officers working in
conjunction with ICE allows local and state officers more latitude
to investigate violent crimes, human smuggling, gang and
organized crime activity, sexually related offenses, narcotics
smuggling, and money laundering.

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 5

Table 2. 287(g) Encounters and Removals
2006

2007

2008

2009

Total

6,224

24,400

49,847

62,714

143,185

Fugitive Aliens (Absconders)

3

112

750

1,816

2,681

Previously Removed from US

482

3,547

6,433

7,952

18,414

Individuals Identified for Removal

Source: ICE Office of State and Local Coordination.

By using state and local LEA personnel to perform immigration
enforcement functions, the federal government reduces its costs for
these efforts. ICE is responsible for providing supervision,
training, computer equipment, and its installation and support
costs. Participating LEAs are responsible for all other expenses,
including 287(g) officer salaries and benefits. Entry-level ICE
special agents and immigration enforcement agents (IEA) cost
approximately $269,784 and $137,666, respectively, during the
first year of service.5 In contrast, participating 287(g) officers who
perform similar functions cost ICE $20,252 during their first year
of service.6 As such, ICE has increased the number of officers
participating in federal immigration enforcement efforts. As of
July 2009, 833 active LEA officers were participating in the 287(g)
program, which represents a 4% increase in the size of ICE’s
workforce
Challenges for the 287(g) Program
The most extensive immigration enforcement role for state and
local law enforcement agencies occurs as part of the 287(g)
program. Through the program, state and local LEAs assume
federal immigration enforcement powers. As such, the 287(g)
program often assumes a high profile in communities in which it
operates, and is one of DHS’ most visible and scrutinized
programs at the state and local levels.
ICE has taken measures to address related challenges and improve
overall program management in FY 2009. These include preparing
a draft OSLC strategic plan to identify key program tools,
processes, and stakeholders, and align goals and objectives with
DHS goals; communicating its immigration enforcement priorities
5

Average first-year costs for ICE special agents and IEAs include salary, benefits, travel, recruitment, 

screening, training, office supplies and equipment, vehicles, weapons, operations and maintenance 

expenses, uniforms, and furniture. 

6
Average first-year costs for 287(g) officers include training and training related expenses, as well as IT
 

equipment, equipment installation, and support.
 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 6

to 287(g) program sites; setting a three-tier priority framework for
arresting and detaining aliens identified through the program; and,
developing standardized 287(g) agreements with partner
jurisdictions. These measures represent positive steps in
establishing a more effective program; however, significant
challenges in administering the 287(g) program continue to exist.
In delegating federal immigration enforcement authorities to state
and local LEAs, ICE maintains responsibility for ensuring that
local law enforcement officers function under the supervision of
ICE officers. In addition, ICE must provide 287(g) officers with
appropriate training on the complexities of immigration law and
practice. The challenge for ICE is to balance its need for
additional resources with efforts to ensure that these activities are
conducted in accordance with the MOAs. In addition, ICE must
ensure that its 287(g) efforts achieve a balance among immigration
enforcement, local public safety priorities, and civil liberties.

ICE and LEAs Have Not Complied With All Terms of 287(g)
Agreements
MOAs constitute the written agreement between ICE and the LEA to
allow qualified personnel to perform certain functions of an immigration
officer. However, 287(g) MOAs primarily consist of broad-ranging terms
and conditions for ICE’s delegation of immigration enforcement
authorities, with a limited number of specific requirements that direct dayto-day 287(g) operations.
For areas of the MOA that provide specific guidance and requirements, we
observed instances where 287(g) program practices were not in
compliance with the MOA.
�	 Prior to July 2009, MOAs required ICE field offices and LEAs to
establish steering committees to meet periodically to review and
assess the immigration enforcement activities conducted by the
participating personnel and to ensure compliance with MOAs.
However, only one of the seven jurisdictions we visited had
established a steering committee that met on a regular basis.
�	 MOAs indicate whether jurisdictions are authorized to perform
immigration functions in community-based task force settings, jail
enforcement settings, or both. The MOAs between ICE and four
of the jurisdictions we visited indicated that 287(g) authority was
to be used in a task force setting only; however, each of these
jurisdictions had also used 287(g) authorities in jail settings.
The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 7

�	 MOAs indicate that ICE will train 287(g) officers on the terms and
limitations of the MOA and on public outreach and complaint
procedures. However, 287(g) officers informed us that ICE
instructors have not consistently delivered training on these topics
during their basic training course.
These three issues are addressed in more detail in our report, along with
other areas in which ICE needs to provide increased guidance and
direction to promote more effective and efficient 287(g) program
operations.

287(g) Performance Measures Do Not Align With Program
Objectives
Developing good performance measures is critical to ensure that programs
are getting desired results. According to the Program Assessment Rating
Tool used to achieve the goals of the Government Performance and
Results Act, performance measurement indicates what a program is
accomplishing and whether results are being achieved. It also provides
managers with information on how resources and efforts should be
allocated to ensure effectiveness and keep program partners focused on
key program goals. Performance measures should be outcome oriented,
relate to the overall program purpose, and have ambitious targets.
According to ICE’s July 2009 MOA template, the purpose of
collaborations between ICE and LEAs is to identify and process for
removal criminal aliens who pose a threat to public safety or a danger to
the community. ICE’s primary performance measure for the 287(g)
program is the number of aliens encountered by 287(g) officers. ICE also
collects information on the number of aliens identified through the 287(g)
program who are subsequently removed by ICE. However, with
performance measures that do not focus on aliens who pose a threat to
public safety or are a danger to the community, there is reduced assurance
that the goal of the 287(g) program is being met.
ICE has developed a risk-based approach to ensure that program resources
are allocated to identify and determine the immigration status of aliens
arrested for crimes that pose the greatest risk to the public. To this end,
ICE has identified categories of aliens that are a priority for arrest and
detention, with the highest being Level 1 aliens. This category consists of
those who have been convicted of or arrested for major drug offenses or
violent offenses such as murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, and
kidnapping. Level 2 aliens are those who have been convicted of or
arrested for minor drug offenses or property offenses such as burglary,
larceny, fraud, and money laundering. Level 3 includes aliens who have
The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 8

been convicted of or arrested for other offenses. 287(g) resources are to
be prioritized according to these levels. However, although ICE has
developed priorities for alien arrest and detention efforts, it has not
established a process to ensure that the emphasis of 287(g) efforts is
placed on aliens that fall within the highest priority level.
We obtained arrest information for a sample of 280 aliens identified
through the 287(g) program at four program sites we visited. Based on the
arresting offense, 263, or 94%, were within one of the three priority levels;
however, only 26, or 9%, were within Level 1, and 122, or 44%, were
within Level 2. These results do not show that 287(g) resources have been
focused on aliens who pose the greatest risk to the public.
ICE performance measures do not account for task force officer
investigations, prosecutions, or convictions. Information on task force
officers’ investigative work and subsequent criminal prosecutions is
maintained in TECS, the system ICE uses to track its investigations.
However, ICE has not established any TECS reporting requirements for
the program or used TECS information in any 287(g) program
performance measures.
With no specific target levels for arrest, detention, and removal priority
levels, and with performance measures that do not account for all
investigative work and criminal prosecutions, ICE cannot be assured that
the 287(g) program is meeting its intended purpose, or that resources are
being appropriately targeted toward aliens who pose the greatest risk to
public safety and the community.

Recommendations
We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and
Customs Enforcement:
Recommendation #1: Establish a process to collect and maintain
arrest, detention, and removal data for aliens in each priority level
for use in determining the success of ICE’s focus on aliens who
pose the greatest risk to public safety and the community.
Recommendation #2: Develop procedures to ensure that 287(g)
resources are allocated according to ICE’s priority framework.
Recommendation #3: Establish and implement TECS data entry
requirements that reflect investigative efforts and related
prosecutions associated with the 287(g) program.

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 9

ICE Needs to Establish Guidance for Supervising 287(g) Officers
and Activities
The Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) “Standards for Internal
Control in the Federal Government” emphasize the need for good human
capital policies and practices, including proper supervision. 287(g)
agreements specify that ICE personnel will supervise and direct
immigration enforcement activities conducted by LEA officers. However,
we observed inconsistencies in the level and type of supervision over 287(g)
program officers and related activities in participating jurisdictions. This
inconsistency could jeopardize the integrity of the 287(g) program and its
ability to perform immigration enforcement activities appropriately.
Field Office Staffing Plans Need to Incorporate 287(g)
Supervisory Responsibilities
ICE field offices are responsible for supervising and directing
287(g) program activities, as well as ongoing activities in other
ICE-directed programs. ICE has developed field office staffing
plans for DRO and OI that reflect desired supervisory staffing
ratios. However, the number of 287(g) officers supervised is not
considered in field office staffing templates.
ICE field office staffing templates establish a maximum employeeto-supervisor ratio of nine to one. The templates were developed
for ICE supervisors to ensure adequate supervision and support of
ICE employees. A similar staffing template that excludes
administrative tasks should be designed to account for the added
responsibilities that ICE field offices undertake in supervising
287(g) officers.
ICE supervisors with additional responsibility for 287(g) officers
often maintained actual staffing levels in excess of staffing
template recommendations. At one site we visited, an ICE
supervisor was responsible for three ICE employees and nineteen
287(g) officers. At another location, an ICE supervisor was
responsible for two ICE employees and eighty 287(g) officers.
In several locations, ICE supervisors are responsible for providing
oversight for both 287(g) activities and other ICE programs. For
example, in DRO field offices with the Criminal Alien Program or
Secure Communities, many of the supervisors overseeing these
programs also supervise 287(g) program activities as a collateral
duty.

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 10

ICE managers in three field offices advised us that imbalances in
supervisory staffing ratios can be attributed, in part, to 287(g)
agreements being approved without field office requests for
additional supervisory staff being filled.
ICE supervisors have frequently delegated day-to-day direction of
287(g) program activities to nonsupervisory ICE subordinates. At
six of the seven sites we visited, we identified 287(g) officers who
received guidance from nonsupervisory special agents and IEAs.
These ICE agents said that they did not receive recognition, pay, or
training for these additional duties.
287(g) officers advised us that nonsupervisory ICE personnel who
provide day-to-day guidance did not have the technical knowledge
to serve in this capacity. 287(g) officers indicated that they
received contradictory guidance from different ICE personnel, and
were not able to obtain definitive instructions. They explained that
this situation has resulted in uncertainties about the quality of their
work and has hampered their productivity.
ICE’s approach to 287(g) supervisory staffing has not consistently
resulted in effective program supervision. To ensure that 287(g)
activities are carried out in accordance with the MOA and other
applicable guidance, ICE needs to implement a structure that
ensures sufficient supervision of all 287(g) officers and related
immigration enforcement activities. This issue should be
addressed prior to any expansion of the 287(g) program.

Recommendations
We recommend the Assistant Secretary for Immigrations and
Customs Enforcement:
Recommendation #4: Establish a process to ensure effective
supervision of 287(g) officers and immigration enforcement
operations.
Recommendation #5: Develop controls to ensure that supervisory
responsibilities for 287(g) supervisors are considered when
determining staffing ratios in ICE field offices.
Recommendation #6: Ensure that 287(g) supervision is provided
by authorized staff with the appropriate knowledge, skills, and
abilities.

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 11

ICE Needs to Ensure Consistency in 287(g) Supervision
We identified a pattern of inconsistencies in ICE supervisory
practices regarding (1) the frequency and type of contact between
287(g) officers and ICE agents, (2) ICE participation and oversight
responsibilities in community-based federal immigration
enforcement operations, and (3) feedback on the performance of
287(g) officers.
Communications Between ICE Supervisors and 287(g) Officers
Communications between ICE supervisors and 287(g) officers
varied widely. We noted levels of communication between ICE
supervisors and agents and 287(g) officers that ranged from daily
interaction to no contact at all. At some locations, ICE supervisors
and agents interact daily with 287(g) officers. At one location,
however, ICE agents responsible for supervising the 287(g)
program acknowledged that they had no direct contact with dozens
of 287(g) officers within their jurisdiction.
ICE agents who are co-located with the 287(g) officers they
supervise have frequent face-to-face contact. ICE agents who
supervise 287(g) operations from offsite locations rely on
telephonic and electronic communications to provide guidance to
officers. ICE agents from one field office reported visiting a
remote program site they are responsible for only once a month,
and said that they focus on reviewing 287(g) officer data entries to
determine whether additional guidance is needed.
Community-Based Immigration Enforcement Operations
Variations in supervisory approaches are also evident in ICE
agents’ participation in 287(g) community-based immigration
enforcement operations. At some locations, ICE agents were
present for all TFO activities that could result in an arrest.
However, at other locations, ICE agents were rarely present when
TFOs arrested suspected aliens under 287(g) authority.
In some locations, ICE supervisors required TFOs to prepare
operational plans for field activities and submit them to ICE for
review and approval prior to implementation. At another program
site, ICE did not require TFOs to provide operational plans even
for large-scale undertakings; however, LEA representatives at this
location provided ICE with operational plans as a courtesy.

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 12

Because 287(g) officers also enforce state and local laws, ICE
supervisors must decide when it is necessary to supervise their
activities. For example, one LEA advised ICE that its crime sweep
operations were predicated under state law. Therefore, ICE agents
decided that they did not need to be present for these operations or
approve related operational plans. However, our review of data on
nine crime sweeps conducted by this LEA showed that more than
half of the arrests during two sweeps were based strictly on federal
immigration violations. In addition, more than half the arrests for
all nine crime sweep operations resulted in federal immigration
charges.
To date, ICE has not issued guidance clarifying field office
responsibilities concerning their participation in LEA field
operations or approval of operational plans for immigration
enforcement activities.
Supervisory Feedback on 287(g) Officer Performance
ICE supervisory practices related to 287(g) officer performance
feedback also varied among sites. ICE agents at some locations
provided formal feedback for LEA supervisors to use in preparing
overall performance appraisals for 287(g) officers. In other
locations, ICE agents provided performance feedback to 287(g)
officers’ LEA supervisors informally. This feedback is almost
always oral. At one site, ICE agents provided oral performance
feedback directly to 287(g) officers, but not to their LEA
supervisors.
In the absence of consistent supervision over immigration
enforcement activities performed by 287(g) jurisdictions, there is
no assurance that the program is achieving program goals and
operating in accordance with the MOA and other guidance.

Recommendation
We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and
Customs Enforcement:
Recommendation #7: Develop and implement 287(g) field
supervision guidance that includes, at a minimum (1) the frequency
and type of contact required between 287(g) officers and ICE
supervisors; (2) the preparation, review, and approval of operational
plans for community-based immigration enforcement activities; and
(3) performance feedback requirements for 287(g) officers.

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 13

ICE Needs to Enhance 287(g) Program Oversight
According to MOAs in place at the time of our fieldwork, ICE could
provide program oversight through several methods, including conducting
assessments of current MOAs and establishing local steering committees
that review and assess immigration enforcement activities conducted by
local LEAs. However, ICE has not used these methods effectively to
enhance oversight of 287(g) operations and activities. As a result, ICE has
limited its ability to ensure that local jurisdictions are conducting 287(g)
activities as intended.
A Comprehensive Review Process Is Needed to Assess Ongoing
287(g) Agreements
MOAs include language that allows either ICE or participating
LEAs to terminate agreements at any time. However, ICE had not
established a comprehensive process for assessing, modifying, and
terminating current agreements.
The MOAs between ICE and four of the jurisdictions we visited
indicated that 287(g) authority was to be used in a task force
setting only. However, each of these jurisdictions had also used
287(g) authorities in jail settings for several years. In one of these
locations, both ICE and LEA managers were aware of this
discrepancy; however, ICE had not modified the MOA to reflect
the program activity in effect, or required the LEA to amend its
program to comply with the MOA. As of June 2009, ICE had
terminated one agreement in response to a request from the
participating LEA.
The new MOA template ICE issued in July 2009 includes a
requirement for ICE and the participating LEAs to review their
agreements after 3 years to determine the need for modification,
extension, or termination. During our fieldwork, ICE began
preparing a draft directive for conducting these reviews. The draft
includes a process for OSLC to determine the cost-effectiveness of
the program and whether it continues to be in the best interest of
ICE. However, it does not include the specific types of
information that ICE should consider as part of this process.
Key aspects related to an LEA’s 287(g) operation that are not
included in the draft directive for reviewing MOAs include
(1) current or previous concerns expressed by field office staff or
by other DHS offices with relevant information about a particular
jurisdiction; (2) media attention or community concerns that
contribute to adverse conclusions about the 287(g) program; (3)
The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 14

lawsuits or complaints; (4) potential civil rights and civil liberties
violations; and (5) ICE’s ability to provide effective supervision
and oversight. These areas should be assessed as situations
warrant. Such reviews could occur outside the 3-year review cycle
outlined in the MOA template.

Recommendation
We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and
Customs Enforcement:
Recommendation #8: Establish and implement a comprehensive
process for conducting periodic reviews, as well as reviews on an
as-needed basis, to determine whether to modify, extend, or
terminate 287(g) agreements. At a minimum, this process should
include an assessment of (1) current or previous concerns
expressed by field office staff; (2) media attention or community
concerns that contribute to negative or inappropriate conclusions
about the 287(g) program; (3) lawsuits or complaints; (4) potential
civil rights and civil liberties violations; and (5) ICE’s ability to
provide effective supervision and oversight.
Steering Committees Have Not Been Used to Assess
Immigration Enforcement Activities
Prior to July 2009, MOAs between ICE and 287(g) LEAs required
a steering committee to review and assess immigration
enforcement activities, with a focus on ensuring compliance with
MOAs. However, few program sites have established steering
committees. Only one of the seven jurisdictions we visited had a
steering committee that met on a regular basis. ICE’s Office of
Professional Responsibility (OPR) identified only one active
steering committee at eight other program sites in its reports of
inspections conducted from May 2008 to March 2009.
At a minimum, committee membership was to include the heads of
the LEA and the ICE field office that supervises participating
officers. However, past MOAs did not specifically require
participation from community stakeholders or experts to provide
advice and guidance on the direction of the program. Several
community and nongovernmental organization (NGO)
representatives said that it would be valuable to have community
perspectives represented in these forums, and that external
stakeholder involvement would increase transparency and
accountability.

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 15

The revised MOA template released in July 2009 eliminated the
requirement for steering committees. ICE officials determined that
there was no need for formal committee meetings since LEA and
ICE representatives generally communicate on a regular basis to
address program issues.
Steering committees served as the sole oversight bodies described
in 287(g) agreements with a focus on ensuring compliance with the
MOAs at the local level. Steering committees should not be
narrowly viewed as a means to enhance ICE and LEA
communications, but as a way to (1) improve program oversight
and direction, (2) identify issues and concerns regarding
immigration enforcement activities, (3) increase transparency, and
(4) offer stakeholders opportunities to communicate communitylevel perspectives. By eliminating the requirement for steering
committees and not fostering participation by community
stakeholders, ICE reduces its ability to gain an independent
perspective on 287(g) operations.

