Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 
 

OIG-10-63 March 2010 
Office ofInspector General 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Washington, DC 20528 

Homeland 

Security 

MAR - 4 2010 

Preface 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) was 

established by the Homeland Security Act of2002 (Public Law 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 the performance of 287(g) agreements between Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement and state and local law enforcement agencies. It is based on 

interviews with employees and officials of relevant agencies and institutions, direct 

observations, and a review of applicable documents. 

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

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

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

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

~~o(.~

Richard L. Skinner 

Inspector General 
Table of Contents/Abbreviations 
 

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steering Committees Have Not Been Used to Assess Immigration Enforcement 
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ICE Needs to Ensure Proper Guidance and Supervision for Variations
 

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

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

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

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

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

Table of Contents/Abbreviations 
 

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

Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Considerations Are Not Consistently 
 

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

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

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

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

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

ICE Needs to Establish 287(g) Data Collection and Reporting Requirements to 

Address Civil Rights Issues .........................................................................................25 
 

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

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

Duties ...........................................................................................................................27
 


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendations............................................................................................38 
 
Table of Contents/Abbreviations 
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

ICE Has Used Unauthorized Detention Facilities to Detain Aliens Identified 
 

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

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

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

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

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

Table
 

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

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

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

Appendices
 


Appendix A: Purpose, Scope, and Methodology.......................................................62 
 

Appendix B: Management Comments to the Draft Report.......................................64 
 

Appendix C: 287(g) Application and Approval Process...........................................77 
 

Appendix D: ICE ACCESS Programs.......................................................................79 
 

Appendix E: 287(g) Program Jurisdictions...............................................................83 
 

Appendix F: Major Contributors to This Report ......................................................86 
 

Appendix G: Report Distribution ..............................................................................87 
 
Table of Contents/Abbreviations 
 

Abbreviations 

ACCESS 

CIS 

CLAIMS 

DHS 

DOJ 

DRO 

ENFORCE 

GAO 

ICE 

IDENT 

IEA 

IGSA 

IT 

JEO 

LEA 

LESC 

MOA 

NFTS 

NGO 

OCIO 

OI 

OIG 

OPR 

OSLC 

REPAT 

TFO 

U.S.C. 

Agreements of Cooperation in Communities to Enhance Safety and 

Security 

Central Index System 

Computer Linked Application Information Management System 

Department of Homeland Security 

Department of Justice 

Office of Detention and Removal Operations 

Enforcement Case Tracking System 

Government Accountability Office 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

Automated Biometric Identification System 

immigration enforcement agent 

Inter-Governmental Service Agreement 

information technology 

jail enforcement officer 

law enforcement agency 

Law Enforcement Services Center 

Memorandum of Agreement 

National File Tracking System 

nongovernmental organization 

Office of the Chief Information Officer 

Office of Investigations 

Office of Inspector General 

Office of Professional Responsibility 

Office of State and Local Coordination 

Removal of Eligible Parolees Accepted for Transfer 

task force officer 

United States Code 
OIG
 


Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General 

Executive Summary 

The Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement delegates federal immigration enforcement 

authorities to state and local law enforcement agencies through its 

authority under section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality 

Act, as amended. The Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, 

and Continuing Appropriations Act of 2009, and accompanying 

House Report 110-862, require that we report on the performance 

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

287(g) agreements set general parameters for program activities and 

establish a process for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to 

supervise and manage program activity. Pursuant to Memoranda of 

Agreement with state and local law enforcement agencies, 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement permits designated officers 

to perform certain immigration enforcement functions. 

We observed instances in which Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement and participating law enforcement agencies were not 

operating in compliance with the terms of the agreements. We also 

noted several areas in which Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

had not instituted controls to promote effective program operations 

and address related risks. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

needs to (1) establish appropriate performance measures and targets 

to determine whether program results are aligned with program 

goals; (2) develop guidance for supervising 287(g) officers and 

activities; (3) enhance overall 287(g) program oversight; (4) 

strengthen the review and selection process for law enforcement 

agencies requesting to participate in the program; (5) establish data 

collection and reporting requirements to address civil rights and civil 

liberties concerns; (6) improve 287(g) training programs; (7) 

increase access to and accuracy of 287(g) program information 

provided to the public; and (8) standardize 287(g) officers’ access to 

Department of Homeland Security information systems. 

We are making 33 recommendations for Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement to strengthen management controls and improve its 

oversight of 287(g). Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

concurred with 32 of the recommendations. 
 

Background 

In September 1996, Congress authorized the executive branch to 

delegate immigration enforcement authorities to state and local 

government agencies. The Illegal Immigration Reform and 

Immigrant Responsibility Act of 19961

 added section 287(g) to the 

Immigration and Nationality Act.

2 Under Section 287(g), the 

Secretary of Homeland Security is authorized to enter into 

agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies for the 

purpose of delegating immigration enforcement functions to select 

officers.3

 The law requires that this delegation of immigration 

enforcement authorities be executed through formal, written 

agreements. 

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

with state or local jurisdictions until 2002. Over the next 4 years, 

the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) delegated 

immigration enforcement authorities to six jurisdictions. After 

2006, however, increased interest in interior immigration 

enforcement at the state and local levels and more dedicated 

funding for federal 287(g) program efforts brought substantial 

growth to the program. As of June 2009, DHS had 66 active 

agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies (LEA) 

in 23 states, and 833 active 287(g) officers. 

The agreements are executed in the form of a Memorandum of 

Agreement (MOA) between the Assistant Secretary for 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the participating 

agency’s authorized representative. 287(g) agreements authorize 

participating officers to exercise a range of immigration 

enforcement functions that differ in terms of the program’s model 

and function. The MOAs define the scope and limitations of the 

authority to be designated to the LEA. 

MOAs identify 287(g) personnel eligibility standards, training 

requirements, and complaint-reporting procedures. The MOAs 

require state and local participants to enter program data into ICE 

information systems, and abide by federal civil rights statutes and 

regulations, including Department of Justice (DOJ) “Guidance 

Regarding the Use of Race by Federal Law Enforcement 

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

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.)
 


The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 2 
Agencies.” The agreements permit LEAs to perform immigration 

enforcement activities only under ICE supervision, and allow ICE 

to suspend or revoke participating officers’ authority at any time. 

MOAs also indicate which of two ICE program models the 

jurisdiction is to use. ICE authorizes participating jurisdictions to 

employ a jail enforcement model, task force model, or a 

combination of the two. 

�	 

�	 

Jail Enforcement Model. Under this model, 287(g) officers 

working in state and local detention facilities identify and 

process removable aliens who have been charged with or 

convicted of an offense. ICE refers to 287(g) officers 

operating in these settings as jail enforcement officers (JEO). 

JEOs generally work under the supervision of ICE Office of 

Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) personnel. 

Task Force Model. Under this model, 287(g) officers 

identify and process removable aliens in community 

settings. They do so during their regular duties as patrol 

officers, detectives, or criminal investigators; or in close 

coordination with ICE in task force settings. ICE refers to 

these 287(g) officers as task force officers (TFO). TFOs 

work under the supervision of ICE Office of Investigations 

(OI) personnel. 

287(g) officers are authorized to question aliens as to their 

immigration status and removability, serve warrants for 

immigration violations, and issue immigration detainers for state 

and local detention facilities to hold aliens for a short time after 

completing their sentence. 287(g) officers prepare charging 

documents for ICE agents’ signature that are used in immigration 

courts, processing aliens for removal, and transporting aliens to 

ICE detention facilities. Many are also authorized to arrest aliens 

attempting to unlawfully enter the United States, as well as aliens 

already unlawfully present. 

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

to replace existing agreements. ICE announced that only 

jurisdictions with newly signed agreements would be permitted to 

continue enforcing federal immigration laws, and provided 90 days 

for participating LEAs to sign a new agreement based on this 

template. As of October 2009, ICE had signed agreements with 61 

LEAs based on the revised MOA template. ICE had agreed in 

principle with 6 other LEAs on the terms of the new MOA 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 3 
template, but the MOAs for these LEAs were still pending final 

approval by a local governing body.4 

As shown in table 1, funding for the 287(g) program has increased 

significantly on an annual basis since FY 2006, when $5 million 

was allocated for ICE to facilitate agreements, to $54.1 million in 

FY 2009. 

Table 1. Allocated 287(g) Program Funding 

Fiscal 

Year in millions 

Funding Percentage 

Change 

2006 $5.0 

2007 $14.4 188% 

2008 $42.1 192% 

2009 $54.1 29% 

2010 $68.0 26% 

Source: ICE Office of State and Local Coordination. 

ICE does not provide direct funding to participating jurisdictions, 

although it does provide financing for officer supervision 

activities, training, and related expenses, as well as information 

technology (IT) equipment and services. Participating LEAs are 

responsible for salaries and benefits of their personnel performing 

immigration-related functions under the agreement. The LEAs are 

also responsible for travel costs, housing, and per diem associated 

with required training for participation in the program. ICE does, 

however, reimburse some jurisdictions for housing aliens in ICE 

custody at their facilities under separately negotiated InterGovernmental Service Agreements. 

Within DHS, management and oversight of the 287(g) program 

was initially provided by ICE OI. In December 2007, ICE 

transferred these responsibilities to the newly formed Office of 

State and Local Coordination (OSLC). In addition to setting 

program policy and providing oversight, OSLC oversees budget, 

asset management, and procurement services for the 287(g) 

program. OSLC coordinates with the ICE Office of Training and 

Development to design and deliver the 287(g) training program. 

OSLC also facilitates other ICE operations with state and local 

LEAs (see appendix D). 

OSLC was initially staffed by eight detailed employees. OSLC 

was authorized to hire eight employees in FY 2009, and requested 

4

 Refer to appendix E for a list of participating jurisdictions. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 4 
funding for an additional 21 for FY 2010. As of June 2009, OSLC 

had five full-time employees, 12 detailed staff members, and nine 

contractors. 

OI and DRO field offices provide day-to-day supervision and 

support for 287(g) officers. The ICE Office of the Chief 

Information Officer (OCIO) furnishes and installs IT equipment, 

and provides technical support for 287(g) officers’ DHS system 

access needs. 

Results of Review 

Overview of the 287(g) Program 

A primary objective of the 287(g) program is to enhance the safety and 

security of participating communities. Our review identified several 

aspects of the 287(g) program that are working to achieve program 

objectives, as well as challenges that may reduce its effectiveness. 

Benefits of the 287(g) Program 

DHS officials describe the 287(g) program as a force multiplier for 

ICE. According to ICE OI agents, 287(g) officers provide 

assistance such as following up on leads and performing 

investigative research and surveillance. DRO staff acknowledged 

the positive effect that 287(g) officers have had on their workload by 

identifying removable aliens, conducting interviews to determine 

alien status and removability, preparing charging documents, and 

entering alien information into ICE information systems. Assistance 

from 287(g) officers gives ICE greater flexibility in directing its 

immigration law enforcement resources and functions. 

Immigration enforcement efforts under the 287(g) program 

account for a significant portion of nationwide ICE removal 

activity. 287(g) officers identified 33,831 aliens who were 

removed from the United States by ICE in FY 2008, which 

represents 9.5% of all ICE removals during that fiscal year. In 

addition, the cross-designation of state and local patrol officers, 

detectives, investigators, and correctional officers working in 

conjunction with ICE allows local and state officers more latitude 

to investigate violent crimes, human smuggling, gang and 

organized crime activity, sexually related offenses, narcotics 

smuggling, and money laundering. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 5 
 

 

Table 2. 287(g) Encounters and Removals 

2006 2007 2008 2009 Total 

Individuals Identified for Removal 6,224 24,400 49,847 62,714 143,185 

Fugitive Aliens (Absconders) 3 112 750 1,816 2,681 

Previously Removed from US 482 3,547 6,433 7,952 18,414 

Source: ICE Office of State and Local Coordination. 

By using state and local LEA personnel to perform immigration 

enforcement functions, the federal government reduces its costs for 

these efforts. ICE is responsible for providing supervision, 

training, computer equipment, and its installation and support 

costs. Participating LEAs are responsible for all other expenses, 

including 287(g) officer salaries and benefits. Entry-level ICE 

special agents and immigration enforcement agents (IEA) cost 

approximately $269,784 and $137,666, respectively, during the 

first year of service.5 In contrast, participating 287(g) officers who 

perform similar functions cost ICE $20,252 during their first year 

of service.6

 As such, ICE has increased the number of officers 

participating in federal immigration enforcement efforts. As of 

July 2009, 833 active LEA officers were participating in the 287(g) 

program, which represents a 4% increase in the size of ICE’s 

workforce 

Challenges for the 287(g) Program 

The most extensive immigration enforcement role for state and 

local law enforcement agencies occurs as part of the 287(g) 

program. Through the program, state and local LEAs assume 

federal immigration enforcement powers. As such, the 287(g) 

program often assumes a high profile in communities in which it 

operates, and is one of DHS’ most visible and scrutinized 

programs at the state and local levels. 

ICE has taken measures to address related challenges and improve 

overall program management in FY 2009. These include preparing 

a draft OSLC strategic plan to identify key program tools, 

processes, and stakeholders, and align goals and objectives with 

DHS goals; communicating its immigration enforcement priorities 

5

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

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

expenses, uniforms, and furniture. 


6

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


equipment, equipment installation, and support.
 


The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 6 
to 287(g) program sites; setting a three-tier priority framework for 

arresting and detaining aliens identified through the program; and, 

developing standardized 287(g) agreements with partner 

jurisdictions. These measures represent positive steps in 

establishing a more effective program; however, significant 

challenges in administering the 287(g) program continue to exist. 

In delegating federal immigration enforcement authorities to state 

and local LEAs, ICE maintains responsibility for ensuring that 

local law enforcement officers function under the supervision of 

ICE officers. In addition, ICE must provide 287(g) officers with 

appropriate training on the complexities of immigration law and 

practice. The challenge for ICE is to balance its need for 

additional resources with efforts to ensure that these activities are 

conducted in accordance with the MOAs. In addition, ICE must 

ensure that its 287(g) efforts achieve a balance among immigration 

enforcement, local public safety priorities, and civil liberties. 

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

Agreements 

MOAs constitute the written agreement between ICE and the LEA to 

allow qualified personnel to perform certain functions of an immigration 

officer. However, 287(g) MOAs primarily consist of broad-ranging terms 

and conditions for ICE’s delegation of immigration enforcement 

authorities, with a limited number of specific requirements that direct dayto-day 287(g) operations. 

For areas of the MOA that provide specific guidance and requirements, we 

observed instances where 287(g) program practices were not in 

compliance with the MOA. 

�	 

�	 

Prior to July 2009, MOAs required ICE field offices and LEAs to 

establish steering committees to meet periodically to review and 

assess the immigration enforcement activities conducted by the 

participating personnel and to ensure compliance with MOAs. 

However, only one of the seven jurisdictions we visited had 

established a steering committee that met on a regular basis. 

MOAs indicate whether jurisdictions are authorized to perform 

immigration functions in community-based task force settings, jail 

enforcement settings, or both. The MOAs between ICE and four 

of the jurisdictions we visited indicated that 287(g) authority was 

to be used in a task force setting only; however, each of these 

jurisdictions had also used 287(g) authorities in jail settings. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 7 
� MOAs indicate that ICE will train 287(g) officers on the terms and 

limitations of the MOA and on public outreach and complaint 

procedures. However, 287(g) officers informed us that ICE 

instructors have not consistently delivered training on these topics 

during their basic training course. 

These three issues are addressed in more detail in our report, along with 

other areas in which ICE needs to provide increased guidance and 

direction to promote more effective and efficient 287(g) program 

operations. 

287(g) Performance Measures Do Not Align With Program 

Objectives 

Developing good performance measures is critical to ensure that programs 

are getting desired results. According to the Program Assessment Rating 

Tool used to achieve the goals of the Government Performance and 

Results Act, performance measurement indicates what a program is 

accomplishing and whether results are being achieved. It also provides 

managers with information on how resources and efforts should be 

allocated to ensure effectiveness and keep program partners focused on 

key program goals. Performance measures should be outcome oriented, 

relate to the overall program purpose, and have ambitious targets. 

According to ICE’s July 2009 MOA template, the purpose of 

collaborations between ICE and LEAs is to identify and process for 

removal criminal aliens who pose a threat to public safety or a danger to 

the community. ICE’s primary performance measure for the 287(g) 

program is the number of aliens encountered by 287(g) officers. ICE also 

collects information on the number of aliens identified through the 287(g) 

program who are subsequently removed by ICE. However, with 

performance measures that do not focus on aliens who pose a threat to 

public safety or are a danger to the community, there is reduced assurance 

that the goal of the 287(g) program is being met. 

ICE has developed a risk-based approach to ensure that program resources 

are allocated to identify and determine the immigration status of aliens 

arrested for crimes that pose the greatest risk to the public. To this end, 

ICE has identified categories of aliens that are a priority for arrest and 

detention, with the highest being Level 1 aliens. This category consists of 

those who have been convicted of or arrested for major drug offenses or 

violent offenses such as murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, and 

kidnapping. Level 2 aliens are those who have been convicted of or 

arrested for minor drug offenses or property offenses such as burglary, 

larceny, fraud, and money laundering. Level 3 includes aliens who have 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 8 
been convicted of or arrested for other offenses. 287(g) resources are to 

be prioritized according to these levels. However, although ICE has 

developed priorities for alien arrest and detention efforts, it has not 

established a process to ensure that the emphasis of 287(g) efforts is 

placed on aliens that fall within the highest priority level. 

We obtained arrest information for a sample of 280 aliens identified 

through the 287(g) program at four program sites we visited. Based on the 

arresting offense, 263, or 94%, were within one of the three priority levels; 

however, only 26, or 9%, were within Level 1, and 122, or 44%, were 

within Level 2. These results do not show that 287(g) resources have been 

focused on aliens who pose the greatest risk to the public. 

ICE performance measures do not account for task force officer 

investigations, prosecutions, or convictions. Information on task force 

officers’ investigative work and subsequent criminal prosecutions is 

maintained in TECS, the system ICE uses to track its investigations. 

However, ICE has not established any TECS reporting requirements for 

the program or used TECS information in any 287(g) program 

performance measures. 

With no specific target levels for arrest, detention, and removal priority 

levels, and with performance measures that do not account for all 

investigative work and criminal prosecutions, ICE cannot be assured that 

the 287(g) program is meeting its intended purpose, or that resources are 

being appropriately targeted toward aliens who pose the greatest risk to 

public safety and the community. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement: 

Recommendation #1: Establish a process to collect and maintain 

arrest, detention, and removal data for aliens in each priority level 

for use in determining the success of ICE’s focus on aliens who 

pose the greatest risk to public safety and the community. 

Recommendation #2: Develop procedures to ensure that 287(g) 

resources are allocated according to ICE’s priority framework. 

Recommendation #3: Establish and implement TECS data entry 

requirements that reflect investigative efforts and related 

prosecutions associated with the 287(g) program. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 9 
ICE Needs to Establish Guidance for Supervising 287(g) Officers 

and Activities 

The Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) “Standards for Internal 

Control in the Federal Government” emphasize the need for good human 

capital policies and practices, including proper supervision. 287(g) 

agreements specify that ICE personnel will supervise and direct 

immigration enforcement activities conducted by LEA officers. However, 

we observed inconsistencies in the level and type of supervision over 287(g) 

program officers and related activities in participating jurisdictions. This 

inconsistency could jeopardize the integrity of the 287(g) program and its 

ability to perform immigration enforcement activities appropriately. 

Field Office Staffing Plans Need to Incorporate 287(g) 

Supervisory Responsibilities 

ICE field offices are responsible for supervising and directing 

287(g) program activities, as well as ongoing activities in other 

ICE-directed programs. ICE has developed field office staffing 

plans for DRO and OI that reflect desired supervisory staffing 

ratios. However, the number of 287(g) officers supervised is not 

considered in field office staffing templates. 

ICE field office staffing templates establish a maximum employeeto-supervisor ratio of nine to one. The templates were developed 

for ICE supervisors to ensure adequate supervision and support of 

ICE employees. A similar staffing template that excludes 

administrative tasks should be designed to account for the added 

responsibilities that ICE field offices undertake in supervising 

287(g) officers. 

