REDACTED – PUBLIC VERSION

COOPERATION OF SCAAP RECIPIENTS
IN THE REMOVAL OF CRIMINAL ALIENS
FROM THE UNITED STATES
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
Audit Division
Audit Report 07-07
January 2007
REDACTED – PUBLIC VERSION

COOPERATION OF SCAAP RECIPIENTS IN THE REMOVAL OF
CRIMINAL ALIENS FROM THE UNITED STATES*
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As required by Congress (Public Law 109-162), the United States
Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) conducted
an audit of the Office of Justice Programs’ (OJP) State Criminal Alien
Assistance Program (SCAAP). The congressional mandate required the OIG
to provide answers to four questions involving jurisdictions that receive
SCAAP funding:
Whether there are States, or political subdivisions of a State, that have
received compensation under Section 241(i) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1231(i)) and are not fully cooperating in the
Department of Homeland Security’s efforts to remove from the United
States undocumented criminal aliens (as defined in paragraph (3) of
such section).
Whether there are States, or political subdivisions of a State, that have
received compensation under section 241(1) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1231(i)) and that have in effect a policy that
violates section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1373).
The number of criminal offenses that have been committed by aliens
unlawfully present in the United States after having been apprehended
by States or local law enforcement officials for a criminal offense and
subsequently being released without being referred to the Department
of Homeland Security for removal from the United States.
The number of [criminal] aliens . . . who were released because the
State or political subdivision lacked space or funds for detention of the
alien. 1
SCAAP is a payment program administered by OJP, through its
component the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), in conjunction with the
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) bureau within the Department

* The full version of this report included information that the Department of
Homeland Security considered to be Law Enforcement Sensitive information. To create this
public version of the report, the OIG redacted (deleted) the sensitive portions and noted
that the information was redacted.
1

(2006).

See Appendix II of this report for Public Law No. 109-162, section 1196 (c),

-i–

of Homeland Security (DHS). 2 SCAAP was authorized by the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 to provide federal assistance to
states and localities for the costs of incarcerating certain criminal aliens who
are in custody based on state or local charges or convictions. 3 In fiscal year
(FY) 2005, BJA distributed $287.1 million in SCAAP payments to 752 state,
county, and local jurisdictions. 4
The following table displays the 10 jurisdictions that received the
largest SCAAP payments from the FY 2005 appropriation. Collectively, they
accounted for nearly 69 percent of the SCAAP payments made from that
appropriation.
TOP TEN SCAAP RECIPIENTS – FY 2005
State
California

Jurisdiction
5
State of California
New York
State of New York
Texas
State of Texas
New York
City of New York
Florida
State of Florida
6
California
Los Angeles County
Arizona
State of Arizona
California
Orange County
Illinois
State of Illinois
Massachusetts
State of Massachusetts
TOTAL
Source: Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA)

Amount
$ 85,953,191
24,022,356
18,582,484
15,893,255
12,806,110
12,530,034
12,139,791
6,562,437
4,731,269
4,728,549
$197,949,476

Although 752 jurisdictions received SCAAP payments from the FY 2005
appropriation, the vast majority of them received relatively small amounts.
The following chart summarizes the number of recipients by dollar amount.

2

Prior to creation of the DHS in 2003, the functions currently performed by ICE
were performed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which at the time was part
of DOJ.
3

Public Law No. 103-322 (1994).

4

FY 2005 is the most recent year for which payment information was available. See
Appendix III for payment information for FYs 2005 and 2004.
5

When we define a jurisdiction as the “state,” we are referring to the state
department of corrections. We are not including all the counties and municipalities within
the state that may have separately received SCAAP payments.
6

This refers to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.

-i–

Source: OIG analysis of BJA data

The program reimburses states and localities that incur correctional
officer salary costs for incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens who:
(1) have at least one felony or two misdemeanor convictions for violations of
state or local law, and (2) are incarcerated for at least four consecutive days
during the established reporting period. 7 Applicants for funding are required
to provide correctional officer salary costs, the total of all inmate days, and
details about eligible inmates housed in their correctional facilities during
that period.
For the applications received, ICE assists BJA by checking the inmate
data submitted by the jurisdictions that seek SCAAP payments to determine
the immigration status of those inmates. This process is described as
“vetting” the data. 8

7

The reporting period does not coincide with the fiscal year for which SCAAP funds
are appropriated. For example, the reporting period for FY 2006 funds was July 1, 2004,
through June 30, 2005. Similarly, the reporting period for FY 2005 funds was July 1, 2003,
through June 30, 2004.
8

According to a July 2003 Memorandum of Understanding between ICE and OJP,
ICE agreed to determine, by SCAAP applicant, the number of eligible inmates.

- ii –

Historically, congressional appropriations for SCAAP have been less
than the total amount sought by all the jurisdictions applying for SCAAP
payments. As a result, BJA pays a pro rata amount of the jurisdictions’
submitted expenses. In April 2005, the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) issued a report stating that 80 percent of the SCAAP aliens were
incarcerated in the five states of Arizona, California, Florida, New York, and
Texas in FY 2003. GAO found that SCAAP payments to four of those states
were less than 25 percent of the estimated cost to incarcerate SCAAP
criminal aliens. The FY 2003 SCAAP payments amounted to 12 percent of
the estimated incarceration costs for California, 24 percent for New York,
17 percent for Florida, and 14 percent for Arizona.9
SCAAP RECIPIENTS’ COOPERATION WITH ICE
The first congressional question asked us to determine whether there
are recipients of SCAAP funds that do not fully cooperate with the efforts of
DHS to remove undocumented criminal aliens from the United States.
Congress did not define “fully cooperate,” nor did our review of immigration
legislation disclose any specific steps that localities are required to take to
help effect the removal of criminal aliens from the United States.
To respond to this question, we interviewed ICE officials to obtain their
views, distributed a questionnaire to 164 SCAAP recipients, and conducted
independent testing in 7 jurisdictions that received SCAAP funding. 10 Our
field testing included interviews with local officials and review of local files. 11

9

Government Accountability Office. Information on Criminal Aliens in Federal and
State Prisons and Local Jails, GAO-05-337R, April 7, 2005. GAO reported that data on the
cost of incarceration for the State of Texas were not available.
10

See Appendix IV for a list of the jurisdictions we surveyed and those that
responded. The 164 agencies in the sample received $264.8 million, or 92.2 percent of the
FY 2005 SCAAP payments. The 99 respondents to our questionnaire received $205.4
million, or 71.6 percent of the FY 2005 SCAAP payments.
11

We performed field work at the State of California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation; State of Oregon Department of Corrections; State of Texas Department of
Criminal Justice; Clark County, Nevada; Cook County, Illinois; City of New York, New York;
and the City and County of San Francisco, California. We selected these sites to have a mix
of state, county, and local jurisdictions that received SCAAP payments of at least $1 million
each. Collectively, these seven jurisdictions received $128.3 million, or 44.7 percent of the
SCAAP payments issued from the FY 2005 appropriation.

- iii –

Views of ICE Officials
We asked ICE officials to identify SCAAP recipients that they believe do
not fully cooperate with ICE in the removal of undocumented criminal aliens
from the United States. Because ICE does not maintain records describing
SCAAP recipients that do not cooperate in the effort to remove criminal
aliens, they noted that any information they might provide us would be
anecdotal.
We also contacted officials at ICE headquarters and solicited their
views first about the cooperativeness of SCAAP recipients generally and later
about the seven jurisdictions where we performed field work. ICE officials
commented favorably with respect to the entities’ cooperation about every
jurisdiction except the City and County of San Francisco, and they declined
to suggest alternative sites for our field work.
According to an agent working at ICE headquarters, the ICE San
Francisco Field Office has encountered difficulties, which they attributed to a
“bare minimum” of cooperation. Specifically, we were told that ICE agents
are not permitted to access San Francisco County jail records without the
authorization and approval of the Sheriff. ICE agents are authorized to enter
the jails to interview prisoners and to access the “all-jail alphabetical list” of
inmates but they do not have authorization to access booking cards, housing
cards or other jail records. ICE officials commented on this situation as
being different from other localities that have allowed ICE agents such
access. Despite these views expressed by ICE officials, San Francisco
officials believe they are cooperating sufficiently with ICE.
In the absence of a congressional definition of “fully cooperating” to
guide us, we developed specific tests to measure the degree to which SCAAP
recipients assisted ICE in the effort to remove criminal aliens from the
United States. We looked at whether SCAAP recipients: (1) inquire into the
immigration status of individuals in custody; (2) notify ICE when criminal
aliens are in custody; (3) accept detainers from ICE; and (4) notify ICE
when criminal aliens are about to be released from custody. 12
Our review did not disclose any instances of outright failure to
cooperate with ICE in the removal of criminal aliens from the United States.
Instead, we found that local jurisdictions often set the enforcement of state
and local law as a priority, while sometimes permitting or encouraging law
12

A detainer is a notice from ICE asking officials at the detention facility to notify
ICE before releasing a detainee.

- iv –

enforcement agencies and officers to work with ICE to some degree on
immigration matters.
In addition to answering our questions on the level of cooperation
received by state and local agencies, ICE officials also made suggestions on
how to improve the SCAAP program. Some ICE headquarters officials
expressed a desire to have responsibility for SCAAP transferred from BJA to
ICE and to make SCAAP payments contingent upon participation in the
“287(g)” program. Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
provides that ICE may enter into a written agreement with a state or locality
enabling qualified state or local law enforcement agents to carry out certain
functions relating to immigration enforcement, including investigation,
apprehension, or detention of aliens in the United States. 13
Other ICE officials expressed the view that SCAAP is “misguided”
primarily because SCAAP applications are based on a custody period in the
year prior to the one in which payments are sought. In the view of those
officials, payment for the past costs of incarceration does nothing to further
the removal of undocumented criminal aliens currently in the United States.
Some ICE headquarters officials also stated they would like to have
graduated payments based on the SCAAP recipient taking steps toward the
removal of criminal aliens from the United States. Larger payments could be
provided to a jurisdiction when a final order of removal is obtained and for
participating in the “Section 287(g)” program. This would result in payment
for assisting ICE in identifying and removing criminal aliens rather than
merely housing them.
Results of Survey
We also surveyed 164 of the 752 state, county, and local agencies that
received SCAAP funding from the FY 2005 appropriation and received
responses from 99 jurisdictions. Our questionnaire included the following
four questions designed to assess their cooperation with ICE: 14

13

8 U.S.C. § 1357(g) (1996).

14

Our questionnaire included boxes where the respondent could check “yes” or
“no.” However, some respondents wrote in “not applicable,” or “unknown,” and, in some
cases, the respondent chose not to answer a particular question. Our questionnaire also
included spaces where the respondent could add explanatory comments.

-v–

•

If law enforcement officers from your jurisdiction arrest an
individual on state or local charges, do they generally ask the
subject about his or her immigration status?

•

If law enforcement officers from your jurisdiction have reason to
believe that someone they arrest may be an undocumented alien,
do they generally inform ICE that the individual is in their custody?

•

Do the detention facilities in your jurisdiction generally accept
detainers from ICE for undocumented criminal aliens in their
custody?

•

Do the detention facilities in your jurisdiction generally alert ICE
prior to releasing any undocumented criminal aliens in their
custody?

None of the respondents answered negatively to all four questions.
Fourteen respondents answered “no” to 2 questions and 5 respondents
answered “no” to 3 questions. 15
•

Thirty jurisdictions reported they do not generally ask arrestees
about their immigration status. However, some jurisdictions
explained that arrestees are asked about their country of birth
rather than immigration status, and others stated that immigration
status is determined during the booking process rather than at the
time of arrest. 16

•

Seventeen respondents reported they do not inform ICE when they
have someone in custody who they believe may be an
undocumented alien. However, many of those 17 jurisdictions
added qualifying remarks. For example, some agencies stated that
ICE agents come to the state or local institution to review files,
which would obviate the need to inform ICE. Other jurisdictions
criticized ICE and stated they do not inform ICE about possible
undocumented aliens in their custody because they believe ICE will
not respond.

15

See Appendix X for additional details about the responses that contained more
than one negative answer.
16

Thirty-four jurisdictions checked the “no” box on the questionnaire, but 4 of those
34 jurisdictions added comments stating that they are custodial institutions and their
officers do not have arrest authority.

- vi –

•

Eighteen jurisdictions reported they do not alert ICE prior to
releasing undocumented criminal aliens from custody. However,
several of those jurisdictions added clarifying remarks. For
example, one respondent stated they are generally not aware of the
immigration status of individuals in custody. Another reported that
releases of inmates must occur within a very short time after a local
court orders the release. Another jurisdiction stated its officials do
not alert ICE prior to releasing an undocumented criminal alien
from custody “unless ICE asks us to.”

Results of Field Work
In addition, we interviewed officials and reviewed files at seven
jurisdictions that received funding from the FY 2005 appropriation for
SCAAP. The officials whom we interviewed included local officials
knowledgeable in the areas of SCAAP and detention, as well as ICE officials
who had dealings with the state, county, or locality. Local officials from all
seven jurisdictions reported that their detention facilities: (1) accept ICE
detainers for undocumented criminal aliens in their custody; and (2) alert
ICE before releasing undocumented criminal aliens from custody.
To test these assertions, we reviewed a total of 76 files relating to
criminal aliens who had been recently discharged from local custody at the 7
locations where we performed field work. We found that:
•

ICE was notified in a timely manner that the 76 criminal aliens were
in custody;

•

ICE detainers were accepted for all 76 individuals;

•

70 criminal aliens were transferred to ICE, all in a timely manner. 17

We further examined the issue of cooperation between SCAAP
recipients and ICE by researching the policies of localities that may have
laws, resolutions, or other policies limiting the role of local agencies in the
enforcement of immigration legislation. In some cases, localities have
designated themselves with terms such as “sanctuary city” or “civil liberties
safe zone.” ICE officials expressed dissatisfaction with the level of
cooperation provided by some of these “sanctuary” sites.
17

Five of the remaining six individuals were transferred to other jurisdictions, such
as a state prison, and one, a Cuban, was paroled because repatriation to Cuba was not
possible.

- vii –

We were able to locate an official “sanctuary” policy for only two
jurisdictions that received at least $1 million in SCAAP funding, the State of
Oregon, which received $3.4 million, and the City and County of San
Francisco, which received $1.1 million and has designated itself as a “City
and County of Refuge.” We also located an Executive Order issued by the
Mayor of the City of New York limiting the activities of local law enforcement
agencies and officers in the enforcement of immigration law. 18 However, in
each instance the local policy either did not preclude cooperation with ICE or
else included a statement to the effect that those agencies and officers will
assist ICE or share information with ICE as required by federal law.
The results of our review were inconclusive in identifying SCAAP
recipients that were not fully cooperating with ICE in its efforts to remove
undocumented criminal aliens from the United States. We found conflicting
views between ICE and local jurisdictions as to what actions constitute full
cooperation. In addition, our fieldwork at select locations found that the
SCAAP recipients notified ICE in a timely manner of aliens in custody,
accepted detainers from ICE, and promptly notified ICE of an impending
release from local custody.
COMMUNICATION BETWEEN SCAAP RECIPIENTS AND ICE
The second congressional question asked us to determine whether any
SCAAP recipients have in effect a policy that violates section 642 of the
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
(8 U.S.C. § 1373). Two key provisions of this statute provide:
•

Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law,
a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not
prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official
from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and
Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or
immigration status, lawful or unlawful, or any individual.

•

Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law,
no person or agency may prohibit, or in any way restrict, a Federal,
State, or local government entity from doing any of the following
with respect to information regarding the immigration status, lawful
or unlawful, of any individual:
o Sending such information to, or requesting or receiving such
information from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

18

See Appendix VII.

- viii –

o Maintaining such information.
o Exchanging such information with any other Federal, State, or
local government entity. 19
Views of ICE Officials
ICE officials objected to provisions of the administrative code of the
City and County of San Francisco that limit the ability of local agencies and
officers to communicate immigration information to ICE.
Results of Survey
We included a question in our survey asking about laws, regulations,
or policies affecting each organization that might restrict the free exchange
of immigration-related information between local law enforcement agencies
and ICE. The 99 jurisdictions that responded to the questionnaire stated
almost unanimously that there was no legislation or policy impeding the
ability of local officers and agencies to communicate with ICE on
immigration-enforcement matters.
Only the City and County of San Francisco gave a qualified “yes” in
response to our queries about the existence of a local ordinance or a
departmental policy limiting the ability of local law enforcement officers or
agencies to exchange information with ICE relating to immigration
enforcement. The response included a copy of Chapter 12H of the City
Administrative Code, which contains a provision stating “no department,
agency, commission, officer or employee . . . shall use any City funds or
resources to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration law or to
gather or disseminate information regarding the immigration status of
individuals in the City and County of San Francisco unless such assistance is
required by federal or state statute, regulation, or court decision.”
[Emphasis added.] The Code also states “nothing in this Chapter shall
prohibit, or be construed as prohibiting, a law enforcement officer from
identifying or reporting any person pursuant to a state or federal law or
regulation who is in custody after being booked for the alleged commission
of a felony and is suspected of violating the civil provisions of the
immigration laws.” Finally, the Code states that “nothing in this chapter
shall preclude any . . . department, agency, commission, officer or employee
from (a) reporting information to the INS regarding an individual who has
19

to ICE.

