This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-12-708 
entitled 'Secure Communities: Criminal Alien Removals Increased, but 
Technology Planning Improvements Needed' which was released on August 
2, 2012. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to the Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland Security, House of 
Representatives: 

July 2012: 

Secure Communities: 

Criminal Alien Removals Increased, but Technology Planning 
Improvements Needed: 

GAO-12-708: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-12-708, a report to the Ranking Member, Committee on 
Homeland Security, House of Representatives. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Initiated in 2008, Secure Communities is an ICE program designed to 
identify potentially removable aliens, particularly those with 
criminal convictions, in state and local law enforcement custody. 
Fingerprints checked against a Federal Bureau of Investigation 
criminal database are checked against DHS’s immigration database to 
help determine whether an arrested individual is removable. GAO was 
asked to review Secure Communities operations. This report addresses 
(1) enforcement trends under Secure Communities, (2) ICE’s adherence 
to best practices in acquiring Secure Communities–related technology, 
and (3) ICE safeguards to help protect against potential civil rights 
abuses under Secure Communities. GAO analyzed ICE data on removals 
from October 2008 through March 2012, and arrest charges from October 
2010 through March 2012; reviewed program guidance, policies, and 
reports; and interviewed ICE’s Law Enforcement Support Center and 
agency officials, local law enforcement and community groups in four 
locations selected for geographic diversity, among other factors. 
These perspectives are not generalizable, but provided insights into 
Secure Communities operations. 

What GAO Found: 

Data from the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement (ICE) indicate that the percentage of its removals 
attributable to Secure Communities increased from about 4 percent in 
fiscal year 2009 to about 20 percent in fiscal year 2011. Of about 
183,000 aliens removed under the program from October 2008 through 
March 2012, about 74 percent had a criminal conviction. ICE did not 
have state or local arrest charges for about 56 percent of alien 
Secure Communities removals from October 2010 (when ICE began 
collecting arrest charges) through March 2012, so we were unable to 
determine the most frequent arrest charges under the program. For the 
44 percent of aliens removed on whom ICE collected arrest charge data, 
traffic offenses, including driving under the influence of alcohol, 
were the most frequent arrest charges. ICE is taking steps to improve 
the collection of arrest charge data, but it is too early to assess 
the effectiveness of its efforts. 

ICE has not consistently followed best practices in acquiring 
technology to help determine the immigration status of aliens 
identified by Secure Communities. ICE awarded contracts to modernize 
its technology without fully defining requirements or developing an 
integrated master schedule—-two best practices for managing capital 
programs. As a result, ICE encountered delays, cost increases, and 
products that did not meet ICE’s needs. For example, ICE spent $14.3 
million for one contract to develop services that ICE found to be 
unusable. Establishing well-defined requirements and developing an 
integrated schedule for completing technology modernization could 
better position ICE to prevent delays and cost increases. Further, ICE 
plans to develop a workforce plan after the systems are deployed. 
Developing a workforce plan prior to full system deployment, 
consistent with internal controls, could better position ICE to 
effectively use staff when it deploys the modernized technology.
DHS’s Office of Civil Rights and ICE identified four safeguards to 
help protect aliens’ civil rights under Secure Communities, including 
providing detainees with a revised detainer form with telephone 
numbers to call when they feel their civil rights have been violated. 
Officials are also developing briefing materials on how to protect 
aliens’ civil rights, statistically analyzing arrest and other 
information to identify potential civil rights abuses, and using an 
existing DHS complaint process for addressing Secure Communities 
concerns. 

Table: Number and Percentage of ICE’s Removals Attributed to Secure 
Communities, by Fiscal Year: 

Year: 2009; 
ICE removals: 389,834 
Removals attributed to Secure Communities: 14,363 
Percentage of ICE removals attributed to Secure Communities: 4%. 

Year: 2010; 
ICE removals: 392,862 
Removals attributed to Secure Communities: 49,498 
Percentage of ICE removals attributed to Secure Communities: 13%. 

Year: 2011; 
ICE removals: 396,606 
Removals attributed to Secure Communities: 79,876 
Percentage of ICE removals attributed to Secure Communities: 20%. 

Year: 2012: October 2011 through March 2012; 
ICE removals: 187,763 
Removals attributed to Secure Communities: 39,159 
Percentage of ICE removals attributed to Secure Communities: 21%. 

Year: Total; 
ICE removals: 1,367,065 
Removals attributed to Secure Communities: 182,896 
Percentage of ICE removals attributed to Secure Communities: 13%. 

Source: GAO analysis of data provided by ICE. 

[End of table] 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that ICE develop well-defined requirements and an 
integrated master schedule that accounts for all activities for its 
technology contracts, and a plan for workforce changes in preparation 
for full technology deployment. DHS concurred with the recommendations. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-708]. For more 
information, contact Rebecca Gambler at (202) 512-8777 or 
gamblerr@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

Most Secure Communities Removals Were Criminal Aliens, but Arrest 
Charge Data Are Incomplete: 

ICE Is Modernizing Its Technology System for Determining Immigration 
Status, but Acquisition and Implementation Planning Could Be Improved: 

ICE and CRCL Identified Safeguards to Help Address Potential Civil 
Rights Abuses under Secure Communities; Some Efforts Have Not Yet Been 
Fully Implemented: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and GAO's Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Alien Criminal Response Information Management 
Modernization Contracts: 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: ICE's Civil Immigration Enforcement Removal Priorities: 

Table 2: Number and Percentage of ICE's Removals Attributed to Secure 
Communities, by Fiscal Year: 

Table 3: Arrest Charge Information for Aliens That Secure Communities 
Identified and ICE Removed during Fiscal Year 2011 and the First Half 
of Fiscal Year 2012, Including the Most Frequent Arrest Charge 
Categories: 

Table 4: ACRIMe Modernization Projects: 

Table 5: Comparison of Schedule and Cost Estimates: 

Table 6: ACRIMe Modernization Contracts: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: The Secure Communities Process: 

Figure 2: Secure Communities Activation Status as of June 5, 2012: 

Figure 3: Classification of 182,896 Aliens Who Were Removed by ICE 
after Being Identified by Secure Communities from October 2008 through 
March 2012: 

Figure 4: Arrest Locations of Aliens Identified by Secure Communities 
and Removed by ICE, From October 2008 through March 2012: 

Figure 5: Composition of Secure Communities Removals by Fiscal Year: 

Figure 6: Detainer Form Notice to Detainee: 

Abbreviations: 

ACRIMe: Alien Criminal Response Information Management: 

ATP: Automated Threat Prioritization: 

CAP: Criminal Alien Program: 

CBP: Customs and Border Protection: 

CRCL: Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties: 

DHS: Department of Homeland Security: 

ERO: Enforcement and Removal Operations: 

EWI: entry without inspection: 

FBI: Federal Bureau of Investigation: 

IAFIS: Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System: 

IAQ: Immigration Alien Query: 

ICE: Immigration and Customs Enforcement: 

IDENT: Automated Biometric Identification System: 

IRC: Interoperability Response Center: 

LEA: law enforcement agency: 

LESC: Law Enforcement Support Center: 

NIBRS: National Incident-Based Reporting System: 

NCIC: National Crime Information Center: 

OIG: Office of the Inspector General: 

OPR: Office of Professional Responsibility: 

SDS: Status Determination Support: 

UCR: Uniform Crime Reporting: 

YTD: year to date: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

July 13, 2012: 

The Honorable Bennie Thompson: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Homeland Security: 
House of Representatives: 

Dear Mr. Thompson: 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) estimated that as of
January 2011 there were about 11.5 million aliens (non-U.S. citizens)
living in the United States without lawful immigration status. 
[Footnote 1] DHS’s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is 
responsible for apprehending and removing aliens who have violated 
immigration law. All aliens not lawfully present in the United States 
are potentially removable. Removal is a civil enforcement process that 
does not lead to a criminal conviction.[Footnote 2] A criminal alien 
is a noncitizen in the United States, who may be present on a lawful 
basis or not, who has been convicted of a crime. A criminal alien 
lawfully in the United States may be removable, depending on the 
nature of the particular offense of which the alien was convicted. 
[Footnote 3] 

Secure Communities, initiated in 2008 and expected by DHS to be
deployed nationwide by 2013, is one of ICE’s programs for identifying
potentially removable aliens arrested by state or local law enforcement
agencies, particularly those with criminal convictions. Under Secure
Communities, the fingerprints that these agencies submit to the
Department of Justice’s Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for 
criminal background checks are automatically forwarded to DHS for 
comparison with fingerprint records DHS maintains. If the fingerprints 
match DHS’s records, ICE is to use its information systems to access 
law enforcement and immigration databases to conduct additional 
analysis of the individuals’ immigration status and criminal history, 
and determine whether to request that the law enforcement agency hold 
the subject so ICE can take custody for further enforcement action. 

Secure Communities is one of four programs under ICE to identify
criminal aliens who are subject to removal, a key agency enforcement
priority. In addition to Secure Communities, ICE’s Criminal Alien 
Program (CAP) is designed to identify, process, and remove criminal 
aliens from prisons across the United States; the National Fugitive 
Operations Program is to pursue known at-large criminal aliens and 
fugitive aliens; and the 287(g) program, authorized by section 287(g) 
of the Immigration and Nationality Act,[Footnote 4] is to provide 
state and local law enforcement agency officers with delegation of 
authority, training, and resources to perform certain functions of an 
immigration officer.[Footnote 5] While identifying criminal aliens is 
a priority for ICE, individuals identified by Secure Communities
who are not convicted for the offense for which they are arrested and
have no previous criminal conviction may be removed because they fall
under other ICE priorities (such as previous violations of immigration
laws).[Footnote 6] 

Different stakeholders have provided differing perspectives on the 
effects of Secure Communities. According to ICE, Secure Communities
strengthens public safety by improving ICE’s ability to identify, 
detain, and ultimately remove criminal aliens nationwide. ICE has also 
reported that Secure Communities reduces the potential for racial or 
ethnic profiling by state and local law enforcement agencies because 
anyone who is arrested and fingerprinted is subject to the Secure 
Communities matching process. In contrast, some immigrant advocacy 
groups have expressed concern that the program encourages racial 
profiling because officers could find pretexts to arrest individuals 
based on their physical appearance, knowing that they will be screened 
for immigration status as a result of the arrest. Further, these 
groups believe that Secure Communities discourages witnesses of crimes 
and domestic violence victims from contacting law enforcement for fear 
of possible deportation. A DHS Advisory Task Force identified similar 
community concerns, based in part on forums held in communities across 
the country, and concluded that such fears could erode the police’s 
ability to build strong relationships with immigrant communities and 
engage in community policing.[Footnote 7] 

In March and April 2012, DHS’s Office of Inspector General issued two
reports on Secure Communities, one of which reviewed how ICE
communicated the intent and requirements for participation in Secure
Communities to states and local jurisdictions, and the other reviewed
ICE’s operation of Secure Communities.[Footnote 8] ICE agreed with
recommendations made in both reports. 

You asked us to review ICE’s implementation of the Secure Communities
program. This report addresses the following questions: (1) What trends
can be identified in ICE’s enforcement actions related to the Secure
Communities program? (2) To what extent has ICE adhered to best
practices to acquire Secure Communities–related technology? (3) What
safeguards, if any, does ICE have in place to protect against 
potential civil rights abuses under Secure Communities? 

To address these objectives, we conducted five site visits. Four visits
were to ICE field offices in Washington, D.C.; Los Angeles, California; 
Chicago, Illinois; and Miami, Florida, where we met with agency 
officials, local law enforcement officials, and community groups. We 
selected these field offices because they are geographically dispersed 
and would provide perspectives from different parts of the country, 
and because the Los Angeles, Chicago, and Miami field offices house 
three of ICE’s four Interoperability Response Centers where Secure 
Communities fingerprint match information is analyzed. The information 
obtained from these visits is not generalizable to other ICE field 
offices, but it provided valuable insights into Secure Communities 
implementation. We also visited ICE’s Law Enforcement Support Center 
(LESC) in Williston, Vermont, where we met with officials responsible 
for determining the immigration status of individuals identified by 
Secure Communities as potentially removable. 

To identify trends in ICE’s enforcement actions related to the Secure
Communities program, we reviewed ICE’s progress reports for activating
jurisdictions into the program and conducted interviews with ICE 
officials on each of our site visits. We reviewed ICE alien removal 
data from October 2008 through March 2012, and analyzed arrest charges 
for aliens removed from the United States during fiscal year 2011, 
when ICE began collecting arrest charge data, and the first half of 
fiscal year 2012. We also examined ICE’s policies and procedures for 
identifying and removing criminal aliens, and documents related to 
enforcement actions and detainers. We interviewed officials from ICE’s 
Secure Communities and Law Enforcement Systems and Analysis offices. 
We assessed the reliability of Secure Communities–related data by 
examining documentation about the various systems that ICE uses to 
analyze Secure Communities fingerprint submissions and maintain 
information on aliens it encounters, and confirming with ICE officials 
that the documentation is accurate and up to date. In doing so, we 
confirmed that ICE has controls in place to ensure that the data it 
maintains on aliens encountered by the program are entered accurately. 
We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the 
purposes of this report. 