Recommendation
We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and
Customs Enforcement:
Recommendation #9: Require 287(g) program sites to maintain
steering committees with external stakeholders, with a focus on
ensuring compliance with the MOA.
Suitability Reviews Have Not Been Performed Consistently
MOAs in effect at the time of our fieldwork required state and
local law enforcement officers nominated for the 287(g) program
to be able to qualify for appropriate federal security clearances.
ICE procedures require that all 287(g) officers be vetted before
they are authorized to perform immigration enforcement functions
or provided access to DHS systems. However, ICE had not
established a system to ensure that suitability reviews were
conducted for all 287(g) officers.
OPR may determine that a 287(g) officer candidate is unsuitable
based on an indication of misconduct or negligence in
employment, criminal or dishonest conduct, or intentional false
statements. Other findings that may warrant an unsuitable
determination include deception or fraud, refusal to furnish
testimony, alcohol abuse, use of illegal or controlled substances,
knowing or willful engagement in acts designed to overthrow the
The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 16

government, or any statutory or regulatory bar from accessing ICE
systems.
From the initiation of the 287(g) program through 2007, ICE OI
determined officers’ suitability for immigration enforcement
functions on an informal basis. ICE OI did not maintain records
documenting the process or outcome of 287(g) officers’ suitability
reviews.
In May 2007, when ICE OPR assumed responsibility from OI for
ensuring that suitability requirements were met, it was unable to
confirm the suitability status of 287(g) officers who were active at
that time. Therefore, an OPR representative reported to us that it
vetted all 287(g) officers again as a precaution to ensure their
suitability for performing federal immigration enforcement
activities. However, OPR did not have documentation that showed
it had vetted all 287(g) officers, even though ICE granted them
287(g) authorities and provided access to DHS information
systems.
OSLC maintains records and monitors 287(g) officers’ program
and training status. We reviewed OSLC and OPR records to
identify instances where suitability determinations had not been
performed for current or former 287(g) officers. We compared
OSLC training records to OPR records for 287(g) officers who had
received positive suitability determinations, and found that OSLC
records identified 57 officers for whom OPR had no record of a
suitability review. Of these, nine were active 287(g) officers. In
addition to these officers, OSLC records showed another officer as
active, even though OPR had not completed the officer’s suitability
review.
OCIO maintains records on 287(g) officers’ DHS information
system access and activity. We compared OCIO records to OPR
information to determine whether all 287(g) officers with access to
DHS information systems had undergone suitability reviews. One
287(g) officer had active DHS accounts even though OPR had
revoked his 287(g) officer status. Eight other 287(g) officers for
whom OPR had not completed a suitability review had access to
DHS systems. One of these 287(g) officers was actively using his
account.
ICE cannot ensure that 287(g) officers meet the appropriate
qualifications to perform immigration enforcement duties without
effective controls to ensure that officers are properly vetted. ICE’s
current vetting practices expose DHS information systems to
The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 17

increased risk of data integrity issues and inappropriate or
unauthorized access.

Recommendation
We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and
Customs Enforcement:
Recommendation #10: Establish a process to periodically cross­
check OPR, OSLC, and OCIO records to confirm 287(g) officers’
eligibility and suitability to exercise authorities granted under
287(g) MOAs.
Guidelines for Handling Complaints and Allegations Against
287(g) Officers Need to Be Developed
ICE field offices are responsible for monitoring all 287(g) officers
under their supervision to determine whether they have engaged in
conduct that would make them unsuitable to continue in a federal
immigration enforcement capacity. To assist in this effort, the July
2009 MOA template requires LEAs to immediately notify ICE of
any complaint or allegation filed against 287(g) personnel involving
(1) violations of the MOA or (2) any actions that might result in
employer discipline, a criminal investigation, or a civil lawsuit. In
addition, it requires LEAs to report complaints received regarding
non-287(g) personnel performing federal immigration functions.
However, ICE OPR agents and LEA internal investigation
representatives whom we interviewed were either not aware of this
requirement or did not have a clear understanding of their respective
roles in the process.
ICE can suspend or revoke an officer’s 287(g) authority if the
officer (1) performs immigration enforcement activities that are not
within the scope of the MOA or (2) uses immigration enforcement
authority in a way that could reflect negatively on ICE or create an
appearance of impropriety or a conflict of interest. LEA internal
investigations units are responsible for investigating related
allegations and information and reporting them to ICE field offices
and OPR. However, ICE has not provided guidance on how
information about allegations, complaints, and other indications of
misconduct should be reported, maintained, or used as part of the
suitability determination process. In addition, information
regarding complaints, allegations, or the results of LEA
investigations is not used as part of the recertification process.

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 18

At the time of our fieldwork, ICE did not retain information
regarding allegations and investigations of 287(g) personnel or
non-287(g) personnel exercising federal immigration authorities in
violation of MOAs. Such data should be maintained and used as
part of a continuing process to ensure adequate oversight of
officers performing immigration enforcement activities.

Recommendations
We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and
Customs Enforcement:
Recommendation #11: Establish a process to ensure that LEAs
report to OPR any allegations or complaints against 287(g) officers
and other LEA personnel alleged to have improperly performed
immigration enforcement activities, as well as the results of any
subsequent investigations.
Recommendation #12: Establish and implement procedures on
how the results of complaints, allegations, and subsequent
investigations against LEA personnel conducting immigration
enforcement activities should be maintained and used as part of the
suitability and recertification processes.
ICE Needs to Ensure Proper Guidance and Supervision for
Variations Within the Jail Enforcement and Task Force
Program Models
The 287(g) program incorporates both a jail enforcement and a
task force program model. ICE has used these models as the basis
for delegating specific authorities to participating officers and
developing model-specific program requirements that incorporate
qualification standards and supervision requirements.
Distinctions between these two program models are outlined in the
revised MOA template released in July 2009. According to these
revisions, TFOs are authorized to perform immigration functions
that differ from those allowed for JEOs. TFOs are also subject to
different selection and supervision requirements. These
distinctions are appropriate because of the differences in operating
environments, but do not take into consideration the wide
variations that exist within each program model as part of daily
field operations.
During our fieldwork, we noted operational differences within the
same program model as implemented by various LEAs. However,
The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 19 


ICE guidance for each program model does not take into
consideration the different levels of guidance or supervision that
may be required to monitor immigration enforcement activities
associated with each variation.
Jail Enforcement Model
During our site visits, we noted that jurisdictions operating under
the jail enforcement model screen significantly different
populations. For example, four jurisdictions screen only convicted
criminals for immigration status and removability. The remaining
jurisdictions screen the immigration status of all individuals
detained in their facilities. These differences in jail model
approaches may justify different operating protocols and
requirements to address differences in risk.
Task Force Model
Task force model operations vary more widely than jail
enforcement operations. Some task force programs are structured
around a task force with an ICE-led hierarchy, with a specific
criminal investigative focus. Other task force operations include
287(g) investigators directed by LEA managers with a primary
focus on violations of state laws such as identity theft and identity
fraud, for which access to immigration information is beneficial.
Still other task force operations include 287(g) officers in patrol
vehicles who use immigration authorities following traffic stops or
domestic violence issues. Each of these operations is associated
with different levels of vulnerability to civil rights or MOA
violations that may require distinct approaches to supervision.
Based on the risks of civil rights violations or other actions not in
compliance with the MOA, different jurisdictions’ approaches to
carrying out immigration enforcement activities may require
different levels of supervision and guidance. To ensure the
effectiveness of each task force operation, ICE needs to establish
corresponding instructions and protocols and provide appropriate
levels of supervision.

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 20 


Recommendation
We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and
Customs Enforcement:
Recommendation #13: Establish specific operating protocols and
requirements for operational variances identified in task force and
jail enforcement program models.
More Frequent Inspections of 287(g) Program Sites Could
Improve Overall Program Operations
ICE OPR began conducting field inspections of 287(g) programs
in 2008, and was appropriated funds for this purpose in FY 2009.7
OPR performs inspections to assess ICE field office effectiveness
in supervising and supporting 287(g) programs, and ICE and LEA
compliance with ICE policies and the terms of the MOAs.
As of September 2009, OPR had completed twenty-four 287(g)
field inspections and 13 inspection reports. OPR inspections have
identified program activities that were not in compliance with
MOAs, and recommended appropriate corrective actions. These
reports have also highlighted significant program issues and
concerns, including credentialing and IT deficiencies, and
inconsistencies in data entry and collection.
In March 2009, OSLC formalized its process for addressing OPR
recommendations by instituting semiannual reporting on the
progress of corrective actions until the recommendations are
closed. Continuing management attention to OPR inspection
results may help ensure that program activities are in compliance
with the MOAs, and assist ICE in refining program activities and
guidance.
At current staffing levels, OPR plans to inspect 287(g) program
sites once every 3 to 4 years. Given the sensitive nature of the
287(g) program and OPR’s success in identifying issues for
management attention, ICE should consider inspecting program
sites more frequently to provide increased oversight. A more
aggressive inspection process may require a corresponding
increase in inspection staffing levels.

7

See the Explanatory Statement associated with Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and
Continuing Appropriations Act of 2009 (P.L. 110-329), Div. D, Title II, p. 636.
The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 21

Recommendation
We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and
Customs Enforcement:
Recommendation #14: Study the feasibility and appropriateness
of increasing the frequency of OPR 287(g) inspections, and report
findings to the OIG.

Application Review and Selection Process Needs to Be Enhanced
The current process for reviewing applications for 287(g) program
participation does not include an appropriate level of emphasis on civil
rights issues. In addition, data from ICE field offices responsible for
supervising approved 287(g) programs are not always properly considered
in the decision regarding a jurisdiction’s approval for participation.
Because of the sensitivity of civil rights issues and the need for
appropriate supervision of 287(g) officers, ICE must ensure that civil
liberties concerns and the ability to provide adequate supervision are
included in the selection process.
Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Considerations Are Not
Consistently Weighed in the 287(g) Application Review and
Selection Process
One aspect of DHS’ primary mission is to ensure that civil rights
and civil liberties are not diminished by its efforts, activities and
programs aimed at securing the homeland.8 In its draft strategic
plan, OSLC states that it seeks to build trusting partnerships with
communities to further enforcement of federal immigration laws.
This can be achieved, in part, through mutual respect for and
recognition of civil rights and civil liberties. Therefore, the
potential effects of a 287(g) agreement on a community’s civil
rights and civil liberties should be part of the application process.
OSLC explained that a jurisdiction’s civil rights and civil liberties
history has been a consideration in past site selection efforts.
However, an emphasis on civil rights and civil liberties was not
formally included in the 287(g) application, review, and selection
process, or in draft procedures for modifying, extending, or
terminating existing MOAs. 287(g) applications do not include
information concerning civil rights complaints, lawsuits, or consent
decrees that applicant jurisdictions are subject to, or other
information that may be useful in assessing the civil rights and civil
8

6 U.S.C. 111 (b)(1)(G).
The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 22

liberties standing of the applicant. In 2009, OSLC increased the
number of ICE offices that participate in the selection process;
however, none of these offices are responsible for assessing civil
rights and civil liberties issues.
In a January 2009 report, GAO disclosed that more than half of the
twenty-nine 287(g) LEAs it contacted during its audit reported that
community members in their jurisdictions expressed concerns that
the use of 287(g) authority would lead to racial profiling and
intimidation by law enforcement officials.9 NGOs critical of the
287(g) program have charged that ICE entered into agreements
with LEAs that have checkered civil rights records, and that by
doing so, ICE has increased the likelihood of racial profiling and
other civil rights violations.
Claims of civil rights violations have surfaced in connection with
several LEAs participating in the program. Two LEAs currently
enrolled in the program were defendants in past racial profiling
lawsuits that they settled by agreeing to collect extensive data on
their officers’ contacts with the public during traffic stops, and
adopt policies to protect the community against future racial
profiling. Another jurisdiction is the subject of (1) an ongoing
racial profiling lawsuit related to 287(g) program activities; (2) a
lawsuit alleging physical abuse of a detained alien; and (3) a DOJ
investigation into alleged discriminatory police practices,
unconstitutional searches and seizures, and national origin
discrimination. DHS is a defendant in a lawsuit regarding the
allegedly improper detention and deportation of a U.S. citizen by a
287(g) officer from yet another participating LEA. A
determination in these lawsuits has not been made.
Several 287(g) program observers have suggested that ICE should
closely review jurisdictions with a history of racial profiling before
allowing them to enter into 287(g) agreements. Some NGOs assert
that 287(g) authority should be revoked from certain LEAs
currently participating in the program on the basis of civil rights
and civil liberties violations.
To address these issues, ICE needs to direct increased attention to
the civil rights and civil liberties records of current and prospective
287(g) jurisdictions. We recognize the difficulties involved in
assessing a jurisdiction’s past performance in this regard and
forecasting future vulnerability to civil rights abuses. Nevertheless,
9

GAO, Immigration Enforcement — Better Controls Needed over Program Authorizing State and Local
Enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws (GAO-09-109), January 30, 2009, preface.
The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 23

ICE must include consideration of civil rights and civil liberties
factors in the site selection and MOA review processes.

Recommendations
We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and
Customs Enforcement:
Recommendation #15: Require 287(g) applicants to provide
information about past and pending civil rights allegations, and
incorporate a civil rights and civil liberties review as part of the
documented 287(g) site selection and MOA review processes.
Recommendation #16: Include a representative on the advisory
committee to provide insights into civil rights and civil liberties
issues as part of the approval process.
Data from ICE Field Offices Need to Be Fully Evaluated
During the 287(g) Application Review and Selection Process
Recently, ICE has taken steps to enhance its initial application
review process for prospective 287(g) LEAs (see appendix C).
ICE officials stated that 287(g) applicants are assessed to
determine whether other programs and assistance offered under the
ICE Agreements of Cooperation in Communities to Enhance
Safety and Security (ACCESS) program better meet their needs.10
As of June 2009, ICE had approved 66 of 117 applications for
participation in the 287(g) program.11 As of July 2009, ICE had
not approved or denied any 287(g) applications during FY 2009
pending the issuance of a new MOA template.
OSLC reports that it relies on OI and DRO field offices to help
identify the best-fit ACCESS partnership options for interested
jurisdictions. OSLC staff reported that ICE field offices expressed
concerns about 69 LEA applications for 287(g) authority and
recommended that these applications not be approved. ICE denied
applications for 53 of these 69 applications, but approved the
remaining 16 despite objections from the field units responsible for
providing direct program supervision.

10

Refer to appendix D for a complete list of ICE ACCESS programs and services. 

The Immigration and Naturalization Service approved one application for a 287(g) program before ICE 

was established. As of July 2009, one agreement that ICE signed after approving a 287(g) application had 

since been terminated. 

11

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 24

In several other cases, ICE field offices supported approving
287(g) applications only under certain conditions, such as an
increase in staff to ensure adequate supervision of 287(g) officers.
However, ICE approved some of these applications without
satisfying these field office conditions. As a result, field offices
did not have the staff that they deemed appropriate to provide
sufficient support and supervision.
ICE cited a number of reasons for denying 287(g) applications, and
sometimes indicated multiple reasons for denying individual
applications. According to OSLC information, the need for more
field staff for supervision factored into the decision to deny more
than half of the 51 applications disapproved. ICE denied about a
quarter of applications, in part, because of insufficient ICE funding
for either 287(g) officer training or IT requirements. ICE denied
other applications because it determined the jurisdiction had a
limited need for the program or believed its needs could be met by
other ICE programs and services. In other cases, ICE denied
applications because of limitations in detention space to house
aliens who could be identified through the prospective 287(g)
program. Some jurisdictions reconsidered or withdrew their
applications.
Because of the need to provide sufficient oversight to ensure that
287(g) officers properly carry out immigration enforcement
activities, ICE needs to make certain that input from ICE field
offices is fully considered and evaluated during the application
review and selection process.

Recommendation
We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and
Customs Enforcement:
Recommendation #17: Develop a process to ensure that
information submitted from ICE field offices as part of the
application review process is fully taken into consideration before
a final decision is made. This recommendation should include
provisional approvals that require resource considerations to
ensure proper supervision and oversight.

ICE Needs to Establish 287(g) Data Collection and Reporting
Requirements to Address Civil Rights Issues
GAO’s “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government”
recognize the need for program managers to have data to determine
The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 25

whether they are meeting their agencies’ goals. Although 287(g) MOAs
include basic guidelines for data collection and reporting, they do not
require ICE or LEAs to collect information that would assist in addressing
allegations of civil rights violations within 287(g) programs.
To address concerns regarding arrests of individuals for minor offenses
being used as a guise to initiate removal proceedings, DHS officials said
that the MOA requires participating LEAs to pursue all criminal charges
that originally caused an individual’s arrest. However, ICE does not
require LEAs to collect and report on the prosecutorial or judicial
disposition of the initial arrests that led to aliens’ subsequent immigration
processing under the 287(g) program. This information could help to
establish how local prosecutors and judges regarded an officer’s original
basis for arresting aliens. Without this type of information, ICE cannot be
assured that law enforcement officers are not making inappropriate arrests
to subject suspected aliens to vetting by 287(g) officers for possible
removal.
In one facility that screens all individuals detained, an ICE supervisor
described a situation in which a state highway patrol officer transported an
accident victim to a participating county jail to determine the victim’s
immigration status. The ICE supervisor explained that the accident victim
was not brought to the jail to be charged with an offense, but to have a
287(g) officer determine the victim’s deportability. The victim was
detained until a 287(g) officer could respond.
To determine the potential for inappropriate 287(g)-related arrests and
detentions, we requested specific information on the prosecutorial
disposition of arrests from the seven jurisdictions in our review. However,
because ICE does not require participants to collect this information, only
four of the seven jurisdictions were able to provide us with prosecutorial
data. These jurisdictions provided data on 263 alien arrests for criminal
charges. Our analysis showed that authorities initiated the prosecution of
260 of 263, or 99%, of the aliens arrested for criminal charges. While
these data indicate that prosecutors have pursued charges for 287(g)­
related arrests, it does not provide confirmation that civil rights violations
have not occurred.
ICE does not collect other information that could assist in determining
whether civil rights violations have occurred. Information that would be
useful in assessing whether unlawful profiling has occurred include: (1)
the basis for and circumstances surrounding TFO stops, searches, and
arrests, and (2) information on the race and ethnicity of individuals
stopped, searched, and arrested by TFOs.

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 26

ICE should consider requiring LEAs to maintain data regarding (1) the
circumstances and basis for TFO contacts with the public, (2) the race and
ethnicity of those contacted and arrested, and (3) the prosecutorial and
judicial disposition of 287(g) arrests.

Recommendation
We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and
Customs Enforcement:
Recommendation #18: Establish collection and reporting
standards that provide objective data to increase monitoring of
methods participating jurisdictions use in carrying out 287(g)
functions, and their effect on civil liberties. Collection and
reporting requirements could include (1) the circumstances and
basis for TFO contacts with the public, (2) the race and ethnicity of
those contacted, and (3) the prosecutorial and judicial disposition
of 287(g) arrests.

287(g) Training Does Not Fully Prepare Officers for Immigration
Enforcement Duties
GAO’s “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government”
emphasize management’s commitment to competence. This guidance
states that all personnel need to possess and maintain a level of
competence that allows them to accomplish their assigned duties. It also
states that management should identify knowledge and skills needed for
jobs, and provide necessary training.
LEAs serving as 287(g) officers must maintain broad-based knowledge of
their role and the constraints on methods of enforcement in a legal and
institutional system that operates differently from local criminal justice
systems. State and local enforcement of federal immigration law must
account for local, state, and federal laws that govern the rights of
community residents and the obligations of localities. Our analysis of the
training provided to new 287(g) officers identified several areas that need
to be enhanced to ensure that 287(g) officers have the skills to carry out
their immigration enforcement functions effectively.
287(g) Basic Training Does Not Satisfy MOA Requirements
287(g) MOAs require participating officers to pass examinations
equivalent to those given to ICE officers before they can use
federal immigration enforcement authorities. To assess
compliance with this requirement, we compared examinations
administered to 287(g) officers with those given to ICE IEAs who
The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 27

perform similar functions. Examinations given to 287(g) officers
during basic training are comparable in length, complexity, and
subject matter to those taken by entry-level IEAs, and require the
same 70% passing score, with a single retest opportunity.
The MOAs require basic training on 10 subjects:
�	
�	
�	
�	
�	
�	
�	
�	
�	
�	

Terms and limitations of the MOA
Scope of immigration officer authority
Relevant immigration law
ICE Use of Force Policy
Civil rights laws
Department of Justice “Guidance Regarding the Use of
Race by Federal Law Enforcement Agencies”
Public outreach and complaint procedures
Liability issues
Cross-cultural issues
Obligations under federal law and the Vienna Convention
on Consular Relations to make proper notification upon the
arrest or detention of a foreign national

For seven of the subjects, the course content and length are either
comparable to or exceed related training provided to IEAs.
However, the curriculum provides limited coverage of three topics:
civil rights law; the terms and limitations of the MOA; and public
outreach and complaint procedures.
Training on Civil Rights Law
New 287(g) officers receive a brief training block on civil rights
law. The lecture covers the authorities and duties of law
enforcement officers; search, seizures, and rights; the Fourth
amendment; and, due process requirements for aliens and other
persons encountered during immigration enforcement activities. In
contrast, entry-level IEAs receive an additional 20 hours of
instruction on the Fourth Amendment and its protections related to
stops, searches, seizures, and arrests.
Some 287(g) jurisdictions require their officers to take annual
courses on civil rights and civil liberties protections. Moreover,
state and local LEAs require their sworn officers with arrest
authority to attend and graduate from certified law enforcement
academies that provide some instruction on civil rights law. There
are no national requirements, however, on the length of instruction
law enforcement academies are to provide in this area. Some law
The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 28

enforcement academies devote as much as 24 hours of instruction
on Fourth Amendment protections, while others set aside 4 hours
of training for this area.
287(g) officers exercise their authorities in community settings and
need a thorough understanding of Fourth Amendment protections,
including when it is appropriate to consider race or national origin
when making a stop or determining whether to question an
individual. In some cases, TFOs have received instruction on
Fourth Amendment protections in law enforcement academies.
However, there are no national requirements regarding the length
of instruction law enforcement academies are to provide on Fourth
Amendment protections.
Training on Terms and Limitations of the MOA and Public
Outreach and Complaint Procedures
The terms and limitations of the MOA and public outreach and
complaint procedures are not sufficiently addressed in ICE’s basic
training course. The course schedule shows that these subjects are
to be presented in 1-hour training modules. However, 287(g)
officers informed us that, despite its inclusion in the course
schedule, ICE instructors have not consistently delivered the
training module. Officers in several locations advised us that they
did not receive instruction on the MOA or complaint process as
part of the basic training course, and were unfamiliar with both. In
addition, 287(g) officers are not tested on their understanding of
these topics.
Local immigration enforcement activities encompass complex laws
in an evolving environment. As such, training is a critical factor in
helping to ensure that (1) 287(g) officers exert immigration
enforcement authorities in accordance with federal and local
immigration laws, (2) exposure to civil rights violations is
minimized, and (3) officers are familiar with the terms and
limitations of the agreements under which they operate, as well as
the process for reporting and addressing related complaints.

