Thread: Flaws persist in immigration enforcement program

Flaws persist in immigration enforcement program

By SUZANNE GAMBOA, Associated Press Writer,
Friday, October 22, 2010 at 4:11 p.m.

WASHINGTON — The Homeland Security Department's internal watchdog is unable to verify federal money for an immigration enforcement program was spent as Congress intended, according to a report issued Friday.

The department's inspector general said Congress gave Immigration and Customs Enforcement $11.1 million in 2009 and 2010 for compliance reviews for a program known as 287(g), which allows local law enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration laws.

But the inspector general's office said when it tried to confirm expenditures it was unable to get all documents to back up spending.

"We made numerous requests for specific program funding data, and received varying explanations from program officials regarding the absence of data related to staffing, payroll, and other expenses charged against 287(g) program funds," said the report signed by Carlton Mann, assistant inspector general for inspections.

The inspector general's office said Immigration and Custom Enforcement reported spending $455,649 for "travel and transportation of things" The spending was for federal officials to review local agency compliance with the program's policies and rules.

That added up to $6,329 per person for travel by 72 people who did 15 reviews of agencies not within driving distance of Washington, D.C., the inspector general's office said.

The inspector general's office said its calculations of airfare, lodging and per diem rates, using costs from the most expensive place to travel to, added up to $2,300 per person.

The inspector general said Immigration and Customs Enforcement has reviewed its 287(g) spending and taken steps to document the spending, but the issues remain unresolved and open.

"We are reviewing the report's findings and will respond when that review is complete," said Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokeswoman Gillian Brigham. "That said, ICE has addressed the accounting issue identified in the report."

The inspector general's office has harshly criticized the 287(g) program in two previous reports and recommended many changes. The program has been attacked by immigration advocates and others who say it has led to racial profiling by local officers given powers to arrest or hold in jail people they believe are in the country illegally.

Supporters say the program provides immigration officials with additional manpower.

The inspector general also noted that the program's cost has risen to $68.3 million for fiscal year 2011, up from $5 million in 2006.
---
Online: Homeland Security Inspector General's report: http://bit.ly/9PY9ja

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010 ... t-program/

The department's inspector general said Congress gave Immigration and Customs Enforcement $11.1 million in 2009 and 2010 for compliance reviews for a program known as 287(g), which allows local law enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration laws.

But the inspector general's office said when it tried to confirm expenditures it was unable to get all documents to back up spending.

They probably donated it to la raza.....

ICE Lacks Data on 287(g) Program Success

by Mickey McCarter
Monday, 25 October 2010


Success of removing priority criminal aliens questioned by IG report

Federal immigration police cannot say for certain that a program to extend federal authority to arrest and detain illegal aliens to state and local law enforcement agencies is meeting their priorities because they do not collect and analyze enough data to make that determination.

That was the conclusion of the inspector general (IG) of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Friday in a report, The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update, on activities under the program at US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

ICE revised the memorandum of agreement (MOA) that guides state and local law enforcement in their implementation of 287(g) programs in July 2009, emphasizing three tiers of arrest priorities for illegal aliens.

The first tier, labeled Level 1, includes illegal aliens who have convictions for major drug or violent crimes; Level 2, aliens arrested for minor felonies; Level 3, aliens who have misdemeanor arrests.

The 287(g) MOA instructs law enforcement agencies to identify and remove criminal aliens based on these priorities.

"However, performance measures that incorporate arrest, detention, and removals within each of the priority levels have not been established," the IG report stated.

In December 2009, ICE sent a memo to its regional directors and special agents to remind them that law enforcement agencies participating in the 287(g) program should follow the terms of the MOA. To do so, ICE collects monthly data from each law enforcement agency listing its encounters with illegal aliens in each of the priority levels.

But the IG office could not find any measures that ICE supervisors should use to compare encounter, arrest, and removal data to ICE priorities.

"ICE needs to develop a more comprehensive approach to determine whether the overall goals of the 287(g) program are being achieved," the IG report recommended. "A comparative analysis between data collected by ICE, such as 287(g) program encounters, arrest, and removals within each priority level could provide additional data for ensuring that 287(g) resources are managed effectively."

The report added, "However, in the absence of performance measures linked to specific program goals, ICE's success in identifying and removing criminal aliens cannot be fully determined."

Moreover, ICE supervisors must submit monthly reports to headquarters on how well specific 287(g) participants are meeting ICE priorities. Should a participant fail to meet expectations, ICE supervisors must detail actions required to improve compliance with the program's goals. The IG office could not see any way in which ICE actually follows up on such guidance, however, leaving the agency with no way to know if any actions resulted in better 287(g) performance.

ICE agreed with the conclusions and reported that it was developing performance measures that it would introduce to its partner law enforcement agencies. The agency anticipated that local law enforcement agencies would begin incorporating the performance measures to their reports in the first quarter of 2011.

Furthermore, ICE said it had established a follow-up process to ensure corrective actions were taken in support of 287(g) performance reviews.

The IG report was a follow-up to a March report, The Performance of 287(g) Agreements. The earlier report made 33 specific recommendations to improve management controls and oversight of 287(g) program operations. The new report listed another 16 recommendations.

Overall, the IG office concluded that ICE should set up a process to ensure effective management controls and accountability over the 287(g) program, should produce a strategy for ensuring successful reviews of 287(g) compliance, and should adopt a comprehensive approach to understanding if 287(g) participants are meeting the goals of removing criminal aliens who threaten public safety.

The 287(g) program takes it name from Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which provides ICE with the authority to delegate federal immigration enforcement authority to state and local law enforcement agencies.

http://oneoldvet.com/

http://www.hstoday.us/content/view/15179/128/