ICE supervisors with additional responsibility for 287(g) officers 

often maintained actual staffing levels in excess of staffing 

template recommendations. At one site we visited, an ICE 

supervisor was responsible for three ICE employees and nineteen 

287(g) officers. At another location, an ICE supervisor was 

responsible for two ICE employees and eighty 287(g) officers. 

In several locations, ICE supervisors are responsible for providing 

oversight for both 287(g) activities and other ICE programs. For 

example, in DRO field offices with the Criminal Alien Program or 

Secure Communities, many of the supervisors overseeing these 

programs also supervise 287(g) program activities as a collateral 

duty. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 10 
ICE managers in three field offices advised us that imbalances in 

supervisory staffing ratios can be attributed, in part, to 287(g) 

agreements being approved without field office requests for 

additional supervisory staff being filled. 

ICE supervisors have frequently delegated day-to-day direction of 

287(g) program activities to nonsupervisory ICE subordinates. At 

six of the seven sites we visited, we identified 287(g) officers who 

received guidance from nonsupervisory special agents and IEAs. 

These ICE agents said that they did not receive recognition, pay, or 

training for these additional duties. 

287(g) officers advised us that nonsupervisory ICE personnel who 

provide day-to-day guidance did not have the technical knowledge 

to serve in this capacity. 287(g) officers indicated that they 

received contradictory guidance from different ICE personnel, and 

were not able to obtain definitive instructions. They explained that 

this situation has resulted in uncertainties about the quality of their 

work and has hampered their productivity. 

ICE’s approach to 287(g) supervisory staffing has not consistently 

resulted in effective program supervision. To ensure that 287(g) 

activities are carried out in accordance with the MOA and other 

applicable guidance, ICE needs to implement a structure that 

ensures sufficient supervision of all 287(g) officers and related 

immigration enforcement activities. This issue should be 

addressed prior to any expansion of the 287(g) program. 

Recommendations 

We recommend the Assistant Secretary for Immigrations and 

Customs Enforcement: 

Recommendation #4: Establish a process to ensure effective 

supervision of 287(g) officers and immigration enforcement 

operations. 

Recommendation #5: Develop controls to ensure that supervisory 

responsibilities for 287(g) supervisors are considered when 

determining staffing ratios in ICE field offices. 

Recommendation #6: Ensure that 287(g) supervision is provided 

by authorized staff with the appropriate knowledge, skills, and 

abilities. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 11 
ICE Needs to Ensure Consistency in 287(g) Supervision 

We identified a pattern of inconsistencies in ICE supervisory 

practices regarding (1) the frequency and type of contact between 

287(g) officers and ICE agents, (2) ICE participation and oversight 

responsibilities in community-based federal immigration 

enforcement operations, and (3) feedback on the performance of 

287(g) officers. 

Communications Between ICE Supervisors and 287(g) Officers 

Communications between ICE supervisors and 287(g) officers 

varied widely. We noted levels of communication between ICE 

supervisors and agents and 287(g) officers that ranged from daily 

interaction to no contact at all. At some locations, ICE supervisors 

and agents interact daily with 287(g) officers. At one location, 

however, ICE agents responsible for supervising the 287(g) 

program acknowledged that they had no direct contact with dozens 

of 287(g) officers within their jurisdiction. 

ICE agents who are co-located with the 287(g) officers they 

supervise have frequent face-to-face contact. ICE agents who 

supervise 287(g) operations from offsite locations rely on 

telephonic and electronic communications to provide guidance to 

officers. ICE agents from one field office reported visiting a 

remote program site they are responsible for only once a month, 

and said that they focus on reviewing 287(g) officer data entries to 

determine whether additional guidance is needed. 

Community-Based Immigration Enforcement Operations 

Variations in supervisory approaches are also evident in ICE 

agents’ participation in 287(g) community-based immigration 

enforcement operations. At some locations, ICE agents were 

present for all TFO activities that could result in an arrest. 

However, at other locations, ICE agents were rarely present when 

TFOs arrested suspected aliens under 287(g) authority. 

In some locations, ICE supervisors required TFOs to prepare 

operational plans for field activities and submit them to ICE for 

review and approval prior to implementation. At another program 

site, ICE did not require TFOs to provide operational plans even 

for large-scale undertakings; however, LEA representatives at this 

location provided ICE with operational plans as a courtesy. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 12 
Because 287(g) officers also enforce state and local laws, ICE 

supervisors must decide when it is necessary to supervise their 

activities. For example, one LEA advised ICE that its crime sweep 

operations were predicated under state law. Therefore, ICE agents 

decided that they did not need to be present for these operations or 

approve related operational plans. However, our review of data on 

nine crime sweeps conducted by this LEA showed that more than 

half of the arrests during two sweeps were based strictly on federal 

immigration violations. In addition, more than half the arrests for 

all nine crime sweep operations resulted in federal immigration 

charges. 

To date, ICE has not issued guidance clarifying field office 

responsibilities concerning their participation in LEA field 

operations or approval of operational plans for immigration 

enforcement activities. 

Supervisory Feedback on 287(g) Officer Performance 

ICE supervisory practices related to 287(g) officer performance 

feedback also varied among sites. ICE agents at some locations 

provided formal feedback for LEA supervisors to use in preparing 

overall performance appraisals for 287(g) officers. In other 

locations, ICE agents provided performance feedback to 287(g) 

officers’ LEA supervisors informally. This feedback is almost 

always oral. At one site, ICE agents provided oral performance 

feedback directly to 287(g) officers, but not to their LEA 

supervisors. 

In the absence of consistent supervision over immigration 

enforcement activities performed by 287(g) jurisdictions, there is 

no assurance that the program is achieving program goals and 

operating in accordance with the MOA and other guidance. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement: 

Recommendation #7: Develop and implement 287(g) field 

supervision guidance that includes, at a minimum (1) the frequency 

and type of contact required between 287(g) officers and ICE 

supervisors; (2) the preparation, review, and approval of operational 

plans for community-based immigration enforcement activities; and 

(3) performance feedback requirements for 287(g) officers. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 13 
ICE Needs to Enhance 287(g) Program Oversight 

According to MOAs in place at the time of our fieldwork, ICE could 

provide program oversight through several methods, including conducting 

assessments of current MOAs and establishing local steering committees 

that review and assess immigration enforcement activities conducted by 

local LEAs. However, ICE has not used these methods effectively to 

enhance oversight of 287(g) operations and activities. As a result, ICE has 

limited its ability to ensure that local jurisdictions are conducting 287(g) 

activities as intended. 

A Comprehensive Review Process Is Needed to Assess Ongoing 

287(g) Agreements 

MOAs include language that allows either ICE or participating 

LEAs to terminate agreements at any time. However, ICE had not 

established a comprehensive process for assessing, modifying, and 

terminating current agreements. 

The MOAs between ICE and four of the jurisdictions we visited 

indicated that 287(g) authority was to be used in a task force 

setting only. However, each of these jurisdictions had also used 

287(g) authorities in jail settings for several years. In one of these 

locations, both ICE and LEA managers were aware of this 

discrepancy; however, ICE had not modified the MOA to reflect 

the program activity in effect, or required the LEA to amend its 

program to comply with the MOA. As of June 2009, ICE had 

terminated one agreement in response to a request from the 

participating LEA. 

The new MOA template ICE issued in July 2009 includes a 

requirement for ICE and the participating LEAs to review their 

agreements after 3 years to determine the need for modification, 

extension, or termination. During our fieldwork, ICE began 

preparing a draft directive for conducting these reviews. The draft 

includes a process for OSLC to determine the cost-effectiveness of 

the program and whether it continues to be in the best interest of 

ICE. However, it does not include the specific types of 

information that ICE should consider as part of this process. 

Key aspects related to an LEA’s 287(g) operation that are not 

included in the draft directive for reviewing MOAs include 

(1) current or previous concerns expressed by field office staff or 

by other DHS offices with relevant information about a particular 

jurisdiction; (2) media attention or community concerns that 

contribute to adverse conclusions about the 287(g) program; (3) 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 14 
lawsuits or complaints; (4) potential civil rights and civil liberties 

violations; and (5) ICE’s ability to provide effective supervision 

and oversight. These areas should be assessed as situations 

warrant. Such reviews could occur outside the 3-year review cycle 

outlined in the MOA template. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement: 

Recommendation #8: Establish and implement a comprehensive 

process for conducting periodic reviews, as well as reviews on an 

as-needed basis, to determine whether to modify, extend, or 

terminate 287(g) agreements. At a minimum, this process should 

include an assessment of (1) current or previous concerns 

expressed by field office staff; (2) media attention or community 

concerns that contribute to negative or inappropriate conclusions 

about the 287(g) program; (3) lawsuits or complaints; (4) potential 

civil rights and civil liberties violations; and (5) ICE’s ability to 

provide effective supervision and oversight. 

Steering Committees Have Not Been Used to Assess 

Immigration Enforcement Activities 

Prior to July 2009, MOAs between ICE and 287(g) LEAs required 

a steering committee to review and assess immigration 

enforcement activities, with a focus on ensuring compliance with 

MOAs. However, few program sites have established steering 

committees. Only one of the seven jurisdictions we visited had a 

steering committee that met on a regular basis. ICE’s Office of 

Professional Responsibility (OPR) identified only one active 

steering committee at eight other program sites in its reports of 

inspections conducted from May 2008 to March 2009. 

At a minimum, committee membership was to include the heads of 

the LEA and the ICE field office that supervises participating 

officers. However, past MOAs did not specifically require 

participation from community stakeholders or experts to provide 

advice and guidance on the direction of the program. Several 

community and nongovernmental organization (NGO) 

representatives said that it would be valuable to have community 

perspectives represented in these forums, and that external 

stakeholder involvement would increase transparency and 

accountability. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 15 
The revised MOA template released in July 2009 eliminated the 

requirement for steering committees. ICE officials determined that 

there was no need for formal committee meetings since LEA and 

ICE representatives generally communicate on a regular basis to 

address program issues. 

Steering committees served as the sole oversight bodies described 

in 287(g) agreements with a focus on ensuring compliance with the 

MOAs at the local level. Steering committees should not be 

narrowly viewed as a means to enhance ICE and LEA 

communications, but as a way to (1) improve program oversight 

and direction, (2) identify issues and concerns regarding 

immigration enforcement activities, (3) increase transparency, and 

(4) offer stakeholders opportunities to communicate communitylevel perspectives. By eliminating the requirement for steering 

committees and not fostering participation by community 

stakeholders, ICE reduces its ability to gain an independent 

perspective on 287(g) operations. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement: 

Recommendation #9: Require 287(g) program sites to maintain 

steering committees with external stakeholders, with a focus on 

ensuring compliance with the MOA. 

Suitability Reviews Have Not Been Performed Consistently 

MOAs in effect at the time of our fieldwork required state and 

local law enforcement officers nominated for the 287(g) program 

to be able to qualify for appropriate federal security clearances. 

ICE procedures require that all 287(g) officers be vetted before 

they are authorized to perform immigration enforcement functions 

or provided access to DHS systems. However, ICE had not 

established a system to ensure that suitability reviews were 

conducted for all 287(g) officers. 

OPR may determine that a 287(g) officer candidate is unsuitable 

based on an indication of misconduct or negligence in 

employment, criminal or dishonest conduct, or intentional false 

statements. Other findings that may warrant an unsuitable 

determination include deception or fraud, refusal to furnish 

testimony, alcohol abuse, use of illegal or controlled substances, 

knowing or willful engagement in acts designed to overthrow the 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 16 
government, or any statutory or regulatory bar from accessing ICE 

systems. 

From the initiation of the 287(g) program through 2007, ICE OI 

determined officers’ suitability for immigration enforcement 

functions on an informal basis. ICE OI did not maintain records 

documenting the process or outcome of 287(g) officers’ suitability 

reviews. 

In May 2007, when ICE OPR assumed responsibility from OI for 

ensuring that suitability requirements were met, it was unable to 

confirm the suitability status of 287(g) officers who were active at 

that time. Therefore, an OPR representative reported to us that it 

vetted all 287(g) officers again as a precaution to ensure their 

suitability for performing federal immigration enforcement 

activities. However, OPR did not have documentation that showed 

it had vetted all 287(g) officers, even though ICE granted them 

287(g) authorities and provided access to DHS information 

systems. 

OSLC maintains records and monitors 287(g) officers’ program 

and training status. We reviewed OSLC and OPR records to 

identify instances where suitability determinations had not been 

performed for current or former 287(g) officers. We compared 

OSLC training records to OPR records for 287(g) officers who had 

received positive suitability determinations, and found that OSLC 

records identified 57 officers for whom OPR had no record of a 

suitability review. Of these, nine were active 287(g) officers. In 

addition to these officers, OSLC records showed another officer as 

active, even though OPR had not completed the officer’s suitability 

review. 

OCIO maintains records on 287(g) officers’ DHS information 

system access and activity. We compared OCIO records to OPR 

information to determine whether all 287(g) officers with access to 

DHS information systems had undergone suitability reviews. One 

287(g) officer had active DHS accounts even though OPR had 

revoked his 287(g) officer status. Eight other 287(g) officers for 

whom OPR had not completed a suitability review had access to 

DHS systems. One of these 287(g) officers was actively using his 

account. 

ICE cannot ensure that 287(g) officers meet the appropriate 

qualifications to perform immigration enforcement duties without 

effective controls to ensure that officers are properly vetted. ICE’s 

current vetting practices expose DHS information systems to 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 17 
increased risk of data integrity issues and inappropriate or 

unauthorized access. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement: 

Recommendation #10: Establish a process to periodically crosscheck OPR, OSLC, and OCIO records to confirm 287(g) officers’ 

eligibility and suitability to exercise authorities granted under 

287(g) MOAs. 

Guidelines for Handling Complaints and Allegations Against 

287(g) Officers Need to Be Developed 

ICE field offices are responsible for monitoring all 287(g) officers 

under their supervision to determine whether they have engaged in 

conduct that would make them unsuitable to continue in a federal 

immigration enforcement capacity. To assist in this effort, the July 

2009 MOA template requires LEAs to immediately notify ICE of 

any complaint or allegation filed against 287(g) personnel involving 

(1) violations of the MOA or (2) any actions that might result in 

employer discipline, a criminal investigation, or a civil lawsuit. In 

addition, it requires LEAs to report complaints received regarding 

non-287(g) personnel performing federal immigration functions. 

However, ICE OPR agents and LEA internal investigation 

representatives whom we interviewed were either not aware of this 

requirement or did not have a clear understanding of their respective 

roles in the process. 

ICE can suspend or revoke an officer’s 287(g) authority if the 

officer (1) performs immigration enforcement activities that are not 

within the scope of the MOA or (2) uses immigration enforcement 

authority in a way that could reflect negatively on ICE or create an 

appearance of impropriety or a conflict of interest. LEA internal 

investigations units are responsible for investigating related 

allegations and information and reporting them to ICE field offices 

and OPR. However, ICE has not provided guidance on how 

information about allegations, complaints, and other indications of 

misconduct should be reported, maintained, or used as part of the 

suitability determination process. In addition, information 

regarding complaints, allegations, or the results of LEA 

investigations is not used as part of the recertification process. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 18 
At the time of our fieldwork, ICE did not retain information 

regarding allegations and investigations of 287(g) personnel or 

non-287(g) personnel exercising federal immigration authorities in 

violation of MOAs. Such data should be maintained and used as 

part of a continuing process to ensure adequate oversight of 

officers performing immigration enforcement activities. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement: 

Recommendation #11: Establish a process to ensure that LEAs 

report to OPR any allegations or complaints against 287(g) officers 

and other LEA personnel alleged to have improperly performed 

immigration enforcement activities, as well as the results of any 

subsequent investigations. 

Recommendation #12: Establish and implement procedures on 

how the results of complaints, allegations, and subsequent 

investigations against LEA personnel conducting immigration 

enforcement activities should be maintained and used as part of the 

suitability and recertification processes. 

ICE Needs to Ensure Proper Guidance and Supervision for 

Variations Within the Jail Enforcement and Task Force 

Program Models 

The 287(g) program incorporates both a jail enforcement and a 

task force program model. ICE has used these models as the basis 

for delegating specific authorities to participating officers and 

developing model-specific program requirements that incorporate 

qualification standards and supervision requirements. 

Distinctions between these two program models are outlined in the 

revised MOA template released in July 2009. According to these 

revisions, TFOs are authorized to perform immigration functions 

that differ from those allowed for JEOs. TFOs are also subject to 

different selection and supervision requirements. These 

distinctions are appropriate because of the differences in operating 

environments, but do not take into consideration the wide 

variations that exist within each program model as part of daily 

field operations. 

During our fieldwork, we noted operational differences within the 

same program model as implemented by various LEAs. However, 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 


Page 19 

ICE guidance for each program model does not take into 

consideration the different levels of guidance or supervision that 

may be required to monitor immigration enforcement activities 

associated with each variation. 

Jail Enforcement Model 

During our site visits, we noted that jurisdictions operating under 

the jail enforcement model screen significantly different 

populations. For example, four jurisdictions screen only convicted 

criminals for immigration status and removability. The remaining 

jurisdictions screen the immigration status of all individuals 

detained in their facilities. These differences in jail model 

approaches may justify different operating protocols and 

requirements to address differences in risk. 

Task Force Model 

Task force model operations vary more widely than jail 

enforcement operations. Some task force programs are structured 

around a task force with an ICE-led hierarchy, with a specific 

criminal investigative focus. Other task force operations include 

287(g) investigators directed by LEA managers with a primary 

focus on violations of state laws such as identity theft and identity 

fraud, for which access to immigration information is beneficial. 

Still other task force operations include 287(g) officers in patrol 

vehicles who use immigration authorities following traffic stops or 

domestic violence issues. Each of these operations is associated 

with different levels of vulnerability to civil rights or MOA 

violations that may require distinct approaches to supervision. 

Based on the risks of civil rights violations or other actions not in 

compliance with the MOA, different jurisdictions’ approaches to 

carrying out immigration enforcement activities may require 

different levels of supervision and guidance. To ensure the 

effectiveness of each task force operation, ICE needs to establish 

corresponding instructions and protocols and provide appropriate 

levels of supervision. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 


Page 20 

 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement: 

Recommendation #13: Establish specific operating protocols and 

requirements for operational variances identified in task force and 

jail enforcement program models. 

More Frequent Inspections of 287(g) Program Sites Could 

Improve Overall Program Operations 

ICE OPR began conducting field inspections of 287(g) programs 

in 2008, and was appropriated funds for this purpose in FY 2009.7 

OPR performs inspections to assess ICE field office effectiveness 

in supervising and supporting 287(g) programs, and ICE and LEA 

compliance with ICE policies and the terms of the MOAs. 

As of September 2009, OPR had completed twenty-four 287(g) 

field inspections and 13 inspection reports. OPR inspections have 

identified program activities that were not in compliance with 

MOAs, and recommended appropriate corrective actions. These 

reports have also highlighted significant program issues and 

concerns, including credentialing and IT deficiencies, and 

inconsistencies in data entry and collection. 

In March 2009, OSLC formalized its process for addressing OPR 

recommendations by instituting semiannual reporting on the 

progress of corrective actions until the recommendations are 

closed. Continuing management attention to OPR inspection 

results may help ensure that program activities are in compliance 

with the MOAs, and assist ICE in refining program activities and 

guidance. 

At current staffing levels, OPR plans to inspect 287(g) program 

sites once every 3 to 4 years. Given the sensitive nature of the 

287(g) program and OPR’s success in identifying issues for 

management attention, ICE should consider inspecting program 

sites more frequently to provide increased oversight. A more 

aggressive inspection process may require a corresponding 

increase in inspection staffing levels. 

7

 See the Explanatory Statement associated with Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and 

Continuing Appropriations Act of 2009 (P.L. 110-329), Div. D, Title II, p. 636. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 21 
Recommendation 

We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement: 

Recommendation #14: Study the feasibility and appropriateness 

of increasing the frequency of OPR 287(g) inspections, and report 

findings to the OIG. 

Application Review and Selection Process Needs to Be Enhanced 

The current process for reviewing applications for 287(g) program 

participation does not include an appropriate level of emphasis on civil 

rights issues. In addition, data from ICE field offices responsible for 

supervising approved 287(g) programs are not always properly considered 

in the decision regarding a jurisdiction’s approval for participation. 