Recommendations
We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and
Customs Enforcement:
Recommendation #19: Determine whether the current timeframe
for civil rights law training is adequate to achieve appropriate

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 29

coverage, and modify timeframes and coverage as needed to
ensure that sufficient training is provided.
Recommendation #20: Ensure that 287(g) basic training includes
coverage of MOAs, and public outreach and complaint procedures.
Hands-On Training in Immigration Systems and Processing
Needs to Be Increased
287(g) officers need immigration processing knowledge and skills
in order to perform federal immigration enforcement functions.
However, ICE supervisors and 287(g) officers informed us that
basic training does not adequately prepare them for the practical
requirements of their work.
Processing an alien for removal requires broad-based knowledge of
immigration forms, systems, and processing methods, including
the following:
�	 Requesting, creating, and organizing Alien files (A-files),
which represent the physical record of all immigrationrelated documents for noncitizens
�	 Interpreting documents in the files
�	 Navigating and operating immigration electronic
information systems (i.e., Automated Biometric
Identification System (IDENT) and Enforcement Case
Tracking System (ENFORCE))
�	 Preparing alien processing forms, including the Record of
Deportable Alien, Form I-213
The basic training program for 287(g) officers provides 29 hours of
instruction on A-file review, IDENT and ENFORCE processing,
and I-213 preparation. By contrast, new ICE officers performing
immigration enforcement functions receive 41 hours of training on
immigration processing.
Some 287(g) officers reported that they did not receive hands-on
training on ENFORCE during basic training, and that training did
not prepare them to process cases independently. One 287(g)
officer commented that after basic training, he came away with
zero knowledge of how to process a case. An ICE supervisor
explained that after completing basic training, 287(g) officers had
no idea of how to create or process A-files.
Several 287(g) officers reported that they do not process aliens in
their custody because of insufficient confidence in their knowledge
The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 30

of ENFORCE. Therefore, after taking an undocumented alien into
custody, they request assistance from DRO for ENFORCE
processing. Requiring ICE officers to perform this function
reduces the effectiveness of 287(g) officers as a force multiplier.
At the end of our fieldwork, ICE initiated efforts to address
reported immigration processing issues through refresher training
on ENFORCE at specific locations on an as-needed basis. Since
we observed a widespread need for increased immigration
processing knowledge, a more methodical approach is warranted to
ensure that all 287(g) officers are properly trained.

Recommendation
We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and
Customs Enforcement:
Recommendation #21: Enhance the current 287(g) training
program to provide comprehensive coverage of immigration
systems and processing. At a minimum, this should include handson experience during the 287(g) basic training course, on-the-job
training, and periodic refresher training.
Knowledge of Immigration Benefits and Protections Needs to
Be Reinforced
To assess individuals’ immigration status and removability
properly, immigration officers must be familiar with (1) the asylum
process, (2) immigration benefits, and (3) victim and witness
protections. Accordingly, training in these areas is included in the
287(g) basic training objectives.
The 287(g) basic training course includes 2 hours of instruction on
special status immigrants and 2 hours on victim and witness
awareness. However, ICE does not instruct 287(g) officers on
significant immigration benefits, such as the Nicaraguan
Adjustment and Central American Relief Act12 and the American
Baptist Churches v. Thornburg Stipulated Settlement Agreement.13
Instructional design standards require the assessment of student
retention of information associated with identified training
objectives. However, as part of the four examinations
administered during the 287(g) basic training course, only three
12
13

P.L. 105-100, Title II (codified as amended in scattered sections of title 8 of the U.S.C.)..
760 F. Supp. 796 (N.D. Cal. Jan 31, 1991).
The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 31

questions relate to victim and witness protections and asylum. No
examination questions address the asylum process or immigration
benefits.
287(g) officers at several program sites were not knowledgeable
about the asylum process, immigration benefits, and victim and
witness protections. An appropriate level of knowledge in these
areas could minimize processing errors and reduce the risk of
wrongful detention and deportation. ICE needs to take measures to
increase competencies in these areas.

Recommendation
We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and
Customs Enforcement:
Recommendation #22: Ensure that an appropriate level of
coverage on immigration benefits, asylum, and victim and witness
protections is included as part of the 287(g) basic training agenda.
287(g) Officers Did Not Consistently Complete Refresher
Training
In 2007, ICE identified annual online refresher training modules
for 287(g) officers to complete through its web-based Virtual
University. Officers are required to complete eight 287(g) training
modules, as well as three courses required for all ICE employees.14
While OSLC has directed that ICE field office staff ensure that
287(g) officers complete Virtual University refresher training
annually, we identified inconsistencies in compliance with this
directive. As of March 2009, 88% of active 287(g) officers who
were vetted by ICE prior to FY 2008 had not completed all
required refresher training. In addition, 76% of officers vetted
before FY 2008 had not completed 287(g) training offered through
Virtual University.
Several ICE program supervisors in field offices were not aware of
annual refresher training requirements. ICE supervisors who
manage 287(g) operations in five of the six jurisdictions we visited
were not knowledgeable of the requirements. In addition, one ICE
14

287(g) officers must complete the following courses to meet ICE refresher training requirements:
Refresher Training Course Navigation, The Orantes Injunction, Consular Notification and Access, Board of
Immigration Appeals Decisions, Revised DHS / U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Documents,
Nonimmigrant Refresher Training, Electronic Sources of Information, Stop Trafficking Refresher Training,
Information Assurance Awareness Training, Records Management, and Prevention of Sexual Harassment.
The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 32 


supervisor told us that he was unaware that Virtual University
could be used for 287(g) training.
In response to this issue, OSLC plans to formalize its refresher
training guidance, and has developed a draft ICE directive on
annual recertification of 287(g) officers that was under review by
ICE headquarters at the time of our fieldwork. The draft directive
states that 287(g) officers must recertify annually by successfully
completing select Virtual University courses. The draft directive
places responsibility on ICE field offices to notify OSLC when
officers fail to complete recertification courses. OSLC is to review
Virtual University administrative records and issue revocation
notices for officers who do not complete required training.
Because of the complexities of federal immigration law and its
constantly changing environment, refresher training is critical in
reinforcing immigration enforcement knowledge and providing
legal and program updates. Therefore, ICE needs to increase its
efforts to ensure that 287(g) officers maintain immigration skills
and keep abreast of changes in immigration enforcement
requirements.

Recommendation
We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and
Customs Enforcement:
Recommendation #23: Establish and issue guidance to field
office staff for 287(g) officer annual recertification training that
emphasizes completion of online refresher training courses.
Recommendation #24: Designate field office responsibilities for
monitoring and enforcing compliance with training guidance to
include, at a minimum, issuing and enforcing revocation notices
for 287(g) officers who do not complete required training.
The Use of Interpreters Is Inconsistent
To complete processing and removal actions, immigration officers
may need to communicate with aliens in languages other than
English. Accordingly, ICE requires new DRO officers to establish
Spanish-language proficiency or successfully complete a 5-week
Spanish Language Training Program. By contrast, 287(g) officers
do not receive language training or an assessment to determine
their language competency.

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 33

MOAs in effect during our fieldwork required that participating
LEA personnel provide an opportunity for subjects with limited
English language proficiency to request an interpreter. However,
ICE has not provided specific guidance on the circumstances in
which 287(g) officers should proactively seek interpreter services.
Therefore, the use of interpreters varies across program sites and
among 287(g) officers. For example, officers without specific
language skills often rely on officers with such skills for
assistance, or call a language line that provides interpretation
services telephonically. However, we spoke with officers who said
287(g) officers with few or no foreign language skills have
interviewed and processed non-English-speaking aliens without the
aid of interpreters. One 287(g) officer said that he does not speak
any Spanish, but used what is referred to as a “cheat sheet” of
questions in Spanish to determine aliens’ removability during
interviews. Another 287(g) officer admitted to being reluctant to
speak Spanish due to his minimal grasp of the language, but served
warrants and read non-English-speaking aliens their rights in
Spanish.
The absence of detailed guidance for using interpreter services can
increase processing errors, as well as the potential for aliens to
either be misunderstood or to misinterpret information provided
during processing. To address these vulnerabilities, ICE needs to
develop and implement clear guidelines describing the
circumstances under which 287(g) officers should use interpreter
support. These guidelines should also encompass foreign language
skills assessments.

Recommendation
We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and
Customs Enforcement:
Recommendation #25: Develop and implement clear guidelines
for using interpreter support to assist with immigration duties and
responsibilities.

ICE Needs to Increase the Availability and Accuracy of 287(g)
Program Information
In a January 2009 memorandum to the heads of executive branch
agencies, the President committed to disclose information rapidly in forms
that the public can readily find and use. In addition, he wrote that
executive departments and agencies should put information about their
operations and decisions online and make it readily available to the
The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 34

public.15 Consistent with these aims, one of OSLC’s primary goals is to
build awareness and understanding of ICE ACCESS programs through
communication and education of the media, NGOs, and the general public.
However, at the time of our fieldwork, 287(g) information on the ICE
public website consisted of brief fact sheets, testimony, and statements by
ICE and DHS officials. In addition, information describing 287(g)
operations to the public has included inaccuracies.
There Are Barriers to Obtaining 287(g) Program Information
The significant effect the 287(g) program can have on participants’
communities creates a need for community members to be well
informed about the program. However, community and NGO
representatives advised us that obtaining information about the
287(g) program is often a daunting task.
We obtained the following comments from community and NGO
representatives regarding access to 287(g) information:
�	 ICE had restricted the release of basic program materials,
including prior 287(g) MOAs.
�	 LEAs informed them that they could not respond to any
information requests because ICE has blocked the release
of program information.
�	 ICE has not been forthcoming with 287(g) program
information, such as program policies and statistics, unless
the NGOs filed a Freedom of Information Act request,
which can be time-consuming and costly to process.
ICE managers in the field and LEA officials agreed that ICE does
not do enough to disseminate program information to the public,
and described ICE outreach efforts as minimal. Some LEAs
reported difficulty obtaining program information from ICE.
ICE and NGO representatives explained how a local elected
official frequently tied remarks about the 287(g) program to
enforcement efforts executed under other authorities. They
expressed concerns that members of the public may develop false
impressions about the program as a result. One ICE manager in
the area said that by not disseminating more information to the
15

President Barak Obama, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies,
“Transparency and Open Government,” January 21, 2009.
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Transparency_and_Open_Government)
The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 35

public, ICE had effectively ceded the role of primary spokesperson
for the 287(g) program to this elected official, which was
counterproductive because of the inflammatory nature of these
statements.
ICE should increase efforts to ensure that the public is informed
about 287(g) program and ongoing operations. One method to
accomplish this is through improved access to and availability of
program information. ICE’s recent posting of the current 287(g)
MOAs on its public website represents a positive step in this
direction.

Recommendation
We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and
Customs Enforcement:
Recommendation #26: Establish a process to provide the public
and other stakeholders with comprehensive information about the
287(g) program and associated operations.
ICE Needs to Improve the Accuracy of 287(g) Program
Information Provided to the Public
We identified ICE statements about the 287(g) program that did
not reflect actual program activities. Such information reduces
public awareness regarding 287(g) operations and activities.
ICE provided misleading information to the public in a September
2007 Fact Sheet. Information in this fact sheet included ICE’s
explanation that “The 287(g) program is not designed to allow
state and local agencies to perform random street operations. It is
not designed to impact issues such as excessive occupancy and day
laborer activities.”16 However, 287(g) officers have used their
authorities during large-scale street operations with the aim of
detaining individuals for minor offenses and violations of local
ordinances.
The fact sheet also explained that the program was “designed to
identify individuals for potential removal who pose a threat to
public safety as a result of an arrest and/or conviction for state
crimes.” The fact sheet added that “Police can only use 287(g)
authority when people are taken into custody as a result of
16

ICE, ICE Fact Sheet: Delegation of Immigration Authority Section 287(g) Immigration and Nationality
Act, September 6, 2007.
The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 36

violating state or local criminal law.”17 However, 287(g) officers
have apprehended aliens for federal immigration violations even
when the aliens had no prior arrests on state or local charges.
ICE has provided an incomplete picture of activities carried out
under the program’s task force model. According to ICE
testimony, 287(g) officers working under the task force model are
to assist ICE with long-term investigations and large-scale
enforcement activities.18 However, we identified task force
officers who focus exclusively on cases related to violations of
state laws and had never assisted ICE with long-term
investigations or large-scale enforcement activities.
The July 2009 MOA template for 287(g) activities indicates that
task force officers are to be assigned to task force operations
supported by ICE, and exercise their immigration-related
authorities during criminal investigations involving aliens.19
However, task force officers are not always part of a task force,
and many do not conduct criminal investigations. In several
program sites, 287(g) task force officers operate in separate patrol
vehicles and use their immigration authorities when they identify
possible removable aliens while performing their regular LEA
duties. These officers apply their 287(g) authorities following
traffic stops or domestic violence calls, rather than in the
furtherance of a specific ICE-directed criminal investigation, as
indicated by program materials.
To foster an environment of transparency and trust, ICE must
provide accurate information about the 287(g) program and related
operations. Doing so would promote greater awareness and
confidence as part of a comprehensive effort to broaden public
knowledge of immigration enforcement programs and related
efforts.

Recommendation
We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and
Customs Enforcement:
Recommendation #27: Ensure the accuracy of information
disseminated to the public about the goals of the 287(g) program,
17

Ibid. 

Statement of William F. Riley, Acting OSLC Executive Director, before the U.S. House of 

Representatives Committee on Homeland Security, March 4, 2009, p. 3. 

19
ICE, Revised MOA Template, July 2009, p. 19. 

18

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 37

its various operations, and how immigration enforcement activities
are carried out in the actual working environment.
Inadequate Information Is Available on the Complaint Process
A transparent complaint process is a way to ensure that a program
is operating as intended. Since ICE has provided limited
information about the 287(g) program, those who encounter 287(g)
officers are not likely to recognize actions that violate the MOA.
Moreover, because the only description of the complaint process in
most jurisdictions is contained in the MOAs and because ICE and
LEAs had not clearly disseminated them at the time of our
fieldwork, members of the public are unaware of how to file a
complaint. Furthermore, several past MOAs did not include
details on how to file a complaint.
A related issue is an awareness of when it is appropriate to file a
complaint regarding immigration enforcement activities under the
287(g) program. For example, those encountered by law
enforcement officers cannot distinguish between 287(g) officers
and other types of officers from the same jurisdiction. 287(g)
officers do not wear distinctive clothing, and until recently, did not
have credentials to validate their immigration enforcement
authority. Because 287(g) officers do not regularly display
credentials during operations or interviews to determine alien
status and removability, many people remain unclear as to whether
the officers they encounter are 287(g) certified. Therefore, there
are uncertainties about filing a complaint in situations that may
involve inappropriate LEA actions.
NGOs and community groups have received complaints attributed
to the 287(g) program. Representatives advised us that it was
difficult for individuals to pursue many of these complaints
because of insufficient information about the complaint process.
For example, at the time of our fieldwork 287(g) complaint
reporting procedures were not available in ICE or LEA facilities
where individuals affected by the 287(g) program are most likely
to see them.

Recommendations
We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and
Customs Enforcement:
Recommendation #28: Publish 287(g)-complaint reporting
procedures on ICE’s public website, and ensure that these
The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 38

procedures are posted in participating LEA buildings, and shared at
community meetings.
Recommendation #29: Require 287(g) officers to identify
themselves and display their credentials during federal
immigration arrests, before initiating interviews regarding alien
status and removability, and as part of other immigration
processing activities.
287(g) Program Information and Training for LEA
Supervisors Can Improve the Operating Environment
GAO’s “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal
Government” state that programs should foster a positive control
environment. The 287(g) program’s work environment is
influenced by several factors outside of ICE, most notably by LEA
officials within the participating jurisdiction. While ICE has the
authority to supervise and direct officers in their performance of
287(g) program activities, LEA officials often control the
operating environment in which 287(g) officers perform their
immigration functions. LEA managers responsible for the overall
supervision of officers participating in the 287(g) program can
adversely affect program operations. As a result, ICE’s ability to
supervise and direct 287(g) efforts is influenced by its relationship
with the LEA and 287(g) officers.
The following scenarios are examples of a LEA supervisors’
influence on the success of 287(g) program activities:
�	 An LEA supervisor removed ICE computer equipment
from 287(g) officers’ workspace without explanation and
locked it in a closet, limiting their ability to process aliens.
�	 At another program site, 287(g) personnel reported low
morale because of infrequent recognition from their
supervisors and managers for their federal immigration
enforcement work.
�	 LEA supervisors who regarded the 287(g) program
favorably indicated that additional information about the
program would help them to support it more effectively.
Training for LEA supervisors varied from site to site. Some LEA
supervisors attended 287(g) basic training and were certified to
perform federal immigration enforcement functions, while others
received no training. LEA supervisors who had completed the
The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 39

287(g) training program explained that they were better able to
address program needs as a result. LEA supervisors and managers
who had not received 287(g) training advised us that they would be
better able to support 287(g) efforts if they had received
information about the program. Managers and supervisors at
another location suggested that ICE develop an abbreviated 287(g)
orientation program so they could better understand the 287(g)
program, along with the duties and responsibilities of their staff
who are participating in the program.
LEA and ICE officials indicated that ICE should consider
providing LEA supervisor training as part of its efforts to improve
operating conditions. At the time of our fieldwork, OSLC had
begun coordinating with OTD to develop and deliver this type of
training program. With training, LEA supervisors would be better
positioned to provide an effective operating environment for
287(g) officers.

Recommendation
We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and
Customs Enforcement:
Recommendation #30: Develop training and provide basic
program information for LEA managers who maintain an oversight
role for 287(g) officers in order to increase their understanding of
the program and encourage their support of 287(g) activities.

