Return to the USDOJ/OIG Home Page

Immigration and Naturalization Service Institutional Removal Program

Report No. 02-41
September 2002
Office of the Inspector General


FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

  1. THE INS HAS NOT EFFECTIVELY MANAGED THE IRP

    While IRP coverage in Florida state prisons was adequate, the INS did not identify all foreign-born inmates in California state prisons, and the INS presence at county facilities in both California and Florida was inadequate. INS officials confirmed the lack of coverage at county facilities. This deficiency was based, in part, on the INS's failure to effectively manage the increases in IRP workload that resulted from sweeping changes brought about by the Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) and the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) in 1996. Despite the foreseeable impact of the changes in immigration law, IRP staffing levels have remained relatively static, and in effect have decreased because of chronic vacancies in IRP positions. As a result, many foreign-born inmates who are deportable aliens pass through county facilities virtually undetected. Based on our review of a sample of foreign-born inmates released from county facilities in June 1999, many inmates not identified by the INS as potentially deportable prior to release went on to commit other crimes in the community, including drug possession, spousal abuse, and child molestation. In addition, the INS has yet to fully assess the scope of the incarcerated criminal alien problem, particularly at the county level, and as such is unable to fully quantify IRP resource needs.

Impact of the IIRIRA and the AEDPA on IRP Workload

Changes in immigration law enacted in 1996 dramatically altered the IRP landscape. The overall effect of the legislation was to make eligible for deportation whole classes of aliens previously not deportable, most notably aliens with legal status serving time for lesser crimes at the county level. Two changes have increased the number of deportable aliens at the county level: (1) the legislation lowered the threshold for deportation for crimes of moral turpitude from actual sentences of one year or more, to crimes that have potential sentences of one year or more (i.e. actual sentences gave way to possible sentences), and (2) the definition of an aggravated felony was greatly expanded, while the sentencing minimum for some crimes was reduced from five years to one year, and the majority of crimes had no minimum. As a result, the county jails became a large source of potentially deportable candidates. Appendix III details how the parameters of deportation were expanded as a result of the IIRIRA.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), as of June 30, 2001, approximately 630,000 incarcerated inmates were in local jails, representing one third of the nation's criminal population. It should be noted that this represents a snapshot in time and does not reflect the larger turnover in populations at the county level due to the relatively short sentences.

Officials at all levels, both in the INS and the EOIR indicated that the 1996 legislation had a profound effect on the IRP's workload. However, we found little evidence to indicate that management had taken steps to address the increased workload, particularly at the county level. Indeed, the number of criminal aliens deported actually decreased in FY 2001, albeit slightly, from FY 2000 totals, even as the total prison population grew by 1.6 percent during the same period.

We found that, to date, no INS-wide analysis has been performed to determine the nature and scope of the IRP's workload. While the INS performed a resource and staffing evaluation prior to 1996, the scope was limited, pertaining to one specific INS region. Another analysis, specific to one particular sub-office was conducted in 1999, but focused only on front-end processing, neglecting the downstream impact that an increased IRP output would have in other areas, such as district counsel and the Detention and Removal (D&R) division. In addition, both analyses focused only on state and federal facilities, leaving out the vast populations of potentially deportable foreign-born inmates passing through the nation's county jails. The INS has developed a workload model for IRP activities at the federal and state levels using BJS figures. However, applying the model at the county level has been problematic because the BJS provides "snapshot" figures that do not reflect the rapid turnover of inmate populations at the county level. In comparison, federal and state populations are fairly static.

Universe of Incarcerated Criminal Aliens Unknown

INS management cannot make an informed assessment of the resources required for the IRP if it does not know the scope of the problem. While the INS does track foreign-born inmate populations at the federal and state level, it does not maintain INS-wide statistics on foreign-born inmate populations at the county level. Unlike measuring and predicting illegal immigration, with its inherent unknown factors, the population of criminal aliens in American prisons is both finite and determinable.

We attempted to quantify the impact of the 1996 legislation on IRP workload at the county level. We were unable to do so nationwide because of the dearth of information available at both the INS and the counties we reviewed. However, we did review foreign-born inmate files at select county jails in order to evaluate the potential scope of IRP-related activities at the county level.