To examine ICE’s efforts to plan and manage the acquisition of
technology for determining the immigration status of aliens identified
through Secure Communities, we reviewed documents, such as
contracts, acquisition plans, and project schedules, from 2007 through
2012, which corresponds to the time frame of ICE’s acquisition efforts.
We reviewed ICE workforce documents related to Secure Communities
technologies, such as LESC budget and staffing data and ICE’s
Deployment Dashboard, a document listing each location where Secure
Communities is activated or is planned to be activated. To obtain
information on workload and staffing issues associated with planned 
technology changes, we interviewed headquarters officials in ICE’s
Enforcement and Removal Operations, officials responsible for
overseeing technology procurements in ICE’s Office of the Chief
Information Officer and Office of Acquisition Management, and
knowledgeable officials in the field offices we visited. We evaluated 
ICE’s plans for acquiring a modernized system for determining the 
immigration status of Secure Communities matches using GAO’s Standards 
for Internal Control in the Federal Government, and best practices for
managing capital investments.[Footnote 9] 

To determine the extent to which DHS has safeguards in place to protect
against potential civil rights abuses, we reviewed ICE documents, such 
as the detainer form-—the form that ICE sends to state and local law
enforcement agencies to request that they maintain custody of a
removable alien-—met with community groups at each of our site visits
regarding Secure Communities, interviewed ICE officials responsible for
managing the Secure Communities program, and officials in DHS’s Office
for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) responsible for addressing
complaints and conducting monitoring activities related to Secure
Communities. We viewed training videos CRCL developed for state and
local law enforcement officials, and reviewed CRCL’s dissemination and
completion plans for additional training videos. We examined documents
and discussed the status of CRCL’s plans for monitoring arrests by state
and local law enforcement with CRCL’s statistician. We discussed
CRCL’s process for individuals to submit civil rights and civil 
liberties complaints associated with Secure Communities, and obtained
summaries of complaint investigations under way. We reviewed LESC’s
summary statistics for calls received on its detainee phone line from
December 26, 2011(when it was initiated), through April 17, 2012. We
also reviewed examples of call records from January, February, and
March 2012, and picked three for illustrative purposes. The examples are
not generalizable, but provided us with perspectives on the types of 
calls LESC receives. To assess the reliability of the call record 
data, we discussed the call receipt process with LESC officials, 
reviewed the relevant standard operating procedures, and reviewed the 
detainee phone line call categorization guidelines. We determined that 
the data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. 

We conducted this performance audit from July 2011 through July 2012,
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Background: 

ICE has received funding specifically designated for removing criminal 
aliens. For example, the fiscal year 2008 DHS appropriations act made 
$200 million of ICE's salaries and expenses appropriation available 
through the end of fiscal year 2009 to "improve and modernize efforts 
to identify aliens convicted of a crime, sentenced to imprisonment, 
and who may be deportable, and remove them from the United States, 
once they are judged deportable."[Footnote 10] In response, ICE 
initiated Secure Communities and issued a plan that detailed how ICE 
would implement policies and modernize technologies to accomplish its 
overall goal of identifying and removing criminal aliens.[Footnote 11] 
ICE's Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) is responsible for 
identifying and apprehending removable aliens, detaining these 
individuals when it deems it necessary, and removing them from the 
United States. ERO manages the Secure Communities program and has 24 
field offices nationwide. 

Under Secure Communities, when an individual is arrested by a state or 
local law enforcement agency, the individual's fingerprints are taken 
and automatically checked against the Integrated Automated Fingerprint 
Identification System (IAFIS), a national fingerprint and criminal 
history system maintained by the FBI, and DHS's Automated Biometric 
Identification System (IDENT) to identify a fingerprint match. 
[Footnote 12] IDENT contains fingerprint and other biometric 
information on immigration violators, known or suspected terrorists, 
criminal aliens, and foreign nationals who are enrolled in DHS's 
United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology 
program, among others.[Footnote 13] When a law enforcement agency 
(LEA) arrests and books an individual on suspicion of committing a 
crime, the person's fingerprints are routinely sent to the FBI for a 
criminal background check. FBI electronically forwards the 
fingerprints to DHS for a check against IDENT records. If there is a 
fingerprint match, ICE is to then determine whether the individual is 
subject to removal.[Footnote 14] On the basis of the match, the FBI is 
to send an Immigration Alien Query to ICE's LESC.[Footnote 15] Using 
the Alien Criminal Response Information Management (ACRIMe) system, 
LESC specialists are to search multiple databases, such as the FBI's 
National Crime Information Center (NCIC) and the Student and Exchange 
Visitor Information System for information on the individual's 
criminal history and immigration status.[Footnote 16] LESC is to then 
send an Immigration Alien Response to the LEA and relevant ICE ERO 
field office or Interoperability Response Center (IRC)--offices 
established in the Los Angeles, Chicago, Miami, and Buffalo, New York, 
field offices to expand ICE's ability to respond to Secure Communities 
matches.[Footnote 17] 

The ICE field office or response center is to then determine whether 
to send an immigration detainer (Form I-247) to the LEA that has 
custody of the individual.[Footnote 18] A detainer is an ICE request 
that the law enforcement agency maintain custody of the individual for 
up to 48 hours after that person would otherwise be released, 
excluding weekends and holidays, to allow ICE time to administratively 
arrest (i.e., assume custody of) the person. The decision whether to 
issue a detainer for a particular alien is based on whether the alien 
falls within ICE's priorities for removal and other factors, such as 
whether ICE detention resources are available, and whether the 
individual is still in the custody of the arresting local or state law 
enforcement agency (under some circumstances a person may be held for 
only a few hours). If the individual is convicted and serves a 
criminal sentence, ICE is to wait until the sentence is completed to 
take the person into custody. Figure 1 describes the Secure 
Communities process. 

Figure 1: The Secure Communities Process: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

1. Local Law Enforcement (LEA) Agency arrests subject. 

2. LEA scans and submits subject's fingerprints to be checked. 

3. Subject's fingerprints are checked against IAFIS, a national 
fingerprint and criminal history system, and DHS's immigration 
database (IDENT); 
Criminal: FBI (IAFIS); 
Immigration: DHS (IDENT); 
Secure Communities' use of IDENT/IAFIS interoperability. 
No match: go to 4A. 
Match: go to 4B. 

4A. If there is not a fingerprint match in IDENT, a "no match" message 
may  be routed back to the requesting LEA through the FBI.  

4B. If there is a fingerprint match in IDENT, the FBI sends an 
Immigration Alien Query (IAQ) to ICE's Law Enforcement Support Center 
(LESC) in Williston, Vermont to determine subject's immigration status 
and criminal history. 
   
5. LESC staff use the ACRIMe system to determine whether the 
individual is subject to removal from the United States.  

6. LESC creates an Immigration Alien Response (IAR), denoting the 
alien's immigration status and criminal conviction history and sends 
to: 

* ICE's field office responsible for the geographic area from where 
the fingerprints were submitted. 
* The FBI, which routes the response back to the LEA. 

7. The ICE field office decides whether send a request to the LEA that 
the subject be detained up to 48 hours ICE to take custody.  

Source: GAO analysis of information provided by ICE. 

[End of figure] 

According to ICE, Secure Communities helps carry out ICE's civil 
immigration enforcement priorities. In a March 2011 memorandum, ICE's 
Director provided guidance to all ICE employees on ICE's civil 
immigration enforcement priorities as they relate to the apprehension, 
detention, and removal of aliens across all ICE programs.[Footnote 19] 
The types of crimes included under the different priority 
classifications are described in table 1. 

Table 1: ICE's Civil Immigration Enforcement Removal Priorities: 

Priority: 1; 
Priority description: The removal of aliens who pose a danger to 
national security or public safety, including aliens convicted of 
crimes, with an emphasis on violent criminals, felons, and repeat 
offenders. Convicted criminal aliens (as a subset of Priority 1) are 
further prioritized into 3 levels based on their criminal conviction 
history[A]. 

Convicted Criminal Level 1: 
Includes aliens convicted of "aggravated felonies," as defined in § 
101(a)(43) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, or two or more 
crimes punishable by more than one year, commonly referred to as 
felonies[B]; 
Examples of types of crimes: 
Homicide; Kidnapping; Rape; Robbery; Aggravated assault; Sexual 
exploitation of a minor. 

Convicted Criminal Level 2: 
Includes aliens convicted of any felony or three or more offenses 
punishable by less than 1 year, commonly referred to as misdemeanors; 
Examples of types of crimes: 
Manslaughter; Extortion; Vehicle theft; Bribery; Sex offenses (not 
involving assault or commercialized sex). 

Convicted Criminal Level 3: 
Includes aliens convicted of offenses punishable by less than 1 year; 
Examples of types of crimes: 
Simple Assault; Driving Under the Influence; Obstructing justice; Drug 
possession; Property crimes. 

Priority: 2; 
Priority description: The removal of aliens who have recently violated 
immigration controls at the border, at ports of entry or through the 
knowing abuse of visa programs. 

Priority: 3; 
Priority description: The removal of aliens who are fugitives or have 
otherwise obstructed immigration controls. It includes aliens who 
reenter the country illegally after removal or enter fraudulently. 

Source: GAO analysis of ICE information. 

[A] Prior to fiscal year 2009, ICE did not categorize convicted 
criminal aliens by offense levels. 

[B] "Aggravated felonies" under § 101(a)(43) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)) include various state and 
federal offenses ranging from murder, rape, and trafficking in 
controlled substances to theft, bribery, and obstruction of justice. 

[End of table] 

In a June 2011 memorandum, ICE's Director provided guidance to ICE 
officers, agents, and attorneys on the exercise of "prosecutorial 
discretion" to ensure that the agency's immigration enforcement 
resources are focused on its enforcement priorities.[Footnote 20] As 
noted in the memorandum, because the agency is confronted with more 
administrative violations than its resources can address, the agency 
must regularly exercise prosecutorial discretion to prioritize its 
efforts. The memorandum provides a list of criteria for ICE personnel 
to use when assessing whether an individual case is appropriate for an 
exercise of prosecutorial discretion. In a second memorandum, also 
issued in June 2011, ICE provided additional guidance on the use of 
prosecutorial discretion for victims, witnesses, and plaintiffs. 
[Footnote 21] Specifically, the additional guidance stated that ICE is 
to exercise discretion on a case-by-case basis when making detention 
and enforcement decisions in the cases of (1) victims of domestic 
violence, human trafficking, or other serious crimes; (2) witnesses 
involved in pending criminal investigations, plaintiffs in 
nonfrivolous lawsuits regarding civil rights or civil liberties 
violations; and (3) individuals engaging in a protected activity 
related to civil or other rights, such as union organizing.[Footnote 
22] In August 2011, DHS began to review all incoming cases in 
immigration court to identify the cases most clearly eligible and 
ineligible for exercising discretion to not pursue removal of the 
individual. DHS and DOJ launched pilot programs in which an intra-
agency team of attorneys from ICE, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection applied the June 2011 
memorandums to its review of existing cases in the Denver and 
Baltimore immigration courts.[Footnote 23] On March 30, 2012, DHS 
announced that in the next phase of its pilot, beginning in April 
2012, it would extend its case reviews to immigration courts in 
Seattle, Detroit, New Orleans, Orlando, New York City, San Francisco, 
and Los Angeles. 

ICE has followed an incremental approach to activating Secure 
Communities interoperability in jurisdictions nationwide.[Footnote 24] 
Since August 2011, ICE has been simultaneously activating all 
jurisdictions within a given state into Secure Communities. From 
October 2008 to August 2011, ICE activated 1,508 jurisdictions after 
signing individual memorandums of agreement with their respective 
state governments. In August 2011, ICE terminated all existing 
memorandums of agreement, stating that they were not required because 
once a law enforcement agency voluntarily submits fingerprint data to 
the federal government, no agreement with the state is legally 
necessary for one part of the federal government to share it with 
another part. 

As of June 5, 2012, ICE had fully activated Secure Communities in all 
jurisdictions in 48 states, the District of Columbia, and four United 
States territories.[Footnote 25] Additionally, the program has been 
partially activated in 2 states. The 50 states where Secure 
Communities has been fully or partially activated cover 97 percent of 
jurisdictions nationwide. ICE plans to have all jurisdictions in all 
50 states and U.S. territories activated by March 2013. Figure 2 
depicts the states activated under Secure Communities as of June 5, 
2012. 

Figure 2: Secure Communities Activation Status as of June 5, 2012: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated U.S. map] 

Greater than 0, less than 50% of jurisdictions activated: 
Illinois: 

Greater than or equal to 50%, less than 100% of jurisdictions 
activated: 
Alabama: 

100% of jurisdictions activated: 
Alaska: 
Arizona: 
Arkansas: 
California: 
Colorado: 
Connecticut: 
Delaware: 
District of Columbia: 
Florida: 
Georgia: 
Hawaii: 
Idaho: 
Indiana: 
Iowa: 
Kansas: 
Kentucky: 
Louisiana: 
Maine: 
Maryland: 
Massachusetts: 
Michigan: 
Minnesota: 
Mississippi: 
Missouri: 
Montana: 
Nebraska: 
Nevada: 
New Hampshire: 
New Jersey: 
New Mexico: 
New York: 
North Carolina: 
North Dakota: 
Ohio: 
Oklahoma: 
Oregon: 
Pennsylvania: 
Puerto Rico: 
Rhode Island: 
South Carolina: 
South Dakota: 
Tennessee: 
Texas: 
Utah: 
Vermont: 
Virginia: 
Washington: 
West Virginia: 
Wisconsin: 
Wyoming: 

Source: GAO analysis of data provided by ICE. 