The statutory references to the Immigration and Naturalization Service now apply

- ix –

been booked at any county jail facility, and who has previously been
convicted of a felony committed in violation of the laws of the State of
California, which is still considered a felony under state law; (b) cooperating
with an INS request for information regarding an individual who has been
convicted of a felony committed in violation of the laws of the State of
California, which is still considered a felony under state law; or (c) reporting
information as required by federal or state statute, regulation or court
decision, regarding an individual who has been convicted of a felony
committed in violation of the laws of the State of California, which is still
considered a felony under state law.” 20
San Francisco city officials also cited provisions of a police department
General Order, which states that generally “a member [of the police
department] shall not inquire into an individual’s immigration status or
release or threaten to release information to the INS regarding an
individual’s identity or immigration status.” However, the General Order
makes exceptions that parallel those enumerated in the City Administrative
Code.
Results of Field Work
In our interviews with local officials at the seven sites, we asked if
their jurisdictions currently have in effect any statute, ordinance, executive
order, or other legislation or official policy prohibiting local law enforcement
agencies and officers from freely exchanging information with ICE on the
citizenship or immigration status of individuals. Officials at four of the seven
sites we visited replied unequivocally, “no,” while officials at the other three
sites gave qualified answers.
•

The State of Oregon has a state “sanctuary” statute, but the
officials whom we interviewed believe it does not infringe on the
exchange of information with ICE. 21

•

Officials from the City of New York informed us there is no
prohibition on exchanging information with ICE on individuals who
have been arrested. Executive Order No. 41, issued by the Mayor,
defines “immigration status” as “confidential information” and
forbids disclosure except when “such disclosure is required by law.”
The Executive Order also provides exceptions to the prohibition
against disclosure when “the individual to whom [immigration]

20

The San Francisco City Administrative Code references to INS now apply to ICE.

21

The State of Oregon “sanctuary” statute is located in Appendix VI.

-x–

information pertains is suspected . . . of engaging in illegal activity,
other than mere status as an undocumented alien” or “the
dissemination of such information is necessary to apprehend a
person suspected of illegal activity, other than mere status as an
undocumented alien” or “such disclosure is necessary in furtherance
of an investigation of potential terrorist activity.” 22
•

Local officials stated the City of San Francisco Police Department’s
policy is “consistent with its obligations under state and federal law,
to adhere to the City of Refuge Ordinance. This ordinance prohibits
the use of city resources to assist in the enforcement of federal
immigration laws except in certain limited circumstances consistent
with state and federal law.”

As previously mentioned, ICE officials objected to San Francisco’s
policies but they did not raise any concerns about the flow of information to
and from any of the other six sites where we performed field work.
RECIDIVISM OF CRIMINAL ALIENS RELEASED FROM LOCAL CUSTODY
The third congressional question asked us to determine how many
criminal offenses were committed by criminal aliens who were released from
state or local custody without a referral to DHS for removal from the United
States.
To address this question, we performed limited testing to determine
the number of subsequent arrests of criminal aliens who were released from
state or local custody. We based our testing on information from the vetted
FY 2004 SCAAP database, which was the last year when ICE reported to BJA
on the status of every person identified in support of applications for SCAAP
funding. 23 There were 262,105 records in that database. We requested
assistance from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to have those
records compared to arrest data in the FBI’s National Crime Information
Center (NCIC). 24

22

A copy of the Executive Order may be found in Appendix VII.

23

FY 2004 SCAAP funding was based on the incarceration of criminal aliens between
July 1, 2002, and June 30, 2003.
24

NCIC is a computerized database of criminal justice information available to law
enforcement agencies nationwide. The NCIC database consists of millions of records
arranged in 18 files, including one relating to immigration violators.

- xi –

After querying NCIC, the FBI provided us with nearly 433,000 text files
that could not be searched by automated means. The volume of files was
too great to search manually and quantify the results. Consequently, we
judgmentally selected a sample of 100 criminal histories, which we reviewed
for evidence of arrests of criminal aliens subsequent to June 30, 2003. The
criminal histories for 73 of the 100 individuals documented at least one
arrest after that date. Those 73 individuals accounted for a total of 429
arrests, with 878 charges and 241 convictions. These figures represent an
average of nearly six arrests per individual.
The charges for the 73 individuals ranged from traffic violations and
trespassing to more serious crimes, such as burglary or assault. Some of
those charges included:
•

166 drug-related;

•

37 immigration-related;

•

213 burglary, robbery, or theft;

•

40 assault;

•

10 property damage;

•

3 terrorist threat; 25 and

•

13 weapons charges.

Based on this limited sample, we cannot statistically extrapolate the
number of offenses committed by undocumented criminal aliens who were
released from local custody without a referral to ICE. Based on the
information available to us in the criminal histories, we could not determine
the number of the criminal aliens in our sample that were deported, if any,
and later arrested after reentering the United States. We also could not
determine if ICE was notified before the criminal aliens in our sample were
released from custody. But if this data is indicative of the full population of
262,105 criminal histories, the rate at which released criminal aliens are
rearrested is extremely high.

25

The “terrorist threat” cases related to misdemeanor charges based on domestic

disputes.

- xii –

CRIMINAL ALIENS RELEASED DUE TO LACK OF RESOURCES
The fourth congressional question asked us to determine how many of
the criminal aliens who were released from state or local custody were
released for lack of sufficient detention space or funding to hold them. While
we believe it likely that this occurs regularly, our review could not identify
specific instances of such releases because ICE does not track the number of
aliens released from local custody due to lack of the necessary resources to
detain them.
In an effort to address this issue, the questionnaire that we sent to
164 SCAAP recipients included a request that the respondents provide the
number of criminal aliens who were released from custody between
October 1, 2004, and June 30, 2006, because the respondent lacked the
space or funds to detain those aliens. None of the respondents reported
having released criminal aliens from custody due to lack of resources.
Even though the respondents to our questionnaire did not report
releasing undocumented criminal aliens because of insufficient local
resources, we noted an issue regarding the lack of space available to ICE to
detain aliens in custody. In an April 2006 report, the Inspector General of
the Department of Homeland Security reported, “[the Detention and
Removal Operations (DRO)] estimates that in FY 2007 there will be 605,000
foreign-born individuals admitted to state correctional facilities and local jails
during the year for committing crimes in the U.S. 26 Of this number, DRO
estimates half (302,500) will be removable aliens. Most of these
incarcerated aliens are being released into the U.S. at the conclusion of their
respective sentences because DRO does not have the resources to identify,
detain, and remove these aliens under its Criminal Alien Program (CAP). It
is estimated that DRO would need an additional 34,653 detention beds, at
an estimated cost of $1.1 billion, to detain and remove [them].” 27
The DHS Inspector General went on to state, “additionally, DRO’s
ability to detain and remove illegal aliens with final orders of removal is
impacted by: (1) the propensity of illegal aliens to disobey orders to appear
in immigration court; (2) the penchant of released illegal aliens with final
orders to abscond; (3) the practice of some countries to block or inhibit the
repatriation of its citizens; and (4) two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions
26

At our exit conference, representatives of DRO stated that references to “DRO” in
the DHS OIG report would in this context be more appropriately read as “ICE.”
27

Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Inspector General. Detention and
Removal of Illegal Aliens: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), OIG-06-033,
April 2006, p. 2.

- xiii –

which mandate the release of criminal and other high-risk aliens 180 days
after the issuance of the final removal order except in ‘Special
Circumstances.’ Collectively, the bed space, personnel and funding
shortages coupled with the other factors, has created an unofficial ‘miniamnesty’ program for criminal and other high-risk aliens.”
The DHS Inspector General reported that 345,006 criminal aliens were
apprehended between FYs 2001 and 2004, of which 27,947 (8 percent) were
released. However, the DHS Inspector General could not determine whether
they were released because of a lack of detention space or for other
reasons, because ICE does not track that information.

- xiv –

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION .......................................................... 1
Background.................................................................................... 1
Legal Authority for SCAAP ................................................................ 3
Application Process.......................................................................... 3
Prior Audits .................................................................................... 6
OIG Audit Approach......................................................................... 7
CHAPTER 2 – SCAAP RECIPIENTS’ COOPERATION WITH ICE ............ 8
Views of ICE Officials ....................................................................... 8
Results of OIG Survey ................................................................... 10
Results of Field Work ..................................................................... 18
Statement of Major Cities Chiefs of Police ......................................... 22
Additional Research ....................................................................... 23
CHAPTER 3 – COMMUNICATION BETWEEN SCAAP RECIPIENTS AND
ICE ............................................................................................ 25
Views of ICE Officials ..................................................................... 25
Results of OIG Survey ................................................................... 26
Results of Field Work ..................................................................... 27
CHAPTER 4 – RECIDIVISM OF CRIMINAL ALIENS RELEASED FROM
LOCAL CUSTODY ........................................................................ 29
NCIC Query.................................................................................. 29
CHAPTER 5 – CRIMINAL ALIENS RELEASED DUE TO LACK OF
RESOURCES ............................................................................... 31
Results of OIG Survey ................................................................... 31
DHS Inspector General Report ........................................................ 32

STATEMENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH
LAWS AND REGULATIONS.......................................................... 33
STATEMENT ON INTERNAL CONTROL STRUCTURE .......................... 34
APPENDICES:
I.

AUDIT OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY .............. 35

II.

PUBLIC LAW 109-162 ........................................................ 37

III.

SCAAP RECIPIENTS – FYs 2004 AND 2005 ......................... 39

IV.

OIG SURVEY RECIPIENTS................................................... 62

V.

MAJOR CITIES CHIEFS OF POLICE POLICY ......................... 66

VI.

STATE OF OREGON POLICY ................................................ 68

VII. CITY OF NEW YORK POLICY ............................................... 69
VIII. SAN FRANCISCO CITY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE .................. 72
IX.

CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OPINION #01-213 ..... 75

X.

JURISDICTIONS WITH MULTIPLE “NO” ANSWERS TO THE
OIG SURVEY ...................................................................... 85

XI.

BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE RESPONSE TO THE
DRAFT AUDIT REPORT ....................................................... 91

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION
As required by Congress (Public Law 109-162), the United States
Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) conducted
an audit of the Office of Justice Programs’ (OJP) State Criminal Alien
Assistance Program (SCAAP). The congressional mandate required the OIG
to perform a study and report to the Judiciary Committees of the United
States Senate and the United States House of Representatives on the
following matters pertaining to recipients of SCAAP payments:
Whether there are States, or political subdivisions of a State, that have
received compensation under Section 241(i) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1231(i)) and are not fully cooperating in the
Department of Homeland Security’s efforts to remove from the United
States undocumented criminal aliens (as defined in paragraph (3) of
such section).
Whether there are States, or political subdivisions of a State, that have
received compensation under section 241(1) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1231(i)) and that have in effect a policy that
violates section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1373).
The number of criminal offenses that have been committed by aliens
unlawfully present in the United States after having been apprehended
by States or local law enforcement officials for a criminal offense and
subsequently being released without being referred to the Department
of Homeland Security for removal from the United States.
The number of [criminal] aliens . . . who were released because the
State or political subdivision lacked space or funds for detention of the
alien. 28
Background
SCAAP is a payment program administered by OJP through the Bureau
of Justice Assistance (BJA) and in conjunction with the Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) bureau within DHS. 29 SCAAP was authorized by
28

(2006).

See Appendix II of this report for Public Law No. 109-162, section 1196 (c)

29

Prior to creation of the DHS in 2003, the functions currently performed by ICE
were performed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which at the time was part
of DOJ.

-1–

the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 to provide
federal assistance to states and localities for the costs of incarcerating
certain criminal aliens who are in custody based on state or local charges or
convictions. 30 Since SCAAP is a payment program rather than a grant
program, jurisdictions that are eligible to receive funds simply provide OJP
with their accounting information and accept payment through OJP’s Grants
Management System. They do not have to submit program progress reports
or financial status reports.
The program pays states and localities that incur correctional officer
salary costs for incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens who: (1) have
at least one felony or two misdemeanor convictions for violations of state or
local law, and (2) are incarcerated for at least four consecutive days during
the established reporting period. 31 Applicants for funding are required to
provide correctional officer salary costs, the total of all inmate days, and
details about eligible inmates housed in their correctional facilities during
that period.
For the applications received, ICE assists BJA by checking the inmate
data submitted by the jurisdictions that seek SCAAP payments to determine
the immigration status of those inmates. This process is described as
“vetting” the data. In FY 2005, BJA distributed $287.1 million in SCAAP
payments to 752 state, county, and local jurisdictions. 32 Individual
payments ranged from a high of $85.9 million (State of California) to a low
of $40 (Polk County, Minnesota). In FY 2004, BJA distributed $281.6 million
to 741 jurisdictions in amounts ranging from $77.4 million (State of
California) to $35 (Louisville Jefferson County Metro Government,
Kentucky). 33
Historically, congressional appropriations for SCAAP have been less
than the total amount sought by all the jurisdictions applying for SCAAP
payments. As a result, BJA pays a pro rata amount of a jurisdiction’s
submitted expenses. In April 2005, the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) reported that 80 percent of the SCAAP aliens were incarcerated in the
30

Pub. L. No. 103-322 (1994).

31

The reporting period does not coincide with the FY for which SCAAP funds are
appropriated. For example, the reporting period for FY 2006 funds was July 1, 2004,
through June 30, 2005. Similarly, the reporting period for FY 2005 funds was July 1, 2003,
through June 30, 2004.
32

FY 2005 was the most recent year for which payment information was available.

33

See Appendix III for details of the SCAAP payments made from the FY 2005 and
FY 2004 appropriations.

-2–

5 states of Arizona, California, Florida, New York, and Texas in FY 2003, but
payments to 4 of those states were less than 25 percent of the estimated
cost to incarcerate SCAAP criminal aliens. The FY 2003 SCAAP payments
amounted to 12 percent of the estimated incarceration costs for California,
24 percent for New York, 17 percent for Florida, and 14 percent for
Arizona. 34
Prior to FY 2006, there were no restrictions on how SCAAP funds could
be used. In the FY 2006 re-authorization Congress required that SCAAP
payments be used by the recipients for correctional purposes.
Legal Authority for SCAAP
The legislation governing SCAAP includes the Immigration and
Nationality Act and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of
1994. 35 According to BJA’s SCAAP program guidelines, these statutes
provide that “in general terms, if a chief executive officer of a state or a
political division exercises authority over the incarceration of undocumented
criminal aliens and submits a written request to the U.S. Attorney General,
the Attorney General may provide compensation to that jurisdiction for those
incarceration costs. SCAAP is subject to additional terms and conditions of
yearly congressional appropriations.” BJA states that eligibility for SCAAP
payments extends to all 50 state governments, the District of Columbia,
Guam, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and more than 3,000 counties
and cities with correctional facilities. 36
Application Process
BJA’s annual guidelines alert potential SCAAP applicants of the
deadline for applying for SCAAP funding and describe the application
process. Applications for SCAAP payments are accepted electronically and
“must provide all required information on undocumented criminal aliens for
the prescribed reporting period, the total reporting period salary information
for their full and part-time permanent and contracted correctional officers,
34

Government Accountability Office. Information on Criminal Aliens in Federal and
State Prisons and Local Jails, GAO-05-337R, April 7, 2005. GAO reported that data on the
cost of incarceration for the State of Texas were not available.
35

8 U.S.C. § 1231(i), as amended, (1996).

36

Bureau of Justice Assistance. State Criminal Alien Assistance Program: FY 2006
Guidelines, pp. 1 and 2. The incarceration costs for which BJA pays states and localities are
the salary costs of correctional officers.

-3–

and the total of all inmate days.” 37 The “required information on
undocumented criminal aliens” includes the alien registration number, name,
date of birth, unique inmate identification number assigned by the local
jurisdiction, country of birth, date taken into custody, date released from
custody, and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) number. 38
BJA forwards the submitted information about aliens to ICE for a
determination of whether each purportedly undocumented criminal alien is
indeed illegally present in the United States 39 Confirmation of each
individual’s immigration status is crucial in determining whether payment for
detention-related expenses would be allowable under SCAAP.
In the past, ICE reported back to BJA on the eligibility for SCAAP
payments using three categories: eligible, not eligible, and unknown. If ICE
determined an individual was a qualifying undocumented criminal alien, ICE
categorized that individual as eligible. If ICE determined an individual was
not an undocumented criminal alien, ICE would categorize the individual as
ineligible. The immigration status of the remaining individuals would be
categorized as unknown. After receiving the results of the ICE vetting
process, BJA determined the amounts to be paid each jurisdiction using a
formula based: on (1) the number of jail days for eligible inmates, (2) an
allowance for a percentage of the jail days of inmates whose eligibility was
unknown, and (3) the amount of appropriated funds available for
distribution.
However, FY 2004 was the last year for which ICE reported to BJA on
the status of every person identified in support of applications for SCAAP
funding. 40 In that year, the applicants for SCAAP payments provided data
on a total of 270,807 inmates. After vetting those records, ICE determined
that 96,085 were eligible and 49,210 were ineligible as a basis for SCAAP
payment. ICE categorized the immigration status of the remaining 125,512
inmates as unknown.
The following table displays the 10 jurisdictions that received the
largest SCAAP payments from the FY 2005 appropriation. Collectively, they
37

State Criminal Alien Assistance Program: FY 2006 Guidelines, p. 2.