IRP Presence in Select County Facilities Minimal at Best

Unlike at the federal and state levels where the INS has access to the institutions' databases or is provided listings of foreign-born inmates on a routine basis, the IRP at the county level requires on-site jail checks by INS agents to identify foreign-born inmates as they enter the system. We found that the INS was not making a consistent or comprehensive effort to check local jail booking records on a daily basis for deportable criminal aliens at the local facilities we reviewed in the counties of Fresno, California; Kern, California; Broward, Florida; and Dade, Florida. As part of the booking process, incoming inmates are usually asked to provide their country of birth. This is the INS's first source in identifying potentially deportable criminal aliens. INS officials conceded that IRP coverage at the county level is deficient and attributed the cause to an insufficient number of immigration agents available to provide coverage for the large number of foreign-born inmates who pass through the jails. On an annual basis, the population of foreign-born inmates at the counties we reviewed (excepting Broward) ranged from 6,408 to 43,920 inmates, as indicated by the average monthly intake shown in the table below.

AVERAGE MONTHLY INTAKE OF FOREIGN-BORN
CRIMINALS AT SELECT COUNTY FACILITIES
County, State 1999 2000 2001
Fresno, CA 638 600 534
Kern, CA 579 639 742
Dade, FL 2,563 2,431 3,660
Broward, FL Unknown Unknown Unknown

Source: Respective Sheriff's Departments

While we were able to obtain limited information from Broward County, neither the INS Miami district office nor Broward County officials could provide us with historical data on the foreign-born population in Broward County jails. However, INS officials in Miami believed the foreign-born population in Broward to be significant.

Recidivism of Foreign-Born Inmates at County Level

The most immediate risk associated with breakdowns in the IRP process is that an unidentified deportable criminal alien will be released back into the community and will commit further, possibly violent, crimes. In order to verify the occurrence and nature of recidivism among potential IRP candidates that the INS is not reaching, we reviewed a sample of files of inmates identified by the facilities as foreign-born released from the above-listed county facilities in June 1999. We selected June 1999 to allow adequate passage of time to test for recidivism. In nearly all instances, there was no evidence that the INS had interviewed the foreign-born inmates to determine their legal status prior to release.6 As acknowledged by INS officials at the exit conference, this stems from the fact that the INS lacks a mechanism to track the interviews it performs and the related outcomes. We performed subsequent NCIC, DACS, and CIS database checks, but were unable to determine how many of the foreign-born inmates were deportable due to the lack of information available. Similarly, we were unable to verify if any of the foreign-born inmates were United States citizens.

Fresno County, California

According to the Fresno County Sheriff's Department, a total of 724 foreign-born inmates were released from Fresno County facilities in June 1999. We reviewed documentation for 30 of the 724 and determined that the INS did not interview 29 of them. In addition, we found that at least 5 of the 30 foreign-born inmates committed aggravated felonies after their release in June 1999 and were re-arrested on a subsequent charge, as shown in the table below:

RECIDIVISM IN FRESNO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Identified by County as Foreign-Born but not Interviewed by INS Original Charge Subsequent Charge
Case 1 Manufacture of controlled substance Possession of a controlled substance
Case 2 Battery resulting in serious injury Possession of a controlled substance
Case 3 Corporal injury to spouse Spousal abuse
Case 4 Possession for manufacture of a controlled substance Drug conspiracy
Case 5 Sexual battery Lewd & lascivious acts with a minor

Source: Fresno County Sheriff's Department & INS DACS and CIS databases.

Kern County, California

According to the Kern County Sheriff's Department, a total of 505 foreign-born inmates were released from Kern County facilities in June 1999. We reviewed documentation for 45 of the 505 and determined that the INS failed to interview all 45 inmates, 26 of whom were arrested for subsequent crimes after their release. The subsequent crimes ranged from violation of probation, to the more serious offenses of spousal abuse, child abuse, and assault, as represented in the table below:

RECIDIVISM IN KERN COUNTY, CALFORNIA
Identified by County as Foreign-Born but not Interviewed by INS Original Charge Subsequent Charge
Case 1 Lewd & lascivious acts with a child under 14 years old Continuous sexual abuse of a child under 14 years old
Case 2 Battery of a former spouse Battery of a former spouse
Case 3 Possession of controlled substance Possession of a controlled substance & trespassing
Case 4 Willful cruelty to a child Willful cruelty to a child
Case 5 Inflict corporal injury to spouse Spousal abuse
Case 6 Assault with a deadly weapon Assault with a deadly weapon