[End of figure] 

DHS's CRCL is statutorily responsible for assisting DHS components in 
ensuring that the protection of civil rights and civil liberties is 
appropriately incorporated into DHS activities and programs, including 
Secure Communities.[Footnote 26] CRCL is responsible, among other 
things, for investigating public complaints about DHS to ensure that 
DHS's policies promote respect for civil rights and civil liberties 
both within DHS and in conjunction with state and local partners. 
Investigating and resolving civil rights and civil liberties 
complaints filed by the public, including claims of racial profiling, 
is an area of focus for CRCL.[Footnote 27] 

Most Secure Communities Removals Were Criminal Aliens, but Arrest 
Charge Data Are Incomplete: 

ICE data show that from October 2008 through March 2012, Secure 
Communities led to the removal of about 183,000 aliens, of which 
approximately 74 percent had a criminal conviction and 26 percent did 
not have a criminal conviction known to ICE. All four ICE field 
offices we visited were using agency policies to help determine which 
aliens identified by Secure Communities should be selected for 
detention and removal. Additionally, ICE did not have a record of the 
state or local arrest charges for about 56 percent of the aliens that 
Secure Communities identified and ICE removed during fiscal year 2011 
and the first half of fiscal year 2012, so we were unable to determine 
the most frequent arrest charges of aliens removed under the program. 
Of the data that ICE collected, traffic offenses were the most 
frequent arrest charges, of which over half were arrests for driving 
under the influence of alcohol. 

Secure Communities Removals Have Increased, and ICE Data Show That the 
Majority of Aliens Removed Had Criminal Convictions: 

ICE data indicate that the percentage of removals attributable to 
Secure Communities has increased from fiscal year 2009 through the 
first 6 months of fiscal year 2012 and that nearly three-fourths of 
aliens removed under the program during this time frame had a criminal 
conviction. As shown in table 2, Secure Communities was responsible 
for identifying about 20 percent of the approximately 400,000 aliens 
that ICE removed in fiscal year 2011, up from approximately 4 percent 
of the aliens that ICE removed in fiscal year 2009. Other ICE 
enforcement programs such as CAP and 287(g) were responsible for 
identifying the majority of aliens that ICE removed in each year since 
fiscal year 2009. 

Table 2: Number and Percentage of ICE's Removals Attributed to Secure 
Communities, by Fiscal Year: 

Year: 2009; 
ICE removals: 389,834; 
Removals attributed to Secure Communities: 14,363; 
Percentage of ICE removals attributed to Secure Communities: 4%. 

Year: 2010; 
ICE removals: 392,862; 
Removals attributed to Secure Communities: 49,498; 
Percentage of ICE removals attributed to Secure Communities: 13%. 

Year: 2011; 
ICE removals: 396,606; 
Removals attributed to Secure Communities: 79,876; 
Percentage of ICE removals attributed to Secure Communities: 20%. 

Year: 2012: October 2011 through March 2012; 
ICE removals: 187,763; 
Removals attributed to Secure Communities: 39,159; 
Percentage of ICE removals attributed to Secure Communities: 21%. 

Year: Total; 
ICE removals: 1,367,065; 
Removals attributed to Secure Communities: 182,896; 
Percentage of ICE removals attributed to Secure Communities: 13%. 

Source: GAO analysis of data provided by ICE. 

[End of table] 

From October 2008 through March 2012, ICE removed 182,896 aliens 
identified by Secure Communities, as indicated by ICE's data. 
According to ICE, all aliens removed committed an immigration 
violation and were removable on that basis. About 74 percent had been 
convicted of a criminal offense; that is, they were either convicted 
of the offense that led to their identification under Secure 
Communities or had a record of conviction for a previous offense. 
[Footnote 28] For these individuals, the current or prior criminal 
conviction served as the basis for ICE's prioritization for removal. 
Twenty-one percent of aliens removed did not have a criminal 
conviction known to ICE prior to their removal, but were identified as 
one of ICE's other removal priorities, including aliens who were 
fugitives or who reentered the country illegally after removal. 
[Footnote 29] The remaining 5 percent of aliens removed also did not 
have a known criminal conviction prior to their removal but were 
nonetheless removable because, for example, they entered the United 
States without inspection or violated the terms of their admission. 
ICE reports its removal data for aliens without a criminal conviction 
under three categories: ICE fugitives; prior removals and returns; and 
entries without inspection (EWI) and visa violators. Figure 3 provides 
information on the overall composition of Secure Communities removals 
by category and figure 4 provides this information for each activated 
state. 

Figure 3: Classification of 182,896 Aliens Who Were Removed by ICE 
after Being Identified by Secure Communities from October 2008 through 
March 2012: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart and subchart; associated table] 

Convicted criminal Level 1: 27%; 
Convicted criminal Level 2: 17%; 
Convicted criminal Level 3: 30%; 
No criminal conviction confirmed: 26%: 
* Prior removals and returns: 18%; 
* EWIs, visa violators: 5%; 
* ICE fugitives: 3%. 

Category: Convicted criminal level 1; 
Definition Category: Includes aliens convicted of "aggravated 
felonies," as defined in § 101(a)(43) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, or two or more crimes punishable by more than one 
year, commonly referred to as "felonies." 

Category: Convicted criminal level 2; 
Definition Category: Includes aliens convicted of any felony or three 
or more offenses punishable by less than one year, commonly referred 
to as "misdemeanors." 

Category: Convicted criminal level 3; 
Definition Category: Includes aliens convicted of offenses punishable 
by less than one year. 

Category: ICE fugitives; 
Definition Category: Includes aliens who do not have a recorded 
criminal conviction confirmed by ICE, but have failed to leave the 
United States following the issuance of a final order of removal, 
deportation, or exclusion. 

Category: Prior removals and returns; 
Definition Category: Includes aliens who do not have a recorded 
criminal conviction confirmed by ICE, are not classified as ICE 
fugitives, but have had a previous removal case or confirmed return 
entered in DHS systems. 

Category: Entries without inspection (EWI), visa violators; 
Definition Category: Includes aliens who do not have a recorded 
criminal conviction confirmed by ICE and are not classified as ICE 
fugitives or prior removals or returns. Examples include aliens who 
entered the United States without inspection or violated the terms of 
their admission. 

Source: GAO analysis of information provided by ICE. 

Note: ICE fugitives, EWIs, visa violators, and prior removals and 
returns are not mutually exclusive categories. Therefore, for the 
approximately 26 percent of aliens removed without a confirmed 
criminal conviction, ICE reported that it will use the highest 
priority category for reporting purposes. For example, an alien who 
enters the United States without inspection (EWI) who is also an ICE 
fugitive would be reported as an ICE fugitive. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 4: Arrest Locations of Aliens Identified by Secure Communities 
and Removed by ICE, From October 2008 through March 2012: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated U.S. map] 

Interactive graphic: Move mouse over the name of each state to view 
the percentage of aliens arrested in the state removed from the United 
States who were classified in each category. 

Greater than 0, less than 50% of jurisdictions activated: 
Illinois: 

Greater than or equal to 50%, less than 100% of jurisdictions 
activated: 
Alabama: 

100% of jurisdictions activated: 
Alaska: 
Arizona: 
Arkansas: 
California: 
Colorado: 
Connecticut: 
Delaware: 
District of Columbia: 
Florida: 
Georgia: 
Hawaii: 
Idaho: 
Indiana: 
Iowa: 
Kansas: 
Kentucky: 
Louisiana: 
Maine: 
Maryland: 
Massachusetts: 
Michigan: 
Minnesota: 
Mississippi: 
Missouri: 
Montana: 
Nebraska: 
Nevada: 
New Hampshire: 
New Jersey: 
New Mexico: 
New York: 
North Carolina: 
North Dakota: 
Ohio: 
Oklahoma: 
Oregon: 
Pennsylvania: 
Puerto Rico: 
Rhode Island: 
South Carolina: 
South Dakota: 
Tennessee: 
Texas: 
Utah: 
Vermont: 
Virginia: 
Washington: 
West Virginia: 
Wisconsin: 
Wyoming: 

Source: GAO analysis of data provided by ICE. 

Note: The number of Secure Communities removals for each state 
reflects, in part, the period of time the state has been activated 
under the program. 

Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. 

[End of figure] 

ICE reported that the total number of Secure Communities removals has 
increased each year since fiscal year 2009, but there has been some 
variation across fiscal years in the proportion of aliens removed by 
criminal level, as shown in figure 5. For example, there was a 
decrease in the proportion of convicted criminal Level 3 offenders 
removed, from 40 percent of total removals in fiscal year 2009 to 26 
percent during the first half of fiscal year 2012. According to ICE, 
the percentage of removals who are Level 3 offenders has been 
decreasing, in part because ICE has continued to prioritize its 
resources on the identification and removal of aliens convicted of 
felonies. Additionally, ICE redefined its criminal offense levels 
between fiscal years 2010 and 2011, causing some Level 3 offenders to 
be reclassified as Level 2 offenders based upon repeat misdemeanor 
offenses, which ICE officials said resulted in an increase in the 
percentage of removals who were Level 2 offenders to 19 percent in 
fiscal year 2011 as compared with 13 percent in fiscal year 2010, and 
a decrease in the percentage classified as level 3. 

Figure 5: Composition of Secure Communities Removals by Fiscal Year: 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph] 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
No criminal conviction confirmed: 26%; 
Convicted criminal level 1: 24%; 
Convicted criminal level 2: 11%; 
Convicted criminal level 3: 40%%; 
Total: 14,363. 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
No criminal conviction confirmed: 27%; 
Convicted criminal level 1: 29%; 
Convicted criminal level 2: 13%; 
Convicted criminal level 3: 32%; 
Total: 49,498. 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
No criminal conviction confirmed: 26%; 
Convicted criminal level 1: 26%; 
Convicted criminal level 2: 19%; 
Convicted criminal level 3: 29%; 
Total: 79,876. 

Fiscal year: 2012; (YTD)[A]; 
No criminal conviction confirmed: 26%; 
Convicted criminal level 1: 29%; 
Convicted criminal level 2: 19%; 
Convicted criminal level 3: 26%; 
Total: 39,159. 

Source: GAO analysis of data provided by ICE. 

[A] For fiscal year 2012 year to date (YTD), data is through March 31, 
2012. 

Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. 

[End of figure] 

ICE's removal data do not reflect those aliens identified as removable 
through the Secure Communities program who are currently serving 
criminal sentences in state and local prisons, as ICE has not yet 
detained and removed them. For example, an alien arrested and 
identified through Secure Communities who is then convicted of a 
felony and classified by ICE as convicted criminal Level 1 offender is 
more likely to serve a longer criminal sentence than a Level 3 
offender serving a sentence of less than 1 year. As a result, 
according to ICE, the percentage of Secure Communities removals who 
are Level 1 offenders--ICE's highest removal priority--could increase 
over time as Level 1 offenders complete their sentences and are 
removed. 

Officials from the four ICE field offices we visited told us that they 
were following agency policies to help determine which aliens 
identified by Secure Communities should be selected for detention and 
removal, and establishing the criminal offense level for each alien. 
ICE officials said that aliens are initially classified as Level 1, 2, 
or 3, based on the offense category definitions explained in the March 
2011 priorities memorandum, and available information on the aliens' 
arrest charges and any previous convictions. ICE staff told us that 
they then use this offense level classification to prioritize which 
aliens should be detained.[Footnote 30] ICE officials said that 
investigative actions are first focused on aliens who are initially 
classified as Level 1, but those classified as Level 2 and 3 may also 
be investigated if field offices have the resources to do so. At all 
four field offices we visited, ICE officials said that they generally 
have the resources to investigate the immigration and criminal 
histories of aliens initially classified as Level 1 and Level 2. 
Officials at three of the field offices said they also investigate 
aliens initially classified as Level 3, but do so only when the office 
has no one in the Level 1 or 2 category awaiting review. At the fourth 
field office, officials said that with their current resources, they 
can investigate all aliens initially classified as Level 1, 2, and 3. 

ICE Had Incomplete Data on Arrest Charges for Over Half of the Aliens 
It Removed under Secure Communities: 

ICE did not have a record of the state or local arrest charges for 
about 56 percent of the approximately 119,000 aliens that Secure 
Communities identified and ICE removed during fiscal year 2011 and the 
first half of fiscal year 2012, so we were unable to determine the 
most frequent arrest charges of aliens removed under the program. ICE 
officials said that their records are incomplete because arrest charge 
information is not always available at the time ICE agents record 
aliens' criminal encounters and because agents may not have been 
familiar with a requirement, instituted by ICE in October 2010, to 
enter this information into ICE's database of investigations, arrests, 
bookings, detention, and removals. ICE issued guidance in August 2010 
in advance of this requirement, and began offering training to its 
agents in the field on the agency's process for entering criminal 
arrest charge information into ICE's database. Further, ICE instituted 
a measure in November 2011 that calls for its data analysis unit to 
check on a monthly basis the criminal history database entries of 
aliens who did not have convictions at the time of their removal. If 
the check returns updated conviction data for these aliens, according 
to its guidance, ICE is to update its database to ensure that all 
available arrest and conviction data are included. ICE officials told 
us in May 2012 that going forward they expect to have arrest and 
conviction history data on a higher percentage of aliens as a result 
of these steps. As these efforts have only recently been initiated, it 
is too early to assess the effectiveness of ICE's efforts to improve 
the collection of arrest charge data. 

Of the data ICE did collect, about 37 percent of aliens identified by 
Secure Communities and removed during fiscal year 2011 and the first 
half of fiscal year 2012 were arrested for traffic offenses (of whom 
over half were charged with driving while under the influence of 
alcohol), about 12 percent were arrested for drug offenses (of whom 
almost one-third were charged with marijuana offenses), about 10 
percent were arrested for assault (of whom over half were arrested for 
unspecified assaults), and the remaining 40 percent were arrested for 
other offenses. Table 3 provides the available arrest charge 
information of aliens that Secure Communities identified and ICE 
removed during fiscal year 2011 and the first half of fiscal year 2012. 

