Why is there a difference in the total number of agreements and the number of agencies?

Both figures are meaningful, and they answer different questions. The agreement count describes the total scope of delegated immigration enforcement authority. The agency count describes how many distinct law enforcement bodies (or 'LEAs') are participating. Comparisons across sources frequently break down because one party is counting agreements and the other is counting agencies — when citing a figure from this report, please specify which one you mean.

How current is the data, and how often is it updated?

ICE publishes a new spreadsheet of active agreements roughly every day or two, but the schedule is inconsistent and ICE does not announce changes or offer update notifications. For this report, changes ICE's snapshot publishing process is captured and processed manually, typically within 24 hours of a detected change.

How are canceled agreements tracked?

ICE occasionally makes small edits to existing rows, like typo fixes and changes to agencies' name format. These small edits 'break' our composite matching logic, requiring additional analysis to identify substantive changes, like a canceled agreement. Tracking begins December 8, 2025. Anything removed earlier is not captured.

What counts as a '287(g)-related arrest'?

A 287(g)-related arrest is defined using union logic across three fields in ICE's administrative arrest data: Apprehension method = '287(g) program', Final program = '287G Program' OR '287g Task Force', or Operation = 'HQ Tracking of Processing done by 287(g) authorized State & Local LEAs'. This approach captures 29,500 arrests across 192 distinct values.

What does the arrest analysis actually show, and what does it not show?

The analysis shows that 287(g)-related arrests grew from 2.9% in January 2025 to 9.5% in January 2026, with a strong correlation (r = 0.86) between active agreements and arrest share. However, it does not show total ICE administrative arrests, does not prove causation, and coverage ends March 10, 2026.

Where does the grant and reimbursement payment data come from?

Two distinct funding streams are tracked: Federal reimbursements and incentives (estimated at $3 billion), and State grant programs ($75 million to $250 million across various states). Critically, ICE does not publish payment data. These figures represent a non-random convenience sample and represent a lower bound only. These figures must not be aggregated into a national total or used to compare states.

What is the 'UAC Safety Verification Initiative' incentive structure?

ICE offers cash incentives of up to $22,500 per case for unaccompanied child (UAC) safety verification work: $2,500 per case plus up to $20,000 for comprehensive verification activities. This structure is documented through a three-layer contract system: Memorandum of Agreement (public), Service Agreement (agency-specific, obtained through records requests), and Incentives attachment (marked 'Law Enforcement Sensitive', obtained through records requests).

What are the known limitations of the data?

Key limitations include: No historical archive (ICE publishes snapshots that replace prior versions entirely), fragile record matching (composite key breaks with silent upstream edits), cancelations undercount (tracking begins December 8, 2025), population gaps (some jurisdictions show as 'NOT FOUND'), payment data is opportunistic (a floor, not a total, with strong geographic bias), arrest data lags (coverage ends March 10, 2026), and upstream errors are common (ICE has historically over-counted its own totals).

How should I cite this report?

Please cite this report with the as-of date of the underlying snapshot, and specify whether you are citing agreements or agencies when referring to program totals. Suggested format: ICE 287(g) Program Tracker. https://www.tituslegaldesign.com/immigration-101/287g-program. The report is published under MIT License.

Explore the 287(g) Program

Screenshot of home page from "Active 287(g) Agreements" report published by Titus Consulting via Looker Studio (Google):
https://lookerstudio.google.com/reporting/ebe8be08-53be-4afc-9240-83ec3075e873

View the report Methodology

The UAC 'Through Line'

From legal services to $22,500 "wellness checks"

Support the Work

Buy me a coffee

Follow on social media:

Subscribe to the Maxwell Commons newsletter: