Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 
 

Report Update 
 

OIG-10-124 September 2010 
Office ofInspector General 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Washington, DC 20528 

Preface 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office ofInspector General (DIG) was 

established by the Homeland Security Act of2002 (P.L. 107-296) by amendment to the 

Inspector General Act of1978. This is one of a series of audit, inspection, and special 

reports prepared as part of our oversight responsibilities to promote economy, efficiency, 

and effectiveness within the department. 

This report addresses progress made toward implementing recommendations from our 

prior report, OIG-IO-63, The Performance of287(g) Agreements, issued in March 2010. 

We also address the use of287(g) funds, challenges in conducting compliance reviews of 

287(g) agreements, and performance measures used to determine the success of the 

287(g) program in achieving its goals. It is based on interviews with employees and 

officials of relevant agencies and institutions, direct observations, and a review of 

applicable documents. 

The recommendations herein have been developed to the best knowledge available to our 

office, and have been discussed in draft with those responsible for implementation. We 

trust this report will result in more effective, efficient, and economical operations. We 

express our appreciation to all of those who contributed to the preparation of this report. 

C _~:OV1A,Cr- Carlton I. Mann 

Assistant Inspector General for Inspections 
 

 

Table of Contents/Abbreviations 

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


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


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


ICE Needs to Continue Efforts to Implement Prior OIG Recommendations 
 

Regarding 287(g) Program Operations........................................................................... 5 
 

Recommendation ............................................................................................................ 6 
 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis ................................................................... 6 
 

Management Controls Over Funds Allocated For 287(g) Inspections Need to Be 
 

Established ...................................................................................................................... 7 
 

Recommendations......................................................................................................... 12 
 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis ................................................................. 12 
 

Challenges for the 287(g) Inspections Group Need to Be Mitigated............................ 16 
 


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


Management Comments and OIG Analysis ................................................................. 20 
 


ICE and LEA Compliance With Revised MOA Cannot Be Readily Determined........ 22 
 


Recommendations......................................................................................................... 30 
 


Management Comments and OIG Analysis ................................................................. 31 
 


Appendices 

Appendix A: Purpose, Scope, and Methodology.......................................................36 
 

Appendix B: Management Comments to the Draft Report.......................................38 
 

Appendix C: Status of Recommendations from Prior OIG Report...........................47 
 

Appendix D: Side-by-Side Comparison of Old MOA vs. New MOA Template......61 
 

Appendix E: Major Contributors to this Report........................................................84 
 

Appendix F: Report Distribution ..............................................................................85 
 

Abbreviations 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

DRO Office of Detention and Removal Operations 

ENFORCE Enforcement Case Tracking System 

ERO Enforcement Removal Operations 

FOD Field Office Director 

HSI Homeland Security Investigations 

ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

IDENT Automated Biometric Identification System 

IEA immigration enforcement agent 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JEO jail enforcement officer 

LEA law enforcement agency 

MSU Mission Support Unit 

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

OBPP Office of Budget and Program Performance 

OCIO Office of the Chief Information Officer 

ODO Office of Detention Oversight 

OI Office of Investigations 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

OPR Office of Professional Responsibility 

OSLC Office of State and Local Coordination 

OTD Office of Training and Development 

RAC Resident Agent in Charge 

SAC Special Agent in Charge 

TFO task force officer 

TOPS Table of Organization Position System 
OIG
 
 Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General 

Executive Summary 

Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as 

amended, authorizes the Department of Homeland Security’s 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement to delegate federal 

immigration enforcement authorities to state and local law 

enforcement agencies. The Department of Homeland Security 

Appropriations Act, 2010, and accompanying House Report 111­

157 and Conference Report 111-298, require that we report on the 

performance of 287(g) agreements with state and local authorities. 

This report is an update to OIG-10-63, The Performance of 287(g) 

Agreements, issued in March 2010, which included 33 

recommendations to strengthen management controls and improve 

oversight of 287(g) program operations. 

In this review, we determined that Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement needs to continue efforts to implement our prior 

recommendations. We identified challenges that may reduce the 

effectiveness of a review process intended as a resource for 

ensuring compliance with 287(g) program requirements. We also 

noted that there were insufficient controls and supporting 

documentation to verify that 287(g) inspection funds were used 

solely as intended. In addition, we identified the need for a more 

comprehensive approach for determining the success of 287(g) 

program goals. Immigration and Customs Enforcement needs to 

(1) establish a process to ensure effective management controls 

and accountability over the 287(g) program and related funding, 

(2) develop and implement a strategy for ensuring the success of 

the compliance review process, and (3) establish a comprehensive 

approach for determining whether 287(g) program goals for 

removing criminal aliens who pose a threat to public safety are 

being achieved. 

We are making 16 recommendations for Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement to improve overall operations of the 287(g) program. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 


Page 1
 
 
 

 

 

 

Background 

In September 1996, Congress authorized the executive branch to 

delegate immigration enforcement authorities to state and local 

government agencies. The Illegal Immigration Reform and 

Immigrant Responsibility Act of 19961 amended the Immigration and 

Nationality Act (INA) by adding section 287(g).2 Under this section, 

the Secretary of Homeland Security is authorized to enter into written 

agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies (LEA) to 

facilitate the delegation of immigration enforcement functions to 

select law enforcement officers.3

 The law requires that this 

delegation of immigration enforcement authorities be executed 

through formal, written agreements, referred to as Memorandum of 

Agreements (MOAs). 

MOAs are executed between the Assistant Secretary for Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the participating agency’s 

authorized representative. The agreements outline terms and 

conditions under which participating LEA personnel will function as 

immigration officers. Pursuant to these MOAs, designated officers 

who receive appropriate training and function under the supervision 

of sworn ICE officers are permitted to perform immigration law 

enforcement duties. 

The federal government did not enter into any 287(g) agreements 

between 1996 and 2002. From 2002 to 2006, DHS delegated 

enforcement authorities to six jurisdictions. After 2006, the 287(g) 

program expanded as interest in interior immigration enforcement at 

the state and local levels increased, and more dedicated funding for 

287(g) program efforts was made available. 

MOAs designate the 287(g) program model that jurisdictions are 

authorized to use. Participating jurisdictions employ a Detention 

Model, Task Force Officer (TFO) Model, or both, referred to as the 

Joint Model.4 

The Detention Model involves partner officers exercising their 

immigration-related authorities only while assigned to jail or 

1 P.L. 104-208, sec. 133, Sept. 30, 1996. 
 
 2

 Codified at 8 U.S.C. 1357(g). 
 
 3

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


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

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

under the Homeland Security Act of 2002. (6 U.S.C. 251.)
 
 4

 The name for Jail Enforcement model was changed to Detention model in the revised MOA. 
 


The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 


Page 2
 
 
correctional facilities. Officers identify and initiate immigration 

proceedings for aliens subject to removal that have been charged with 

or convicted of an offense. 

The TFO Model is composed of partner officers assigned to task 

force operations supported by ICE or partner officers in the field who 

are supervised by ICE. Officers exercise their immigration-related 

authorities during criminal investigations involving aliens within 

their jurisdiction or as directed by the ICE Special Agent in Charge 

(SAC). 

In July 2009, ICE released a new template for 287(g) agreements to 

replace existing agreements. According to DHS officials, new 287(g) 

agreements will: 

•	 Promote consistency by ensuring that all state and local law 

enforcement partners use the same standards in implementing 

the 287(g) program; 

•	 Align 287(g) local operations with major ICE enforcement 

priorities—specifically, the identification and removal of 

criminal aliens; 

•	 Address concerns that individuals may be arrested for minor 

offenses as a guise to initiate removal proceedings by requiring 

participating local law enforcement agencies to pursue all 

criminal charges that originally caused the offender to be taken 

into custody; 

•	 Define the objectives of the 287(g) program, outline the 

immigration enforcement authorities granted by the agreement, 

and provide guidelines for ICE supervision of local agency 

officer operations, information reporting and tracking, 

complaint procedures and implementation measures; and 

•	 Strengthen ICE oversight of the program to allow ICE to better 

utilize the resources and capabilities of its law enforcement 

partners across the nation. 

 ICE required 287(g) jurisdictions to sign a new agreement to continue 

participation in the program. As of August 1, 2010, ICE has 71 

MOAs, with 26 TFO Models, 32 Detention Models, and 13 Joint 

Models. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 

Page 3
 
 

 Source: ICE Office of State and Local Coordination

 * FY 2011 budget request. 

 

For Fiscal Year (FY) 2006, Congress appropriated $5 million for the 

287(g) program. By 2011, program funding had increased to $68.3 

million, as shown in Table 1. 

 Table 1. Allocated 287(g) Program Funding 

Fiscal 

Year in millions 

Funding Percentage 

Change 

2006 $5.0 

2007 $14.4 188% 

2008 $42.1 192% 

2009 $54.1 29% 

2010 $68.0 26% 

2011* $68.3 0.5% 

The ICE Office of State and Local Coordination (OSLC) maintains 

responsibility for management and oversight of the 287(g) program. 

OSLC coordinates with Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and 

Enforcement Removal Operations (ERO) to provide day-to-day 

supervision for 287(g) officers.5 HSI maintains supervisory 

responsibility over 287(g) task force activities, and ERO supervises 

jail enforcement officer (JEO) immigration enforcement functions. 

The ICE Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) furnishes and 

installs information technology equipment, and provides technical 

support for 287(g) officers’ access to DHS systems. The Office of 

Training and Development (OTD) designs and delivers 287(g) 

training. 

Within the ICE Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), the 

287(g) Inspections Group assesses the effectiveness of ICE field 

offices in supervising and supporting 287(g) programs, as well as ICE 

and LEA compliance with program policies and MOA requirements. 

The 287(g) Inspections Group conducts compliance reviews to assess 

conformance with conditions of MOAs between ICE and participating 

LEAs, and provides ICE management with feedback on the 

administration of the program by local ICE offices. 

In FY 2009, Congress earmarked $5 million specifically for 287(g) 

compliance reviews. For FY 2009, ICE completed 20 compliance 

5

 Homeland Security Investigations and Enforcement Removal Operations were formerly known as the 

Office of Investigations and the Office of Detention and Removal Operations, respectively. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 

Page 4
 
 

review reports. For FY 2010, 22 of 24 compliance reviews have been 

completed as of August 2010. 

Results of Review 

Our report provides updated information on the status of ICE efforts to 

address recommendations in our prior report, The Performance of 287(g) 

Agreements, dated March 2010. We also analyzed operations of the 

287(g) Inspections Group to identify measures that can improve the 

efficiency and effectiveness of their efforts to determine compliance with 

287(g) program requirements. In addition, we reviewed ICE’s 

implementation of the revised MOA, and identified specific aspects that 

may enhance ICE’s ability to achieve program objectives, as well as 

challenges that may reduce its effectiveness in improving program 

operations. 

ICE Needs to Continue Efforts to Implement Prior OIG 
 


Recommendations Regarding 287(g) Program Operations 
 


Our March 2010 report, The Performance of 287(g) Agreements, included 

33 recommendations for ICE to strengthen management controls, promote 

effective program operations and address related risks. ICE concurred 

with 32 of the 33 recommendations. 

Based on our analysis of documentation provided by ICE, we closed 

Recommendations 3, 11, 19, 28, and 33. To close a recommendation, we 

must agree with the actions ICE has taken, or plans to take, to resolve our 

concerns. Corrective actions planned or taken by ICE for these 

recommendations included (1) establishing and implementing data entry 

requirements; (2) establishing a process to ensure that LEAs notify OPR 

of complaints against 287(g) officers and other LEA personnel improperly 

performing immigration enforcement activities; (3) determining whether 

the civil rights law training was adequate; (4) posting 287(g) complaint 

reporting procedures on ICE’s public website and in participating LEA 

facilities; and (5) evaluating the use of 287(g) vehicles to determine 

whether they are used as intended, and properly disposed of. Appendix C 

details the status of the remaining 28 open recommendations. 

ICE has made efforts to implement improvements in program operations 

in some areas identified during our prior field work. However, for other 

important areas, ICE has provided action plans and related documentation 

that do not fully address critical issues outlined in our prior report. 

The 287(g) program provides benefits to enhance the safety and security 

of participating communities, as well as challenges for ICE that may 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 

Page 5
 
reduce its effectiveness. Implementing corrective actions outlined in our 

report should enable ICE to achieve more effective, efficient, and 

economical operations within the program. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that Immigration and Customs Enforcement: 

Recommendation #1: Take timely and appropriate actions to 

implement OIG recommendations intended to strengthen 

management controls and improve oversight of 287(g) operations. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

We evaluated ICE’s written comments and have made changes to the 

report where we deem appropriate. A summary of ICE’s written 

responses to our recommendations and our analysis of the responses 

follow the recommendation. A copy of ICE’s response, in its entirety, 

appears in Appendix B. 

ICE Response: ICE concurred with Recommendation 1. 

ICE has already taken significant actions to strengthen 

management controls over 287(g) operations. Additionally, the 

ICE OSLC 287(g) group (OSLC) has taken aggressive steps to 

ensure accuracy in data collection, with a follow-up process that 

includes the dissemination of monthly encounter statistics to the 

appropriate Special Agent-in-Charge (SAC) and Field Office 

Director (FOD) field offices for data quality reviews. OSLC is 

also working towards developing its performance measures in 

coordination with the Office of Budget Performance and Planning 

(OBPP). These measures require the collection of monthly data for 

one fiscal year to establish a baseline to sufficiently analyze the 

performance of each 287(g) program. OSLC has been collecting 

monthly data for FY 2010, and will have a base line by the end of 

September. This will allow OSLC to report on its performance for 

the first quarter of FY 2011. These changes were initiated in the 

timeliest fashion with the intention of strengthening management 

controls of the program and improving oversight of the program. 

Based on ICE’s actions to take timely and appropriate actions to 

implement OIG recommendations, ICE requests this 

recommendation be considered Resolved and Closed. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 

Page 6
 
OIG Evaluation: The intent of this recommendation is for ICE to 

focus on the remaining 28 open recommendations outlined in our 

March 2010 report in a timely and appropriate manner. While the 

actions proposed by ICE are intended to strengthen management 

controls and improve oversight of 287(g) operations, they do not 

fully address all recommendations included in our prior report. 

This recommendation will remain unresolved and open as ICE 

continues its efforts to resolve the remaining 28 open 

recommendations from our previous report. 

Management Controls Over Funds Allocated For 287(g) 

Inspections Need to Be Established 

In our prior review, we noted improvements in 287(g) program operations 

based on reviews conducted by the 287(g) Inspections Group within OPR. 

287(g) program reviews are designed to assess conformance with 

conditions of the MOA between ICE and LEA, provide OSLC and ICE 

management with feedback on the administration of the 287(g) program, 

and determine whether any detainee rights have been violated. 

Given the sensitivity of the 287(g) program and the 287(g) Inspections 

Group’s success in identifying issues for management attention, we 

recommended in our prior report that ICE adopt a more aggressive review 

process. Of the total amount appropriated for the 287(g) program in the 

Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing 

Appropriations Act of 2009, Congress specifically earmarked $5 million in 

the accompanying conference report for 287(g) compliance reviews. We 

conclude that challenges encountered in (1) reconciling information such 

as payroll data with staffing plans, (2) reviewing inadequate financial 

records, and (3) analyzing incomplete data provided by ICE have resulted 

in insufficient evidence for us to make a determination regarding the 

appropriateness of expenditures claimed against these funds. Therefore, 

there is a potential that ICE may be in violation of the Purpose Statute, 

which requires that appropriations be used only for their intended 

purposes, and the Anti-deficiency Act, which prohibits agencies from 

spending in excess of available appropriations.6 

287(g) Inspections Group Funding Allocation 

According to OMB Circular A-123, “Management Responsibility 

for Internal Control,” management is responsible for developing 

 

6

 31 U.S.C. 1301 and 31 U.S.C. 1341. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 

Page 7
 
and maintaining effective internal controls to ensure that resources 

are used consistent with agency missions. In addition, internal 

controls must be established that reasonably ensure that funds and 

other assets are safeguarded against waste, loss, unauthorized use, 

or misappropriation. 

In FY 2009, Congress allocated $5 million to OPR specifically for 

conducting compliance reviews. In FY 2010, OPR received 

$6.046 million to facilitate 287(g) program reviews. As part of 

this review, our objective was to confirm the validity of 

expenditures against those funds. We made numerous requests for 

specific program funding data, and received varying explanations 

from program officials regarding the absence of data related to 

staffing, payroll, and other expenses charged against 287(g) 

program funds. OSLC program managers eventually explained 

that there was no process to ensure that all OPR field agents being 

paid from or supported by 287(g) funds were actually conducting 

reviews that specifically aligned with the 287(g) mission. In the 

absence of internal controls and supporting documentation to 

monitor and track the use of program resources, there is no 

assurance that funds allocated to the 287(g) program were used as 

intended. 

The ICE Office of Budget and Program Performance (OBPP) 

allots 287(g) funds as part of the overall appropriated budget for 

each ICE program. According to OBPP officials, funds are 

apportioned quarterly, based on approved spend plans that OBPP 

reviews and revises jointly with the affected program area and 

OSLC at the end of each quarter. OPR’s Mission Support Unit 

(MSU) submits spend plans for 287(g) inspections that identify 

projected operational costs. OBPP’s financial management system 

uses a unique project code that allows OBPP and OSLC to monitor 

allotments and expenditures against 287(g) funds. OBPP officials 

stated that they compile daily 287(g) Status of Funds Reports for 

OSLC to use in following up with affected programs when 

discrepancies occur. 

We requested financial and personnel information for FYs 2008 to 

2010 for the 287(g) Inspections Group. Since Congress allocated 

$5 million in FY 2009 specifically for compliance reviews 

conducted by OPR, we requested additional financial information 

regarding obligations and expenditures for FY 2009 to support the 

use of 287(g) funds. However, no data for FY 2008 were 

provided, and only partial data for FYs 2009 and 2010 were 

received. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 

Page 8
 
 

 

As illustrated in Table 2, documentation provided by OBPP 

showed that of the $5 million allocated in FY 2009 for compliance 

reviews, OPR obligated $4,420,648 for compliance review 

expenses, and expended $424,762 for service-wide costs, and 

$13,000 against FY 2009 obligations. These expenses and 

obligations total $4,485,410. The remaining $141,590 has not 

been expended or obligated. 

 Table 2: FY 2009 287(g) Funds Obligated or Expended 

Object Class: Amount 

Compliance Review Expenditures:

 Payroll 3,059,239

 Permanent Change of Station Moves 240,583

 Travel and Transportation of Things 455,649

 Contracts 218,305

 Supplies and Utilities 65,400

 Equipment 381,472

 Object Class Total $4,420,648 

Service-wide Costs $424,762 

Expenditures-to-date Against FY2009 

Obligations $13,000 

Unobligated $141,590 

Total $5,000,000 

We requested additional information from OBPP, including 

supporting documentation for compliance review expenditures, 

and definitions for items within each object class category; 

however, we either did not receive a response or were informed 

that the requested information was not available. In addition, 

OBPP officials stated that ICE’s financial management system 

does not allow for specific expenses to be tracked to individual 

staff members. 