38

The FBI number is issued by the FBI to track arrests and fingerprint records.

39

According to a July 2003 Memorandum of Understanding between ICE and OJP,
ICE agreed to determine, by SCAAP applicant, the number of eligible inmates.
40

In the FY 2005 SCAAP funding process, ICE merely reported the number of
qualifying jail days for each applicant locality.

-4–

accounted for nearly 69 percent of the SCAAP payments made from that
appropriation.
TOP TEN SCAAP RECIPIENTS – FY 2005
State
California

Jurisdiction
41
State of California
New York
State of New York
Texas
State of Texas
New York
City of New York
Florida
State of Florida
42
California
Los Angeles County
Arizona
State of Arizona
California
Orange County
Illinois
State of Illinois
Massachusetts
State of Massachusetts
TOTAL
Source: Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA)

$

Amount
85,953,191
24,022,356
18,582,484
15,893,255
12,806,110
12,530,034

12,139,791
6,562,437
4,731,269
4,728,549
$197,949,476

Although 752 jurisdictions received SCAAP payments from the FY 2005
appropriation, the vast majority of them received relatively small amounts.
The following chart summarizes the number of recipients by dollar amount.

41

When we define a jurisdiction as the “state” we are referring to the state
department of corrections. We are not including all the counties and municipalities within
the state that may have received SCAAP payments.
42

This refers to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s department.

-5–

Source: OIG analysis of BJA Data

Prior Audits
Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Office of
Justice Programs State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, 00-13,
May 2000. Our audit reviewed FY 1996 SCAAP payments to the states of
California, Texas, New York, Florida, and Illinois to determine whether the
payments were appropriate based on incarceration costs and the number of
undocumented criminal aliens. The five jurisdictions collectively received
76 percent of the FY 1996 SCAAP funding. The audit concluded that they
were over-compensated by $19.3 million for unallowable inmate costs and
ineligible inmates included in the SCAAP applications. The audit also found
that OJP's compensation methodology was over-inclusive in the degree to
which it paid SCAAP applicants for inmates whose immigration status was
“unknown.”
Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General,
Immigration and Naturalization Service Institutional Removal
Program, 02-41, September 2002. The Institutional Removal Program
(IRP) is a national program that aims to: (1) identify removable criminal
aliens in federal, state, and local correctional facilities, (2) ensure that they
are not released into the community, and (3) remove them from the United
States upon completion of their sentences. In our audit report on this
-6–

program, we noted “the whole IRP process is predicated on the cooperation
of the institutions in which criminal aliens are incarcerated. Without that
cooperation, the IRP cannot function effectively. Interestingly, states and
counties throughout the United States have received hundreds of millions of
dollars annually through . . . SCAAP, yet there are no provisions in the
program requiring state and county recipients to cooperate with the INS in
its removal efforts.” Our report recommended that INS request that OJP
change SCAAP provisions to require the full cooperation of state and local
governments “in the INS’s efforts to process and deport incarcerated
criminal aliens.” The current SCAAP guidelines do not contain any such
requirement.
Government Accountability Office, Information on Criminal
Aliens in Federal and State Prisons and Local Jails, GAO-05-337R,
April 7, 2005. GAO reported a variety of statistical data regarding the
criminal alien population of federal, state, and local custodial facilities.
Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Inspector
General, Detention and Removal of Illegal Aliens: Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, OIG-06-33, April 2006. The DHS Inspector
General reported that many criminal aliens in state and local custody will be
released at the conclusion of their sentences because ICE lacks the
resources to identify, detain, and remove them from the United States.
OIG Audit Approach
We organized our audit of SCAAP to answer the four questions
Congress posed in Public Law 109-162. To answer these questions, we
interviewed officials at ICE; sent an OIG-developed questionnaire to 164
SCAAP recipients; visited seven locations that received SCAAP funding from
the FY 2005 appropriation; 43 reviewed files at those seven sites; interviewed
local officials; and performed research on the policies of SCAAP recipients
that may have designated themselves as immigration “sanctuary” sites. 44

43

We performed field work at the State of California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation; State of Oregon Department of Corrections; State of Texas Department of
Criminal Justice; Clark County, Nevada; Cook County, Illinois; City of New York, New York;
and the City and County of San Francisco, California. We selected these sites to have a mix
of state, county, and local jurisdictions that received SCAAP payments of at least $1 million
each. Collectively, these seven jurisdictions received $128.3 million, or 44.7 percent of the
SCAAP payments issued from the FY 2005 appropriation.
44

In this report, we use the term “sanctuary” site to refer to jurisdictions that may
have state laws, local ordinances, or departmental policies limiting the role of local law
enforcement agencies and officers in the enforcement of immigration laws.

-7–

CHAPTER 2 – SCAAP RECIPIENTS’ COOPERATION WITH ICE
The first congressional question asked us to determine whether there
are recipients of SCAAP funds that do not fully cooperate with the efforts of
DHS to remove undocumented criminal aliens from the United States.
Congress did not define “fully cooperate,” nor did our review of immigration
legislation disclose any specific steps that localities are required to take to
help effect the removal of criminal aliens from the United States.
Views of ICE Officials
We asked ICE officials to identify SCAAP recipients that they believe do
not fully cooperate with ICE in the removal of undocumented criminal aliens
from the United States. Because ICE does not maintain any records
describing SCAAP recipients that do not cooperate in the effort to remove
criminal aliens, they noted that any information they might provide us would
be anecdotal.
We also contacted officials at ICE headquarters on several occasions
and solicited their views first about the cooperativeness of SCAAP recipients
generally and later about the seven jurisdictions where we performed field
work.
Some ICE headquarters officials expressed the opinion that jurisdiction
over SCAAP should rest with ICE rather than BJA and that payments should
be contingent upon the recipient’s taking of certain affirmative steps, such
as participation in the “287(g)” program, to assist immigration enforcement.
Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides that ICE
“may enter into a written agreement with a state, or any political subdivision
of a state, pursuant to which an officer or employee of the state or
subdivision, who is determined . . . to be qualified to perform a function of
an immigration officer in relation to the investigation, apprehension, or
detention of aliens in the United States (including the transportation of such
aliens across state lines to detention centers), may carry out such function
at the expense of the state or political subdivision and to the extent
consistent with state and local law.” 45
Enforcing immigration law remains primarily a federal responsibility,
but Section 287(g) provides a mechanism for enlisting the help of state and
local law enforcement entities in this effort. Under Section 287(g), ICE
provides participating state and local law enforcement officers with the
training and subsequent authorization to identify, process, and when
45

8 U.S.C. § 1357(g) (1996).

-8–

appropriate, detain immigration offenders who are encountered during
regular, daily law-enforcement activity. States or localities that wish to
participate in the program enter into a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) with ICE.
Other ICE officials questioned why SCAAP applications are based on a
custody period in the year prior to the one in which payments are sought.
In the view of those officials, this payment for the past costs of incarceration
does not further the removal of undocumented criminal aliens currently in
the United States.
ICE headquarters officials also stated they would like to have
graduated payments based on the SCAAP recipient taking steps toward the
removal of criminal aliens from the United States. Larger payments could be
provided to a jurisdiction when a final order of removal is obtained and for
participating in the “Section 287(g)” program to determine alienage. Those
officials believe this would result in payment for assisting ICE in identifying
and removing criminal aliens rather than merely housing them.
When we asked ICE headquarters officials specifically about the seven
sites where we intended to perform field work, they declined to suggest
alternative sites. They also commented favorably about the cooperation ICE
received from every jurisdiction, except the City and County of San
Francisco. The ICE responses on the seven sites we visited included the
following observations:
Clark County, Nevada – ICE has a very good working relationship with
the Clark County Sheriff's Office, including the county jail. The jail sends
information about foreign-born subjects to ICE on a 24-hour a day basis.
This information is processed, and, if appropriate, a detainer is placed on the
subject.
Cook County, Illinois – The ICE Office of Investigations Special Agent
in Charge of the Chicago field office has had a good working relationship
with the Cook County jail for the last several years.
New York, New York – The ICE Detention and Removal Operations
(DRO), New York Field Office, has received full cooperation from the
participating SCAAP local and state entities.
State of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation – In
1994, the State of California amended the Penal Code to include Section
834(b), which requires all cities and localities within the State of California to
-9–

verify the immigration status of individuals arrested and to contact [ICE]
when appropriate.
State of Oregon Department of Corrections – All state facilities have
been very cooperative with respect to identifying, holding, and transferring
foreign nationals to ICE custody.
State of Texas Department of Criminal Justice – The DRO Houston
Field Office reports significant cooperation with the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice in both the Texas Prison System and the Texas state jail
system. The Texas Department of Criminal Justice works closely with ICE in
assisting in identifying foreign-born aliens within the Texas prison and state
jail system and transports the prisoners to one central location in
[SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED], Texas, where they can be
interviewed as well as presented for court proceedings. ICE has received
cooperation from operations at [SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED]
regarding the state prisoners system. In addition to providing transportation
and identification assistance, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice
provides an entire facility for exclusive use by ICE.
City and County of San Francisco – The San Francisco ICE Field Office
has encountered difficulties in its attempt to expand the Criminal Alien
Program (CAP). According to an agent working at ICE headquarters, the
San Francisco County Jail and its administration appear to have implemented
a “bare minimum of cooperation with ICE and the CAP to ensure they are
compliant with state rules and the SCAAP regulations.” Agents employed by
ICE are not permitted to access jail records without the authorization and
approval of the Sheriff. ICE agents are authorized to enter the jails to
interview prisoners and to access the “all-jail alphabetical list” of inmates.
However, ICE agents do not have the authorization to access booking cards,
housing cards or other jail records, including computers.
Results of OIG Survey
We also surveyed 164 of the 752 state, county, and local agencies that
received SCAAP funding from the FY 2005 appropriation. 46
Our criteria for selecting the SCAAP recipients we surveyed involved
grouping them into three categories: those that received at least $500,000,
46

The sample was selected judgmentally, and the results cannot be projected to the
universe of SCAAP recipients. See Appendix IV for a list of the jurisdictions we surveyed
and those that responded.

- 10 –

those that received between $50,000 and $499,999, and those that received
less than $50,000.
There were 59 entities that received at least $500,000, and we
selected all of them for our sample. Collectively, those 59 jurisdictions
received $256.9 million, or approximately 90 percent of all the SCAAP
payments made from FY 2005 funds. There were 157 entities that received
between $50,000 and $499,999 and 536 that received less than $50,000.
We judgmentally selected and surveyed 50 of the former group and 55 of
the latter. Together these groups received $7.9 million, or nearly 3 percent
of the SCAAP payments from FY 2005 funds.
Our survey inquired whether the state or local agency asked arrestees
about their immigration status, informed ICE about criminal aliens in local
custody, accepted detainers from ICE, or alerted ICE prior to releasing
criminal aliens from local custody. 47 In our judgment, affirmative answers
to these questions would indicate a degree of cooperation in the effort to
remove criminal aliens from the United States. However, it is important to
note that a negative response by itself to one or more questions would not
necessarily establish a lack of cooperation on the part of the SCAAP
recipient.
Survey responses were received from 99 (60 percent) of the 164
SCAAP recipients that we surveyed. The respondents received a total of
$205.4 million, or 71.6 percent of the SCAAP payments from FY 2005 funds.
Immigration Status of Arrested Individuals
Survey Results
Legend: N/A=Not Applicable; DNR=Did Not Respond to this Question.

If law enforcement officers from your jurisdiction arrest an individual on
state or local charges, do they generally ask the subject about his or her
immigration status?
Yes

No

N/A

Unknown

DNR

59

34

4

0

2

Source: Responses from SCAAP recipients to the OIG questionnaire

Thirty-four respondents reported that they do not generally ask the
subject of an arrest about his or her immigration status. However, many of

47

A detainer is a notice from ICE asking officials at the detention facility of notify
ICE before releasing a detainee.

- 11 –

those jurisdictions qualified their response. The following comments were
offered by some of the respondents who replied “no.”
•

“[The [SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED] Department of
Corrections] does not have arrest authority; however every
adjudicated offender is asked about his or her immigration status
during in-processing.”

•

“Each person arrested is asked their country of origin, not
necessarily about immigration status.” [SENSITIVE INFORMATION
REDACTED]

•

“Generally no, unless there is reason to believe [the] individual has
been involved in certain criminal activities such as arrested for, or
has been convicted of a felony, violent crime, etc.” [SENSITIVE
INFORMATION REDACTED]

•

“. . . Pursuant to [state legislation] ‘a peace officer who has
probable cause that an arrestee for a criminal offense is not legally
present in the U.S. shall report such arrestee to the U.S. ICE office.
. . .’” [SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED]

•

“It is not the Police Department's policy to ask, however, some
officers ask voluntarily. It is not the Police Department's policy to
take proactive enforcement action against undocumented aliens.
However, if an encounter with an undocumented alien yields a
wanted status for an immigration violation listed by another
agency, the Police Department will confirm extradition before
arrest.” [SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED]

•

“. . . Only on domestic battery and felonies, because on other
charges ICE does not respond . . . anymore.” [SENSITIVE
INFORMATION REDACTED]

•

“The [[SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED] Department of
Corrections] is tasked with housing inmates after arrest and
sentencing.”

The responses from several localities emphasized the absence of
federal or state law requiring them to inquire into the immigration status of
arrestees.
•

“There is no local ordinance or regulation from the County's Board
of Supervisors authorizing the Department of Corrections to ask
- 12 –

arrestees about their immigration status.” [SENSITIVE
INFORMATION REDACTED]
•

“Not required under state or federal law.” [SENSITIVE
INFORMATION REDACTED]

•

“We do not ask the question for two reasons. First, some time
back, the local law chiefs agreed to not engage in this type of
behavior in the field. Second, a recent opinion by the California
Attorney General states local and state law enforcement is not
obligated to abide by the federal immigration statutes.” 48
[SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED]

•

“Currently there are no policies or procedures in place requiring
such action.” [SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED]

•

“Only if the investigation points to the fact that the individual(s)
may be an undocumented alien.” [SENSITIVE INFORMATION
REDACTED]

Informing ICE About Aliens in Custody
Survey Results
Legend: N/A=Not Applicable; DNR=Did Not Respond to this Question.

If law enforcement officers from your jurisdiction have reason to believe
that someone they arrest may be an undocumented alien, do they generally
inform the ICE that the individual is in their custody?
Yes

No

N/A

Unknown

DNR

78

17

3

0

1

Source: Responses from SCAAP recipients to the OIG questionnaire

Seventeen respondents reported they do not generally inform ICE
when they have someone in custody who they believe may be an
undocumented criminal alien. However, many of those 17 jurisdictions
added qualifying remarks. In some instances, they were critical of a

48

We believe the respondent from [SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED]
misinterpreted the California Attorney General’s opinion, which clearly states that federal
law preempts state law and requires state and local government entities to cooperate with
federal immigration agents. During a follow-up interview, the county official who gave this
response confirmed that he may have misinterpreted the opinion. See Appendix IX for the
opinion.

- 13 –

perceived lack of response on the part of ICE, but there were other
explanatory factors as well.
•

“Our experience has shown that ICE is not going to respond
anyway.” [SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED]

•

“On every occasion we attempt to inform ICE but ICE does not
always respond.” [SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED]

•

“Past history has shown that they will rarely pick the subjects up for
transport.” [SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED]

•

“Depends on nature of crime.” [SENSITIVE INFORMATION
REDACTED]

•

“ICE agents come into our facility on a regular basis and review our
records of undocumented aliens.” [SENSITIVE INFORMATION
REDACTED]

•

“Sheriff's deputies do not inform ICE. Detention staff will notify ICE
if information obtained from a criminal history rap sheet or
information obtained from our local database alerts [our]
Department of previous contacts with ICE (releases to ICE or
previously deported criminal alien).” [SENSITIVE INFORMATION
REDACTED]

•

“This is a sheriff’s department function.” [SENSITIVE
INFORMATION REDACTED]

•

“Law enforcement officers may contact ICE but jail staff do not. We
have an ICE employee [who] regularly reviews inmate rosters.”
[SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED]

•

“Most patrol officers do not have the time or know the number in
order to inform ICE.” [SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED]

- 14 –

Accepting Detainers from ICE
Survey Results
Legend: N/A=Not Applicable; DNR=Did Not Respond to this Question.

Do the detention facilities in your jurisdiction generally accept detainers
from ICE for undocumented criminal aliens in their custody?
Yes

No

N/A

Unknown

DNR

94

3

1

0

1

Source: Responses from SCAAP recipients to the OIG questionnaire

One possible measure of cooperation with ICE would be if the
respondent accepted detainers from ICE and continuing to hold criminal
aliens until ICE agents can take physical custody of them. The responses to
our questionnaire disclosed a widespread willingness to accept detainers
from ICE. Ninety-four of the 99 respondents reported that they accept such
detainers and the 3 that responded negatively added comments indicating
that they may have misinterpreted the question as asking about the lodging
of ICE prisoners.
Alerting ICE Before Releasing Aliens from Custody
Survey Results
Legend: N/A=Not Applicable; DNR=Did Not Respond to this Question.

Do the detention facilities in your jurisdiction generally alert ICE prior to
releasing any undocumented criminal aliens in their custody?
Yes

No

N/A

Unknown

DNR

78

18

1

1

1

Source: Responses from SCAAP recipients to the OIG questionnaire

In answer to our question about alerting ICE before releasing
undocumented criminal aliens from local custody, 78 respondents reported
that they notify ICE and 18 stated they do not. We asked those that alert
ICE to report how much advance notice they provide and the responses
ranged from the date of release to substantially longer periods, as the
following comments illustrate:
•

“At least 45 days in advance.” [SENSITIVE INFORMATION
REDACTED]

•

“Six months.” [SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED]
- 15 –

•

“At any time between 6 and 30 days, depending on the type of
release.” [SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED]

•

“ICE is informed of all foreign born state sentenced inmates and
their earliest possible release dates when the inmate is processed in
the county or Reception.” [SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED]

•

“As early in the sentence as possible.” [SENSITIVE INFORMATION
REDACTED]

•

“Upon initial booking.” [SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED]

•

“Only when ICE has placed a ‘hold’ on the person.” [SENSITIVE
INFORMATION REDACTED]

The jurisdictions that stated they do not notify ICE offered varying
explanations. For example, [SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED], stated
it does not notify ICE in advance, “unless ICE asks us to.” However, as
previously noted, the county also reported that ICE agents regularly visit the
county facility and review the records of undocumented aliens. That being
the case, it would appear that additional notification by [SENSITIVE
INFORMATION REDACTED] may not be necessary. The [SENSITIVE
INFORMATION REDACTED] reported that “releases must occur on a timeline
of minutes and hours after the court issues the ruling.” [SENSITIVE
INFORMATION REDACTED], stated “in most cases we are unaware of [the]
status.”
We asked two additional questions related to the cooperativeness of
SCAAP recipients in the effort to remove criminal aliens from the United
States. These questions deal with the transportation of criminal aliens to
ICE offices and participation in the Section 287(g) program.
Transporting Undocumented Criminal Aliens to the Nearest ICE Office
Survey Results
Legend: N/A=Not Applicable; DNR=Did Not Respond to this Question.

If ICE agents cannot transport an undocumented criminal alien from your
facility, do your officers transport the alien to the nearest ICE office?
Yes

No

N/A

Unknown

DNR

23

70

2

0

4

Source: Responses from SCAAP recipients to the OIG questionnaire

- 16 –

We are not aware of any requirement for states, counties, or localities
to transport undocumented criminal aliens to an ICE office. Therefore, an
answer of “no” to our question does not imply any lack of cooperation on the
part of the locality. However, we included this question because an answer
of “yes” may be reasonably considered an indicator of cooperation. In
response to the questionnaire, 23 respondents stated they would transport
undocumented criminal aliens to the nearest ICE office if ICE agents could
not do so, and 70 respondents reported they would not.
The comments provided in reply to our question included the following.
•

“We have never been in the position where ICE does not transport
the alien from the state correctional facility to the ICE office. In the
event ICE could not transport the alien, the [SENSITIVE
INFORMATION REDACTED] would not transport the alien back to
the nearest ICE office.” [SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED]

•

“Has not happened, though we would assist.” [SENSITIVE
INFORMATION REDACTED]

Participation in the 287(g) Program
Survey Results

Legend: N/A=Not Applicable; DNR=Did Not Respond to this Question.

Are you aware of the program under Section 287(g) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act by which local officers may be trained and authorized to
perform certain immigration enforcement tasks?
Yes
No
N/A
Unknown
DNR
50
45
1
0
3
Is your jurisdiction currently participating in the Section 287(g) program?
Yes
No
N/A
Unknown
DNR
49
84
1
1
2
11
If your jurisdiction does not currently participate in the Section 287(g)
program, are you interested in entering into a Memorandum of
Understanding with ICE to participate in the Section 287(g) program?
Yes
No
N/A
Unknown
DNR
33
41
6
6
13
Source: Responses from SCAAP Recipients to OIG Questionnaire

As mentioned previously, some ICE officials expressed a desire to
place SCAAP under the control of ICE and make SCAAP payments contingent
49

Although 11 respondents stated they participate in the “287(g)” program, ICE
officials told us only 7 jurisdictions have current MOUs. Other jurisdictions are negotiating
with ICE to participate in the “287(g)” program.

- 17 –

upon participation in the “287(g)” program. Regardless of which agency has
responsibility for SCAAP, we believe that participation in the “287(g)”
program may be considered evidence of cooperation with ICE in the removal
of criminal aliens from the United States. For this reason we included
questions about the “287(g)” program in a questionnaire we sent to 164
recipients of FY 2005 SCAAP funding. We received responses from 99
jurisdictions and 33 of them indicated an interest in entering into an MOU to
participate in the “287(g)” program.
Our questionnaire asked if the respondents were aware of the “287(g)”
program, whether they participated in it, and, if not, whether they were
interested in receiving information about it. In response to our three
questions, we received very few comments. The following are examples of
the comments provided by respondents.
•

“We are currently in discussion with ICE officials in order to learn
more about the Section 287(g) program; no decision has been
made regarding participation in the program.” [SENSITIVE
INFORMATION REDACTED]

•

“Not sure - more information is needed.” [SENSITIVE
INFORMATION REDACTED]

•

“We are unfamiliar. We require additional information in order to
answer correctly.” [SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED]

•

“We are in the approval process.” [SENSITIVE INFORMATION
REDACTED]

•

“This matter must be referred to a higher legal authority than what
the respondent has.” [SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED]

Results of Field Work
Interviews with Local ICE Officials
At each of the sites where we performed field work, we asked local ICE
officials about the cooperativeness of the SCAAP recipient in question. The
views of those officials mirrored the views previously obtained from ICE
headquarters. Local ICE officials offered favorable comments about each of
the jurisdictions, except the City and County of San Francisco. Those ICE
officials stated that the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department accepts detainers
from ICE and promptly notifies ICE when criminal aliens are about to be
released from custody, but neither the Sheriff’s Department nor the Police
- 18 –

Department [SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED]. Moreover, the process
for interviewing aliens in the jail was described as “uncooperative” by the
local ICE officials, who also characterized relations with the Sheriff’s
Department as unfriendly and marked by “much animosity.”
Interviews with State and Local Officials
We interviewed officials and reviewed files at seven jurisdictions that
received funding from the FY 2005 appropriation for SCAAP. The officials
whom we interviewed included local officials knowledgeable in the areas of
SCAAP and detention. Local officials from all seven jurisdictions reported
that their detention facilities: (1) accept ICE detainers for undocumented
criminal aliens in their custody; and (2) alert ICE before releasing
undocumented criminal aliens from custody.
We asked whether law enforcement officers ask arrestees about their
immigration status and received mixed responses, but none that indicated
an unwillingness to cooperate with ICE in the removal of criminal aliens from
the United States. For example:
•

At institutions in the [SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED],
correctional officers generally ask an inmate’s place of birth rather
than immigration status. They defer the determination of an
individual’s immigration status to ICE.

•

At corrections facilities in the [SENSITIVE INFORMATION
REDACTED], individuals are asked about their immigration status.

•

In [SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED], it is not considered the
arresting officer’s mission to determine immigration status.
Research into a detainee’s place of birth occurs during the booking
process. Similarly, in the [SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED],
arrestees are asked about their place of birth rather than their
immigration status during the booking process.

•

In [SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED], neither the city police
nor personnel in the county sheriff’s office [SENSITIVE
INFORMATION REDACTED]. However, the immigration status of a
detainee is often determined during the classification process either
by: (1) self-identification of the detainee as foreign-born;
(2) queries of databases, including NCIC, the [SENSITIVE
INFORMATION REDACTED] Law Enforcement Telecommunications
System, and ICE’s Law Enforcement Support Center; and
- 19 –

(3) submission of fingerprints through the Automated Fingerprint
Identification System.
We also asked about notification of ICE when local jurisdictions have
someone in custody who may be an undocumented alien. The following are
some responses:
•

If [SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED] enforcement officers
have reason to believe someone they arrest may be an
undocumented alien, they inform ICE and seek further advice.

•

[SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED] facilities determine whether
inmates are “foreign born” during the intake process. Biographical
information sheets and a fingerprint cards for foreign born inmates
are sent to ICE for review, usually during the first week of
incarceration.

•

The [SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED] Department of
Corrections sends ICE a referral if the booking process determines
an inmate may have a foreign place of birth.

•

[SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED], sends a notice to ICE with
a request for a prompt response. The county tries not to hold any
inmate more than four hours past the scheduled release unless ICE
places a detainer on that individual.

•

When officers from the [SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED]
arrest an alien for a criminal offense, the police department notifies
ICE based on information entered into the booking system.

Local officials at two jurisdictions indicated a willingness to transport
criminal aliens from their facilities to the nearest ICE office if ICE agents
could not do so.
•

[SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED] corrections officials said
inmates are transported without charge to an ICE facility or to an
ICE contract facility if ICE transportation is not available.

•

[SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED] corrections officials state
their officers transport alien inmates if necessary, but they added
this happens only on rare occasions because releases are
coordinated with ICE.

- 20 –

Officials at all seven of the sites we visited were aware of the “287(g)”
program, but none of the jurisdictions were participating in it. When asked
if they were interested in participating in the program, local officials offered
the following comments.
•

The [SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED] legislature is still
evaluating the overall benefits to the [SENSITIVE INFORMATION
REDACTED], whose mission is directed more toward rehabilitation
of inmates than to immigration enforcement. At this time, officials
do not believe the benefits are clear.

•

[SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED] officials believe
participation in the “287(g)” program would probably conflict with
state law.

•

The [SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED] is exploring
participation in the program. Officials are awaiting more
information so they can weigh the pros and cons. They are
particularly concerned about who will pay for the state officers while
engaged in “287(g)” activities, how many days officers would be
required to participate, the reporting structure, and personnel
issues.

•

Officials from [SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED]; [SENSITIVE
INFORMATION REDACTED]; [SENSITIVE INFORMATION
REDACTED], and the [SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED] all
stated their jurisdictions were not interested in participating in the
“287(g)” program.

File Reviews
We reviewed a total of 76 files relating to criminal aliens who had been
recently discharged from local custody at the 7 locations where we
performed field work. Our review disclosed that:
•

ICE was notified in a timely manner that the 76 criminal aliens were
in custody;

•

ICE detainers were accepted for all 76 individuals;

•

Seventy criminal aliens were transferred to ICE, all in a timely
manner. Five of the remaining six individuals were transferred to
other jurisdictions, such as a state prison, and one, a Cuban, was
paroled because repatriation to Cuba was not possible.
- 21 –

This limited review of local files did not disclose evidence of any local
policy or procedure that we would consider less than fully cooperative with
ICE in the removal of criminal aliens.
Statement of Major Cities Chiefs of Police
The complexity of determining whether jurisdictions fully cooperate
with ICE is further illustrated by a statement issued in June 2006, by the
Major Cities Chiefs of Police (MCC) organization. 50 This document describes
illegal immigration as a problem that “must be dealt with at the national
level” and details certain concerns that local agencies have. A key
paragraph states, “local police agencies must balance any decision to
enforce immigration laws with their daily mission of protecting and serving
diverse communities, while taking into account: limited resources; the
complexity of immigration laws; limitations on authority to enforce; risk of
civil liability for immigration enforcement activities and the clear need to
foster the trust and cooperation from the public including members of
immigrant communities.”
The MCC statement also observes that “assistance and cooperation
from immigrant communities is especially important when an immigrant,
whether documented or undocumented, is the victim of or witness to a
crime. These persons must be encouraged to file reports and come forward
with information. Their cooperation is needed to prevent and solve crimes
and maintain public order, safety, and security in the whole community. . . .
Immigration enforcement by local police would likely negatively effect (sic)
and undermine the level of trust and cooperation between local police and
immigrant communities. If the undocumented immigrant’s primary concern
is that they will be deported or subjected to an immigration status
investigation, then they will not come forward and provide needed
assistance and cooperation. Distrust and fear of contacting or assisting the
police would develop among legal immigrants as well.”
The MCC statement taken as a whole articulates a two-pronged
position that we frequently encountered in our review, namely that many
state, county, and local law enforcement agencies are unwilling to initiate
immigration enforcement but have policies that suggest they are willing to

50

See Appendix V for the MCC’s “Nine-Point Position Statement.” The MCC
describes its membership as the 57 Chief Executive Officers of police departments located
within metropolitan areas with a population of more than 1.5 million population and that
employ more than 1,000 law enforcement officers.

- 22 –

cooperate with ICE when they arrest individuals on state or local charges
and learn that those individuals may be criminal aliens.
Additional Research
We further examined the issue of cooperation between SCAAP
recipients and ICE by researching the policies of localities that may have
laws, resolutions, or other policies limiting the role of local agencies in the
enforcement of immigration legislation. In some cases, those localities have
designated themselves with terms such as a “sanctuary city” or a “civil
liberties safe zone.” Our research revealed much anecdotal information, but
little in the way of formal policies.
We were guided initially in our research by listings of sanctuary cities
posted on the websites of several organizations. 51 Later, we focused our
search on jurisdictions that received SCAAP funding of at least $1 million
from the FY 2005 appropriation. We searched the websites for those
jurisdictions in an effort to locate policy statements affecting how local law
enforcement agencies interact with ICE in the effort to remove criminal
aliens from the United States.
We were able to locate an official “sanctuary” policy for only two
jurisdictions that received at least $1 million in SCAAP funding, the State of
Oregon, which received $3.4 million, and the City and County of San
Francisco, which received $1.1 million and has designated itself as a “City
and County of Refuge.” We also located an Executive Order issued by the
Mayor of New York limiting the activities of local law enforcement agencies
and officers in the enforcement of immigration law. 52 However, in each
instance, the local policy either did not preclude cooperation with ICE or else
included a statement to the effect that those agencies and officers must
assist ICE or share information with ICE as required by federal law.
The Oregon policy begins by stating, “No law enforcement agency of
the State of Oregon or of any political subdivision of the state shall use
agency moneys, equipment or personnel for the purpose of detecting or
apprehending persons whose only violation of law is that they are persons of
foreign citizenship present in the United States in violation of federal
immigration laws.” However, the policy goes on to state that a law
51

In using the information posted by these organizations, we do not endorse any
position they may advocate regarding immigration enforcement. We simply used their lists
as leads pointing toward jurisdictions that may have policies such as those described in our
congressional mandate.
52

See Appendix VII.

- 23 –

enforcement agency may exchange information with federal immigration
authorities to “verify the immigration status of a person if the person is
arrested for any criminal offense;” or to “request criminal investigation
information with reference to persons named in [federal] records.” 53
San Francisco has designated itself as a “City and County of Refuge”
and has limited the extent to which municipal agencies and employees may
assist in immigration enforcement. The City Administrative Code states that
“no department, agency, commission, officer or employee . . . shall use any
City funds or resources to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration
law or to gather or disseminate information regarding the immigration status
of individuals . . . unless such assistance is required by federal or state
statute, regulation or court decision.” [Emphasis added.] The proviso
requiring compliance with federal law reinforces our view that there is
insufficient evidence to conclude that San Francisco fails to cooperate with
ICE’s efforts to remove undocumented aliens.
We did not locate a “sanctuary city” designation for the City of New
York, which received $15.9 million in SCAAP funding. However, we located a
Mayor’s Executive Order that enunciates a policy that local law enforcement
officers will not initiate immigration enforcement but will cooperate with
federal immigration authorities in some respects. The Mayor’s Executive
Order 41 addresses local law enforcement as it relates to immigration
matters and states, “Law enforcement officers shall not inquire about a
person’s immigration status unless investigating illegal activity other than
mere status as an undocumented alien.” However, in the next paragraph it
states, “Police officers and peace officers, including members of the Police
Department and the Department of Correction, shall continue to cooperate
with federal authorities in investigating and apprehending aliens suspected
of criminal activity.” 54

53

See Appendix VI.

54

See Appendix VII.

- 24 –

CHAPTER 3 – COMMUNICATION BETWEEN SCAAP RECIPIENTS AND
ICE
The second congressional question asked us to determine whether any
SCAAP recipients have in effect a policy that violates section 642 of the
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
(8 U.S.C. § 1373). This statute, in effect, prohibits any interference in the
free exchange of immigration-related information between state or local law
enforcement and federal immigration authorities. Two key provisions of the
statute are 8 U.S.C. § 1373 (a) and (b), which state:
•

Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law,
a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not
prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official
from sending to, or receiving from, Immigration and Naturalization
Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status,
lawful or unlawful, or any individual.

•

Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law,
no person or agency may prohibit, or in any way restrict, a Federal,
State, or local government entity from doing any of the following
with respect to information regarding the immigration status, lawful
or unlawful, of any individual:
o Sending such information to, or requesting or receiving such
information from, Immigration and Naturalization Service.
o Maintaining such information.
o Exchanging such information with any other Federal, State, or
local government entity. 55

Views of ICE Officials
ICE officials objected to provisions of the administrative code of the
City and County of San Francisco that limit the ability of local agencies and
officers to communicate immigration information to ICE.
The City Administrative Code states “no department, agency,
commission, officer or employee . . . shall use any City funds or resources to
assist in the enforcement of federal immigration law or to gather or
55

to ICE.