287(g) Officers Need Consistent Access to DHS Information
Systems
Immigration officers use several DHS information systems to enter
and retrieve information when performing immigration
enforcement functions. However, 287(g) officers maintain varying
levels of access to DHS systems. Limitations in system access can
inhibit 287(g) officers’ ability to perform their full range of
immigration activities.
287(g) officers use the following DHS systems to perform
immigration enforcement functions:
�	 Enforcement Case Tracking System (ENFORCE) is the
primary ICE administrative case management system. It
includes biographical data on aliens and links to related
biometric information, and it is used to identify and track
The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 40

aliens during the detention and removal processes. 287(g)
officers use ENFORCE to enter information about their
encounters with aliens and to process aliens for removal
from the United States. 287(g) officers also use ENFORCE
to determine the disposition of past immigration hearings
and removals.
�	 Central Index System (CIS) contains information on aliens’
A-files, as well as basic biographical information on lawful
permanent residents, naturalized citizens, and violators of
immigration laws. 287(g) officers use the system to
determine whether an alien has an existing A-file they need
to request, or to create A-files for newly identified aliens.
�	 National File Tracking System (NFTS) tracks and accounts
for A-files. 287(g) officers use the system to locate
existing A-files for aliens they have encountered in order to
request and update the A-files.
�	 Computer Linked Application Information Management
System (CLAIMS) records and tracks the status of
applications for immigration benefits and naturalization
petitions. 287(g) officers use this information to determine
the status of aliens’ immigration benefits and naturalization
applications, both of which are key factors in their
removability.
�	 TECS, formerly known as the Treasury Enforcement
Communications System, contains inspection data on
travelers who have entered or attempted to enter the United
States, as well as information on ICE criminal investigations.
287(g) officers use this system to determine whether aliens
have entered the country illegally. Some TFOs also use
TECS to record investigative case information and prepare
reports on associated searches, arrests, and seizures.
As of March 2009, OSLC indicated that there were 805 active
287(g) officers. OCIO records showed that 92%, or 738, of these
officers had access to the ENFORCE system. However, 561
officers (70%) had access to NFTS, 358 officers (44%) had access
to CIS, 283 officers (35%) had access to CLAIMS, and 81 officers
(10%) maintained system accounts in TECS.
287(g) officers at two locations said that different officers in their
LEAs who perform the same immigration functions have access to
different DHS systems or different parts of those systems. OCIO
The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 41

data regarding 287(g) officers’ system access indicate that even
though a high percentage of officers had access to ENFORCE,
fewer than a third had access to the ENFORCE Removals Module,
which contains information on the final disposition of aliens’
immigration hearings and removal proceedings. Within CIS,
287(g) officers had 22 different system access configurations,
ranging from complete system access for 3 officers to access to
approximately half of the system for 140 officers.
According to ICE officials, system access differences were an
outgrowth of local program conditions. For example, at one
location, ICE representatives advised that 287(g) officers did not
need to use NFTS because ICE administrative staff located and
requested A-files on their behalf. They further explained that the
program aimed to limit 287(g) officer access to TECS because of
concerns regarding the sensitivity of information. ICE
representatives also said that in some cases, 287(g) officers’
accounts have expired due to infrequent use. However, they were
unable to explain other disparities in system access.
287(g) officers’ access to DHS systems needs to be more uniform
to enable ICE to better monitor the appropriateness of system
access, and to ensure uniformity in their ability to input and
retrieve immigration enforcement data.

Recommendation
We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and
Customs Enforcement:
Recommendation #31: Establish and implement standard
immigration system access profiles for 287(g) officers to ensure that
officers have the access needed to perform immigration functions.
These access profiles should be customized by program model to
address the different functions that TFOs and JEOs perform.

Additional Issues Identified
During our review, we identified additional issues that, while not directly
related to our objective of assessing ICE controls over 287(g) program
implementation, we feel should be brought to management’s attention.

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 42 


ICE Has Used Unauthorized Detention Facilities to Detain
Aliens Identified Through the 287(g) Program
ICE enters into Inter-Governmental Service Agreements (IGSA)
with state and local jurisdictions to use their facilities to detain
aliens in ICE custody. ICE compensates facilities with IGSAs for
the cost of detaining aliens at a prearranged rate. As of February
2009, 29 of the 66 jurisdictions participating in the 287(g) program
had active IGSAs with ICE for detaining aliens. In FYs 2008 and
2009, ICE paid 21 of these jurisdictions to detain aliens identified
and processed by 287(g) officers.
Before entering into an IGSA, ICE conducts a physical inspection
of the facility to ensure compliance with ICE detention standards,
and examines the cost-effectiveness of the agreement. Thereafter,
ICE conducts annual inspections of facilities authorized to house
ICE detainees. These annual inspections assess the facilities’
compliance with ICE custody standards to ensure safe, secure, and
humane conditions for detainees.
According to data ICE provided us, it has detained aliens identified
through the 287(g) program at three facilities that were not
authorized by ICE, and therefore not subject to inspection. ICE
compensated participating jurisdictions for detention services in
these facilities, although the facilities were not authorized to house
aliens in ICE custody. From October 2008 to early March 2009,
ICE detained a daily average of 65 aliens identified through the
287(g) program in these facilities.
Detention facility inspections help ensure compliance with ICE
detention standards. ICE needs to ensure that detention facilities
used to house 287(g) detainees are approved and operating in
accordance with applicable standards.

Recommendation
We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and
Customs Enforcement:
Recommendation #32: Develop a process for performing regular
checks to ensure that aliens identified through the 287(g) program
are not held in unauthorized facilities while in ICE custody.

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 43 


ICE Vehicles Have Been Underutilized
ICE purchased 74 vans in FYs 2006 and 2007, and distributed them
to ICE field offices with 287(g) programs. ICE managers at these
field offices planned to have 287(g) officers use the vans to transport
aliens in ICE custody. However, ICE has not permitted 287(g)
officers to drive the vans because of liability concerns regarding the
use of ICE vehicles by outside employees. Additionally, ICE has
not permitted 287(g) officers to use the vehicles because MOAs do
not specifically allow for such use of government property.
Therefore, several of the vans are not being used for any program
purpose.
At one program site we visited, ICE field staff reported that they
had received six vans for the 287(g) program; however, the vans
could not be used since 287(g) officers are not ICE employees. An
ICE manager at another field office told us that its two vans were
generally idle because ICE policy prevented 287(g) officers from
using them.
Since OSLC does not maintain information on the location of all
vehicles that were delivered to ICE field offices for use in the
287(g) program, we were unable to assess the full extent of this
problem. However, ICE’s liability concerns are not clear to us.
For purposes of determining liability and immunity from civil
lawsuits, section 287(g)(8) assures that officers performing
delegated duties shall be considered to be acting under the color of
federal authority. We also note that section 287(g)(4) allows
officers to use federal property as provided for in the MOAs. ICE
should consider whether the administrative prohibition on vehicle
use by 287(g) officers could be resolved by amending the MOAs
as appropriate.

Recommendation
We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and
Customs Enforcement:
Recommendation #33: Evaluate ICE’s position on the use of
287(g) vehicles by participating LEA officers to determine whether
the vehicles can be used for the purpose for which they were
purchased. If not, identify underutilized 287(g) vehicles, and take
appropriate steps to use or dispose of those assets in accordance
with applicable law.

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 44

Management Comments and OIG Analysis
We evaluated ICE’s written comments and have made changes to
the report where we deemed appropriate. Below is a summary of
ICE’s written responses to our recommendations and our analysis
of the responses. A copy of ICE’s response, in its entirety, appears
in Appendix B.
Recommendation #1: Establish a process to collect and maintain
arrest, detention, and removal data for aliens in each priority level
for use in determining the success of ICE’s focus on aliens who
pose the greatest risk to public safety and the community.
ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. In June
2009, OSLC created a data quality review section to analyze data
that 287(g) officers put into ICE data management systems.
Particular attention will be paid to the numbers of criminal aliens
identified and the nature of their offenses. In August 2009, the
ICE OSLC mandated that 287(g) officers populate the Criminal
Sensitivity Level fields in the Enforcement Case Tracking System.
OSLC is currently working with ICE's Secure Communities and
ICE's Detention and Removal Operations to refine the Criminal
Sensitivity Levels to comply with ICE priorities.
OIG Evaluation: The recommendation is resolved and open
pending our receipt and review of the revised Criminal Sensitivity
Level fields to ensure compliance with ICE priorities. In addition,
ICE needs to provide documentation of the data quality review
process for analyzing data that 287(g) officers input to ICE
systems as part of efforts to ensure a focus on aliens who pose the
greatest risk to public safety and the community.
Recommendation #2: Develop procedures to ensure that 287(g)
resources are allocated according to ICE’s priority framework.
ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. OSLC is
developing a strategic plan that directly aligns its goals and
objectives, and those of the 287(g) program, with ICE and DHS
priorities. OSLC has drafted a revised performance measure that
will consider the nature of the criminal offense based on the
severity of crime (Levels 1, 2, and 3). OSLC will establish a
baseline and communicate targets for each severity level that will
reflect prioritizations based on crime level, and average volume of
encounters within each crime level.

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 45

OIG Evaluation: The recommendation is unresolved and open.
ICE has established priorities for alien arrest and detention levels,
but has not developed a process to ensure that 287(g) resources are
prioritized according to these levels. This recommendation will
remain unresolved and open pending ICE’s development of such a
process.
Recommendation #3: Establish and implement TECS data entry
requirements that reflect investigative efforts and related
prosecutions associated with the 287(g) program.
ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. This
recommendation was completed on May 9, 2009, when the ICE
Office of Investigations (OI) and DRO Directors signed a
memorandum requiring OI and DRO offices to use the Treasury
Enforcement Communication System program codes specific to
the 287(g) program to capture administrative arrests,
investigations, and prosecutions.
OIG Evaluation: The recommendation is unresolved and open.
The May 9, 2009 memorandum, addresses initial data entry of a
specific code to identify administrative arrests, investigations, and
prosecutions. However, it does not include a data entry
requirement for any updates to case information or the final
judicial disposition.
Recommendation #4: Establish a process to ensure effective
supervision of 287(g) officers and immigration enforcement
operations.
ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. The
OSLC and the ICE Office of Training and Development (OTD) are
developing a Supervisory/Manager training curriculum for ICE
personnel who oversee 287(g) officers in the field. The training
will be operational in 2010. OSLC FY10 performance measures
include headquarters oversight of the supervisory functions for
287(g). Additionally, OSLC is developing a comprehensive
communications plan to facilitate widespread understanding of
ICE supervisory roles. This communications plan will be ready for
implementation by February 2010. OSLC will coordinate with
OTD to ensure the plan is included in future supervisory training
modules.
OIG Evaluation: The recommendation is resolved and open
pending our receipt and review of the Supervisory/Manager

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 46

training curriculum and the communications plan, along with dates
for implementation.
Recommendation #5: Develop controls to ensure that supervisory
responsibilities for 287(g) supervisors are considered when
determining staffing ratios in ICE field offices.
ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. ICE has
received funding that will allow additional supervisory positions
within the 287(g) program. ICE has distributed a total of 23
program manager positions to field offices to support existing
287(g) programs. These additional positions will help balance the
ratio of supervisors. ICE will strive to continue expanding the
number of supervisors as the 287(g) program matures.
OIG Evaluation: The recommendation is unresolved and open.
The addition of 23 program manager positions to support existing
287(g) programs should help to reduce current staffing
deficiencies. However, the ICE response does not address a
process to ensure that responsibilities for 287(g) supervisors are
consistently taken into consideration when determining staffing
ratios for ICE field offices.
Recommendation #6: Ensure that 287(g) supervision is provided
by authorized staff with the appropriate knowledge, skills, and
abilities.
ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. The
OSLC and OTD are developing a three day Supervisory/Manager
training curriculum for ICE personnel who oversee 287(g) officers
in the field. The training will cover all aspects and responsibilities
of the MOA for ICE and our partners. All 287(g) ICE managers
and supervisors will be required to complete the training, which
will be operational in 2010.
OIG Evaluation: This recommendation is resolved and open
pending our receipt and review of Supervisory/Manager training
curriculum and verification of its use for all 287(g) ICE managers
and supervisors.
Recommendation #7: Develop and implement 287(g) field
supervision guidance that includes, at a minimum (1) the frequency
and type of contact required between 287(g) officers and ICE
supervisors; (2) the preparation, review, and approval of operational
plans for community-based immigration enforcement activities; and
(3) performance feedback requirements for 287(g) officers.
The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 47

ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. OSLC is
creating a communications plan to improve our interactions with
community groups and all other stakeholders. The plan will
delineate best communication practices and benefits, and ensure
that stakeholders understand the 287(g) program's policies and
initiatives. The communications plan is scheduled to be completed
by February 2010 and will address the issues raised in the draft
report. The communications strategy will incorporate a standard
process for creating, reviewing, and delivering clear, consistent
messages about the 287(g) program, including the goals and
mission of the program, the benefits of the program, and recent
success stories. The communications strategy will also include a
stakeholder assessment to identify and assess stakeholders' needs
and concerns.
OIG Evaluation: This recommendation is unresolved and open.
The communication plan described in ICE’s response should be
effective in improving interactions with community groups and
other stakeholders. However, the purpose of this recommendation
is to resolve inconsistencies identified in ICE’s supervision of
287(g) officers, which is not addressed in the proposed
communications strategy.
Recommendation #8: Establish and implement a comprehensive
process for conducting periodic reviews, as well as reviews on an
as-needed basis, to determine whether to modify, extend, or
terminate 287(g) agreements. At a minimum, this process should
include an assessment of (1) current or previous concerns
expressed by field office staff; (2) media attention or community
concerns that contribute to negative or inappropriate conclusions
about the 287(g) program; (3) lawsuits or complaints; (4) potential
civil rights and civil liberties violations; and (5) ICE’s ability to
provide effective supervision and oversight.
ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. In FY
2008, the ICE Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR)
established a 287(g) Review Program to review the terms of the
MOAs. OSLC relies on OPR inspections reports to support
decisions to modify, extend, or terminate 287(g) agreements.
Further, OSLC communicates regularly with LEA counterparts,
non-government organizations, and the DHS Office for Civil
Rights and Civil Liberties to collect feedback about the 287(g)
program. The formalization of communications to LEAs is
included in the OSLC communications plan that will be completed
in February 2010.
The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 48

OIG Evaluation: This recommendation is unresolved and open.
Inspections conducted by OPR are important to ensure LEAs’
compliance with 287(g) agreements. However, the
recommendation addresses other factors that should be
incorporated into an overall strategy for determining whether
current 287(g) agreements should be modified, extended, or
terminated. Reference to those factors was not included in the ICE
response.
Recommendation #9: Require 287(g) program sites to maintain
steering committees with external stakeholders, with a focus on
ensuring compliance with the MOA.
ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. OSLC is
developing a communications plan which will incorporate all
channels for delivering and receiving key communications,
including steering committees. The communications strategy will
be implemented in 2010, and will include a communications
planning matrix to identify critical communications activities,
when they need to be executed, and the point-of-contact
responsible for executing the activities.
OIG Evaluation: This recommendation is unresolved and open.
The communications strategy described in ICE’s response does not
address any specifics regarding steering committees, such as its
membership, or specific duties and responsibilities in assessing
immigration enforcement activities or compliance with the MOA.
Recommendation #10: Establish a process to periodically cross­
check OPR, OSLC, and OCIO records to confirm 287(g) officers’
eligibility and suitability to exercise authorities granted under
287(g) MOAs.
ICE Response: ICE concurs in part with our recommendation,
noting that 287(g) officers are vetted only for suitability, and not
for issuing federal security clearances. ICE has established a
system to ensure that suitability reviews are conducted for all
287(g) officers. This process is addressed in the ICE policy
established in October 2007 titled, "ICE Screening Criteria for
Federal, State, or Local Law Enforcement, Correctional, and
Mission Support Personnel Supporting ICE Programs." ICE
acknowledges that, prior to the establishment of this policy, Office
of Chief Information Officer, OPR, and OSLC rosters of 287(g)
nominees and officers were not reconciled. To further ensure
proper access is granted only to qualified participants, OSLC is
The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 49

creating a policy entitled "Suspension and Revocation of a
Designated Immigration Officer's 287(g) Authority." This policy
will formalize the current cross checks performed by the OSLC
training manager on active/inactive 287(g) officers listed with
OPR.
OIG Evaluation: The recommendation is resolved and open.
MOAs in effect during our field work included language that all
candidates must be approved by ICE and qualify for federal
security clearances. This was revised in the new MOAs, which
require that all candidates be able to qualify for access to
appropriate DHS and ICE databases. We will close this
recommendation after receipt and review of the new policy, which
formalizes cross checks performed on active and inactive 287(g)
officers listed with OPR.
Recommendation #11: Establish a process to ensure that LEAs
report to OPR any allegations or complaints against 287(g) officers
and other LEA personnel alleged to have improperly performed
immigration enforcement activities, as well as the results of any
subsequent investigations.
ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. The new
MOA requires participating agencies to inform ICE of all
complaints regarding their 287(g) officers as well as the outcome
of those complaints.
OIG Evaluation: Based on our review of the new MOA, we
consider the recommendation resolved and closed.
Recommendation #12: Establish and implement procedures on
how the results of complaints, allegations, and subsequent
investigations against LEA personnel conducting immigration
enforcement activities should be maintained and used as part of the
suitability and recertification processes.
ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. OSLC has
developed a comprehensive procedure through which it delivers
the results of all OPR inspections and the respective areas for
improvement to ICE field components for action. All inspection
and administrative investigative findings from OPR, CRCL, and
the OIG will be evaluated by OSLC management to determine the
feasibility of all ICE 287(g) partnerships. The same process is used
to document individual LEA officer derogatory findings.

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 50

OIG Evaluation: The recommendation is unresolved and open.
The comprehensive procedure in ICE’s response pertains to OPR
inspection reports, which address overall 287(g) program
compliance. However, the focus of this recommendation is the use
of complaints, allegations, and investigations involving individual
LEA personnel conducting immigration enforcement activities as
part of the suitability and recertification process. Therefore, the
procedures used for addressing OPR 287(g) reports are not
responsive to this recommendation.


Recommendation #13: Establish specific operating protocols and
requirements for operational variances identified in task force and
jail enforcement program models.


ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation which was
completed in July 2009, with issuance of the new MOA template.
Appendix D of the revised MOA was drafted to provide flexibility
to address issues of local concern, including the variances cited in
the OIG report. ICE can negotiate with jurisdictions before
entering into 287(g) partnerships to address supervisory
arrangements, state and local laws, and other specific needs or a
particular agency.
OIG Evaluation: The recommendation is unresolved and open.
As stated in the ICE response, Appendix D of the revised MOA
provides flexibility to address any specific issue of concern.
However, this flexibility does not provide assurances that
variances in 287(g) operating protocols, such as those identified in
our report will be consistently addressed. The new MOA
requirement for operations plans to be submitted to an ICE agent
for approval prior to being carried out is a positive step in
providing guidance and consistency in 287(g) operations.
Recommendation #14: Study the feasibility and appropriateness
of increasing the frequency of OPR 287(g) inspections, and report
findings to the OIG.
ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. In 2009,
ICE decided to increase the frequency of OPR 287(g) inspections.
In FY 2010, OPR will ensure that 48 of 64 of the 287(g) programs,
or 75%, will have been reviewed.
OIG Evaluation: The recommendation is unresolved and open.
For FY 2010, ICE has determined how many OPR inspections will
be completed. However, ICE has not provided any specific
quantity or the details regarding a process for determining the
The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 51

frequency for conducting OPR inspections beyond the current
fiscal year to ensure continued management attention and
oversight.
Recommendation #15: Require 287(g) applicants to provide
information about past and pending civil rights allegations, and
incorporate a civil rights and civil liberties review as part of the
documented 287(g) site selection and MOA review processes.
ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation which was
completed in August 2009, when OSLC created a candidate
questionnaire for all LEA officers attending 287(g) training.
Additionally, DHS CRCL is now an active participant in the OSLC
Internal Advisory Committee.
OIG Evaluation: This recommendation is unresolved and open.
The candidate questionnaire developed for each proposed law
enforcement officer candidate should be a useful tool in ICE’s
initial suitability assessment of 287(g) candidates. However, the
focus of this recommendation is to address past performance of
each LEA, including civil rights and civil liberties factors, as part
of the site selection and MOA review processes, which is not a part
of the candidate questionnaire.
Recommendation #16: Include a representative on the advisory
committee to provide insights into civil rights and civil liberties
issues as part of the approval process.
ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation which was
completed in October 2009, when DHS CRCL began participating
in the OSLC Internal Advisory Committee.
OIG Evaluation: This recommendation is resolved and open
pending our receipt and review of documentation that describes
CRCL’s role and responsibilities on the OSLC Internal Advisory
Committee as it relates to the 287(g) application review and site
selection process.
Recommendation #17: Develop a process to ensure that
information submitted from ICE field offices as part of the
application review process is fully taken into consideration before
a final decision is made. This recommendation should include
provisional approvals that require resource considerations to
ensure proper supervision and oversight.

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 52

ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation which was
completed when OSLC instituted an Internal Advisory Committee
in May 2009, to review and assess field office recommendations
about pending 287(g) MOA applications. The Internal Advisory
Committee is comprised of stakeholder representatives from ICE
OI, DRO, OTD, SC, Office of Principle Legal Advisor (OPLA)
Office of Chief Information Officer, Office of Congressional
Relations, Office of Public Affairs, and DHS CRCL.
OIG Evaluation: This recommendation is resolved and open
pending our receipt and review of documentation describing the
process used by the OSLC Internal Advisory Committee to assess
and review field office recommendations for pending 287(g)
applications.
Recommendation #18: Establish collection and reporting
standards that provide objective data to increase monitoring of
methods participating jurisdictions use in carrying out 287(g)
functions, and their effect on civil liberties. Collection and
reporting requirements should include (1) the circumstances and
basis for TFO contacts with the public, (2) the race and ethnicity of
those contacted, and (3) the prosecutorial and judicial disposition
of 287(g) arrests.
ICE Response: ICE does not concur, but is assessing the goal of
this recommendation to ensure that ICE's 287(g) partners protect
the civil liberties of every individual they encounter. OIG
recommends the collection of data similar to a consent decree
applicable to agencies that have engaged in racial profiling. This
would require the collection of data beyond that which DHS and
DOJ require of their own law enforcement officers and agencies.
Although ICE strongly opposes racial profiling and adheres fully
to all data collection requirements of federal law, the collection of
this data raises logistical issues including whether a TFO would
report all interactions, just interactions predicated solely on 287(g)
authority, and how the TFO would distinguish in a meaningful way
while performing his or her daily duties.
OIG Evaluation: This recommendation is unresolved and open
pending our receipt and review of ICE’s assessment of this
recommendation, along with any subsequent plans to ensure that
their 287(g) partners protect the civil liberties of individuals
encountered.
Recommendation #19: Determine whether the current timeframe
for civil rights law training is adequate to achieve appropriate
The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 53

coverage, and modify timeframes and coverage as needed to
ensure that sufficient training is provided.
ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. Starting in
FY 2010, OSLC requires that 287(g) officers complete a "Use of
Race" Virtual University course on an annual basis to retain their
certification. The civil rights training in 287(g) addresses those
provisions in the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments. The training
covers criminal and administrative matters, and the federal statutes
that address the deprivation of civil rights and the consequences for
depriving people of their rights.
OIG Evaluation: This recommendation is unresolved and open.
The focus of this recommendation is the effectiveness of the civil
rights laws training curriculum, which we determined to be less
comprehensive than similar training provided to ICE IEAs. While
the “Use of Race” Virtual University course achieves the
appropriate amount of coverage for a Use of Race training
requirement, it can not be used as a supplement for achieving
appropriate coverage in civil rights laws.
Recommendation #20: Ensure that 287(g) basic training includes
coverage of MOAs, and public outreach and complaint procedures.
ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. On the
first day of 287(g) officer training, OPLA instructors provide
instruction on the terms of the MOA. Although ICE provides this
training, ICE also expects that our 287(g) partners will ensure that
their participating officers understand the responsibilities specified
in the MOA. Public outreach principles are covered extensively in
the "Cross Cultural Communication" block of the 287(g) training
program. Instruction in "Complaint Procedures" was included in
the training program, with additional instruction provided on
complaint procedures and officer integrity.
OIG Evaluation: This recommendation is unresolved and open.
Based on our review of training materials and course schedules, we
determined that the MOA, public outreach, and complaint
procedures are presented in 1-hour training modules. However,
287(g) officers informed us that ICE instructors have not
consistently delivered these training modules, and they did not
receive instruction on the MOA or complaint process. The
purpose of this recommendation is for ICE to ensure that
participants receive this training as specified in the course
schedules.

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 54

Recommendation #21: Enhance the current 287(g) training
program to provide comprehensive coverage of immigration
systems and processing. At a minimum, this should include handson experience during the 287(g) basic training course, on-the-job
training, and periodic refresher training.
ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. In
February 2009, OSLC and OTD created a one week refresher
training for active 287(g) officers who wanted additional
immigration law and ICE systems training. In November 2009, the
287(g) basic training academy began using a state-of-the art
simulated detainee processing and holding center. This allows
287(g) officers to experience various scenarios that occur when
processing aliens. 287(g) students depart the ICE Academy with at
least three practice folders to use as reference materials for future
processing, and also use these folders in class during the "A-File
Review" block of instruction. At any time, 287(g) officers can
access the online distance learning refresher courses on the ICE
Virtual University. Additionally, OSLC is creating an on the job
training program manual for graduated officers with an expected
delivery date of March 2010.
OIG Evaluation: This recommendation is resolved and open
pending verification of a completed on the job training program
manual for graduated officers.
Recommendation #22: Ensure that an appropriate level of
coverage on immigration benefits, asylum, and victim and witness
protections is included as part of the 287(g) basic training agenda.
ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. The
"Special Status Aliens" and the "Victim Assistance" elements of
the 287(g) basic training program include an overview of asylum,
victim, and witness protections. Students receive instruction on the
proper methods for assisting victims of human trafficking, abuse or
other alien vulnerabilities. The court's decision in American Baptist
Churches v. Thornburg is explained in detail and discussed in the
"Alternate Orders of Removal" block of instruction. The
assessment of a student's ability to meet the training objectives
throughout the entire course is measured in multiple-choice exams
and a series of 16 hours of hands-on, realistic, scenario-based
practical exercises conducted in the final week of training.
OIG Evaluation: This recommendation is unresolved and open.
As shown in the report, there was limited information in the 287(g)
basic training program for significant immigration benefits. Of the
The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 55

108 slides in the “Alternate Orders of Removal” block of
instruction, we identified 3 that referred to Eligible American
Baptist Churches class members. However, a definition or
explanation of what qualified an alien to be a protected class
member under this court decision was not provided.
Also, the multiple choice exam used to assess the students’ ability
to meet the training objectives does not include any questions that
address the asylum process or immigration benefits, and only three
questions that relate to victim and witness protections and asylum.
Recommendation #23: Establish and issue guidance to field
office staff for 287(g) officer annual recertification training that
emphasizes completion of online refresher training courses.
ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. OSLC is
drafting a policy entitled, "Annual Recertification of Designated
Immigration Officers' Delegated Authority." This policy is
currently pending final approval.
OIG Evaluation: This recommendation is resolved and open
pending our receipt and review of the approved policy.
Recommendation #24: Designate field office responsibilities for
monitoring and enforcing compliance with training guidance to
include, at a minimum, issuing and enforcing revocation notices
for 287(g) officers who do not complete required training.
ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. OSLC is
in the process of drafting a policy titled "Suspension and
Revocation of a Designated Immigration Officer's 287(g)
Authority." This policy is currently pending final approval.
OIG Evaluation: This recommendation is resolved and open
pending our receipt and review of the approved policy.
Recommendation #25: Develop and implement clear guidelines
for using interpreter support to assist with immigration duties and
responsibilities.
ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. ICE trains
287(g) students on the importance of using interpreters in
immigration enforcement. The training addresses the use of
interpreters during the "Sworn Statements" block of instruction.
The 287(g) graduates are granted access to online independent
study foreign language tutorials. In July 2009, OSLC provided
The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 56

LEAs upon request, access to the "DHS Interpreters Service." In an
October 29, 2009 email communication, ICE offered 287(g) state
and local partner's interpretation resources in conjunction with the
Department of Justice's (DOJ) Civil Rights Division. DOJ also
provided additional materials to include a flip card with words in
multiple languages to help identify what language a person speaks.
A printed copy of the communication and additional materials
were mailed separately in November 2009.
OIG Evaluation: This recommendation is unresolved and open.
ICE’s response describes interpreter resources available to 287(g)
officers. However, our finding addresses a need for clear
guidelines that illustrates circumstances under which 287(g)
officers should actually use interpreter support.
Recommendation #26: Establish a process to provide the public
and other stakeholders with comprehensive information about the
287(g) program and associated operations.
ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. OSLC is
developing a communications plan to be implemented in February
2010. The communications plan will incorporate standard
processes for creating, reviewing, and delivering clear, consistent
messages about the 287(g) program, including the goals and
mission of the program, the benefits of the program, and recent
success stories. The communications plan will also include a
stakeholder assessment to identify and assess their needs and
concerns. OSLC has also made modification to its Internet site.
Documentation is readily available to the public, which includes
redacted copies of all existing MOAs.
OIG Evaluation: This recommendation is resolved and open
pending our receipt and review of the communications plan as
implemented. The communications plan should incorporate
program areas identified in the ICE response, in addition to 287(g)
program policies and related statistics on overall program
operations.
Recommendation #27: Ensure the accuracy of information
disseminated to the public about the goals of the 287(g) program,
its various operations, and how immigration enforcement activities
are carried out in the actual working environment.
ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. OSLC is
developing a communications plan for implementation by
February 2010. This will identify roles and responsibilities and
The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 57

incorporate standard processes for creating and delivering clear,
consistent messages about the 287(g) program. The processes will
include appropriate steps for reviewing communications for
accuracy to establish a layer of accountability. Additionally, the
strategy will identify opportunities to strengthen internal
communications to help ensure that stakeholders are receiving and
disseminating accurate information about 287(g). The strategy
will also expand outreach and interaction with key stakeholders,
such as conferences and conference calls, to strengthen feedback
and enable OSLC to identify and address misinformation about the
program in a timely manner.
OIG Evaluation: This recommendation is resolved and open
pending our receipt and review of the communications plan
detailing a process for ensuring the accuracy of 287(g) information
disseminated to the public.
Recommendation #28: Publish 287(g)-complaint reporting
procedures on ICE’s public website, and ensure that these
procedures are posted in participating LEA buildings, and shared at
community meetings.
ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. The
287(g) complaint reporting procedure was completed and posted
on the ICE website in October 2009. Also, the complaint reporting
process is described in Appendix B of the MOA.
OIG Evaluation: This recommendation is resolved and closed.
Recommendation #29: Require 287(g) officers to identify
themselves and display their credentials during federal
immigration arrests, before initiating interviews regarding alien
status and removability, and as part of other immigration
processing activities.
ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. At
graduation, all candidates are awarded ICE 287(g) credentials.
During the training program, all 287(g) students are advised that as
the first mandatory step in any official encounter, they must
identify themselves by name, agency, and title.
OIG Evaluation: This recommendation is unresolved and open.
As part of our review of the 287(g) training program, we did not
identify course material that provided advice regarding officer
identification as a first step in any official encounter. In addition,

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 58

providing such information in the form of advice is not sufficient
to satisfy the intent of this recommendation.
Recommendation #30: Develop training and provide basic
program information for LEA managers who maintain an oversight
role for 287(g) officers in order to increase their understanding of
the program and encourage their support of 287(g) activities.
ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. OSLC
and OTD are creating two new 287(g) training curriculums. The
first training curriculum is for ICE supervisors, the second training
curriculum targets LEA supervisors who have not attended the
287(g) basic training. These two curriculums are still in
development.
OIG Evaluation: This recommendation is resolved and open
pending our receipt and review of the new 287(g) training
curriculum for LEA managers who have not attended 287(g) basic
training.
Recommendation #31: Establish and implement standard
immigration system access profiles for 287(g) officers to ensure that
officers have the access needed to perform immigration functions.
These access profiles should be customized by program model to
address the different functions that TFOs and JEOs perform.
ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. In July
2009, OSLC assumed the responsibility of creating PICS accounts
and ENFORCE profiles for all 287(g) students. This was in
response to complaints from field supervisors that 287(g) officers
were not given all of the accesses they needed to perform their
mission.
OIG Evaluation: This recommendation is unresolved and open.
ICE’s response does not address 287(g) officers’ access to all DHS
systems identified in our report that are used to perform
immigration enforcement functions.
Recommendation #32: Develop a process for performing regular
checks to ensure that aliens identified through the 287(g) program
are not held in unauthorized facilities while in ICE custody.
ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. OSLC
will work with DRO to ensure that after persons identified through
the 287(g) program are taken into ICE custody, only authorized

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 59

and inspected facilities are used to detain them. This process will
be completed by May 2010.
OIG Evaluation: This recommendation is resolved and open
pending our receipt and review of documentation of OSLC and
DRO actions to ensure that only authorized and inspected facilities
are used to detain persons identified through the 287(g) program.
Recommendation #33: Evaluate ICE’s position on the use of
287(g) vehicles by participating LEA officers to determine whether
the vehicles can be used for the purpose for which they were
purchased. If not, identify underutilized 287(g) vehicles, and take
appropriate steps to use or dispose of those assets in accordance
with applicable law.
ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. In FY
2006 – FY 2008, the 287(g) delegation of authority program
purchased 14 sedans and 75 transport vans for OI and DRO. OI
and DRO placed these vehicles in Special Agent in Charge (SAC)
and Field Office Director (FOD) offices that support the 287(g)
program. In 2008, ICE field offices requested permission to
transfer the vehicles to law enforcement agencies participating in
the 287(g) program utilizing hold harmless agreements. OSLC
conferred with OPLA who affirmed that hold harmless agreements
are insufficient to permit 287(g) participants to use government
property or assets except as specified in the MOA. OSLC
informed the SAC and FOD offices that the vehicles could not be
transferred to participating law enforcement agencies and that the
SAC and FOD offices should continue to use the vehicles
themselves to support the 287(g) program. These vehicles are still
being utilized by ICE field offices to support the delegation of
authority mission.
OSLC will re-evaluate its options, and ascertain how these vehicles
are specifically being utilized. OSLC notes that the MOAs specify
the property and assets the government will procure and provide to
287(g) participants. Initial counsel opinion has affirmed that hold
harmless agreements are insufficient to permit 287(g) participants
to use government property or assets except as specified in the
MOA. If, following our re-evaluation, we determine that we are
unable to legally permit the use, any government property or assets
reserved for use by 287(g) participants and not specified by the
MOAs will be returned to inventory and applied to other ICE
mission areas.

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 60

OIG Evaluation: This recommendation is unresolved and open.
We agree with ICE’s response to re-evaluate its approach, and
ascertain how the vehicles are specifically being utilized.
However, if ICE determines that the vehicles cannot be used for
the purpose for which were purchased, ICE should seek legal
counsel to ensure proper disposition of those vehicles, rather than
automatically reallocating them for use in other ICE programs.

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 61 


Appendix A
Purpose, Scope, and Methodology

The Consolidated Appropriations Security, Disaster Assistance,
and Continuing Appropriations Act of 2009 (Public Law 110-329),
and attached House Report 110-862, require that we report on the
performance of 287(g) agreements with state and local authorities.
Pursuant to these requirements, we (1) assessed ICE controls over
287(g) program implementation, (2) determined whether the terms
of 287(g) agreements had been violated by any parties, and
(3) evaluated the effectiveness, efficiency, and economy of 287(g)
operations.
We conducted our fieldwork, which included more than 90
interviews, from February to July 2009. We interviewed civil
rights and immigration-rights NGO representatives from Arizona,
California, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, North
Carolina, and Washington, DC, in addition to ICE and LEA senior
officials and staff.
We consulted with DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
officials on civil rights and civil liberties issues, and technical
aspects of immigration law. Office for Civil Rights and Civil
Liberties representatives accompanied us on three site visits and
assisted with outreach efforts to NGOs.
We also accompanied an ICE OPR inspection team on a scheduled
site visit, and independently observed program activities at six
other 287(g) program jurisdictions. We reviewed 287(g) activities
at the following jurisdictions:
�	
�	
�	
�	
�	

Benton County Sheriff’s Office, Bentonville, AR
City of Springdale Police Department, Springdale, AR
Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office, Los Angeles, CA
Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, Phoenix, AZ
Prince William Manassas Adult Detention Center, 

Manassas, VA
 

�	 Rogers Police Department, Rogers, AR
�	 Washington County Sheriff’s Office, Fayetteville, AR
We selected locations for our site visits from among program sites
that had been operating for more than one year. Selection criteria
included (1) the type of program model in place, (2) the number of
LEA officers active in the program, (3) the number of 287(g)
arrests and removals, (4) indications of possible violations based
on reports of civil rights concerns in media reports, court cases,

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 62 


Appendix A
Purpose, Scope, and Methodology

and complaints and investigations, and (5) whether other oversight
entities had completed or planned site visits to these locations.
We performed extensive document review and analysis of 287(g)
agreements, standard operating procedures, directives and policies,
budgetary information, personnel security records, training
materials, program data, and statistical information.
ICE renegotiated its agreements with participating jurisdictions
based on an MOA template it released in July 2009. The new
agreements contain requirements that were not included in prior
agreements, and eliminate others that were. We did not assess
compliance with the terms of these new agreements, as they were
not in effect at the time of our fieldwork.
We conducted this review under the authority of the Inspector
General Act of 1978, as amended, and according to the Quality
Standards for Inspections issued by the Council of the Inspectors
General on Integrity and Efficiency.

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 63 


Appendix B
Management Comments to the Draft Report

Offu:e
Office ofthe ABislanl
Assutanl &1'fl'101')'
SeC'Tetof)'

u.s.
Dtpanmtnl or lIomtllnd
S«urilY
u.s.. Ikpanmenl
Ilomtland SKurhy
6
;00 12
11m
StreeL
Streel. SW
WashinglOn.
Wuhinglon. DC 2002.1
1001~

u.s. Immigration
and Customs
Enforcement

December 9.2009
9,2009
Deccmbcr

M:'Il111
MEMORANDUM FOR: Carlton I. Mann

#:
/v
/V

ASSistant Inspcctor
InspcclOr Gencral
General
Assistant
Offiee
Orrice of Inspcctor
Inspector Gcncral
General

FROM:

Roben F. Dc AntonroAntonU;DIrector
Audit Liaison Orticc
Orrice

SUBJECT:

~

ICE Input to Ol-IS
Orrico of Inspector General Draft
DJ-IS Response to Officc
Dral1
Agreements"
titled. "The
"Thc Performance of287(g) Agrecmcnts"
Report titled,

Thank you for providing U.S. Immigration and Cusloms
Customs Enforcement (lCE) with the opportllnily
opponunity
to review
Office of Inspector General
011 the subject Orrice
Gencral (DIG)
(OIG) Draft Repon.
Report.
revicw and comment on
In the
thc past year, ICE has improved the 287(g) program. Many of the
tile improvements
improvemcnts made wcre
were
cnsuring the effective and efficicnl
efficient
relmed
related directly to program controls and objectives and ensuring
operation of the 287(g) program.
allended the ICE 287(g) confercnce.
the on-going
In April 2009,
2009. OIG auditors .Hlended
conference. Many of tile
improvements to the 287(g) program identified at
the conference have been included in this
<ltthe
repon. ICE appreciates their inclusion. ICE also provided a technical response with the
statistical break out
OUI of the number of aliens idenlified,
identified, processed.
proccssed. and removed by the 287(g)
progmm.
the 287(g)
program. ICE also provided some pertinent
peninent examples demonstrating
demonstraling the value of tile
program for inclusion in the final report.
believes an evaluation of the program
progrJ.m must
repon. ICE believcs
alicns identified. processed
communities
processcd and removed from our cOl1ununities
consider the number of criminal aliens
and the cost savings to the federal govemment from
frolll the program and using 287(g) officers as a
force multiplier.
Ollr response, ICE identi
the program. ICE
In our
idcmi fied
tied many changes already Illl<lcrway
underway to improve lhe
the 33 OIG recommendations
recommcndations be considered resolved and closed bascd
based on the
requests that 16 of tile
thai 16 others
othcrs be considered resolved and open
taken. ICE requests that
action ICE already has takcn.
pending receipt of additional documentation to be provided within 90 days from the rclease
releasc date
of tile
thc final report.
repon. Finally. ICE does
docs not
rccommendation #18. but is carefully
nOt concur with recolllmendation
rccolllmendation to ensure thai
panners protcct
prolcct the civil
lhat ICE's 287(g) partners
assessing the goal of this recommendation
encolilltered.
liberties
libenies of every individual encountered.

