Historically, immigration law enforcement has been primarily a federal responsibility. The 287(g) program, created by the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, authorizes the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to delegate certain federal immigration duties to state and local officers. In the past, these duties were generally limited to jail-based screening of noncitizens already arrested and booked into a facility, either on pending criminal charges or criminal convictions.
For most of its history, federal funding for 287(g) ranged from $5 million in fiscal year 2006 to a peak of $70 million annually in fiscal years 2010–13. In 2025, federal immigration policy shifted significantly and accelerated the program’s expansion. The number of state and local agencies with 287(g) agreements grew from fewer than 140 at the end of 2024 to more than 1,730 by July 2026. Federal funding also increased dramatically, with an estimated $130 million in 2025 and an additional $1 to 2 billion in spending projected over 2026 if the current pace of agency signups continues.
Source: US Immigration and Customs Enforcement 287(g) Participating Agencies List.
US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) administers 287(g) through three models: a jail enforcement model that screens people already booked into local custody; a warrant service model, which authorizes trained local officers to serve immigration warrants in their own jails; and a task force model, which incorporates limited immigration enforcement into officers’ routine patrol duties. The models differ in how far they reach into everyday policing, with the task force model—which accounts for more than 65 percent of current 287(g) agreements—granting local officers the broadest enforcement role. It is considered a “force multiplier” for ICE. In September 2025, DHS reported it had trained 8,500 state and local police officers as 287(g) task force officers, with an additional 2,000 in training. This number has likely grown since then.
The stated goal of the 287(g) program is to identify and remove people without legal status who have committed serious crimes. But the program’s rapid expansion has outpaced the available evidence needed to evaluate its effectiveness. As a result, critical questions remain about whether it is achieving its goals, as well as its broader impact on public safety and local policing.
Four questions to assess 287(g)
Adoption of the 287(g) program is uneven—with some states having nearly statewide adoption and other states having outright bans on participation—and law enforcement leaders are divided about whether its federal mission fits their local one. This debate is largely playing out ahead of the evidence.
Studies on the topic have primarily come from earlier, smaller versions of the program, have been limited to a single state (PDF), or examine related but distinct programs (such as the Secure Communities program, which focuses on jail-based enforcement). That research (PDF) is relevant and informative but falls short of providing the necessary evidence to guide local decisionmaking about a program now far bigger and dominated by the task force model.
Four questions remain for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers to consider:
1. How does 287(g) participation affect resource allocation?
Participating agencies are taking on this new mission during an acute staffing crisis (PDF), and officer time spent identifying and processing people for civil immigration violations is time not spent on other work. This potentially reduces capacity for local policing. Similar trade-offs have emerged at the federal level, where expansion has pulled personnel from agencies like the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Drug Enforcement Administration away from criminal casework. Research is needed to understand how many officer hours the 287(g) program requires, which local functions may be deprioritized, and how the effects vary across the program’s three models.
2. How does 287(g) participation affect officers?
Understanding how 287(g) participation affects retention and recruitment is vital at a time when police staffing levels are starting to rebound nationwide. Some officers may welcome the 287(g) mission, and others may disagree with it. The program may also have implications for officer safety. An analysis of North Carolina data showed that the program did not change crime or clearance rates but was associated with more assaults on officers. Further research is needed to understand how the program affects morale, job satisfaction, officer safety, and ultimately, retention and recruitment.
3. How does 287(g) participation affect community trust?
The primary concern is that immigration enforcement partnerships may discourage residents, particularly in immigrant communities, from reporting crimes, serving as witnesses, or seeking help. Existing evidence suggests this may be happening. A North Carolina case study (PDF) found 287(g) deepened fear and distrust of police, and researchers documented a drop in domestic violence calls in Los Angeles Latino-noncitizen neighborhoods as awareness of immigration enforcement rose.
Similarly, the December 2025 Well-Being and Basic Needs Survey found (PDF) that 21 percent of adults in immigrant families who were aware of local enforcement action in the previous year had chosen not to speak to police, and 17 percent had not driven a car because of immigration concerns. More research is needed to understand how the program influences resident cooperation and the broader public’s willingness to engage police.
4. What is the impact of 287(g) participation on local crime and safety?
Existing research does not address the new, intensified 287(g) agreement models, and studies of earlier immigration enforcement efforts generally find no effects on crime. Thus, there is limited evidence to effectively guide local decisionmakers regarding the potential impact of these agreements.
Studies in select states, including North Carolina and Virginia, using varied methods (quasiexperimental, survey, and administrative data analysis) find no measurable effect on crime reduction. Two studies examining effects of an earlier iteration of 287(g) and of the Secure Communities program even documented increased crime victimization among Latinos. Another (PDF) study found that a more targeted immigration enforcement program actually increased the rate at which Latinos report crime, suggesting benefits of more focused approaches. However, this body of research predates the current expansion of the 287(g) program. Whether today’s iteration of 287(g) reduces serious crime, leaves it unchanged, or shifts it is simply unknown. Real-time research is needed to address this question.
The evidence is worth building
The recent expansion of 287(g) represents one of the largest shifts in federal-state immigration enforcement cooperation in decades. Whether ICE immigration enforcement activities are serving their intended priorities or systematically having unanticipated effects on local law enforcement, public safety, and police-community relations is unknown. The scale of the current investment and speed of enforcement implementation makes answering these research questions an urgent, practical need.