The statutory references to the Immigration and Naturalization Service now apply

- 25 –

disseminate information regarding the immigration status of individuals in
the City and County of San Francisco unless such assistance is required by
federal or state statute, regulation, or court decision.” [Emphasis added.]
The Code also states “nothing in this Chapter shall prohibit, or be
construed as prohibiting, a law enforcement officer from identifying or
reporting any person pursuant to a state or federal law or regulation who is
in custody after being booked for the alleged commission of a felony and is
suspected of violating the civil provisions of the immigration laws.” Finally,
the Code states that “nothing in this chapter shall preclude any . . .
department, agency, commission, officer or employee from (a) reporting
information to the INS regarding an individual who has been booked at any
county jail facility, and who has been previously been convicted of a felony
committed in violation of the laws of the State of California, which is still
considered a felony under state law; (b) cooperating with an INS request for
information regarding an individual who has been convicted of a felony
committed in violation of the laws of the State of California, which is still
considered a felony under state law; or (c) reporting information as required
by federal or state statute, regulation or court decision, regarding an
individual who has been convicted of a felony committed in violation of the
laws of the State of California, which is still considered a felony under state
law.” 56
As mentioned in the preceding chapter, ICE officials considered these
policies of the City and County of San Francisco as the “bare minimum” of
cooperation. However, in light of the specific provisions requiring
compliance with federal law, we cannot conclude that San Francisco’s
policies are contrary to 8 U.S.C. § 1373.
Results of OIG Survey
We included a question in our survey asking about laws, regulations,
or policies affecting each organization that might restrict the free exchange
of immigration-related information between local law enforcement agencies
and ICE. The 99 jurisdictions that responded to the questionnaire stated
almost unanimously that there was no legislation or policy impeding the
ability of local officers and agencies to communicate with ICE on
immigration-enforcement matters. The detailed results are displayed in the
following table.

56

See Appendix VIII. The San Francisco City Administrative Code references to INS
now apply to ICE.

- 26 –

Survey Results

Legend: N/A=Not Applicable; DNR=Did Not Respond to this Question.

In your jurisdiction, is there currently in effect any limitation on the ability
of local law enforcement officers or agencies to exchange information
relating to immigration enforcement due to:
State law?
Yes
No
N/A
Unknown
DNR
0
96
1
2
0
Local ordinance?
Yes
No
N/A
Unknown
DNR
1
94
1
0
3
Executive order?
Yes
No
N/A
Unknown
DNR
0
96
1
0
2
Departmental policy?
Yes
No
N/A
Unknown
DNR
1
96
1
0
1
Source: Responses from SCAAP recipients to the OIG questionnaire

The City and County of San Francisco gave a qualified “yes” in
response to our queries about the existence of a local ordinance or a
departmental policy limiting the ability of local law enforcement officers or
agencies to exchange information with ICE relating to immigration
enforcement. The response to the survey included a copy of the previously
cited sections of the City Administrative Code and a police department
General Order, which states that generally “a member [of the police
department] shall not inquire into an individual’s immigration status or
release or threaten to release information to the INS regarding an
individual’s identity or immigration status.” However, the General Order
makes exceptions that parallel those enumerated in the City Administrative
Code.
Results of Field Work
In our interviews with local officials at the seven sites, we asked if
their jurisdictions currently have in effect any statute, ordinance, executive
order, or other legislation or official policy prohibiting local law enforcement
agencies and officers from freely exchanging information with ICE on the
citizenship or immigration status of individuals. Officials at four of the seven
sites we visited replied unequivocally, “no,” while officials at the other three
sites gave qualified answers.
•

The State of Oregon has a state “sanctuary” statute, but the
officials whom we interviewed believe it does not infringe on the
exchange of information with ICE.
- 27 –

•

Officials from the City of New York informed us there is no
prohibition on exchanging information with ICE on individuals who
have been arrested.

•

Local officials stated the City of San Francisco Police Department’s
policy is “consistent with its obligations under state and federal law,
to adhere to the City of Refuge Ordinance. This ordinance prohibits
the use of City resources to assist in the enforcement of federal
immigration laws except in certain limited circumstances consistent
with state and federal law.”

As discussed in the preceding chapter, our examination of official
policies published by those jurisdictions confirmed the views expressed by
local officials.

- 28 –

CHAPTER 4 – RECIDIVISM OF CRIMINAL ALIENS RELEASED FROM
LOCAL CUSTODY
The third congressional question asked us to determine how many
criminal offenses were committed by criminal aliens who were released from
local custody without a referral to DHS for removal from the United States.
To address this question, we performed limited testing to determine
the number of subsequent arrests of criminal aliens who were released from
state or local custody. We based our testing on information from the vetted
FY 2004 SCAAP database, which was the last year when ICE reported to BJA
on the status of every person identified in support of applications for SCAAP
funding. 57 The vetted database included 262,105 criminal histories.
NCIC Query
We requested assistance from the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) to have the vetted FY 2004 SCAAP database compared to arrest data
in the FBI’s National Crime Information Center (NCIC). 58
The FBI ran two queries, one for SCAAP records that included an FBI
number, and another for those records that lacked an FBI number. For the
latter group, the FBI queried NCIC using the name and date of birth for each
individual listed in the vetted data.
The FBI provided us with nearly 433,000 individual text files that were
not searchable by automated means. Because the files were not in a
searchable format, we were not able to quantify all the arrests that occurred
subsequent to the cutoff date for FY 2004 funding, June 30, 2003. Instead,
we reviewed a judgmental sample of 100 criminal histories for evidence of
arrests of individuals subsequent to the time when their incarceration was
used to support an application for SCAAP funding.
We sampled 53 from records that had FBI numbers and 47 from
records that lacked such numbers. 59 The criminal histories for 73 individuals
documented at least one arrest after June 30, 2003. Those 73 individuals
57

FY 2004 SCAAP funding was based on the incarceration of criminal aliens between
July 1, 2002, and June 30, 2003.
58

NCIC is a computerized database of criminal justice information available to law
enforcement agencies nationwide. The NCIC database consists of millions of records
arranged in 18 files, including one relating to immigration violators.
59

This number is issued by the FBI to track arrests and fingerprint records.

- 29 –

accounted for a total of 429 arrests based on 878 charges and included 241
convictions. These figures represent an average of nearly six arrests per
individual.
The charges for the 73 individuals ranged from traffic violations and
trespassing to more serious crimes, such as burglary or assault. Some of
those charges included:
•

166 drug-related;

•

37 immigration-related;

•

213 burglary, robbery, or theft;

•

40 assault;

•

10 property damage;

•

3 terrorist threat; 60 and

•

13 weapons charges.

Based on this limited sample, we cannot statistically extrapolate the
number of offenses committed by undocumented criminal aliens who were
released from local custody without a referral to ICE. Based on the
information available to us in the criminal histories, we could not determine
the number of the criminal aliens in our sample that were deported, if any,
and later arrested after reentering the United States. We also could not
determine if ICE was notified before the criminal aliens in our sample were
released from custody. But if this data is indicative of the full population of
nearly 262,105 criminal histories, the rate at which released criminal aliens
are rearrested is extremely high.

60

The “terrorist threat” cases related to misdemeanor charges based on domestic

disputes.

- 30 –

CHAPTER 5 – CRIMINAL ALIENS RELEASED DUE TO LACK OF
RESOURCES
The fourth congressional question asked us to determine how many of
the criminal aliens who were released from custody without a referral to ICE
were released for lack of sufficient detention space or funding to hold them.
While we believe this happens regularly, our review could not identify
specific instances of such releases because ICE does not track the number of
aliens released from local custody due to lack of the necessary resources to
detain them. While our review did not identify any instances of such
releases, it is important to note that the Inspector General of the
Department of Homeland Security has reported: (1) a shortage of space
available for housing aliens in ICE custody; and (2) the possible release in
FY 2007 of a substantial number of removable criminal aliens from state or
local custody because ICE does not have the resources to identify, detain,
and remove them.
Results of OIG Survey
To examine this question we relied on responses to the questionnaire
that we sent to 164 SCAAP recipients. Our questionnaire included a request
that the respondents provide the number of criminal aliens who were
released from custody between October 1, 2004, and June 30, 2006,
because the respondent lacked the space or funds to detain those aliens.
None of the respondents reported having released criminal aliens from
custody due to lack of resources. Specifically, 9 replied “none,” 78 replied
“not applicable,” 7 replied “unknown,” and 5 did not answer the question.
Some jurisdictions added comments such as the following.
•

“No, ICE was always contacted.” [SENSITIVE INFORMATION
REDACTED]

•

“Any arrestees without local charges or holds are released by law.”
[SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED]

•

“None; again, referral was made but ICE did not place detainer on
subjects.” [SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED]

•

“None – primarily due to ICE [being] unable or unwilling to
transport.” [SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED]

- 31 –

DHS Inspector General Report
Even though the state, county, and local respondents to our
questionnaire did not report releasing undocumented criminal aliens because
of insufficient local resources, we noted an issue regarding the lack of space
available to ICE to detain aliens in custody. In an April 2006 report, the
Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security stated, “[the
Detention and Removal Operations (DRO)] estimates that in FY 2007 there
will be 605,000 foreign-born individuals admitted to state correctional
facilities and local jails during the year for committing crimes in the U.S. 61
Of this number, DRO estimates half (302,500) will be removable aliens.
Most of these incarcerated aliens are being released into the U.S. at the
conclusion of their respective sentences because DRO does not have the
resources to identify, detain, and remove these aliens under its Criminal
Alien Program (CAP). It is estimated that DRO would need an additional
34,653 detention beds, at an estimated cost of $1.1 billion, to detain and
remove [them].” 62
The DHS Inspector General went on to state, “additionally, DRO’s
ability to detain and remove illegal aliens with final orders of removal is
impacted by: (1) the propensity of illegal aliens to disobey orders to appear
in immigration court; (2) the penchant of released illegal aliens with final
orders to abscond; (3) the practice of some countries to block or inhibit the
repatriation of its citizens; and (4) two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions
which mandate the release of criminal and other high-risk aliens 180 days
after the issuance of the final removal order except in ‘Special
Circumstances.’ Collectively, the bed space, personnel and funding
shortages coupled with the other factors, has created an unofficial ‘miniamnesty’ program for criminal and other high-risk aliens.”
The DHS Inspector General reported that 345,006 criminal aliens were
apprehended between FYs 2001 and 2004, of which 27,947 (8 percent) were
released. However, the DHS Inspector General could not determine whether
they were released for lack of detention space or for other reasons because
ICE does not track that information.

61

At our exit conference, representatives of DRO stated that references to “DRO” in
the DHS OIG report would in this context be more appropriately read as “ICE.”
62

Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Inspector General. Detention and
Removal of Illegal Aliens: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), OIG-06-033,
April 2006, p. 2.

- 32 –

STATEMENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND REGULATIONS
We have performed a congressionally mandated audit of the State
Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP). The audit generally covered
FYs 2004 and 2005, included a review of selected activities, and was
conducted in accordance with the Government Auditing Standards.
In connection with this audit, and as required by the standards, we
reviewed the laws and regulations relating to SCAAP, including:
•

8 U.S.C. § 1231(i) (1996), which authorized SCAAP;

•

8 U.S.C. § 1373 (1996), which relates to open communication
between local law enforcement and ICE on immigration matters;
and

•

8 U.S.C. § 1357(g) (1996), which authorizes the training of local
law enforcement agents in immigration enforcement.

Our audit did not disclose any non-compliance on the part of BJA or
ICE with provisions of the applicable laws and regulations.

- 33 –

STATEMENT ON INTERNAL CONTROL STRUCTURE
In planning and performing our audit of the SCAAP payment program,
we considered the internal control structure of BJA to the extent necessary
for the purpose of determining our procedures. Because the scope of our
audit was defined by congressional mandate, we did not evaluate BJA’s
overall internal control structure. Through interviews with officials from OJP,
BJA, and ICE, we gained an understanding of the process of applying for,
vetting, and awarding SCAAP payments. Our review did not identify any
material internal control weaknesses.

- 34 –

APPENDIX I
AUDIT OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
In Public Law 109-162, Congress directed us to “perform a study, and
report to the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States House of
Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States
Senate” on four questions regarding SCAAP. The objective of our audit was
to respond to those questions by determining:
(1) Whether there are States, or political subdivisions of a State, that
have received compensation under Section 241(i) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. § 1231(i)) and are not fully cooperating
in the Department of Homeland Security’s efforts to remove from the
United States undocumented criminal aliens (as defined in paragraph
(3) of such section.
(2) Whether there are States, or political subdivisions of a State, that
have received compensation under section 241(1) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. § 1231(i)) and that have in effect a
policy that violates section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. § 1373).
(3) The number of criminal offenses that have been committed by
aliens unlawfully present in the United States after having been
apprehended by States of local law enforcement officials for a criminal
offense and subsequently being released without being referred to the
Department of Homeland Security for removal from the United States.
(4) The number of [criminal] aliens . . . who were released because
the State or political subdivision lacked space or funds for detention of
the alien.
We conducted our audit in accordance with the Government Auditing
Standards and, accordingly, included such tests of records and procedures
as we considered necessary to respond to the congressional mandate. The
scope of our work generally covered the state, county, and local law
enforcement agencies that received SCAAP funding from the FY 2004 and
FY 2005 appropriations.
Our methodology included interviews with officials, distribution of an
OIG-developed questionnaire, review of files, queries of automated systems
and other research. We interviewed BJA and ICE officials at their respective
headquarters in Washington, D.C. In addition, we:
- 35 –

•

analyzed BJA records relating to the recipients of SCAAP funding;

•

submitted a questionnaire to 164 selected recipients of SCAAP
funding;

•

researched other relevant information, especially relating to
localities that have designated themselves as sanctuary cities;

•

performed field work, including interviews and file reviews at the
offices of SCAAP recipients in Austin, Texas; Chicago, Illinois; Las
Vegas, Nevada; New York, New York; Sacramento, California;
Salem, Oregon; and San Francisco, California;

•

interviewed local ICE officials whose area of responsibility covered
the jurisdictions mentioned above; and

•

arranged for the Federal Bureau of Investigation to query the
National Crime Information Center database using SCAAP data sets
in an effort to identify repeat arrests of criminal aliens.