Because of the sensitivity of civil rights issues and the need for 

appropriate supervision of 287(g) officers, ICE must ensure that civil 

liberties concerns and the ability to provide adequate supervision are 

included in the selection process. 

Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Considerations Are Not 

Consistently Weighed in the 287(g) Application Review and 

Selection Process 

One aspect of DHS’ primary mission is to ensure that civil rights 

and civil liberties are not diminished by its efforts, activities and 

programs aimed at securing the homeland.8

 In its draft strategic 

plan, OSLC states that it seeks to build trusting partnerships with 

communities to further enforcement of federal immigration laws. 

This can be achieved, in part, through mutual respect for and 

recognition of civil rights and civil liberties. Therefore, the 

potential effects of a 287(g) agreement on a community’s civil 

rights and civil liberties should be part of the application process. 

OSLC explained that a jurisdiction’s civil rights and civil liberties 

history has been a consideration in past site selection efforts. 

However, an emphasis on civil rights and civil liberties was not 

formally included in the 287(g) application, review, and selection 

process, or in draft procedures for modifying, extending, or 

terminating existing MOAs. 287(g) applications do not include 

information concerning civil rights complaints, lawsuits, or consent 

decrees that applicant jurisdictions are subject to, or other 

information that may be useful in assessing the civil rights and civil 

8 6 U.S.C. 111 (b)(1)(G). 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 22 
liberties standing of the applicant. In 2009, OSLC increased the 

number of ICE offices that participate in the selection process; 

however, none of these offices are responsible for assessing civil 

rights and civil liberties issues. 

In a January 2009 report, GAO disclosed that more than half of the 

twenty-nine 287(g) LEAs it contacted during its audit reported that 

community members in their jurisdictions expressed concerns that 

the use of 287(g) authority would lead to racial profiling and 

intimidation by law enforcement officials.9 NGOs critical of the 

287(g) program have charged that ICE entered into agreements 

with LEAs that have checkered civil rights records, and that by 

doing so, ICE has increased the likelihood of racial profiling and 

other civil rights violations. 

Claims of civil rights violations have surfaced in connection with 

several LEAs participating in the program. Two LEAs currently 

enrolled in the program were defendants in past racial profiling 

lawsuits that they settled by agreeing to collect extensive data on 

their officers’ contacts with the public during traffic stops, and 

adopt policies to protect the community against future racial 

profiling. Another jurisdiction is the subject of (1) an ongoing 

racial profiling lawsuit related to 287(g) program activities; (2) a 

lawsuit alleging physical abuse of a detained alien; and (3) a DOJ 

investigation into alleged discriminatory police practices, 

unconstitutional searches and seizures, and national origin 

discrimination. DHS is a defendant in a lawsuit regarding the 

allegedly improper detention and deportation of a U.S. citizen by a 

287(g) officer from yet another participating LEA. A 

determination in these lawsuits has not been made. 

Several 287(g) program observers have suggested that ICE should 

closely review jurisdictions with a history of racial profiling before 

allowing them to enter into 287(g) agreements. Some NGOs assert 

that 287(g) authority should be revoked from certain LEAs 

currently participating in the program on the basis of civil rights 

and civil liberties violations. 

To address these issues, ICE needs to direct increased attention to 

the civil rights and civil liberties records of current and prospective 

287(g) jurisdictions. We recognize the difficulties involved in 

assessing a jurisdiction’s past performance in this regard and 

forecasting future vulnerability to civil rights abuses. Nevertheless, 

9

 GAO, Immigration Enforcement — Better Controls Needed over Program Authorizing State and Local 

Enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws (GAO-09-109), January 30, 2009, preface. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 23 
ICE must include consideration of civil rights and civil liberties 

factors in the site selection and MOA review processes. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement: 

Recommendation #15: Require 287(g) applicants to provide 

information about past and pending civil rights allegations, and 

incorporate a civil rights and civil liberties review as part of the 

documented 287(g) site selection and MOA review processes. 

Recommendation #16: Include a representative on the advisory 

committee to provide insights into civil rights and civil liberties 

issues as part of the approval process. 

Data from ICE Field Offices Need to Be Fully Evaluated 

During the 287(g) Application Review and Selection Process 

Recently, ICE has taken steps to enhance its initial application 

review process for prospective 287(g) LEAs (see appendix C). 

ICE officials stated that 287(g) applicants are assessed to 

determine whether other programs and assistance offered under the 

ICE Agreements of Cooperation in Communities to Enhance 

Safety and Security (ACCESS) program better meet their needs.10 

As of June 2009, ICE had approved 66 of 117 applications for 

participation in the 287(g) program.11 As of July 2009, ICE had 

not approved or denied any 287(g) applications during FY 2009 

pending the issuance of a new MOA template. 

OSLC reports that it relies on OI and DRO field offices to help 

identify the best-fit ACCESS partnership options for interested 

jurisdictions. OSLC staff reported that ICE field offices expressed 

concerns about 69 LEA applications for 287(g) authority and 

recommended that these applications not be approved. ICE denied 

applications for 53 of these 69 applications, but approved the 

remaining 16 despite objections from the field units responsible for 

providing direct program supervision. 

10 Refer to appendix D for a complete list of ICE ACCESS programs and services. 
 11 The Immigration and Naturalization Service approved one application for a 287(g) program before ICE 
 

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

since been terminated. 
 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 24 
In several other cases, ICE field offices supported approving 

287(g) applications only under certain conditions, such as an 

increase in staff to ensure adequate supervision of 287(g) officers. 

However, ICE approved some of these applications without 

satisfying these field office conditions. As a result, field offices 

did not have the staff that they deemed appropriate to provide 

sufficient support and supervision. 

ICE cited a number of reasons for denying 287(g) applications, and 

sometimes indicated multiple reasons for denying individual 

applications. According to OSLC information, the need for more 

field staff for supervision factored into the decision to deny more 

than half of the 51 applications disapproved. ICE denied about a 

quarter of applications, in part, because of insufficient ICE funding 

for either 287(g) officer training or IT requirements. ICE denied 

other applications because it determined the jurisdiction had a 

limited need for the program or believed its needs could be met by 

other ICE programs and services. In other cases, ICE denied 

applications because of limitations in detention space to house 

aliens who could be identified through the prospective 287(g) 

program. Some jurisdictions reconsidered or withdrew their 

applications. 

Because of the need to provide sufficient oversight to ensure that 

287(g) officers properly carry out immigration enforcement 

activities, ICE needs to make certain that input from ICE field 

offices is fully considered and evaluated during the application 

review and selection process. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement: 

Recommendation #17: Develop a process to ensure that 

information submitted from ICE field offices as part of the 

application review process is fully taken into consideration before 

a final decision is made. This recommendation should include 

provisional approvals that require resource considerations to 

ensure proper supervision and oversight. 

ICE Needs to Establish 287(g) Data Collection and Reporting 

Requirements to Address Civil Rights Issues 

GAO’s “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” 

recognize the need for program managers to have data to determine 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 25 
whether they are meeting their agencies’ goals. Although 287(g) MOAs 

include basic guidelines for data collection and reporting, they do not 

require ICE or LEAs to collect information that would assist in addressing 

allegations of civil rights violations within 287(g) programs. 

To address concerns regarding arrests of individuals for minor offenses 

being used as a guise to initiate removal proceedings, DHS officials said 

that the MOA requires participating LEAs to pursue all criminal charges 

that originally caused an individual’s arrest. However, ICE does not 

require LEAs to collect and report on the prosecutorial or judicial 

disposition of the initial arrests that led to aliens’ subsequent immigration 

processing under the 287(g) program. This information could help to 

establish how local prosecutors and judges regarded an officer’s original 

basis for arresting aliens. Without this type of information, ICE cannot be 

assured that law enforcement officers are not making inappropriate arrests 

to subject suspected aliens to vetting by 287(g) officers for possible 

removal. 

In one facility that screens all individuals detained, an ICE supervisor 

described a situation in which a state highway patrol officer transported an 

accident victim to a participating county jail to determine the victim’s 

immigration status. The ICE supervisor explained that the accident victim 

was not brought to the jail to be charged with an offense, but to have a 

287(g) officer determine the victim’s deportability. The victim was 

detained until a 287(g) officer could respond. 

To determine the potential for inappropriate 287(g)-related arrests and 

detentions, we requested specific information on the prosecutorial 

disposition of arrests from the seven jurisdictions in our review. However, 

because ICE does not require participants to collect this information, only 

four of the seven jurisdictions were able to provide us with prosecutorial 

data. These jurisdictions provided data on 263 alien arrests for criminal 

charges. Our analysis showed that authorities initiated the prosecution of 

260 of 263, or 99%, of the aliens arrested for criminal charges. While 

these data indicate that prosecutors have pursued charges for 287(g)­

related arrests, it does not provide confirmation that civil rights violations 

have not occurred. 

ICE does not collect other information that could assist in determining 

whether civil rights violations have occurred. Information that would be 

useful in assessing whether unlawful profiling has occurred include: (1) 

the basis for and circumstances surrounding TFO stops, searches, and 

arrests, and (2) information on the race and ethnicity of individuals 

stopped, searched, and arrested by TFOs. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 26 
ICE should consider requiring LEAs to maintain data regarding (1) the 

circumstances and basis for TFO contacts with the public, (2) the race and 

ethnicity of those contacted and arrested, and (3) the prosecutorial and 

judicial disposition of 287(g) arrests. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement: 

Recommendation #18: Establish collection and reporting 

standards that provide objective data to increase monitoring of 

methods participating jurisdictions use in carrying out 287(g) 

functions, and their effect on civil liberties. Collection and 

reporting requirements could include (1) the circumstances and 

basis for TFO contacts with the public, (2) the race and ethnicity of 

those contacted, and (3) the prosecutorial and judicial disposition 

of 287(g) arrests. 

287(g) Training Does Not Fully Prepare Officers for Immigration 

Enforcement Duties 

GAO’s “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” 

emphasize management’s commitment to competence. This guidance 

states that all personnel need to possess and maintain a level of 

competence that allows them to accomplish their assigned duties. It also 

states that management should identify knowledge and skills needed for 

jobs, and provide necessary training. 

LEAs serving as 287(g) officers must maintain broad-based knowledge of 

their role and the constraints on methods of enforcement in a legal and 

institutional system that operates differently from local criminal justice 

systems. State and local enforcement of federal immigration law must 

account for local, state, and federal laws that govern the rights of 

community residents and the obligations of localities. Our analysis of the 

training provided to new 287(g) officers identified several areas that need 

to be enhanced to ensure that 287(g) officers have the skills to carry out 

their immigration enforcement functions effectively. 

287(g) Basic Training Does Not Satisfy MOA Requirements 

287(g) MOAs require participating officers to pass examinations 

equivalent to those given to ICE officers before they can use 

federal immigration enforcement authorities. To assess 

compliance with this requirement, we compared examinations 

administered to 287(g) officers with those given to ICE IEAs who 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 27 
perform similar functions. Examinations given to 287(g) officers 

during basic training are comparable in length, complexity, and 

subject matter to those taken by entry-level IEAs, and require the 

same 70% passing score, with a single retest opportunity. 

The MOAs require basic training on 10 subjects: 

�	 

�	 

�	 

�	 

�	 

�	 

�	 

�	 

�	 

�	 

Terms and limitations of the MOA 

Scope of immigration officer authority 

Relevant immigration law 

ICE Use of Force Policy 

Civil rights laws 

Department of Justice “Guidance Regarding the Use of 

Race by Federal Law Enforcement Agencies” 

Public outreach and complaint procedures 

Liability issues 

Cross-cultural issues 

Obligations under federal law and the Vienna Convention 

on Consular Relations to make proper notification upon the 

arrest or detention of a foreign national 

For seven of the subjects, the course content and length are either 

comparable to or exceed related training provided to IEAs. 

However, the curriculum provides limited coverage of three topics: 

civil rights law; the terms and limitations of the MOA; and public 

outreach and complaint procedures. 

Training on Civil Rights Law 

New 287(g) officers receive a brief training block on civil rights 

law. The lecture covers the authorities and duties of law 

enforcement officers; search, seizures, and rights; the Fourth 

amendment; and, due process requirements for aliens and other 

persons encountered during immigration enforcement activities. In 

contrast, entry-level IEAs receive an additional 20 hours of 

instruction on the Fourth Amendment and its protections related to 

stops, searches, seizures, and arrests. 

Some 287(g) jurisdictions require their officers to take annual 

courses on civil rights and civil liberties protections. Moreover, 

state and local LEAs require their sworn officers with arrest 

authority to attend and graduate from certified law enforcement 

academies that provide some instruction on civil rights law. There 

are no national requirements, however, on the length of instruction 

law enforcement academies are to provide in this area. Some law 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 28 
 

enforcement academies devote as much as 24 hours of instruction 

on Fourth Amendment protections, while others set aside 4 hours 

of training for this area. 

287(g) officers exercise their authorities in community settings and 

need a thorough understanding of Fourth Amendment protections, 

including when it is appropriate to consider race or national origin 

when making a stop or determining whether to question an 

individual. In some cases, TFOs have received instruction on 

Fourth Amendment protections in law enforcement academies. 

However, there are no national requirements regarding the length 

of instruction law enforcement academies are to provide on Fourth 

Amendment protections. 

Training on Terms and Limitations of the MOA and Public 

Outreach and Complaint Procedures 

The terms and limitations of the MOA and public outreach and 

complaint procedures are not sufficiently addressed in ICE’s basic 

training course. The course schedule shows that these subjects are 

to be presented in 1-hour training modules. However, 287(g) 

officers informed us that, despite its inclusion in the course 

schedule, ICE instructors have not consistently delivered the 

training module. Officers in several locations advised us that they 

did not receive instruction on the MOA or complaint process as 

part of the basic training course, and were unfamiliar with both. In 

addition, 287(g) officers are not tested on their understanding of 

these topics. 

Local immigration enforcement activities encompass complex laws 

in an evolving environment. As such, training is a critical factor in 

helping to ensure that (1) 287(g) officers exert immigration 

enforcement authorities in accordance with federal and local 

immigration laws, (2) exposure to civil rights violations is 

minimized, and (3) officers are familiar with the terms and 

limitations of the agreements under which they operate, as well as 

the process for reporting and addressing related complaints. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement: 

Recommendation #19: Determine whether the current timeframe 

for civil rights law training is adequate to achieve appropriate 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 29 
coverage, and modify timeframes and coverage as needed to 

ensure that sufficient training is provided. 

Recommendation #20: Ensure that 287(g) basic training includes 

coverage of MOAs, and public outreach and complaint procedures. 

Hands-On Training in Immigration Systems and Processing 

Needs to Be Increased 

287(g) officers need immigration processing knowledge and skills 

in order to perform federal immigration enforcement functions. 

However, ICE supervisors and 287(g) officers informed us that 

basic training does not adequately prepare them for the practical 

requirements of their work. 

Processing an alien for removal requires broad-based knowledge of 

immigration forms, systems, and processing methods, including 

the following: 

�	 

�	 

�	 

�	 

Requesting, creating, and organizing Alien files (A-files), 

which represent the physical record of all immigrationrelated documents for noncitizens 

Interpreting documents in the files 

Navigating and operating immigration electronic 

information systems (i.e., Automated Biometric 

Identification System (IDENT) and Enforcement Case 

Tracking System (ENFORCE)) 

Preparing alien processing forms, including the Record of 

Deportable Alien, Form I-213 

The basic training program for 287(g) officers provides 29 hours of 

instruction on A-file review, IDENT and ENFORCE processing, 

and I-213 preparation. By contrast, new ICE officers performing 

immigration enforcement functions receive 41 hours of training on 

immigration processing. 

Some 287(g) officers reported that they did not receive hands-on 

training on ENFORCE during basic training, and that training did 

not prepare them to process cases independently. One 287(g) 

officer commented that after basic training, he came away with 

zero knowledge of how to process a case. An ICE supervisor 

explained that after completing basic training, 287(g) officers had 

no idea of how to create or process A-files. 

Several 287(g) officers reported that they do not process aliens in 

their custody because of insufficient confidence in their knowledge 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 30 
of ENFORCE. Therefore, after taking an undocumented alien into 

custody, they request assistance from DRO for ENFORCE 

processing. Requiring ICE officers to perform this function 

reduces the effectiveness of 287(g) officers as a force multiplier. 

At the end of our fieldwork, ICE initiated efforts to address 

reported immigration processing issues through refresher training 

on ENFORCE at specific locations on an as-needed basis. Since 

we observed a widespread need for increased immigration 

processing knowledge, a more methodical approach is warranted to 

ensure that all 287(g) officers are properly trained. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement: 

Recommendation #21: Enhance the current 287(g) training 

program to provide comprehensive coverage of immigration 

systems and processing. At a minimum, this should include handson experience during the 287(g) basic training course, on-the-job 

training, and periodic refresher training. 

Knowledge of Immigration Benefits and Protections Needs to 

Be Reinforced 

To assess individuals’ immigration status and removability 

properly, immigration officers must be familiar with (1) the asylum 

process, (2) immigration benefits, and (3) victim and witness 

protections. Accordingly, training in these areas is included in the 

287(g) basic training objectives. 

The 287(g) basic training course includes 2 hours of instruction on 

special status immigrants and 2 hours on victim and witness 

awareness. However, ICE does not instruct 287(g) officers on 

significant immigration benefits, such as the Nicaraguan 

Adjustment and Central American Relief Act12 and the American 

Baptist Churches v. Thornburg Stipulated Settlement Agreement.13 

Instructional design standards require the assessment of student 

retention of information associated with identified training 

objectives. However, as part of the four examinations 

administered during the 287(g) basic training course, only three 

12 P.L. 105-100, Title II (codified as amended in scattered sections of title 8 of the U.S.C.).. 

13 760 F. Supp. 796 (N.D. Cal. Jan 31, 1991). 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 31 
questions relate to victim and witness protections and asylum. No 

examination questions address the asylum process or immigration 

benefits. 

287(g) officers at several program sites were not knowledgeable 

about the asylum process, immigration benefits, and victim and 

witness protections. An appropriate level of knowledge in these 

areas could minimize processing errors and reduce the risk of 

wrongful detention and deportation. ICE needs to take measures to 

increase competencies in these areas. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement: 

Recommendation #22: Ensure that an appropriate level of 

coverage on immigration benefits, asylum, and victim and witness 

protections is included as part of the 287(g) basic training agenda. 

287(g) Officers Did Not Consistently Complete Refresher 

Training 

In 2007, ICE identified annual online refresher training modules 

for 287(g) officers to complete through its web-based Virtual 

University. Officers are required to complete eight 287(g) training 

modules, as well as three courses required for all ICE employees.14 

While OSLC has directed that ICE field office staff ensure that 

287(g) officers complete Virtual University refresher training 

annually, we identified inconsistencies in compliance with this 

directive. As of March 2009, 88% of active 287(g) officers who 

were vetted by ICE prior to FY 2008 had not completed all 

required refresher training. In addition, 76% of officers vetted 

before FY 2008 had not completed 287(g) training offered through 

Virtual University. 

Several ICE program supervisors in field offices were not aware of 

annual refresher training requirements. ICE supervisors who 

manage 287(g) operations in five of the six jurisdictions we visited 

were not knowledgeable of the requirements. In addition, one ICE 

14 287(g) officers must complete the following courses to meet ICE refresher training requirements: 

Refresher Training Course Navigation, The Orantes Injunction, Consular Notification and Access, Board of 

Immigration Appeals Decisions, Revised DHS / U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Documents, 

Nonimmigrant Refresher Training, Electronic Sources of Information, Stop Trafficking Refresher Training, 

Information Assurance Awareness Training, Records Management, and Prevention of Sexual Harassment. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 


Page 32 

supervisor told us that he was unaware that Virtual University 

could be used for 287(g) training. 

In response to this issue, OSLC plans to formalize its refresher 

training guidance, and has developed a draft ICE directive on 

annual recertification of 287(g) officers that was under review by 

ICE headquarters at the time of our fieldwork. The draft directive 

states that 287(g) officers must recertify annually by successfully 

completing select Virtual University courses. The draft directive 

places responsibility on ICE field offices to notify OSLC when 

officers fail to complete recertification courses. OSLC is to review 

Virtual University administrative records and issue revocation 

notices for officers who do not complete required training. 

Because of the complexities of federal immigration law and its 

constantly changing environment, refresher training is critical in 

reinforcing immigration enforcement knowledge and providing 

legal and program updates. Therefore, ICE needs to increase its 

efforts to ensure that 287(g) officers maintain immigration skills 

and keep abreast of changes in immigration enforcement 

requirements. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement: 

Recommendation #23: Establish and issue guidance to field 

office staff for 287(g) officer annual recertification training that 

emphasizes completion of online refresher training courses. 

Recommendation #24: Designate field office responsibilities for 

monitoring and enforcing compliance with training guidance to 

include, at a minimum, issuing and enforcing revocation notices 

for 287(g) officers who do not complete required training. 

The Use of Interpreters Is Inconsistent 

To complete processing and removal actions, immigration officers 

may need to communicate with aliens in languages other than 

English. Accordingly, ICE requires new DRO officers to establish 

Spanish-language proficiency or successfully complete a 5-week 

Spanish Language Training Program. By contrast, 287(g) officers 

do not receive language training or an assessment to determine 

their language competency. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 33 
MOAs in effect during our fieldwork required that participating 

LEA personnel provide an opportunity for subjects with limited 

English language proficiency to request an interpreter. However, 

ICE has not provided specific guidance on the circumstances in 

which 287(g) officers should proactively seek interpreter services. 

Therefore, the use of interpreters varies across program sites and 

among 287(g) officers. For example, officers without specific 

language skills often rely on officers with such skills for 

assistance, or call a language line that provides interpretation 

services telephonically. However, we spoke with officers who said 

287(g) officers with few or no foreign language skills have 

interviewed and processed non-English-speaking aliens without the 

aid of interpreters. One 287(g) officer said that he does not speak 

any Spanish, but used what is referred to as a “cheat sheet” of 

questions in Spanish to determine aliens’ removability during 

interviews. Another 287(g) officer admitted to being reluctant to 

speak Spanish due to his minimal grasp of the language, but served 

warrants and read non-English-speaking aliens their rights in 

Spanish. 

The absence of detailed guidance for using interpreter services can 

increase processing errors, as well as the potential for aliens to 

either be misunderstood or to misinterpret information provided 

during processing. To address these vulnerabilities, ICE needs to 

develop and implement clear guidelines describing the 

circumstances under which 287(g) officers should use interpreter 

support. These guidelines should also encompass foreign language 

skills assessments. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement: 

Recommendation #25: Develop and implement clear guidelines 

for using interpreter support to assist with immigration duties and 

responsibilities. 

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

Program Information 

In a January 2009 memorandum to the heads of executive branch 

agencies, the President committed to disclose information rapidly in forms 

that the public can readily find and use. In addition, he wrote that 

executive departments and agencies should put information about their 

operations and decisions online and make it readily available to the 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 34 
public.15 Consistent with these aims, one of OSLC’s primary goals is to 

build awareness and understanding of ICE ACCESS programs through 

communication and education of the media, NGOs, and the general public. 

However, at the time of our fieldwork, 287(g) information on the ICE 

public website consisted of brief fact sheets, testimony, and statements by 

ICE and DHS officials. In addition, information describing 287(g) 

operations to the public has included inaccuracies. 

There Are Barriers to Obtaining 287(g) Program Information 

The significant effect the 287(g) program can have on participants’ 

communities creates a need for community members to be well 

informed about the program. However, community and NGO 

representatives advised us that obtaining information about the 

287(g) program is often a daunting task. 

We obtained the following comments from community and NGO 

representatives regarding access to 287(g) information: 

�	 

�	 

�	 

ICE had restricted the release of basic program materials, 

including prior 287(g) MOAs. 

LEAs informed them that they could not respond to any 

information requests because ICE has blocked the release 

of program information. 

ICE has not been forthcoming with 287(g) program 

information, such as program policies and statistics, unless 

the NGOs filed a Freedom of Information Act request, 

which can be time-consuming and costly to process. 

ICE managers in the field and LEA officials agreed that ICE does 

not do enough to disseminate program information to the public, 

and described ICE outreach efforts as minimal. Some LEAs 

reported difficulty obtaining program information from ICE. 

ICE and NGO representatives explained how a local elected 

official frequently tied remarks about the 287(g) program to 

enforcement efforts executed under other authorities. They 

expressed concerns that members of the public may develop false 

impressions about the program as a result. One ICE manager in 

the area said that by not disseminating more information to the 

15 President Barak Obama, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, 

“Transparency and Open Government,” January 21, 2009. 

(http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Transparency_and_Open_Government) 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 35 
public, ICE had effectively ceded the role of primary spokesperson 

for the 287(g) program to this elected official, which was 

counterproductive because of the inflammatory nature of these 

statements. 

ICE should increase efforts to ensure that the public is informed 

about 287(g) program and ongoing operations. One method to 

accomplish this is through improved access to and availability of 

program information. ICE’s recent posting of the current 287(g) 

MOAs on its public website represents a positive step in this 

direction. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement: 

Recommendation #26: Establish a process to provide the public 

and other stakeholders with comprehensive information about the 

287(g) program and associated operations. 

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

Information Provided to the Public 

We identified ICE statements about the 287(g) program that did 

not reflect actual program activities. Such information reduces 

public awareness regarding 287(g) operations and activities. 

ICE provided misleading information to the public in a September 

2007 Fact Sheet. Information in this fact sheet included ICE’s 

explanation that “The 287(g) program is not designed to allow 

state and local agencies to perform random street operations. It is 

not designed to impact issues such as excessive occupancy and day 

laborer activities.”16 However, 287(g) officers have used their 

authorities during large-scale street operations with the aim of 

detaining individuals for minor offenses and violations of local 

ordinances. 

The fact sheet also explained that the program was “designed to 

identify individuals for potential removal who pose a threat to 

public safety as a result of an arrest and/or conviction for state 

crimes.” The fact sheet added that “Police can only use 287(g) 

authority when people are taken into custody as a result of 

16 ICE, ICE Fact Sheet: Delegation of Immigration Authority Section 287(g) Immigration and Nationality 

Act, September 6, 2007. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 36 
violating state or local criminal law.”17 However, 287(g) officers 

have apprehended aliens for federal immigration violations even 

when the aliens had no prior arrests on state or local charges. 

ICE has provided an incomplete picture of activities carried out 

under the program’s task force model. According to ICE 

testimony, 287(g) officers working under the task force model are 

to assist ICE with long-term investigations and large-scale 

enforcement activities.18 However, we identified task force 

officers who focus exclusively on cases related to violations of 

state laws and had never assisted ICE with long-term 

investigations or large-scale enforcement activities. 

The July 2009 MOA template for 287(g) activities indicates that 

task force officers are to be assigned to task force operations 

supported by ICE, and exercise their immigration-related 

authorities during criminal investigations involving aliens.19 

However, task force officers are not always part of a task force, 

and many do not conduct criminal investigations. In several 

program sites, 287(g) task force officers operate in separate patrol 

vehicles and use their immigration authorities when they identify 

possible removable aliens while performing their regular LEA 

duties. These officers apply their 287(g) authorities following 

traffic stops or domestic violence calls, rather than in the 

furtherance of a specific ICE-directed criminal investigation, as 

indicated by program materials. 

To foster an environment of transparency and trust, ICE must 

provide accurate information about the 287(g) program and related 

operations. Doing so would promote greater awareness and 

confidence as part of a comprehensive effort to broaden public 

knowledge of immigration enforcement programs and related 

efforts. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement: 

Recommendation #27: Ensure the accuracy of information 

disseminated to the public about the goals of the 287(g) program, 

17 Ibid. 
 

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

Representatives Committee on Homeland Security, March 4, 2009, p. 3. 
 19 ICE, Revised MOA Template, July 2009, p. 19. 
 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 37 
its various operations, and how immigration enforcement activities 

are carried out in the actual working environment. 

Inadequate Information Is Available on the Complaint Process 

A transparent complaint process is a way to ensure that a program 

is operating as intended. Since ICE has provided limited 

information about the 287(g) program, those who encounter 287(g) 

officers are not likely to recognize actions that violate the MOA. 

Moreover, because the only description of the complaint process in 

most jurisdictions is contained in the MOAs and because ICE and 

LEAs had not clearly disseminated them at the time of our 

fieldwork, members of the public are unaware of how to file a 

complaint. Furthermore, several past MOAs did not include 

details on how to file a complaint. 

A related issue is an awareness of when it is appropriate to file a 

complaint regarding immigration enforcement activities under the 

287(g) program. For example, those encountered by law 

enforcement officers cannot distinguish between 287(g) officers 

and other types of officers from the same jurisdiction. 287(g) 

officers do not wear distinctive clothing, and until recently, did not 

have credentials to validate their immigration enforcement 

authority. Because 287(g) officers do not regularly display 

credentials during operations or interviews to determine alien 

status and removability, many people remain unclear as to whether 

the officers they encounter are 287(g) certified. Therefore, there 

are uncertainties about filing a complaint in situations that may 

involve inappropriate LEA actions. 

NGOs and community groups have received complaints attributed 

to the 287(g) program. Representatives advised us that it was 

difficult for individuals to pursue many of these complaints 

because of insufficient information about the complaint process. 

For example, at the time of our fieldwork 287(g) complaint 

reporting procedures were not available in ICE or LEA facilities 

where individuals affected by the 287(g) program are most likely 

to see them. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement: 

Recommendation #28: Publish 287(g)-complaint reporting 

procedures on ICE’s public website, and ensure that these 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 38 
procedures are posted in participating LEA buildings, and shared at 

community meetings. 

Recommendation #29: Require 287(g) officers to identify 

themselves and display their credentials during federal 

immigration arrests, before initiating interviews regarding alien 

status and removability, and as part of other immigration 

processing activities. 

287(g) Program Information and Training for LEA 

Supervisors Can Improve the Operating Environment 

GAO’s “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 

Government” state that programs should foster a positive control 

environment. The 287(g) program’s work environment is 

influenced by several factors outside of ICE, most notably by LEA 

officials within the participating jurisdiction. While ICE has the 

authority to supervise and direct officers in their performance of 

287(g) program activities, LEA officials often control the 

operating environment in which 287(g) officers perform their 

immigration functions. LEA managers responsible for the overall 

supervision of officers participating in the 287(g) program can 

adversely affect program operations. As a result, ICE’s ability to 

supervise and direct 287(g) efforts is influenced by its relationship 

with the LEA and 287(g) officers. 

The following scenarios are examples of a LEA supervisors’ 

influence on the success of 287(g) program activities: 

�	 

�	 

�	 

An LEA supervisor removed ICE computer equipment 

from 287(g) officers’ workspace without explanation and 

locked it in a closet, limiting their ability to process aliens. 

At another program site, 287(g) personnel reported low 

morale because of infrequent recognition from their 

supervisors and managers for their federal immigration 

enforcement work. 

LEA supervisors who regarded the 287(g) program 

favorably indicated that additional information about the 

program would help them to support it more effectively. 

Training for LEA supervisors varied from site to site. Some LEA 

supervisors attended 287(g) basic training and were certified to 

perform federal immigration enforcement functions, while others 

received no training. LEA supervisors who had completed the 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 39 
287(g) training program explained that they were better able to 

address program needs as a result. LEA supervisors and managers 

who had not received 287(g) training advised us that they would be 

better able to support 287(g) efforts if they had received 

information about the program. Managers and supervisors at 

another location suggested that ICE develop an abbreviated 287(g) 

orientation program so they could better understand the 287(g) 

program, along with the duties and responsibilities of their staff 

who are participating in the program. 

LEA and ICE officials indicated that ICE should consider 

providing LEA supervisor training as part of its efforts to improve 

operating conditions. At the time of our fieldwork, OSLC had 

begun coordinating with OTD to develop and deliver this type of 

training program. With training, LEA supervisors would be better 

positioned to provide an effective operating environment for 

287(g) officers. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement: 

Recommendation #30: Develop training and provide basic 

program information for LEA managers who maintain an oversight 

role for 287(g) officers in order to increase their understanding of 

the program and encourage their support of 287(g) activities. 

287(g) Officers Need Consistent Access to DHS Information 

Systems 

Immigration officers use several DHS information systems to enter 

and retrieve information when performing immigration 

enforcement functions. However, 287(g) officers maintain varying 

levels of access to DHS systems. Limitations in system access can 

inhibit 287(g) officers’ ability to perform their full range of 

immigration activities. 

287(g) officers use the following DHS systems to perform 

immigration enforcement functions: 

�	 Enforcement Case Tracking System (ENFORCE) is the 

primary ICE administrative case management system. It 

includes biographical data on aliens and links to related 

biometric information, and it is used to identify and track 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 40 
aliens during the detention and removal processes. 287(g) 

officers use ENFORCE to enter information about their 

encounters with aliens and to process aliens for removal 

from the United States. 287(g) officers also use ENFORCE 

to determine the disposition of past immigration hearings 

and removals. 

�	 

�	 

�	 

�	 

Central Index System (CIS) contains information on aliens’ 

A-files, as well as basic biographical information on lawful 

permanent residents, naturalized citizens, and violators of 

immigration laws. 287(g) officers use the system to 

determine whether an alien has an existing A-file they need 

to request, or to create A-files for newly identified aliens. 

National File Tracking System (NFTS) tracks and accounts 

for A-files. 287(g) officers use the system to locate 

existing A-files for aliens they have encountered in order to 

request and update the A-files. 

Computer Linked Application Information Management 

System (CLAIMS) records and tracks the status of 

applications for immigration benefits and naturalization 

petitions. 287(g) officers use this information to determine 

the status of aliens’ immigration benefits and naturalization 

applications, both of which are key factors in their 

removability. 

TECS, formerly known as the Treasury Enforcement 

Communications System, contains inspection data on 

travelers who have entered or attempted to enter the United 

States, as well as information on ICE criminal investigations. 

287(g) officers use this system to determine whether aliens 

have entered the country illegally. Some TFOs also use 

TECS to record investigative case information and prepare 

reports on associated searches, arrests, and seizures. 

As of March 2009, OSLC indicated that there were 805 active 

287(g) officers. OCIO records showed that 92%, or 738, of these 

officers had access to the ENFORCE system. However, 561 

officers (70%) had access to NFTS, 358 officers (44%) had access 

to CIS, 283 officers (35%) had access to CLAIMS, and 81 officers 

(10%) maintained system accounts in TECS. 

287(g) officers at two locations said that different officers in their 

LEAs who perform the same immigration functions have access to 

different DHS systems or different parts of those systems. OCIO 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 41 
data regarding 287(g) officers’ system access indicate that even 

though a high percentage of officers had access to ENFORCE, 

fewer than a third had access to the ENFORCE Removals Module, 

which contains information on the final disposition of aliens’ 

immigration hearings and removal proceedings. Within CIS, 

287(g) officers had 22 different system access configurations, 

ranging from complete system access for 3 officers to access to 

approximately half of the system for 140 officers. 

According to ICE officials, system access differences were an 

outgrowth of local program conditions. For example, at one 

location, ICE representatives advised that 287(g) officers did not 

need to use NFTS because ICE administrative staff located and 

requested A-files on their behalf. They further explained that the 

program aimed to limit 287(g) officer access to TECS because of 

concerns regarding the sensitivity of information. ICE 

representatives also said that in some cases, 287(g) officers’ 

accounts have expired due to infrequent use. However, they were 

unable to explain other disparities in system access. 

287(g) officers’ access to DHS systems needs to be more uniform 

to enable ICE to better monitor the appropriateness of system 

access, and to ensure uniformity in their ability to input and 

retrieve immigration enforcement data. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement: 

Recommendation #31: Establish and implement standard 

immigration system access profiles for 287(g) officers to ensure that 

officers have the access needed to perform immigration functions. 

These access profiles should be customized by program model to 

address the different functions that TFOs and JEOs perform. 

Additional Issues Identified 

During our review, we identified additional issues that, while not directly 

related to our objective of assessing ICE controls over 287(g) program 

implementation, we feel should be brought to management’s attention. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 


Page 42 

ICE Has Used Unauthorized Detention Facilities to Detain 

Aliens Identified Through the 287(g) Program 

ICE enters into Inter-Governmental Service Agreements (IGSA) 

with state and local jurisdictions to use their facilities to detain 

aliens in ICE custody. ICE compensates facilities with IGSAs for 

the cost of detaining aliens at a prearranged rate. As of February 

2009, 29 of the 66 jurisdictions participating in the 287(g) program 

had active IGSAs with ICE for detaining aliens. In FYs 2008 and 

2009, ICE paid 21 of these jurisdictions to detain aliens identified 

and processed by 287(g) officers. 

Before entering into an IGSA, ICE conducts a physical inspection 

of the facility to ensure compliance with ICE detention standards, 

and examines the cost-effectiveness of the agreement. Thereafter, 

ICE conducts annual inspections of facilities authorized to house 

ICE detainees. These annual inspections assess the facilities’ 

compliance with ICE custody standards to ensure safe, secure, and 

humane conditions for detainees. 

According to data ICE provided us, it has detained aliens identified 

through the 287(g) program at three facilities that were not 

authorized by ICE, and therefore not subject to inspection. ICE 

compensated participating jurisdictions for detention services in 

these facilities, although the facilities were not authorized to house 

aliens in ICE custody. From October 2008 to early March 2009, 

ICE detained a daily average of 65 aliens identified through the 

287(g) program in these facilities. 

Detention facility inspections help ensure compliance with ICE 

detention standards. ICE needs to ensure that detention facilities 

used to house 287(g) detainees are approved and operating in 

accordance with applicable standards. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement: 

Recommendation #32: Develop a process for performing regular 

checks to ensure that aliens identified through the 287(g) program 

are not held in unauthorized facilities while in ICE custody. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 


Page 43 

ICE Vehicles Have Been Underutilized 

ICE purchased 74 vans in FYs 2006 and 2007, and distributed them 

to ICE field offices with 287(g) programs. ICE managers at these 

field offices planned to have 287(g) officers use the vans to transport 

aliens in ICE custody. However, ICE has not permitted 287(g) 

officers to drive the vans because of liability concerns regarding the 

use of ICE vehicles by outside employees. Additionally, ICE has 

not permitted 287(g) officers to use the vehicles because MOAs do 

not specifically allow for such use of government property. 

Therefore, several of the vans are not being used for any program 

purpose. 

At one program site we visited, ICE field staff reported that they 

had received six vans for the 287(g) program; however, the vans 

could not be used since 287(g) officers are not ICE employees. An 

ICE manager at another field office told us that its two vans were 

generally idle because ICE policy prevented 287(g) officers from 

using them. 

Since OSLC does not maintain information on the location of all 

vehicles that were delivered to ICE field offices for use in the 

287(g) program, we were unable to assess the full extent of this 

problem. However, ICE’s liability concerns are not clear to us. 

For purposes of determining liability and immunity from civil 

lawsuits, section 287(g)(8) assures that officers performing 

delegated duties shall be considered to be acting under the color of 

federal authority. We also note that section 287(g)(4) allows 

officers to use federal property as provided for in the MOAs. ICE 

should consider whether the administrative prohibition on vehicle 

use by 287(g) officers could be resolved by amending the MOAs 

as appropriate. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement: 

Recommendation #33: Evaluate ICE’s position on the use of 

287(g) vehicles by participating LEA officers to determine whether 

the vehicles can be used for the purpose for which they were 

purchased. If not, identify underutilized 287(g) vehicles, and take 

appropriate steps to use or dispose of those assets in accordance 

with applicable law. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 44 
Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

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

the report where we deemed appropriate. Below is a summary of 

ICE’s written responses to our recommendations and our analysis 

of the responses. A copy of ICE’s response, in its entirety, appears 

in Appendix B. 

Recommendation #1: Establish a process to collect and maintain 

arrest, detention, and removal data for aliens in each priority level 

for use in determining the success of ICE’s focus on aliens who 

pose the greatest risk to public safety and the community. 

ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. In June 

2009, OSLC created a data quality review section to analyze data 

that 287(g) officers put into ICE data management systems. 

Particular attention will be paid to the numbers of criminal aliens 

identified and the nature of their offenses. In August 2009, the 

ICE OSLC mandated that 287(g) officers populate the Criminal 

Sensitivity Level fields in the Enforcement Case Tracking System. 