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 64
 


Appendix B
Management Comments to the Draft Report

''The
Subject: ICE In-put to DHS Response to Office of Inspector General Draft Report titled, 'The
of287(8) Agreements"
Performance of287(g)
Page 22 0[13
of 13

to collect and maintain arrest, detention, and
DIG Recommendation I: "Establish a process 10
removal data for aliens in each priority
priorily level for use in determining the success of ICE's focus on
aliens who pose the greatest risk to public safety and the community."
QIG Recommendation I: ICE concW'S.
concurs. In June 2009. ICE's Office of State
ICE Response to DIG
(OSLe) created a data
dala quality review section to analyze data that 287(g)
and Local Coordination (OSLC)
officers put into ICE systems. The data quality review section ensures consistency in reporting
requirements and analyzes arrest and removal data of aliens identified as part of the 287(g)
determine ifit operates
program. ICE will review the results to evaluate each jurisdiction and detennine
priorilies set forth in the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). Particular
consistent with the priorities
attention will be paid to the numbers of criminal aliens identified and the nature of their offenses.
Further, in August 2009 the ICE OSLC mandated that 287(g) officers populate the Criminal
Sensitivity Level fields in the Enforcement Case Tracking System (ENFORCE). OSLC is
currently working with ICE's Secure Communities (SC) and ICE's Detention and Removal
Operations (ORO) to refine the Criminal Sensitivity Levels to comply with ICE priorities. A
copy of the memorandum requiring population of the Criminal Sensitivity Level fields in
ENFORCE is included for your infonnation.

It is requested
requestcd Recommendation I be considered resolved and closed.
11
10 Recommendation 2: "Develop procedures to ensure that 287(g) resources are allocated
rCE's priority framework."
according to ICE's
ICE Response to OIG Recommendation 2: ICE concurs. OSLC is developing a strategic plan
ofthc
directly aligns its goals and objectives, and those of
that direetly
the 287(g) program, with ICE and OHS
the justification is reviewed by the 287(g)
priorities. Before ICE enters into a new 287(g) MOA, Ihe
Commiuee and ICE's Office of the Assistant Secretary (OAS) to ensure the expansion
Advisory Committee
of the 287(g) program aligns with the priorities and objectives of ICE and OHS.

OSLe's capturing of statistical information assists ICE in measuring adherence to ICE priorities
OSLC's
and also advances the mission priority of apprehending criminal aliens. Finally, ICE measures a
program's effectiveness largely based upon the number and nature of aliens identified for
removal by 287(g) officers. OSLC has drafted a revised perfonnance measure that will consider
nalUre of the criminal offense based on the severity ofcrime (Levels 1,2,
I, 2, and 3). OSLe will
the nature
establish a baseline and communicate largets
targets for each severity level. The targets will reflect both
prioritizations based on crime level as well as average volume of encounters within each crime
level.
Recommcndation 2 be considered resolved and open pending OIG receipt of
It is requested Recommendation
documcntation.
documentation.
OIG
DIG Recommendation 3: "Establish and implement TECS data entry requirementS
requirements that renect
invcstigative effons and related prosecutions associated with the 287(g) program."
program."
investigative

ICE Response to OIG Reeommendation
Recommendation 3: ICE concurs. The recommendation was completed
Oircctors signed a
on May 9, 2009, when the ICE Office of Investigations (01) and ORO Directors
memorandum requiring 01 and ORO offices to use the Treasury Enforcement Communication

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 65
 


Appendix B
Management Comments to the Draft Report

Subject: ICE Input to DHS Response to Office ofInspector
Genen.J Draft Report titled.
titled, "'The
'"The
ofInspoctor General
Perfonnance of287OO Agreements"

Page 3 of 13

System (TEeS) program codes specific to the 287(g) program. Program code YTO will be used
to capture administrative arrests and program code 6LL 10 capture investigations and
prosecutions. A copy afthe
of the memorandwn requiring use aCthe
orthe TECS program codes is included
for your information.
infonnation.
It is requested Recommendation 3 be considered resolved and closed.

orG Recommendation 4: "Establish a process to ensure effective supervision of287(g) officers
and immigration enforcement operations,"
operations."
orG Recommendation 4: ICE concurs. The OSLe
ICE Response to OlG
OSLC and the ICE Office of
Training and Development (OTD) are developing a SupervisorylManager
SupcrvisorylManager training curriculum
cuniculum for
ICE personnel who oversee 287(g) officers in the field. ICE anticipates a three-day course thai
that
oflCE and our panners
partners under the MOA. The training
addresses all aspects
aspc:cts and responsibilities onCE
2010.
FYIO0 perfonnance measures include hcadquarten
will be operational in 201
O. Further. OSLe FYI
headquarters
orthe
oversight
oVeBight of
the supervisory functions for 287(g). OSLC program managers will be in
continuous contact with the field personnel to ensure adequate and effective supervision oflaw
orJaw
enforcement agencies (LEA). Additionally, OSLe
OSLC is developing a comprehensive
undentanding of ICE supervisory roles. This
communications plan to facilitate widespread understanding
communications plan will be ready for implementation
implcmcnwion by February 2010. The plan will
incorporale a standard processes for creating, reviewing and delivering clear, consistenl
incorporate
consistent
messages about the 287(g)
287(&) program,
program. including the goals and mission of the program, the benefits
of the program, and recent success stories. The communications plan will also include a
identify and assess its needs and concerns.
stakeholder assessment to identil'y
concCfnS. This assessment will help
OSLC
OSLe appropriately tailor communications to address these needs and concerns. Additionally,
the communications plan will identify
identil'y and assess the appropriate channels (e.g., websites,
conferences, newsletlen,
newsletters, etc.) for infonning stakeholden
stakeholders about 287(g) and expanding access to
and availability ofcritical facts
facls about
aboul the program and associated operations. OSLC will
coordinate with OTD to ensure the plan is included in future supervisory training modules.
It is requested Recommendation 4 be considered resolved and open pending OIG receipt of

additional documentation.
OIG Recommendalion
Recommendation 5: "Develop controls to ensure thai
that supervisory responsibilities for
287(g) supervisors are considered when detennining staffing ralios
ratios in ICE field offices."
ICE Response to OlG
OIG Recommendation 5: ICE concurs.
conclln;. ICE strives to effectively balance the
officers in the field creates
nwnber of supervisors and employees. The addition of287(g) OffiCCB
workforce challenges. ICE has received
receivod funding thai
that will allow additional supervisory positions
287(&) program. ICE has distribuled
t01a1 of23 program manager positions 10
within the 287(g)
distributed a total
to field
support existing 287(g)
287(&) programs. These supervisors will provide daily oversight
ovmight of
offices to suppon
287(g) MOA within their area of
ofresponsibilily,
responsibility, review administrative charging documents,
documents.,
taskings, mc:d
partners and community stakeholders about
respond 10
to 287(g)-related taskings.
meet: wilh
with LEA panners
poinl ofcontact between the field and HQ OSLC on 287(g)
287(g) issues, serve as the primary point
issues, train LEAs about ICE's mission and priorities, and conduct ICE ACCESS
related issues..
outreach. ICE will deploy the additional supervisory positions (11 for or and 12 for ORO) to
field offices with multiple 287(g) agreements or the potential for multiple agreements. Using
mechanisms., OSLC will closely monitor the hours devoted to
TECS and manual reporting
reponing mechanisms,

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 66
 


Appendix B
Management Comments to the Draft Report

Subject: ICE Input to DHS Response to Office of Inspector General Draft Repon titled, ''The
Perfonnance af2S?(&)
of287(g) Agreements"

Page4of13

287{g)
287(g) activities by ICE supervisory personnel. These additional positions will help balance the
ration of supervisors. ICE will strive to continue expanding the number of supervisors as the
287(g) program matures.
II is requested Recommendation 5 be considered resolved and closed.

OIG Recommendation 6: "Ensure thai
tha1281(g)
287(g) supervision is provided by aulhorized staffwilh
CIG
skills. and abilities."
the appropriate knowledge, skills.,
CIG Recommendation 6: ICE concurs. The OSLe and om
ICE Response 10 OIG
oro are developing a
perwnnel who ovcnee
OVeJSee 287(g)
287(8) officm in the
SupervisorylManagcr training curriculum for ICE permnnel
to be approximately three days. The training will cover all
field. The training is anticipated 10
of the MOA for ICE and our partners. All
287(g) ICE managers and
aspects and responsibilities afme
AI1287(g)
supervisors will be required to complete the training, which will be operational in 2010.
It is requested
rcquested Recommendation 6 be considered resolved and open pending OIG receipt of
additional documentation.

DIG Recommendation 7: "Develop and implernent287(g}
implement 287(g) field supervision guidance that
OIG
includes.. at a minimum (t)
(1) the frequency and type ofcontact required between 287(g) officers
includes.
and ICE supervisors; (2) the preparation, review, and approval of operational plans for
community-based immigration enforcemem
enforcement activities; and (3) performance feedback
requirements for 287(g) officers."
DIG Recommendation 7: ICE concurs. OSLC is creating a communications
ICE Response to OIG
plan to improve our interactions with community groups and all of our stakeholders. The plan
communicate, and about what issues to
will help ICE determine how to communicate, when to cammunicate,
cammunicate. The plan will outline best communication practices and benefits. The goal is to
communicate.
ensure stakeholders understand the 287(g) program's policies and initiatives. The
10 be completed by February 2010 and will address the issues
communications plan is scheduled to
raised in the draft: report. The communications strategy will incorporate a standard process for
crealing, reviewing, and delivering clear, consistent messages about the 287(g) program,
program.
of the program,
program. the benefits of
the program,
orthe
prognun. and recent success
including the goals and mission ofthe
cammunications sU'ategy
strategy will also include a stakeholder assessment to identify and
stories. The communications
assess stakeholders' needs and concerns.
It is requested Recommendation 7 be considered resolved and open pending DIG
OIG receipt of
additional documentation.

DIG Recommendation 8: "Establish and implement a comprehensive process for conducting
010
reviews, as well as mriews
reviews on an as-needed basis, to determine whether to modify,
periodic mriews,
extend, or terminate 287(g) agreements. At a minimum, this process should include an
extend.
assessment of (I) current or previous concerns expressed by field office staff; (2) media attention
or community concerns that contribute to negative or inappropriate conclusions about the 287(g)
program; (3) lawsuits or complaints; (4) potential civil rights and civil liberties violations; and
10 provide effective supervision and oversight:"
oversight."
(5) ICE's ability to

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 67
 


Appendix B
Management Comments to the Draft Report

Subject:
of Inspector General
General Draft
Draft Report
Report titled,
tilled. 'The
"The
Subject: ICE
ICE InJl:ut
Input to
to DHS
DHS Response
Response to
to Office
Office of
Perronnance
Perronnance of287(g)
of287(g) Agreements"

PageS
Page 5orJ3
orJ3

ICE
fY 2008, the ICE Office of
ICE Response
Response to
to DIG
DIG Recommendation 8: ICE concurs. In FY
Professional
tenns of
Professional Responsibility
Responsibility (OPR) established a 287(1)
287(g) Review Program to review the leons
the
10 support decisions to
10 modify. extend,
extend. or
or
the MOAs.
MQAs. OSLC
OSLC relies on OPR
OPR inspections reports to
counterparts,
terminate
Itnninate 287(g)
287(g) agreements.
agreements. Further.
Further. OSLC communicates regularly with LEA counterpans,
Civil Liberties
Liberties
non-government
non-government organizations
organizations (NGOs). and the DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil
(CRel)
communications to
to
(CRel) to
to collect
collect feedback
feedback about the 287(g) program. The fonnalization of communications
LEAs
2010.
LEAs is
is included
included in
in the OSLC communications plan that will be completed in February 2010.

ItIt isis requested
of
requested Recommendation
Recommendation 8 be considered resolved and open pending DIG receipt of
additional
additional documentation.
documentation.

DIG
committees with
with
DIG Rccommeodarion
Recommendation 9: "Require 287(g) program siles 10 maintain steering commiuees
external
external stakeholders.
stakeholders, with a focus on ensuring compliance with the MOA."
ICE
QSLC is
ICE Response
Response to
to OIG
OIG Recommendation 9: ICE concurs. As previously noted, OSLC
and
developing
developing aa communications
communications plan which will incorporate all channels for delivering and
receiving key
key communications,
communications, including steering committees. The communications strategy
receiving
strategy
will be
be implemented
implemented in 2010, and will include a communications planning matrix to identify
will
idenlify
critical communications
communications activities, when they need to be executed, and the
the point-of-contact
point-of-contact
critical
responsible for
for executing
executing the activities.
responsible
requested Recommendation
Recommendation 9 be considered resolved and open pending OIG
ItIt isis requested
QIG receipt of
of
additional documentation.
documentation.
additional
to periodicallycross-<:heck
periodicallycross-check OPR, OSLC, and
OIG Recommendation
Recommendation 10: "Establish a process 10
OIG
and
OCIO records
records to
to confinn
continn 287(g) officers' eligibility and suitability to exercise authorities granted
OCIO
granted
under 287(g)
287(g) MOAs:'
MOAs."
under
ICE Response
Response 10
to 010
010 Recommendation 10: ICE concurs, with one minor clarification.
ICE
Presently, 287(g)
287(g) officers
officers are vetted only for suitability purposes, not for issuing federal security
security
Presently,
clearances as
as stated
stated in
in this finding.
rhlding. ICE has eslablished
established aa system
systcm to ensure that
Ihat suitability
clearances
reviews are
are conducted
conducted for
ror all 287(8) officers. This process is addressed
addressed. in the ICE
ICE policy
reviews
established in
in October
October 2007 litled
titled "ICE Screening Criteria for Federal, State, or Local Law
established
Enforcement, Correctional,
Correctional, and Mission Suppon Personnel Supponing ICE Programs." ICE
Enforcement,
ICE
acknowledges that,
that, prior
prior to the establishment
establislunent of this policy, while attempting to meet the
acknowledges
challenges associated
associated with
with the exponential growth of
oflhe
Chieflnfonnation
the program, Office of
ofChiefinfonnatkm
challenges
Officer, OPR,
OPR, and
and OSLC
OSLC rosters of287(g) nominees and officers were not
noc reconciled. This
This lack
lack
Officer,
ofreconciliation,
reconciliation, which
which is described quantitatively in the
the second and third paragraphs
of
p8Jagraphs of
of page
page 18,
18,
involves less
less than
than one
one percenl
percent of
of the
the 287(g)
287(g) population
population velled
vetted to
involves
to date.
dale. Additionally,
Additionally, in
in May
May
2007, when
when OPR
OPR assumed
assumed the
the responsibility
responsibility for
for vetting
vetting 287(g)
287(g) candidates,
candidates, inactive
inactive 287(8)
287(g)
2007,
officers were
were not
not vetted.
vetted. This
This accounts
accounts for
for 48
48 inactive
inactive officers,
officers, or
or 84
84 percent,
percenl, of
of the
the 57
57 noted
noted on
on
officers
page 18
18 orlhe
of the repon.
repon. The remaining nine officers in OSLC records have been identified;
page
idenlified; three
three
and aa vetting
request was
was forwarded
have been
been vetted
vetted for
for sui
suitability,
have
lability, and
vetting request
forwarded to
to OPR
OPR for
for the
the remaining
remaining
To further
funher ensure
ensure proper
proper access
access is
is granted
granted only
only to
to qualified
qualified panicipanlS,
six. To
panicipanlS, OSLC
OSLC is
is creating
creating aa
six.
policy titled
titled "Suspension
"Suspension and
and Revocalion
Revocation ofa
of a Designated
Designated immigration
Immigration Officer's
Officer's 287(g)
287(g)
policy
This policy
policy will
will fonnalize
formalize the
the CUrTent
current cross
cross checks
checks perfonned
Authority." This
perfonned by
by the
the OSLC
OSLC training
training
Authority."
manager
on
activelinactive
287(g)
officers
listed
with
OPR.
manager on &Ctive/inactive 287(g) officers listed with OPR.

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 68
 


Appendix B
Management Comments to the Draft Report

Subject: ICE Input
General Draft Report
Report tilled.
titled. -me
"The
Input to
10 DHS RCSJ'Ol¥
Respo~ 10 Office of Inspector Gc:nen.l
Pctfonnance
Performance of287(g) Agreements

Page 6 of 13

It
pending DIG
OIG receipt
re«ipt of
of
It is requested Recommendation 10 be considered resolved and open pending
additional documentation.

QIG
lEAs report to
to OPR
OPR any
any
QIG Recommendation 11: "Establish a process to ensure that LEAs
allegations or complaints against 287(g) officers and other
Olher LEA personnel alleged
alleged to
to have
have
as
well
as
the
results
of
any
improperly performed
immigration
enforcement
activities.
results of any
perfonned
subsequent
subsequent investigations."

ICE Response 10
recommendation was
was completed
completed
to OIG
DIG Recommendation 11: ICE concurs. The recommendation
in July 2009 when the new MOA template was published. The MOA requires participating
participating
agencies
as the
the outcome
outcome
10 inform
infonn ICE of all complaints regarding their 287(g) officers as well as
agencies to
orthose
the new MOA template is included for your ready
ready reference.
reference.
ofthe
orthose complaints. A copy of
ItIt is
is requcsted
requested Recommendation II be considered resolved and closed.
the results
results of
of
OIG
OIG Recommendation 12: "Establish and implement procedures on how the
complaints.
personnel conducting
conducting
complaints. allegations., and subsequent investigations against LEA personnel
immigration enforcement activitics
of the suitability
suitability and
and
activities should be maintained and used as part ofthc
recertification processes."
pnxesses...
recertification

ICE Response to OIG Recommendation 12: ICE concurs. OSLC
ICE
OSLe has developed
developed aa
comprehensive procedure
pnxedure through which it delivers the results of all OPR
comprehensive
OPR inspections
inspections and
and the
the
respective areas for improvement to ICE field components for action. All inspection
respective
inspection and
and
administrative investigative findings from
l'rom OPR, CRCl..
administrative
CRCL, and the
the DIG will be
be evaluated
evaluated
thoroughly by OSLC management to best detenninc
thoroughly
detennine the feasibility of all ICE
ICE 287(g)
287(g)
partnerships, whether potential or current in stalus. The same process is used
partnerships,
used to
to document
document
LEA omcerderogatory
officer derogatory findings. A copyofthe
individual LEA
individual
copy of the procedure
procedure for addressing
addressing OPR
OPR 287(g)
287(g)
reports is included for your infonnation.
is requcsted
requested Recommendation 12 be considered resolved and closed.
ItIt is
OIG Recommendation 13: "Establish specific opemling
operating protocols and requirements
requirements for
for
OIG
operational variances identified in task force and jail enforcement program models."
operational
models."
ICE Response to
to OIG Recommendation 13: ICE concurs. The recommendation
recommendation was
was completed
completed
ICE
in July
July 2009 with
with issuance ofthe new MOA tcrnplate.
in
template. Appendix D of the revised
revised MOA
MOA was
was
drafted to provide nexibility to address issues
local concern, including the
issucs of
oflocal
the variances
varianccs cited
ciled in
in
drafted
the OIG report. ICE can negotiate with jurisdictions before entering into 287(g)
the
287(g) partnerships
partnerships to
to
address supervisory arrangements, state and local laws. and other specific needs
address
needs or
or aa particular
particular
agency.
agency.
is requested
requested Recommendation
Recommendation 13
13 be
be considered
ItIt is
considered resolved
resolved and closed.
closed.
OIG Recommendation
Recommendation 14:
14: "Study
"'Study the
the feasibility
and appropriateness
appropriateness of
of increasing
increasing the
the frequency
frequency
OIG
feasibility and
ofOPR 287(g)
287(g) inspections,
inspections, and
and repon
report findings
ofOPR
findings to
to the
the OIG."
OIG,"