- 36 –

APPENDIX II
PUBLIC LAW 109-162

- 37 –

- 38 –

APPENDIX III
SCAAP Recipients – FYs 2005 and 2004

State

FY 2005

FY 2004

Total

$287,143,095

$281,605,292

Jurisdiction

Amount

Amount

AK

Alaska Department of Corrections

$26,553

$33,417

AL

State of Alabama

45,747

61,085

AL

Montgomery County

8,709

7,404

AL

De Kalb County

4,482

1,009

AL

Coffee County

AR

State of Arkansas

AR

2,454
148,764

106,382

Washington County

50,329

25,915

AR

Benton County

29,991

28,348

AR

Carroll County

9,153

4,526

AR

Sebastian County

8,420

12,577

AR

Pope County

6,412

12,295

AR

Polk County

1,561

2,718

AR

Hempstead County

996

AR

Boone County

403

AR

Independence County

AZ

State of Arizona

AZ

Maricopa County

AZ

3,211
12,139,791

6,808,219

1,297,752

922,938

Pima County

407,301

747,878

AZ

Yuma County

220,339

217,921

AZ

Yavapai County

93,802

114,615

AZ

Cochise County

72,681

133,904

AZ

Pinal County

55,072

70,660

AZ

Santa Cruz County

31,453

AZ

Gila County

23,623

21,675

AZ

Mohave County

12,307

32,947

AZ

Greenlee County

7,503

581

AZ

Navajo County

6,021

8,733

AZ

Graham County

2,844

3,296

CA

State of California

85,953,191

77,356,015

CA

Los Angeles County

12,530,034

13,876,508

CA

Orange County

6,562,437

4,593,198

CA

San Diego County

2,346,881

795,416

CA

Santa Clara County

1,616,147

1,382,031

CA

Riverside County

1,254,534

1,349,430

CA

San Francisco City & County

1,087,199

1,405,674

- 39 –

SCAAP Recipients – FYs 2005 and 2004

State
CA

Fresno County

CA

FY 2005

FY 2004

Total

$287,143,095

$281,605,292

Jurisdiction

Amount

Amount

1,045,772

1,025,096

San Mateo County

955,843

1,185,621

CA

Sacramento County

873,005

1,168,675

CA

Monterey County

735,201

925,407

CA

Kern County

613,980

882,708

CA

Sonoma County

604,578

784,290

CA

Contra Costa County

592,346

520,503

CA

Ventura County

564,332

355,127

CA

San Bernardino County

407,580

487,145

CA

Alameda County

403,662

223,619

CA

Tulare County

402,655

502,577

CA

Santa Barbara County

380,622

516,480

CA

Solano County

273,742

23,266

CA

Marin County

204,748

310,219

CA

Napa County

184,611

201,916

CA

San Joaquin County

181,990

193,916

CA

Santa Cruz County

173,291

212,435

CA

Stanislaus County

161,626

227,381

CA

Merced County

124,493

134,847

CA

El Dorado County

114,379

92,035

CA

Kings County

114,174

203,337

CA

San Luis Obispo County

94,654

140,418

CA

Mendocino County

76,388

55,543

CA

Placer County

71,636

89,111

CA

Imperial County

56,370

136,356

CA

Yolo County

55,703

94,262

CA

Nevada County

34,847

58,273

CA

Sutter County

34,570

39,722

CA

Tehama County

32,942

46,980

CA

Mono County

28,913

22,585

CA

Humboldt County

27,626

49,656

CA

City of Santa Ana

21,202

41,524

CA

Glenn County

16,559

19,235

CA

Yuba County

16,472

19,257

CA

City of Anaheim

16,259

33,306

CA

Colusa County

11,836

- 40 –

SCAAP Recipients – FYs 2005 and 2004

State
CA

Inyo County

CA

FY 2005

FY 2004

Total

$287,143,095

$281,605,292

Jurisdiction

Amount

Amount

10,678

13,302

Butte County

9,790

19,934

CA

Lake County

8,055

12,626

CA

Siskiyou County

7,823

7,117

CA

Tuolomne County

5,591

6,063

CA

Plumas County

4,595

2,437

CA

Madera County

2,785

8,209

CA

Calaveras County

1,558

5,331

CA

Amador County

733

2,754

CA

Shasta County

CO

State of Colorado

CO

Denver City & County

40,342
2,358,707

3,104,425

950,665

997,382

CO

Arapahoe County

389,607

332,753

CO

Boulder County

267,084

241,687

CO

Jefferson County

139,824

CO

Weld County

127,640

217,172

CO

Adams County

115,259

128,316

CO

El Paso County

100,370

198,068

CO

Garfield County

100,232

88,553

CO

Eagle County

78,319

71,649

CO

Pueblo County

71,749

58,963

CO

Larimer County

64,679

46,613

CO

Douglas County

63,949

92,396

CO

Pitkin County

50,679

46,151

CO

Morgan County

49,935

66,802

CO

Mesa County

18,356

43,365

CO

Summit County

14,885

CO

Delta County

12,964

9,606

CO

Lincoln County

9,442

7,374

CO

San Miguel County

8,625

33,548

CO

Moffat County

7,631

CO

Sedgwick County

7,418

4,541

CO

Bent County

1,967

343

CO

Baca County

CT

State of Connecticut

DC

District of Columbia

1,941

- 41 –

779,697

900,356

81,762

44,472

SCAAP Recipients – FYs 2005 and 2004

State

FY 2005

FY 2004

Total

$287,143,095

$281,605,292

Jurisdiction

Amount

Amount

DE

State of Delaware

132,951

131,263

FL

State of Florida

12,806,110

11,778,031

FL

Collier County

597,409

236,938

FL

Hillsborough County

233,499

248,223

FL

Pinellas County

194,285

180,266

FL

Lee County

186,685

142,645

FL

Sarasota County

148,472

60,064

FL

Martin County

145,025

130,554

FL

Orange County

139,138

173,276

FL

Osceola County

89,780

FL

Seminole County

88,956

132,497

FL

Miami Dade County

78,587

140,309

FL

Broward County

75,320

171,361

FL

Brevard County

66,355

60,660

FL

Lake County

61,813

70,897

FL

Volusia County

55,833

79,046

FL

Indian River County

54,704

61,934

FL

St. Lucie County

50,793

5,771

FL

Okeechobee County

43,124

67,629

FL

Pasco County

32,848

46,722

FL

Polk County

31,815

84,703

FL

Leon County

31,721

47,624

FL

Palm Beach County

29,817

138,714

FL

DeSoto County

29,569

43,104

FL

Alachua County

26,783

18,252

FL

Clay County

24,970

10,585

FL

Hendry County

23,393

FL

Hardee County

22,887

36,953

FL

Marion County

19,490

29,065

FL

Glades County

17,801

FL

Highlands County

14,940

FL

Putnam County

13,111

FL

Levy County

7,341

6,097

FL

Suwannee County

6,944

9,184

FL

Taylor County

3,012

FL

Gilchrist County

1,661

- 42 –

35,240

2,483

SCAAP Recipients – FYs 2005 and 2004

State

FY 2005

FY 2004

Total

$287,143,095

$281,605,292

Jurisdiction

Amount

Amount

FL

Bradford County

1,203

160

FL

Santa Rosa County

9,816

FL

Sumter County

8,596

FL

Madison County

GA

State of Georgia

GA

Cherokee County

GA

DeKalb County

79,948

GA

Hall County

36,833

71,524

GA

Forsyth County

32,322

28,847

GA

Chatham County

31,561

42,292

GA

Houston County

25,028

14,342

GA

Cobb County

22,301

GA

Augusta Richmond County

19,559

17,809

GA

Muscogee County

19,357

12,518

GA

Habersham

19,081

GA

Floyd County

17,323

23,854

GA

Toombs County

13,811

25,454

GA

Walton County

9,028

1,813

GA

Newton County

8,684

4,081

GA

Carroll County

6,556

GA

Gilmer County

5,359

GA

Monroe County

2,577

GA

Lee County

2,104

8,487

GA

Crisp County

1,291

1,519

GA

Walker County

1,257

GA

Grady County

1,209

GA

Decatur County

5,790

GA

Kennesaw County

1,141

146
1,393,149

1,885,056

113,614

41,410

5,250

GU

Government of Guam

204,042

HI

State of Hawaii

195,595

171,317

IA

State of Iowa

344,266

477,575

IA

Woodbury County

57,725

94,146

IA

Johnson County

22,293

21,568

IA

Polk County

16,332

23,040

IA

Story County

13,740

21,376

IA

Black Hawk County

8,844

13,792

- 43 –

SCAAP Recipients – FYs 2005 and 2004

State

FY 2005

FY 2004

Total

$287,143,095

$281,605,292

Jurisdiction

Amount

Amount

IA

Crawford County

7,033

5,322

IA

Mahaska County

2,611

1,607

IA

Louisa County

2,178

3,642

IA

Davis County

1,673

764

IA

Jefferson County

362

163

IA

Wright County

ID

Idaho Department of Correction

258,458

350,299

ID

Canyon County

112,759

79,581

ID

Ada County

92,502

70,057

ID

Cassia County

25,601

30,238

ID

Madison County

20,508

17,841

ID

Blaine County

17,612

38,904

ID

Bonneville County

16,719

24,957

ID

Washington County

9,794

11,170

ID

Elmore County

9,273

10,222

ID

Bannock County

8,830

10,584

ID

Bingham County

8,076

19,041

ID

Gooding County

7,369

4,239

ID

Twin Falls County

7,103

9,091

ID

Jefferson County

6,191

11,821

ID

Power County

2,873

3,889

ID

Owyhee County

1,987

4,475

ID

Teton County

1,582

2,390

ID

Latah County

IL

State of Illinois

4,731,269

IL

Cook County

1,926,114

1,957,320

IL

Lake County

262,713

497,325

IL

Kane County

189,347

187,952

IL

DuPage County

168,975

349,826

IL

McHenry County

129,710

119,588

IL

Winnebago County

32,827

76,726

IL

Will County

17,029

69,160

IL

DeKalb County

14,869

4,514

IL

Rock Island County

12,496

23,042

IL

Kendall County

10,870

6,455

IL

LaSalle County

7,208

10,580

10,319

891

- 44 –

SCAAP Recipients – FYs 2005 and 2004

State

FY 2005

FY 2004

Total

$287,143,095

$281,605,292

Jurisdiction

Amount

Amount

IL

McLean County

7,007

5,986

IL

Tazewell County

6,784

IL

Peoria County

5,321

3,378

IL

Champaign County

5,284

13,797

IL

Ogle County

4,506

1,165

IL

Henry County

4,180

IL

Bureau County

1,253

IL

Dewitt County

710

IL

Jo Daviess County

442

1,030

IL

Livingston County

439

1,820

IL

Williamson County

250

IL

Kankakee County

7,094

IL

Knox County

935

IL

Woodford County

568

IN

State of Indiana

IN

Marion County

74,287

IN

Hamilton County

21,260

IN

St. Joseph County

9,261

IN

Hendricks County

5,544

IN

Johnson County

4,649

IN

Allen County

4,437

IN

Porter County

3,868

4,301

IN

Grant County

3,686

3,048

IN

Monroe County

3,476

5,349

IN

Jackson County

3,426

8,049

IN

Clark County

1,520

3,079

IN

Cass County

527

1,918

KS

State of Kansas

290,269

378,600

KS

Johnson County

130,457

161,398

KS

Sedgwick County

85,691

105,520

KS

Wyandotte County

68,384

49,538

KS

Shawnee County

22,896

22,292

KS

Finney County

12,421

13,300

KS

Saline County

12,165

18,181

KS

Douglas County

5,946

8,962

KS

Butler County

1,572

263,919

- 45 –

423,469
17,499

4,938

SCAAP Recipients – FYs 2005 and 2004

State

FY 2005

FY 2004

Total

$287,143,095

$281,605,292

Jurisdiction

Amount

Amount

KS

Montgomery County

730

49

KY

Shelby County

113,902

100,320

KY

Lexington Fayette Urban County

69,269

54,531

KY

State of Kentucky

51,142

60,005

KY

Kenton County

1,605

12,875

KY

Carroll County

1,041

4,531

KY

Louisville Jefferson County

LA

State of Louisiana

LA

35
106,834

143,000

Bossier Parish

6,789

13,959

LA

Rapides Parish

6,462

5,223

LA

Orleans Parish

4,932

4,965

LA

Claiborne Parish

2,019

1,136

417

1,424

LA

Lincoln Parish Police Jury

LA

Avoyelles Parish

6,249

LA

St. Tammany Parish

4,007

LA

St. James Parish

MA

State of Massachusetts

MA

40
4,728,549

5,362,497

Suffolk County

790,048

455,191

MA

Middlesex County

703,111

29,084

MA

Plymouth County

517,480

466,190

MA

Bristol County

218,130

326,016

MA

Hampden County

130,922

160,323

MA

Barnstable County

121,844

107,802

MA

Norfolk County

27,531

84,051

MD

State of Maryland

985,416

1,122,300

MD

Montgomery County

964,401

1,356,919

MD

Prince Georges County

64,396

44,772

MD

Anne Arundel County

36,607

7,287

MD

Frederick County

27,527

42,616

MD

Washington County

5,197

10,561

MD

Charles County

4,693

2,778

MD

Carroll County

2,733

10,019

ME

State of Maine

36,840

37,955

ME

Cumberland County

18,539

5,831

ME

Lincoln County

6,611

ME

York County

6,343

- 46 –

SCAAP Recipients – FYs 2005 and 2004

State

FY 2005

FY 2004

Total

$287,143,095

$281,605,292

Jurisdiction

Amount

Amount

ME

Piscataquis County

866

991

ME

Androscoggin County

3,405

ME

Aroostook County

2,494

MI

State of Michigan

MI

884,639

1,059,552

Oakland County

82,052

127,681

MI

Macomb County

66,873

45,536

MI

Ottawa County

46,670

63,786

MI

Wayne County

41,587

5,910

MI

Kent County

37,783

202,160

MI

Kalamazoo County

19,192

9,197

MI

Berrien County

15,920

18,908

MI

Calhoun County

15,582

20,042

MI

St. Clair County

13,977

18,011

MI

Chippewa County

12,345

9,131

MI

Allegan County

10,198

11,780

MI

Eaton County

9,897

11,764

MI

Lapeer County

9,348

MI

St. Joseph County

8,909

10,742

MI

Muskegon County

7,942

16,513

MI

Saginaw County

7,339

12,254

MI

Jackson County

6,069

5,050

MI

Ionia County

5,429

17,343

MI

Branch County

4,806

5,362

MI

Lenawee County

4,155

3,568

MI

Van Buren County

3,697

1,428

MI

Cass County

3,613

MI

Livingston County

3,520

6,299

MI

Shiawassee County

2,742

2,418

MI

Tuscola County

738

MI

Sanilac County

605

1,361

MI

Gratiot County

170

1,693

MI

Ingham County

17,041

MI

Washtenaw County

14,964

MI

Huron County

MN

State of Minnesota

934,384

1,205,072

MN

Hennepin County

144,355

236,438

343

- 47 –

SCAAP Recipients – FYs 2005 and 2004

State

FY 2005

FY 2004

Total

$287,143,095

$281,605,292

Jurisdiction

Amount

Amount

MN

Ramsey County

113,181

135,525

MN

Dakota County

44,959

47,095

MN

Stearns County

38,207

36,406

MN

Anoka County

19,342

34,444

MN

McLeod County

13,201

12,387

MN

Washington County

10,570

25,158

MN

Watonwan County

4,690

4,215

MN

Chippewa County

4,273

3,654

MN

Polk County

40

966

MN

Olmsted County

MO

State of Missouri

MO

41,399
310,513

331,509

Greene County

28,582

75,355

MO

Jackson County

25,070

17,219

MO

St. Charles County

24,795

19,518

MO

St. Louis County

8,145

17,411

MO

Pike County

4,582

237

MO

Newton County

4,279

1,789

MO

St. Louis Metropolitan

3,594

MO

St. Francois County

3,079

9,173

MO

Platte County

2,383

2,431

MO

Phelps County

1,524

2,689

MO

Lafayette County

MO

Franklin County

MS

State of Mississippi

20,548

38,471

MS

Lauderdale County

2,580

687

MS

Pike County

2,451

1,002

MT

Yellowstone County

9,542

2,792

MT

Cascade County

1,832

NC

State of North Carolina

2,527,797

2,380,105

NC

Mecklenburg County

255,020

281,159

NC

Wake County

143,724

5,402

NC

Guilford County

107,266

72,118

NC

Durham County

82,967

35,320

NC

Forsyth County

69,285

147,230

NC

Orange County

46,570

27,614

NC

Pitt County

44,896

35,338

1,451
566

- 48 –

SCAAP Recipients – FYs 2005 and 2004

State

FY 2005

FY 2004

Total

$287,143,095

$281,605,292

Jurisdiction

Amount

Amount

NC

New Hanover County

36,132

33,922

NC

Cumberland County

31,780

48,623

NC

Buncombe County

30,113

27,476

NC

Rockingham County

25,132

24,190

NC

Alamance County

24,653

26,413

NC

Davidson County

24,586

25,197

NC

Gaston County

23,987

37,456

NC

Rowan County

19,730

8,989

NC

Sampson County

18,507

16,694

NC

Wilson County

17,520

11,585

NC

Henderson County

15,301

22,930

NC

Union County

14,723

23,851

NC

Lee County

14,497

10,584

NC

Duplin County

13,395

6,462

NC

Iredell County

12,445

21,923

NC

Randolph County

12,184

30,573

NC

Moore County

12,022

15,345

NC

Chatham County

9,588

9,926

NC

Wilkes County

9,476

14,693

NC

Stokes County

9,249

5,731

NC

Burke County

8,818

11,208

NC

Cleveland County

7,741

NC

Catawba County

7,605

5,966

NC

Wayne County

7,465

23,716

NC

Surry County

5,601

NC

Franklin County

4,424

6,772

NC

Vance County

4,279

136,328

NC

Davie County

4,175

5,673

NC

Robeson County

4,091

4,815

NC

Haywood County

3,578

4,658

NC

Lincoln County

2,664

NC

Montgomery County

2,373

NC

Pender County

2,130

1,869

NC

Jackson County

1,441

2,654

NC

Lenoir County

1,423

NC

Washington County

1,376

- 49 –

1,788

SCAAP Recipients – FYs 2005 and 2004

State

FY 2005

FY 2004

Total

$287,143,095

$281,605,292

Jurisdiction

Amount

Amount

NC

Beaufort County

1,315

9,238

NC

Watauga County

1,096

3,901

NC

Anson County

595

NC

Bladen County

456

NC

Columbus County

NC

Cabarrus County

19,042

NC

Johnston County

17,950

NC

Scotland County

2,156

NC

Caldwell County

1,896

ND

Cass County

25,367

9,663

ND

State of North Dakota

11,560

15,682

NE

Douglas County

456,968

560,878

NE

State of Nebraska

354,507

315,258

NE

Lancaster County

54,585

56,168

NE

Sarpy County

42,219

34,424