OSLC is currently working with ICE's Secure Communities and 

ICE's Detention and Removal Operations to refine the Criminal 

Sensitivity Levels to comply with ICE priorities. 

OIG Evaluation: The recommendation is resolved and open 

pending our receipt and review of the revised Criminal Sensitivity 

Level fields to ensure compliance with ICE priorities. In addition, 

ICE needs to provide documentation of the data quality review 

process for analyzing data that 287(g) officers input to ICE 

systems as part of efforts to ensure a focus on aliens who pose the 

greatest risk to public safety and the community. 

Recommendation #2: Develop procedures to ensure that 287(g) 

resources are allocated according to ICE’s priority framework. 

ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. OSLC is 

developing a strategic plan that directly aligns its goals and 

objectives, and those of the 287(g) program, with ICE and DHS 

priorities. OSLC has drafted a revised performance measure that 

will consider the nature of the criminal offense based on the 

severity of crime (Levels 1, 2, and 3). OSLC will establish a 

baseline and communicate targets for each severity level that will 

reflect prioritizations based on crime level, and average volume of 

encounters within each crime level. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 45 
OIG Evaluation: The recommendation is unresolved and open. 

ICE has established priorities for alien arrest and detention levels, 

but has not developed a process to ensure that 287(g) resources are 

prioritized according to these levels. This recommendation will 

remain unresolved and open pending ICE’s development of such a 

process. 

Recommendation #3: Establish and implement TECS data entry 

requirements that reflect investigative efforts and related 

prosecutions associated with the 287(g) program. 

ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. This 

recommendation was completed on May 9, 2009, when the ICE 

Office of Investigations (OI) and DRO Directors signed a 

memorandum requiring OI and DRO offices to use the Treasury 

Enforcement Communication System program codes specific to 

the 287(g) program to capture administrative arrests, 

investigations, and prosecutions. 

OIG Evaluation: The recommendation is unresolved and open. 

The May 9, 2009 memorandum, addresses initial data entry of a 

specific code to identify administrative arrests, investigations, and 

prosecutions. However, it does not include a data entry 

requirement for any updates to case information or the final 

judicial disposition. 

Recommendation #4: Establish a process to ensure effective 

supervision of 287(g) officers and immigration enforcement 

operations. 

ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. The 

OSLC and the ICE Office of Training and Development (OTD) are 

developing a Supervisory/Manager training curriculum for ICE 

personnel who oversee 287(g) officers in the field. The training 

will be operational in 2010. OSLC FY10 performance measures 

include headquarters oversight of the supervisory functions for 

287(g). Additionally, OSLC is developing a comprehensive 

communications plan to facilitate widespread understanding of 

ICE supervisory roles. This communications plan will be ready for 

implementation by February 2010. OSLC will coordinate with 

OTD to ensure the plan is included in future supervisory training 

modules. 

OIG Evaluation: The recommendation is resolved and open 

pending our receipt and review of the Supervisory/Manager 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 46 
training curriculum and the communications plan, along with dates 

for implementation. 

Recommendation #5: Develop controls to ensure that supervisory 

responsibilities for 287(g) supervisors are considered when 

determining staffing ratios in ICE field offices. 

ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. ICE has 

received funding that will allow additional supervisory positions 

within the 287(g) program. ICE has distributed a total of 23 

program manager positions to field offices to support existing 

287(g) programs. These additional positions will help balance the 

ratio of supervisors. ICE will strive to continue expanding the 

number of supervisors as the 287(g) program matures. 

OIG Evaluation: The recommendation is unresolved and open. 

The addition of 23 program manager positions to support existing 

287(g) programs should help to reduce current staffing 

deficiencies. However, the ICE response does not address a 

process to ensure that responsibilities for 287(g) supervisors are 

consistently taken into consideration when determining staffing 

ratios for ICE field offices. 

Recommendation #6: Ensure that 287(g) supervision is provided 

by authorized staff with the appropriate knowledge, skills, and 

abilities. 

ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. The 

OSLC and OTD are developing a three day Supervisory/Manager 

training curriculum for ICE personnel who oversee 287(g) officers 

in the field. The training will cover all aspects and responsibilities 

of the MOA for ICE and our partners. All 287(g) ICE managers 

and supervisors will be required to complete the training, which 

will be operational in 2010. 

OIG Evaluation: This recommendation is resolved and open 

pending our receipt and review of Supervisory/Manager training 

curriculum and verification of its use for all 287(g) ICE managers 

and supervisors. 

Recommendation #7: Develop and implement 287(g) field 

supervision guidance that includes, at a minimum (1) the frequency 

and type of contact required between 287(g) officers and ICE 

supervisors; (2) the preparation, review, and approval of operational 

plans for community-based immigration enforcement activities; and 

(3) performance feedback requirements for 287(g) officers. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 47 
ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. OSLC is 

creating a communications plan to improve our interactions with 

community groups and all other stakeholders. The plan will 

delineate best communication practices and benefits, and ensure 

that stakeholders understand the 287(g) program's policies and 

initiatives. The communications plan is scheduled to be completed 

by February 2010 and will address the issues raised in the draft 

report. The communications strategy will incorporate a standard 

process for creating, reviewing, and delivering clear, consistent 

messages about the 287(g) program, including the goals and 

mission of the program, the benefits of the program, and recent 

success stories. The communications strategy will also include a 

stakeholder assessment to identify and assess stakeholders' needs 

and concerns. 

OIG Evaluation: This recommendation is unresolved and open. 

The communication plan described in ICE’s response should be 

effective in improving interactions with community groups and 

other stakeholders. However, the purpose of this recommendation 

is to resolve inconsistencies identified in ICE’s supervision of 

287(g) officers, which is not addressed in the proposed 

communications strategy. 

Recommendation #8: Establish and implement a comprehensive 

process for conducting periodic reviews, as well as reviews on an 

as-needed basis, to determine whether to modify, extend, or 

terminate 287(g) agreements. At a minimum, this process should 

include an assessment of (1) current or previous concerns 

expressed by field office staff; (2) media attention or community 

concerns that contribute to negative or inappropriate conclusions 

about the 287(g) program; (3) lawsuits or complaints; (4) potential 

civil rights and civil liberties violations; and (5) ICE’s ability to 

provide effective supervision and oversight. 

ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. In FY 

2008, the ICE Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) 

established a 287(g) Review Program to review the terms of the 

MOAs. OSLC relies on OPR inspections reports to support 

decisions to modify, extend, or terminate 287(g) agreements. 

Further, OSLC communicates regularly with LEA counterparts, 

non-government organizations, and the DHS Office for Civil 

Rights and Civil Liberties to collect feedback about the 287(g) 

program. The formalization of communications to LEAs is 

included in the OSLC communications plan that will be completed 

in February 2010. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 48 
OIG Evaluation: This recommendation is unresolved and open. 

Inspections conducted by OPR are important to ensure LEAs’ 

compliance with 287(g) agreements. However, the 

recommendation addresses other factors that should be 

incorporated into an overall strategy for determining whether 

current 287(g) agreements should be modified, extended, or 

terminated. Reference to those factors was not included in the ICE 

response. 

Recommendation #9: Require 287(g) program sites to maintain 

steering committees with external stakeholders, with a focus on 

ensuring compliance with the MOA. 

ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. OSLC is 

developing a communications plan which will incorporate all 

channels for delivering and receiving key communications, 

including steering committees. The communications strategy will 

be implemented in 2010, and will include a communications 

planning matrix to identify critical communications activities, 

when they need to be executed, and the point-of-contact 

responsible for executing the activities. 

OIG Evaluation: This recommendation is unresolved and open. 

The communications strategy described in ICE’s response does not 

address any specifics regarding steering committees, such as its 

membership, or specific duties and responsibilities in assessing 

immigration enforcement activities or compliance with the MOA. 

Recommendation #10: Establish a process to periodically crosscheck OPR, OSLC, and OCIO records to confirm 287(g) officers’ 

eligibility and suitability to exercise authorities granted under 

287(g) MOAs. 

ICE Response: ICE concurs in part with our recommendation, 

noting that 287(g) officers are vetted only for suitability, and not 

for issuing federal security clearances. ICE has established a 

system to ensure that suitability reviews are conducted for all 

287(g) officers. This process is addressed in the ICE policy 

established in October 2007 titled, "ICE Screening Criteria for 

Federal, State, or Local Law Enforcement, Correctional, and 

Mission Support Personnel Supporting ICE Programs." ICE 

acknowledges that, prior to the establishment of this policy, Office 

of Chief Information Officer, OPR, and OSLC rosters of 287(g) 

nominees and officers were not reconciled. To further ensure 

proper access is granted only to qualified participants, OSLC is 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 49 
creating a policy entitled "Suspension and Revocation of a 

Designated Immigration Officer's 287(g) Authority." This policy 

will formalize the current cross checks performed by the OSLC 

training manager on active/inactive 287(g) officers listed with 

OPR. 

OIG Evaluation: The recommendation is resolved and open. 

MOAs in effect during our field work included language that all 

candidates must be approved by ICE and qualify for federal 

security clearances. This was revised in the new MOAs, which 

require that all candidates be able to qualify for access to 

appropriate DHS and ICE databases. We will close this 

recommendation after receipt and review of the new policy, which 

formalizes cross checks performed on active and inactive 287(g) 

officers listed with OPR. 

Recommendation #11: Establish a process to ensure that LEAs 

report to OPR any allegations or complaints against 287(g) officers 

and other LEA personnel alleged to have improperly performed 

immigration enforcement activities, as well as the results of any 

subsequent investigations. 

ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. The new 

MOA requires participating agencies to inform ICE of all 

complaints regarding their 287(g) officers as well as the outcome 

of those complaints. 

OIG Evaluation: Based on our review of the new MOA, we 

consider the recommendation resolved and closed. 

Recommendation #12: Establish and implement procedures on 

how the results of complaints, allegations, and subsequent 

investigations against LEA personnel conducting immigration 

enforcement activities should be maintained and used as part of the 

suitability and recertification processes. 

ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. OSLC has 

developed a comprehensive procedure through which it delivers 

the results of all OPR inspections and the respective areas for 

improvement to ICE field components for action. All inspection 

and administrative investigative findings from OPR, CRCL, and 

the OIG will be evaluated by OSLC management to determine the 

feasibility of all ICE 287(g) partnerships. The same process is used 

to document individual LEA officer derogatory findings. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 50 
OIG Evaluation: The recommendation is unresolved and open. 

The comprehensive procedure in ICE’s response pertains to OPR 

inspection reports, which address overall 287(g) program 

compliance. However, the focus of this recommendation is the use 

of complaints, allegations, and investigations involving individual 

LEA personnel conducting immigration enforcement activities as 

part of the suitability and recertification process. Therefore, the 

procedures used for addressing OPR 287(g) reports are not 

responsive to this recommendation. 

Recommendation #13: Establish specific operating protocols and 

requirements for operational variances identified in task force and 

jail enforcement program models. 

ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation which was 

completed in July 2009, with issuance of the new MOA template. 

Appendix D of the revised MOA was drafted to provide flexibility 

to address issues of local concern, including the variances cited in 

the OIG report. ICE can negotiate with jurisdictions before 

entering into 287(g) partnerships to address supervisory 

arrangements, state and local laws, and other specific needs or a 

particular agency. 

OIG Evaluation: The recommendation is unresolved and open. 

As stated in the ICE response, Appendix D of the revised MOA 

provides flexibility to address any specific issue of concern. 

However, this flexibility does not provide assurances that 

variances in 287(g) operating protocols, such as those identified in 

our report will be consistently addressed. The new MOA 

requirement for operations plans to be submitted to an ICE agent 

for approval prior to being carried out is a positive step in 

providing guidance and consistency in 287(g) operations. 

Recommendation #14: Study the feasibility and appropriateness 

of increasing the frequency of OPR 287(g) inspections, and report 

findings to the OIG. 

ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. In 2009, 

ICE decided to increase the frequency of OPR 287(g) inspections. 

In FY 2010, OPR will ensure that 48 of 64 of the 287(g) programs, 

or 75%, will have been reviewed. 

OIG Evaluation: The recommendation is unresolved and open. 

For FY 2010, ICE has determined how many OPR inspections will 

be completed. However, ICE has not provided any specific 

quantity or the details regarding a process for determining the 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 51 
frequency for conducting OPR inspections beyond the current 

fiscal year to ensure continued management attention and 

oversight. 

Recommendation #15: Require 287(g) applicants to provide 

information about past and pending civil rights allegations, and 

incorporate a civil rights and civil liberties review as part of the 

documented 287(g) site selection and MOA review processes. 

ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation which was 

completed in August 2009, when OSLC created a candidate 

questionnaire for all LEA officers attending 287(g) training. 

Additionally, DHS CRCL is now an active participant in the OSLC 

Internal Advisory Committee. 

OIG Evaluation: This recommendation is unresolved and open. 

The candidate questionnaire developed for each proposed law 

enforcement officer candidate should be a useful tool in ICE’s 

initial suitability assessment of 287(g) candidates. However, the 

focus of this recommendation is to address past performance of 

each LEA, including civil rights and civil liberties factors, as part 

of the site selection and MOA review processes, which is not a part 

of the candidate questionnaire. 

Recommendation #16: Include a representative on the advisory 

committee to provide insights into civil rights and civil liberties 

issues as part of the approval process. 

ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation which was 

completed in October 2009, when DHS CRCL began participating 

in the OSLC Internal Advisory Committee. 

OIG Evaluation: This recommendation is resolved and open 

pending our receipt and review of documentation that describes 

CRCL’s role and responsibilities on the OSLC Internal Advisory 

Committee as it relates to the 287(g) application review and site 

selection process. 

Recommendation #17: Develop a process to ensure that 

information submitted from ICE field offices as part of the 

application review process is fully taken into consideration before 

a final decision is made. This recommendation should include 

provisional approvals that require resource considerations to 

ensure proper supervision and oversight. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 52 
ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation which was 

completed when OSLC instituted an Internal Advisory Committee 

in May 2009, to review and assess field office recommendations 

about pending 287(g) MOA applications. The Internal Advisory 

Committee is comprised of stakeholder representatives from ICE 

OI, DRO, OTD, SC, Office of Principle Legal Advisor (OPLA) 

Office of Chief Information Officer, Office of Congressional 

Relations, Office of Public Affairs, and DHS CRCL. 

OIG Evaluation: This recommendation is resolved and open 

pending our receipt and review of documentation describing the 

process used by the OSLC Internal Advisory Committee to assess 

and review field office recommendations for pending 287(g) 

applications. 

Recommendation #18: Establish collection and reporting 

standards that provide objective data to increase monitoring of 

methods participating jurisdictions use in carrying out 287(g) 

functions, and their effect on civil liberties. Collection and 

reporting requirements should include (1) the circumstances and 

basis for TFO contacts with the public, (2) the race and ethnicity of 

those contacted, and (3) the prosecutorial and judicial disposition 

of 287(g) arrests. 

ICE Response: ICE does not concur, but is assessing the goal of 

this recommendation to ensure that ICE's 287(g) partners protect 

the civil liberties of every individual they encounter. OIG 

recommends the collection of data similar to a consent decree 

applicable to agencies that have engaged in racial profiling. This 

would require the collection of data beyond that which DHS and 

DOJ require of their own law enforcement officers and agencies. 

Although ICE strongly opposes racial profiling and adheres fully 

to all data collection requirements of federal law, the collection of 

this data raises logistical issues including whether a TFO would 

report all interactions, just interactions predicated solely on 287(g) 

authority, and how the TFO would distinguish in a meaningful way 

while performing his or her daily duties. 

OIG Evaluation: This recommendation is unresolved and open 

pending our receipt and review of ICE’s assessment of this 

recommendation, along with any subsequent plans to ensure that 

their 287(g) partners protect the civil liberties of individuals 

encountered. 

Recommendation #19: Determine whether the current timeframe 

for civil rights law training is adequate to achieve appropriate 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 53 
coverage, and modify timeframes and coverage as needed to 

ensure that sufficient training is provided. 

ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. Starting in 

FY 2010, OSLC requires that 287(g) officers complete a "Use of 

Race" Virtual University course on an annual basis to retain their 

certification. The civil rights training in 287(g) addresses those 

provisions in the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments. The training 

covers criminal and administrative matters, and the federal statutes 

that address the deprivation of civil rights and the consequences for 

depriving people of their rights. 

OIG Evaluation: This recommendation is unresolved and open. 

The focus of this recommendation is the effectiveness of the civil 

rights laws training curriculum, which we determined to be less 

comprehensive than similar training provided to ICE IEAs. While 

the “Use of Race” Virtual University course achieves the 

appropriate amount of coverage for a Use of Race training 

requirement, it can not be used as a supplement for achieving 

appropriate coverage in civil rights laws. 

Recommendation #20: Ensure that 287(g) basic training includes 

coverage of MOAs, and public outreach and complaint procedures. 

ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. On the 

first day of 287(g) officer training, OPLA instructors provide 

instruction on the terms of the MOA. Although ICE provides this 

training, ICE also expects that our 287(g) partners will ensure that 

their participating officers understand the responsibilities specified 

in the MOA. Public outreach principles are covered extensively in 

the "Cross Cultural Communication" block of the 287(g) training 

program. Instruction in "Complaint Procedures" was included in 

the training program, with additional instruction provided on 

complaint procedures and officer integrity. 

OIG Evaluation: This recommendation is unresolved and open. 

Based on our review of training materials and course schedules, we 

determined that the MOA, public outreach, and complaint 

procedures are presented in 1-hour training modules. However, 

287(g) officers informed us that ICE instructors have not 

consistently delivered these training modules, and they did not 

receive instruction on the MOA or complaint process. The 

purpose of this recommendation is for ICE to ensure that 

participants receive this training as specified in the course 

schedules. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 54 
Recommendation #21: Enhance the current 287(g) training 

program to provide comprehensive coverage of immigration 

systems and processing. At a minimum, this should include handson experience during the 287(g) basic training course, on-the-job 

training, and periodic refresher training. 

ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. In 

February 2009, OSLC and OTD created a one week refresher 

training for active 287(g) officers who wanted additional 

immigration law and ICE systems training. In November 2009, the 

287(g) basic training academy began using a state-of-the art 

simulated detainee processing and holding center. This allows 

287(g) officers to experience various scenarios that occur when 

processing aliens. 287(g) students depart the ICE Academy with at 

least three practice folders to use as reference materials for future 

processing, and also use these folders in class during the "A-File 

Review" block of instruction. At any time, 287(g) officers can 

access the online distance learning refresher courses on the ICE 

Virtual University. Additionally, OSLC is creating an on the job 

training program manual for graduated officers with an expected 

delivery date of March 2010. 

OIG Evaluation: This recommendation is resolved and open 

pending verification of a completed on the job training program 

manual for graduated officers. 

Recommendation #22: Ensure that an appropriate level of 

coverage on immigration benefits, asylum, and victim and witness 

protections is included as part of the 287(g) basic training agenda. 

ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. The 

"Special Status Aliens" and the "Victim Assistance" elements of 

the 287(g) basic training program include an overview of asylum, 

victim, and witness protections. Students receive instruction on the 

proper methods for assisting victims of human trafficking, abuse or 

other alien vulnerabilities. The court's decision in American Baptist 

Churches v. Thornburg is explained in detail and discussed in the 

"Alternate Orders of Removal" block of instruction. The 

assessment of a student's ability to meet the training objectives 

throughout the entire course is measured in multiple-choice exams 

and a series of 16 hours of hands-on, realistic, scenario-based 

practical exercises conducted in the final week of training. 

OIG Evaluation: This recommendation is unresolved and open. 

As shown in the report, there was limited information in the 287(g) 

basic training program for significant immigration benefits. Of the 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 55 
108 slides in the “Alternate Orders of Removal” block of 

instruction, we identified 3 that referred to Eligible American 

Baptist Churches class members. However, a definition or 

explanation of what qualified an alien to be a protected class 

member under this court decision was not provided. 

Also, the multiple choice exam used to assess the students’ ability 

to meet the training objectives does not include any questions that 

address the asylum process or immigration benefits, and only three 

questions that relate to victim and witness protections and asylum. 

Recommendation #23: Establish and issue guidance to field 

office staff for 287(g) officer annual recertification training that 

emphasizes completion of online refresher training courses. 

ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. OSLC is 

drafting a policy entitled, "Annual Recertification of Designated 

Immigration Officers' Delegated Authority." This policy is 

currently pending final approval. 