Table 3: Arrest Charge Information for Aliens That Secure Communities 
Identified and ICE Removed during Fiscal Year 2011 and the First Half 
of Fiscal Year 2012, Including the Most Frequent Arrest Charge 
Categories: 

Arrest charge information not available: 
Aliens that Secure Communities identified and ICE removed: 
Number: 66,855; 
Percent: 56. 

Arrest charge information available: 
Aliens that Secure Communities identified and ICE removed: 
Number: 52,180; 
Percent: 44. 

Total: 
Aliens that Secure Communities identified and ICE removed: 
Number: 119,035; 
Percent: 100. 

Most frequent arrest charge categories of aliens on whom ICE had 
arrest charge information: 

Traffic offenses[A]: 
Aliens that Secure Communities identified and ICE removed: 
Number: 19,526; 
Percent: 37. 

Dangerous drugs[B]: 
Aliens that Secure Communities identified and ICE removed: 
Number: 6,489; 
Percent: 12. 

Assault[C]: 
Aliens that Secure Communities identified and ICE removed: 
Number: 5,185; 
Percent: 10. 

Other[D]: 
Aliens that Secure Communities identified and ICE removed: 
Number: 20,980; 
Percent: 40. 

Total: 
Aliens that Secure Communities identified and ICE removed: 
Number: 52,180; 
Percent: 100. 

Source: GAO analysis of data provided by ICE. 

Note: Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding. 

[A] According to ICE's data, the traffic offenses category includes 
the following crimes: driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, 
hit and run, transporting dangerous material, and other unspecified 
traffic offenses. 

[B] The dangerous drugs category includes arrests for amphetamines, 
barbiturates, cocaine, hallucinogens, heroin, marijuana, opium, 
synthetic narcotics, and other unspecified drug offenses. 

[C] The assault category includes the following crimes: unspecified 
assault, battery, domestic violence, intimidation, simple assault, and 
various aggravated assaults. 

[D] Other arrest charge categories include, for example, larceny; 
burglary; fraudulent activities; obstructing the police; forgery; 
weapon offenses; vehicle theft; sexual assault; robbery; kidnapping; 
homicide; smuggling; arson; embezzlement; and extortion. 

[End of table] 

ICE Is Modernizing Its Technology System for Determining Immigration 
Status, but Acquisition and Implementation Planning Could Be Improved: 

ICE is modernizing its ACRIMe system to make the process of 
determining an individual's immigration status more efficient, but 
these efforts have experienced delays and cost overruns, and developed 
products that did not meet mission needs. ICE could mitigate the risk 
of further delays and cost overruns by better defining the ACRIMe 
program's requirements and developing an integrated master schedule. 
ICE could also better plan its future workforce needs to help realize 
the anticipated efficiency gains of the modernized ACRIMe system. 

ICE Is Modernizing Its ACRIMe System: 

ICE is in the process of developing a modernized ACRIMe system to 
update its aging legacy system and meet the anticipated increase in 
the number of law enforcement queries as Secure Communities is 
implemented in more jurisdictions across the country. The modernized 
ACRIMe system is designed to be accessible throughout ICE and not just 
in LESC, as is currently the case. Additionally, to help determine an 
individual's immigration status and offense category, modernized 
ACRIMe is intended to allow officials in LESC, ICE field offices, and 
response centers to automatically search multiple data sources with a 
single electronic query. Currently, LESC staff must conduct separate 
searches to obtain information from separate databases and, because of 
limitations in the legacy ACRIMe system, they cannot share the full 
results of their searches with staff in ICE field offices and response 
centers. Since the modernized ACRIMe system is intended to allow users 
to search, receive, distribute, and manage relevant immigration status 
information, ICE officials expect that the modernized system will 
eliminate the need for ICE field office and response center staff to 
duplicate LESC's efforts to determine aliens' immigration status. 

ICE initially planned to develop the modernized ACRIMe system through 
three contracts, each for a separate project. The first contract 
(referred to here as ACRIMe-1), awarded in March 2008, was to develop 
a modernized ACRIMe system so ICE staff could access multiple law 
enforcement and immigration databases to determine an individual's 
immigration status and offense category.[Footnote 31] ICE awarded two 
additional contracts in September 2009 to develop six services to 
further enhance the functionality of the modernized ACRIMe system. One 
contract was to develop a web-based Automated Threat Prioritization 
(ATP) service that would allow modernized ACRIMe users to 
automatically retrieve prior conviction information from state and 
federal criminal history records to help prioritize ICE enforcement 
actions based on aliens' criminal charges. The other contract, the 
Status Determination Support (SDS) contract, was to develop five web-
based services to enhance the modernized ACRIMe system's ability to 
determine immigration status. The five services were (1) Status 
Determination Support, (2) Automated National Crime Information Center 
Warrants, (3) Criminal Alien Tracking, (4) Jail Roster/Release 
Tracking, and (5) Integrated Case Management.[Footnote 32] Table 4 
provides summary information on the three ACRIMe modernization 
projects and the contracts issued in 2008 and 2009. 

Table 4: ACRIMe Modernization Projects: 

Project: Modernized ACRIMe System: To develop a modernized ACRIMe 
system for accessing multiple law enforcement and immigration 
databases; 
Project baseline cost estimate[A]: $10.3 million; 
Contract: ACRIMe-1; 
Date contract awarded: March 2008. 

Project: ATP Service: To develop a web-based service to allow 
modernized ACRIMe users to automatically retrieve prior conviction 
information from state and federal criminal history records; 
Project baseline cost estimate[A]: $18.3 million; 
Contract: ATP; 
Date contract awarded: September 2009. 

Project: SDS Services: To develop web services to enhance modernized 
ACRIMe's capability to determine immigration status: 
* Status Determination Support; 
* Automated National Crime Information Center Warrants; 
* Criminal Alien Tracking; 
* Jail Roster/Release Tracking; 
* Integrated Case Management; 
Project baseline cost estimate[A]: $41.7 million; 
Contract: SDS; 
Date contract awarded: September 2009. 

Source: GAO analysis of ICE information. 

[A] The project baseline cost estimate for the Modernized ACRIMe 
System was an independent government cost estimate developed by ICE. 
The project baseline cost estimates for the ATP and SDS services were 
acquisition cost estimates that ICE issued in its July 2009 Criminal 
Alien Identification Initiative Acquisition Program Baseline plan. 

[End of table] 

Weaknesses in ICE's ACRIMe Modernization Planning Contributed to 
Delays, Cost Increases, and Products That Did Not Meet Mission Needs: 

Weaknesses in ICE's acquisition planning contributed to delays, cost 
increases, and products provided under the contracts that did not meet 
mission needs. As of April 2012, ICE had spent approximately $4 
million over its original cost estimate to develop the modernized 
ACRIMe system--without the ATP and SDS services--and expected that it 
would begin deploying the system in LESC in July 2012 and in ICE field 
offices in December 2012. This date is over 2 years after the initial 
planned deployment date of March 2010 for the ACRIMe system. Further, 
the contractor that ICE selected for the ACRIMe-1 contract did not 
develop a system that met ICE's performance requirements. As a result, 
ICE canceled the ACRIMe-1 contract, selected a new contractor in 
September 2011 to complete and deploy the modernized system, and 
expects to award another contract by September 2012 to develop call 
center functionalities within the modernized ACRIMe system that were 
originally supposed to be delivered through the ACRIMe-1 contract. In 
August 2011, ICE also canceled the original SDS contract because of 
the delays encountered with the ACRIMe-1 contract. Further, because of 
its dissatisfaction with the quality of the work completed on the SDS 
contract, ICE now plans to award additional contracts to different 
contractors to start over with developing the services it requires. 
ICE has also reduced the scope of the SDS services' capabilities (as 
discussed below). As a result, ICE expects that the SDS services will 
be completed for about $22 million less than the baseline cost 
estimate, even though it spent $14.3 million on a contract that did 
not produce usable services. In contrast, ICE has expanded the scope 
of the ATP requirements and expects to exceed its baseline cost 
estimate by about $7.8 million. ICE projects that for the ATP and SDS 
services, it will be able to meet and potentially finish ahead of its 
estimated deployment dates. See appendix I for additional information 
on all of ICE's ACRIMe-related contracts. Table 5 compares the 
baseline estimates for deployment and cost of the projects, and status 
as of April 2012. 

Table 5: Comparison of Schedule and Cost Estimates: 

Dollars in millions. 

Scheduled deployment date[A]: [Empty]. 

[Empty]; 
Project: [Empty]. 

Project: Modernized ACRIMe System[C]; 
Scheduled deployment date[A]: 
Baseline: March 2010; 
As of April 2012: July 2012; 
Project costs[B]: 
Baseline: $10.3 million; 
Estimate as of April 2012: $21.8 million. 

Project: ATP Service; 
Scheduled deployment date[A]: 
Baseline: December 2013; 
As of April 2012: December 2012; 
Project costs[B]: 
Baseline: $18.3 million; 
Estimate as of April 2012: $26.1 million. 

Project: SDS Services[D]; 
Scheduled deployment date[A]: 
Baseline: December 2013; 
As of April 2012: June 2013; 
Project costs[B]: 
Baseline: $41.7 million; 
Estimate as of April 2012: $19.7 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of ICE information. 

[A] The deployment dates are the dates for the initial operational 
capability, rather than the final operational capability. ICE is using 
an iterative approach, and officials expect that some additional work 
will be needed after the initial deployment before the technology is 
fully functional. ICE officials told us they expect the three projects 
to be fully operational by March 2014. 

[B] The project baseline cost estimate for the modernized ACRIMe 
system was an independent government cost estimate developed by ICE. 
The project baseline cost estimates for the ATP and SDS services were 
acquisition cost estimates that ICE issued in its July 2009 Criminal 
Alien Identification Initiative Acquisition Program Baseline plan. The 
project cost estimates as of April 2012 for the modernized ACRIMe 
System and the SDS services were calculated by adding the total amount 
ICE has funded on the canceled contracts (the ACRIME-1 and SDS 
contracts, respectively) to the estimated value of the contracts ICE 
has awarded or plans to award to complete the projects. For the ATP 
service, the estimated project cost is the value of the contract 
listed in the most recent contract modification as of April 2012. 

[C] The original contract was terminated and a new contractor hired 
for the work. The second contract is to complete and deploy the system 
as well as to provide ongoing operations and maintenance through 
August 2016. As of April 2012, ICE had spent $14.4 million on 
acquiring the modernized ACRIMe system under both contracts. ICE also 
plans to award another contract by September 2012, to develop call 
center functionalities within the modernized ACRIMe system. 

[D] The original SDS contract was canceled without the services being 
delivered. ICE plans to award new contracts to develop the services. 

[End of table] 

The schedule delays and cost increases can be attributed in part to 
weaknesses in ICE's planning, including ICE (1) not fully defining 
requirements before awarding contracts and (2) not developing an 
integrated master schedule. 

Defining Requirements: 

According to ICE officials, the agency did not fully define its 
requirements before awarding the ACRIMe-1, ATP, or SDS contracts. We 
have previously reported that firm requirements should be established 
at the beginning of an acquisition program and that requirements 
should be well defined to ensure communication about what the 
government needs from the contractor providing services.[Footnote 33] 

Regarding the ACRIMe-1 contract, ICE officials stated that ICE's 
requirements did not accurately reflect the needs of LESC system users 
or fully define technical expectations. Although ICE involved LESC 
users in the development of the system requirements, ICE officials 
told us that ICE did not ensure the users' needs were clearly defined 
in the requirements documentation and the contractor did not routinely 
meet with the users to ensure its understanding of the requirements. 
As a result, the contractor misinterpreted some of the requirements, 
according to ICE officials. ICE revised the requirements after the 
contractor had already conducted a significant amount of work, 
contributing to delays. Further, ICE officials told us that ICE did 
not fully define its technical expectations of the contractor, such as 
specific requirements for the software code. According to the 
officials, ICE did not include more specific technical requirements 
because it wanted to encourage the contractor to develop innovative 
solutions and did not want to be too prescriptive. However, the 
officials also noted that not having more specific technical 
requirements contributed to the unsatisfactory performance by the 
contractor in producing software that did not meet ICE's needs. 
Consequently, ICE deemed the modernized ACRIMe system the contractor 
delivered in April 2011 to be unusable, and ICE awarded a new contract 
in September 2011 to a different contractor to complete and deploy the 
system. ICE also plans to award another contract for $1.7 million by 
September 2012, to develop call center functionalities within the 
ACRIMe system that were originally supposed to be developed under the 
ACRIMe-1 contract. 

Shortcomings in defining requirements and changes in the scope of the 
requirements also contributed to cost increases on the ATP contract. 
Specifically, cost increases occurred when, in August 2011, nearly 2 
years after the ATP contract was awarded, ICE added a new requirement 
that the contractor develop a "risk classification assessment score." 
This score is meant to help standardize the method for determining if 
an alien should be detained by ICE or released on bond or other 
condition. According to ICE, the requirement for a risk classification 
assessment score was added to the ATP contract to support ICE 
detention reform initiatives based on revisions that were made in 2011 
to ICE's detention standards. Among other things, the 2011 detention 
standards call for detention facilities to take into account risk 
factors when making custody decisions.[Footnote 34] Officials told us 
it would be more efficient to add the risk classification assessment 
score requirement to the ATP contract than to develop this capability 
through a separate system. However, the officials also stated that ICE 
could do a better job of defining its requirements. As of April 2011, 
ICE had spent about $21.5 million on acquiring the ATP service, which 
is about 17 percent over ICE's baseline cost estimate of $18.3 
million. To complete the ATP service, ICE estimates that it may need 
to spend an additional $4.6 million, for a total cost of $26.1 
million. This would be a 42 percent increase over ICE's baseline cost 
estimate. 