NE

Saline County

18,762

13,958

NE

Dawson County

15,394

20,818

NE

Dakota County

12,407

18,713

NE

Platte County

8,930

26,858

NE

Phelps County

3,593

448

NE

Lincoln County

2,917

5,838

NE

Dixon County

2,667

4,968

NE

Buffalo County

2,337

10,086

NE

Gage County

954

4,410

NE

Thurston County

75

157

NH

State of New Hampshire

127,641

167,264

NH

Hillsborough County

34,162

15,365

NH

Grafton County

7,078

2,141

NH

Merrimack County

4,168

15,848

NH

Strafford County

929

7,103

NJ

State of New Jersey

3,472,389

4,061,667

NJ

Passaic County

1,224,817

1,203,054

NJ

Hudson County

321,758

416,468

NJ

Monmouth County

145,362

143,831

NJ

Union County

135,118

73,012

NJ

Essex County

129,745

346,587

5,452
1,963

- 50 –

SCAAP Recipients – FYs 2005 and 2004

State

FY 2005

FY 2004

Total

$287,143,095

$281,605,292

Jurisdiction

Amount

Amount

NJ

Morris County

115,598

256,959

NJ

Burlington County

113,337

56,622

NJ

Somerset County

105,965

141,237

NJ

Atlantic County

103,295

105,337

NJ

Ocean County

95,431

101,591

NJ

Camden County

86,583

156,954

NJ

Middlesex County

82,747

692,327

NJ

Cape May County

27,591

20,307

NJ

Cumberland County

25,717

30,205

NJ

Warren County

19,759

26,837

NJ

Sussex County

12,362

26,203

NJ

Hunterdon County

10,241

11,764

NJ

Mercer County

8,303

30,660

NM

State of New Mexico

650,877

193,023

NM

City of Albuquerque

225,367

NM

Dona Ana County

85,519

63,669

NM

Lea County

31,502

35,807

NM

Otero County

19,252

25,532

NM

Santa Fe County

15,897

19,813

NM

Rio Arriba County

15,520

22,264

NM

Chaves County

11,259

16,920

NM

Eddy County

7,542

NM

Valencia County

5,618

18,650

NM

Luna County

4,914

4,549

NM

Roosevelt County

4,730

5,107

NM

Sierra

4,238

4,720

NM

Taos County

1,634

4,641

NM

Quay County

1,310

1,397

NM

Colfax County

1,009

NM

Bernalillo County

NM

Grant County

5,955

NM

De Baca County

1,759

NM

Hidalgo County

1,742

NV

State of Nevada

2,412,064

1,383,439

NV

Clark County

1,456,722

1,486,607

NV

Washoe County

286,440

477,898

5,556
248,295

- 51 –

SCAAP Recipients – FYs 2005 and 2004

State

FY 2005

FY 2004

Total

$287,143,095

$281,605,292

Jurisdiction

Amount

Amount

NV

City of Las Vegas

70,837

55,835

NV

City of North Las Vegas

49,739

66,221

NV

Carson City County

19,866

31,104

NV

Elko County

15,765

21,463

NV

Nye County

12,601

9,612

NV

Douglas County

12,371

4,871

NV

Churchill County

11,816

12,465

NV

Humboldt County

5,121

18,506

NV

Lyon County

4,586

9,471

NV

Pershing County

2,464

6,790

NV

Esmeralda County

1,652

4,182

NV

Eureka County

1,025

3,240

NV

Mineral County

NY

State of New York

24,022,356

117
30,859,709

NY

City of New York

15,893,255

20,667,392

NY

Nassau County

1,970,809

2,584,492

NY

Westchester County

366,356

489,256

NY

Rockland County

231,136

251,515

NY

Monroe County

65,079

46,565

NY

Dutchess County

37,346

65,050

NY

Ulster County

20,454

45,036

NY

Jefferson County

18,659

4,204

NY

Niagara County

18,531

27,469

NY

Erie County

17,697

54,067

NY

Franklin County

17,081

17,480

NY

Onondaga County

15,784

14,016

NY

Albany County

14,937

23,195

NY

Broome County

13,060

39,129

NY

Oswego County

11,045

8,306

NY

Schenectady County

9,621

38,668

NY

Wayne County

8,940

15,611

NY

Oneida County

7,553

9,014

NY

Greene County

7,422

10,278

NY

Rensselaer County

6,732

6,266

NY

Ontario County

6,724

15,237

NY

Chemung County

5,904

4,724

- 52 –

SCAAP Recipients – FYs 2005 and 2004

State

FY 2005

FY 2004

Total

$287,143,095

$281,605,292

Jurisdiction

Amount

Amount

NY

Schuyler County

5,705

3,035

NY

Washington County

5,356

NY

Putnam County

5,210

34,594

NY

Genesee County

4,098

2,614

NY

Herkimer County

2,859

145

NY

Yates County

1,588

1,301

NY

Chautauqua County

974

5,611

NY

Fulton County

785

NY

Columbia County

764

NY

Wyoming County

490

463

NY

St. Lawrence County

278

1,707

NY

Steuben County

225

2,222

NY

Livingston County

NY

Suffolk County

1,489,818

NY

Orange County

142,163

NY

Orleans County

6,699

NY

Clinton County

3,453

NY

Cayuga County

2,559

NY

Montgomery County

1,099

OH

State of Ohio

OH

1,273

664,897

766,829

Cuyahoga County

49,216

70,357

OH

Summit County

17,579

14,729

OH

Greene County

12,192

8,531

OH

Erie County

2,345

881

OH

Licking County

1,730

1,542

OH

Medina County

OK

State of Oklahoma

OK

5,335
622,173

649,583

Oklahoma County

65,864

84,623

OK

Texas County

34,926

44,741

OK

Tulsa County

6,843

21,120

OK

Kay County

4,737

2,526

OK

Cleveland County

3,744

2,912

OK

Caddo County

2,883

652

OK

Grady County

2,854

3,413

OK

Carter County

2,092

2,336

OK

Okfuskee County

1,507

270

- 53 –

SCAAP Recipients – FYs 2005 and 2004

State

FY 2005

FY 2004

Total

$287,143,095

$281,605,292

Jurisdiction

Amount

Amount

OK

Pottawatomie County

438

1,223

OK

Cimarron County

407

OK

Harper County

175

OK

Lincoln County

619

OK

Ottawa County

596

OK

Delaware County

OR

State of Oregon

OR

Multnomah County

290,987

444,322

OR

Lane County

201,052

224,088

OR

Marion County

172,017

OR

Washington County

158,052

283,682

OR

Linn County

25,166

28,346

OR

Jackson County

23,373

50,619

OR

Malheur County

21,187

18,496

OR

Benton County

20,856

22,759

OR

Umatilla County

16,857

30,722

OR

Deschutes County

16,797

10,393

OR

Lincoln County

16,776

29,776

OR

Polk County

14,061

24,536

OR

Yamhill County

13,773

8,963

OR

Douglas County

12,827

3,389

OR

Clatsop County

12,620

21,368

OR

Hood River County

12,488

16,527

OR

Tillamook County

6,601

8,240

OR

Jefferson County

6,405

8,307

OR

Coos County

6,272

6,725

OR

Wasco County

4,610

7,800

OR

Columbia County

1,888

1,111

OR

Union County

1,688

13,473

OR

Gilliam County

596

842

OR

Clackamas County

OR

Sherman County

PA

Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

908,520

1,156,505

PA

City of Philadelphia

132,061

87,983

PA

Bucks County

119,894

109,352

PA

Lehigh County

43,199

87,135

5,304

77
3,417,250

75,733
1,546

- 54 –

SCAAP Recipients – FYs 2005 and 2004

State

FY 2005

FY 2004

Total

$287,143,095

$281,605,292

Jurisdiction

Amount

Amount

PA

Dauphin County

35,147

35,406

PA

Lancaster County

32,861

28,366

PA

Luzerne County

29,323

37,074

PA

Lebanon County

23,099

20,484

PA

Berks County

22,396

43,246

PA

Monroe County

20,038

24,924

PA

Westmoreland County

10,357

653

PA

Franklin County

9,856

10,042

PA

Erie County

8,055

13,815

PA

Crawford County

2,763

1,215

PA

Pike County

1,852

3,430

PA

Beaver County

635

2,727

PA

Cambria County

PA

Schuylkill County

6,923

PA

Centre County

4,037

PA

Fayette County

PR

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

319,429

158,903

RI

State of Rhode Island

863,995

760,584

SC

283,452

323,486

SC

South Carolina Department of
Corrections
Horry County

30,754

29,503

SC

Lexington County

27,521

SC

Charleston County

25,823

29,919

SC

York County

22,240

16,190

SC

Dorchester County

6,774

14,539

SC

Aiken County

5,173

1,969

SC

Colleton County

3,199

3,208

SC

Berkeley County

2,849

4,263

SC

Georgetown County

540

1,675

SC

Cherokee County

457

1,186

SC

Florence County

SD

Minnehaha County

51,927

41,493

SD

State of South Dakota

24,955

74,470

SD

Pennington County

6,332

8,553

TN

State of Tennessee

212,435

228,289

TN

Metropolitan Nashville & Davidson
County

159,174

124,738

20,479

116

6,490

- 55 –

SCAAP Recipients – FYs 2005 and 2004

State

FY 2005

FY 2004

Total

$287,143,095

$281,605,292

Jurisdiction

Amount

Amount

TN

Shelby County

57,152

TN

Hamilton County

15,404

TN

Knox County

6,375

6,623

TN

Maury County

1,069

11,145

TX

State of Texas

18,582,484

17,126,820

TX

Harris County

2,693,977

2,795,228

TX

Hidalgo County

714,808

48,291

TX

Travis County

658,636

842,159

TX

Dallas County

636,166

TX

Bexar County

547,366

640,506

TX

Tarrant County

403,123

535,507

TX

El Paso County

357,084

218,179

TX

Collin County

303,305

257,672

TX

Denton County

163,183

205,350

TX

Fort Bend County

118,802

117,111

TX

Williamson County

107,402

167,020

TX

Brazos County

87,090

63,854

TX

Galveston County

67,131

41,065

TX

Webb County

64,069

81,443

TX

Ellis County

54,735

49,537

TX

Montgomery County

44,935

64,333

TX

Hays County

44,497

53,830

TX

Nueces County

42,501

14,979

TX

Smith County

39,542

53,635

TX

Bell County

35,258

57,193

TX

Gillespie County

34,806

4,828

TX

Midland County

33,738

177,045

TX

Cameron County

29,936

460,229

TX

McLennan County

28,213

18,607

TX

Brazoria County

27,436

35,670

TX

Jefferson County

26,646

50,789

TX

Johnson County

26,433

27,273

TX

Rockwall County

22,703

25,888

TX

Ector County

21,859

32,311

TX

Maverick County

20,643

TX

Moore County

20,582

- 56 –

104,153

26,638

SCAAP Recipients – FYs 2005 and 2004

State

FY 2005

FY 2004

Total

$287,143,095

$281,605,292

Jurisdiction

Amount

Amount

TX

Nacogdoches County

20,239

TX

Dallam County

18,909

TX

Tom Green County

17,670

18,096

TX

Lubbock County

15,500

13,616

TX

Victoria County

12,915

25,053

TX

Navarro County

12,897

15,758

TX

Kaufman County

12,326

13,137

TX

Kerr County

11,376

11,983

TX

Hill County

11,342

10,155

TX

Grayson County

11,327

23,750

TX

Randall County

11,122

16,368

TX

Comal County

10,898

27,947

TX

Guadalupe County

10,469

9,578

TX

Hopkins County

10,020

TX

Angelina County

9,959

TX

Taylor County

8,902

12,614

TX

Wise County

8,476

12,639

TX

Andrews County

8,379

11,616

TX

Harrison County

8,015

9,753

TX

Henderson County

7,727

16,810

TX

Parker County

7,400

18,210

TX

Starr County

7,026

TX

Val Verde County

6,713

7,138

TX

Limestone County

6,399

5,247

TX

Matagorda County

6,257

18,739

TX

Cherokee County

6,017

10,454

TX

Deaf Smith County

5,847

11,477

TX

Upshur County

5,514

6,279

TX

Comanche County

5,463

6,979

TX

Crane County

5,019

2,625

TX

Castro County

4,817

53

TX

Crockett County

4,438

10,784

TX

Caldwell County

4,335

4,915

TX

Hudspeth County

4,299

2,704

TX

Uvalde County

4,284

4,977

TX

Hutchinson County

4,123

3,760

- 57 –

SCAAP Recipients – FYs 2005 and 2004

State

FY 2005

FY 2004

Total

$287,143,095

$281,605,292

Jurisdiction

Amount

Amount

TX

Wood County

3,967

4,201

TX

Milam County

3,912

947

TX

Parmer County

3,910

6,707

TX

Pecos County

3,870

TX

Kinney County

3,795

462

TX

Van Zandt County

3,747

5,262

TX

Bowie County

3,600

2,991

TX

Walker County

3,504

3,715

TX

Zapata County

3,426

6,841

TX

Polk County

3,392

6,200

TX

Ochiltree County

3,356

5,497

TX

Burnet County

2,769

6,641

TX

Edwards County

2,610

TX

Atascosa

2,476

TX

Fayette County

2,326

3,872

TX

Calhoun County

2,251

1,033

TX

Lamar County

2,091

964

TX

Live Oak County

2,038

2,736

TX

Duval County

1,915

5,155

TX

Palo Pinto County

1,658

TX

Fannin County

1,566

TX

Bosque County

1,195

TX

Nolan County

1,154

2,349

TX

Lee County

1,069

1,701

TX

Lynn County

1,005

1,747

TX

Medina County

947

184

TX

Orange County

537

3,767

TX

Eastland County

391

945

5,247

TX

Atascosa County

3,122

TX

Brown County

2,346

UT

Salt Lake County

623,692

596,712

UT

State of Utah

368,037

460,181

UT

Davis County

139,849

151,106

UT

Utah County

65,608

46,737

UT

Weber County

35,784

58,075

UT

Cache County

24,986

38,177

- 58 –

SCAAP Recipients – FYs 2005 and 2004

State

FY 2005

FY 2004

Total

$287,143,095

$281,605,292

Jurisdiction

Amount

Amount

UT

Washington County

16,032

21,234

UT

Box Elder County

9,867

5,416

UT

Sevier County

4,415

8,323

VA

Commonwealth of Virginia

1,011,172

1,300,673

VA

Fairfax County

708,545

618,920

VA

Prince William County

251,223

296,786

VA

Arlington County

235,996

223,125

VA

City of Alexandria

165,141

VA

Rockingham County

65,030

55,401

VA

Chesterfield County

35,251

78,388

VA

Loudoun County

31,463

72,846

VA

City of Chesapeake

24,103

26,154

VA

Henrico County

16,860

17,340

VA

Albemarle County

12,386

VA

City of Newport News

10,589

18,874

VA

Shenandoah County

8,226

13,696

VA

Henry County

7,862

7,023

VA

York County

4,763

15,427

VA

Stafford County

4,742

7,545

VA

City of Charlottesville

4,480

VA

City of Hampton

3,528

4,912

VA

James City County

3,287

5,891

VA

City of Danville

2,458

7,401

VA

City of Martinsville

2,365

2,995

VA

Lunenburg County

1,478

730

VA

City of Fredericksburg

1,257

5,646

VA

Williamsburg County

1,059

VA

City of Suffolk

VA
VA
VA

Nelson County

VA

City of Portsmouth

2,581

VA

City of Virginia Beach

1,724

VA

King George County

1,450

VA

City of Williamsburg

582

VA

Isle of Wight County

54

907

3,109

Spotsylvania County

658

3,573

Nottaway County

594

519

- 59 –

SCAAP Recipients – FYs 2005 and 2004

State

FY 2005

FY 2004

Total

$287,143,095

$281,605,292

Jurisdiction

Amount

Amount

VI

Virgin Islands

269,825

408,132

VT

State of Vermont

14,437

32,118

WA

State of Washington

1,723,823

2,206,930

WA

King County

812,270

971,560

WA

Pierce County

138,288

139,048

WA

Yakima County

116,702

126,711

WA

Snohomish County

92,252

84,953

WA

Franklin County

85,130

84,519

WA

Thurston County

59,461

51,904

WA

Benton County

53,641

52,208

WA

Whatcom County

51,368

67,618

WA

Grant County

47,635

51,790

WA

Chelan County

44,389

40,540

WA

Spokane County

38,004

39,990

WA

Cowlitz County

37,382

30,977

WA

Skagit County

35,484

42,272

WA

Lewis County

33,229

36,370

WA

Walla Walla County

25,095

15,569

WA

Douglas County

23,444

23,729

WA

City of Yakima

20,360

19,551

WA

City of Wapato

19,964

WA

City of Wenatchee

16,325

22,516

WA

Grays Harbor County

12,947

27,962

WA

Kitsap County

10,640

12,782

WA

Okanogan County

10,623

25,186

WA

Kittitas County

10,458

7,749

WA

Adams County

8,320

7,626

WA

Mason County

6,202

16,833

WA

Clallam County

6,178

6,053

WA

City of Aberdeen

5,216

6,085

WA

Whitman County

1,944

1,370

WA

City of Sunnyside

1,329

1,504

WA

Clark County

WI

State of Wisconsin

WI
WI

78,530
1,243,892

1,473,682

Dane County

96,180

105,253

Milwaukee County

84,781

183,468

- 60 –

SCAAP Recipients – FYs 2005 and 2004

State

FY 2005

FY 2004

Total

$287,143,095

$281,605,292

Jurisdiction

Amount

Amount

WI

Kenosha County

59,611

79,239

WI

Walworth County

59,177

8,240

WI

Sheboygan County

54,033

WI

Brown County

49,206

63,337

WI

Waukesha County

46,060

56,222

WI

Jefferson County

31,723

19,426

WI

Racine County

29,192

19,895

WI

Rock County

23,700

37,951

WI

Outagamie County

23,121

43,449

WI

Sauk County

14,446

12,277

WI

Ozaukee County

11,278

10,323

WI

Manitowoc County

11,011

8,477

WI

Columbia County

9,346

3,568

WI

Waupaca County

8,480

6,693

WI

Calumet County

7,953

6,471

WI

Shawano County

6,890

5,136

WI

Winnebago County

6,133

30,203

WI

Waushara County

4,733

WI

Dodge County

4,575

WI

Portage County

3,317

2,292

WI

Green County

1,030

1,680

WI

Lafayette County

205

1,780

WI

Fond du Lac County

9,361

WI

La Crosse County

4,604

WI

Sawyer County

1,966

WV

State of West Virginia

WY

State of Wyoming

Source: OJP

- 61 –

6,495

5,824

79,074

121,529

APPENDIX IV
OIG Survey Recipients
Green highlighted text indicates survey respondent. 99 jurisdictions with total
SCAAP awards for FY 2005 totaling $205,455,783 responded to our survey.
State
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45