OIG Evaluation: This recommendation is resolved and open 

pending our receipt and review of the approved policy. 

Recommendation #24: Designate field office responsibilities for 

monitoring and enforcing compliance with training guidance to 

include, at a minimum, issuing and enforcing revocation notices 

for 287(g) officers who do not complete required training. 

ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. OSLC is 

in the process of drafting a policy titled "Suspension and 

Revocation of a Designated Immigration Officer's 287(g) 

Authority." This policy is currently pending final approval. 

OIG Evaluation: This recommendation is resolved and open 

pending our receipt and review of the approved policy. 

Recommendation #25: Develop and implement clear guidelines 

for using interpreter support to assist with immigration duties and 

responsibilities. 

ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. ICE trains 

287(g) students on the importance of using interpreters in 

immigration enforcement. The training addresses the use of 

interpreters during the "Sworn Statements" block of instruction. 

The 287(g) graduates are granted access to online independent 

study foreign language tutorials. In July 2009, OSLC provided 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 56 
LEAs upon request, access to the "DHS Interpreters Service." In an 

October 29, 2009 email communication, ICE offered 287(g) state 

and local partner's interpretation resources in conjunction with the 

Department of Justice's (DOJ) Civil Rights Division. DOJ also 

provided additional materials to include a flip card with words in 

multiple languages to help identify what language a person speaks. 

A printed copy of the communication and additional materials 

were mailed separately in November 2009. 

OIG Evaluation: This recommendation is unresolved and open. 

ICE’s response describes interpreter resources available to 287(g) 

officers. However, our finding addresses a need for clear 

guidelines that illustrates circumstances under which 287(g) 

officers should actually use interpreter support. 

Recommendation #26: Establish a process to provide the public 

and other stakeholders with comprehensive information about the 

287(g) program and associated operations. 

ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. OSLC is 

developing a communications plan to be implemented in February 

2010. The communications plan will incorporate standard 

processes for creating, reviewing, and delivering clear, consistent 

messages about the 287(g) program, including the goals and 

mission of the program, the benefits of the program, and recent 

success stories. The communications plan will also include a 

stakeholder assessment to identify and assess their needs and 

concerns. OSLC has also made modification to its Internet site. 

Documentation is readily available to the public, which includes 

redacted copies of all existing MOAs. 

OIG Evaluation: This recommendation is resolved and open 

pending our receipt and review of the communications plan as 

implemented. The communications plan should incorporate 

program areas identified in the ICE response, in addition to 287(g) 

program policies and related statistics on overall program 

operations. 

Recommendation #27: Ensure the accuracy of information 

disseminated to the public about the goals of the 287(g) program, 

its various operations, and how immigration enforcement activities 

are carried out in the actual working environment. 

ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. OSLC is 

developing a communications plan for implementation by 

February 2010. This will identify roles and responsibilities and 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 57 
incorporate standard processes for creating and delivering clear, 

consistent messages about the 287(g) program. The processes will 

include appropriate steps for reviewing communications for 

accuracy to establish a layer of accountability. Additionally, the 

strategy will identify opportunities to strengthen internal 

communications to help ensure that stakeholders are receiving and 

disseminating accurate information about 287(g). The strategy 

will also expand outreach and interaction with key stakeholders, 

such as conferences and conference calls, to strengthen feedback 

and enable OSLC to identify and address misinformation about the 

program in a timely manner. 

OIG Evaluation: This recommendation is resolved and open 

pending our receipt and review of the communications plan 

detailing a process for ensuring the accuracy of 287(g) information 

disseminated to the public. 

Recommendation #28: Publish 287(g)-complaint reporting 

procedures on ICE’s public website, and ensure that these 

procedures are posted in participating LEA buildings, and shared at 

community meetings. 

ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. The 

287(g) complaint reporting procedure was completed and posted 

on the ICE website in October 2009. Also, the complaint reporting 

process is described in Appendix B of the MOA. 

OIG Evaluation: This recommendation is resolved and closed. 

Recommendation #29: Require 287(g) officers to identify 

themselves and display their credentials during federal 

immigration arrests, before initiating interviews regarding alien 

status and removability, and as part of other immigration 

processing activities. 

ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. At 

graduation, all candidates are awarded ICE 287(g) credentials. 

During the training program, all 287(g) students are advised that as 

the first mandatory step in any official encounter, they must 

identify themselves by name, agency, and title. 

OIG Evaluation: This recommendation is unresolved and open. 

As part of our review of the 287(g) training program, we did not 

identify course material that provided advice regarding officer 

identification as a first step in any official encounter. In addition, 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 58 
providing such information in the form of advice is not sufficient 

to satisfy the intent of this recommendation. 

Recommendation #30: Develop training and provide basic 

program information for LEA managers who maintain an oversight 

role for 287(g) officers in order to increase their understanding of 

the program and encourage their support of 287(g) activities. 

ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. OSLC 

and OTD are creating two new 287(g) training curriculums. The 

first training curriculum is for ICE supervisors, the second training 

curriculum targets LEA supervisors who have not attended the 

287(g) basic training. These two curriculums are still in 

development. 

OIG Evaluation: This recommendation is resolved and open 

pending our receipt and review of the new 287(g) training 

curriculum for LEA managers who have not attended 287(g) basic 

training. 

Recommendation #31: Establish and implement standard 

immigration system access profiles for 287(g) officers to ensure that 

officers have the access needed to perform immigration functions. 

These access profiles should be customized by program model to 

address the different functions that TFOs and JEOs perform. 

ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. In July 

2009, OSLC assumed the responsibility of creating PICS accounts 

and ENFORCE profiles for all 287(g) students. This was in 

response to complaints from field supervisors that 287(g) officers 

were not given all of the accesses they needed to perform their 

mission. 

OIG Evaluation: This recommendation is unresolved and open. 

ICE’s response does not address 287(g) officers’ access to all DHS 

systems identified in our report that are used to perform 

immigration enforcement functions. 

Recommendation #32: Develop a process for performing regular 

checks to ensure that aliens identified through the 287(g) program 

are not held in unauthorized facilities while in ICE custody. 

ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. OSLC 

will work with DRO to ensure that after persons identified through 

the 287(g) program are taken into ICE custody, only authorized 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 59 
and inspected facilities are used to detain them. This process will 

be completed by May 2010. 

OIG Evaluation: This recommendation is resolved and open 

pending our receipt and review of documentation of OSLC and 

DRO actions to ensure that only authorized and inspected facilities 

are used to detain persons identified through the 287(g) program. 

Recommendation #33: Evaluate ICE’s position on the use of 

287(g) vehicles by participating LEA officers to determine whether 

the vehicles can be used for the purpose for which they were 

purchased. If not, identify underutilized 287(g) vehicles, and take 

appropriate steps to use or dispose of those assets in accordance 

with applicable law. 

ICE Response: ICE concurs with the recommendation. In FY 

2006 – FY 2008, the 287(g) delegation of authority program 

purchased 14 sedans and 75 transport vans for OI and DRO. OI 

and DRO placed these vehicles in Special Agent in Charge (SAC) 

and Field Office Director (FOD) offices that support the 287(g) 

program. In 2008, ICE field offices requested permission to 

transfer the vehicles to law enforcement agencies participating in 

the 287(g) program utilizing hold harmless agreements. OSLC 

conferred with OPLA who affirmed that hold harmless agreements 

are insufficient to permit 287(g) participants to use government 

property or assets except as specified in the MOA. OSLC 

informed the SAC and FOD offices that the vehicles could not be 

transferred to participating law enforcement agencies and that the 

SAC and FOD offices should continue to use the vehicles 

themselves to support the 287(g) program. These vehicles are still 

being utilized by ICE field offices to support the delegation of 

authority mission. 

OSLC will re-evaluate its options, and ascertain how these vehicles 

are specifically being utilized. OSLC notes that the MOAs specify 

the property and assets the government will procure and provide to 

287(g) participants. Initial counsel opinion has affirmed that hold 

harmless agreements are insufficient to permit 287(g) participants 

to use government property or assets except as specified in the 

MOA. If, following our re-evaluation, we determine that we are 

unable to legally permit the use, any government property or assets 

reserved for use by 287(g) participants and not specified by the 

MOAs will be returned to inventory and applied to other ICE 

mission areas. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 60 
OIG Evaluation: This recommendation is unresolved and open. 

We agree with ICE’s response to re-evaluate its approach, and 

ascertain how the vehicles are specifically being utilized. 

However, if ICE determines that the vehicles cannot be used for 

the purpose for which were purchased, ICE should seek legal 

counsel to ensure proper disposition of those vehicles, rather than 

automatically reallocating them for use in other ICE programs. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 


Page 61 

Appendix A 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 

The Consolidated Appropriations Security, Disaster Assistance, 

and Continuing Appropriations Act of 2009 (Public Law 110-329), 

and attached House Report 110-862, require that we report on the 

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

Pursuant to these requirements, we (1) assessed ICE controls over 

287(g) program implementation, (2) determined whether the terms 

of 287(g) agreements had been violated by any parties, and 

(3) evaluated the effectiveness, efficiency, and economy of 287(g) 

operations. 

We conducted our fieldwork, which included more than 90 

interviews, from February to July 2009. We interviewed civil 

rights and immigration-rights NGO representatives from Arizona, 

California, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, North 

Carolina, and Washington, DC, in addition to ICE and LEA senior 

officials and staff. 

We consulted with DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties 

officials on civil rights and civil liberties issues, and technical 

aspects of immigration law. Office for Civil Rights and Civil 

Liberties representatives accompanied us on three site visits and 

assisted with outreach efforts to NGOs. 

We also accompanied an ICE OPR inspection team on a scheduled 

site visit, and independently observed program activities at six 

other 287(g) program jurisdictions. We reviewed 287(g) activities 

at the following jurisdictions: 

�	 

�	 

�	 

�	 

�	 

�	 

�	 

Benton County Sheriff’s Office, Bentonville, AR 

City of Springdale Police Department, Springdale, AR 

Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office, Los Angeles, CA 

Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, Phoenix, AZ 

Prince William Manassas Adult Detention Center, 
 

Manassas, VA
 


Rogers Police Department, Rogers, AR 

Washington County Sheriff’s Office, Fayetteville, AR 

We selected locations for our site visits from among program sites 

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

included (1) the type of program model in place, (2) the number of 

LEA officers active in the program, (3) the number of 287(g) 

arrests and removals, (4) indications of possible violations based 

on reports of civil rights concerns in media reports, court cases, 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 


Page 62 

Appendix A 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 

and complaints and investigations, and (5) whether other oversight 

entities had completed or planned site visits to these locations. 

We performed extensive document review and analysis of 287(g) 

agreements, standard operating procedures, directives and policies, 

budgetary information, personnel security records, training 

materials, program data, and statistical information. 

ICE renegotiated its agreements with participating jurisdictions 

based on an MOA template it released in July 2009. The new 

agreements contain requirements that were not included in prior 

agreements, and eliminate others that were. We did not assess 

compliance with the terms of these new agreements, as they were 

not in effect at the time of our fieldwork. 

We conducted this review under the authority of the Inspector 

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

Standards for Inspections issued by the Council of the Inspectors 

General on Integrity and Efficiency. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 


Page 63 

Offu:e ofthe Assutanl SeC'Tetof)'

u.s. Dtpanmtnl or lIomtllnd S«urilY

;00 116 StreeL SW

WashinglOn. DC 1001~

u.s. Immigration

and Customs

Enforcement

December 9,2009

MEMORANDUM FOR: Carlton I. Mann

ASSistant InspcclOr General

Orrice of Inspector General #:

FROM: Roben F. Dc AntonU;- /V

DIrector

Audit Liaison Orrice

SUBJECT: ICE Input to Ol-IS Response to Orrico of Inspector General Draft

Report titled, "The Performance of287(g) Agreements"

Thank you for providing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (lCE) with the opponunity

to revicw and comment 011 the subject Orrice of Inspector Gencral (DIG) Draft Repon.

In thc past year, ICE has improved the 287(g) program. Many of tile improvemcnts made were

related directly to program controls and objectives and ensuring the effective and efficient

operation of the 287(g) program.

In April 2009, OIG auditors allended the ICE 287(g) confercnce. Many of the on-going

improvements to the 287(g) program identified <ltthe conference have been included in this

repon. ICE appreciates their inclusion. ICE also provided a technical response with the

statistical break OUI ofthe number of aliens idenlified, processed. and removed by the 287(g)

program. ICE also provided some peninent examples demonstraling the value ofthe 287(g)

program for inclusion in the final repon. ICE believes an evaluation ofthe program must

consider the number of criminal alicns identified. processed and removed from our communities

and the cost savings to the federal govemment frolll the program and using 287(g) officers as a

force multiplier.

In Ollr response, ICE identi fied many changes already Illl<lcrway to improve the program. ICE

requests that 16 of the 33 OIG recommcndations be considered resolved and closed based on the

action ICE already has takcn. ICE requests thai 16 othcrs be considered resolved and open

pending receipt of additional documentation to be provided within 90 days from the rclease date

of thc final repon. Finally. ICE docs not concur with rccommendation #18. but is carefully

assessing the goal of this rccolllmendation to ensure thai ICE's 287(g) panners prolcct the civil

libenies of every individual encountered.

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 
 

Page 64
 

Subject: ICE In-put to DHS Response to Office of Inspector General Draft Report titled, ''The

Performance of287(8) Agreements" Page 2 of 13

DIG Recommendation I: "Establish a process to collect and maintain arrest, detention, and

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

aliens who pose the greatest risk to public safety and the community."

ICE Response to QIG Recommendation I: ICE concurs. In June 2009. ICE's Office ofState

and Local Coordination (OSLe) created a dala quality review section to analyze data that 287(g)

officers put into ICE systems. The data quality review section ensures consistency in reporting

requirements and analyzes arrest and removal data of aliens identified as part ofthe 287(g)

program. ICE will review the results to evaluate each jurisdiction and determine ifit operates

consistent with the priorilies set forth in the Memorandum ofAgreement (MOA). Particular

attention will be paid to the numbers of criminal aliens identified and the nature oftheir offenses.

Further, in August 2009 the ICE OSLC mandated that 287(g) officers populate the Criminal

Sensitivity Level fields in the Enforcement Case Tracking System (ENFORCE). OSLC is

currently working with ICE's Secure Communities (SC) and ICE's Detention and Removal

Operations (ORO) to refine the Criminal Sensitivity Levels to comply with ICE priorities. A

copy ofthe memorandum requiring population of the Criminal Sensitivity Level fields in

ENFORCE is included for your infonnation.

It is requestcd Recommendation I be considered resolved and closed.

10 Recommendation 2: "Develop procedures to ensure that 287(g) resources are allocated

according to rCE's priority framework."

ICE Response to OIG Recommendation 2: ICE concurs. OSLC is developing a strategic plan

that directly aligns its goals and objectives, and those ofthc 287(g) program, with ICE and OHS

priorities. Before ICE enters into a new 287(g) MOA, the justification is reviewed by the 287(g)

Advisory Commiuee and ICE's Office of the Assistant Secretary (OAS) to ensure the expansion

of the 287(g) program aligns with the priorities and objectives of ICE and OHS.

OSLe's capturing ofstatistical information assists ICE in measuring adherence to ICE priorities

and also advances the mission priority of apprehending criminal aliens. Finally, ICE measures a

program's effectiveness largely based upon the number and nature of aliens identified for

removal by 287(g) officers. OSLC has drafted a revised perfonnance measure that will consider

the nalUre of the criminal offense based on the severity ofcrime (Levels I, 2, and 3). OSLe will

establish a baseline and communicate targets for each severity level. The targets will reflect both

prioritizations based on crime level as well as average volume of encounters within each crime

level.

It is requested Recommcndation 2 be considered resolved and open pending OIG receipt of

documcntation.

DIG Recommendation 3: "Establish and implement TECS data entry requirements that renect

invcstigative effons and related prosecutions associated with the 287(g) program."

ICE Response to OIG Recommendation 3: ICE concurs. The recommendation was completed

on May 9, 2009, when the ICE Office of Investigations (01) and ORO Oircctors signed a

memorandum requiring 01 and ORO offices to use the Treasury Enforcement Communication

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 
 

Page 65
 

Subject: ICE Input to DHS Response to Office ofInspector Genen.J Draft Report titled, '"The

Perfonnance of287OO Agreements" Page 3 of 13

System (TEeS) program codes specific to the 287(g) program. Program code YTO will be used

to capture administrative arrests and program code 6LL 10 capture investigations and

prosecutions. A copy afthe memorandwn requiring use aCthe TECS program codes is included

for your infonnation.

It is requested Recommendation 3 be considered resolved and closed.

orG Recommendation 4: "Establish a process to ensure effective supervision of287(g) officers

and immigration enforcement operations."

ICE Response to orG Recommendation 4: ICE concurs. The OSLe and the ICE Office of

Training and Development (OTD) are developing a SupervisorylManager training curriculum for

ICE personnel who oversee 287(g) officers in the field. ICE anticipates a three-day course thai

addresses all aspects and responsibilities oflCE and our partners under the MOA. The training

will be operational in 2010. Further. OSLe FYIO perfonnance measures include hcadquarten

oversight orthe supervisory functions for 287(g). OSLC program managers will be in

continuous contact with the field personnel to ensure adequate and effective supervision oflaw

enforcement agencies (LEA). Additionally, OSLe is developing a comprehensive

communications plan to facilitate widespread undentanding ofICE supervisory roles. This

communications plan will be ready for implementation by February 2010. The plan will

incorporale a standard processes for creating, reviewing and delivering clear, consistenl

messages about the 287(g) program, including the goals and mission ofthe program, the benefits

ofthe program, and recent success stories. The communications plan will also include a

stakeholder assessment to identify and assess its needs and concerns. This assessment will help

OSLC appropriately tailor communications to address these needs and concerns. Additionally,

the communications plan will identify and assess the appropriate channels (e.g., websites,

conferences, newsletlen, etc.) for infonning stakeholden about 287(g) and expanding access to

and availability ofcritical facts about the program and associated operations. OSLC will

coordinate with OTD to ensure the plan is included in future supervisory training modules.

It is requested Recommendation 4 be considered resolved and open pending OIG receipt of

additional documentation.

OIG Recommendalion 5: "Develop controls to ensure thai supervisory responsibilities for

287(g) supervisors are considered when detennining staffing ralios in ICE field offices."

ICE Response to OlG Recommendation 5: ICE concurs. ICE strives to effectively balance the

nwnber ofsupervisors and employees. The addition of287(g) OffiCCB in the field creates

workforce challenges. ICE has received funding thai will allow additional supervisory positions

within the 287(&) program. ICE has distribuled a t01a1 of23 program manager positions 10 field

offices to support existing 287(&) programs. These supervisors will provide daily ovmight of

287(g) MOA within their area ofresponsibilily, review administrative charging documents,

respond 10 287(g)-related taskings, mc:d wilh LEA partners and community stakeholders about

287(g) issues, serve as the primary poinl ofcontact between the field and HQ OSLC on 287(g)

related issues, train LEAs about ICE's mission and priorities, and conduct ICE ACCESS

outreach. ICE will deploy the additional supervisory positions (11 for or and 12 for ORO) to

field offices with multiple 287(g) agreements or the potential for multiple agreements. Using

TECS and manual reporting mechanisms., OSLC will closely monitor the hours devoted to

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 
 

Page 66
 

Subject: ICE Input to DHS Response to Office of Inspector General Draft Repon titled, ''The

Perfonnance of287(g) Agreements" Page4of13

287(g) activities by ICE supervisory personnel. These additional positions will help balance the

ration ofsupervisors. ICE will strive to continue expanding the number ofsupervisors as the

287(g) program matures.

II is requested Recommendation 5 be considered resolved and closed.

OIG Recommendation 6: "Ensure tha1281(g) supervision is provided by aulhorized staffwilh

the appropriate knowledge, skills. and abilities."

ICE Response 10 CIG Recommendation 6: ICE concurs. The OSLe and omare developing a

SupervisorylManagcr training curriculum for ICE permnnel who ovcnee 287(g) officm in the

field. The training is anticipated 10 be approximately three days. The training will cover all

aspects and responsibilities ofthe MOA for ICE and our partners. All 287(g) ICE managers and

supervisors will be required to complete the training, which will be operational in 2010.

It is rcquested Recommendation 6 be considered resolved and open pending OIG receipt of

additional documentation.

DIG Recommendation 7: "Develop and implement 287(g) field supervision guidance that

includes.. at a minimum (1) the frequency and type ofcontact required between 287(g) officers

and ICE supervisors; (2) the preparation, review, and approval ofoperational plans for

community-based immigration enforcement activities; and (3) performance feedback

requirements for 287(g) officers."

ICE Response to DIG Recommendation 7: ICE concurs. OSLC is creating a communications

plan to improve our interactions with community groups and all ofourstakeholders. The plan

will help ICE determine how to communicate, when to cammunicate, and about what issues to

cammunicate. The plan will outline best communication practices and benefits. The goal is to

ensure stakeholders understand the 287(g) program's policies and initiatives. The

communications plan is scheduled 10 be completed by February 2010 and will address the issues

raised in the draft: report. The communications strategy will incorporate a standard process for

crealing, reviewing, and delivering clear, consistent messages about the 287(g) program,

including the goals and mission ofthe program. the benefits ofthe program, and recent success

stories. The cammunications strategy will also include a stakeholder assessment to identify and

assess stakeholders' needs and concerns.

It is requested Recommendation 7 be considered resolved and open pending DIG receipt of

additional documentation.

DIG 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(I) current or previous concerns expressed by field office staff; (2) media attention

or community concerns that contribute to negative or inappropriate conclusions about the 287(g)

program; (3) lawsuits or complaints; (4) potential civil rights and civil liberties violations; and

(5) ICE's ability 10 provide effective supervision and oversight:"

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 
 

Page 67
 

Subject: ICE Input to DHS Response to Office ofInspector General Draft Report titled, 'The

Perronnance of287(g) Agreements"

Page 5 orJ3

ICE Response to DIG Recommendation 8: ICE concurs. In FY 2008, the ICE Office of

Professional Responsibility (OPR) established a 287(g) Review Program to review the leons of

the MQAs. OSLC relies on OPR inspections reports to support decisions to modify. extend, or

Itnninate 287(g) agreements. Further. OSLC communicates regularly with LEA counterpans,

non-government organizations (NGOs). and the DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties

(CRel) to collect feedback about the 287(g) program. The fonnalization of communications to

LEAs is included in the OSLC communications plan that will be completed in February 2010.

It is requested Recommendation 8 be considered resolved and open pending DIG receipt of

additional documentation.

DIG Recommendation 9: "Require 287(g) program siles 10 maintain steering commiuees with

external stakeholders, with a focus on ensuring compliance with the MOA."

ICE Response to OIG Recommendation 9: ICE concurs. As previously noted, OSLC is

developing a communications plan which will incorporate all channels for delivering and

receiving key communications, including steering committees. The communications strategy

will be implemented in 2010, and will include a communications planning matrix to identify

critical communications activities, when they need to be executed, and the point-of-contact

responsible for executing the activities.

It is requested Recommendation 9 be considered resolved and open pending OIG receipt of

additional documentation.

OIG Recommendation 10: "Establish a process to periodicallycross-check OPR, OSLC, and

OCIO records to continn 287(g) officers' eligibility and suitability to exercise authorities granted

under 287(g) MOAs."

ICE Response to 010 Recommendation 10: ICE concurs, with one minor clarification.

Presently, 287(g) officers are vetted only for suitability purposes, not for issuing federal security

clearances as stated in this rhlding. ICE has established a system to ensure that suitability

reviews are conducted ror all 287(8) officers. This process is addressed in the ICE policy

established in October 2007 titled "ICE Screening Criteria for Federal, State, or Local Law

Enforcement, Correctional, and Mission Suppon Personnel Supponing ICE Programs." ICE

acknowledges that, prior to the establislunent of this policy, while attempting to meet the

challenges associated with the exponential growth oflhe program, Office ofChieflnfonnation

Officer, OPR, and OSLC rosters of287(g) nominees and officers were not reconciled. This lack

ofreconciliation, which is described quantitatively in the second and third paragraphs of page 18,

involves less than one percent ofthe 287(g) population vetted to date. Additionally, in May

2007, when OPR assumed the responsibility for vetting 287(g) candidates, inactive 287(8)

officers were not vetted. This accounts for 48 inactive officers, or 84 percent, ofthe 57 noted on

page 18 ofthe repon. The remaining nine officers in OSLC records have been identified; three

have been vetted for suitability, and a vetting request was forwarded to OPR for the remaining

six. To funher ensure proper access is granted only to qualified panicipanlS, OSLC is creating a

policy titled "Suspension and Revocation of a Designated immigration Officer's 287(g)

Authority." This policy will formalize the current cross checks perfonned by the OSLC training

manager on activelinactive 287(g) officers listed with OPR.

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 
 

Page 68
 

Subject: ICE Input 10 DHS Respo~ 10 Office of Inspector Gc:nen.l Draft Report tilled.-me

Performance of287(g) Agreements Page 6 of 13

It is requested Recommendation 10 be considered resolved and open pending DIG receipt of

additional documentation.

QIG Recommendation 11: "Establish a process to ensure that LEAs report to OPR any

allegations or complaints against 287(g) officers and other LEA personnel alleged to have

improperly perfonned immigration enforcement activities. as well as the results of any

subsequent investigations."

ICE Response to DIG Recommendation 11: ICE concurs. The recommendation was completed

in July 2009 when the new MOA template was published. The MOA requires participating

agencies 10 infonn ICE of all complaints regarding their 287(g) officers as well as the outcome

orthose complaints. A copy ofthe new MOA template is included for your ready reference.

It is requested Recommendation II be considered resolved and closed.

OIG 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 ofthc suitability and

recertification pnxesses...

ICE Response to OIG Recommendation 12: ICE concurs. OSLC has developed a

comprehensive pnxedure through which it delivers the results of all OPR inspections and the

respective areas for improvement to ICE field components for action. All inspection and

administrative investigative findings l'rom OPR, CRCl.. and the DIG will be evaluated

thoroughly by OSLC management to best detenninc the feasibility of all ICE 287(g)

partnerships, whether potential or current in stalus. The same process is used to document

individual LEA officer derogatory findings. A copyofthe procedure for addressing OPR 287(g)

reports is included for your infonnation.

It is requested Recommendation 12 be considered resolved and closed.

OIG Recommendation 13: "Establish specific opemling protocols and requirements for

operational variances identified in task force and jail enforcement program models."

ICE Response to OIG Recommendation 13: ICE concurs. The recommendation was completed

in July 2009 with issuance ofthe new MOA tcrnplate. Appendix D ofthe revised MOA was

drafted to provide nexibility to address issues oflocal concern, including the variances cited in

the OIG report. ICE can negotiate with jurisdictions before entering into 287(g) partnerships to

address supervisory arrangements, state and local laws. and other specific needs or a particular

agency.

It is requested Recommendation 13 be considered resolved and closed.

OIG Recommendation 14: "'Study the feasibility and appropriateness ofincreasing the frequency

ofOPR 287(g) inspections, and report findings to the OIG."

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 
 

Page 69
 

Subject: ICE Input to DHS Response to Office ofInspector General Draft Report tilled, '1"he

Performance of287(g) Agreements"

Page 7ofl3

ICE Response to DIG Recommendation 14: ICE concurs. In 2009, ICE decided 10 increase the

frequency ofOPR 287(g) inspections. In FYIO QPR will ensure that 48 or64 ofthe 287(g)

programs, or 75 percent, will have been reviewed.

II is requested Recommendation 14 be considered resolved and open pending OIG receipt of

additional documentation.

OIG Recommendation 15: "Require 287(8} 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 process."

ICE Response to OIG Recommendation 15: ICE concurs. The recommendation was completed

in August 2009 when OSLC created a "candidate questionnaire" for all LEA officers anending

287(g) training. Additionally, DHS CRCL is now an active participant in lhe OSLe Internal

Advisory Committee. A copy ofthe questionnaire is included for your infonnation.

l! is requested Recommendation I S be considered resolved and closed.

DIG Recommendation 16: "Include a representative on the advisory committee to provide

insights into civil rights and civil liberties issues as part ofthe approval process."

ICE Response to OIG Recommendation 16: ICE concurs. The recommendation was completed

in October 2009 when DHS CRCL began participating in Ihe OSLe Internal Advisory

Committee.

It is requested Recommendation 16 be considered resolved and closed.

OIG Recommendation 17: "Develop a process to ensure that infonnation submitted from ICE

field offices as pan 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 to OlG Recommendation 17: ICE concurs. The recommendation was completed

when OSLC instituted an Internal Advisory Committee. The first meetins of the group occurred

in May 2009. The OSLC Advisory Committee assesses and reviews field office

recommendations about pending 287{g) MOA applications. The Advisory Committee is

comprised ofstakeholder representatives from ICE 01, ORO, OTO, SC. Office of Principle

Legal Advisor (OPLA) Office ofChieflnfonnation Officer. Office ofCongressional Relations,

Office ofPublic Affairs. and DHS CRCL

II is requested Recommendation 17 be considered resolved and closed.

OIG Recommendation IS: ..Establish collection and reponing standards that provide objective

data to increase monitoring ofmethods panicipatingjurisdictions use in carrying out 287{g)

functions, and their effect on civil liberties. Collection and reponing requirements should

include, at a minimum (l) lhe circumstances and basis for TFO contacts with the public, (2) Ihe

race and ethnicity ofthose contacted. and (3) the prosccutorial andjudicial disposition of287(g)

arrests."

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 
 

Page 70
 

Subject: ICE Input to OHS Response 10 Office orJnspector General Draft Report titled, 1'he

Performance of287(g) Agreements" Page 8 ofl3

ICE Response 10 OIG Recommendation 18: ICE does not concur but is carefully assessing the

goal of Ihis recommendation to ensure that ICE's 287(g) panners protect the civil liberties of

every individual they encounter. 010 recommends the collection ofdata that milTOr5 thai of a

consent decree applicable to agencies that are found to have engaged in racial profiling. This

would require the collection ofdata beyond thaI which DHS and DOJ require oftheir own law

enforcement ofJi~rs and agencies. Although ICE strongly opposes racial profiling and adheres

fully 10 all data collection requirements of federallaw,lhe collection arthis data raises logistical

issues including whether a TFO would report all interactions, just interactions predicated solely

on 287(g) authority, and how the TFO would distinguish in a meaningful way while perfonning

his or her daily duties.

OIG Recommendation 19: "Determine whether the current timeframe for civil rights law

training is adequate to achieve appropriate coverage, and modify timeframes and coverage as

needed to ensure that sufficient training is provided:'

ICE Response to 010 Recommendation 19: ICE concurs. The 287(g) basic training currently

has five blocks ofinstruction related to civil rights and civil liberties. Starting in FY201 0, OSLC

requires that 287(g) officers complete a "Use of Race" Virtual University course on an annual

basis to retain their certification. The civil rights training in 287(g) addresses those provisions in

the 4110, Sdl, 6do, and 14110 Amendments. The training covers criminal and administrative mailers,

including an alien's right to counsel and the distinctions in that right. The training details the

Federal statutes that address the deprivation of civil rights and the consequences for depriving

people iftheir rights. This training supplements all ofthe law enforcement training that 287(g)

officers already have to perfonn their daily jobs. The 287(g) training program supplements that

training with information unique to immigration enforcement and applicable federal laws. The

training was tailored to the target audience of already experienced law enforcement officers.

It is requested Recommendation 19 be considered resolved and closed.

OIG Recommendation 20: "Ensure that 287(g) basic training includes coverage ofMOAs and

public outreach and complaint procedures."

ICE Response to 010 Recommendation 20: ICE concW'S. On the fim day oftraining, OPLA

instructors train participating officers about the terms ofthe MOA. Although ICE provides this

training. ICE also expects that our 287(g) panners also ensure that their panicipating officers

understand the responsibilities specified in the MOA. Public outreach principles llRi covered

extensively in the "Cross Cultural Communication" block ofinstruction in the 287(g) training

program. This information was provided to the OIG during the field work phase. Instruction in

''Complaint Procedures" was included in the training program with additional instruction in

complaint procedures and officer integrity. A copy ofthe complaint procedures module

outlining the OIG's role in investigating allegations ofmisconduct by state and local 287(g)

officers is included for your information.

It is requested Recommendation 20 be considered resolved and closed.

OIG Recommendation 21: "Enhance the current 287(g) training program to provide

comprehensive coverage ofimmigration systems and processing. At a minimum, this should

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 
 

Page 71
 

Subject: ICE Injlut to DHS Response 10 Office ofInspector General Draft Report titled. "The

Perfonnance of287(g) Agreements"

Page 9 of 13

include hands-on experience during the 287(g) basic training course, on-the-job training, and

periodic refresher training."

ICE Response to 010 Recommendation 21: ICE concurs. In February 2009, Q$LC and oro

created a one week refresher training for active 287(g) officers who wanted additional

Immigration law and ICE systems training. In November 2009, the 287(g) basic training

academy began using a state-or-the art simulated detainee processing and holding center. This

allows 287(g) officers to experience various scenarios that occur when processing aliens.

Currently, 287(g) students receive extensive training in immigration systems and alien

processing. 287(g) students depart the ICE Academy with at least three practice folders to use as

reference materials for fUlure processing. Students work with these folders in class during the

"A-File Review" block ofinstruction. Students are also provided a number ofjob aids offering

step-by-step guides to processing aliens in the field. At any time 287(g) officers can access the

online distance learning refresher courses on the ICE Vinual University. Additionally, OSLC is

creating an on the job training program manual for graduated officers with an expected delivery

date ofMarch 2010.

It is requested Recommendation 21 be considered resolved and open pending OIG receipt of

additional documentation.

OIG Recommendation 22: "Ensure that an appropriate level of coverage on immigration

benefits, asylum, and victim and witness protections is included as part of the 287(g) basic

training agenda."

ICE Response to OIG Recommendation 22: ICE concurs. The "Special Status Aliens" and the

"Victim Assistance" elements ofthe 287(g) basic training program include an overview of

asylum and victim and witness protections. Students are instructed in the proper methods for

assisting victims of human lrafficking or abuse or other vulnerable aliens. The coun's holding in

American Baptist Churches v. Thornburg is specifically explained and discussed in the

"Alternate Orders ofRemoval" block ofinstruction. The assessment ofa student's ability to

meet the training objectives throughout the entire course is measured in multiple-choice exams

and a series of 16 hours of hands-on, realistic, scenario-based practical exercises conducted in

the final week oftraining. This infonnation was provided to the OIG during the field work

phase.

It is requested Recommendation 22 be considered resolved and closed.

OIG Recommendation 23: "Establish and issue guidance to field office staJTfor 287(g} officer

annual recertification training that emphasizes completion ofonline refresher training courses."

ICE Response 10 OIG Recommendation 23: ICE concurs. OSLC is in the process ofdrafting

and disseminating a policy titled "Annual Reccnilication ofDesignated Immigration Officers'

Delegated Authority." This policy is currently pending final approval.

It is requested Recommendation 23 be considered resolved and open pending OIG receipt of

additional documentation.

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 
 

Page 72
 

Subject: ICE Input to DHS Response 10 Office of Inspector General Draft Report titled, ''The

Perfonnance of287(g) Agreements" Page 100f13

OIG 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 ttaining."

ICE Response to OIG Recommendation 24: ICE COl'lCW'$. 051£ is in the process ofdrafting and

disseminating a policy titled ''Suspension and Revocation ofa Designated Immigration Officer's

287(g) Authority." This policy is currently pending final approval.

It is requested Recommendatiun 24 be considered resolved and open pending orG receipt of

additional documentation.

010 Recommendation 25: "Develop and implement clear guidelines for using interpreter

support to assist with immigration duties and responsibilities."

ICE Response to DIG Recommendation 25: ICE concurs. ICE trains 287(g) students about the

importance ofinterpreters in immigration enforcemenL The training addresses the use of

interpreters during the "'Sworn Statements" block ofinstruction. The 281(g) graduates are

granted access to online independent study foreign language tutorials. This information was

provided to the DIG during the field work phase. Further, in July 2009 OSLC provided LEAs

upon request, access to the "DHS Interpreters Service." On October 29, 2009, in an email

communication, ICE offered 281(g) state and local partner's interpretation resources in

conjunction with the Department ofJustice's (DOJ) Civil Rights Division. DOJ also provided

additional materials 10 include a 'flip card' wilh words in multiple languages 10 help identify

what language a person speaks. A hard copy ofthe communication and additional materials were

mailed out separately in November 2009. AJl281(g) partners were reminded ofthe legal

obligations associated with accepting federal funds and the provision ofJanguage assistance.

It is requested Recommendation 25 be considered resolved and closed.

OlG Recommendation 26: "Establish a process to provide the public and other stakeholden with

comprehensive information about the 287(g) program and associated operations."

ICE Response to OIG Recommendation 26: ICE concurs. OSLC is developing a

communications plan to be implemented in February 201 O. The communications plan will

incorporate standard processes for creating, reviewing and delivering clear, consistent messages

about the 281(g) program, including the goals and mission ofthe program, the benefits ofthe

program, and recent success stories. The commWlications plan will also include a stakeholder

assessment to identify and assess its needs and concerns. OSLC has also made modification to

its internet site. Documentation is readily available to the public, which includes redacted copies

of all existing MOAs.

It is requested Recommendation 26 be considered resolved and open pending Ola receipt of

additional documentation.

OIG Recommendation 21: "Ensure the accuracy of information disseminated to the public about

the goals oCtile 287(g) program. its various operations. and how immigration enforcement

activities are carried out in the actual working environment."

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 
 

Page 73
 

Subject: ICE InpullO DHS Response to Office of Inspector General Draft Report tilled. "The

Performance of287(g) Agreements"

Page 11 of13

ICE Response to DIG Recommendation 27: ICE concurs. As previously noted. OSLC is

developing a communications plan for implementation by February 201 O. This will outline roles

and responsibilities and incorporate standard processes for creating and delivering clear,

consistent messages about the 287(g) program. such as newsletters with success stories or

important slatistics highlighting the benefits ofthe program. The processes will include

appropriate steps for reviewing communications for accuracy 10 establish a layer of

accountability. Additionally,the strategy will identify opportunities to strengthen internal

communications to help ensure that internal stakeholders are receiving and disseminating

accurate information abouI287(g). The strategy will also expand outreach and interaction with

key stakeholders, such as conferences, and conference calls, to strengthen feedback and enable

OSLC to identify and address misinfonnation about the program in a timely manner.

It is requested Recommendation 27 be considered resolved and open pending OIG receipt of

additional documentation.

OIG Recommendation 28: "Publish 287(g)<ompliant reponing procedures on ICE's public

website, and ensure that these procedures are posted in panicipating LEA buildings, and shared

at community meetings:'

ICE Response to OIG Recommendation 28: ICE concurs. The recommendation was completed

on October 2009, when ICE posted, on the ICE.govIOSLC website, infonnation about how to

file a 287(g) complaint. The process is the same found in Appendix B ofthe MOA.

It is requested Recommendation 28 be considered resolved and closed.

OIG 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 pan ofother immigration processing activities."

ICE Response to OIG Recommendation 29: ICE concurs. At graduation, all candidates are

awarded ICE 287(g) credentials. During the training program, all 287(g) students are advised

that, as the first mandatory step in any official encounter, they must identify themselves by name,

agency, and title.

It is requested Recommendation 29 be considered resolved and closed.

OIG Recommendation 30: "Develop training and provide basic program infonnation for LEA

managers who maintain an oversight role for 287(g) officers in order to increase their

understanding ofthe program and encourage their support of287(g) activities:'

ICE Response to 010 Recommendation 30: ICE concurs. As previously nOled, the OSLC and

OTD are creating two new 287(g) training cumculums. The first training is for ICE supervisors,

the second training is for LEA supervisors who have not attended the 287(g) basic training.

These two curriculums are still in development.

It is requested Recommendation 30 be considered resolved and open pending OIG receipt of

additional documentation.