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 69
 


Appendix B
Management Comments to the Draft Report

Subject:
Rcpon tilled, '1"he
'"The
Subject: ICE
ICE Inj:lut
Input to DHS Response 10
to Office of Inspector General Draft Report
Performance
Performance or287(g)
of287(g) Agreements"
Agreements"
Page
ofl)
Page 77ofl3
ICE
the
ICE Response
Response 10
to OIG
DIG Recommendation 14: ICE concurs. In 2009, ICE decided 10 increase the
frequency
of64 of
afthe
281(g)
frequency ofOPR
ofOPR 287(g)
287(g) inspections. In FYI
FYIO0 QPR will ensure that 48 or64
the 287(g)
programs,
programs, or
or 75
75 percent,
percent, will have been reviewed.
IIII is
is requested
requested Recommendalion
Recommendation 14 be considered resolved and open pending OIG receipt of
additional
additional documentation.
documentation.
infonnation about past and
and
OIG
OIG Recommendation
Recommendation 15: "Require 287(8)
287(8} applicants to provide information

pending
of
pending civil
civil rights
rights allegations, and incorporate a civil rights and civil liberties review as part of
the
the documented
documented 287(g)
287(g) site
site selection and MOA review process."
ICE
completed
ICE Response
Response to
to OIG
OIG Recommendation IS:
15: ICE concurs. The recommendation was completed
in
anending
when OSLC created a "candidate questionnaire" for all LEA officers anending
in August
August 2009
2009 when
287(g)
the OSLe Internal
287(g) training.
training. Additionally,
Additionally, DHS CRCL is now an active participant in lhe
Advisory
information.
of the questionnaire is included for your infonnation.
Advisory Committee.
Committee. A
A copy
copy of!he

is requested
requested Rccommcrxlation
Recommendation IS
I S be considered fCSOlved
resolved and closed.
l!l! is
DIG Recommendation
Recommendation 16: "Include a rcprcscntalive
representative on !he
the advisory committee to provide
OIG
insights into
into civil
civil rights
rights and civil liberties issues as part ofthe approval process."
insights
ICE Rcsponse
Response to
to OIG
OIG Recommendation 16: ICE COflCurs.
concurs. The recommendation was completed
ICE
in October
October 2009
2009 when
when OHS
DHS CRCL began participating in Ihe
in
the OSLe Internal Advisory
Committee.
Committee.
is requested
requested Recommendation
Recommendation 16 be considered resolved and closed.
ItIt is
OIG Recommendation
Recommendation 17: "Develop a process to ensure that infonnation
OIG
information submitted from ICE
field offices
offices as
as pan
pan of
of the application review process is fully taken into consideration before a
field
final decision
decision is
is made.
made. This recommendation should include provisional approvals that
final
thai require
resource considerations
considerations to ensure proper supervision and oversight."
resource
ICE Response
Response to
to OIG
OlG Recommendation 17: ICE concurs. The recommendation was completed
ICE
an Internal Advisory Committee. The first meetins
of the group occurred
when OSLC
OSLC instituted
instituted an
when
meeting of
occurred
in May
May 2009.
2009. The
The OSLC
OSLC Advisory
Advisory Committee
Committee assesses
assesses and
and reviews field office
in
287{g) MOA
MOA applications.
applications. The Advisory Committee is
recommendations about
about pending
pending 287(g)
recommendations
comprised ofstakeholder
ofstakeholder representatives
representatives from
from ICE
ICE 01,
01, ORO,
ORO, OTO,
comprised
OTO, SC.
SC. Office
Office of
or Principle
Principle
Legal
Advisor
(OPLA)
Office
ofChieflnfonnation
Officer.
Office
of
Congressional
Legal Advisor (OPLA) Office ofChieflnfonnation Officer. Office of Congressional Relations,
Relations,
ofPublic
Public Affairs.
Affairs. and
and OHS
DHS CRCL
CRCL
Office of
Office
is requested
requested Recommendation
Recommendation 17
17 be
be considered
considered fCSOlved
resolved and
ItII is
and closed.
closed..
OIG Recommendation
Recommendation 18:
IS: ..Establish
..Establish collection
collection and reponing
reponing standards
standards that
that provide
provide objective
objective
OIG
data to
to increase
increase monitoring
monitoring of
of methods
methods panicipatingjurisdictions
panicipatingjurisdictions use
data
use in
in carrying
carrying out
out 287{g)
287(g)
functions, and
and their
their effect
effect on
on civil
civil liberties.
liberties. Collection
Collection and
and reponing
functions,
reponing requirements
requirements should
should
(l) the
lhe circumstances
circumstances and
and basis
basis for
for TFO
include, at
at aa minimum
minimum (I)
include,
TFO contacts
contacts with
with the
the public,
public, (2)
(2) Ihe
the
race and
and ethnicity
ethnicity of
of those
those contacted,
contacted. and
and (3)
(3) the
the prosecutorial
prosccutorial andjudicial
race
and judicial disposition
disposition of287(g)
of287(g)
arrests."
arrests."

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 70
 


Appendix B
Management Comments to the Draft Report

orJnspector General Draft Report titled, 1'he
Subject: ICE Input to OHS Response 10 Office orJnspettor
'The
Performance of287(g) Agreements"

Page 8 ofl3

ICE Response 10 OIG Recommendation 18: ICE does not concur but is carefully assessing the
goal of this
Ihis recommendation to ensure thai
that ICE's
panners protect lhe
the civil liberties of
leE's 287(g) partners
individual they encounter. DIG
010 recommends the collection ofdata that milTOr5
every individuallhey
milTOrs thai of a
consent decree applicable to agencies that are found to have engaged in racial profiling. This
data beyond thaI
that which DHS and DOJ require of their own law
would require the collection of daiS
ofJi~rs and agencies. Although ICE strongly opposes racial profiling and adheres
enforcement officers
10 all data collection requirements of federallaw,lhe collection of
arthis
fully to
this data raises logistical
issues including whether a TFO would report all interactions, just interactions predicated solely
perfonning
on 287(g) authority, and how the TFO would distinguish in a meaningful way while performing
his or her daily duties.

OIG Recommendation
Recommendalion 19: "Determine whether the current timeframe for civil rights law
training is adequate to achieve appropriate coverage, and modify timeframes and coverage as
needed to ensure that sufficient training is provided:'
ICE Response to 010 Recommendation 19: ICE concurs. The 287(g) basic training currently
liberties. Staning
Starting in FY2010,
FY201 0, OSLC
has five blocks of instruction related to civil rights and civil Iibenies.
Virtual University course on an annual
requires that 287(g) officers complete a "Use of Race" Vinual
certification. The civil rights training in 287(g) addresses those provisions in
basis to retain their cenification.
do
110
111
Sdl, 61ll
mailers,
the 41ll110, 5"',
, and 14 Amendments. The training covers criminal and administrative matters,
including an alien's right to counsel and the distinctions in that right. The training details the
of civil rights and the consequences for depriving
Federal statutes that address the deprivation ofcivil
iftheir rightsrights. This training supplements all of the law enforcement training that 287(g)
people iflheir
perfonn their daily jobs. The 287(g) training program supplements that
officers already have to perform
training with information unique to immigration enforcement and applicable federal laws. The
training was tailored to the target audience of already experienced law enforcement officers.
It is requested Recommendation 19 be considered resolved and closed.

of MOAs and
OIG Recommendation 20: "Ensure that 287(g) basic training includes coverage ofMOAs
procedures."
public outreach and complaint procedures:'
concW'S. On the fim day of training, OPLA
ICE Response to 010 Recommendation 20: ICE concurs.
ofthe
the MOA. Although ICE provides this
instructors train participating officers about the terms of
that our 287(8)
287(g) partners
panners also ensure that their participating
panicipating officers
training. ICE also expects thai
understand the responsibilities specified in the MOA. Public outreach principles are:
llRi covered
extensively in the "'Cross
"Cross Cultural Communication" block of instruction in the 287(g) training
OIG during the field work phase. Instruction in
program. This information was provided to the 010
instruction in
''Complaint Procedures" was included in the training program with additional instruc:tion
complaint procedures and officer integrity. A copy of the complaint procedures module
OIG's role in investigating allegations of misconduct by state and local 287(8)
287(g)
outlining the DIG's
information.
officers is included for your infonnation.

IIIt is requested Recommendation 20 be considered resolved and closed.
OIG Recommendation 21;
21: "Enhance the current 287(g) training program to provide
DIG
comprehensive coverage of immigration systems and processing. At a minimum, this should

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 71
 


Appendix B
Management Comments to the Draft Report

Injlut to DHS Response 10 Office of Inspector General Draft Report titled,
titled. "The
Subject: ICE Input
Perfonnance of287(g) Agreements"
Penonnance
Page 9 of 13
include hands-on experience during the 287(g) basic training course, on-the-job training,
training. and
periodic refresher training."
ICE Response to 010 Recommendation 21: ICE concurs. In February 2009, OSLe
Q$LC and oro
oro
created a one week refresher training for active 287(g) officers who wanted additional
287(g) basic training
Immigration law and ICE systems training. In November 2009, the 287(g}
state-or-the art simulated detainee processing and holding center. This
academy began using a state-of-the
allows 287(g) officers to experience various scenarios that occur when processing aliens.
Currently, 287(g) students receive extensive training in immigration systems and alien
processing. 287(g) students depart the ICE Academy with at least three practice folders to use as
reference materials for fUlure processing. Students work with these folders in class during the
"A-File Review" block of instruction. Students are also provided a number ofjob aids offering
step-by-step guides to processing aliens in the field. At any time 287(g) officers can access the
Vinual University. Additionally, OSLC is
online distance learning refresher courses on the ICE Virtual
creating an on the job training program manual for graduated officers with an expected delivery
date of March 2010.
21 be considered resolved and open pending OIG
It is requested Recommendation 2\
DIG receipt of
additional documentation.
OIG
DIG Recommendation 22: "Ensure that an appropriate level of coverage on immigration
benefits, asylum, and victim and witness protections is included as part of the 287(g) basic
training agenda."
ICE Response to OIG Recommendation 22: ICE concurs. The "Special Status Aliens" and the
"Victim Assistance" elements of the 287(g) basic training program include an overview of
asylum and victim and witness protections. Students are instructed in the proper methods for
assisting victims of human lrafficking or abuse or other vulnerable aliens. The coun's
court's holding in
American Baptist Churches v. Thornburg is specifically explained and discussed
diseussed in the
"Alternate Orders of Removal" block of instruction. The assessment ofa student's ability to
meet the training objectives throughout the entire course is measured in multiple-choice exams
and a series of 16 hours of hands-on, realistic, scenario-based practical exercises conducted in
the final week of training. This infonnation was provided to the OIG
DIG during the field work
phase.
It is requested Recommendation 22 be considered resolved and closed.
OIG
to field office starr
staJTfor
287(g} officer
DIG Recommendation 23: "Establish and issue guidance 10
for 287(g)
annual recertification training that emphasizes completion of online refresher training courses."

ICE Response 10
to OIG
DIG Recommendation 23: ICE concurs. OSLC is in the process of drafting
and disseminating a policy titled "Annual Reccnilication
Recertification of Designated Immigration Officers'
Delegated Authority,"
Authority." This policy is currently pending final approval.
It is requested Recommendation 23 be considered resolved and open pending OIG receipt of
additional documentation.

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 72
 


Appendix B
Management Comments to the Draft Report

Subject:
"'The
Subject: ICE
ICE Input
Input to
to DHS Response 10 Office of Inspector General Draft Report titled, ''The
Perfonnance
Perfonnance of287(g)
of287(g) Agreements"
Page
Page 100f13
100f13
CIG
monitoring and enforcing
enforcing
OIG Recommendation 24: "Designate field office responsibilities for monitoring
compliance
compliance with
with training
training guidance to include., at a minimum. issuing and enforcing revocation
training."
notices
287(g) officers
officers who do 001
not complete required ttaining."
notices for
for 287(g)
and
ICE
OSLC is in the process ofdrafting and
ICE Response
Response to
to OIG
OIG Recommendation 24: ICE concurs.
COl'lCW'$. 051£
disseminating
lmmigration Officer's
Officer's
disseminating a policy
policy titled "Suspension
''Suspension and Revocation ofa Designated Immigration
287(g)
287(g) Authority."
Authority." This policy is currently pending final approval.
IIIt isis requested
OIG receipt of
of
requested Recommendation
Recommendatiun 24 be considered resolved and open pending orG
additional
additional documentation.
documentation.

DIG
010 Reeonunendation
Recommendation 25: "Develop and implement clear guidelines for using interpreter
responsibilitiCSo"
support
to assist
assist with
with immigntion
immigration duties and responsibilities."
support 10
ICE
the
ICE Response
Response to
to DIG
DIG Recommendation 25: ICE concurs. ICE trains 287(g) students about the
importance
importance of
ofinterpreters
interpreters in immigration enforcemenl.
enforcemenL The training addresses the use of
interpreters during
during the
the "'Sworn Statements" block ofinslJUction.
of instruction. The 281(g) graduates are
interpreters
are
to online
online independent study foreign language tutorials. This information was
granted access
access to
granted
to the
the DIG
DIG during the field work phase. Funher,
Further, in July 2009 OSLC provided LEAs
provided to
provided
Service." On October 29, 2009, in an email
upon request,
request, access
access to the "DHS Interpreters Service,"
upon
ICE offered 281(g) stale
state and locaJ
local partner's interpretation resources in
communication, ICE
communication,
conjunction with
with the
the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Civil Rights Division. DOJ also
conjunction
aJso provided
10 include a 'flip card' wilh words in multiple languages 10
additional materials
materials to
to help identify
additional
what language
language aa penon
person speaks. A hard copy of the communication and additional materials were
were
what
mailed out
out separately
separately in November 2009. AJl281(g)
All 281(g) partners were reminded of the legal
mailed
obligations associated
associated with accepting federal funds and the provision ofJanguage
of language assistance.
obligations

is requested
requested Recommendation
Recommendation 25 be considered resolved and closed.
ItIt is
OlG Recommendation
Recommendation 26: "Establish a process to provide the public and other stakeholden
DIG
stakeholders with
with
comprehensive
information
about
the
287(g)
program
and
associated
operations."
comprehensive information
281(g)
ICE Response
Response to
to OIG
OIG Recommendation 26: ICE concurs. OSLC is developing a
ICE
be implemented in February 201 O. The communications plan will
communications plan
plan to be
communications
creating, reviewing and
and delivering clear, consistent
incorporate standard
standard processes for creating.
consisterlt messages
messages
incorporate
the
281(g)
program,
including
the
goals
and
mission
of
the
program,
the
benefits of
the
about
ofthe
about the 281(g) program,
program, and
and recent
recent success stories.
stories. The communications
commWlications plan will also include a stakeholder
program,
to identify
identify and assess its needs and concerns. OSLC has also made modification to
assessment to
to
assessment
its internet
internet site.
site. Documentation
Documentation is readily available to the public, which includes redacted copies
its
copies
ofall
all existing
existing MOAs.
MOAs.
of
is requested
requested Recommendation
Recommendation 26
26 be
be considered
considered resolved
ItIt is
resolved and open
open pending
pending Ola
OIG receipt
receipt of
of
additional documentation.
documentation.
additionaJ
OIG Recommendation
Recommendation 21:
21: "Ensure
"Ensure the
the accuracy
accuracy of
of information
information disseminated
disseminated to
to the
the public
public about
about
OIG
the goals
goals orthe
oCtile 281(g)
287(g) program,
program. ils
its various
various operations.
operations. and
and how
how immigration
immigration enforcement
enforcement
the
activities are
are carried
carried out
out in
in the
the actual
actual working
working environment."
environment."
activities

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 73
 


Appendix B
Management Comments to the Draft Report

Subject:
tilled. "The
"The
Subject: ICE Inpullo
InpullO DHS Response 10
to Office of Inspector General Draft Report tilled.
Perfonnance
Performance of287(g) Agreements"
Page
Page 11
11 ofl3
of13
ICE
nOled, OSLC
OSLe is
is
ICE Response
Response to DIG Recommendation 27: ICE concurs. As previously noted.
developing
2010.
will outline
outline roles
roles
developing a communications plan for implementation by February 201
O. This will
and
responsibilities
and
incorporate
standard
processes
for
creating
and
delivering
clear,
and responsibilities and
clear,
stories or
or
consistent messages about the 287(g) program. such as newsletters with success stories
important
important statistics
slatistics highlighting the benefits afme
of the program. The processes will include
appropriate
of
appropriate steps
steps for reviewing communications for accuracy 10 establish a layer of
accountability.
the strategy will identify opportunities to strengthen internal
internal
accountability. Additionally,
Additionally,the
disseminating
communications
communications to help ensure that internal stakeholders are receiving and disseminating
interaction with
with
accurate
accurate infonnation
information abouI287(g). The strategy will also expand outreach and interaction
key
calls. to strengthen feedback and
and enable
enable
key stakeholders,
stakeholders, such as conferences.
conferences, and conference calls,
OSLC
OSLC to
to identify
identify and
and address misinfonnation about the program in aa timely manner.
It
DIG receipt
receipt of
of
It is
is requested
requested Recommendation 27 be considered resolved and open pending OIG

additional
additional documentation.
documentation.
OIG
reporting procedures on ICE's
ICE's public
public
OIG Recommendation
Recommendation 28:
28: "Publish 287(g)<ompliant reponing
website, and
and ensure that these procedures are posted in panicipating LEA buildings,
buildings., and
and shared
shared
website,
at community
community meetings."
meetings:'
at
ICE Response
Response to DIG
OIG Recommendation 28: ICE concurs. The recommendation was completed
ICE
completed
on October
October 2009, when ICE posted.
posted, on the ICE.govIOSLC website, infonnation about
on
about how
how to
to
file aa 287(g)
287(g) complaint. The process is the same found in Appendix B of the MOA.
file
requested Recommendation 28 be considered resolved and closed.
ItIt isis requested
OIG Recommendation
Recommendation 29: ~Require
"Require 287(g) officers to identify themselves and display
OIG
display their
their
credentials during federal immigration arrests, before initiating interviews regarding
regarding alien
alien status
status
credentials
and removability,
removability, and as pan ofother immigration processing activities."
and
OIG Recommendation 29: ICE concurs. At graduation, all candidates
ICE Response
Response to DIG
ICE
candidates are
are
awarded ICE
ICE 287(g) credentials. During the training program, all 287(g) students are
are advised
advised
awarded
that, as
as the
the first mandatory step in any official encounter, they must identify themselves
themselves by
by name,
name,
that,
agency, and
and title.
a8ency,
It is
is requested
requested Recommendation 29 be considered resolved and closed.
It

OIG Recommendation
Recommendation 30: "Develop trainin8
training and provide basic program infonnation
DIG
infonnation for
for LEA
LEA
managers who maintain
maintain an oversight role for 287(g) officers in order to increase their
managers
their
understanding of the program
program and encourage their support of287(g) activities:'
understanding
activities."
ICE Response to DIG
010 Recommendation 30: ICE concurs. As previously nOled,
ICE
noted, the
the OSLC
OSLC and
and
OTD are
are creating two new 287(g) training cumculums. The
OTD
The first
first training
training is
is for
for ICE
ICE supervisors,
supervisors,
the second
second training
training is
is for
for LEA
LEA supervisors
supervisors who
who have
the
have not
not attended
attended the
the 287(g)
287(g) basic
basic training.
training.
are
still
in
development.
These
two
curriculums
These two curriculums are still in development.
It is
is requested
requested Recommendation
Recommendation 30
30 be
be considered
considered resolved
It
resolved and
and open
open pending
pending OIG
OIG receipt
receipt of
of
additional documentation,
documentation.
additional

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 74
 


Appendix B
Management Comments to the Draft Report

'The
Subject: ICE Input to DHS Response 10 Office of Inspector General Drat\
Draft Report titled,
tilled, "The
Perronnance of287(g) Agreements"
.
Page 120[\3
Pagel2of13
DIG Recommendation 31: "Establish and implement standard immigration system
syslem access
OIG
profiles for 287(g)
287(g} officers to ensure thai
that officers have the access needed to perform immigration
functions. These access profiles should be customized by program model to address the different
functions that
!hal task force officers and jail enforcement officers perform,"
perform."
Response to OIG
ICE Response:
DIG Recommendation 31: ICE concurs. In July 2009 OSLe
OSLC assumed the
responsibility ofcreating PIeS
PlCS accounts and ENFORCE profiles for all 287(g) students. This
was in response to complaints from field supervisors that 287(g) officers were nol given all of
the accesses they needed 10 perform their mission.
It
II is requested Recommendation 31 be considered resolved and closed.

to ensure thaI
that
OIG Recommendation 32: "Develop a process for performing regular checks 10
aliens identified through the 287(g) program are not held in unauthorized facilities while in ICE
custody."
concurs. OSLC wilt
will work with ORO to ensure
ICE Response to OIG Recommendation 32: ICE concun.
that after persons identified through the 287(g) program are laken
taken into ICE custody.
custody, only
authorized and inspected facilities are used to detain individuals. This process will be completed
aUlhorized
within 120 days.
It is requested
OIG receipt of
requcsted Recommendation 32 be considered resolved and open pending 010
additional documentation.