CA
NY
TX
NY
FL
CA
AZ
CA
IL
MA
NJ
OR
TX
NC
NV
CO
CA
NY
IL
WA
CA
NV
GA
AZ
CA
WI
NJ
CA
CA
VA
MD
MD
CA
CO
MN
PA
MI
CA
RI
WA
MA
CT
CA
TX
VA

Jurisdiction
State of California
State of New York
State of Texas
New York City
State of Florida
County of Los Angeles
State of Arizona
County of Orange
State of Illinois
State of Massachusetts
State of New Jersey
State of Oregon
County of Harris
State of North Carolina
State of Nevada
State of Colorado
County of San Diego
Nassau County
County of Cook
State of Washington
County of Santa Clara
Clark County
State of Georgia
Maricopa County
County of Riverside
State of Wisconsin
Passaic County
City and County of San Francisco
County of Fresno
Commonwealth of Virginia
State of Maryland
Montgomery County
San Mateo County
City and County of Denver
State of Minnesota
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
State of Michigan
Sacramento County
State of Rhode Island
King County
County of Suffolk
State of Connecticut
County of Monterey
County of Hidalgo
County of Fairfax

- 62 –

FY 2005
Total Amount
$ 85,953,191
24,022,356
18,582,484
15,893,255
12,806,110
12,530,034
12,139,791
6,562,437
4,731,269
4,728,549
3,472,389
3,417,250
2,693,977
2,527,797
2,412,064
2,358,707
2,346,881
1,970,809
1,926,114
1,723,823
1,616,147
1,456,722
1,393,149
1,297,752
1,254,534
1,243,892
1,224,817
1,087,199
1,045,772
1,011,172
985,416
964,401
955,843
950,665
934,384
908,520
884,639
873,005
863,995
812,270
790,048
779,697
735,201
714,808
708,545

OIG Survey Recipients
Green highlighted text indicates survey respondent. 99 jurisdictions with total
SCAAP awards for FY 2005 totaling $205,455,783 responded to our survey.
State
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92

MA
OH
TX
NM
TX
UT
OK
CA
CA
FL
CA
CA
TX
MA
NE
CA
AZ
NY
NC
VA
FL
NY
AZ
OR
HI
FL
IL
FL
CA
CA
VA
FL
NC
FL
WA
NJ
MA
TX
GA
CO
NJ
AZ
FL
FL
NM
WA
WI

Jurisdiction
County of Middlesex
State of Ohio
Travis County
State of New Mexico
County of Dallas
Salt Lake County
State of Oklahoma
County of Kern
County of Sonoma
Collier County
Contra Costa County
County of Ventura
County of Bexar
County of Plymouth
Douglas County
County of San Bernardino
County of Pima
Westchester County
Mecklenburg County
County of Prince William
County of Hillsborough
County of Rockland
Yuma County
Lane County
State of Hawaii
Pinellas County
County of Kane
County of Lee
Napa County
San Joaquin County
City of Alexandria
County of Sarasota
Wake County
Orange County
County of Pierce
County of Essex
Barnstable County
County of Fort Bend
County of Cherokee
El Paso County
Ocean County
County of Yavapai
County of Osceola
Seminole County
Dona Ana County
County of Franklin
County of Milwaukee

- 63 –

FY 2005
Total Amount
703,111
664,897
658,636
650,877
636,166
623,692
622,173
613,980
604,578
597,409
592,346
564,332
547,366
517,480
456,968
407,580
407,301
366,356
255,020
251,223
233,499
231,136
220,339
201,052
195,595
194,285
189,347
186,685
184,611
181,990
165,141
148,472
143,724
139,138
138,288
129,745
121,844
118,802
113,614
100,370
95,431
93,802
89,780
88,956
85,519
85,130
84,781

OIG Survey Recipients
Green highlighted text indicates survey respondent. 99 jurisdictions with total
SCAAP awards for FY 2005 totaling $205,455,783 responded to our survey.
State
93
94
95
96
97
98
99

NC
MI
DC
GA
FL
CO
NC

100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139

KY
KS
VA
TX
WI
IA
CA
FL
WI
CO
WI
GA
MD
NC
SC
NC
TX
OR
UT
MO
OR
SC
IA
IL
NC
IL
NC
NC
TX
IL
WA
NJ
ID
MT
MI
GA
TX
WA
ID
ID

Jurisdiction
County of Durham
County of Oakland
District of Columbia
De Kalb County Georgia
Miami Dade County
County of Eagle
Forsyth County
Lexington Fayette Urban County
Government
Unified Government of Wyandotte County
Rockingham County
County of Webb
County of Kenosha
Woodbury County
Imperial County
County of Indian River
County of Sheboygan
County of Pitkin
County of Brown
Hall County
County of Anne Arundel
County of Cumberland
County of Horry
County of Buncombe
County of Cameron
County of Linn
County of Cache
County of St Charles
County of Jackson
County of York
County of Polk
De kalb County
County of Duplin
County of Rock Island
Iredell County
County of Randolph
County of Hill
County of Kendall
Kittitas County
Hunterdon County
Washington County
County of Yellowstone
County of St. Joseph
County Of Newton
County of Andrews
Adams County
County Of Bingham
County of Twin Falls

- 64 –

FY 2005
Total Amount
82,967
82,052
81,762
79,948
78,587
78,319
69,285
69,269
68,384
65,030
64,069
59,611
57,725
56,370
54,704
54,033
50,679
49,206
36,833
36,607
31,780
30,754
30,113
29,936
25,166
24,986
24,795
23,373
22,240
16,332
14,869
13,395
12,496
12,445
12,184
11,342
10,870
10,458
10,241
9,794
9,542
8,909
8,684
8,379
8,320
8,076
7,103

OIG Survey Recipients
Green highlighted text indicates survey respondent. 99 jurisdictions with total
SCAAP awards for FY 2005 totaling $205,455,783 responded to our survey.
State
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164

FL
OK
NM
NV
TX
NH
MI
TX
NE
OK
GA
TX
NV
OH
GA
OK
TX
OK
NM
WI
VA
MI
KS
NC
NY

Jurisdiction
County of Suwannee
County of Tulsa
County of Valencia
County of Humboldt
County of Castro
County of Merrimack
Livingston County
County of Zapata
County of Lincoln
Grady County
County Of Monroe
County of Atascosa
County of Pershing
Erie County
County of Lee
County of Carter
County of Lamar
County of Okfuskee
Quay County
Green County
City of Suffolk
County of Tuscola
County of Montgomery
County of Anson
County of Wyoming
Total

FY 2005
Total Amount
6,944
6,843
5,618
5,121
4,817
4,168
3,520
3,426
2,917
2,854
2,577
2,476
2,464
2,345
2,104
2,092
2,091
1,507
1,310
1,030
907
738
730
595
490
$264,776,153

Source: OIG and OJP data

- 65 –

APPENDIX V
Major Cities Chiefs of Police Statement
(From a document entitled M.C.C. Immigration Committee
Recommendations, June 2006.)

- 66 –

- 67 –

APPENDIX VI
State of Oregon Policy

- 68 –

APPENDIX VII
City of New York Policy

- 69 –

- 70 –

- 71 –

APPENDIX VIII
San Francisco City Administrative Code

- 72 –

- 73 –

- 74 –

APPENDIX IX
California Attorney General’s Opinion #01-213

- 75 –

- 76 –

- 77 –

- 78 –

- 79 –

- 80 –

- 81 –

- 82 –

- 83 –

- 84 –

JURISDICTION
[SENSITIVE INFORMATION
REDACTED]
[SENSITIVE INFORMATION
REDACTED]
[SENSITIVE INFORMATION
REDACTED]
[SENSITIVE INFORMATION
REDACTED]
[SENSITIVE INFORMATION
REDACTED]
[SENSITIVE INFORMATION
REDACTED]
[SENSITIVE INFORMATION
REDACTED]
[SENSITIVE INFORMATION
REDACTED]
[SENSITIVE INFORMATION
REDACTED]
[SENSITIVE INFORMATION
REDACTED]
[SENSITIVE INFORMATION
REDACTED]
[SENSITIVE INFORMATION
REDACTED]
[SENSITIVE INFORMATION
REDACTED]
[SENSITIVE INFORMATION
REDACTED]
[SENSITIVE INFORMATION
REDACTED]
[SENSITIVE INFORMATION
REDACTED]
If law enforcement officers from
your jurisdiction have reason to
believe that someone they
arrest may be an
undocumented alien, do they
generally inform ICE that the
individual is in their custody?

No
No
No
No

No
No

No
No
No

No
No
No

No
No

No

No

No

No
No

No
No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

- 85 –

Do the detention facilities in
your jurisdiction generally alert
ICE prior to releasing any
undocumented criminal aliens
in their custody?

Do the detention facilities in
your jurisdiction generally
accept detainers from ICE for
undocumented criminal aliens
in their custody?

If law enforcement officers from
your jurisdiction arrest an
individual on state or local
charges, do they generally ask
the subject about his or her
immigration status?

INFORMATION
REDACTED]

STATE [SENSITIVE

APPENDIX X

JURISDICTIONS WITH MULTIPLE “NO” ANSWERS TO THE OIG SURVEY

No
No

No

No

No
No

No

No

No

No

Do the detention facilities in
your jurisdiction generally alert
ICE prior to releasing any
undocumented criminal aliens
in their custody?

If law enforcement officers from
your jurisdiction have reason to
believe that someone they
arrest may be an
undocumented alien, do they
generally inform ICE that the
individual is in their custody?

No

Do the detention facilities in
your jurisdiction generally
accept detainers from ICE for
undocumented criminal aliens
in their custody?

If law enforcement officers from
your jurisdiction arrest an
individual on state or local
charges, do they generally ask
the subject about his or her
immigration status?

INFORMATION
REDACTED]

JURISDICTION
[SENSITIVE INFORMATION
REDACTED]
[SENSITIVE INFORMATION
REDACTED]
[SENSITIVE INFORMATION
REDACTED]

STATE [SENSITIVE

JURISDICTIONS WITH MULTIPLE “NO” ANSWERS TO THE OIG SURVEY

No

No
No

Source: Responses to OIG survey

The following explanatory comments were offered by respondents listed in
this table. The respondents did not necessarily offer an explanation for each
negative answer.
(1) If law enforcement officers from your jurisdiction arrest an individual on
state or local charges, do they generally ask the subject about his or her
immigration status?
•

[SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED] – “Generally, if an individual
does not appear to be foreign they will not be asked. Now if an
individual has no proper identification and it is apparent that they may
be foreign then they will ask.”

•

[SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED] – “Not everyone arrested
would prompt an arresting officer to inquire about a person's
immigration status. It is unknown as to how many times a day an
arresting officer would have cause to ask an arrestee about their
immigration status.”

•

[SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED]a – “The [SENSITIVE
INFORMATION REDACTED] does not generally ask immigration status.
We may if need be, but not generally.”

- 86 –

•

[SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED] – “There is no local ordinance
or regulation from the County's Board of Supervisors authorizing the
Department of Correction to ask arrestees about their immigration
status.”

•

[SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED] – “It is not the Police
Department's policy to ask, however, some officers ask voluntarily. It
is not the Police Department's policy to take proactive enforcement
action against undocumented aliens. However, if an encounter with an
undocumented alien yields a wanted status for an immigration
violation listed by another agency, the Police Dept. will confirm
extradition before arrest.”

•

[SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED] – “Since [SENSITIVE
INFORMATION REDACTED] is a home rule city the Sheriff Dept doesn't
‘arrest’ persons as part of our normal duties. When persons are
brought to us or we take someone into our custody we do ask for
place of birth. Anyone who self reports as being born outside the USA
is forwarded to ICE.”

•

[SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED] – “No means they don't
generally ask, since their immigration status has no bearing on the
local charge. Additionally, if they did ask and the defendant said he
was illegal, who would we tell?”

•

[SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED] – “Not unless there is a reason
to believe there would be an issue with the status.”

•

[SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED] – “Not Applicable.”

•

[SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED] – “We complete an NCIC check
on all arrestees, and we report those with a history of deportation.”

•

[SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED] – “Ask where born but don't
check immigration status.”

•

[SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED] – “Generally no, unless there
is reason to believe individual has been involved in certain criminal
activities such as: arrested for, or has been convicted of a felony,
violent crime, etc.”

•

[SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED] – “Deputies working patrol
within [SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED] do not generally ask
arrestees their immigration status.”
- 87 –

•

[SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED] – “Immigration status is
determined during the Booking process.”

•

[SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED] – “Only if the investigation
points to the fact that the individual(s) may be an undocumented
alien.”

(2) If law enforcement officers from your jurisdiction have reason to believe
that someone they arrest may be an undocumented alien, do they generally
inform ICE that the individual is in their custody?
•

[SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED] – “Notification may occur in
felony offenses, but not usually for minor offenses.”

•

[SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED] – “From my experience it is
difficult to contact these agencies.”

•

[SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED] – “Unknown. However, the
[SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED] Custody Division is
implementing an automated inquiry and notification process for
consular notifications as part of the booking process.”

•

[SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED] – “ICE agents come into our
facility on a regular basis and review our records of undocumented
aliens.”

•

[SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED] – “There is no policy or local
regulation from the County's Board of Supervisors that allows
Department of Correction officers to inform ICE that an individual is in
custody.”

•

[SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED] – “This is a Sheriff's
[Department] function.”

•

[SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED] – “Our experience has shown
that ICE is not going to respond anyway.”

•

[SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED] – “Not Applicable.”

•

[SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED] – “All arrestees in [SENSITIVE
INFORMATION REDACTED] are brought to the [SENSITIVE
INFORMATION REDACTED] County Jail; this is when the NCIC [check]
is done.”
- 88 –

•

[SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED] – “Depends on nature of
crime.”

•

[SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED] – “Law enforcement officers
may contact ICE but jail staff do not. We have an ICE employee that
regularly reviews inmate rosters.”

•

[SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED] – “No, unless certain
conditions are met such as: if individual is reasonably suspected of
participating in certain criminal activity, arrested for using a firearm
during commission of a crime, involvement in violent crime. Etc.”

•

[SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED] – “Deputies working patrol
within [SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED] do not generally inform
the DHS/ICE that the individual they have in custody may be
undocumented. However, on occasion deputies will advise the 287(g)
Officers of the undocumented arrestee.”

•

[SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED] – “Past history has shown that
they will rarely pick the subjects up for transport.”

•

[SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED] – “Sheriff's Deputies do not
inform ICE. Detention staff will notify ICE if information obtained from
a criminal history rap sheet or information obtained from our local
database alerts [this] Department of previous contacts with ICE
(releases to ICE or previously deported criminal alien).”

(3) Do the detention facilities in your jurisdiction generally accept detainers
from ICE for undocumented criminal aliens in their custody?
•

[SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED] – “ICE does not bring people
(inmates) to our facility.”

•

[SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED] – “The [SENSITIVE
INFORMATION REDACTED] has a contract to have ICE inmates.”

(4) Do the detention facilities in your jurisdiction generally alert ICE prior to
releasing any undocumented criminal aliens in their custody?
•

[SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED] – “[No.] Unless ICE asks us
to.”

- 89 –

•

[SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED] – “In most cases we are
unaware of status.”

- 90 –

APPENDIX XI
Bureau of Justice Assistance Response to the Draft Audit Report
MEMORANDUM TO:

Glenn A. Fine
Inspector General
United States Department of Justice

THROUGH:

Guy K. Zimmerman
Assistant Inspector General for Audit
Office of the Inspector General
United States Department of Justice

FROM:

Regina B. Schofield
Assistant Attorney General

SUBJECT:

Response to Office of the Inspector General’s Draft Audit
Report, Cooperation of SCAAP Recipients in the Removal
of Criminal Aliens from the United States

This memorandum responds to the Office of the Inspector General’s (OIG’s)
draft audit report entitled “Cooperation of SCAAP Recipients in the Removal of
Criminal Aliens from the United States.” The draft report does not contain any
recommendations. The Office of Justice Programs has reviewed the draft audit
report and does not have any comments.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and respond to the draft audit
report. If you have any questions regarding this response, please feel free to
contact me on (202) 307-5933, or LeToya Johnson, Director, Program Review
Office, on (202) 514-0692.
cc:

Beth McGarry
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
for Operations and Management
Domingo Herraiz
Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance
LeToya A. Johnson
Director, Program Review Office
Richard P. Theis
DOJ Audit Liaison

- 91 –