With respect to the SDS contract, in September 2010, about a year 
after the SDS contract was awarded (and over 2 years after ACRIMe-1 
was awarded), ICE determined that the SDS contract requirements 
overlapped significantly with those of the ACRIMe-1 contract. In 
response, ICE expanded the scope of the SDS contract to include all of 
the requirements for aggregating data from multiple law enforcement 
and immigration databases that had previously been spread between the 
ACRIMe-1 and SDS contracts, and eliminated the requirements from the 
ACRIMe-1 contract. ICE officials stated that not clearly defining how 
the SDS services would be integrated with the ACRIMe system was an 
oversight. As with the ACRIMe-1 contract, ICE officials stated that 
the technical requirements for the contract were not well defined, and 
this contributed to the contractor producing poor-quality software. 
Consequently, ICE spent $14.3 million for the SDS contract to develop 
services that ICE found to be unusable. ICE terminated the SDS 
contract in August 2011. As of April 2012, ICE officials planned to 
award four new contracts at an estimated total cost of $5.4 million 
that would involve the contractors starting over with developing 
services to enhance the functionality of the modernized ACRIMe system. 
In commenting on a draft of this report, in June 2012 ICE officials 
told us that to complete the SDS services, they now plan to award two 
(instead of four) new contracts and that they are incorporating the 
work that would have been done through the two other previously 
planned contracts into other ACRIMe modernization efforts.[Footnote 35] 

According to ICE officials, some of the documents the SDS contractor 
developed, such as the Concept of Operations, will be used to help 
inform future contractors' work. ICE officials noted that despite 
spending $14.3 million on the SDS contract, which did not produce 
usable functionalities, ICE expects to spend about $22 million less 
than the original cost estimate of $41.7 million because the scope of 
capabilities to be provided by the contractor have been reduced. 
Specifically, ICE found after awarding the SDS contract that it would 
be more technically complicated and costly to develop the criminal 
alien tracking service than it had anticipated, so ICE does not plan 
to pursue the development of this functionality further. ICE officials 
acknowledged the importance of establishing well-defined requirements 
going forward, but as of April 2012, ICE had not developed the 
requirements for the contracts it planned to award starting in July 
2012 through December 2012.[Footnote 36] In light of the challenges it 
has experienced as a result of unclear and changing requirements, ICE 
could be better positioned to help prevent delays and cost increases 
by establishing well-defined requirements that accurately reflect both 
user and technical needs prior to awarding additional contracts. 

Developing an Integrated Master Schedule: 

Although ICE anticipates meeting its baseline deployment dates for the 
SDS services that it plans to develop through new contracts, it has 
not developed an integrated master schedule for completing ACRIMe 
modernization. Rather, ICE has used the separate schedules developed 
for each contract to manage the modernization effort. We have 
previously reported that one critical management tool for complex 
systems that involve the incorporation of a number of different 
projects--in this case, ACRIMe modernization--is an integrated master 
schedule that allows managers to monitor all work activities, how long 
the activities will take, and how the activities are related to one 
another.[Footnote 37] Because ICE lacked an integrated master schedule 
when it issued the first three ACRIMe modernization contracts in 2008 
and 2009, it was not well positioned to understand how schedule 
changes in each individual contract would affect the overall 
modernization effort. For example, ICE assumed that the modernized 
ACRIMe system would be completed before work began on the ATP and SDS 
contracts. However, the deployment of the modernized ACRIMe system was 
delayed, and because ICE did not have an integrated master schedule, 
ICE was not in a position to effectively identify and resolve the 
effects of delays in the deployment of the modernized ACRIMe system on 
the development of the SDS and ATP services. Subsequently, the delays 
with the deployment of the modernized ACRIMe system contributed to the 
cancellation of the SDS contract and delayed the integration of the 
ATP service with the modernized ACRIMe system, according to ICE 
officials. 

Even though ICE delayed deployment of the modernized ACRIMe system and 
canceled the original SDS contract, it projects that the ATP service 
will be deployed in December 2012, and the SDS services will be 
deployed by the end of June 2013, both ahead of ICE's baseline initial 
deployment estimate of December 2013. ICE officials explained that the 
initial deployment dates were based on outdated information and that 
ICE has since reduced the scope of the requirements needed for the SDS 
services because it now has a better understanding of those 
requirements. Further, ICE officials said they have learned to work 
with contractors more effectively to produce results in a timely 
manner by using an incremental development approach.[Footnote 38] ICE 
developed a deployment schedule for ACRIMe and its SDS and ATP 
services, but this schedule did not include elements of a reliable 
integrated master schedule, such as listings of all activities to be 
completed. ICE officials stated that their estimate of deployment for 
the SDS and ATP services was based on their knowledge of the remaining 
work to be done and past experience developing schedules. However, 
they acknowledged that by not developing an integrated master 
schedule, ICE did not meet best practices for managing capital 
programs and recognized the importance of having an integrated master 
schedule moving forward. Accordingly, ICE officials said they began 
developing an integrated master schedule in April 2012, during the 
course of our review. While we recognize this as a positive step, it 
is too early to tell if ICE's efforts will result in an integrated 
master schedule that reflects all of the tasks to be completed by the 
agency and contractors. For example, as of May 2012, ICE had not 
incorporated detailed project schedules for the four SDS services into 
its integrated master schedule. GAO's Cost Estimating and Assessment 
Guide states that an integrated master schedule should include all 
tasks necessary to complete the project, including work to be 
performed by both the government and contractors.[Footnote 39] Given 
the number of new contracts ICE plans to award and its previous 
difficulties with accounting for all contract activities and their 
interrelationships, ICE could help ensure that its deployment schedule 
is reliable and mitigate schedule risks by developing an integrated 
master schedule that includes all activities and identifies 
dependencies among the complementary contracts it plans to award. 

Workforce Planning Could Improve Use of Resources under ACRIMe 
Modernization: 

Various developments could change ICE's workforce requirements for 
responding to state and local law enforcement's queries about aliens' 
immigration and criminal status, providing ICE with an opportunity to 
examine the most efficient number and location of staff to accomplish 
the task. One development is the anticipated deployment of modernized 
ACRIMe to ICE field offices in December 2012, which could help reduce 
the existing duplication of effort in analyzing immigration and 
criminal status information. This duplication of effort involves ICE 
field office staff repeating database searches that LESC has already 
conducted because ACRIMe, which LESC uses to determine individuals' 
immigration status, cannot generate reports or electronically transmit 
the results of LESC's database searches to field offices; and field 
offices do not have access to ACRIMe, necessitating that they conduct 
their own database searches. According to ICE officials, such 
duplication of effort is necessary not only because of the current 
ACRIMe system's limitations, but also because it serves as a quality 
control to minimize the likelihood of ICE making an incorrect arrest 
or detention decision. Modernized ACRIMe is expected to reduce the 
total number of immigration status database searches because the 
system is intended to be able to generate a report on the databases 
searched and electronically transmit the results of those searches. 
Another development is the anticipated increase in Secure Communities 
matches as the program is activated nationwide. ICE estimates indicate 
that when Secure Communities interoperability is activated in all 
jurisdictions in fiscal year 2013, it expects an additional 
approximately 90,000 Secure Communities queries will be generated each 
year. In calendar year 2011, LESC conducted database searches based on 
about 423,550 Secure Communities matches.[Footnote 40] 

As of April 2012, ICE had not determined or planned for how many staff 
it will need to conduct these searches. The new system will be 
accessible not only to LESC, as is currently the case, but also to 
field offices and interoperability response centers ( which were set 
up primarily to analyze an increased number of immigration status 
queries resulting from Secure Communities), making it possible for 
multiple organizational entities in ICE to conduct the database 
searches. LESC officials said that if they had 60 additional staff, 
LESC would be able to process all Secure Communities requests for 
database searches for the entire country when modernized ACRIMe is 
deployed; however, an expansion under way at the Los Angeles response 
center could also accommodate additional staff for processing Secure 
Communities database searches. ICE officials have not yet addressed 
the role that LESC, the field-based response centers, or other ICE 
components involved with immigration status determination will have 
after modernized ACRIMe becomes operational. 

In its April 2012 report, DHS's Inspector General recommended that ICE 
develop procedures to eliminate duplication in the process of 
identifying potentially removable criminal aliens. Further, 
congressional staff requested that ICE brief members in March 2012 
regarding the efficient allocation of resources between LESC and the 
response centers; however, the briefing had not been scheduled as of 
June 8, 2012. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government 
identifies effective management of an organization's workforce as 
essential to achieving results and maintaining internal control, and 
program management guidance states that successful execution of any 
program includes developing plans that include efficient use of 
workforce resources.[Footnote 41] 

ICE officials acknowledged the need for comprehensive workforce 
planning, but officials indicated to us and to DHS's Office of 
Inspector General that the agency plans to wait until after Secure 
Communities is activated nationwide and modernized ACRIMe becomes 
operational in fiscal year 2013 to make decisions about how to 
effectively realign resources. In August 2011 ICE completed an 
Operational Workforce Analysis, which projected the additional ERO 
workforce needed for detention and removal when Secure Communities is 
fully activated. A separate ICE analysis provided estimates of the 
workforce needs at LESC for analyzing an additional 90,000 queries. 
ICE's analyses, however, did not consider the impact of modernized 
ACRIMe on workforce requirements or how staff resources at response 
centers will be utilized for making status determinations. Agency 
officials also said that uncertainty about funding was a factor they 
would need to consider as part of their planning. While planning 
efforts can be subject to uncertainty about future funding, developing 
a workforce plan prior to full program and system deployment could 
help position ICE so it is ready to effectively align staff among 
components responding to law enforcement agency queries when the 
modernized ACRIMe system is deployed. 

ICE and CRCL Identified Safeguards to Help Address Potential Civil 
Rights Abuses under Secure Communities; Some Efforts Have Not Yet Been 
Fully Implemented: 

ICE and CRCL jointly identified four safeguards used to help protect 
aliens' civil rights under Secure Communities. These safeguards 
include providing detainees a revised detainer form with telephone 
numbers to call when they believe their civil rights have been 
violated or they are U.S. citizens or crime victims, developing 
training materials for state and local law enforcement and ICE 
officials on how to protect aliens' civil rights, initiating a process 
to statistically monitor arrests under Secure Communities to identify 
and investigate potential patterns of civil rights abuses, and using 
DHS's existing complaint process to investigate complaints about 
possible civil rights abuses related to Secure Communities. 

ICE's Revised Detainer Includes Phone Numbers for Detainees to Report 
Potential Abuse: 

ICE began using a revised detainer form in December 2011, in part as a 
safeguard against potential abuse of detainees. Changes on the form 
include a request that law enforcement officials provide the detainee 
a copy of the form, and to notify ICE if the individual may be the 
victim of a crime.[Footnote 42] The revised form also includes a 
Notice to Detainee section printed in six languages with telephone 
numbers for arrested individuals to call. Calls for one number go to 
the LESC for individuals who believe they are U.S. citizens or victims 
of a crime and have been inappropriately identified for removal. The 
other number goes to the Joint Intake Center for individuals who 
believe their civil rights have been violated.[Footnote 43] The 
detainer form is not specific to detainees identified under Secure 
Communities; ICE requests all detainees be given a copy of their 
detainer, regardless of how the detainees were identified. The English 
version of the notice is reproduced in figure 6. 

Figure 9: Detainer Form Notice to Detainee: 

[Refer to PDF for image: form notice] 

Notice to Detainee: 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has placed an immigration 
detainer on you. An immigration detainer is a notice from DHS 
informing law enforcement agencies that DHS intends to assume custody 
of you after you otherwise would be released from custody. DHS has 
requested that the law enforcement agency which is currently detaining 
you maintain custody of you for a period not to exceed 48 hours 
(excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays) beyond the time when you 
would have been released by the state or local law enforcement 
authorities based on your criminal charges or convictions. If DHS does 
not take you into custody during that additional 48 hour period, not 
counting weekends or holidays, you should contact your custodian (the 
law enforcement agency or other entity that is holding you now) to 
inquire about your release from state or local custody. If you have a 
complaint regarding this detainer or related to violations of civil 
rights or civil liberties connected to DHS activities, please contact 
the ICE Joint Intake Center at 1877-2INTAKE (877-246-8253). If you 
believe you are a United States citizen or the victim of a crime, 
please advise DHS by calling the ICE Law Enforcement Support Center at 
(855) 448-6903. 

Source: Abstract from OHS Form 1-247 (12/11). 

[End of figure] 

ICE detention management division officials said that the detainer is 
not the only avenue for individuals to be informed of whom to contact 
if they believe their civil rights have been violated. For example, 
officials said that once in ICE custody, detainees are given a 
handbook with steps to follow if they believe they were sexually 
assaulted or abused, or if they want to report other misconduct. 
Further, officials indicated that each facility housing detainees in 
ICE custody displays informational posters in detainee common areas 
with information on how to contact the DHS Office of the Inspector 
General.[Footnote 44] 

According to ICE data, calls to the LESC telephone number on the 
detainer form have not primarily been from detainees, and the calls 
have not primarily been made to report that a detainee is a U.S. 
citizen or a victim of a crime. LESC specialists fielded about 4,500 
calls from December 26, 2011, to April 17, 2012, primarily from 
detainee family members and attorneys, often inquiring about the 
location of the detainee.[Footnote 45] LESC officials said that each 
call is recorded and a written log is created. Of the calls received, 
LESC data indicated that 97 percent of the calls were "other;" that 
is, primarily detainee location questions, hang-ups, or calls to 
provide information on persons the caller believed might be in the 
country illegally. Seventy-one, or 2 percent, of the calls concerned 
claims that the detainee was a U. S. citizen. According to LESC, of 
those claims, 11 of the 71 detainers were removed after the 
immigration status claim was investigated by LESC.[Footnote 46] 
Fourteen callers stated that they were a victim of or witness to a 
crime, and the information was forwarded to the relevant local ICE 
office. 

