How do FLETC course requirements differ between criminal investigator (CITP), HSISAT and ICE‑D/ERO academies in curriculum and assessment?
Executive summary
The three FLETC-linked courses serve different roles: CITP provides the foundational, interagency criminal‑investigative baseline; HSISAT layers ICE‑specific investigative, tactical and agency policy training on top of CITP; and ICE‑D/ERO basic training (BIETP) focuses on immigration enforcement operational skills rather than the broader criminal investigator curriculum — though public reporting about ICE’s ERO curriculum is sparse. Every factual point below cites ICE or FLETC material and where reporting is thin that limitation is noted [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. What CITP is designed to do and how it’s assessed
The Criminal Investigator Training Program (CITP) is presented as a foundational, interagency program teaching basic criminal investigative techniques — criminal law, enforcement operations, courtroom testimony and core investigative methodology — delivered in a concentrated residential format combining classroom lectures, practical exercises, firearms and physical‑fitness training [2] [1]. Reporting documents CITP’s typical length as roughly 56 days (about 8 weeks) in one source and roughly 12 weeks in others, reflecting differing program iterations or rounding in public materials [2] [1]. Assessment at CITP emphasizes practical competency and fitness standards: trainees undertake practical exercises and must pass a physical fitness test during CITP [2].
2. How HSISAT builds on CITP with agency‑specific curriculum and testing
HSISAT is explicitly an ICE/HSI‑run, agency‑specific follow‑on that trainees enter only after completing CITP, adding investigative specialties, tactical scenarios, and agency policy and programmatic training tailored to HSI mission sets [1] [2]. HSISAT is described as roughly 13 weeks (reported as 71 days in ICE material) and class sizes and instruction are managed by HSI subject‑matter experts, with practical exercises designed to simulate realistic investigative and tactical scenarios [1] [2]. Assessment in HSISAT centers on performance in those scenario‑based practical exercises and repeated physical‑fitness testing — trainees are required to pass the PFT multiple times across CITP and HSISAT — and mastery is verified by HSI instructors who serve as evaluators [2] [1].
3. ICE‑D/ERO basic training (BIETP) — scope, emphasis, and gaps in public reporting
ICE’s Basic Immigration Enforcement Training Program (BIETP) or ERO basic training is described in ICE reporting as an operational curriculum focused on immigration enforcement and deportation officer duties, with the ICE Academy coordinating venues and instruction alongside FLETC, but ICE’s public summaries emphasize institutional collaboration and accreditation rather than itemized course content or exact assessments [3]. Reporting highlights ICE Academy collaboration with FLETC to meet executive‑order training requirements and notes Federal Law Enforcement Accreditation (FLETA) for BIETP and HSISAT, which signals standardized quality controls, but the sources do not provide detailed day‑by‑day curricula or specific testing rubrics for ERO recruits in the same depth as CITP/HSISAT [3].
4. Key curricular contrasts in plain terms
CITP equals foundational investigative tradecraft for a broad federal audience with standardized FLETC modules in law, investigation and basic tactics; HSISAT equals HSI’s mission adaptation — deeper investigative program areas, tactical scenario fidelity and agency policy/practice — and is explicitly contingent on CITP completion [2] [1]. BIETP/ERO training is mission‑specific to removal and immigration enforcement operations and appears to be run in partnership with FLETC and ICE Academy staff, but ICE’s public materials emphasize institutional readiness and accreditation rather than an exhaustive syllabus comparable to the CITP/HSISAT summaries [3].
5. Assessment differences and institutional accountability
Assessments in CITP and HSISAT combine practical exercises, firearms qualifications and physical fitness testing, with HSISAT placing heavier weight on realistic, scenario‑based evaluations conducted by HSI instructors to certify agency readiness [2] [1]. For BIETP/ERO, ICE materials assert accredited programs and collaborative curriculum design but lack the granular public reporting on how pass/fail decisions are structured in the same way as the CITP/HSISAT materials, leaving a reporting gap on ERO assessment mechanics [3].
6. Interpretive note on sources and institutional messaging
ICE and FLETC sources emphasize rigor, interagency cooperation and accreditation (FLETA) — an institutional message highlighting legitimacy and standards — which is useful but also predictable; the available reporting is strongest on CITP/HSISAT sequencing and assessments and notably thinner on granular BIETP content and evaluation metrics, a limitation that must temper definitive statements about ERO training specifics [2] [1] [3] [4].