Source: Kern County Sheriff's Department & INS Bakersfield Database

Dade County, Florida

According to the Dade County Sheriff's Department, a total of 2,576 foreign-born inmates were released from Dade County facilities in June 1999. We reviewed documentation for 40 of the 2,576, but were unable to verify, due to lack of adequate records, whether the INS interviewed any of them. We did note that at least 8 went on to commit subsequent crimes after their release, as shown in the table below:

RECIDIVISM IN DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Identified by County as Foreign-Born but not Interviewed by INS Original Charge Subsequent Charge
Case 1 Battery Aggravated assault
Case 2 Grand theft Grand theft (3rd Degree)
Case 3 Possession of a controlled substance Cocaine trafficking
Case 4 Grand theft Battery
Case 5 Cocaine possession Cocaine possession
Case 6 Burglary/theft Burglary/theft
Case 7 Grand theft Grand theft
Case 8 Marijuana possession Battery/Possession of a controlled substance

Source: Dade County Sheriff's Department

Broward County, Florida

According to the Broward County Sheriff's Department, a total of 629 foreign-born inmates were released from Broward County facilities in June 1999. We reviewed documentation for 62 of the 629. Neither the INS nor Broward County officials could verify whether any of the foreign-born inmates had been interviewed or identified by the INS as deportable criminal aliens. Because of the lack of information available, we were able to obtain criminal history for only 17 of the 62, 8 of whom we verified were re-arrested on subsequent charges, as shown in the table below:

RECIDIVISM IN BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
Identified by County as Foreign-Born but not Interviewed by INS Original Charge Subsequent Charge
Case 1 Loitering Marijuana possession
Case 2 Fraud/Larceny Fraud/Larceny
Case 3 Drug possession Possession of drug paraphernalia
Case 4 Trespassing Selling/Manufacturing a controlled substance
Case 5 Battery Battery
Case 6 Possession of drug paraphernalia Possession of drug paraphernalia
Case 7 Disorderly conduct Possession of drug paraphernalia
Case 8 Cocaine distribution Cocaine distribution

Source: Broward County Sheriff's Department

IRP Coverage Declining at State Prisons in California

While coverage at the county level was the greatest challenge facing the IRP, there was also evidence that the coverage at state prisons in California, which ranks first in the number of foreign-born inmates in state custody, was in decline. During FY 1999 and FY 2000, INS coverage of state intake facilities was at nearly 100 percent (i.e. INS officers interviewed nearly all facility-identified foreign-born inmates as they entered the system). However, the California DOC provided statistics showing that in FY 2001, INS coverage at state intake facilities had fallen. According to the California DOC, the INS had failed to interview 2,464 (19 percent) of the 13,208 foreign-born inmates that entered the system in FY 2001.7 Recent data indicates that coverage at the state intake facilities has continued to drop. Through December 2001, the INS failed to interview 1,364 (45 percent) of the 3,015 foreign-born inmates at the state intake facilities. The trend appears to be continuing, as we learned that an INS sub-office recently informed the California DOC that it did not have enough immigration agents to cover the 80-to-100 foreign-born inmates received daily at a key intake site. Instead, the INS office has had to prioritize interviews based on the earliest release date of the inmates. If the trend at the California state level is not reversed, the INS will soon be faced with significant backlogs of unidentified foreign-born inmates, reminiscent of those identified in the prior OIG report. Criminal aliens not identified as deportable by the INS will, in all probability, be released back into the community upon completion of their sentences.

Workload versus Resources

INS officials at the Fresno and Bakersfield sub-offices stated that IRP coverage was not possible at the county level due to the limited number of investigative resources available to cover a wide geographic area. The Fresno sub-office, for instance, is responsible for six counties within California's Central Valley, including five state prison intake facilities, as well as numerous jails and juvenile facilities within each of the six counties. Generally, IRP resources are dedicated first to state and federal institutions, then to county facilities if staff is available. In terms of sheer numbers, however, the 520 foreign-born inmates received at the Fresno sub-office's 5 state intake sites in FY 2001 was less than 10 percent of the 6,000 plus foreign-born inmates booked into the Fresno county jail during the same period.