To determine the accuracy of the cost information provided, we 

attempted to calculate an approximate cost of a 287(g) compliance 

review for a specific object class category identified in Table 2. 

We selected Travel and Transportation of Things, where ICE 

documentation showed that a total of $455,649 was obligated. 

In FY 2009, OPR inspected 20 program sites. Five of these 

program sites were located within driving distance of OPR 

headquarters in Washington, DC. Staffing records provided by 

OPR showed that, excluding the five sites, the equivalent of 72 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 

Page 9
 
 

 

 

 

 

staff members conducted 15 287(g) reviews. Therefore, we 

divided OBPP’s budgeted amount for Travel and Transportation of 

Things ($455,649) by OPR staffing records for the number of 

equivalent staff members (72) to determine OBPP’s estimate of 

$6,329 per person for travel related to compliance reviews. We 

did not receive documentation to support the calculation for this 

estimate. 

In contrast, we calculated travel expenses of approximately $2,300 

per person for each inspection. We selected the most costly 

inspection site location, and obtained related costs for the 

government contracted airfare, lodging fees, and per diem rates.7 

We requested information on the 287(g) Inspections Group’s FY 

2010 budget of $6.046 million, and were provided with spend 

plans that showed projected costs for program expenditures; 

however, we were unable to determine whether these expenditures 

aligned with 287(g) objectives. MSU officials said that the 287(g) 

Inspections Group and the Office of Detention Oversight (ODO) 

have mutually supporting missions that are not subject to funding 

or mission exclusivity; therefore, spend plans did not segregate 

funds used solely for 287(g) inspections. 

OPR Personnel Inappropriately Supported by 287(g) Funds 

According to ICE officials, OPR has been increasing its workforce 

since the inception of the 287(g) inspection program. However, 

due to conflicting data from ICE officials, we were unable to 

determine the number of OPR personnel working on 287(g) related 

assignments, or personnel whose salaries were paid from 287(g) 

program funds. 

ICE uses the Table of Organization Position System (TOPS) for 

hiring data and projections, the Federal Financial Management 

System financial accounting system to track budget expenditures 

and balances, and the National Finance Center for payroll services. 

Our review of documents provided from these systems showed 

7 We calculated the approximate travel cost for the inspection at the Arizona Department of Corrections 

because this was one of the most expensive site visits based on location and per diem rates in effect from 

June 8 to 12, 2009. The roundtrip airline city pair fare from Washington, DC to Phoenix, AZ in FY 2010 

was $1,318 (figures not available for FY 2009). The maximum GSA lodging rate is $89 each day, or $534 

for six days (plus additional taxes). The per diem for meals and incidental expenses is $71 each day, or 

$426 for six days. Travel expenses as we calculated should be approximately $2,278 per person for six 

days. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 

Page 10
 
conflicting information that precluded reconciling employees who 

actually participated in 287(g) inspections with employees who 

were actually paid from 287(g) inspection funds. 

The TOPS report showed that OPR had 19 full-time staff in FY 

2009 who were to be paid from 287(g) inspection funds; however, 

six of those positions were not shown on the FY 2009 payroll 

reports. Payroll reports listed 38 individuals whose salaries were 

either partially or entirely paid from 287(g) funds, with an average 

of 9 pay periods for each of these field agents paid from 287(g) 

inspection funds. 

A review of completed inspection reports with names of 

contributing staff members showed that only 4 of the 19 staff 

members listed on the TOPS report actually participated in 287(g) 

inspections in FY 2009. However, 13 of the 19 staff members on 

the TOPS report were paid from 287(g) inspection funds. Payroll 

reports showed that only 9 of the 38 employees - 6 members of the 

287(g) Inspections Group and 3 field agents - paid from 287(g) 

inspection funds actually conducted at least one compliance 

review. 

An MSU official explained that 287(g)-funded field agents have 

inspection responsibilities as collateral duties. Therefore, manhours, and not positions, are used to budget for compliance 

inspections. Field agents’ individual man-hours are collectively 

totaled to represent the equivalent of full-time employees. For 

these 38 individuals, a total of 33,983 man-hours were paid from 

287(g) inspection funds. Using a standard work year of 1,928 

hours, 33,983 hours equates to approximately 18 full-time 

employees. 

We were unable to obtain records to reconcile man-hours charged 

to 287(g) inspection funds with the actual number of hours that 

field agents performed 287(g) inspection-related duties. However, 

we question whether the equivalent of 18 full-time employees, or 

33,983 man-hours, were used to support 287(g) compliance 

reviews. 

To guard against potential violations of the Purpose Statute and the 

Anti-Deficiency Act, ICE must ensure that funds are not spent in 

excess of appropriations, but are spent in accordance with the 

purpose and limits of each appropriation. However, ICE has not 

implemented procedures to ensure the integrity and accountability 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 

Page 11
 
over 287(g) program resources. As a result, we were unable to 

confirm that these resources were used appropriately. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that Immigration and Customs Enforcement: 

Recommendation #2: Establish an appropriate structure along 

with sufficient internal controls to manage and oversee 287(g) 

funds to ensure appropriate use. 

Recommendation #3: Develop a process to ensure that adequate 

supporting documentation is maintained to track and monitor the 

allocation, obligation, and expenditure of funds. 

Recommendation #4: Segregate funds by program area. 

Recommendation #5: Conduct a review of 287(g) funds allocated 

for inspections to ensure that these funds were used as intended. 

Recommendation #6: Re-evaluate the current staffing strategy of 

using man-hours instead of dedicated positions for conducting 

287(g) inspections. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

ICE Response: ICE concurred with Recommendation 2. 

ICE Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) will establish 

the budget structure so that the Office of Professional 

Responsibility (OPR) can implement a new 287(g) program office 

structure. The new structure will be fully implemented by October 

1, 2010. 

A certified program manager (PM) position to oversee all aspects 

of the OPR 287(g) program was announced (Vacancy 

Announcement LAQ-OPR-386239-MD-330) on September 17, 

2010. The PM will oversee the planning, direction, and timely 

execution of the program; determine goals and objectives; working 

with OBPP, develop measures that evaluate performance; make 

recommendations for program improvement; manage all resources; 

and manage organizational changes as well as changes to the 

content of the program. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 

Page 12
 
 

 

The new structure includes a staff of ten Special Agents working 

from OPR field offices who are solely dedicated to the 287(g) 

program. These agents will work in alignment with the staff of 

twelve 287(g) personnel at OPR Headquarters and report to the 

PM. 

Based on ICE’s establishment of a new structure for the management 

and oversight of 287(g) funds to ensure appropriate use, ICE 

requests this recommendation be considered Resolved and Closed. 

OIG Evaluation: The new structure for the management and 

oversight of 287(g) funds as described in ICE’s response does not 

clearly address management and oversight of 287(g) funds by 

OBPP and the certified program manager. In addition, ICE did not 

describe internal controls in its proposed budget structure that 

provided assurance that funds will be used as intended. The 

response also does not define the alignment between Special 

Agents and personnel at OPR Headquarters as part of the new 

structure. This recommendation will remain unresolved and open 

until ICE provides clarification regarding its proposed structure, 

with associated internal controls to ensure appropriate management 

over 287(g) funds. 

ICE Response: ICE concurred with Recommendation 3. 

A Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 spend plan was formulated in conjunction 

with an operational plan that outlines the requirements and funding 

needed in support of the ICE OPR 287(g) program. On October 1, 

OCFO will establish a specific organizational code for the 287(g) 

program office that ensures only payroll and general expenditures 

in support of the program are charged to the 287(g) program. The 

OPR PM will be charged with tracking all obligations and 

expenditures of 287(g) funds to ensure the funds are used for the 

appropriate and stated purpose. 

Based on ICE’s development of a process to ensure that adequate 

supporting documentation is maintained to track and monitor 

funds, we request this recommendation be considered Resolved and 

Closed. 

OIG Evaluation: The FY 2011 spend plan and operational plan 

ICE cites in its response do not address the maintenance of 

adequate supporting documentation to track the allocation, 

obligation and expenditure of 287(g) funds. Based on what we 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 

Page 13
 
 

learned during our fieldwork, spend plans are projections of 

expenditures that may be needed for the operation of the 287(g) 

program, and do not provide sufficient documentation to support 

monies actually spent. Efforts to establish an organizational code 

strictly for 287(g) payroll and general expenditures, and designate 

a program manager to track all obligations and expenditures should 

assist ICE in tracking the allocation, obligation and expenditure of 

funds. However, a process for maintaining documentation to 

support all expenditures of 287(g) funds is needed. This 

recommendation will remain unresolved and open until ICE 

establishes such a process. 

ICE Response: ICE concurred with Recommendation 4. 

For FY 2011, ICE has established a specific organizational code in 

its financial management system that allows the 287(g) program 

office to ensure only payroll and general expenditures in support of 

the program are charged to the 287(g) program. The PM will be 

charged with tracking all obligations and expenditures (to include 

payroll) to ensure they are used for the appropriate and stated 

purpose. 

OIG Evaluation: At the time of our fieldwork, ICE had a unique 

project code for 287(g) program expenditures that allowed OBPP 

and OSLC to monitor 287(g) funds. However, the spend plan ICE’s 

Mission Support Unit provided did not distinguish between 287(g) 

funding from the Office of Detention Operations. This 

recommendation will remain unresolved and open until ICE 

develops a clearly defined process to ensure that 287(g) funds are 

segregated from other ICE program areas. This should include a 

description of how the establishment of a specific organizational 

code will serve as an appropriate means of tracking 287(g) 

expenditures in comparison to the unique project code that was 

used during our fieldwork. 

ICE Response: ICE concurred with Recommendation 5. 

ICE has completed a comprehensive review of 287(g) funds 

expenditures for FY 2009 and FY 2010. All 287(g) program 

requirements have been properly coded to either the 287(g) 

program or OPR’s base program funding for FY 2010. Further 

analysis of FY 2009 expenditures has been completed and the ICE 

Burlington Finance Center will be processing actions that will 

result in the FY 2009 expenditures being an accurate reflection of 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 

Page 14
 
 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 


Page 15
 
 

costs incurred in support of the 287(g) program. These actions and 

adjustments will be completed by September 25, 2010. 

Also, an FY 2011 spend plan was formulated in conjunction with 

an operational plan that outlines the requirements and funding 

needed in support of the 287(g) program. OCFO will monitor 

budget performance and the OPR PM will be charged with 

executing all budget obligations and expenditures of 287(g) funds 

to ensure the funds are used for the appropriate and stated purpose. 

Based on the comprehensive review conducted and reallocation of 

funds, ICE requests this recommendation be considered Resolved and 

Closed. 

OIG Evaluation: This recommendation is resolved and open 

pending receipt of the results of ICE’s review of 287(g) program 

expenditures for FYs 2009 and 2010. This should also include any 

adjustments that reflect how 287(g) funds were spent. 

ICE Response: ICE concurred with Recommendation 6. 

As a result of a re-evaluation, ICE will use dedicated positions in 

support of the 287(g) program, and will no longer use the manhours model. OCFO will monitor budget performance and the 

OPR PM will be charged with executing all budget obligations and 

expenditures, including payroll, to ensure funds are used for the 

appropriate and stated purpose. Additionally, ICE OPR created and 

implemented an FY 2011 operational plan that outlines the 

program requirements and resources needed to execute the plan. 

Based on our re-evaluation and decision to use dedicated positions in 

its staffing strategy, ICE requests this recommendation be considered 

Resolved and Closed. 

OIG Evaluation: This recommendation is resolved and open 

pending verification of dedicated positions in support of the 287(g) 

program. ICE’s re-evaluation of its staffing strategy and 

subsequent decision to use dedicated positions in lieu of man-hours 

in support of the 287(g) program satisfies the intent of this 

recommendation. 
 

Challenges for the 287(g) Inspections Group Need to Be Mitigated 

Standards for internal control require all personnel to posses and maintain 

a level of competence that allows them to accomplish their assigned 

duties. The standards further require that management identify the 

appropriate knowledge and skills needed for jobs, and provide the 

necessary training for these jobs. We determined that (1) creative staffing 

methodologies provide an appearance of sufficient and competent staff to 

conduct required 287(g) compliance reviews, (2) field staff members 

trained to conduct 287(g) compliance reviews are not always available to 

participate when needed, and (3) hiring for 287(g) inspections has not 

been effective because filling vacancies at the field level is a higher 

priority. Because of the sensitivity of the 287(g) program and the need to 

ensure that program objectives are achieved, the ability of the 287(g) 

Inspections Group to conduct appropriate compliance reviews should be 

an ICE priority. 

Several Barriers May Reduce the Effectiveness of the 287(g) 

Inspections Group in Achieving Its Mission 

287(g) compliance reviews can help ensure that program goals are 

achieved. As part of our review, we observed an inspection 

conducted at a 287(g) program site that had been in operation for 

two years. 

The field work consisted of 19 interviews with ICE and LEA 

officials, observations, and file reviews to assess compliance with 

terms of the MOA and related ICE policies. The team identified 

several program deficiencies, and made recommendations to ICE 

field office staff and LEA officials. OPR was in the process of 

finalizing the inspection report at the end of our field work. 

ICE needs to ensure that the 287(g) Inspections Group serves as a 

resource by minimizing barriers that reduce the effectiveness of the 

inspection review process. 

Staffing 

Insufficient staffing has the potential to prevent the 287(g) 

Inspections Group from the timely completion of their assigned 

reviews. At the time of our review, the 287(g) Inspections Group 

included four full-time staff dedicated to 287(g). To augment its 

staff, the 287(g) Inspections Group relies on staff members from a 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 

Page 16
 
 

pool of 25 OPR field agents trained to conduct compliance 

reviews. 

We identified instances in which requests for field agents to assist 

with 287(g) compliance inspections were denied because field 

agents were unavailable or had scheduling conflicts. In these 

situations, agents who were ultimately assigned to the inspection 

team may be unfamiliar with the 287(g) program, and often have 

no training or experience to assess LEAs compliance with MOAs. 

Before we started our review, we notified OPR of our plans to 

accompany the review team on a specific inspection site of our 

choice. For the 287(g) compliance inspection that we observed, 

two members were a part of the core inspection team, and two 

members were from the pool of field agents who had attended the 

287(g) training. The other team member was a field agent who 

had no experience conducting 287(g) inspections, and had been 

sent to replace a 287(g) field agent who was in the pool. 

The Current Structure of the 287(g) Inspections Group Needs to Be 

Analyzed 

In June 2009, OPR conducted a 287(g) inspection training session 

for 25 field agents to establish a pool of field agents to assist with 

287(g) inspections. Our review of documents and related staffing 

reports showing staff members on 287(g) inspections indicated that 

the 25 field agents who completed the training did not consistently 

provide assistance with compliance inspections. 

Field offices receive notification of upcoming inspections and 

staffing requirements several weeks before the actual inspection 

date. However, we identified several instances of requests for 

assistance being denied. In addition, since field agents in the pool 

report to their respective Resident Agent in Charge (RAC), 

assisting with compliance inspections is not considered a priority. 

Because of the difficulties obtaining assistance from the field, the 

Assistant Special Agent in Charge (ASAC) or Deputy Special 

Agent in Charge (DSAC) is notified of the situation when a RAC 

will not release an agent to assist with an inspection. This has 

occasionally resulted in an agent being provided. In those 

circumstances, agents provided usually were not trained in the 

287(g) program, or familiar with the inspection process. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 

Page 17
 
The 287(g) Inspections Group has filled seven of twelve full-time 

positions. However, four of these positions include a unit chief, an 

agent, and two analysts who do not perform inspections. The other 

three positions were filled by two agents and an analyst who 

actually conduct the compliance inspections on a full-time basis. 

Four of the five vacant headquarters positions are GS-14 1811 

agent positions. An OPR official described difficulties in filling 

the vacant 1811 positions because vacancies in the field are usually 

a higher priority. In addition, fewer agents want to come to 

headquarters as part of the 287(g) Inspections Group due to the 

potential of limited career advancement opportunities. 

Consideration needs to be given to the current structure of the 

287(g) Inspections Group. This structure, including reporting lines 

and field employees who are not fully dedicated to conducting 

287(g) inspections, and the use of man-hours instead of dedicated 

positions, may not result in an optimum use of resources. The 

structure also minimizes the importance of inspection efforts by 

not ensuring the availability of an appropriate level of staff to 

conduct the reviews. OPR would benefit if workforce allocations 

were realigned to ensure a more dedicated staff for performing 

287(g) compliance reviews. 

Status of Corrective Actions Needs to Be Provided to the 287(g) 

Inspections Group 

Corrective actions taken by management to resolve findings and 

recommendations are an essential element for improving program 

operations. An agency should establish a system that provides for 

a complete record of the action taken to ensure prompt resolution 

and implementation of recommendations. ICE OPR conducts 

inspections of the 287(g) program to determine ICE and LEA 

compliance with MOAs, and provides recommendations for 

improvement. However, corrective actions taken in response to 

these recommendations are not formally communicated to the 

287(g) Inspections Group. As a result, there is less assurance that 

follow-up on deficiencies disclosed during previous compliance 

reviews will be conducted during future inspections. 

In March 2009, OSLC issued guidance, Procedures for Addressing 

OPR 287(g) Reports, describing steps that OSLC should take to 

ensure prompt resolution of inspection report recommendations or 

issues of concern. According to an OSLC official, a detailed 

evaluation of OPR inspection findings is completed as inspection 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 

Page 18
 
reports are finalized. OSLC tracks the inspection findings and 

recommendations with the corrective actions. OSLC sends 

inspection report findings through appropriate channels to the 

affected field office manager, who responds to OSLC with the 

corrective actions taken to resolve the findings. 

Our review of the 287(g) OPR Review Data tracking system 

indicated that from September 2009 to July 2010, the 287(g) 

Inspections Group made 64 recommendations, of which 44 have 

been closed. In FY 2009, three outstanding recommendations 

were referred to DHS’ Office of Inspector General, or to ICE HSI, 

and are still pending. The remaining 17 recommendations remain 

open and have been referred to ICE field offices. 

An ICE official said that there is no process to inform the 287(g) 

Inspections Group of corrective actions taken on inspection-related 

recommendations, or even when the recommendations have been 

resolved. This precludes verifying corrective actions taken and 

determining whether desired results were achieved. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that Immigration and Customs Enforcement: 

Recommendation #7: Re-evaluate the current staffing strategy 

for the 287(g) Inspections Group, including reporting lines and 

field employees who are not fully dedicated to conducting 287(g) 

inspections. 

Recommendation #8: Develop a process to staff inspections with 

field agents who have sufficient knowledge of the 287(g) program 

and the necessary skills for effective performance. 

Recommendation #9: Ensure that staff members paid from 

287(g) funds actually participate in 287(g) compliance reviews. 

Recommendation #10: Ensure that the 287(g) Inspections Group 

is notified of actions taken as a result of recommendations in their 

inspection reports. 

Recommendation #11: Develop a process to ensure that planned 

inspections include a review of actions taken to address previously 

identified deficiencies and other issues, as needed. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 

Page 19
 
 

 

 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

ICE Response: ICE concurred with Recommendation 7. 

OCFO established the budget structure so that OPR can implement a 

new 287(g) program office structure. This new structure will be 

fully implemented by October 1, 2010. 