OIG Recommendation 33: "Evaluate ICE's position on the use of287(g) vehicles by
participating LEA officers to detennine
determine whether the vehicles can be used for the purpose for
underutilized 287(g) vehicles.
vehicles, and lake
take appropriate
which they were purchased. Ifnot, identify undenltilized
those asset5
steps to use or dispose of
ohOOse
assets in accordance with applicable law."
law."'
ICE Response to OIG Recommendation 33: ICE concurs.
In FY2006 - FY2008, the 287(g) delegation of authority program purchased 14 sedans and 75
transpon vans for 01 and ORO. 01
transport
OJ and ORO then placed these vehicles in Special Agent in
(FOD) offices that support the 287(g) program. In
Charge (SAC) and Field Office Director (FOO)
2008, ICE field offices requested permission to transfer the vehicles to law enforcement agencies
2008.
hannless" agreements. The Office of State
participating in the 287(g) program utilizing "hold
'"hold hamtlcss"
and Local Coordination conferred with the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPU)
(OPLA) who
affinned that "hold harmless" agreements are insufficient to pennit
permit 287(g) participants to use
affirmed
government property or assets except as specified in the MOA. OSLC infonned the SAC and
FOD offices that the vehicles could not be transferred to participating law enforcement agencies
to usc
use the vehicles internally to support
suppon the
and that the SAC and FOD offices should continue [0
to support
suppon the
287(g) program. These vehicles are still being utilized by ICE field offices 10
delegation ofauthority
ofauthorhy mission.

OSLC will re-evaluate its options on this topic and ascertain how these vehicles are specifically
being utilized. OSlC
OSLC notes that the MOAs specify the
tnc property and assets the government will
procUtc
ahove, initial counsel opinion has affinned
procure and provide to 287(g)
287(g} participants. As stated above.
that "hold hannless"
usc government
bannlcss" agreements are insufficient to permit 287(g) participants to use

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 75
 


Appendix B
Management Comments to the Draft Report

tilled,
Subject: ICE Input 10 DHS Response to Office of Inspector General Draft Report Iii
led, "The
Perfonnance of287(g) Agreements"
Performance
Page 13 of 13
If. following our fe-evaluation,
re-evaluation, we determine
detennine
property or assets except as specified in the MOA. If,
are unable to legally permit the use; any government property or assets reserved for use
that we arc
10 inventory and applied
by 287(g) participants and not specified by the MOAs will be returned to
to other ICE mission areas.
II is requested that Recommendation 33 be considered resolved and open pending DIG
OIG receipt of
It
additional documentation.
questions: or concerns, please contact Megan Reedy.
Reedy, DIG portfolio
ponfolio manager at
Should you have qucstions
(202)732-4185 or bye-mail at
Megan.Recdy@dhs,gov.
atMegan.Reedy@dhs.li!Ov.

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 76
 


Appendix C
287(g) Application and Approval Process

ICE’s 287(g) Application and Approval Process
State and local law enforcement agencies interested in launching a
287(g) program are required to submit a request to ICE. ICE field
offices conducted field surveys to ensure that 287(g) applicants
were knowledgeable of the program requirements, and that
requests for participation had been vetted by appropriate state and
local government officials. These surveys also provided
information on the potential number of illegal aliens who could be
removed from the country through the program, and the level of
program support needed from ICE field offices operating in the
area. ICE headquarters officials considered ICE field office
recommendations, along with survey results, in determining
whether to pursue a 287(g) agreement with the requesting law
enforcement agency.
ICE received five applications for participation in the 287(g)
program from its establishment in 2003 until FY 2005.20 During
FYs 2006 and 2007, state and local interest in the 287(g) program
increased, triggering a significant rise in applications. In FYs 2006
and 2007, ICE received 18 and 71 applications, respectively.
In response to expanding interest in the 287(g) program, ICE
modified the application and selection process to incorporate other
ICE program initiatives that might better address community
needs. Under the ICE ACCESS program, state and local law
enforcement agencies that apply for the 287(g) program can select
from among 13 other ICE services and programs.21
State and local law enforcement agencies apply for participation in
the 287(g) program via a formal request letter to ICE. Applicants
are required to complete an ICE ACCESS needs assessment to
provide specific information about the jurisdiction, including its
detention facilities; involvement in ICE task forces; and frequency
of encounters with fraudulent immigration documents, counterfeit
goods, and foreign-born gang members operating in the area. ICE
factors in this information to assess the jurisdiction’s immigration
enforcement challenges, and whether any other ICE ACCESS
programs and services would be more appropriate in addressing its
needs.

20

Prior to ICE’s establishment, the former Immigration and Naturalization Service received and considered 

287(g) applications. 

21
Refer to appendix D for a complete list of ICE ACCESS programs and services. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 77

Appendix C
287(g) Application and Approval Process
ICE field offices provide recommendations on whether ICE should
pursue a 287(g) agreement with a requesting jurisdiction. Field
recommendations are evaluated by an advisory committee
established in early 2009. This advisory committee consists of
representatives from 15 units within ICE, including DRO, OI,
OCIO, OPR, and the Office of Training and Development. The
committee develops and forwards consensus recommendations to
the ICE Assistant Secretary on whether 287(g) collaborations with
applicant LEAs would benefit ICE and the local community. The
ICE Assistant Secretary reviews advisory committee
recommendations before making a final determination.

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 78 


Appendix D
ICE ACCESS Programs

ICE ACCESS Programs
In addition to the 287(g) program, ICE operates the following
22
programs under the ICE ACCESS umbrella:
Asset Forfeiture/Equitable Sharing
The ICE Asset Forfeiture Program provides funding to state, local,
and foreign law enforcement agencies that participate jointly in
ICE investigations leading to seizures and forfeitures. ICE uses
asset forfeiture to disrupt criminal enterprises in areas such as
money laundering, bulk cash smuggling, worksite enforcement,
and alien- and drug-smuggling investigations. ICE provides seized
and forfeited funds and equipment to state, local, and foreign law
enforcement counterparts through the Department of Treasury's
Equitable Sharing Program. In addition to equitably sharing
assets, some state and local law enforcement agencies are eligible
to receive reimbursement for overtime and other limited
investigative expenses associated with joint investigations.
Border Enforcement Security Task Forces
Border Enforcement Security Task Forces consist of DHS law
enforcement agencies working cooperatively with other law
enforcement entities to develop comprehensive approaches to
identifying, disrupting, and dismantling criminal organizations
posing significant threats to border security. These task forces are
designed to increase information sharing and collaboration among
participating agencies, and currently operate in Arizona,
California, Florida, Michigan, New Mexico, New York, Texas, and
Washington, as well as in Mexico City, Mexico.
Criminal Alien Program
The Criminal Alien Program focuses on identifying criminal aliens
who are incarcerated within federal, state, and local facilities,
ensuring that they are not released into the community by securing
a final order of removal prior to the termination of their sentence.
Customs Cross-Designation (Title 19)
Title 19 U.S.C. 1401(i) allows ICE to cross-designate federal, state,
local, and foreign law enforcement officers as “customs officers”
22

The following program descriptions are derived from information on ICE websites:
http://www.ice.gov/partners/dro/iceaccess.htm, and http://www.ice.gov/oslc/iceaccess.htm.
The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 79

Appendix D
ICE ACCESS Programs
and grant them the authority to enforce U.S. customs law. Crossdesignated task force officers support ICE investigative missions to
combat narcotics smuggling, money laundering, human smuggling
and trafficking, and fraud-related activities and disrupt and
dismantle criminal organizations threatening U.S. borders. In
October 2009, ICE reported that it had cross-designated
approximately 300 law enforcement officers with Title 19 authority.
Document and Benefit Fraud Task Forces
ICE Document and Benefit Fraud Task Forces target, dismantle,
and seize illicit proceeds of criminal organizations that threaten
national security and public safety through immigration fraud.
These task forces provide platforms to launch anti-fraud initiatives
using existing manpower and authorities. Through the task forces,
ICE partners with other federal, state, and local law enforcement
agencies. These task forces focus on detecting, deterring, and
disrupting both benefit fraud and document fraud. As of August
2009, these task forces operated in 17 locations around the Nation.
Fugitive Operation Teams
The primary mission of fugitive operation teams is to identify,
locate, apprehend, process, and remove fugitive aliens from the
United States, with the highest priority placed on those who have
been convicted of crimes. Fugitive aliens are those who have
failed to leave the United States based upon a final order of
removal, deportation, or exclusion; or who have failed to report to
ICE after receiving notice to do so. Fugitive operation teams’ goal
is to eliminate the backlog of fugitive aliens and ensure that the
number of aliens deported equals the number of final orders of
removal issued by the immigration courts in any given year.
Outside law enforcement agencies assist fugitive operation teams
by participating in local Joint Fugitive Task Forces.
Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center
The Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center is the U.S.
government’s central point of contact in the fight against violations
of intellectual property rights and the flow of counterfeit goods
into the U.S. The multiagency center is responsible for
coordinating a unified U.S. government response regarding
intellectual property rights enforcement issues, with an emphasis
on protecting the public health and safety of U.S. consumers,
investigating major criminal organizations engaged in transnational
intellectual property crimes, and pursuing the illegal proceeds
The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 80

Appendix D
ICE ACCESS Programs
derived from the manufacture and sale of counterfeit merchandise.
ICE provides investigative and intelligence personnel for the
center.
Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC)
The mission of the LESC is to protect the United States and its
people by providing timely, accurate information and assistance to
the federal, state, and local law enforcement community. The
LESC serves as a national enforcement operations center by
providing customs information and immigration status and identity
information to local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies
on aliens suspected of, arrested for, or convicted of criminal
activity. The LESC operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
assisting law enforcement agencies with information gathered from
eight DHS databases, the National Crime Information Center,
Interstate Identification Index, and other state criminal history
indexes.
Operation Community Shield
Operation Community Shield is a national law enforcement
initiative to fight violent transnational gangs threatening public
safety. Under this initiative, ICE uses its criminal and
administrative authorities against gangs and gang members in
collaboration with federal, state, and local law enforcement
partners. The goal of Operation Community Shield is to identify,
locate, arrest, and prosecute gang members and associates and
ultimately disrupt and dismantle gang organizations.
Operation Firewall
Smuggling bulk currency out of the United States is a method for
moving illicit proceeds across our borders. To combat the use of
bulk cash smuggling by criminal organizations, the ICE and DHS’
Customs and Border Protection developed a joint strategic bulk
cash smuggling initiative called Operation Firewall. Operation
Firewall has resulted in the seizure of more than $80 million in
U.S. currency and negotiable instruments of suspected narcotics
and other criminal proceeds.
Operation Predator
Operation Predator is a program designed to identify, investigate,
and, as appropriate, administratively deport child predators. ICE
coordinates and integrates investigative efforts with state, local,
The Performance of 287(g) Agreements
Page 81

Appendix D
ICE ACCESS Programs
and foreign law enforcement to identify, arrest, and prosecute the
principals who are involved in international pedophilic groups or
who derive proceeds from commercial child exploitation ventures.
Rapid Removal of Eligible Parolees Accepted for Transfer
(REPAT)
The ICE Rapid REPAT program is designed to expedite the
process removing criminal aliens from the United States by
allowing selected criminal aliens incarcerated in U.S. prisons and
jails to accept early release in exchange for voluntarily returning to
their country of origin. Eligible aliens agree to waive appeal rights
associated with their state conviction(s) and must have final
removal orders. In states where Rapid REPAT is implemented,
certain aliens who are incarcerated in state prison and who have
been convicted of non-violent offenses may receive early
conditional release if they have a final order of removal and agree
not to return to the United States. ICE has such arrangements with
four states and Puerto Rico.
Secure Communities
The Secure Communities program aims to improve the
identification of criminal aliens and prioritize the removal of
dangerous criminal aliens. Under the program, ICE provides state
and local LEAs with access to biometric identification systems that
permit them to perform integrated record checks on all arrested and
incarcerated persons, as well as on those criminals previously
released from custody. ICE uses information from these checks to
prioritize the immigration processing and removal of aliens based
on their threat to public safety.

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 82 


Appendix E
287(g) Program Jurisdictions

287(g) Jurisdictions
ICE has 287(g) agreements with 67 LEAs. As of October 28, 2009, six of
these agreements remained agreements in principle, as they were pending
approval by a local governing body. We have listed participating
jurisdictions below by state, and included those with which ICE has an
agreement in principle but for which the MOA is pending local approval.
Table 3. Jurisdictions Participating in the 287(g) Program
Program Model
Participating Jurisdictions
Task
Jail

Alabama
Alabama Department of Public Safety
Etowah County Sheriff's Office

�

Arkansas
Benton County Sheriff's Office
City of Springdale Police Department
Rogers Police Department
Washington County Sheriff's Office

�
�

Arizona
Arizona Department of Corrections
Arizona Department of Public Safety
City of Mesa Police Department
City of Phoenix Police Department
Florence Police Department
Maricopa County Sheriff's Office
Pima County Sheriff's Office
Pinal County Sheriff's Office
Yavapai County Sheriff's Office

�

�
�
�
�

California
San Bernardino County Sheriff's Office

�

Colorado
Colorado Department of Public Safety
El Paso County Sheriff's Office

�

Connecticut
City of Danbury Police Department
Delaware
Delaware Department of Corrections

Originally
Signed

Current
Status

�

9/10/2003
7/8/2008

Signed
Signed

�
�
�
�

9/26/2007
9/26/2007
9/25/2007
9/26/2007

Signed
Signed
Signed
Signed

9/16/2005
4/15/2007
3/10/2008
10/21/2009
2/7/2007
3/10/2008
3/10/2008
3/10/2008

Signed
Signed
Pending
Signed
Signed
Signed
Signed
Signed
Signed

10/19/2005

Pending

�

3/29/2007
5/17/2007

Signed
Signed

�

10/15/2009

Signed

10/15/2009

Signed

Force

�
�
�
�
�
�
�

�

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 83
 


MOA

Appendix E
287(g) Program Jurisdictions
Program Model
Participating Jurisdictions

MOA

Jail

Task
Force

Originally
Signed

Current
Status

�

�
�
�

6/15/2008
8/6/2007
7/2/2002
7/8/2008

Signed
Signed
Signed
Pending

2/13/2007
7/27/2007
10/15/2009
2/29/2008
2/4/2008

Signed
Signed
Signed
Signed
Signed

�

2/6/2008

Signed

Minnesota
Minnesota Department of Public Safety

�

9/22/2008

Signed

Missouri
Missouri State Highway Patrol

�

6/25/2008

Signed

9/8/2008

Signed

5/5/2007

Signed

�
�

8/11/2008
10/15/2009

Signed
Signed

�
�

1/10/2007
8/2/2007
2/1/2008
2/22/2007
10/15/2009
6/25/2008
2/27/2006
6/25/2008

Signed
Signed
Signed
Signed
Signed
Signed
Signed
Signed

2/5/2008

Signed

Florida
Bay County Sheriff's Office
Collier County Sheriff's Office
Florida Department of Law Enforcement
Jacksonville Sheriff's Office

�

Georgia
Cobb County Sheriff's Office
Georgia Department of Public Safety
Gwinnett County Sheriff's Office
Hall County Sheriff's Office
Whitfield County Sheriff's Office

�
�
�
�

Maryland
Frederick County Sheriff's Office

�

Nevada
Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

�
�

�

New Hampshire
Hudson City Police Department

�

New Jersey
Hudson County Department of Corrections
Monmouth County Sheriff's Office
North Carolina
Alamance County Sheriff's Office
Cabarrus County Sheriff's Office
Durham Police Department
Gaston County Sheriff's Office
Guilford County Sheriff's Office
Henderson County Sheriff's Office
Mecklenburg County Sheriff's Office
Wake County Sheriff's Office

�
�
�
�

�
�

Ohio

�

Butler County Sheriff's Office

�

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 84
 


Appendix E
287(g) Program Jurisdictions
Program Model
Participating Jurisdictions
Oklahoma
Tulsa County Sheriff's Office
Rhode Island
Rhode Island Department of Corrections
Rhode Island State Police

Jail

Task
Force

Originally
Signed

Current
Status

�

�

8/6/2007

Signed

�

10/15/2009

Pending
Signed

�

6/25/2008

�

South Carolina
Beaufort County Sheriff's Office
Charleston County Sheriff's Office
York County Sheriff's Office

�
�

Tennessee
Davidson County Sheriff's Office
Tennessee Department of Safety

�

Texas
Carrollton Police Department
Farmers Branch Police Department
Harris County Sheriff's Office

MOA

�
�

�

�

10/16/2007

Signed
Pending
Signed

2/21/2007
6/25/2008

Signed
Signed

8/12/2008
7/8/2008
7/20/2008

Signed
Signed
Pending

9/22/2008
9/22/2008

Signed
Signed

3/21/2007
6/25/2008
3/10/2008
3/5/2008
2/26/2008
2/26/2008
7/9/2007
4/25/2007
5/10/2007

Signed
Signed
Signed
Signed
Signed
Signed
Signed
Signed
Signed

Utah

�
�

Washington County Sheriff Office
Weber County Sheriff's Office
Virginia
Herndon Police Department
Loudoun County Sheriff's Office
Manassas Park Police Department
Manassas Police Department
Prince William County Police Department
Prince William County Sheriff's Office
Prince William-Manassas Regional Jail
Rockingham County Sheriff's Office
Shenandoah County Sheriff's Office
Source: ICE OSLC.

�
�
�

�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 85 


Appendix F
Major Contributors to This Report

Deborah Outten-Mills, Chief Inspector, Department of Homeland
Security, Office of Inspector General, Office of Inspections
Justin H. Brown, Senior Inspector, Department of Homeland
Security, Office of Inspector General, Office of Inspections
Jacqueline Simms, Senior Inspector, Department of Homeland
Security, Office of Inspector General, Office of Inspections
Morgan Ferguson, Inspector, Department of Homeland Security,
Office of Inspector General, Office of Inspections
Tatyana Martell, Inspector, Department of Homeland Security,
Office of Inspector General, Office of Inspections

The following individuals contributed as subject matter experts in
the area of civil rights and civil liberties:
Bruce Friedman, Senior Policy Advisor, Department of Homeland
Security, Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
Amy Cucinella, Policy Advisor, Department of Homeland
Security, Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 86 


Appendix G
Report Distribution
Department of Homeland Security
Secretary
Deputy Secretary
Chief of Staff for Operations
Chief of Staff for Policy
Deputy Chiefs of Staff
General Counsel
Executive Secretariat
Assistant Secretary for Office of Policy
Assistant Secretary for Office of Public Affairs
Assistant Secretary for Office of Legislative Affairs
Acting Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
Assistant Secretary for U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement
Director, GAO/OIG Liaison Office
ICE Audit Liaison
U.S. Department of Justice
Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights
DOJ GAO/OIG Liaison
Office of Management and Budget
Chief, Homeland Security Branch
DHS Program Examiner
Congress
Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees, as
appropriate

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 87
 


ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND COPIES
To obtain additional copies of this report, please call the Office of Inspector General (OIG) at (202) 254-4100,
fax your request to (202) 254-4305, or visit the OIG web site at www.dhs.gov/oig.
OIG HOTLINE
To report alleged fraud, waste, abuse or mismanagement, or any other kind of criminal or noncriminal
misconduct relative to department programs or operations:
• Call our Hotline at 1-800-323-8603;
• Fax the complaint directly to us at (202) 254-4292;
• Email us at DHSOIGHOTLINE@dhs.gov; or
• Write to us at:
DHS Office of Inspector General/MAIL STOP 2600,
Attention: Office of Investigations - Hotline,
245 Murray Drive, SW, Building 410,
Washington, DC 20528.
The OIG seeks to protect the identity of each writer and caller.