The Bakersfield sub-office is responsible for covering the three state prison intake facilities within its jurisdiction, as well as three Federal Correctional Institute sites, seven Community Correctional Facilities, and five Central Receiving Facilities including the Kern County Jail. Chronic vacancies at the Bakersfield sub-office were particularly alarming given that the sub-office processes the highest number of foreign-born inmates in California, averaging about 10,000 annually. As an example of the scope of the problem, in FY 2001 the Bakersfield sub-office devoted the majority of their IRP resources, about 20 positions, to interviewing nearly 6,700 foreign-born inmates that entered the 3 state intake facilities in its jurisdiction. During that same period, approximately 8,700 foreign-born inmates were booked into the Kern County Jail, the overwhelming majority of whom passed through the facility virtually undetected by the INS.

The gap between IRP resources and workload is dramatic and is not limited to California. In Dade County, Florida alone, nearly 44,000 foreign-born inmates were booked into the county jail in FY 2001, according to the Dade County Sheriff's Department. This was nearly twice the intake of foreign-born inmates in the entire California State prison system, the largest of the state IRP operations, during the same time period. Figures for Broward County were unknown, but are believed to be significant, according to INS officials. In the Miami district office, there were 32 IA positions dedicated to IRP activities in FY 2001, only 11 of which were filled.

We interviewed INS district officials in California and Florida and asked them to provide an estimate of staffing levels needed to fully cover the IRP at federal, state, and local facilities within their respective jurisdictions. The results are shown in the table below:

ANALYSIS OF ESTIMATED IRP RESOURCE NEEDS
State Authorized On Board Required Percentage
Authorized
To Required
Percentage
On Board
To Required
California 185 140 375 49% 37%
Florida 43 25 168 26% 15%
TOTAL 228 165 543 42% 30%

Source: INS district officials in Miami, San Diego, Los Angeles, and San Francisco

Recruitment and Retention

Exacerbating the limited resources dedicated to IRP are the chronic vacancies existing in the immigration agent position. INS immigration agents are involved at the front end of the process, performing initial interviews and subsequent casework for IRP removals, and are the backbone of the IRP. The INS's lack of IRP coverage at state prisons in California and at counties nationwide rests in part on the recruitment and retention of INS employees assigned to IRP-related duties. The immigration agent position has suffered in recent years from high turnover and low morale, arising from it being a low-graded position with no room for advancement beyond the General Schedule (GS)-9 level, and from the tedious nature of the job itself (i.e. conducting routine interviews, on a daily basis, in a prison setting). This is not a new issue. The GAO cited high attrition rates in the immigration agent position as a concern with regard to INS's management of the IRP in their testimony before the Judiciary Committee in the House of Representatives in July 1997, Report No. GAO/T-GGD-97-154. Specifically they identified an attrition rate of 30-percent in the immigration agent position, which was significantly higher than the 11-percent average attrition rate for INS staff agency wide. We noted an average vacancy rate of 32 percent in the immigration agent position at the locations we visited. INS officials in the D&R division stated that they have studied the issue and are attempting to address it in conjunction with the INS's transition of the IRP from its Investigations division to the D&R division. Essentially, the INS's plan is to incorporate traditional immigration agent responsibilities into an enhanced detention enforcement officer (DEO) position. The new DEO position would offer more varied work experience, and provide opportunities for advancement to a second-line supervisor position at the GS-12 level.

Redirecting IRP Resources

The understaffing of the IRP is made more acute by competing priorities that often deprive the program of what little staff it has. INS district directors have the discretion to redirect resources allocated to IRP activities for other activities. Particularly after the events of September 11, 2001, IRP staffing has been redirected to other duties, but even under normal circumstances the program has been susceptible to "raids" from competing priorities. We found that immigration agents assigned to the IRP were often detailed to assist with other program activities, such as employer sanctions, anti-smuggling, and fraud. While it is understandable that local management should have some discretion in managing its resources, given the enormity of the criminal alien problem and the chronic staffing shortages plaguing the IRP this reallocation of scarce resources threatens to further undermine the integrity of the program.