As detailed in our response to Recommendation 2, the PM position 

will oversee all aspects of the 287(g) program and was announced 

(Vacancy Announcement LAQ-OPR-386239-MD-330) on 

September 17, 2010. 

Also, as discussed earlier, the new structure includes a staff of ten 

Special Agents solely dedicated to the 287(g) program and 

working from OPR field offices. 

Based on ICE’s establishment and implementation of a new 287(g) 

program office structure, we request this recommendation be 

considered Resolved and Closed. 

OIG Evaluation: This recommendation is resolved and open 

pending our receipt of the new staffing strategy, including 

reporting lines and field employees dedicated to conducting 287(g) 

inspections. 

ICE Response: ICE concurred with Recommendation 8. 

The ICE has planned a training session for all new 287(g) 

employees during the first quarter of FY 2011. Additionally, by 

having a permanent staff dedicated to conducting 287(g) 

inspections, staff members will be able to receive on-the-job 

training from other 287(g) employees during the first half of FY 

2011 and beyond. 

Based on ICE’s development of a process to ensure that inspections 

are staffed with field agents who have sufficient knowledge of the 

287(g) program, and possess the necessary skills for effective 

performance, ICE requests this recommendation be considered 

Resolved and Closed. 

OIG Evaluation: This recommendation is resolved and open 

pending our receipt and evaluation of the planned agenda for the 

FY 2011 training session. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 

Page 20
 
 

 

 

ICE Response: ICE concurred with Recommendation 9. 

Under the new ICE inspections structure, all staff members paid 

from 287(g) funds will be dedicated to the 287(g) program. 

As we detailed in our response to Recommendation 2, OFCO will 

oversee budget execution and OPR PM will oversee execution of 

the 287(g) program. 

Based on the new structure, ICE will ensure that staff paid from 

287(g) funds actually participate in 287(g) compliance reviews. 

Therefore, we request this recommendation be considered Resolved 

and Closed. 

OIG Evaluation: This recommendation is resolved and open 

pending our receipt of ICE’s process for ensuring that only dedicated 

287(g) staff will be paid from 287(g) funds. 

ICE Response: ICE concurred with Recommendation 10. 

As of September 2010, ICE OSLC began to provide OPR the 

responses from the field offices regarding issues, deficiencies, 

concerns and recommendations highlighted in 287(g) inspection 

reports. The OPR 287(g) Inspections Section will monitor and 

document these responses and validate the stated corrective actions 

during the next scheduled inspection or during a follow-up 

inspection, if one is warranted. 

Based on our actions to ensure the ICE 287(g) Inspections Group is 

notified of actions taken as a result of recommendations in their 

inspection reports, ICE requests this recommendation be considered 

Resolved and Closed. 

OIG Evaluation: This recommendation is resolved and closed. . 

ICE Response: ICE concurred with Recommendation 11. 

ICE OPR 287(g) Inspections Section will review the field actions 

taken in response to previously identified deficiencies and issues 

prior to its next scheduled inspection, and verify their completion 

during the inspection process. If a follow-up inspection is 

warranted, one will be conducted by the OPR 287(g) Inspections 

Section. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 

Page 21
 
Based on our development of a process to ensure that planned 

inspections include a review of actions taken to address previously 

identified deficiencies and other issues, as needed, ICE requests this 

recommendation be considered Resolved and Closed. 

OIG Evaluation: This recommendation is resolved and open 

pending our receipt and review of documentation describing the 

follow-up inspection process. 

ICE and LEA Compliance With Revised MOA Cannot Be 

Readily Determined 

The MOA defines the scope and limitations of the authority to be 

designated to the LEA, and authorizes participating officers to 

exercise a range of immigration enforcement activities that differ 

in terms of the program model and function. In July 2009, ICE 

released a new template for 287(g) agreements to replace existing 

agreements. 

A primary revision to the MOA is the addition of a Standard 

Operating Procedure (SOP) Template that establishes uniform 

general procedures for the implementation and oversight of the 

287(g) program. Specifically, the SOP describes (1) arrest priority 

levels, (2) supervision of the TFO and detention models, (3) data 

collection, and (4) training. Both MOAs also include an appendix 

outlining the complaint procedure. We focused on these areas to 

determine the potential effects that the revised MOA may have on 

improving 287(g) program operations. 

287(g) Arrest Priority Levels 

Our initial 287(g) report noted that ICE’s primary performance 

measure for the 287(g) program is the number of aliens 

encountered by 287(g) officers. However, this performance 

measure did not (1) align with ICE’s three-tier priority level 

system for arrest and detention of aliens, or (2) provide a focus on 

aliens who pose a threat to public safety or are a danger to the 

community, which, according to ICE, is a primary purpose for 

their collaboration with LEAs. In this review, we determined that 

ICE should develop performance measures with goals for 

determining 287(g) program success in removing criminal aliens 

who pose a threat to public safety or a danger to the community. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 

Page 22
 
 

The revised MOA template identifies three categories of aliens that 

are a priority for arrest and detention. The highest priority, Level 

1, consists of aliens who have been convicted of or arrested for 

major drug or violent offenses. Level 2 includes aliens who have 

been convicted of or arrested for minor drug or property offenses. 

Level 3 includes aliens who have been convicted of or arrested for 

other offenses. 

According to the MOA template, participating LEAs under each 

model must identify and remove criminal aliens based on the three 

priority levels for arrest and detention. The MOA also requires 

LEAs to use their 287(g) program in either the TFO Model or 

Detention Model according to ICE priorities. 

A December 2009 memorandum, Monitoring the Exercise of 

287(g) Authority, advised all SAC and Field Office Directors 

(FOD) of their responsibility in ensuring that LEA partners adhere 

to the terms of the revised 287(g) MOA, and exercise the delegated 

authority consistent with ICE priorities. To meet this requirement, 

ICE requires LEAs to submit monthly data showing all encounters 

within each priority level. ICE monitors the data to determine 

whether LEA arrest activities are consistent with ICE priority 

levels. However, we did not identify any measures that SACs or 

FODs should use to compare LEA encounter, arrest, and removal 

actions to ICE priority levels. 

Using data submitted by LEAs, each SAC and FOD provides a 

monthly report to HSI and ERO, respectively, describing how the 

287(g) program is working in regard to ICE arrest priorities. If the 

program is not operating according to ICE priorities, the memo 

should also include actions taken by the SAC or FOD to improve 

LEAs’ compliance. However, we did not identify a follow-up 

process to ensure that any actions taken by an LEA actually result 

in better adherence to ICE priorities. 

Based on the monthly reports from SACs and FODs, OSLC 

prepares a quarterly report, Adherence to ICE Priorities, for both 

TFO and detention models to show statistical data on alien 

encounters by priority level. ICE began tracking statistics by 

priority level in December 2009. 

We reviewed the April 2010 quarterly report which included ICE 

arrest for the first half of FY 2010. During this period, there were 

a total of 757 TFO encounters, of which 83 (11%) were for Level 1 

offenses and 158 (21%) were for Level 2 offenses. For the same 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 

Page 23
 
 

period, there were a total of 25,908 JEO encounters, of which 

6,039 (23%) were for Level 1 offenses, and 6,317 (24%) were for 

Level 2 offenses 

Table 3 shows the total number of TFO and JEO encounters for the 

287(g) program during the first three quarters of 2010. Level 1, 

Level 2, and Level 3 encounters represented 23%, 26%, and 19%, 

respectively, of total encounters. 

Table 3. 287(g) Encounters by Priority Arrest Level 

Priority Level FY2010 Encounters 

1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr Total 

Level 1 3,064 3,199 3,266 9,529 

Level 2 3,002 3,756 4,031 10,789 

Level 3 2,102 2,548 2,990 7,640 

Traffic - DUI 1,870 1,729 1,744 5,343 

Traffic - Other 2,051 2,268 2,226 6,545 

Other Criminal 101 35 5 141 

None 146 160 188 494 

No Data 39 54 8 101 

Totals 12,375 13,749 14,458 40,582 

Source: Office of State and Local Coordination 

ICE officials developed a revised MOA in part to align 287(g) 

local operations with major ICE enforcement priorities – 

specifically, the identification and removal of criminal aliens. ICE 

maintains data on program encounters, arrest, and removal 

statistics for the 287(g) program, as shown in Figure 1. 

Figure 1 shows aliens encountered, arrested, and subsequently 

removed through the 287(g) program in FYs 2008, 2009, and 

2010. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 


Page 24
 
 
Figure 1: 287(g) Program Encounter, Arrest, and Removal Statistics 

65000 

60000 

55000 

50000 

45000 

40000 

35000 

30000 

25000 

20000 

15000 

10000 

5000 

0 

FY2008 FY2009 FY2010* 

*FY 2010 data thru 6/30/2010 

However, performance measures that incorporate arrest, detention, 

and removals within each of the priority levels have not been 

established. 

ICE has emphasized the three-tiered arrest priority levels in the 

revised MOA. In addition, the process ICE has established for 

monitoring the priority level of arrests and removals is a positive 

step towards ensuring that LEAs adhere to the MOA. ICE needs to 

develop a more comprehensive approach to determine whether the 

overall goals of the 287(g) program are being achieved. A 

comparative analysis between data collected by ICE, such as 

287(g) program encounters, arrest, and removals within each 

priority level could provide additional data for ensuring that 287(g) 

resources are managed effectively. 

We have previously made recommendations for ICE to develop 

procedures to ensure that 287(g) resources are allocated according 

to ICE’s priority framework. However, in the absence of 

performance measures linked to specific program goals, ICE’s 

success in identifying and removing criminal aliens cannot be fully 

determined. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 

Page 25 

Encounters 

Arrests 

Removals 
 

287(g) Supervision 

Similar to the previous MOA, the revised MOA SOP template 

provides a general outline of ICE supervisory responsibilities for 

directing 287(g) program activities. The revised MOA also 

includes this language: “To establish supervisory and other 

administrative responsibilities, the SAC/FOD will specify 

supervisory and other administrative responsibilities in an 

accompanying agreed-upon SOP.” 

At the sites that we visited, 287(g) officers were supervised by 

lieutenants and sergeants who had received 287(g) training. 

Because the detention facilities and police departments operate 

continuously, at least one LEA supervisor was on duty at all times. 

We were informed that the LEA supervisors were able to contact a 

287(g) program ICE supervisor when needed for any immigrationrelated information. 

In our prior report, we made several recommendations for ICE to 

establish guidance and ensure consistency in 287(g) supervision, as 

well as to enhance program oversight. ICE needs to implement our 

recommendations, and continue making efforts to ensure effective 

supervision of 287(g) officers and immigration enforcement 

operations. 

287(g) Training 

In our March 2010 report, we recommended that ICE ensure that 

basic training for 287(g) students includes coverage of MOAs, and 

public outreach and complaint procedures. We also determined 

that ICE instructors were not consistently covering training 

modules on MOAs, and public outreach and complaint procedures 

even though this training was included in the curriculum. In 

addition, the 287(g) training program should be enhanced to 

include an appropriate level of coverage on immigration benefits, 

asylum, and victim and witness protections. 

The MOA specifies that ICE will provide Immigration Authority 

Delegation Program (IADP) training tailored to the immigration 

functions to be performed. The current curriculum includes the 

following subject areas which were also in effect during our prior 

review: 

• Terms and limitations of the MOA 

• Scope of immigration officer authority 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 

Page 26
 
•	 Relevant immigration and nationality law 

•	 Document examination 

•	 ICE Use of Force policy 

•	 Civil rights laws 

•	 Department of Justice “Guidance Regarding the Use of 

Race by Federal Law Enforcement Agencies” 

•	 Public outreach and complaints procedures 

•	 Liability issues 

•	 Cross-cultural issues 

•	 Obligations under federal law and the Vienna 

Convention on Consular Relations 

According to ICE officials, recent changes have been made to the 

287(g) basic training program. Specifically, ICE extended the 

immigration documentation examination from six to 12 hours. In 

addition, two days are dedicated to scenario-based instruction 

where role players, acting as aliens, are processed by the 

participants. However, these changes have not impacted those 

areas of the curriculum that we identified in our prior report as 

needing improvements. 

287(g) Program Training for LEA Supervisors 

Our prior review determined that LEA supervisors would be better 

positioned to provide an effective operating environment for 

287(g) officers if they understood the 287(g) program, and the 

duties and responsibilities of their staff who are participating in the 

program. At that time, ICE was considering providing LEA 

supervisor training to improve operating conditions. 

In April 2010, we attended the OSLC 2010 LEA Training 

Conference for LEA managers with supervisory responsibility over 

287(g) officers. The purpose of the conference was for ICE to 

communicate information about the 287(g) program, and for LEAs 

to share information with representatives from other 287(g) 

participating jurisdictions. Representatives from 55 of the 71 

active 287(g) jurisdictions attended the conference. The 

conference agenda included MOA review, 287(g) policies and 

procedures, the Enforcement Case Tracking System (ENFORCE), 

LEA inspections, civil rights and civil liberties, media relations, 

and TFO and Detention Models best practices. 

LEA participants told us that they thought the training was 

beneficial, and would prefer it to be an annual event. However, 

ICE officials said they were not certain whether LEA supervisory 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 

Page 27
 
training would continue even though they believed it benefited the 

program. We included a recommendation in our prior report for 

ICE to develop training and provide basic program information for 

LEA managers to increase their understanding and encourage 

support of 287(g) activities. 

Data Collection 

The prior MOA required participating jurisdictions to track data 

and statistical information about implementation of the program. 

The new MOA does not require the collection of any data other 

than information from the ENFORCE database. However, ICE 

reserves the right to request that specific tracking or arrest data be 

maintained. 

Our prior report includes a recommendation for ICE to establish 

collection and reporting standards that provide objective data to 

increase monitoring of the methods participating jurisdictions use 

in carrying out 287(g) functions and their effect on civil liberties. 

We believe such information would provide additional means to 

monitor program operations. ICE did not concur with this 

recommendation, and responded that they will conduct an 

assessment of the goal of this recommendation to ensure that ICE’s 

287(g) partners protect the civil liberties of every individual they 

encounter. 

Accuracy of Data in ENFORCE 

According to the MOA, ENFORCE is the primary processing 

system for alien removals, and is the main resource for statistical 

information for the 287(g) program. In addition, ICE and 287(g) 

officers use ENFORCE as the primary system to collect alien 

arrest data. ICE officials told us that data from ENFORCE is used 

to determine LEAs compliance with ICE arrest priorities. 

The MOA requires ICE supervisors to conduct audits of 

ENFORCE computer system entries and records made by LEA 

officers. When errors are identified, the ICE supervisor should 

notify the LEA, and, the LEA is to submit a plan to ensure that 

steps are taken to correct, modify, or prevent recurring data entry 

errors. However, ICE did not provide guidance for conducting 

audits of system entries and records, or for ensuring that the LEAs 

have implemented an effective process for maintaining data 

integrity. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 

Page 28
 
 

 

 

Based on the monthly statistical data from SACs and FODs, OSLC 

prepares a quarterly report, Adherence to ICE Priorities, for both 

TFO and Detention Models to show statistical data on alien 

encounters by priority level. ICE began tracking statistics by 

priority level in December 2009. The April 2010 report included 

706 entries that were coded as “no data,” which means that a 

record was not completed properly. 

A comparison of entries coded as “no data” in FYs 2009 and 2010 

shows a significant reduction in improperly completed records. 

Table 4 shows 287(g) data for encounters. For FY 2009, 18,828 

entries were coded as “no data.” For FY 2010, entries included 

under the “no data” code represented less than 1% of total data 

entries. 

Table 4. 287(g) Encounters by Priority Level 

Encounter 

Code FY 2009* 

Percentage 

of FY 

2009* 

Total FY 2010* 

Percentage 

of FY 2010* 

Priority Levels 

1, 2, and 3 7,508 16% 27,958 69% 

Traffic 2,643 6% 11,888 29% 

Other Criminal 18,175 38% 141 0% 

None 286 1% 494 1% 

No Data 18,828 40% 101 0% 

FY Total 47,440 40,582 

Source: Office of State and Local Coordination 
 


*Information represents data for first 3 quarters of fiscal year. 
 


Accurate data entry is critical for performance measurements, 

resource allocation, and statistical tracking. ICE should continue 

to enhance efforts to improve the accuracy and integrity of 

statistical data input by the LEAs, and ensure the effectiveness of 

actions taken by the SAC or FOD to comply with ICE arrest 

priority levels. 

287(g) Officers Need to Be Knowledgeable of Complaint 

Procedures 

Our prior review reported that members of the public were 

unaware of the complaint process, and that several past MOAs did 

not include details on how to file a complaint. However, as part of 

this review, we noted that some LEAs were not fully aware of all 

the complaint reporting requirements as outlined in the revised 

MOA. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 

Page 29
 
Appendix B of the MOA requires LEAs to notify ICE OPR and 

their ICE supervisors immediately of any complaints or allegations 

against 287(g) officers that may result in employer discipline, 

criminal investigation or civil lawsuit. Contrary to this 

requirement, an LEA did not report ongoing criminal proceedings 

and legal action to OPR or the local SAC office. Specifically, a 

287(g) officer had resigned because of allegations of misconduct 

that were not related to immigration duties. However, the LEA 

indicated that he did not know that this was a reportable action 

since it was not related to immigration functions. 

The complaint process is a vital tool for ensuring effective 

monitoring of the integrity of 287(g) immigration enforcement 

officials in a highly sensitive environment. Therefore, ICE needs 

to ensure that all 287(g) officers are knowledgeable of all 

complaint procedures. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that Immigration and Customs Enforcement: 

Recommendation #12: Establish and implement a comprehensive 

process for determining whether 287(g) program goals are being 

achieved. This should include analyses of encounters, arrests, and 

removal statistics for each priority level. 

Recommendation #13: Establish a follow-up process for SACs 

and FODs to ensure that actions taken by LEAs to improve their 

compliance with ICE priority levels are actually working to 

achieve overall program goals of identifying and removing 

criminal aliens. 

Recommendation #14: Develop a process to review and verify 

the accuracy of ENFORCE system data entries. 

Recommendation #15: Establish a process for ICE supervisor to 

ensure the effectiveness of plans submitted by LEAs for correcting 

errors, preventing recurring data entry errors, and maintaining data 

integrity. 

Recommendation #16: Ensure that 287(g) officers and their 

supervisors are knowledgeable of all complaint procedure 

requirements for notifying appropriate ICE officials of complaints 

or allegations involving the violation of the terms of the MOA, or 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 

Page 30
 
of any sort that may result in employee discipline or an employee 

becoming the subject of a criminal investigation or civil lawsuit. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

ICE Response: ICE concurred with Recommendation 12. 

The ICE OSLC 287(g) group is developing its performance 

measures in coordination with the OBPP. The measures require 

the collection of monthly data for an entire year in order to 

establish a baseline to sufficiently analyze the performance of each 

287(g) program. ICE has been collecting monthly data for FY 

2010, and will have a base line by the end of September. This will 

allow 287(g) to report on the performance for the first quarter of 

FY 2011. 