Illustrative examples from the LESC message logs (with names removed) 
are transcribed below: 

* "Caller wanted to report some information involving an individual 
who paid someone to marry them just to gain status in the [United 
States]." (Caller was referred to DHS's TipLine.) 

* "Caller stated he wanted to know the status of his brother's 
detainer. He had called yesterday and claimed his brother was a USC 
[United States Citizen]. The [agent] on site contacted the agent that 
placed the detainer yesterday, stating he would take the detainer off. 
After [agent X and agent Y] looked into it today the system did not 
show the detainer was lifted. It was lifted yesterday and updated in 
the system today. I advised caller he would need to call the local ICE 
office for more [information] to be able to ask the status of the 
case." 

* "Caller stated she was looking for a friend that was being detained. 
I advised her to visit ICE.gov and use the detainee locator along with 
calling her local ICE office." 

CRCL and ICE Are Developing Secure Communities Awareness Briefings for 
State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies: 

CRCL and ICE are collaborating to develop a series of modules to 
educate LEAs on civil rights and civil liberties issues that may arise 
under Secure Communities, as well as to reintroduce the program and 
its purpose.[Footnote 47] The modules include videos and related 
materials, such as memorandums, legal materials, and handouts, for use 
by law enforcement agencies and training instructors. As of May 1, 
2012, CRCL had released three of the eight videos that it plans to 
develop. These three videos are available on ICE's website, and ICE 
plans to share them with the law enforcement community through 
conferences and direct mailing of dissemination materials, according 
to CRCL. The remaining videos are in production and are expected to be 
completed by the end of calendar year 2012. 

The first completed video, an Introduction to Secure Communities for 
LEAs, provides an overview of the program, including the expectation 
that law enforcement will not base any enforcement actions on factors 
such as race or ethnicity. The second video, How to Respond to an 
Immigration Detainer, explains to law enforcement personnel their role 
in responding to the new detainer and sharing information found on the 
new detainer form with the arrestee. The third video, Consular 
Notification: Your Role when Detaining Foreign Nationals, reiterates 
the importance of notifying foreign consulates when detaining non-U.S. 
citizens, a preexisting obligation under the Vienna Convention on 
Consular Relations.[Footnote 48] Other planned videos include the 
following: 

* Avoiding Racial Profiling; 

* Explaining Secure Communities to Your Community; 

* Witnesses, Refugees and Victims of Crime or Domestic Violence: 
Protecting Those in Need; 

* Retaliation by Private Actors; and: 

* Speaking Their Language: Working with Non-English Speakers: 

In May 2012, DHS established a dissemination plan for the Secure 
Communities videos, noting that ICE and CRCL plan to distribute the 
Secure Communities videos and materials to state and local LEAs. CRCL 
envisions that these agencies will share the information with law 
enforcement officers during routinely held briefings or in other 
settings.[Footnote 49] Beginning in June 2011, CRCL distributed the 
first video to 117 LEAs and 143 nongovernmental organizations during 
visits made to eight major cities and at major conferences, such as 
the National Sheriff's Association conference. ICE also plans to 
provide the videos and materials to law enforcement training agencies 
and instructors in each state and to make the videos available as 
downloadable files on the Internet. 

Data Complexities a Challenge in Analyzing Potential Arrest Anomalies 
under Secure Communities: 

To help determine whether local law enforcement agencies may be making 
inappropriate or unlawful arrests that could lead to removal through 
Secure Communities, CRCL and ICE developed a monitoring process in 
which Secure Communities-related statistics are reviewed on a 
quarterly basis. The monitoring process is designed to take place in 
three phases. In the first phase, CRCL's plan calls for analyzing 
crime, arrest, and demographic data from activated jurisdictions to 
determine the extent to which foreign-born individuals are arrested at 
a rate that is proportional to their representation in the 
jurisdiction's population, and the extent to which the types of 
charges for which foreign-born individuals are arrested are 
proportional to the types of arrest charges for all individuals in 
that jurisdiction.[Footnote 50] 

In the second phase, CRCL is conducting additional in-depth analyses 
of arrest, crime, and demographic data on the 10 large jurisdictions 
(those with populations over 100,000 that had over 30 Secure 
Communities submissions for the quarter), and 5 smaller jurisdictions 
(those with populations under 100,000) that produced the most 
anomalous results in the first phase of the analysis. CRCL stated that 
anomalies may indicate that police engaged in racial profiling, but 
they may also reflect local crime patterns and legitimate police 
practices. For example, they said, in a jurisdiction where highway 
patrol is a primary function, officers would be making more traffic 
stops, and higher rates of traffic offenses might be expected. 
According to CRCL, because its second-phase analysis relies in part on 
data collected by local and state law enforcement agencies, the data 
are frequently less consistent across jurisdictions. These variations 
present challenges for CRCL's analysis. 

In the third phase, CRCL, in conjunction with ICE, plans to conduct 
inquiries into relevant policing practices in jurisdictions where the 
in-depth statistical analyses were unable to account for the anomalies 
in the statistical results.[Footnote 51] Officials said the decision 
to proceed with the third phase of monitoring will be made on a case-
by-case basis, and could, among other things, involve interviewing law 
enforcement personnel or complainants, or requesting documents from a 
law enforcement agency. ICE and CRCL officials said they would decide 
what actions they may take at the conclusion of the inquiry phase. 

CRCL had planned to begin reporting the results of its statistical 
monitoring beginning with data from early fiscal year 2011, but began 
with the third quarter of fiscal year 2011. As of May 2012, CRCL was 
completing its analysis under the second phase for the third and 
fourth quarters of 2011. CRCL said the work and report have not yet 
been completed because of challenges with using multiple sources of 
data that were not designed for real-time monitoring. Examples of the 
data limitations and how CRCL plans to take the limitations into 
account in their analysis include the following: 

* The FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program summary reporting 
system (a FBI national crime database that includes the number and 
types of arrests by police department) is used by CRCL for its foreign-
born arrest charge comparisons. However, participation in the UCR 
Program is voluntary and not all police departments in the United 
States participate, including, for example, 21 counties in Illinois. 
In such cases, CRCL plans to identify and use other data, such as the 
National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), another FBI UCR 
Program method for collecting crime data, and arrest data, if 
available, that are publicly reported outside the summary UCR system, 
by some states, such as Florida, through its state UCR program. 

* There is a lag between the time that the U.S. Census Bureau's 
American Community Survey collects and releases demographic 
information on the foreign-born population in the United States. CRCL 
began working with the Community Survey data for the 2005-2009 period, 
and shifted to the 2006-2010 data when it became available in December 
2011. 

* Noncitizens in different parts of the country have different rates 
of inclusion in the IDENT database, making careful comparisons 
important and more difficult. Foreign-born residents who have not 
interacted with federal immigration agencies would not have been 
included in the IDENT database. The CRCL monitoring statistics could 
underestimate potential civil rights abuses in such jurisdictions, 
compared with jurisdictions in which IDENT includes a larger 
proportion of the foreign-born population. ICE stated that officials 
are working to better understand variation in IDENT coverage for 
improved comparisons. 

* CRCL officials also said that in working with the actual arrest data 
for the first time, they are discovering and resolving such data 
problems as incongruous categorizations of crimes. For example, 
definitions of "serious" or "aggravated" arrests vary between the UCR 
and LESC. Consequently, CRCL's work with the first data set to account 
for such differences is taking longer than subsequent analysis is 
expected to take. 

ICE, CRCL, and DHS headquarters officials met in May 2012 to assess 
the progress of the statistical monitoring effort, discuss potential 
changes to Secure Communities protocols as a result of the statistical 
analyses, determine what and how information from the monitoring 
effort will be reported, and decide on any actions to be taken at the 
conclusion of all monitoring phases. They determined that further 
development and analysis were required, and CRCL officials told us 
that follow-up sessions were scheduled for July 2012. CRCL officials 
explained that CRCL would issue its report when it is confident that 
everything possible had been done to resolve the statistical 
anomalies, because doing so would avoid inappropriately flagging 
jurisdictions whose statistics appeared anomalous, but were later 
explained. Once the first report is issued, according to CRCL 
officials, they expect to report quarterly. 

Allegations of Civil Rights Abuses under Secure Communities Are 
Investigated under DHS's Complaint Process: 

Under a complaint process applicable to all of DHS, CRCL has opened 
four investigations, all in fiscal year 2011, of civil rights 
complaints that CRCL identified as involving Secure Communities. CRCL 
has authority to review and assess civil rights or civil liberties 
complaints regarding DHS policies, activities, or actions taken by DHS 
personnel, and receives complaints submitted by mail, e-mail, fax, and 
the CRCL telephone hotline.[Footnote 52] CRCL also reviews a monthly 
list of complaints processed through the Joint Intake Center, and a 
complaint form is posted on the Secure Communities' and CRCL's 
websites.[Footnote 53] CRCL officials stated they meet quarterly with 
community organizations and ask for allegations regarding Secure 
Communities to be forwarded. 

ICE and CRCL issued a joint memorandum on June 14, 2011, outlining how 
civil rights complaints involving state and local law enforcement and 
Secure Communities would be addressed.[Footnote 54] The memorandum 
noted that the strategy for Secure Communities differs from those of 
most other programs in that CRCL has no compulsory process that 
requires state and local LEAs to cooperate in CRCL investigations 
because CRCL and the LEAs do not have formal partnerships under Secure 
Communities. The memorandum stated that CRCL may initiate 
investigations based on complaints alleging misconduct, statistical 
information indicating anomalies in arrests that led to Secure 
Communities matches, or the results of third-party research. The 
investigation process can vary based on how the complaint was 
initiated and is described in the June memorandum. 

CRCL categorizes complaints by issue (what the complaint is about) and 
by the situation in which the issue occurred. There are 21 categories 
of issues, such as use of excessive force, sexual assault, or abuse, 
and 16 categories of situations, such as a complaint arising from a 
port of entry incident or a Secure Communities encounter. Knowing 
whether a complaint is actually related to Secure Communities is not 
always clear, CRCL officials stated. This is because not all of those 
who file complaints know that they were identified through Secure 
Communities, and conversely, some may mistakenly believe that Secure 
Communities was involved in their arrest when they were actually 
identified by other means. CRCL staff said they discuss each 
allegation to determine if it is related to Secure Communities by 
looking at the specifics of the complaint. CRCL officials said that 
under Secure Communities, likely complaint issues are those involving 
discrimination or profiling, Fourth Amendment rights, and language 
access issues.[Footnote 55] A CRCL Complaint Opening Meeting group, 
composed of CRCL management, including the Compliance Branch Deputy 
Director and other stakeholders, decides on a weekly basis whether to 
take further action on specific complaints, using their professional 
judgment.[Footnote 56] 

Four investigations have been initiated by CRCL based on complaints 
regarding Secure Communities, three of which were submitted by one 
nongovernmental organization in one region. The complaints involve 
allegations that each of the four arrests was made because the 
officers believed the individuals were in the country illegally, and 
the individuals were arrested to determine their immigration status. 

CRCL's Compliance Branch Director said there is no "standard" 
investigation process for a complaint because each complaint is fact 
specific; but, in each case, CRCL requests documents from ICE and the 
local law enforcement agency that arrested the complainant. If 
available, the complainant is interviewed, in addition to relevant DHS 
personnel and witnesses. CRCL officials stated that CRCL is currently 
working through procedures for investigating Secure Communities 
complaints with two local law enforcement agencies and requested that 
officers sit for voluntary interviews. These complaints are taking 
longer than what is normal for investigations of DHS policy and 
practices, officials said, in part because of the need to create new 
procedures with local law enforcement for investigating the 
allegations. 

Conclusions: 

In 2009, about 11.5 million noncitizens were living in the United 
States without lawful immigration status, some of whom have been 
arrested and convicted of various crimes and incarcerated. Secure 
Communities assists in identifying those who have been incarcerated 
and are subject to removal. ICE has invested millions of dollars to 
modernize ACRIMe capabilities that are central to Secure Communities' 
success, but has not followed best practices in its acquisition of the 
modernized technology. Effective management of future ACRIMe 
modernization efforts hinges on establishing well-defined requirements 
and the development of a reliable integrated master schedule. 
Likewise, a modernized ACRIMe, along with the extension of Secure 
Communities to all jurisdictions, will change ICE workforce 
requirements for the analysis of immigration status determinations. 
Developing a workforce plan to guide workforce resource decisions 
could help ensure workforce decisions are made in an effective and 
cost-efficient manner. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To help ensure that ICE acquires effective technology to support the 
Secure Communities program and effectively uses its workforce, we 
recommend that the Director of ICE take the following three actions to 
follow sound management practices: 

* establish well-defined requirements prior to awarding additional 
ACRIMe modernization contracts; 

* develop an integrated master schedule that identifies all tasks to 
be performed by the government and current and future contractors, and 
links activities being performed by different contractors; and: 

* develop a workforce plan to support the analysis of immigration 
status determinations under Secure Communities. 