The crux of the problem lies in the lack of a clear program focus, part of which stems from the IRP being functionally spread over several divisions, with the bulk of the work being split between the D&R and the Investigations divisions. As a result, from the management and planning standpoint, the IRP has suffered from the lack of a program perspective, which has led to the IRP being managed in piecemeal fashion, as a collection of collateral duties, rather than as a comprehensive program. Basic information, such as the amount of money spent on the IRP was not readily available. INS officials tried to "back into" the figure by determining the number of immigration agent positions currently filled. However, the result was largely meaningless because, as previously discussed, immigration agents are often reallocated to other activities; and it did not take into account the other resources devoted to the IRP, such as investigators, detention enforcement officers, clerks, and district counsel.

A similar problem existed with the INS's Asylum program, which is dedicated to processing asylum applications. INS management addressed the problem by establishing a separate Asylum office. Implemented in 1990, the Asylum program now has its own budget for resources that are not subject to redirection by district management. In order to better protect IRP resources from reallocation, INS management should consider establishing an IRP office separate from both the Investigations and D&R divisions, similar to what was done for the Asylum program. At the exit conference, INS officials agreed with our assessment of the problem, but disagreed with the solution, conveying their concerns that establishing the IRP as a functional island, isolated from the regular deportation process would ultimately be counterproductive. They stated that they had taken initial steps to strengthen program management, including the creation of account classification codes for the IRP in order to track IRP-related expenses.8 In addition, the D&R division had created and filled an IRP Director position.

Federal Funds Could Be Used to Gain IRP Cooperation

Inadequate IRP coverage can also be attributed to a lack of cooperation on the part of some state and local governments, despite the fact that they may receive substantial funding from the federal government in the form of State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) grants. States and counties with correctional facilities that incarcerate or detain, for 72 hours or longer, criminal aliens accused or convicted of crimes are eligible to apply for federal assistance through the SCAAP. According to the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA)9 , which administers the program10, SCAAP funding in fiscal years 2000 and 2001 totaled $1.1 billion. The table that follows shows the amount of SCAAP funds received by each of the sites we visited:

SCAAP FUNDS RECEIVED
Site Reviewed FY 2000 FY 2001 Total
State of CA $ 195,851,999 $ 158,326,999 $ 354,178,998
State of FL 26,664,699 23,090,599 49,755,298
Fresno, CA 2,221,380 2,071,339 4,292,719
Kern, CA 825,427 1,368,339 2,193,766
Broward, FL 258,442 1,914,969 2,173,411
Dade, FL 519,229 775,212 1,294,441
Total for sites visited 226,341,176 187,547,457 413,888,633
Total Nationwide $ 585,000,000 $ 551,000,000 $1,136,000,000

Source: Bureau of Justice Assistance

SCAAP grants are unconditional, requiring no reciprocation on the part of state and local governments in return for reimbursement from the federal government for the costs of incarcerating deportable criminal aliens. As such, state and local governments receive funding from SCAAP grants regardless of whether the INS gains custody of those incarcerated foreign-born inmates deemed deportable.

The State of California received over $350 million in federal funding in FY 2000 and FY 2001 for incarcerating criminal aliens, yet we found that California has offered the INS little cooperation in streamlining the IRP process. Indeed, both the INS and the EOIR characterized California as being among the least cooperative states with regard to improving the IRP process. California currently processes foreign-born inmates in the state system at all 11 intake facilities located throughout the state in an area roughly 120,000 square miles in size. In order to ensure that all foreign-born inmates are interviewed upon entry into the system, the INS must make regular visits to each of these facilities, some of which are located hours from the nearest INS district or sub-office. While other large states, such as Texas and New York, have consolidated the number of intake facilities at which foreign-born inmates are processed, California's intake system remains a logistical challenge to local INS offices.

Although the Immigration Act of 1990 required each state receiving certain law enforcement grant funds to provide the INS with criminal history information on aliens convicted of violating state laws, there are no similar provisions in the SCAAP grants requiring the recipient's cooperation with local INS offices as a condition of receiving funds. In our judgment, SCAAP grants should be based not only upon the incarceration of criminal aliens, but also on their removal from the country.

An argument against requiring reciprocation on the part of SCAAP recipients is that SCAAP funds represent a reimbursement of costs borne by state and local governments to incarcerate illegal aliens due to the federal government's failure to enforce its immigration laws, and therefore grant conditions would be inappropriate. However, according to INS officials we interviewed, about 30 percent of the total foreign-born state and local inmate population is legally in the United States. Applying that theory to the $414 million of SCAAP funds received by the sites we reviewed in FY 2000 and FY 2001, roughly $124 million represents reimbursement for the costs of incarcerating criminal aliens who entered the country legally, i.e. not as a result of the federal government's failure to enforce its immigration laws. We believe, and INS officials concurred, that providing SCAAP monies to state and local governments unconditionally is an opportunity lost with regard to enhancing the effectiveness of the IRP.