On December 9, 2009 a memorandum titled “Monitoring the 

Exercise of 287(g) Authority” was signed advising all Special 

Agents in Charge (SACs) and Field Office Directors (FODs) of 

their responsibility for ensuring that law enforcement agency 

(LEA) partners adhere to the terms of the revised 287(g) 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and exercise the delegated 

authority consistent with ICE priorities. This guidance 

memorandum will help to ensure that accurate data is captured. 

Pending ICE’s establishment and implementation of a comprehensive 

process for determining whether its 287(g) program goals are being 

achieved, we request this recommendation be considered Resolved 

and Open. 

OIG Evaluation: ICE’s response does not identify the type of 

data to be collected or the process for analyzing such data. This 

recommendation remains unresolved and open pending ICE’s 

establishment and implementation of a comprehensive process for 

determining whether 287(g) program goals are being achieved. 

ICE Response: ICE concurred with Recommendation 13. 

ICE established a follow-up process for SACs and FODs to ensure 

that actions taken by LEAs are actually working to achieve overall 

program goals of identifying and removing criminal aliens. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 

Page 31
 
OSLC 287(g) disseminates monthly encounter statistics to the 

appropriate SAC and FOD field offices for data quality reviews. 

The SAC/FOD field offices analyze the encounter statistics, 

correct errors to maintain data integrity, and prepare a quarterly 

memorandum to the 287(g) headquarters component for analysis. 

After the analysis is completed, OSLC prepares a memorandum to 

the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Operations summarizing how 

the 287(g) Task Force and Jail Enforcement model programs are 

exercising their delegated authority, consistent with ICE priorities. 

On December 9, 2009 a memorandum titled “Monitoring the 

Exercise of 287(g) Authority” was signed advising all Special 

Agents in Charge (SACs) and Field Office Directors (FODs) of 

their responsibility for ensuring that law enforcement agency 

(LEA) partners adhere to the terms of the revised 287(g) 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and exercise the delegated 

authority consistent with ICE priorities. 

Although the 287(g) staff currently located in OSLC will transition 

to Enforcement and Removal Operations in the near future, the 

staff will continue to ensure accuracy in data collection for each 

quarterly review. ICE has established the following follow-up 

process: 

1.	 A query run is conducted by ICE 287(g) staff to obtain data 

sets. 

2.	 A 287(g)-dedicated Data Quality Specialist reviews this data 

on a monthly basis. This review includes a review of data sets 

for data quality issues, with close attention being paid to 

Criminal Offense Levels, Processing Dispositions, Criminal 

Convictions, and Removal Categories. 

3.	 Once errors are identified, Data Correction tasking request(s) 

are submitted to the appropriate program office for further 

review, concurrence and, ultimately, distribution to the field. 

4.	 Thereafter, 287(g) data is reviewed weekly to ensure that data 

corrections are being made. If data has not been created or 

corrected, those items are targeted for the next monthly data 

quality review. 

Based on the follow-up process established, ICE requests this 

recommendation be considered Resolved and Closed. 

OIG Evaluation: ICE’s response focuses on the results of a data 

query that does not incorporate a process for SACs and FODs to 

ensure that actions taken by LEAs result in increased compliance 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 

Page 32
 
 

with ICE priority levels. This recommendation remains 

unresolved and open until ICE establishes and implements such a 

follow-up process. 

ICE Response: ICE concurred with Recommendation 14. 

Since October 2008, ICE has refined its processes for reviewing 

ENFORCE system data entries. 287(g) staff now tasks SAC and 

FOD offices with the correction of thousands of records to update 

criminal conviction information, ICE severity levels, and various 

other data values. 287(g) staff also continues to task SAC and 

FOD offices with monthly data corrections and reviews. 

On December 9, 2009 a memorandum titled “Monitoring the 

Exercise of 287(g) Authority” was signed advising all Special 

Agents in Charge (SACs) and Field Office Directors (FODs) of 

their responsibility for ensuring that law enforcement agency 

(LEA) partners adhere to the terms of the revised 287(g) 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and exercise the delegated 

authority consistent with ICE priorities. 

In support of this memorandum, 287(g) staff disseminates monthly 

encounter statistics to the appropriate SAC and FOD field offices 

for data quality reviews. The SAC/FOD field offices analyze the 

encounter statistics, correct errors to maintain data integrity, and 

prepare a quarterly memorandum to the 287(g) staff for analysis. 

Once the analysis is completed, a memorandum is prepared for the 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Operations to provide a summary 

of how the 287(g) Task Force and Jail Enforcement model 

programs are exercising their delegated authority, consistent with 

ICE priorities. In order to ensure accuracy in data collection for 

each quarterly review, ICE established the process described in our 

response to recommendation 13. 

Based on the process established to review and verify the accuracy 

of ENFORCE system data entries, ICE requests this 

recommendation be considered Resolved and Closed. 

OIG Evaluation: In its response, ICE indicated that it has refined 

its process for reviewing ENFORCE system data entries. 

However, ICE did not describe its process for reviewing and 

verifying the accuracy of ENFORCE system data. This 

recommendation will remain resolved and open our receipt of 

such information. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 

Page 33
 
ICE Response: ICE concurred with Recommendation 15. 

Since October 2008, ICE has refined its processes of reviewing 

ENFORCE system data entries. ICE also continues to task SAC 

and FOD offices with monthly data corrections and reviews. 

Additionally, ICE has created, and continues to refine, a processing 

guideline which is provided to 287(g) points of contact. This 

manual details data values to be entered into specific fields, and 

further identifies fields that are mandatory entry. 

ICE has also requested many changes to ENFORCE, forcing 

287(g) users to process according to a pre-determined method so 

that users select data from a limited list of values which match ICE 

priorities. 

ICE has provided Subject Matter Experts to several working 

groups, whose goal is to develop data collection methods specific 

to ICE priorities and which impact future data collection of 287(g) 

user entered data. 

Finally, as detailed in our response to recommendation 14, a 

memorandum dated December 9, 2009 titled “Monitoring the 

Exercise of 287(g) Authority” was signed advising all Special 

Agents-in-Charge (SACs) and Field Office Directors (FODs) 

regarding their responsibility for ensuring that law enforcement 

agency (LEA) partners adhere to the terms of the revised 287(g) 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and exercise the delegated 

authority consistent with ICE priorities. 

Based on the process established for an ICE supervisor to ensure the 

effectiveness of plans submitted by LEAs for correcting errors, 

preventing recurring data entry errors, and maintaining data 

integrity, ICE requests this recommendation be considered Resolved 

and Closed. 

OIG Evaluation: ICE’s response did not address this 

recommendation. This recommendation remains unresolved and 

open pending our receipt of a process for ICE supervisors to 

ensure the effectiveness of plans submitted by LEAs for correcting 

errors, preventing recurring data entry errors, and maintaining data 

integrity. 

ICE Response: ICE concurred with Recommendation 16. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 

Page 34
 
 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 


Page 35
 
 

ICE’s Office of Training and Development (OTD) worked closely 

with the 287(g) program to add a new course titled “Officer 

Integrity and Complaint Procedures” to the 287(g) curriculum, 

which specifically addresses this recommendation. This 

recommendation is also being addressed in the supervisory training 

currently being developed. 

Based on the establishment of a revised curriculum with new courses, 

ICE requests this recommendation be considered Resolved and 

Closed. 

OIG Evaluation: The purpose of this recommendation is to ensure 

that 287(g) participants are knowledgeable of the reporting 

requirement involving complaints of any sort, pursuant to the 

Liability and Responsibility section in the MOA. Based on our 

review of the training materials for ICE’s new course titled “Officer 

Integrity and Complaint Procedures,” we concluded that the 

revised curriculum did not provide sufficient information for ICE 

to ensure that 287(g) officers were aware of making notifications 

to ICE officials concerning complaints or allegations involving any 

sort of behavior that could result in employee discipline, a criminal 

investigation or civil lawsuit. We consider this recommendation 

unresolved and open pending receipt of a revised curriculum with 

sufficient information to ensure that 287(g) officers are aware of 

their responsibility to notify ICE officials of any type of complaint 

or allegation. 
 

Appendix A 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 

We conducted this review in response to the Department of 

Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010, and accompanying 

House Report 111-157 and Conference Report 111-298. 

Specifically, our objectives were to determine whether (1) ICE and 

law enforcement agencies with active 287(g) agreements were 

complying with the terms of respective agreements, and (2) ICE is 

effectively using compliance reviews to assess compliance with 

287(g) agreements. We also examined ICE’s progress in 

responding to recommendations outlined in our March 2010 report, 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements (OIG-10-63). 

We conducted our fieldwork from March to July 2010 and 

interviewed LEA officials, 287(g) officers and ICE personnel 

working with the 287(g) program. We also observed facilities and 

program activities at seven participating 287(g) program locations. 

In addition, we traveled to Nashville, TN to observe and evaluate 

ICE OPR’s inspection of the Tennessee Department of Public 

Safety’s 287(g) program in May 2010. 

The prior review of the 287(g) program included site visits to 

LEAs that encompassed the largest number of LEA officers active 

in the program, and 287(g) arrests and removals. It also included 

locations with indications of possible violations based on reports of 

civil rights concerns in media report, court cases, and complaints 

and investigations. For this review, we selected program sites that 

had been operating for more than one year. Selection criteria also 

included (1) number of active LEA officers, (2) number of 287(g) 

arrests and removals, (3) program model type, and (4) reviews by 

other oversight bodies. We observed 287(g) activities at: 

•	 Arizona Department of Public Safety, Phoenix, AZ 

•	 Frederick County Sheriff’s Office, Frederick, MD 

•	 Herndon Police Department, Herndon, VA 

•	 Mecklenburg County Sheriff’s Office / Jail Central, 
 

Charlotte, NC 
 

•	 Prince William County Adult Detention Center, Manassas, 

VA 

•	 Tennessee Department of Public Safety, Nashville, TN 

•	 York County Sheriff’s Office, York, SC 

We performed analyses to determine the use of funds allocated for 

287(g) compliance inspections. However, we were unable to 

determine the appropriateness of expenses and obligations against 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 

Page 36
 
Appendix A 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 


Page 37
 
 

these funds due to inadequate documentation and procedures that 

did not adequately track expenditures. 

We analyzed operations of the 287(g) Inspections Group to 

identify ways to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of their 

review process for evaluating compliance with agreements. 

We also performed document reviews and analyses of 287(g) 

agreements, standard operating procedures, directives and policies, 

budgetary information, training materials, program data, and 

statistical information regarding the ICE 287(g) program. 

We conducted this review under the authority of the Inspector 

General Act of 1978, as amended, and according to the Quality 

Standards for Inspections issued by the President’s Council on 

Integrity and Efficiency. 
Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 


Page 38
 
 

u.s. Doparlmeal of lIom.land S«urll)'

SOO 12'"SlRCl. SW

Wasltillj:\llll. DC 20536

u.s. Immigration

and Customs

Enforcement

September 27, 2010

MEMORANDUM FOR: Carlton L Mann

Assistant Inspector General for Inspcctions

Office ofInspcct0:r:ft-".

FROM: Radha C. Sekar

Chief Financial a

SUBJECT; Management Response to OIG Draft, 'The Performance of287(g)

Agreements Update" dated September 10,2010

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) appreciates the opportunity to comment on

the draft report. We have reviewed and concur with the all recommendations. Attached is our

response to each ofthe 16 recommendations. ICE will continue working to resolve all identified

weaknesses.

Should you have questions or concerns, please contact Michael Moy, OIG Portfolio Manager, al

(202) 732-6263, or bye-mail at MichaeI.Moy@dhs.gov.

Attachments

www.kc.gov
The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 


Page 39
 
 

u.s. Immigration and Customs Enforcement AUllchment

Responses for OIG Draft Report Recommendations - 287(g) Update

Recommendation N I: Take timely and appropriate actions to implement DIG

recommendations intended to strengthen management controls and improve oversight of

287(g) operations.

ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. As the responses below indicate,

ICE has already taken significant actions to strengthen management controls over 287(g)

operations. Additionally, the ICE OSLC 287(g) group (OSLC) has takcn aggressive

steps to ensure accuracy in data collection, with a follow-up process that includes the

dissemination of monthly encounter statistics to the appropriate Special Agent-in-Charge

(SAC) and Field Office Director (FaD) field offices for data quality reviews. OSLC is

also working towards developing its perfonnance measures in coordination with the

Office of Budget Performance and Planning (OBPP). These measures require the

collection of monthly data for one fiscal year to establish a baseline to sufficiently

analyze the perfonnance of each 287(g) program. OSLC has been collecting monthly

data for FY 2010. and will have a base line by the end of September. This will allow

OSLC to report on its perfonnanee for the first quarter of FY 2011. These changes were

initiated in the timeliest fashion with the intention ofstrengthening management controls

of the program and improving oversight of the program.

Based on ICE's actions to take timely and appropriate actions to implement DIG

recommendations. ICE requests this recommendation be considered Resolved and Closc<!.

Recommendation N2: Establish an appropriate structure along with sufficient internal

controls for the management and oversight of287(g) funds to ensure appropriate use.

ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. ICE Office of the Chief Financial

Officer (OCFO) will establish the budget structure so that the Office of Professional

Responsibility (OPR) can implement II new 287(g) program office structure. The new

structure will be fully implemented by October L 2010.

A certified program manager (PM) position to oversee all aspects ofthe OPR 287(g)

program was announced (Vacancy Announcement LAQ-OPR-386239-MD-330) on

September 17, 2010. The PM will oversee the planning, direction, and timely execution

of the program; detennine goals and objectives; working with OBPP, develop measures

that evaluate perfonnance; make recommendations for program improvement; manage all

resources; and manage organizational changes as well as changes to the content of the

program.

The new structure includes a stafToften Special Agents working from OPR ficld offices

who are solely dedicated to the 287(g) program. These agents will work in alignment

with the stafToftwelve 287(g) personnel at OPR Headquarters and report to the PM.

Date: 9/2711 0 Page I of8
The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 


Page 40
 
 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Allachment

Responses for OIG Draft Report Recommendations - 287(g) Update

Based on ICE's establishment of a ncw structure for the management and oversight of

287(g) funds to ensure appropriate use, ICE requests this recommendation be considered

Resolved and Closed.

Recommendation # 3: Develop a process to ensure that adequatc supporting

documentation is maintained to track and monitor the allocation, obligation, and

expenditure of funds.

ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. A Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 spend

plan was fonnulated in conjunction with an operational plan that outlines the

requirements and funding needed in support of the ICE aPR 287(g) program. On

October I, ocro will establish a specific organizational code for thc 287(g) program

ollice that ensures only payroll and general expenditures in support of thc program are

charged to the 287(g) program. The OPR PM will be charged with tracking all

obligations and expenditures of287(g) funds to ensure the funds are used for the

appropriate and stated purpose.

Based on ICE's development of a process to ensure Ihat adequatc supporting

documentation is maintained to track and monitor funds, we request this recommendation

be considered Resolved and Closed.

Reeom mendation # 4: Ensure an appropriate segrcgation of funds by program area.

ICE Response: ICE concurs with the reconUllendation. For FY 2011, ICE has established

a specific organizational code in its financial management system that allows the 287(g)

program ollice to ensure only payroll and general expenditures in support of the program

arc charged to the 287(g) program. The PM will be charged with tracking all obligations

and expenditures (to include payroll) arc used for Ihe appropriate and stated purpose.

Based on ICE's actions to ensuTC an appropriate segregation of funds by program area, we

request this recommendation be considered Resolved and Closed.

Reconlluendation # 5: Conduct a review of287(g) funds allocated for inspections to

ensure thai these funds were used as intended.

ICE Response: ICE concurs with the "-"'Commendation. ICE has completed a

comprehensive review of 287(g) funds expenditures for FY 2009 and FY 20 IO. All 287(g)

program requirements have been properly coded to eithcr the 287(g) program or OPR's base

program funding for FY 20 IO. Further analysis of FY 2009 expendituI'Cs has been completed

and the ICE Burlington Finance Center will be processing actions that will result in the FY

2009 expenditures being an accurate reneclion of costs incurred in support ofthe 287 (g)

program. These actions and adjustmcnts will be complcted by Scptember 25, 2010.

Also, an FY 2011 spend plan was fonnulated in conjunction with an operational plan that

outlines the requirements and funding needed in support ofthe 287(g) program. aero

will monitor budget perfonnance and the OPR PM will be charged with executing all

Date: 9/27/10 Page 2 of8
The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 


Page 41
 
 

U.S. Immigration and Custonls Enforcement Attachment

Responses for OIG Draft Report Recommendations - 287(g) Update

budget obligations and expenditures of287(g) funds to ensure the funds are used for the

appropriate and stated purpose.

Based on the comprehensive review conducted and reallocation offunds, ICE requests this

recommendation be considered Resolved and Closed.

Recommendation # 6: Re-evaluate the current staffing strategy of using man-hours

instead of dedicated positions for conducting 287(g) inspections.

ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. As a result ofa re-evaluation,

ICE will use dedicated positions in support ofthe 287(g) program, and will no longer use

the man-hours model. OCFO will monitor budget performance and the OPR PM will be

charged with executing all budget obligations and expenditures, including payroll, to

ensure funds are used for the appropriate and stated purpose. Additionally, ICE OPR

created and implemented an FY 2011 operational plan that outlines the program

requirements and resources needed to execute the plan.

Based on our re-evaluation and decision to use dedicated positions in its staffing strategy_

ICE requests this recommendation be considered Resolved and Closed.

Reeollllllendation # 7: Re-evaluate the curreot staffing strategy for the 287(g)

Inspections Group, including reporting lines and field employees who are not fully

dedicated to conducting 287(g) inspections.

ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. aeFO established the budget

structure so that OPR can implement a new 287(g) program office structure. This new

structure will be fully implemented by October I, 2010.

As detailed in our response to Recommendation 2, the PM position will oversee all

aspects ofthe 287(g) program and was announced (Vacancy Announcement LAQ-OPR386239-MD-330) on September 17,2010.

Also, as discussed earlier, the new structure includes a staff often Special Agents solely

dedicated to the 287(g) program and working from OPR field offices.

Based on ICE's establishment and implementation of a new 287(g) program office

structure, we request this recommendation be considered Resolved and Closed.

ReeommentJntion 1# 8: Develop a process to ensure that inspections (Ire staffed with

field agents who have sufficient knowledge ofthe 287{g) program, and possess the

necessary skills for effective performance.

ICE Re.~ponsc: ICE concurs with the recommendation. The ICE has planned a training

session for all new 287{g) employees during the first quaner ofFY 2011. Additionally,

by having a permanent staff dedicated to conducting 287{g) inspections. staff members

Date: 9127110 Page 3 of8
The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 


Page 42
 
 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Attachmelll

Responses for OIG Draft Report Recommendations - 287(g) Update

will be able to receive on-the-job training from other 287(g) employees during the first

half ofFY 2011 and beyond.

Based on ICE's development of a process to ensure that inspections are staffed with field

agents who have sufficient knowledge of the 287(g) program, and possess the necessary

skills for effective perfommnce. ICE requests this recommendation be considered Resolved

and Closed.

Recommendation # 9: Ensure that stafTmembers paid from 287(g) funds actually

panicipate in 287(g) compliance reviews.

ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. Under the new ICE inspections

structure, all staff members paid from 287(g) funds will be dedicated to the 287(g)

program.

As we detailed in our response to Recommendation 2, OFCO will oversee budget

execution and aPR PM will oversee execution of the 287(g) program.

Based on the new structure, ICE will ensure that staff are paid from 287(g) funds actually

participate in 287(g) compliance reviews. Therefore, we request this recommendation be

considered Resolved and Closed.

Recommendation #10: Ensure that the 287(g) Inspections Group is notified of actions

taken as a result ofrecommendations in their inspection reports.

ICE Response: ICE concurs with the reconilllendation. As of September 2010, ICE

OSLC began to provide OPR the responses from the field offices regarding issues,

deficiencies, concerns and recommendations highlighted in 287(g) inspection repons.

The OPR 287(g) Inspections Section will monitor and document these responses and

validate the stated corrective actions during the next scheduled inspection or during a

follow-up inspection, ifone is warranted.

Based on our actions to ensure the ICE 287(g) Inspections Group is notified of actions

taken as a result of recommendations in their inspection reports, ICE requests this

recommendation be considered Resolved and Closed.

Recommendation # II: Develop a process to ensure that planned inspections include a

review of actions taken to address previously identified deficiencies and other issues, as

needed.

ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. ICE OPR 287(g) Inspections

Section will review the field actions taken in response to previously identified

deficiencies and issues prior to its next scheduled inspection. and verify their completion

during the inspection process. If a follow-up inspection is warranted, one will be

conducted by the OPR 287(g) Inspections Section.

Date: 9/2711 0 Page 4 of8
The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 


Page 43
 
 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Attachment

Responses for OIG Draft Report Recommendations - 287(g) Update

Based on our development of a process to ensure that planned inspections include a

review of actions taken to address previously identified deficiencies and other issues, as

needed, ICE requests this recommendation be considered Resolved and Closed.

Recommendation # 12: Establish and implement a comprehensive process for

detennining whether 287(g) program goals are being achieved. This should include

analyses of encounters, arrests, and removal statistics for each priority level.

ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. The ICE OSLC 287(g) group is

developing its perfomumce measures in coordination with the OBPP. The measures

require the collection of monthly data for an entire year in order to establish a baseline to

sufficiently analyze the perfonnance of each 287(g) program. ICE has been collecting

monthly data for FY 2010, and will have a base line by the end ofSeptember. This will

allow 287(g) to report on the perfonnance for the first quarter ofFY 2011.

On December 9, 2009 a memorandum titled "Monitoring the Exercise of287(g)

Authority" was signed advising all Special Agents in Charge (SACs) and Field Office

Directors (FODs) oftheir responsibility for ensuring that law enforcement agency (LEA)

partners adhere to the terms of the revised 287(g) Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)

and exercise the delegated authority consistent with ICE priorities. This guidance

memorandum will help to ensure that accurate data is captured.

Pending ICE's establishment and implementation of a comprehensive process for

detennining whether its 287(g) program goals are being achieved. we request this

recommendation be considered Resolved and Open.

Recommendntion # 13: Establish a follow-up process for SACs and FODs to ensure

that actions taken by LEAs to improve their compliance with ICE priority levels arc

actually working to achieve overall program goals of identifying and removing criminal

aliens.

ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. ICE established a follow-up

process for SACs and FODs to ensure that actions taken by LEAs arc actually working to

achieve overall program goals ofidentifying and removing criminal aliens.

OSLC 287(g) disseminates monthly encounter statistics to the appropriate SAC and FOD

field officcs for data quality reviews. The SAC/FOD field offices analyze the encounter

statistics, correct errors to maintain data integrity, and prepare a quarterly memorandum

to the 287(&) headquarters component for analysis. After the analysis is completed,

OSLC prepares a memorandum to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Operations

summarizing how the 287(g) Task Force and Jail Enforcement model programs are

exercising their delegated authority, consistent with ICE priorities.

Date: 9f27/10 Page 5 of8
The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 


Page 44
 
 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Attachment

Responscs for OIG Draft Rcport Recommendations - 287(g) Updlltc

On December 9, 2009 a mcmorandum titled "Monitoring the Exercise of287(g)

Authority" was signed advising all Special Agents in Charge (SACs) and Field Office

Directors (FODs) of their responsibility for ensuring that law enforcement agency (LEA)

partncrs adhere to the tcrms ofthe revised 287(g) Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)

and excrcise the delcgated authority consistent with ICE prioritics.

Although the 287 (g) staff currently located in OSLC will transition to Enforcement and

Removal Operations in the near future, the staff will continue to ensure accuracy in data

collection for each quarterly review. ICE has established the following follow-up

process:

I. A query run is conducted by ICE 287(g) staff to obtain data sets.

2. A 287(g)-dedicated Data Quality Specialist reviews this data on a monthly basis.

This review includes a review of data sets for data quality issues, with close

attention being paid to Criminal Offense Levels, Processing Dispositions,

Criminal Convictions, and Removal Categories.

3. Once errors are identified, Data Correction tasking request(s) are submitted to the

appropriate program office for further review, concurrence and, ultimately,

distribution to the field.

4. Thereafter, 287(g) data is reviewed weekly to ensure that data corrections are

being made. If data has not been created or corrected, those items are targeted

for the next monthly data quality review.

Based on the follow-up process established, ICE requests this recommendation be considered

Resolved and Closed.

Recommendation # 14: Develop a process to review and verify the accuracy of

ENFORCE system data entries.

ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommend.ation. Sinee October 2008, ICE has

refined its processes for reviewing ENFORCE system data entries. 287(g) staff now tasks

SAC and FOD offices with the correction of thousands of records to update criminal

conviction information, ICE severity levels, and various other data values. 287(g) staff

also continues to task SAC and FOD offices with monthly data corrections and reviews.

On December 9, 2009 a memorandum titled "Monitoring the Exercise of287(g)

Authority" was signed advising all Special Agents in Charge (SACs) and Field Office

Directors (FaDs) their responsibility for ensuring that law enforcement agency (LEA)

partners adhere to the terms ofthe revised 287(g) Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)

and exercise the delegated authority consistent with ICE priorities.

In support ofthis memorandum, 287(g) staff disseminates monthly encounter statistics to

the appropriate SAC and FOD field offices for data quality reviews. The SACIFOD field

offices analY.le the encounter statistics, correct errors to maintain data integrity, and

prepare a quarterly memorandum to the 287(g) staff for analysis. Once the analysis is

Date: 9/27/1 0 Page 60f8
The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 


Page 45
 
 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Allaehment

Responses for OIG Draft Report Recommendations - 287(g) Update

completed, a memorandum is prepared for the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Operations

to provide a summary of how the 287(g) Task Force and Jail Enforcement model

programs are exercising their delegated authority, consistent with ICE priorities. In order

to ensure accuracy in data collection for each quarterly review, ICE established the

process described in our response to recommendation 13.

Based on the process established to review and verify the accuracy of ENFORCE system

data entries, ICE requests this recommendation be considered Resolved and Closed.

Recommendation # 15: Establish a process for ICE supervisor to ensure the

effectiveness of plans submitted by LEAs for correcting errors, preventing recurring data

entry errors, and maintaining data integrity.

ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. Since October 2008, ICE has

refined its processes of reviewing ENFORCE system data entries. ICE also continues to

task SAC and FOD offices with monthly data corrections and reviews. Additionally, ICE

has created, and continues to refine, a processing guideline which is provided to 287(g)

points of contact. This manual details data values to be entered into specific fields, and

further identifies fields that are mandatory entry.

ICE has also requested many changes to ENFORCE, forcing 287(g) users to process

according to a pre-detennined method so that users select data from a limited list of

values which match ICE priorities.

ICE has provided Subject Mauer Experts to several working groups, whose goal is to

develop data collection methods specific to ICE priorities and which impact future data

collection of287(g) user entered data.

Finally, as detailed in our response to recommendation 14, a memorandum dated

December 9, 2009 titled "Monitoring the Exercise of287(g) Alithority" was signed

advising all Special Agents-in-Charge (SACs) and Field Office Directors (FODs)

regarding their responsibility for ensuring that law enforcement agency (LEA) partners

adhere to the tenns ofthe revised 287(g) Memorandum ofAgreement (MOA) and

exercise the delegated authority consistent with ICE priorities.

Based on the process established for an ICE supervisor to ensure the effectiveness of plans

submitted by LEAs for correcting errors, preventing recurring data entry errors, and

maintaining data integrity, ICE requests this recommendation be considered Resolved and

Closed.

Recommend:ltion # 16: Ensure that 287(g) officers are knowledgeable of all complaint

procedure requirements for notirying appropriatc ICE officials of complaints or

allegations involving the violation of the tcnns ofthe MOA, or of any sort that may result

in employee discipline or an employee becoming the subject of a criminal invcstigation

or civil law suit.

Date: 9127/1 0 Page 7 ora
The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 


Page 46
 
 

u.s. Immigration and Customs Enrorcement Attachment

Responses ror OIG Drart Report Recommendations - 287(g) Update

ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation, ICE's Office ofTraining and

Development (OTD) worked closely with Ihe 287(g) program to add a new course titled

"Officer Integrity and Complaint Procedures" to the 287(g) curriculum, which

specifically addresses this recommendation. This recommendation is also being

addressed in the supervisory training currently being developed.

Based on the establishment of a revised curriculum with new courses, ICE requests this

recommendation be considered Resolved and Closed.

Date: 9/27110 Page 8 of8
Appendix C 

Recommendations from Prior Report 

Status of Recommendations From Prior OIG Report, 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements, dated March 2010 

Recommendation #1: Establish a process to collect and maintain arrest, detention, and 

removal data for aliens in each priority level for use in determining the success of ICE's focus 

on aliens who pose the greatest risk to public safety and the community. 

ICE Response: ICE conducts ongoing quality reviews on data input by 287(g) officers in 

ICE systems. The comprehensive quality review process is documented through two 

memoranda signed by the Deputy Assistant Secretary. Monitoring the Exercise of 287(g) 

Authority, dated December 9, 2009, and Field Guidance on Monitoring the Exercise of 

287(g) Authority, dated January 19, 2010, advise all Special Agents in Charge (SAC) and 

Field Office Directors (FOD) of their responsibility in ensuring law enforcement agencies 

(LEAs) adhere to the terms of their Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with ICE and 

exercise their delegated authority consistent with ICE priorities. On a monthly basis, the 

LEAs are tasked with reviewing their statistics, and submitting them to ICE. ICE 

continuously monitors this information for data quality, and gathers statistics on encounters 

respective to the Criminal Threat Levels. 

OIG Response: The intent of this recommendation is to focus on the collaboration between 

ICE and LEAs in identifying and processing for removal criminal aliens who pose a threat to 

public safety or a danger to the community. Documents provided by ICE outline a process 

for collecting and maintaining alien arrest data. However, ICE has not identified a process 

for collecting and maintaining related alien detention and removal data in each priority level. 

This recommendation will remain resolved and open pending our receipt of information 

describing such a process. 

Recommendation #2: Develop procedures to ensure that 287(g) resources are allocated 

according to ICE's priority framework. 

ICE Response: ICE conducts ongoing quality reviews on data input by 287(g) officers in 

ICE systems. The comprehensive quality review process is documented in two memos, 

Monitoring the Exercise of 287(g) Authority and Field Guidance on Monitoring the Exercise 

of 287(g) Authority. On a monthly basis, the LEAs are tasked with reviewing their statistics, 

and submitting them to ICE. ICE continuously monitors for data quality and gathers 

statistics on encounters respective to the Criminal Sensitivity Levels. 

ICE also includes detailed descriptions of Criminal Sensitivity Levels in Appendix D of each 

MOA with an LEA. This information is provided to ensure resources are managed 

effectively. ICE requires the LEAs to manage their resources dedicated to 287(g) 

authority under the MOA. Appendix D reflects the categories of aliens that are a priority 

for arrest and detention with the highest priority being Level 1 criminal aliens. 

OIG Response: The referenced memoranda and quarterly summaries provide a framework 

for ICE to monitor the exercise of 287(g) authority by capturing statistical information that 

will assist in measuring adherence to ICE priorities. As part of the data review process, each 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 


Page 47
 
 
Appendix C 

Recommendations from Prior Report 

SAC/FOD provides a monthly memo to the Office of Investigations (OI) and Office of 

Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) detailing, in part, how the 287(g) program is 

working in relation to ICE priorities. If the 287(g) program is not operating according to ICE 

priorities, the memo should address what actions are being taken by the Special Agents in 

Charge (SAC) and Field Office Directors (FOD) to ensure compliance with ICE priorities. 

In order to strengthen this process, follow-up procedures should be developed and 

implemented to ensure that measures taken by the SAC/FOD result in increased compliance 

with ICE priorities. In addition, to better ensure the accuracy of statistics used to determine 

compliance with ICE priorities, a corrective action plan should be developed to minimize 

entries coded as “No Data,” which represents a record that was not completed properly. 

Our March 2010 report identified the need for performance measures with specific target 

levels for arrest, detention, and removal priority levels. The December 9, 2009 response ICE 

provided indicated that OSLC has drafted a revised performance measure that will consider 

the nature of the criminal offense based on the severity of the crime, and will establish a 

baseline and communicate targets for each severity level. These targets will reflect both 

prioritizations based on crime level, as well as average volume of encounters within each 

crime level. However, additional information regarding target levels was not included as part 

of the June 2010 status of recommendations provided by ICE. 

This recommendation will remain unresolved and open pending our receipt of additional 

documentation that outlines ICE’s efforts to further identify and ensure adherence to ICE 

priority levels. 

Recommendation #4: Establish a process to ensure effective supervision of 287(g) 

officers and immigration enforcement operations. 

ICE Response: ICE provides a draft of the Curriculum Design Plan Report, ICE Training 

for Managing 287(g) Agents and Officers, Office of Training and Development, dated 

May 2010 for OIG Review. Implementation of this new curriculum is scheduled for the 

first quarter of Fiscal Year 2011. In addition, ICE provides a draft of the Office of State 

and Local Coordination, 287(g) Communications Plan, FY 2011 to 2012, v 0.12, for OIG 

review. 

OIG Response: This recommendation will remain resolved and open pending our receipt 

of the final versions of these documents. 

Recommendation #5: Develop controls to ensure that supervisory responsibilities for 287(g) 

supervisors are considered when determining staffing ratios in ICE field offices. 

ICE Response: Operational responsibilities are carried out by OI and DRO. ICE will 

construct a cost model to reflect the need to assign supervisors to field offices to address 

the requirement of overseeing state and local law enforcement officers with 287(g) 

authorities. Due to the wide differences between the supervisory requirements, the model 

will have two categories to include 287(g) officers operating under the jail model, and 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 


Page 48
 
 
Appendix C 

Recommendations from Prior Report 

those officers operating under the task force model. While a jail setting generally lends 

itself to standardization, the focus, scope, and activity of task forces are too variable to 

apply standard requirements. 

The ICE Office of Budget will work with DRO and OI to formulate standard ratios for 

supervising jail settings, and, on a case by case basis, develop individual task force needs. 

As new task forces are created, a specific 287(g) supervisory requirement will be part of 

the planning process. As needed, individual field offices will have the ability to justify 

additional requirements for either model beyond the established requirement. 

As an integral part of this plan, ICE will institute a time to revisit these requirements and 

adjust them based on actual experience. Also, as jurisdictions and the number of 287(g) 

officers change, these changes will be included in supervisory requirements planning for 

the following budget. 

OIG Response: The ICE response describes the development of a cost model to reflect the 

need to assign supervisors for overseeing 287(g) officers. Since a cost model focuses on 

converting resource data into cost data, ICE needs to also develop a staffing model that 

addresses a sufficient quantity and quality of workforce to supervise 287(g) officers. This 

recommendation will remain unresolved and open. 

Recommendation #6: Ensure that 287(g) supervision is provided by authorized staff with 

the appropriate knowledge, skills, and abilities. 

ICE Response: ICE provides drafts of the Curriculum Design Plan Report, ICE Training 

for Managing 287(g) Agents and Officers, Office of Training and Development, dated 

May 2010, and Office of State and Local Coordination, 287(g) Communications Plan, FY 

2011 to 2012, v 0.12, for OIG review. Implementation of this new curriculum is 

scheduled for the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2011. Through this documentation, ICE 

ensures that 287(g) staff and field personnel provide a cohesive and standardized 

message. 

OIG Response: The ICE response indicates that the purpose of the new curriculum is to 

ensure that 287(g) staff and field personnel provide a cohesive and standardized message. 

However, the intent of this recommendation focuses on the personnel delegated 

responsibility for supervising 287(g) officers. We noted that nonsupervisory ICE 

personnel without the technical knowledge were performing supervisory tasks over 

287(g) officers. Therefore, ICE needs to provide information regarding controls to 

ensure that only authorized staff with appropriate knowledge, skills, and abilities serve in 

a supervisory capacity over 287(g) officers. This recommendation will remain unresolved 

and open pending our receipt of such information. 

Recommendation #7: Develop and implement 287(g) field supervision guidance that 

includes, at a minimum (1) the frequency and type of contact required between 287(g) officers 

and ICE supervisors; (2) the preparation, review, and approval of operational plans for 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 


Page 49
 
 
Appendix C 

Recommendations from Prior Report 

community-based immigration enforcement activities; and (3) performance feedback 

requirements for 287(g) officers. 

ICE Response: Responsibilities in the area of training are carried out by the Office of 

Training and Development (OTD). OTD is currently working with the Office of State and 

Local Coordination (OSLC) in the development of curriculum for ICE supervisors and 

program managers who work with 287(g) officers in the field. This curriculum will 

address all of these issues, and should be implemented within the next six months. 

Under consideration is a program to assign all 287(g) IADP graduates to a field training 

program and placed on probation for a period of twelve months after graduation. During 

the probationary period, the graduates will be closely monitored by ICE supervisors 

and/or program managers, and should meet individually with each other at least biweekly to discuss performance, goals and any necessary remedial/corrective action or 

training. 

Additionally, ICE’s comprehensive quality review process is documented through two 

memoranda, Monitoring the Exercise of 287(g) Authority, dated December 9, 2009, and Field 

Guidance on Monitoring the Exercise of 287(g) Authority, dated January 19, 2010. These 

memos advise all SACs and FODs of their responsibility in ensuring LEAs adhere to the 

terms of their MOA with ICE, and exercise their delegated authority consistent with ICE 

priorities. ICE is also providing the following documentation for OIG Review in order to 

assess how ICE addresses potential inconsistencies in supervision of the 287(g) officers and 

the process for data quality reviews: 

1.	 DRAFT: Curriculum Design Plan Report, ICE Training for Managing 287(g) 

Agents and Officers, Office of Training and Development (OTD), May 2010 

2.	 DRAFT: Office of State and Local Coordination, 287(g) Communications Plan, 

FY2011-2012, v 0.12 

3.	 DRAFT Policy: Suspension or Revocation of a Designated Immigration Officer’s 

287(g) Authority 

4.	 DRAFT Policy: Annual Verification of Designated Immigration Officers’ 
 


Recertification of Delegated 287(g) Authority
 
 

5.	 287(g) Task Force Model Adherence to ICE Priorities, April 16, 2010” 

6.	 287(g) Jail Enforcement Model Adherence to ICE Priorities, April 30, 2010 

OIG Response: This recommendation is resolved and open pending receipt of the final 

versions of the referenced performance management policies, and the outcome of 

considerations for a field training program. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 

Page 50
 
Appendix C 

Recommendations from Prior Report 

Recommendation #8: Establish and implement a comprehensive process for conducting 

periodic reviews, as well as reviews on an as-needed basis, to determine whether to modify, 

extend, or terminate 287(g) agreements. At a minimum, this process should include an 

assessment of (1) current or previous concerns expressed by field office staff; (2) media 

attention or community concerns that contribute to negative or inappropriate conclusions 

about the 287(g) program; (3) lawsuits or complaints; (4) potential civil rights and civil 

liberties violations; and (5) ICE's ability to provide effective supervision and oversight. 

ICE Response: ICE’s comprehensive quality review process is documented through two 

memoranda signed by the Deputy Assistant Secretary, Mr. Alonzo Peña. The memos: 

Monitoring the Exercise of 287(g) Authority, Dec 9, 2009, and Field Guidance on 

Monitoring the Exercise of 287(g) Authority, Jan 19, 2010, advise all SACs and FODs of 

their responsibility in ensuring LEAs adhere to the terms of their MOA with ICE and 

exercise their delegated authority consistent with ICE priorities. These memos are both 

provided for OIG review. 

ICE provides the DRAFT Policy: Review, Suspension, and Termination of 287(g) 

Memoranda of Agreement, which addresses the methodology for determining whether to 

modify, extend or terminate agreements. In addition, two examples of Quarterly Reviews 

are provided for OIG review, entitled 287(g) Task Force Model Adherence to ICE Priorities, 

dated April 16, 2010, and 287(g) Jail Enforcement Model Adherence to ICE Priorities, dated 

April 30, 2010. 

OIG Response: This recommendation is resolved and open pending our receipt of the final 

policy regarding the review, suspension and termination of 287(g) MOAs. 

Recommendation #9: Require 287(g) program sites to maintain steering committees with 

external stakeholders, with a focus on ensuring compliance with the MOA. 

ICE Response: ICE is currently in the process of finalizing guidance to the LEAs to 

establish and implement steering committees with external stakeholders. This guidance and 

implementation details will be provided to the LEAs with sufficient lead time so they can 

execute by the first quarter of FY 2011. 

OIG Response: This recommendation is resolved and open pending receipt of the 

referenced guidance. 

Recommendation #10: Establish a process to periodically cross-check Office of Professional 

Responsibility (OPR), OSLC, and Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) records to 

confirm 287(g) officers' eligibility and suitability to exercise authorities granted under 

287(g) MOAs. 

ICE Response: ICE provides the DRAFT Policy: Suspension or Revocation of a 

Designated Immigration Officer’s 287(g) Authority for OIG review. Final signature of 

this policy is scheduled for the third quarter of FY 2010. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 

Page 51
 
The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 


Page 52
 
 

Appendix C 

Recommendations from Prior Report 

OIG Response: This recommendation will remain resolved and open pending receipt of the 

final version of the referenced policy document. 

Recommendation #12: Establish and implement procedures on how the results of 

complaints, allegations, and subsequent investigations against LEA personnel conducting 

immigration enforcement activities should be maintained and used as part of the suitability 

and recertification processes. 

ICE Response: Prior to becoming a 287(g) officer, candidates must complete a 

comprehensive questionnaire providing information regarding any past complaints or 

allegations/investigations. ICE provides the 287(g) Partnership Questionnaire Form 70-009 

form, dated April 2010, for OIG review. Once the law enforcement officer is an active 

287(g) officer, their files are maintained by the LEA, and are continuously monitored and 

reviewed by the OPR during regular inspections. ICE provides Appendix B, Complaint 

Procedure, and the Nomination of Personnel sections of the MOA for OIG review. All 

complaints received by ICE are referred to the Joint Intake Center for further investigation. 

The DRAFT Policy, Suspension or Revocation of a Designated Immigration Officer’s 

287(g) Authority ensures frequent and consistent monitoring. In addition, the DRAFT 

Policies entitled Suspension or Revocation of a Designated Immigration Officer’s 287(g) 

Authority directive, and Review, Suspension, and Termination of 287(g) Memoranda of 

Agreement directive make the review of complaints, allegations, and investigations 

involving individual LEA personnel part of the suitability and recertification process for 

individual officers and the review of the MOA, as a whole. 

OIG Response: This recommendation is resolved and open pending receipt of the final 

referenced policies and directives. 

Recommendation #13: Establish specific operating protocols and requirements for 

operational variances identified in task force and jail enforcement program models. 

ICE Response: ICE provides full time resources to support the implementation of 287(g) 

programs at the LEA level. ICE also ensures that these resources are utilized in alignment 

with ICE priorities and Criminal Sensitivity Levels 1, 2, and 3. 

ICE’s comprehensive quality review process is documented through two memoranda signed 

by the Deputy Assistant Secretary. The memos, Monitoring the Exercise of 287(g) Authority 

and Field Guidance on Monitoring the Exercise of 287(g) Authority, advise all SACs and 

FODs of their responsibility in ensuring law enforcement agencies adhere to the terms of 

their MOA with ICE and exercise their delegated authority consistent with ICE priorities. 

ICE understands that each LEA has customized local standards of operation, and encourages 

LEAs to share their lessons learned and best practices amongst one another. A 287(g) LEA 

Training Conference was held in April 2010 to have LEAs share their customized operations, 

yet ensure that LEAs follow ICE priorities, and are compliant with MOA requirements. 
The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 


Page 53
 
 

Appendix C 

Recommendations from Prior Report 

Two examples of Quarterly Reviews are also provided for OIG review, entitled 287(g) Task 

Force Model Adherence to ICE Priorities and 287(g) Jail Enforcement Model Adherence to 

ICE Priorities. 

OIG Response: This recommendation addresses the variations when 287(g) officers exercise 

their immigration enforcement authority. For example, we observed that some jail models 

screen only convicted criminals, whereas others screen everyone entering the facility. Also, 

some task force officers inquired about immigration status during traffic stops while others 

only did so during ICE-led investigations. The referenced memoranda direct managers to 

supervise the officers and ensure compliance with the MOA; however, neither the MOA nor 

the memoranda address variances in operational procedures. This recommendation will 

remain unresolved and open. 

Recommendation #14: Study the feasibility and appropriateness of increasing the 

frequency of OPR 287(g) inspections, and report findings to the OIG. 

ICE Response: Responsibilities in the area of inspections and audits of the program are 

carried out by OPR. Currently, ICE has 62 program sites with 287(g) authority. To date, 

OPR has completed 41 inspections. By the end of FY 2011, OPR anticipates completing 

a total of 72 program site inspections. OPR plans to conduct a total of 24 program site 

inspections in FY 2011. OPR expects the number of 287(g) inspections to increase in FY 

2012 as vacancies are filled and staffing levels increase. 

After this initial inspection cycle, OPR will re-evaluate the feasibility and appropriateness 

of increasing its frequency of OPR 287(g) inspections, and report its findings to the OIG. 

The OPR inspections scheduling process is determined by various factors; including but 

not limited to: 

• Known age of the program 

• Known vulnerabilities 

• Size of the program 

• Time since last inspection 

• Leads from alleged misconduct/investigations and/or 

• Special requests from ICE management 

OIG Response: This recommendation is resolved and open pending our receipt of planned 

FY 2011 inspections, and an evaluation of the frequency of inspections. 

Recommendation #15: Require 287(g) applicants to provide information about past and 

pending civil rights allegations, and incorporate a civil rights and civil liberties review as part 

of the documented 287(g) site selection and MOA review processes. 

ICE Response: The DHS Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) group is a stakeholder on 

the ICE 287(g) Advisory Board. CRCL’s participation in the OSLC Advisory Board was 

designed to address the past performance of each LEA, including civil rights and civil 
Appendix C 

Recommendations from Prior Report 

liberties factors, as part of the site selection and MOA review processes. Also, ICE asked 

CRCL to present during the April 2010 287(g) LEA Training Conference as a keynote 

speaker. The presentation was geared towards raising awareness of the CRCL mission, and 

review how 287(g) processes incorporate CRCL reviews. 

ICE provides the Office of State and Local Coordination, 287(g) Program Strategic Plan, 

FY2011-2012, Draft, v 0.3, for OIG review. This documentation addresses CRCL in the 

Advisory Committee Section. Also of note is that by the first quarter of FY 2011, an 

OSLC Advisory Committee Governance Structure will be developed to outline and 

document roles and responsibilities for the OSLC Advisory Committee. 

The draft directive, Review, Suspension, and Termination of 287(g) Memoranda of 

Agreement, addresses this recommendation by including such factors as credible 

allegations of misconduct, negligence, discrimination on account of race or ethnicity, or 

other civil rights violations by officers of a participating LEA in ICE’s periodic and ad 

hoc reviews of 287(g) MOAs. 

OIG Response: The focus of this recommendation is to address past performance of each 

LEA, including civil right and civil liberties factors, as part of the site selection and MOA 

review process. This issue is not addressed in the ICE response or in supporting 

documentation. In addition, the specific role that CRCL will play as part of the OSLC 

Advisory Board is currently not included in the OSLC Strategic Plan. Also, a requirement 

for applicants to provide information about past and pending civil rights allegations has not 

been addressed. This recommendation remains unresolved and open. 

Recommendation #16: Include a representative on the advisory committee to provide 

insights into civil rights and civil liberties issues as part of the approval process. 

ICE Response: CRCL is a stakeholder on the ICE 287(g) Advisory Board. CRCL’s 

participation in the OSLC Advisory Board was designed to address the past performance of 

each LEA, including civil rights and civil liberties factors, as part of the site selection and 

MOA review processes. 

Additionally, ICE asked CRCL to present during the April 2010 287(g) LEA Training 

Conference as a keynote speaker. The presentation was geared towards raising awareness of 

the CRCL mission, and how 287(g) processes incorporate CRCL reviews. 

ICE provides the Office of State and Local Coordination, 287(g) Program Strategic Plan, 

FY 2011-2012, Draft, v 0.3” for OIG review, in particular referring to Appendix B, pg. 

A-7, which describes the roles and responsibilities of the Advisory Board. Also, by the first 

quarter of FY 2011, an OSLC Advisory Committee Governance Structure will be 

developed to outline and document roles and responsibilities for the OSLC Advisory 

Committee. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 


Page 54
 
 
Appendix C 

Recommendations from Prior Report 

OIG Response: The OSLC Strategic Plan outlines the roles and responsibilities of the 

Advisory Board in general terms. This recommendation will remain resolved and open 

pending our receipt of the OSLC Advisory Committee Governance Structure documenting 

its roles and responsibilities, and specific duties and responsibilities for CRCL involvement 

in the MOA review process regarding LEAs past or present involvement in civil rights and 

civil liberties issues. 

Recommendation #17: Develop a process to ensure that information submitted from ICE 

field offices as part of the application review process is fully taken into consideration before a 

final decision is made. This recommendation should include provisional approvals that 

require resource considerations to ensure proper supervision and oversight. 

ICE Response: The DHS Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) group is a stakeholder on 

the ICE 287(g) Advisory Board. This Advisory Board is made up of representatives from all 

ICE components. Also, ICE asked CRCL to present during the April 2010 287(g) LEA 

Training Conference as a keynote speaker. The presentation was geared towards raising 

awareness of the CRCL mission, and review how 287(g) processes incorporate CRCL 

reviews. 

In addition, ICE provides the “Office of State and Local Coordination, 287(g) Program 

Strategic Plan, FY2011-2012, Draft, v 0.3” for OIG review, in particular, referring to 

Appendix B, pg. A-7, which describes, in detail, the roles and responsibilities of the 

Advisory Board. Also, by the first quarter of FY 2011, an OSLC Advisory Committee 

Governance Structure will be developed to outline and document roles and 

responsibilities for the OSLC Advisory Committee. 

OIG Response: The focus of this recommendation is the availability of adequate resources 

for field offices to properly supervise newly approved LEAs for participation in the 287(g) 

program. However, documents referenced in ICE’s response do not address this issue. 

ICE’s initial response to this recommendation made reference to an Internal Advisory 

Committee that would review and assess field office recommendations about pending 287(g) 

MOA applications. However, the current ICE response does not include any information 

regarding committee procedures that would be responsive to this recommendation, which 

remains resolved and open. 

Recommendation #18: Establish collection and reporting standards that provide objective 

data to increase monitoring of the methods participating jurisdictions use in carrying out 

287(g) functions, and their effect on civil liberties. Collection and reporting requirements 

should include (1) the circumstances and basis for task force officer (TFO) contacts with the 

public, (2) the race and ethnicity of those contacted, and (3) the prosecutorial and judicial 

disposition of 287(g) arrests. 

ICE Response: ICE does not concur, as stated in the original response. 

OIG Response: ICE’s initial response to this recommendation included their conduct of an 

assessment of the goal of this recommendation to ensure that ICE’s 287(g) partners protect 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 


Page 55
 
 
Appendix C 

Recommendations from Prior Report 

the civil liberties of every individual they encounter. This recommendation remains 

unresolved and open pending our receipt of the results of the assessment described by 

ICE. 

Recommendation #20: Ensure that 287(g) basic training includes coverage of MOAs, and 

public outreach and complaint procedures. 

ICE Response: Responsibilities in the area of training are carried out by OTD. On the first 

day of training, attorney instructors review the core terms of the MOA with the 287(g) 

students. The students are also provided with a hand out which clearly illustrates the 

MOA generalities in the boiler plate format. The students are provided the opportunity to 

ask specific questions pertaining to the MOA, and they are also encouraged to seek 

further guidance from their partner organization supervisors and ICE supervisors and/or 

program managers in regards to the specific language of their agency-specific MOA and 

the terms of the agreement as they relate to their individual 287(g) duties. 

Public outreach principles are covered extensively in cross cultural communications. 

Instruction in complaint procedures is also covered on the first day of training, and 

further addressed during the officer integrity block of instruction. 

OIG Response: We documented in our initial report that although the 287(g) basic training 

materials and course schedule include MOAs, public outreach and complaint procedures, we 

noted that ICE instructors had not consistently delivered these training modules. Therefore, 

the intent of our recommendation is for ICE to ensure that these materials are actually 

provided to 287(g) participants during basic training. This recommendation remains 

unresolved and open. 

Recommendation #21: Enhance the current 287(g) training program to provide 

comprehensive coverage of immigration systems and processing. At a minimum, this should 

include hands-on experience during the 287(g) basic training course, on-the-job training, and 

periodic refresher training. 

ICE Response: ICE provides the DRAFT: Guidelines for Overall Structure of 287(g) Post 

Academy Training Program for OIG review, as well as the DRAFT: Curriculum Design 

Plan Report, ICE Training for Managing 287(g) Agents and Officers, Office of Training 

and Development, dated May 2010. 

OIG Response: This recommendation remains resolved and open pending verification of a 

final job training program manual, as implemented. 

Recommendation #22: Ensure that an appropriate level of coverage on immigration 

benefits, asylum, and victim and witness protections is included as part of the 287(g) basic 

training agenda. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 


Page 56
 
 
Appendix C 

Recommendations from Prior Report 

ICE Response: Responsibilities in the area of training are carried out by OTD. The special 

status aliens and the victim assistance elements of the 287(g) basic training program 

(IADP) include an overview of the asylum and victim and witness protections. Students 

are instructed in the proper methods for assisting victims of human trafficking or abuse or 

other vulnerable aliens. The court’s holding in American Baptist Churches v. Thornburg 

is specifically explained and discussed in the alternate order of removal block of 

instruction. The assessment of a student’s ability to meet the training objectives 

throughout the entire course is measured in multiple choice exams and a series of handson, realistic, scenario-based practical exercises conducted in the final week of training. 

OIG Response: ICE’s response describes the training program that was in effect during our 

review. Changes to ensure that an appropriate level of coverage on immigration benefits, 

asylum, and victim and witness protections is included as part of the 287(g) basic training 

agenda have not been implemented. This recommendation remains unresolved and open. 

Recommendation #23: Establish and issue guidance to field office staff for 287(g) officer 

annual recertification training that emphasizes completion of online refresher training 

courses. 

ICE Response: ICE provides the draft policy, Annual Verification of Designated 

Immigration Officers’ Recertification of Delegated 287(g) Authority, for OIG review. 

OIG Response: This recommendation remains resolved and open pending our receipt of 

final policy from ICE, as implemented. 

Recommendation #24: Designate field office responsibilities for monitoring and enforcing 

compliance with training guidance to include, at a minimum, issuing and enforcing 

revocation notices for 287(g) officers who do not complete required training. 

ICE Response: ICE provides the draft, Suspension or Revocation of a Designated 

Immigration Officer’s 287(g) Authority, and Annual Verification of Designated 

Immigration Officers’ Recertification of Delegated 287(g) Authority for OIG review. 

These draft directives fulfill this recommendation that ICE designate responsibilities and 

provide guidance for issuing and enforcing revocation notices for designated immigration 

officers who do not complete required training. 

OIG Response: This recommendation remains resolved and open pending our receipt of 

the final directives, as implemented. 

Recommendation #25: Develop and implement clear guidelines for using interpreter 

support to assist with immigration duties and responsibilities. 

ICE Response: Responsibilities in the area of training are carried out by OTD. The 287(g) 

students are advised about the proper utilization of interpreters during the Alien 

Processing and I-213 blocks of instruction in the Immigration Authority Delegation 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 


Page 57
 
 
Appendix C 

Recommendations from Prior Report 

Program (IADP). Additionally, the use of interpreters is covered in depth during the 

Sworn Statements block of instruction. 

OIG Response: This recommendation remains unresolved and open. Instructions 

referenced in the ICE response do not provide detailed guidelines on the circumstances in 

which interpreter support should be used to assist with immigration duties and 

responsibilities. 

Recommendation #26: Establish a process to provide the public and other stakeholders 

with comprehensive information about the 287(g) program and associated operations. 

ICE Response: ICE provides the DRAFT: Office of State and Local Coordination, 287(g) 

Communications Plan, FY 2011-2012, v 0.12, for OIG review. 

OIG Response: This recommendation remains resolved and open pending our receipt of 

the final communications plan as implemented. 

Recommendation #27: Ensure the accuracy of information disseminated to the public about 

the goals of the 287(g) program, its various operations, and how immigration enforcement 

activities are carried out in the actual working environment. 

ICE Response: ICE provides the DRAFT: Office of State and Local Coordination, 287(g) 

Communications Plan, FY2011-2012, v 0.12, for OIG review. 

OIG Response: This recommendation remains resolved and open pending our receipt of 

the final communications plan as implemented. 

Recommendation #29: Require 287(g) officers to identify themselves and display their 

credentials during federal immigration arrests, before initiating interviews regarding alien 

status and removability, and as part of other immigration processing activities. 

ICE Update: Responsibilities in the area of training are carried out by OTD. During the 

training program (IADP), all 287(g) students are instructed that, as the first mandatory 

step in any official encounter, they must identify themselves by name, agency, and title 

and should never assume that the person encountered knows who s/he is, even if wearing 

a raid jacket, badge, etc. This issue is clearly covered in Alien Encounters lesson plan for 

IADP. 