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 
 

Page 74
 

Subject: ICE Input to DHS Response 10 Office of Inspector General Drat\ Report titled, 'The

Perronnance of287(g) Agreements" . Page 120[\3

DIG Recommendation 31: "Establish and implement standard immigration syslem 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 task force officers and jail enforcement officers perform,"

ICE Response to OIG Recommendation 31: ICE concurs. In July 2009 OSLe assumed the

responsibility ofcreating PIeS accounts and ENFORCE profiles for all 287(g) students. This

was in response to complaints from field supervisors that 287(g) officers were nol given all of

the accesses they needed 10 perform their mission.

It is requested Recommendation 31 be considered resolved and closed.

OIG 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 to OIG Recommendation 32: ICE concurs. OSLC will work with ORO to ensure

that after persons identified through the 287(g) program are taken into ICE custody, only

authorized and inspected facilities are used to detain individuals. This process will be completed

within 120 days.

It is requested Recommendation 32 be considered resolved and open pending OIG receipt of

additional documentation.

OIG Recommendation 33: "Evaluate ICE's position on the use of287(g) vehicles by

participating LEA officers to determine whether the vehicles can be used for the purpose for

which they were purchased. Ifnot, identify underutilized 287(g) vehicles, and take appropriate

steps to use or dispose ofthose asset5 in accordance with applicable law."

ICE Response to OIG Recommendation 33: ICE concurs.

In FY2006 - FY2008, the 287(g) delegation of authority program purchased 14 sedans and 75

transpon vans for 01 and ORO. 01 and ORO then placed these vehicles in Special Agent in

Charge (SAC) and Field Office Director (FOD) offices that support the 287(g) program. In

2008, ICE field offices requested permission to transfer the vehicles to law enforcement agencies

participating in the 287(g) program utilizing "hold hannless" agreements. The Office ofState

and Local Coordination conferred with the Office ofthe Principal Legal Advisor (OPU) who

affinned that "hold harmless" agreements are insufficient to pennit 287(g) participants to use

government property or assets except as specified in the MOA. OSLC infonned the SAC and

FOD offices that the vehicles could not be transferred to participating law enforcement agencies

and that the SAC and FOD offices should continue to use the vehicles internally to suppon the

287(g) program. These vehicles are still being utilized by ICE field offices to suppon the

delegation ofauthority mission.

OSLC will re-evaluate its options on this topic and ascertain how these vehicles are specifically

being utilized. OSlC notes that the MOAs specify the property and assets the government will

procUtc and provide to 287(g) participants. As stated ahove, initial counsel opinion has affinned

that "hold hannless" agreements are insufficient to permit 287(g) participants to use government

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 
 

Page 75
 

Subject: ICE Input 10 DHS Response to Office of Inspector General Draft Report tilled, "The

Perfonnance of287(g) Agreements" Page 13 of 13

property or assets except as specified in the MOA. If. following our re-evaluation, we detennine

that we are unable to legally permit the use; any government property or assets reserved for use

by 287(g) participants and not specified by the MOAs will be returned 10 inventory and applied

to other ICE mission areas.

II is requested that Recommendation 33 be considered resolved and open pending OIG receipt of

additional documentation.

Should you have questions: or concerns, please contact Megan Reedy, DIG ponfolio manager at

(202)732-4185 or bye-mail atMegan.Reedy@dhs.li!Ov.

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 
 

Page 76
 

 

Appendix C 

287(g) Application and Approval Process 

ICE’s 287(g) Application and Approval Process 

State and local law enforcement agencies interested in launching a 

287(g) program are required to submit a request to ICE. ICE field 

offices conducted field surveys to ensure that 287(g) applicants 

were knowledgeable of the program requirements, and that 

requests for participation had been vetted by appropriate state and 

local government officials. These surveys also provided 

information on the potential number of illegal aliens who could be 

removed from the country through the program, and the level of 

program support needed from ICE field offices operating in the 

area. ICE headquarters officials considered ICE field office 

recommendations, along with survey results, in determining 

whether to pursue a 287(g) agreement with the requesting law 

enforcement agency. 

ICE received five applications for participation in the 287(g) 

program from its establishment in 2003 until FY 2005.20 During 

FYs 2006 and 2007, state and local interest in the 287(g) program 

increased, triggering a significant rise in applications. In FYs 2006 

and 2007, ICE received 18 and 71 applications, respectively. 

In response to expanding interest in the 287(g) program, ICE 

modified the application and selection process to incorporate other 

ICE program initiatives that might better address community 

needs. Under the ICE ACCESS program, state and local law 

enforcement agencies that apply for the 287(g) program can select 

from among 13 other ICE services and programs.21 

State and local law enforcement agencies apply for participation in 

the 287(g) program via a formal request letter to ICE. Applicants 

are required to complete an ICE ACCESS needs assessment to 

provide specific information about the jurisdiction, including its 

detention facilities; involvement in ICE task forces; and frequency 

of encounters with fraudulent immigration documents, counterfeit 

goods, and foreign-born gang members operating in the area. ICE 

factors in this information to assess the jurisdiction’s immigration 

enforcement challenges, and whether any other ICE ACCESS 

programs and services would be more appropriate in addressing its 

needs. 

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

287(g) applications. 


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

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 77 
Appendix C 

287(g) Application and Approval Process 

ICE field offices provide recommendations on whether ICE should 

pursue a 287(g) agreement with a requesting jurisdiction. Field 

recommendations are evaluated by an advisory committee 

established in early 2009. This advisory committee consists of 

representatives from 15 units within ICE, including DRO, OI, 

OCIO, OPR, and the Office of Training and Development. The 

committee develops and forwards consensus recommendations to 

the ICE Assistant Secretary on whether 287(g) collaborations with 

applicant LEAs would benefit ICE and the local community. The 

ICE Assistant Secretary reviews advisory committee 

recommendations before making a final determination. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 


Page 78 

 

Appendix D 

ICE ACCESS Programs 

ICE ACCESS Programs 

In addition to the 287(g) program, ICE operates the following 

programs under the ICE ACCESS umbrella:22 

Asset Forfeiture/Equitable Sharing 

The ICE Asset Forfeiture Program provides funding to state, local, 

and foreign law enforcement agencies that participate jointly in 

ICE investigations leading to seizures and forfeitures. ICE uses 

asset forfeiture to disrupt criminal enterprises in areas such as 

money laundering, bulk cash smuggling, worksite enforcement, 

and alien- and drug-smuggling investigations. ICE provides seized 

and forfeited funds and equipment to state, local, and foreign law 

enforcement counterparts through the Department of Treasury's 

Equitable Sharing Program. In addition to equitably sharing 

assets, some state and local law enforcement agencies are eligible 

to receive reimbursement for overtime and other limited 

investigative expenses associated with joint investigations. 

Border Enforcement Security Task Forces 

Border Enforcement Security Task Forces consist of DHS law 

enforcement agencies working cooperatively with other law 

enforcement entities to develop comprehensive approaches to 

identifying, disrupting, and dismantling criminal organizations 

posing significant threats to border security. These task forces are 

designed to increase information sharing and collaboration among 

participating agencies, and currently operate in Arizona, 

California, Florida, Michigan, New Mexico, New York, Texas, and 

Washington, as well as in Mexico City, Mexico. 

Criminal Alien Program 

The Criminal Alien Program focuses on identifying criminal aliens 

who are incarcerated within federal, state, and local facilities, 

ensuring that they are not released into the community by securing 

a final order of removal prior to the termination of their sentence. 

Customs Cross-Designation (Title 19) 

Title 19 U.S.C. 1401(i) allows ICE to cross-designate federal, state, 

local, and foreign law enforcement officers as “customs officers” 

22 The following program descriptions are derived from information on ICE websites: 

http://www.ice.gov/partners/dro/iceaccess.htm, and http://www.ice.gov/oslc/iceaccess.htm. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 79 
Appendix D 

ICE ACCESS Programs 

and grant them the authority to enforce U.S. customs law. Crossdesignated task force officers support ICE investigative missions to 

combat narcotics smuggling, money laundering, human smuggling 

and trafficking, and fraud-related activities and disrupt and 

dismantle criminal organizations threatening U.S. borders. In 

October 2009, ICE reported that it had cross-designated 

approximately 300 law enforcement officers with Title 19 authority. 

Document and Benefit Fraud Task Forces 

ICE Document and Benefit Fraud Task Forces target, dismantle, 

and seize illicit proceeds of criminal organizations that threaten 

national security and public safety through immigration fraud. 

These task forces provide platforms to launch anti-fraud initiatives 

using existing manpower and authorities. Through the task forces, 

ICE partners with other federal, state, and local law enforcement 

agencies. These task forces focus on detecting, deterring, and 

disrupting both benefit fraud and document fraud. As of August 

2009, these task forces operated in 17 locations around the Nation. 

Fugitive Operation Teams 

The primary mission of fugitive operation teams is to identify, 

locate, apprehend, process, and remove fugitive aliens from the 

United States, with the highest priority placed on those who have 

been convicted of crimes. Fugitive aliens are those who have 

failed to leave the United States based upon a final order of 

removal, deportation, or exclusion; or who have failed to report to 

ICE after receiving notice to do so. Fugitive operation teams’ goal 

is to eliminate the backlog of fugitive aliens and ensure that the 

number of aliens deported equals the number of final orders of 

removal issued by the immigration courts in any given year. 

Outside law enforcement agencies assist fugitive operation teams 

by participating in local Joint Fugitive Task Forces. 

Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center 

The Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center is the U.S. 

government’s central point of contact in the fight against violations 

of intellectual property rights and the flow of counterfeit goods 

into the U.S. The multiagency center is responsible for 

coordinating a unified U.S. government response regarding 

intellectual property rights enforcement issues, with an emphasis 

on protecting the public health and safety of U.S. consumers, 

investigating major criminal organizations engaged in transnational 

intellectual property crimes, and pursuing the illegal proceeds 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 80 
Appendix D 

ICE ACCESS Programs 

derived from the manufacture and sale of counterfeit merchandise. 

ICE provides investigative and intelligence personnel for the 

center. 

Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC) 

The mission of the LESC is to protect the United States and its 

people by providing timely, accurate information and assistance to 

the federal, state, and local law enforcement community. The 

LESC serves as a national enforcement operations center by 

providing customs information and immigration status and identity 

information to local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies 

on aliens suspected of, arrested for, or convicted of criminal 

activity. The LESC operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week 

assisting law enforcement agencies with information gathered from 

eight DHS databases, the National Crime Information Center, 

Interstate Identification Index, and other state criminal history 

indexes. 

Operation Community Shield 

Operation Community Shield is a national law enforcement 

initiative to fight violent transnational gangs threatening public 

safety. Under this initiative, ICE uses its criminal and 

administrative authorities against gangs and gang members in 

collaboration with federal, state, and local law enforcement 

partners. The goal of Operation Community Shield is to identify, 

locate, arrest, and prosecute gang members and associates and 

ultimately disrupt and dismantle gang organizations. 

Operation Firewall 

Smuggling bulk currency out of the United States is a method for 

moving illicit proceeds across our borders. To combat the use of 

bulk cash smuggling by criminal organizations, the ICE and DHS’ 

Customs and Border Protection developed a joint strategic bulk 

cash smuggling initiative called Operation Firewall. Operation 

Firewall has resulted in the seizure of more than $80 million in 

U.S. currency and negotiable instruments of suspected narcotics 

and other criminal proceeds. 

Operation Predator 

Operation Predator is a program designed to identify, investigate, 

and, as appropriate, administratively deport child predators. ICE 

coordinates and integrates investigative efforts with state, local, 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 

Page 81 
Appendix D 

ICE ACCESS Programs 

and foreign law enforcement to identify, arrest, and prosecute the 

principals who are involved in international pedophilic groups or 

who derive proceeds from commercial child exploitation ventures. 

Rapid Removal of Eligible Parolees Accepted for Transfer 

(REPAT) 

The ICE Rapid REPAT program is designed to expedite the 

process removing criminal aliens from the United States by 

allowing selected criminal aliens incarcerated in U.S. prisons and 

jails to accept early release in exchange for voluntarily returning to 

their country of origin. Eligible aliens agree to waive appeal rights 

associated with their state conviction(s) and must have final 

removal orders. In states where Rapid REPAT is implemented, 

certain aliens who are incarcerated in state prison and who have 

been convicted of non-violent offenses may receive early 

conditional release if they have a final order of removal and agree 

not to return to the United States. ICE has such arrangements with 

four states and Puerto Rico. 

Secure Communities 

The Secure Communities program aims to improve the 

identification of criminal aliens and prioritize the removal of 

dangerous criminal aliens. Under the program, ICE provides state 

and local LEAs with access to biometric identification systems that 

permit them to perform integrated record checks on all arrested and 

incarcerated persons, as well as on those criminals previously 

released from custody. ICE uses information from these checks to 

prioritize the immigration processing and removal of aliens based 

on their threat to public safety. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 


Page 82 

 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

Appendix E 

287(g) Program Jurisdictions 

287(g) Jurisdictions 

ICE has 287(g) agreements with 67 LEAs. As of October 28, 2009, six of 

these agreements remained agreements in principle, as they were pending 

approval by a local governing body. We have listed participating 

jurisdictions below by state, and included those with which ICE has an 

agreement in principle but for which the MOA is pending local approval. 

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

Participating Jurisdictions 

Program Model MOA 

Jail Task 

Force 

Originally 

Signed 

Current 

Status 

Alabama 

Alabama Department of Public Safety 9/10/2003 Signed 

Etowah County Sheriff's Office 7/8/2008 Signed 

Arkansas 

Benton County Sheriff's Office 9/26/2007 Signed 

City of Springdale Police Department 9/26/2007 Signed 

Rogers Police Department 9/25/2007 Signed 

Washington County Sheriff's Office 9/26/2007 Signed 

Arizona 

Arizona Department of Corrections 9/16/2005 Signed 

Arizona Department of Public Safety 4/15/2007 Signed 

City of Mesa Police Department Pending 

City of Phoenix Police Department 3/10/2008 Signed 

Florence Police Department 10/21/2009 Signed 

Maricopa County Sheriff's Office 2/7/2007 Signed 

Pima County Sheriff's Office 3/10/2008 Signed 

Pinal County Sheriff's Office 3/10/2008 Signed 

Yavapai County Sheriff's Office 3/10/2008 Signed 

California 

San Bernardino County Sheriff's Office 10/19/2005 Pending 

Colorado 

Colorado Department of Public Safety 3/29/2007 Signed 

El Paso County Sheriff's Office 5/17/2007 Signed 

Connecticut 

City of Danbury Police Department 10/15/2009 Signed 

Delaware 

Delaware Department of Corrections 10/15/2009 Signed 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 
 

Page 83
 

 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

Appendix E 

287(g) Program Jurisdictions 

Participating Jurisdictions 

Program Model MOA 

Jail Task 

Force 

Originally 

Signed 

Current 

Status 

Florida 

Bay County Sheriff's Office 6/15/2008 Signed 

Collier County Sheriff's Office 8/6/2007 Signed 

Florida Department of Law Enforcement 7/2/2002 Signed 

Jacksonville Sheriff's Office 7/8/2008 Pending 

Georgia 

Cobb County Sheriff's Office 2/13/2007 Signed 

Georgia Department of Public Safety 7/27/2007 Signed 

Gwinnett County Sheriff's Office 10/15/2009 Signed 

Hall County Sheriff's Office 2/29/2008 Signed 

Whitfield County Sheriff's Office 2/4/2008 Signed 

Maryland 

Frederick County Sheriff's Office 2/6/2008 Signed 

Minnesota 

Minnesota Department of Public Safety 9/22/2008 Signed 

Missouri 

Missouri State Highway Patrol 6/25/2008 Signed 

Nevada 

Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department 9/8/2008 Signed 

New Hampshire 

Hudson City Police Department 5/5/2007 Signed 

New Jersey 

Hudson County Department of Corrections 8/11/2008 Signed 

Monmouth County Sheriff's Office 10/15/2009 Signed 

North Carolina 

Alamance County Sheriff's Office 1/10/2007 Signed 

Cabarrus County Sheriff's Office 8/2/2007 Signed 

Durham Police Department 2/1/2008 Signed 

Gaston County Sheriff's Office 2/22/2007 Signed 

Guilford County Sheriff's Office 10/15/2009 Signed 

Henderson County Sheriff's Office 6/25/2008 Signed 

Mecklenburg County Sheriff's Office 2/27/2006 Signed 

Wake County Sheriff's Office 6/25/2008 Signed 

Ohio 

Butler County Sheriff's Office 2/5/2008 Signed 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 
 

Page 84
 

 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

Appendix E 

287(g) Program Jurisdictions 

Participating Jurisdictions 

Program Model MOA 

Jail Task 

Force 

Originally 

Signed 

Current 

Status 

Oklahoma 

Tulsa County Sheriff's Office 8/6/2007 Signed 

Rhode Island 

Rhode Island Department of Corrections Pending 

Rhode Island State Police 10/15/2009 Signed 

South Carolina 

Beaufort County Sheriff's Office 6/25/2008 Signed 

Charleston County Sheriff's Office Pending 

York County Sheriff's Office 10/16/2007 Signed 

Tennessee 

Davidson County Sheriff's Office 2/21/2007 Signed 

Tennessee Department of Safety 6/25/2008 Signed 

Texas 

Carrollton Police Department 8/12/2008 Signed 

Farmers Branch Police Department 7/8/2008 Signed 

Harris County Sheriff's Office 7/20/2008 Pending 

Utah 

Washington County Sheriff Office 9/22/2008 Signed 

Weber County Sheriff's Office 9/22/2008 Signed 

Virginia 

Herndon Police Department 3/21/2007 Signed 

Loudoun County Sheriff's Office 6/25/2008 Signed 

Manassas Park Police Department 3/10/2008 Signed 

Manassas Police Department 3/5/2008 Signed 

Prince William County Police Department 2/26/2008 Signed 

Prince William County Sheriff's Office 2/26/2008 Signed 

Prince William-Manassas Regional Jail 7/9/2007 Signed 

Rockingham County Sheriff's Office 4/25/2007 Signed 

Shenandoah County Sheriff's Office 5/10/2007 Signed 

Source: ICE OSLC. 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 


Page 85 

Appendix F 

Major Contributors to This Report 

Deborah Outten-Mills, Chief Inspector, Department of Homeland 

Security, Office of Inspector General, Office of Inspections 

Justin H. Brown, Senior Inspector, Department of Homeland 

Security, Office of Inspector General, Office of Inspections 

Jacqueline Simms, Senior Inspector, Department of Homeland 

Security, Office of Inspector General, Office of Inspections 

Morgan Ferguson, Inspector, Department of Homeland Security, 

Office of Inspector General, Office of Inspections 

Tatyana Martell, Inspector, Department of Homeland Security, 

Office of Inspector General, Office of Inspections 

The following individuals contributed as subject matter experts in 

the area of civil rights and civil liberties: 

Bruce Friedman, Senior Policy Advisor, Department of Homeland 

Security, Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties 

Amy Cucinella, Policy Advisor, Department of Homeland 

Security, Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 


Page 86 

Appendix G 

Report Distribution 

Department of Homeland Security 

Secretary 

Deputy Secretary 

Chief of Staff for Operations 

Chief of Staff for Policy 

Deputy Chiefs of Staff 

General Counsel 

Executive Secretariat 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Policy 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Public Affairs 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Legislative Affairs 

Acting Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties 

Assistant Secretary for U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement 

Director, GAO/OIG Liaison Office 

ICE Audit Liaison 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights 

DOJ GAO/OIG Liaison 

Office of Management and Budget 

Chief, Homeland Security Branch 

DHS Program Examiner 

Congress 

Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees, as 

appropriate 

The Performance of 287(g) Agreements 
 

Page 87
 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND COPIES 

To obtain additional copies of this report, please call the Office of Inspector General (OIG) at (202) 254-4100, 

fax your request to (202) 254-4305, or visit the OIG web site at www.dhs.gov/oig. 

OIG HOTLINE 

To report alleged fraud, waste, abuse or mismanagement, or any other kind of criminal or noncriminal 

misconduct relative to department programs or operations: 

• Call our Hotline at 1-800-323-8603; 

• Fax the complaint directly to us at (202) 254-4292; 

• Email us at DHSOIGHOTLINE@dhs.gov; or 

• Write to us at: 

DHS Office of Inspector General/MAIL STOP 2600, 

Attention: Office of Investigations - Hotline, 

245 Murray Drive, SW, Building 410, 

Washington, DC 20528. 

The OIG seeks to protect the identity of each writer and caller.