Agency Comments and GAO's Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to DHS and DOJ for their review and 
comment. DHS provided written comments which are reprinted in full in 
Appendix II. DHS concurred with our three recommendations and 
described efforts underway to address them. For example, with respect 
to establishing well-defined requirements prior to awarding additional 
ACRIMe modernization contracts, DHS stated that ICE is piloting an 
incremental development and requirements definition process within 
ACRIMe, including using smaller requirements teams to complete 
requirements by the end of July 2012, before additional contracts are 
issued. These actions are consistent with the intent of the 
recommendation and should help ICE manage future ACRIMe modernization 
efforts. With respect to developing an integrated master schedule, DHS 
reiterated that it began developing such a schedule in April 2012 and 
expects to complete it by the end of December 2012. This action is 
consistent with the intent of the recommendation and should improve 
ICE's understanding of how schedule changes in individual contracts 
may affect the overall modernization effort. With respect to 
developing a workforce plan, DHS noted that ICE plans to complete a 
proposal for consolidating Interoperability Response Centers into one 
central location by the end of December 2012. DHS stated that it will 
determine what, if any, additional workforce plans are needed after it 
completes the proposal. While this is a step in the right direction, 
we continue to believe that ICE would benefit from comprehensive 
workforce planning that includes examining how to reduce the existing 
duplication of effort between LESC and ICE field offices when ICE 
deploys modernized ACRIMe. DHS also provided technical comments, which 
we incorporated as appropriate. 

DOJ did not have formal comments on our draft report, but provided 
technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. 

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents 
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days 
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the 
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and other interested 
parties. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the 
GAO website at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-8777 or gamblerr@gao.gov. Contact points for 
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 
on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are 
listed in appendix III. 

Sincerely yours, 

Signed by: 

Rebecca Gambler: 
Acting Director: 
Homeland Security and Justice Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Alien Criminal Response Information Management 
Modernization Contracts: 

As of April 2012, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 
had awarded four contracts and planned to award additional contracts 
to modernize its Alien Criminal Response Information Management 
(ACRIMe) system. In commenting on a draft of this report, in June 2012 
ICE officials told us that they now plan to award three new contracts 
and that the work for the previously planned ACRIMe/ENFORCE 
Integration and Batch Processing contracts would be incorporated into 
other ACRIMe modernization efforts.[Footnote 57] Table 6 provides 
summary information on these contracts as of April 2012. 

Table 6: ACRIMe Modernization Contracts: 

Contract: ACRIMe-1[C]; 
Description: To develop a modernized ACRIMe system for accessing 
multiple law enforcement and immigration databases; 
Contract period: June 2008-May 2012[D]; 
Estimated deployment as of April 2012[A]: Canceled; 
Contract value as of April 2012[B]: $12.0 million (actual); 
Funding as of April 2012: $12.0 million. 

Contract: Automated Threat Prioritization (ATP); 
Description: To allow modernized ACRIMe users to automatically 
retrieve prior conviction information from state and federal criminal 
history records; 
Contract period: September 2009-August 2014; 
Estimated deployment as of April 2012[A]: December 2012; 
Contract value as of April 2012[B]: $26.1 million (ICE estimate); 
Funding as of April 2012: $21.5 million. 

Contract: Status Determination Support (SDS); 
Description: To develop five web services to enhance modernized 
ACRIMe's capability to determine immigration status: 
* Status Determination Support; 
* Automated National Crime Information Center (NCIC) Warrants; 
* Criminal Alien Tracking; 
* Jail Roster/Release Tracking; 
* Integrated Case Management; 
Contract period: September 2009-August 2014[E]; 
Estimated deployment as of April 2012[A]: Canceled; 
Contract value as of April 2012[B]: $14.3 million (actual); 
Funding as of April 2012: $14.3 million. 

Contract: ACRIMe-2; 
Description: To complete the development of the modernized ACRIMe 
system that had been developed under the ACRIMe-1 contract and provide 
ongoing operations and maintenance support; 
Contract period: September 2011-August 2016; 
Estimated deployment as of April 2012[A]: July 2012[F]; 
Contract value as of April 2012[B]: $8.1 million (ICE estimate); 
Funding as of April 2012: $2.3 million. 

Contract: NCIC Wants and Warrants; 
Description: To develop the service for processing NCIC warrants that 
ICE originally planned to develop in the SDS contract; 
Contract period: ICE plans to award the contract by the end of 
September 2012; 
Estimated deployment as of April 2012[A]: March 2013; 
Contract value as of April 2012[B]: $1.7 million; 
(ICE estimate); 
Funding as of April 2012: $0. 

Contract: Communications Center; 
Description: To develop call center capability within the modernized 
ACRIMe system that ICE originally planned to develop with the ACRIMe-1 
contract; 
Contract period: ICE plans to award the contract by the end of 
September 2012; 
Estimated deployment as of April 2012[A]: March 2013; 
Contract value as of April 2012[B]: $1.7 million; 
(ICE estimate); 
Funding as of April 2012: $0. 

Contract: External Search Service; 
Description: To develop the status determination support service to 
search multiple databases that ICE originally planned to develop with 
the SDS contract; 
Contract period: ICE plans to award the contract by the end of 
December 2012; 
Estimated deployment as of April 2012[A]: June 2013; 
Contract value as of April 2012[B]: $1.1 million; 
(ICE estimate); 
Funding as of April 2012: $0. 

Contract: ACRIMe/ENFORCE Integration[G]; 
Description: To develop the integrated case management that ICE 
originally planned to develop with the SDS contract to allow 
modernized ACRIMe users to automatically export data into ENFORCE; 
Contract period: ICE plans to award the contract by the end of 
December 2012; 
Estimated deployment as of April 2012[A]: June 2013; 
Contract value as of April 2012[B]: $2.3 million; 
(ICE estimate); 
Funding as of April 2012: $0. 

Contract: Batch Processing[H]; 
Description: To develop the service for jail roster/release tracking 
service that ICE originally planned to develop with the SDS contract; 
Contract period: ICE plans to award the contract by the end of 
December 2012; 
Estimated deployment as of April 2012[A]: June 2013; 
Contract value as of April 2012[B]: $0.3 million; (ICE estimate); 
Funding as of April 2012: $0. 

Source: GAO analysis of ICE information. 

[A] The deployment dates are the dates for the initial operational 
capability, rather than the final operational capability. ICE is using 
an iterative approach, and officials expect that some additional work 
will be needed after the initial deployment before the technology is 
fully functional. 

[B] For the two contracts that were canceled (ACRIME-1 and SDS), the 
contract value is equal to the total amount ICE spent on the contract. 
For the other two contracts that have been awarded (ATP and ACRIMe-2), 
the source of the estimated contract value is the most recent contract 
modification as of April 2012. For the remaining five contracts that 
have not been awarded, ICE officials provided the estimates for the 
contracts' values. 

[C] The contract that ICE awarded in 2008 to acquire the modernized 
ACRIMe system was also to acquire other technology-related services. 
We use the term "ACRIMe-1" to refer to just the portion of the 
contract related to acquiring the modernized ACRIMe system. 

[D] ICE funded this contract through September 2011, since ICE decided 
not to continue using this contractor. 

[E] ICE canceled this contract in August 2011 because of delays with 
ACRIMe modernization. 

[F] ICE is incrementally deploying the modernized ACRIMe system. 
According to ICE, in February 2012, a version of the modernized ACRIMe 
system that could search the Federal Bureau of Investigation's 
National Crime Information Center was deployed in the Law Enforcement 
Support Center. However, the system will not be able to process 
requests for immigration status determinations until July 2012, when 
ICE plans to deploy an updated modernized ACRIMe system to the Law 
Enforcement Support Center. ICE plans to deploy the modernized ACRIMe 
system with immigration status determination functionality across ICE 
in December 2012. 

[G] ENFORCE is a database that maintains information related to the 
investigation, arrest, booking, detention, and removal or persons 
encountered during immigration investigations and operations conducted 
by ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. In commenting on a 
draft of this report, in June 2012 ICE officials told us the work for 
the previously planned ACRIMe/ENFORCE Integration contract would be 
incorporated into other ACRIMe modernization efforts. We will continue 
to monitor these efforts as part of our recommendation follow-up work. 

[H] In commenting on a draft of this report, in June 2012 ICE 
officials told us the work for Batch Processing contract would be 
incorporated into other ACRIMe modernization efforts. We will continue 
to monitor these efforts as part of our recommendation follow-up work. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

Department of Homeland Security: 
Washington, DC 20501: 

July 3, 2012: 

Rebecca Gambler: 
Acting Director, Homeland Security and Justice: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 0 Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Re: Draft Report GAO-12-708, "Secure Communities: Criminal Alien 
Removals Increased, but Better Technology Planning Needed" 

Dear Ms. Gambler: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this draft 
report. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appreciates the 
U.S. Government Accountability Office's (GAO's) work in planning and 
conducting its review and issuing this report. 

DHS is pleased to note GAO's positive recognition of the Department's 
efforts to focus on identifying potentially removable national 
security and public safety threats, including criminal aliens in state 
and local law enforcement custody. U.S. Immigration Customs and 
Enforcement (ICE) remains committed to adhering to hest practices in 
acquiring Secure Communities-related technology and safeguarding and 
protecting civil rights and liberties under the Secure Communities 
program. 

The draft report contained three recommendations with which the 
Department concurs. 

Specifically, GAO recommended to the Director of ICE: 

Recommendation 1: Establish well-defined requirements prior to 
awarding additional ACRIMe modernization contracts. 

Response: Concur. ICE will ensure that well-defined requirements will 
be available during the development phase, prior to awarding 
contracts, and throughout development. ICE is currently piloting an 
incremental development and requirements definition process within the 
Alien Criminal Response Information Management System (ACRIMe) 
project. As part of this project, the ICE Office of the Chief 
Information Officer (OCIO) is now developing smaller requirements 
teams to complete the requirements definition process before contracts 
are issued for design and development services. These requirements 
teams work with government program managers, business owners and 
system users to thoroughly understand current and future processes and 
ensure those processes arc captured in requirements models that may be 
used in the development process. When the development teams are 
contracted. the requirements teams regularly interact with them to 
ensure understanding. In addition, the development teams have 
transitioned from the use of historical "waterfall" development 
processes to the use of an "agile-process, which permits development 
teams to focus on and release pieces of functionality to the users as 
they are created, rather than having to wait for the entire system to 
be developed. As a result. ICE will he involved throughout the 
development by providing feedback to developers at regular intervals 
in order to increase the quality and responsiveness of the system. 
Estimated Completion Date
(ECD): July 31, 2012. 

Recommendation 2: Develop an integrated master schedule that 
identities all tasks to be performed by the government and current and 
future contractors, and links activities being performed by different 
contractors. 

Response: Concur. As the report notes, ICE ()CIO began developing an 
integrated master schedule (IMS) in April 2012. This integrated 
schedule provides all known contractor and government tasks necessary 
to complete each of the individual projects in the Criminal Alien
Identification Initiative (CAII) portfolio. Tasks for contracts that 
have not yet been awarded arc not yet included in the IMS, but 
anticipated release dates based on the CAII Product Roadmap have been 
included. The CAII Product Roadmap is a joint document created by the 
CAII Program Manager and the Secure Communities Product Owner that 
maps each of the high-level business requirements to specific pieces 
of system capabilities, allowing the Program Manager and Product Owner 
to prioritize the development of the capabilities into a release 
timeline. The release timeline takes into account time required to 
ensure that user and system requirements are well defined, procurement 
lead time, and the level of effort needed to develop the capabilities.
In addition, beginning in July 2012, contractor teams and government 
personnel involved in the CAII effort will begin having regular 
meetings to review the impacts of scheduled events and future schedule-
related risks. ECD: December 31. 2012. 

Recommendation 3: Develop a workforce plan to support the analysis of 
immigration status determinations under Secure Communities. 

Response: Concur. As GAO alluded to in its report, detailed workforce 
plans regarding personnel allocations at the Law Enforcement Support 
Center (LESC). Interoperability Response Centers, and ICE Enforcement 
and Removal Operations (ER()) Field Offices are informed by the 
analysis of the operational impact of deployment of the modernized 
ACRIMe system. 

ICE is currently developing a proposal for the consolidation of the 
Interoperability Response Centers in anticipation of the nationwide 
deployment of Secure Communities' use of Automated Biometric 
Identification System (IDENT)/Integrated Automated Fingerprint 
Identification System (IAFIS) interoperability and the modernized 
ACRIMe system. The proposal will detail the proposed consolidation of 
the Los Angeles, Buffalo, Miami, and Chicago Interoperability
Response Centers into one central location, and standardization of 
processes at the central location and the LESC in an effort to better 
support the analysis of immigration status determinations under Secure 
Communities. We estimate this proposal will be completed by
December 31, 2012, after which, we will determine what additional 
workforce plans are needed, if any. as appropriate. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this 
draft report. Technical comments were previously provided under 
separate cover. Please feel free to contact me if you have any 
questions. We look forward to working with you in the future. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Jim H. Crumpa6ker: 
Director: 
Departmental GAO-OIG Liaison Office: 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Rebecca Gambler, (202) 512-8777 or gamblerr@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Evi Rezmovic (Assistant 
Director), David Alexander, Frances Cook, Kevin Craw, Dorian Dunbar, 
Monica Kelly, Jason Lee, Heather May, Linda Miller, Karen Richey, and 
Nate Tranquilli made key contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] See DHS, Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population 
Residing in the United States: January 2011, Office of Immigration 
Statistics Policy Directorate, March 2012. 

[2] Aliens who are subject to removal for violating immigration law 
may be prosecuted criminally as well. For example, it is a criminal 
offense to enter or attempt to enter the United States at a time or 
place other than as designated by immigration officers or to enter the 
United States after having been removed from the country. See 8 U.S.C. 
§§ 1325, 1326. 