OIG Response: Our report indicated that 287(g) officers do not wear distinctive clothing, 

and do not regularly display credentials during the conduct of all 287(g) related activities. 

Due to the sensitive nature of this issue, ICE needs to not only provide classroom instruction 

from a lesson plan, but establish clear requirements regarding this issue. This 

recommendation remains unresolved and open. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 


Page 58
 
 
Appendix C 

Recommendations from Prior Report 

Recommendation #30: Develop training and provide basic program information for LEA 

managers who maintain an oversight role for 287(g) officers in order to increase their 

understanding of the program and encourage their support of 287(g) activities. 

ICE Response: ICE provides the draft, Curriculum Design Plan Report, ICE Training for 

Managing 287(g) Agents and Officers, Office of Training and Development, dated May 

2010 for OIG review. 

OIG Response: The draft document provided by ICE includes language that this training 

will provide ICE managers a comprehensive understanding of the 287(g) program and their 

duties and responsibilities required under the program. This recommendation will remain 

resolved and open pending receipt of the final training document, and basic program 

information that will be provided to LEA managers with an oversight role for 287(g) officers. 

Recommendation #31: Establish and implement standard immigration system access profiles 

for 287(g) officers to ensure that officers have the access needed to perform immigration 

functions. These access profiles should be customized by program model to address the 

different functions that TFOs and jail enforcement officers (JEO) perform. 

ICE Response: ICE ensures that all 287(g) officers have access to the necessary tools to 

perform immigration functions. A PICS profile (PICS Access Request Form provided for 

OIG review) enables access to CIS, NFTS, CLAIMS and ENFORCE. It is at the SACs’ 

discretion to provide TECS access to TFOs for case management, as needed. 

ICE provides Section 2 of the Password Issuance and Control System, Security Officer 

User Manual for OIG review. 

OIG Response: Based on documentation provided, the Password Issuance and Control 

System, Security Officer User Manual does not provide information regarding access to CIS, 

NFTS, CLAIMS and ENFORCE. According to the manual, the PICS database contains 

information about all INS employees, contractors, other governmental agency employees, 

and Foreign Service nationals identified in DHS Personnel Security. This recommendation 

remains resolved and open. 

Recommendation #32: Develop a process for performing regular checks to ensure that aliens 

identified through the 287(g) program are not held in unauthorized facilities while in ICE 

custody. 

ICE Response: Responsibilities in the area of custody are carried out by DRO. All 

individuals encountered through the 287(g) program and taken into ICE custody will only 

be placed in ICE authorized facilities. FODs will ensure designated 287(g) program 

supervisors conduct quarterly checks to ensure all aliens identified through the 287(g) 

program are not held in unauthorized facilities while in ICE custody. FODs are 

responsible for communicating and sharing this information with staff within their 

respective areas of responsibility to ensure compliance with this guidance. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 

Page 59
 
Appendix C 

Recommendations from Prior Report 

OIG Response: This recommendation remains resolved and open pending our receipt of 

guidance regarding the process used to conduct and verify quarterly checks to ensure that 

aliens identified through the 287(g) program are not held in unauthorized facilities while in 

ICE custody. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 


Page 60
 
 
Appendix D 

Side-by-side Comparison of OLD MOA vs. New MOA Template 

SECTION Old MOA New MOA 

Introduction “ICE authorizes up to a 

maximum of eight (8) 

nominated, trained, and 

certified LEA personnel...” 

Deleted 

“It is the intent of the parties 

that these delegated 

authorities will enable the 

LEA to identify and process 

immigration violators and 

conduct normal state-based 

criminal investigations in the 

state...” 

“It is the intent of the parties that 

these delegated authorities will 

enable the Agency to identify 

and process immigration 

violators and conduct criminal 

investigations under ICE 

supervision...” 

“points of contact for 

purposes of this MOA are 

identified in Appendix A” 

Deleted from Introduction and 

moved to new Section XXI 

Points of Contact. 

I. Purpose Purpose is “to set forth terms 

and conditions pursuant to 

which selected LEA 

personnel...will be nominated, 

trained, and thereafter 

perform certain functions of 

an immigration officer”. 

Almost verbatim, but new 

introductory sentence “to 

enhance the safety and security 

of communities by focusing 

resources on identifying and 

processing for removal criminal 

aliens who pose a threat to public 

safety or a danger to the 

community...” 

“This MOA also describes the 

complaint filing 

procedures...” 

Deleted, but complaint procedure 

remains Appendix B. 

II. Authority Section 287(g) of INA No change 

III. Policy MOA sets forth the: 

• Scope of the immigration 

officer functions. 

• Duration of authority 

conveyed. 

• Specific lines of authority, 

including requirement that 

LEA personnel are subject 

to ICE supervision while 

performing immigrationrelated duties. 

Similar language and new 

provision: 

• Requires Agency to collect 

program information or data. 

• See also Section V. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 


Page 61
 
 
Appendix D 

Side-by-Side Comparison of Old MOA vs. New MOA Template 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 

Page 62
 

 

SECTION Old MOA New MOA 

Assignments1 LEA personnel must receive 

authorization through training 

(Section VIII). 

Training re-addressed in Section 

VIII Training. 

Enumerates the LEA 

personnel authorized to 

conduct the immigration 

office functions. 

Deleted 

“The LEA officers will 

immediately contact the 

SAC... when matters of 

investigative interest to ICE 

should arise in the course of 

performing immigrationrelated duties...” 

Deleted 

IV. Designation of 

Authorized 

Functions 

LEA personnel are authorized 

to perform the listed 

functions. 

For list, see section below on 

the SOP. 

“Approved participating Agency 

personnel will be authorized to 

perform immigration officer 

functions outlined in 287(g)(1) of 

the INA..., subject to the 

limitations contained in the 

Standard Operating Procedures 

(SOP) in Appendix D to this 

MOA.” 

V. Detention and 

Transportation 

Issues 

LEA should pursue to 

completion prosecution 

charges that caused alien to 

be arrested. 

Now in Section I, Policy. 

ICE will only assume custody 

once an alien has been 

convicted and served their 

sentence. 

Now in Section I, Policy 

ICE will assume custody of 

alien with prior conviction 

and when detention is 

required by statute. 

Now in Section I, Policy 

ICE DRO FOD will 

determine if ICE should 

assume custody of alien on a 

case-by-case basis if 

extenuating circumstances 

exist. 

Similar language. 

1

 Section deleted from new MOA Template, but certain provisions re-addressed in other sections. 
Appendix D 

Side-by-Side Comparison of Old MOA vs. New MOA Template 

SECTION Old MOA New MOA 

DRO is responsible for 

managing limited ICE 

resources and may exercise 

discretion by declining aliens. 

Similar language. 

New provision: “ICE and the 

Agency will prioritize the 

detention of aliens in conformity 

with ICE detention priorities.” 

If ICE deems necessary, 

Agency will enter into IGSA 

to house aliens after 

completion of sentence for 

reimbursable fee. 

Similar language. 

“The LEA facility will be 

expected to meet ICE 

detention standards for either 

a less than 72-hour or over-72 

hour facility as determined by 

ICE and consistent with the 

anticipated detention period.” 

“If ICE and the Agency enter 

into an IGSA, the Agency must 

meet the applicable ICE National 

Detention Standards.” 

If ICE deems it necessary, 

Agency will enter into IGSA 

to transport aliens after 

completion of sentence to 

ICE-designated facility for 

reimbursable fee. 

The Agency must receive prior 

approval from ICE for 

transportation or ICE will make 

no reimbursement. 

If ICE deems it necessary, 

LEA will provide ICE office 

space free of charge at LEA 

for ICE supervisory 

employees to work. 

Moved to Section X, Cost and 

Expenditures. 

LEA will transport removable 

alien to ICE facility upon 

completion of sentence so no 

further detention costs are 

incurred by ICE. LEA must 

notify and coordinate with 

ICE supervisor prior to 

moving alien. 

Deleted 

VI. Nomination of “ICE may request any “[ICE’s independent] 

Personnel information necessary for a 

background check to include, 

but not limited to, submission 

background check requires all 

candidates to complete a 

background questionnaire. This 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 


Page 63
 
 
Appendix D 

Side-by-Side Comparison of Old MOA vs. New MOA Template 

SECTION Old MOA New MOA 

of fingerprints and a personal 

history questionnaire to 

evaluate a candidate’s 

suitability...” 

questionnaire requires, but is not 

limited to, the submission of 

fingerprints, a personal history 

questionnaire, and the 

candidate’s disciplinary 

history...” 

Candidates must be able to 

qualify for appropriate federal 

security clearances. 

Deleted and new provision: “In 

addition to the Agency 

background check, ICE will 

conduct an independent 

background check for each 

candidate.” 

New provisions: 

• LEA must conduct current 

criminal background check 

within past 5 years. 

• LEA must provide all 

information and materials to 

ICE upon request. 

• Agency will provide written 

privacy waiver signed by 

candidate allowing ICE 

continuous access to 

candidate’s disciplinary 

records upon ICE request. 

Candidate must be US citizen Same 

All candidates must have at 

least 2 years of LEA 

experience. 

• For TFO: Moved to 

Appendix D, SOP Template. 

TFO Model - Nominating 

Personnel: Should have at 

least 1 year of experience. 

• For Detention Model: 

Deleted 

Approved officers will use 

287(g) authority for at least 2 

years. 

Same and new provisions: 

• If approved officer in 

bargaining unit, Agency must 

have agreement with 

exclusive representative to 

keep person in position for at 

least 2 years. 

• Above requirement may be 

lifted at ICE’s discretion for 

good cause. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 


Page 64
 
 
Appendix D 

Side-by-Side Comparison of Old MOA vs. New MOA Template 

SECTION Old MOA New MOA 

Candidates in jail populations 

must have experience 

supervising inmates, 

maintaining the security of a 

facility, enforcing rules and 

regulations governing inmate 

accountability and conduct, 

and the ability to handle 

individuals from different 

backgrounds. 

• Moved to Appendix D, SOP 

Template. Detention Model ­

Nominating Personnel and 

language almost verbatim. 

• New provisions: Must have 

knowledge of and have 

enforced laws and regulations 

pertinent to their law 

enforcement activities and 

their jurisdictions. 

TFOs’ work experience 

should consist of interviewing 

witnesses, interrogating 

subjects, providing 

constitutional rights warnings, 

obtaining statements and 

executing search and seizure 

warrants, with emphasis on 

officers who have planned, 

organized and conducted 

complex investigations 

relating to violations of 

criminal and civil law. 

Moved to Appendix D, SOP 

Template. TFO Model ­

Nominating Personnel and 

language almost verbatim. 

TFOs must be sworn/certified 

officers, possess arrest 

authority, and be authorized 

to carry firearms. 

Same and new provision: Must 

be employed full time by 

Agency. 

New provision: All candidates 

must certify he/she is not 

prohibited from carrying firearms 

pursuant to state or federal law. 

“All candidates must be “All candidates must be 

approved by ICE and must be approved by ICE and must be 

found eligible for access to able to qualify for access to 

sensitive information.” appropriate DHS and ICE 

databases.” 

Can substitute for candidates 

who are not approved as long 

as it does not delay training. 

Same 

Future expansion of approved 

officers or scheduling 

additional training can be 

based on an oral agreement. 

Same 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 


Page 65
 
 
 

Appendix D 

Side-by-Side Comparison of Old MOA vs. New MOA Template 

SECTION Old MOA New MOA 

VIII.2

 Training of 

Personnel 

ICE provides 4-week training 

that covers: 

• Terms and limitations of 

MOA 

• Scope of immigration 

officer authority 

• Relevant immigration law 

• ICE Use of Force Policy 

• Civil rights laws 

• DOJ June 2003 Memo 

regarding Use of Race by 

LEA 

• Outreach and complaint 

procedures 

• Liability issues 

• Cross-cultural issues 

• Obligation under federal 

law and Vienna 

Convention on Consular 

Relations notifications 

Moved to Appendix D SOP 

Template: “ICE will provide 

participating Agency personnel 

with Immigration Authority 

Delegation Program (IADP) 

training consistent with the 

accompanying SOP.” 

Appendix D, SOP Template, 

does not mention 4-week 

training, but topics covered 

almost verbatim. 

ICE may provide additional Same and new provision: “An 

training after one year OSLC designated official shall, 

participation and local in consultation with OTD and 

training offered on ongoing local ICE officials, review on an 

basis. annual basis, and if needed, 

refresh training requirements.” 

New provisions: 

• 287(g) training program, the 

Immigration Authority 

Delegation Program (IADP), 

will be taught by ICE 

instructors and tailored to the 

immigration functions to be 

performed. 

• ICE OTD will proctor 

examinations during IADP. 

Agency nominee must pass 

each exam with a minimum 

score of 70% to receive 

certification. During entire 

duration of IADP, the 

2

 Note numbering mistake; no section VII 
 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 

Page 66
 
Appendix D 

Side-by-Side Comparison of Old MOA vs. New MOA Template 

SECTION Old MOA New MOA 

Agency nominee will be 

offered a maximum of one 

remediation examination. 

IX. Certification 

and Authorization 

• ICE will certify in 

writing, to ICE SAC or 

FOD, names of LEA 

personnel who 

successfully complete 

training and pass all 

required testing. 

• Upon receipt of 

certification, ICE SAC or 

FOD will provide 

participating Agency 

personnel a signed 

authorization letter. 

• Authorization for initial 

period of one year. 

• LEA will also receive 

copy of authorization. 

• Authorization can be 

withdrawn/revoked at any 

time and is effective as 

soon as other party 

notified. 

• Termination of MOA 

serves as immediate 

revocation for all 

authorized officers. 

• LEA and SAC/FOD 

responsible for notifying 

all appropriate personnel 

of withdrawal/revocation. 

Same 

“The ICE supervisory officer, “Only those certified Agency 

or designated team leader, personnel who receive 

will evaluate the activities of authorization letters issued by 

all certified personnel ICE and whose immigration 

certified under this MOA.” enforcement efforts are subject to 

a designated ICE supervisor may 

conduct immigration officer 

functions described in this 

MOA.” 

New provisions: 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 


Page 67
 
 
Appendix D 

Side-by-Side Comparison of Old MOA vs. New MOA Template 

SECTION Old MOA New MOA 

• Must successfully complete 

IADP training as described in 

SOP before receiving 

authorization. 

• Must pass ICE examination 

after instruction – does NOT 

state ICE equivalent 

examination. 

• Upon completion of training, 

program personnel 

considered “certified” – does 

NOT state considered 

equivalent to ICE officer. 

• Certified user will receive 

“Delegation of Authority” 

credentials. 

• Personnel will sign for the 

credentials (Form G-570) 

which will go in ICE records. 

• Revocation must be 

documented in writing, 

which should include date of 

withdrawal. 

• LEA must notify ICE when 

officer is no longer 

participating in 287(g) 

program so appropriate 

action can be taken, including 

termination of user account 

access to DHS and ICE 

systems. 

X. Costs and • LEA responsible for Same and new provisions: 

Expenditures officer’s salary, benefits, 

and overtime. 

• ICE will provide 

instructors and training 

material and are 

responsible for salary and 

benefits of its instructors. 

• If ICE deems training is 

direct benefit of 

government, the 

government may 

• Agency will cover the costs 

of all Agency personnel’s 

travel, housing, and per diem 

affiliated with the training 

required for participation in 

this MOA. 

• Agency responsible for all 

expenses at its facility 

regarding cabling and power 

upgrades. 

• Agency responsible for any 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 


Page 68
 
 
Appendix D 

Side-by-Side Comparison of Old MOA vs. New MOA Template 

SECTION Old MOA New MOA 

reimburse candidates for 

travel, housing, and per 

diem. LEA responsible 

for salaries and benefits. 

• ICE responsible for 

purchase, installation, and 

maintenance of 

technology. 

• Use of equipment limited 

to authority outlined in 

MOA. 

• ICE will provide technical 

support and software 

upgrades. 

• All equipment remains 

property of ICE and shall 

be returned upon 

termination. 

• LEA responsible for all 

administrative supplies. 

installation and recurring 

costs associated with 

Agency’s own 

communication lines. 

XI. ICE • Immigration enforcement Same and new provisions: 

Supervision activities will be 

supervised by ICE and 

can be conducted only 

under ICE supervision or 

guidance. 

• ICE must be notified 

within 24 hours of issuing 

a detainer. 

• ICE will review LEA 

officer actions on an 

ongoing basis to ensure 

compliance. 

• ICE will supervise only 

for immigration related 

activity. 

• LEA officer must abide 

by DHS and ICE policies 

(including Use of Force). 

• Any conflicts between 

DHS/ICE and LEA 

policies should be stated 

• “To establish supervisory and 

other administrative 

responsibilities, the 

SAC/FOD will specify the 

supervisory and other 

administrative 

responsibilities in an 

accompanying agreed-upon 

SOP.” 

• ICE will supervise 

investigations conducted in 

conjunction with immigration 

enforcement functions. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 


Page 69
 
 
Appendix D 

Side-by-Side Comparison of Old MOA vs. New MOA Template 

SECTION Old MOA New MOA 

ASAP and resolved by 

SAC/FOD and LEA. 

XII. Reporting 

Requirements 

LEA responsible for tracking 

and maintaining data and 

statistical information. 

Agency not required to provide 

statistical or arrest data above 

what is entered into ENFORCE; 

however, ICE reserves right to 

request the Agency to provide 

specific tracking data and/or any 

information, documents, or 

evidence related to the 

circumstances of a particular 

alien’s arrest. 

ICE may request data for 

comparison with own data, 

statistical reporting 

requirements, and to assess 

progress/success of LEA 

287(g) program. 

Similar 

See also Appendix D SOP/Data 

Collection 

XIII. Liability and 

Responsibility 

To the extent allowed by state 

law, the LEA shall 

immediately notify ICE of 

existence and nature of all 

complaints, as well as, 

resolution of complaint. 

Same, except Agency shall 

immediately notify local POC for 

ICE Office of Professional 

Responsibility and the 

SAC/FOD. 

• LEAs are responsible for 

covering any 

personal/property costs 

for their officers “incurred 

by death, injury, or 

incidents giving rise to 

liability.” 

• 287(g) authorized officers 

are considered federal 

employees only as it 

relates to the Federal Tort 

Claims Act and worker’s 

compensation claims. 

• LEA officers agree to 

comply with federal 

standards and guidelines. 

Same 

Participating Agency 

personnel named as 

defendants in litigation 

Same. Also new provision: 

Requests for representation by 

USDOJ should be in form of 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 


Page 70
 
 
Appendix D 

Side-by-Side Comparison of Old MOA vs. New MOA Template 

SECTION Old MOA New MOA 

arising from activities carried 

out under this MOA may 

request in writing to the US 

Attorney General to be 

represented by the USDOJ 

and such request will be 

handled in coordination with 

the SAC and/or FOD. 

written memorandum addressing 

each and every allegation in the 

complaint, explaining as well as 

admitting or denying each 

allegation. 

The LEA agrees to cooperate 

with any federal investigation 

related to this MOA to the 

full extent of its available 

powers. 

Same and new provisions: 

• Includes providing access to 

appropriate databases, 

personnel, and documents. 

• Failure to do so may result in 

termination of this MOA and 

failure of an officer to 

cooperate may result in 

revocation of such 

individual’s authority 

provided under this MOA. 

New provisions: 

• Agency agrees to cooperate 

with federal personnel 

conducting MOA compliance 

reviews to provide access to 

appropriate databases, 

personnel and documents, as 

necessary. 

• Agency and ICE are each 

responsible for compliance 

with Privacy Act of 1974 and 

ENFORCE Systems of 

Records Notice. 

XIV. Complaint 

Procedures 

“The complaint reporting and 

resolution procedure...is 

included at Appendix B.” 

Same 

XV. Civil Rights 

Standards 

Must abide by all federal civil 

rights statue and regulations. 

Same 

LEA will provide language Moved to new Section XVI, 

interpreters as needed for Interpretation Services: 

subjects with limited English. Same and new provisions: 

• Agency will maintain a list of 

qualified language 

interpreters. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 


Page 71
 
 
Appendix D 

Side-by-Side Comparison of Old MOA vs. New MOA Template 

 

SECTION Old MOA New MOA 

• Agency officers will be 

instructed on administrative 

procedures to obtain 

interpretation services. 

• Qualified interpreter means 

one who can interpret 

effectively, accurately, and 

impartially, using any 

specialized vocabulary. 

• Any interpreter must be 

identified by name in records. 

XVI. Interpretation 

Services 

Section did not exist. See analysis above on Section 

XV, Civil Rights and Standards. 

XVI. 

Communication 

[Steering 

Committee3

] 

SAC/FOD and LEA shall 

establish steering committee 

that will meet (at a location or 

teleconference) periodically 

to review and assess 

immigration enforcement 

activities and compliance 

with MOA. 

SAC/FOD and LEA shall meet at 

least annually, and as needed, to 

review and assess immigration 

enforcement activities and 

compliance with MOA. 

New provision: “When 

necessary, ICE and the Agency 

may limit the participation of 

these meetings in regards to nonlaw enforcement personnel.” 

• Participants will be 

supplied with jurisdiction 

immigration enforcement 

information. 

• First meeting should be 

held within 9 months of 

establishment. 

Same 

XVII. Community LEA can conduct outreach. Same 

Outreach ICE can participate if LEA 

requests. New provision: 

• Nothing in this MOA shall 

limit ICE’s own community 

outreach program. 

XIX. Release of 

Information to the 

LEA may share information 

about the MOA to groups 

Same and new provision: 

Per ICE practice, Agency may 

3

 Old MOA section title 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 

Page 72
 
Appendix D 

Side-by-Side Comparison of Old MOA vs. New MOA Template 

 

SECTION Old MOA New MOA 

Media and Other 

Third Parties 

interested in the law 

enforcement activities. 

only provide MOA to media 

outlets after it has been signed. 

[Relations with the LEA agrees to coordinate Agency agrees to coordinate with 

News Media4] with ICE regarding ICE prior to releasing any 

information to be released to information relating to, or 

the media regarding actions exchanged, under this MOA 

taken under this MOA. including any SOPs developed. 

All contact with the media 

involving investigations 

conducted under this MOA 

by TFOs will be done 

pursuant to ICE policy. 

POCs are identified in 

Appendix C. 

Same 

New provisions: 

• Any information relating to 

the MOA is under control of 

ICE and subject to federal 

disclosure laws. 

• Any Agency documents 

created relating to the MOA 

shall not be considered public 

records. 

• Release of statistical 

information regarding the 

287(g) program must be 

coordinated with ICE Office 

of Public Affairs. 

XX. Modification to Proposed in writing and Proposed in writing and 

this MOA approved by signatories. approved and signed by 

signatories. Modification to 

Appendix D shall be done in 

accordance with the procedures 

outlined in the SOP. 

XXI. Points of Section did not exist, but Identified in Appendix A and can 

Contact stated in the Introduction as 

identified in Appendix A. 

be updated at any time by 

providing a revised Appendix A 

to the other party to this MOA. 

XXII. Duration and 

Termination of this 

MOA 

MOA will remain in effect 

until terminated by either 

party. 

• MOA in effect for 3 years 

unless terminated by either 

party. 

4

 Old MOA section title 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 

Page 73
 
Appendix D 

Side-by-Side Comparison of Old MOA vs. New MOA Template 

SECTION Old MOA New MOA 

• At expiration of 3 year 

effective period, ICE and 

Agency shall review the 

MOA and modify, extend, or 

permit the MOA to lapse. 

• MOA can be terminated 

by either party at any time 

with written notice. 

• A program can be 

temporarily suspended 

with oral or written 

notification. Both parties 

must be notified. 

Same 

New provisions: 

• Upon good faith 

determination that Agency is 

not fulfilling its duties, ICE 

shall notify Agency in 

writing that it has 90 days to 

demonstrate a continued need 

for program services. 

• If continued need not 

demonstrated, MOA will be 

terminated or suspended. 

• Upon subsequent 

demonstration of need, 

Agency will bear all 

reinstatement costs. 

Appendix A Points 

of Contact 

Self-explanatory Same 

Appendix B Complaints filed against LEA Same 

Complaint personnel in course of their 

Procedure non-immigration related 

duties will remain domain of 

LEA. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 


Page 74
 
 
Appendix D 

Side-by-Side Comparison of Old MOA vs. New MOA Template 

SECTION Old MOA New MOA 

New provision: 

Agency must immediately notify 

SAC and ICE OPR of any 

complaint or allegation against 

any participating Agency 

personnel involved in violating 

MOA that may result in 

receiving employer discipline or 

be subject to a criminal or civil 

lawsuit. 

LEA will handle complaints 

filed against non-designated 

and non-certified personnel 

who may exercise 

immigration authority, which 

will be monitored by the 

Steering Committee. 

Same, except such complaints 

must be forwarded to SAC or 

FOD and not monitored by 

Steering Committee. 

OPR and LEA Administrative 

Investigations Unit will 

coordinate complaint receipt 

and investigation. 

Deleted 

When appropriate, ICE OPR 

will forward complaints to 

DHS OIG for review and 

ensure notification to DOJ 

CRD. If investigation by 

DHS OIG or DOJ CRD 

warranted, this does not 

preclude the entities working 

with the LEA to investigate. 

Deleted 

ICE OPR and LEA will 

adhere to existing policies 

and procedures of their 

respective agencies. 

Deleted 

1. Complaint and 

Allegation 

Reporting 

Procedures 

Reporting procedures shall be 

disseminated as appropriate 

by the LEA within facilities 

under its jurisdiction in 

English and other languages 

as appropriate. 

Complaints may be accepted 

from any source (e.g. ICE, 

Same and new provision: ICE 

will immediately forward 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 


Page 75
 
 
Appendix D 

Side-by-Side Comparison of Old MOA vs. New MOA Template 

SECTION Old MOA New MOA 

LEA, participating LEA 

personnel, inmates, and 

public). 

complaint to DHS CRCL. 

Complaints may be reported 

to the following federal 

authorities: 

• Telephonically to ICE 

OPR at Joint Intake 

Center. 

• Telephonically to RAC of 

ICE OPR in jurisdiction. 

• Via mail to OPR. 

Same, except telephonically to 

DHS OIG instead of RAC of ICE 

OPR. 

Complaints may be reported 

to: 

• LEA’s Professional 

Standards Section, or 

• Supervisor of any 

participating LEA 

personnel or to the 

incumbent Sheriff 

Deleted 

2. Review of • LEA will report all Same 

Complaints complaints received to 

ICE OPR. 

• ICE OPR will verify 

participating personnel’s 

status. 

• Complaints received by 

any ICE entity will be 

reported to ICE OPR per 

existing ICE policies and 

procedures. 

• ICE OPR will make initial 

determination of ICE 

investigative jurisdiction 

and refer complaint to the 

appropriate office. 

• ICE OPR will share 

complaints received 

involving LEA personnel 

with LEA’s International 

Investigation Office. 

Both offices will then 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 


Page 76
 
 
Appendix D 

Side-by-Side Comparison of Old MOA vs. New MOA Template 

SECTION Old MOA New MOA 

coordinate appropriate 

investigative jurisdiction, 

which may include joint 

investigation. 

3. Complaint and 

Allegations 

Resolution 

Procedures 

ICE OPR will undertake 

complete review of each 

complaint according to 

existing ICE allegation 

criteria and reporting 

requirements. 

Same 

“As stated above, ICE OPR 

will adhere to existing ICE 

reporting requirements as 

they relate to the DHS OIG 

and/or the DOJ CRD.” 

Same 

3.A. Referral of ICE OPR will refer Same 

Complaints to complaints to LEA’s Internal 

Agency’s Internal Investigations Office, as 

Investigation’s Unit appropriate, for resolution. 

3.B. Interim Action Requirements of the LEA Reference to LEA policy 

Pending Complaint policy shall be honored and if requirements deleted and “if 

Resolution appropriate, an individual 

may be removed from 

program pending resolution. 

appropriate” language deleted 

from ICE’s power to revoke. 

3.C. Time 

Parameters for 

Resolution of 

Complaints or 

Allegations 

Complaint expected to be 

resolved within 90 days. 

Same 

3.D. Notification of ICE OPR will coordinate with ICE OPR will coordinate with 

Resolution of a LEA’s Investigations Unit to LEA’s Investigations Unit to 

Complaint or ensure notification, as ensure notification, as 

Allegation appropriate, to the subject(s) 

of a complaint regarding 

resolution. 

appropriate, to the ICE SAC, the 

subject(s) of a complaint, and the 

person filing the complaint 

regarding resolution. 

New provision: 

• These Complaint Reporting 

and Allegation Procedures 

are ICE’s internal policy and 

may be supplemented and 

modified by ICE unilaterally. 

• ICE will provide Agency 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 


Page 77
 
 
Appendix D 

Side-by-Side Comparison of Old MOA vs. New MOA Template 

 

SECTION Old MOA New MOA 

with written copies of any 

supplements or 

modifications. 

• These Complaint Reporting 

and Allegation Procedures 

apply to ICE and do not 

restrict or apply to other 

federal investigative 

organizations. 

Appendix C Public 

Information Points 

of Contact 

Self-explanatory Self-explanatory, no change 

Appendix D Appendix did not exist. • Purpose is to establish 

Standard standard, uniform procedures 

Operating for implementation and 

Procedures (SOP) oversight of 287(g)

Template5 delegation of authority. 

• SOP can be modified only in 

writing and by mutual 

acceptance by both the 

SAC/FOD and designated 

Agency. 

• 2 models: Task Force Officer 

or Detention. 

Prioritization Provision did not exist. “ICE retains sole discretion in 

determining how it will manage 

its limited resources...” Agency 

resources should be prioritized to 

the following levels: 

Level 1 – Aliens who have been 

convicted of or arrested for major 

drug offenses and/or violent 

offenses such as murder, 

manslaughter, rape, robbery, and 

kidnapping. 

Level 2 – Aliens who have been 

convicted of or arrested for 

minor drug offenses and/or 

mainly property offenses, such as 

burglary, larceny, fraud, and 

money laundering; and 

5

 Under old MOA model, certain provisions are in other sections. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 

Page 78
 
Appendix D 

Side-by-Side Comparison of Old MOA vs. New MOA Template 

 

SECTION Old MOA New MOA 

Level 3 – Aliens who have been 

convicted of or arrested for other 

offenses. 

Training See Section VIII above See Section VIII above 

Data Collection See Section XII, Reporting 

Requirements 

See Section XII, Reporting 

Requirements, and new 

provisions: 

• ENFORCE is primary 

processing system for alien 

removals and main resource 

for statistical information for 

287(g) program. 

• ENFORCE entries must be 

completed in accordance with 

ICE policies and OSLC 

guidance. 

• Agency not required to 

provide statistical or arrest 

data above what is entered 

into ENFORCE; however, 

ICE reserves right to request 

the Agency to provide 

specific tracking data and/or 

any information, documents, 

or evidence related to the 

circumstances of a particular 

alien’s arrest.6 

• ICE may request data for 

comparison with own data, 

statistical reporting 

requirements, and to assess 

progress/success of LEA 

287(g) program.7 

Agency and ICE are each 

responsible for compliance with 

Privacy Act of 1974 and 

ENFORCE Systems of Records 

Notice. 

Task Force Officer 

(TFO) Model 

Participating LEA personnel 

has power and authority to: 

Same and new provisions: 

• Agency is authorized to 

6

 These provisions repeated verbatim under Section XII, Reporting Requirements 

7

 Certain provisions repeated verbatim under Section XII, Reporting Requirements 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 

Page 79
 
Appendix D 

Side-by-Side Comparison of Old MOA vs. New MOA Template 

SECTION Old MOA New MOA 

• Interrogate anyone 

believed to be an alien as 

to his right to be or 

remain in United States. 

• Arrest without warrant 

any alien attempting to 

unlawfully enter the 

United States. 

• Arrest without warrant for 

immigration related 

felonies which have been 

committed. ICE must be 

notified of arrest within 

24 hours. 

• Serve warrants. 

• Administer oath and take 

evidence to complete 

required criminal alien 

processing. 

• Prepare charging 

documents for ICE 

signature. 

• Issue immigration 

detainers and I-213. 

• Detain and transport alien 

to ICE approved detention 

facilities. 

perform pursuant to tiered 

level of priorities. 

• Execute search warrants. 

• Issue arrest warrants for 

immigration violations. 

ICE requires the Agency to focus 

its use of the 287(g) program in 

accord with ICE’s priorities. 

TFO/Supervision Provision did not exist. • If alien deportable, must 

contact ICE for approval 

before arresting. 

• Agency must ensure proper 

record checks completed, 

obtaining necessary 

court/conviction documents 

and upon arrest, processing 

through ENFORCE/IDENT 

and served with proper 

charging documents. 

• ICE must be notified and 

approve an enforcement 

operation before initiation. 

• ICE supervisor is responsible 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 


Page 80
 
 
Appendix D 

Side-by-Side Comparison of Old MOA vs. New MOA Template 

SECTION Old MOA New MOA 

for requesting and reviewing 

A-files for completeness, 

approval of all arrests, and 

TECS checks and input. 

• SAC/FOD must inform LEA 

of updated DHS policy. 

• ICE supervisor must audit 

LEA ENFORCE/IDENT 

system data periodically. 

• If errors in data input, ICE 

must notify LEA supervisor 

and request plan/timeline for 

correcting problem. 

• ICE will provide guidance 

for proper federal prosecution 

of case. 

• A-files must be signed by 

ICE to be considered 

complete. 

• A-files may only be stored at 

LEA only if ICE personnel 

are on site and able to secure 

A-files. 

DHS personnel must have access 

to facilities where files stored. 

TFO/Nominated 

Personnel 

See Section VI Nomination of 

Personnel 

See Section VI Nomination of 

Personnel 

Detention Model Participating LEA personnel 

has power and authority to: 

• Interrogate anyone 

believed to be alien as to 

his right to be or remain 

in United States. 

• Arrest without warrant 

any alien attempting to 

unlawfully enter the 

United States. 

• Arrest without warrant for 

immigration related 

felonies which have been 

committed. ICE must be 

notified of arrest within 

24 hours. 

Same, except deleted: 

• Arrest without warrant any 

alien attempting to 

unlawfully enter the United 

States. 

• Arrest without warrant for 

immigration related felonies 

that have been committed. 

ICE must be notified of arrest 

within 24 hours. 

New provision: 

ICE requires the Agency to focus 

its use of the 287(g) program in 

accord with ICE’s priorities. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 


Page 81
 
 
Appendix D 

Side-by-Side Comparison of Old MOA vs. New MOA Template 

SECTION Old MOA New MOA 

• Serve warrants 

• Administer oath and take 

evidence to complete 

required criminal alien 

processing. 

• Prepare charging 

documents for ICE 

signature. 

• Issue immigration 

detainers and I-213. 

• Detain and transport alien 

to ICE approved detention 

facilities. 

Detention/ Provision did not exist. “287(g) delegation of authority 

Supervision Detention Model is designed to 

identify and remove 

aliens...pursuant to the tiered 

level of priorities...” The roles 

and responsibilities include: 

• Notifying ICE within 24 

hours of any detainers placed 

under 287(g). 

• Coordinating with ICE 

transport of aliens in timely 

manner. 

• Ensuring proper record 

checks completed, obtaining 

necessary court/conviction 

documents and, upon arrest, 

processing through 

ENFORCE/IDENT and 

serving proper charging 

documents. 

• ICE must be notified and 

LEA must report all aliens 

claiming United States 

citizenship to FOD – FOD 

will notify DRO HQ. 

• ICE supervisor is responsible 

for requesting and reviewing 

A-files for completeness, 

approval of all arrests, and 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 


Page 82
 
 
Appendix D 

Side-by-Side Comparison of Old MOA vs. New MOA Template 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 


Page 83
 
 

SECTION Old MOA New MOA 

TECS checks and input. 

• FOD must inform Agency of 

updated DHS policy. 

• ICE supervisor must audit 

LEA ENFORCE/IDENT 

system data periodically. 

• If errors in data input, ICE 

must notify LEA supervisor 

and request plan/timeline for 

correcting problem. 

Detention/ 

Nominated 

Personnel 

See Section VI, Nomination 

of Personnel 

See Section VI, Nomination of 

Personnel 
Appendix E 

Major Contributors to This Report 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 


Page 84
 
 

Deborah Outten-Mills, Chief Inspector, Department of Homeland 

Security, Office of Inspector General, Office of Inspections 

Jacqueline Simms, Senior Inspector, Department of Homeland 

Security, Office of Inspector General, Office of Inspections 

Jennifer C. Kim, Inspector, Department of Homeland Security, 

Office of Inspector General, Office of Inspections 
The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update 
 


Page 85
 
 

 

 

 

Appendix F 

Report Distribution 

Department of Homeland Security 

Secretary 

Deputy Secretary 

Chief of Staff 

General Counsel 

Executive Secretariat 

Director, GAO/OIG Liaison Office 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Policy 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Public Affairs 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Legislative Affairs 

Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

ICE Audit Liaison 

Office of Management and Budget 

Chief, Homeland Security Branch 

DHS OIG Budget Examiner 

Congress 

Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees, as 

appropriate 
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND COPIES 

To obtain additional copies of this report, please call the Office of Inspector General (OIG) at (202) 254-4100, 

fax your request to (202) 254-4305, or visit the OIG web site at www.dhs.gov/oig. 

OIG HOTLINE 

To report alleged fraud, waste, abuse or mismanagement, or any other kind of criminal or noncriminal 

misconduct relative to department programs or operations: 

• Call our Hotline at 1-800-323-8603; 

• Fax the complaint directly to us at (202) 254-4292; 

• Email us at DHSOIGHOTLINE@dhs.gov; or 

• Write to us at: 

DHS Office of Inspector General/MAIL STOP 2600, 

Attention: Office of Investigations - Hotline, 

245 Murray Drive, SW, Building 410, 

Washington, DC 20528. 

The OIG seeks to protect the identity of each writer and caller.