An End to the Co-optation of Local Law Enforcement for Federal Immigration Enforcement Methodology

Analysis Main Page »   An End to the Co-optation by Immigration Enforcement Overview »

Find out how your locality compares in a cross-city analysis of policing practices

Use of Force Methodology | Independent Oversight Methodology | Co-optation by Immigration Enforcement Methodology | Budget Priorities Methodology

CPD researchers evaluated each jurisdiction based on a full set of policy criteria as developed in the Reform/Transform toolkit in collaboration with policy experts and advocates. Because the original tool is lengthy and the questions are numerous, we organized the full list of questions into a smaller number of thematic groupings. This process yielded eight broad groupings of questions (which encompassed all of the sub-questions from the original, full-length tool). Based on recommendations from policy experts and advocates, we made two changes to sets of questions from the original Reform/Transform toolkit:

• First, we allowed for three possible answers to the question “Do your state and local laws or policies prohibit detainer compliance, information sharing, and/or jail access whether or not a person has certain criminal convictions?”: The prohibition covers 1.) a person with any criminal conviction (Y), 2.) a person with certain but not all criminal convictions (Y/N), or 3.) there is no prohibition (N). 
• Second, we rewrote the questions regarding whether local law enforcement is prohibited from entering into contracts with federal immigration authorities. The new question asks instead whether the jurisdiction has any contracts or agreements with federal immigration authorities. We have also noted if a jurisdiction prohibits these contracts or agreements in the footnotes on the jurisdiction’s page.

Finally, we developed a ranking system to differentiate jurisdictions’ performance based on how successfully their policies fulfill these eight broad criteria. Because not all questions should be weighted equally (some criteria are more essential to giving a policy teeth than others), our ranking system reflects researchers’ judgements about what components are critical to real accountability based on research and previous conversations with policy experts.

Please also note that in most cases, cities do not administer jails, which are usually under the jurisdiction of counties. We have noted whether or not a city has jurisdiction over a jail. For those cities that do not control the jail, we have still answered the questions that ask about policies in relation to the jail. Those answers reflect city policies and thus do not reflect county policies governing jail staff. Nevertheless, these questions are still relevant because police departments have the power to detain and often hold a person for some time. We have also provided links to any relevant county-level policies when the jail is under the county’s jurisdiction, for reference.

  On Track to a Strong Policy

For a jurisdiction to be placed in the top category, “On Track to a Strong Policy,” local law enforcement agencies and/or jails must have policies that require them to do all of the following:

• Refuse to comply with ICE detainer requests
• Refuse to respond to ICE requests for notification of release
• Prohibit immigration authorities from conducting interviews in the jail or require immigration authorities to clearly identify themselves to those they interview
• Have policies in place to guide local law enforcement agencies and officers in responding to requests for information from federal immigration authorities
• Does not have a 287(g) agreement, an intergovernmental service agreement, or any other agreement or contract with federal immigration authorities
• Prohibit officers from asking/collecting immigration status 

  Making Progress With Need for Improvement

For a jurisdiction to be placed in the middle category, “Making Progress with Need for Improvement,” local law enforcement agencies and/or jails must have policies that require them to do all of the following:

• Refuse to comply with ICE detainer requests
• Refuse to respond to ICE requests for notification of release
• Prohibit officers from asking/collecting immigration status 
• Do not otherwise meet the criteria for “On Track to a Strong Policy”

  Significant Room for Improvement

To be placed in the bottom category, “Significant Room for Improvement,” local law enforcement agencies and/or jails does not have one or both of the following policies:

• Refusing to comply with ICE detainer requests and/or
• Refusing to respond to ICE requests for notification of release