Conclusion

The IRP's mandate requires the identification of deportable criminal aliens at federal, state, and county facilities. At the county facilities we reviewed, which processed annually from over 6,000 foreign-born inmates at the low-end, to nearly 44,000 foreign-born inmates at the high-end, we found IRP coverage to be minimal at best. INS officials acknowledged the lack of IRP coverage, which allows thousands of potentially deportable foreign-born inmates to pass through county jails undetected. We found that many foreign-born inmates not identified by the INS as potentially deportable went on to commit other crimes after being released into the community, including drug possession, spousal abuse, and child molestation. At the state level, the INS failed to interview 19 percent of foreign-born inmates entering the California state prison system in 2001. In 2002, the coverage appears to be worsening, indicating a resurgence of backlogs of foreign-born inmates requiring interviews.

The INS has not taken fundamental steps to assess: (1) the scope of the foreign-born inmate population; (2) the resources required to identify and process through the IRP all foreign-born inmates deemed deportable; and (3) the risks associated with not doing so. The INS has not been able to keep pace with the increases in IRP workload resulting from sweeping changes in immigration law enacted in 1996 that made deportable whole classes of criminal aliens previously eligible to remain in the United States. Most significantly affected by these changes was the workload at the county level. While the INS may lack the resources necessary to handle the workload, management should, at a minimum, know the resources required to achieve full coverage and be aware of the risks associated with not achieving that goal.

The problems with the recruitment and retention of personnel in IRP positions, coupled with the reallocation of scarce resources away from the IRP, undermine the integrity of the program. Given the enormity of the foreign-born inmate population and the chronic staffing shortages plaguing the program, the INS should ensure that IRP resources are not diverted and should consider establishing a discrete IRP budget and office with dedicated positions and resources.

Finally, the full cooperation of state and local governments is essential to an effective and efficient IRP operation. To the extent that such cooperation is not forthcoming, the federal government should use whatever leverage it has to obtain that cooperation. Toward that end, we recommend that the INS propose revisions to the SCAAP grant requirements that would require, as a grant condition, the recipients' full cooperation in INS's removal efforts with regard to incarcerated criminal aliens. In our judgment, applying such conditions to these grants is appropriate and will enhance the efficiency of the IRP.

Recommendations

We recommend that the INS Commissioner:

  1. Determine: (a) the total foreign-born inmate population at the county level, as well as the state and federal levels; (b) the resources required to cover the population through the IRP; and (c) the risks involved in not providing full coverage.
  2. Strengthen IRP program management by specifically accounting for program expenses and dedicating sufficient resources to it.
  3. Fully develop and implement plans currently under consideration for an expanded detention enforcement officer position to replace the vacancy-ridden immigration agent position.
  4. Request that the Office of Justice Programs implement changes to current SCAAP grant requirements that would require, as a grant condition, the full cooperation of state and local governments in INS's efforts to process and deport incarcerated criminal aliens.


Footnotes

  1. Local law enforcement has neither the training nor the access to INS databases to determine a foreign-born inmate's legal status. Further, while the terms of SCAAP grants require state and local officials to submit the names of inmates identified as foreign-born to the OJP for potential reimbursement of incarceration costs, they are not required to notify the INS.
  2. While INS officials did not attribute a specific cause for the significant drop in coverage, we believe the reasons to be a combination of logistics, chronic vacancies, and diversion of IRP resources.
  3. The implementation of account classification codes will allow the INS to track future IRP expenditures. It does not negate the fact that INS management was unable to provide us with comprehensive program expenditures for the period reviewed.
  4. SCAAP is authorized and governed by the provisions of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, Public Law 106-113, Division B, Section 1000(a); Immigration and Nationality Act 8 U.S.C. 1252, Section 242 as amended, and Title 11, Subtitle C, Section 20301 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Public Law 103-322.
  5. Under the proposed 2003 budget, SCAAP would be eliminated as a specific program, and would be consolidated along with several other grant programs into the Justice Assistance Grant Program (JAGP).