[3] See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2) for descriptions of criminal offenses 
that make any alien removable. 

[4] See 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g). 

[5] In 2009 GAO reported that the 287(g) program lacked documented 
objectives and some community members raised concerns about potential 
misuse of the program. GAO recommended and ICE agreed to document the 
287(g) program objective, document and communicate supervisory 
activities, and specify data each agency is to collect and report. DHS 
has since implemented these recommendations. See GAO, Immigration 
Enforcement: Better Controls Needed over Program Authorizing State and 
Local Enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-109] (Washington, D.C: Jan. 30, 
2009). 

[6] Other ICE criminal alien-targeted programs may also identify 
aliens who are removable but have not been convicted of crimes. 

[7] Homeland Security Advisory Council, Task Force on Secure 
Communities Findings and Recommendations, September 2011. In its 
response to the task force's findings and recommendations, ICE, among 
other things, clarified its enforcement policy related to minor 
traffic violations. For individuals arrested solely for minor traffic 
offenses, who have not previously been convicted of other crimes and 
do not fall within any other ICE priority category, ICE said it will 
only consider making a detainer operative upon conviction for the 
minor criminal traffic offense. Minor traffic offenses do not include 
driving under the influence of alcohol, hit-and-run, reckless driving 
resulting in injury to persons, or other violations that have the 
potential for causing serious injury or harm to the public. (ICE, 
Protecting the Homeland: ICE Response to the Task Force on Secure 
Communities Findings and Recommendations, Apr. 27, 2012.) 

[8] DHS, Office of the Inspector General, Communication Regarding 
Participation in Secure Communities, OIG-12-66 (Washington, D.C.: 
March 2012), and Operations of United States Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement's Secure Communities, OIG-12-64 (Washington, D.C.: April 
2012) (Revised). 

[9] See GAO, GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide: Best Practices 
for Developing and Managing Capital Program Costs, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-3SP] (Washington, D.C.: March 
2009); Defense Acquisitions: A Knowledge-Based Funding Approach Could 
Improve Major Weapon System Program Outcomes, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-619] (Washington, D.C.: July 2, 
2008); Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1] 
(Washington, D.C: Nov. 1, 1999); and the Project Management 
Institute's The Standard for Program Management (Newton Square, PA © 
2006). 

[10] Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-161, 121 
Stat. 1844, 2050 (2007). DHS's fiscal year 2009 appropriations act 
specified that not less than $1 billion was available for identifying 
and removing criminal aliens, including $150 million to be available 
until the end of fiscal year 2010, and directed DHS to "prioritize the 
identification and removal of aliens convicted of a crime by the 
severity of that crime." Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, 
and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009, Pub. L. No. 110-329, 122 
Stat. 3574, 3659 (2008). In each of fiscal years 2010, 2011, and 2012, 
DHS's appropriations acts made almost $200 million of the funds 
directed to criminal alien enforcement available to ICE, and ICE 
allocated these funds to Secure Communities. See Pub. L. No. 111-83, 
123 Stat. 2142, 2149 (2009); Pub. L. No. 112-10, 125 Stat. 38, 102-03, 
140-41 (2011); Pub. L. No. 112-74, 125 Stat. 786, 949 (2011). 

[11] The term "Secure Communities" is used to refer to ICE's 
comprehensive plan to identify and remove criminal aliens (which 
includes detention facilities, transportation, and other aspects of 
the overall process). The term is also used to refer to a component of 
the Secure Communities comprehensive plan that focuses on using 
technology to improve the identification of removable criminal aliens. 

[12] ICE labels this federal information sharing capability as IDENT/ 
IAFIS interoperability. ICE's Secure Communities program uses 
interoperability between these two systems to identify potentially 
removable aliens. For the purposes of this report, we use the term 
"Secure Communities" when referring to Secure Communities' use of 
IDENT/IAFIS interoperability. 

[13] DHS, in coordination with the Department of State, established 
the enrollment program to use biometric and biographic information to 
control and monitor the pre-entry, entry, status, and exit of certain 
foreign visitors and immigrants. 

[14] Secure Communities does not identify all potentially removable 
aliens who are arrested because the IDENT database does not contain 
the fingerprints of all aliens; for example, aliens who cross the U.S. 
border illegally might not have their fingerprints in IDENT if they 
were never encountered by the Border Patrol or ICE. ICE is reviewing 
the results of a pilot to identify ways of determining the immigration 
status of arrested individuals whose fingerprints are not included in 
IDENT. 

[15] LESC provides immigration status and identity information and 
real-time assistance to local, state, and federal law enforcement 
agencies on aliens suspected, arrested or convicted of criminal 
activity, among other things. 

[16] ACRIMe is an information system used by ICE to receive and 
respond to immigration status inquiries from federal, state, and local 
law enforcement agencies about individuals arrested, subject to 
background checks, or otherwise encountered by those agencies. 

[17] IRCs process Secure Communities responses for their own field 
offices. During evening hours, IRCs also process responses for other 
field offices that do not have 24 hour/7day a week capabilities. The 
IRCs are staffed, in part, by contractors who review LESC's 
determination responses and by ICE agents who make detainer decisions. 

[18] ICE also requests that law enforcement officials provide the 
subject with a copy of the detainer. 

[19] ICE, Civil Immigration Enforcement: Priorities for the 
Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Aliens, (Washington, D.C.: 
March 2, 2011). 

[20] ICE, Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion Consistent with the 
Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities of the Agency for the 
Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Aliens (Washington, D.C.: June 
17, 2011). Prosecutorial discretion is the authority of an agency 
charged with enforcing a law to decide to what degree to enforce the 
law against a particular individual. 

[21] ICE, Prosecutorial Discretion: Certain Victims, Witnesses, and 
Plaintiffs (Washington, D.C.: June 17, 2011). 

[22] In 2007, GAO recommended that ICE consider analyzing trends in 
the use of prosecutorial discretion, but ICE determined that it was 
not feasible given the multiple points throughout the immigration 
enforcement process where discretion could be applied. ICE issued the 
aforementioned prosecutorial discretion guidance in June 2011 to 
better reflect ICE civil immigration enforcement priorities and ensure 
consistency throughout the field in its use and implementation. GAO, 
Immigration Enforcement: ICE Could Improve Controls to Help Guide 
Alien Removal Decision Making, GAO 08-67 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 15, 
2007). 

[23] The ICE Principal Legal Advisor issued a memorandum to all 
Offices of Chief Counsel in the field providing guidance on these 
efforts. ICE, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, Case-by-Case 
Review of Incoming and Certain Pending Cases (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 
17, 2011). 

[24] A jurisdiction is activated when interoperability between IAFIS 
and IDENT becomes functional for that location. For purposes of this 
report, jurisdiction is synonymous with county or a county-equivalent. 

[25] The four U.S. territories where Secure Communities is fully 
activated are American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin 
Islands. ICE has not yet activated Secure Communities in the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. 

[26] 6 U.S.C. § 345(a)(3). 

[27] 6 U.S.C. § 345(a)(1), (4), (6). 

[28] In making removal determinations, ICE does not consider the 
period of time that has elapsed since the alien's previous criminal 
conviction(s), according to an Assistant Director in ERO. 

[29] ICE officials indicated that there are several reasons why aliens 
identified by Secure Communities and removed may not have had a 
criminal conviction known to ICE at the time ICE took custody. For 
example, the aliens may not have been convicted of the current 
criminal charge(s) for which they were arrested; their criminal 
charge(s) were pending; or their criminal conviction(s) records were 
not available to ICE. 

[30] This initial classification may be different from the 
classification of an alien upon removal if ICE obtains additional 
information before the alien is removed. For example, ICE could change 
the classification if the alien's charges are dropped or if previous 
convictions are identified. 

[31] The contract that ICE awarded in 2008 to acquire the modernized 
ACRIMe system was also to acquire other technology-related services. 
We use the term "ACRIMe-1" to refer to the portion of the contract 
related to acquiring the modernized ACRIMe system. 

[32] The Status Determination Support service (a subcomponent of the 
overall SDS contract) provides an automated search of multiple 
disparate databases and creates a most likely immigration status 
determination for verification by ICE officials. The Automated 
National Crime Information Center Warrants service automates the 
process for entering new warrants and searching, updating and 
revalidating existing warrants. Criminal Alien Tracking is a web 
service to automate the tracking of aliens to allow ICE to begin 
removal proceedings while aliens are in criminal custody. Jail 
Roster/Release Tracking is a web service to provide ICE the ability to 
receive rosters of jail inmates so it could determine the time frame 
for a criminal alien's removability. The Integrated Case Management 
service automates the collection of criminal alien status information 
in designated case management systems. 

[33] See GAO, Immigration Benefits: Consistent Adherence to DHS's 
Acquisition Policy Could Help Improve Transformation Program, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-66] (Washington, D.C.: 
Nov. 22, 2011), and [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-619]. 

[34] ICE, Performance-Based National Detention Standards 2011. 

[35] The contracts to be awarded are for four of the five services 
initially to be delivered under the SDS contract. We will continue to 
monitor these efforts as part of our recommendation follow-up work. 
See appendix I for additional information. 

[36] See appendix I for additional information on the ACRIMe 
modernization contracts. 

[37] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-3SP]. 

[38] ICE is using an incremental development approach called "Agile 
software development." Agile software development is a philosophy 
based on selected values, such as the highest priority is to satisfy 
customers through early and continuous delivery of valuable software; 
delivering working software frequently; and that working software is 
the primary measure of progress. 

[39] We have previously identified other characteristics necessary to 
develop reliable schedules, but because ICE did not develop an 
integrated master schedule, we did not review the extent to which ICE 
conformed to other scheduling best practices. Other best practices 
include identifying resources, such as labor, material, and costs, 
needed for each activity, and conducting a schedule risk analysis, 
among others. For further discussion of characteristics of reliable 
schedules, see [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-3SP], 
218-224. 

[40] This figure represents all biometric Immigration Alien Queries 
(IAQ) received in fiscal year 2011, which also includes U.S. citizen 
biometric IAQs. 

[41] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1] 
and the Project Management Institute's The Standard for Program 
Management (Newton Square, PA © 2006). 

[42] Officials from CRCL and ICE ERO stated that ICE does not have the 
authority to require that police departments or jails give a copy of 
the detainer form to the arrested individuals. 

[43] The Joint Intake Center is operated by both ICE and U.S. Customs 
and Border Protection (CBP) personnel, and is responsible for 
receiving, classifying, and routing all misconduct allegations 
involving ICE and CBP employees, including those pertaining to 
detainee treatment. A list of all complaints received by the Center is 
sent monthly to CRCL for review under the DHS's agency-wide complaint 
process. 

[44] Detainees may file external complaints directly with the Office 
of the Inspector General, either in writing or by phone using the DHS 
Office of the Inspector General (OIG) complaint hotline. OIG may 
investigate the complaint or refer it to CRCL or DHS components such 
as the ICE Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) for review and 
possible action. 

[45] For such inquiries, callers are to be referred to ICE's online 
Detainee Locator System [hyperlink, http://www.ice.gov/locator]. 

[46] LESC could not verify U.S. citizenship for 60 of the 71 calls 
relating to a claim of U.S. citizenship, and LESC did not remove the 
detainers for these individuals. LESC officials said they routed all 
71 claims to the ICE field office that lodged the detainer to complete 
processing and conduct further analysis of the claim. 

[47] ICE officials acknowledge that there were limitations in 
communications regarding the purpose of the program when it was 
introduced in 2008. 

[48] Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, art. 36, Apr. 24, 1963, 
21 U.S.T. 77. 

[49] These materials are optional and provided free of charge, and are 
not required as part of state or local law enforcement training. 

[50] To improve the reliability of its analyses, CRCL's statistical 
monitoring does not include jurisdictions that submit fewer than 30 
Secure Communities matches per quarter. For the third quarter of 
fiscal year 2011, this resulted in excluding 101 jurisdictions (10 
percent of all Secure Communities jurisdictions and 0.4 percent of the 
population in counties where Secure Communities is activated from 
CRCL's analyses). 

[51] CRCL also refers to this phase as "non-statistical review" 
because the term "investigation" may be misinterpreted as more 
comprehensive than what is actually involved. 

[52] This authority is based on 6 U.S.C., §345(a)(1),(4) and (6); and 
42 U.S.C. §2000ee-1(a)(2). 

[53] The number of complaints on the monthly list varies, for example, 
from 27 in December 2011, to 64 in February 2012. The Joint Intake 
Center receives complaints from a variety of sources, and CRCL cannot 
identify whether a particular complaint call was based on the detainer 
form notice. 

[54] Secure Communities complaints related to alleged misconduct of 
ICE contractors or employees are handled using standard procedures by 
ICE's Office of Professional Responsibility. 

[55] Fourth Amendment rights relate to the part of the Bill of Rights 
that guards against unreasonable searches and seizures (including 
arrests), along with requiring any arrest or search warrant to be 
judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. See U.S. Const. 
amend IV. 

[56] CRCL may not initiate an investigation if the DHS Inspector 
General decides to investigate. All matters are first referred to the 
Inspector General for investigation, and if the Inspector General 
declines to investigate, the matter is referred back to CRCL. 

[57] We will continue to monitor these efforts as part of our 
recommendation follow-up work. 

[End of section] 

GAO’s Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the 
performance and accountability of the federal government for the 
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates 
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, 
and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, 
and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is 
reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and 
reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO’s website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select 
“E-mail Updates.” 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s 
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

Congressional Relations: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 
Washington, DC 20548.