What has the DHS Office of Inspector General recommended about ICE training oversight since 2018?
Executive summary
Since 2018 the DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) has repeatedly recommended that ICE strengthen oversight of training by mandating refresher training, tracking and verifying completion of required courses, increasing program management capacity for partner-training programs like 287(g), and establishing clear performance metrics to measure training compliance and effectiveness [1] [2] [3] [4]. ICE has concurred with many OIG recommendations but OIG reports and follow-ups show several recommendations remained open or only partly implemented, particularly those addressing monitoring systems and workforce planning for oversight [1] [3] [4].
1. OIG demanded mandatory refresher training and formal tracking mechanisms
One of the clearest and recurring OIG prescriptions was that ICE and other DHS components mandate periodic refresher training and then verify completion, because OIG found ICE was not consistently monitoring officers’ completion of required online refresher trainings and that refresher requirements were not being enforced across programs [1] [2] [5]. The 2018 thematic reviews explicitly recommended mandating refresher training for law enforcement personnel and adding modules (for example, use-of-force and reporting) to supervisory curricula while tracking annual reporting requirements through communication tools [2].
2. OIG pushed for better oversight of state/local partner training (the 287(g) problem)
In a September 2018 report focused on the expanding 287(g) program, OIG concluded ICE approved program expansions without planning increases in program management staffing, IT support, or processes to ensure participants were fully trained, undermining ICE’s ability to monitor compliance and performance; OIG recommended that ICE close those management gaps and actively monitor training completion and quality among deputized local officers [3] [6]. That report warned program managers were “stretched thin,” which OIG said hindered ICE’s ability to adequately manage, oversee, and educate participating agencies [3] [7].
3. OIG called for performance goals and measurable oversight metrics tied to training
OIG pointed to a broader deficiency: without defined performance measures and a monitoring framework, ICE cannot determine whether partner agencies are complying with MOAs or whether training translates into lawful, effective enforcement; OIG therefore recommended ICE establish outcome-based metrics and performance tracking for training and oversight activities [3] [4]. Subsequent watchdogs echoed this gap, with later reporting noting ICE still lacked effective performance goals for oversight of law enforcement partners [5].
4. OIG sought clearer training guidance and remedial follow-up when inspections find failures
Across detention and field operation reviews, OIG advised ICE to improve training content and guidance (including civil‑rights and cross-cultural instruction), and to develop follow-up processes to ensure inspections and corrective actions actually lead to sustained compliance rather than one-off fixes [8] [4]. OIG evaluations of detention oversight stressed that training and inspection systems must be linked to enforceable standards in contracts and memoranda to produce systemic improvements [8] [6].
5. ICE’s responses, partial concurrence, and unresolved recommendations
ICE frequently concurred with OIG recommendations and reported actions taken—OIG described many replies as “responsive” and noted recommendations as resolved and open pending documentation—but OIG also kept several items “unresolved and open,” particularly where evidence of implementation (verified tracking data, staffing increases, or documented follow‑up inspections) was still lacking [1] [8] [9]. Independent watchdogs and subsequent reporting have highlighted continuing gaps in monitoring and performance measurement despite ICE’s stated concurrence [5] [7].
Conclusion: a focused, recurring OIG playbook on training oversight
From 2018 onward OIG’s recommendations form a consistent playbook: mandate refresher training, require verifiable completion tracking, staff program management sufficiently (notably for 287(g)), set measurable performance goals for oversight, and tie inspections to durable corrective actions and clearer guidance—steps designed to convert training requirements into accountable, documentable practice; however, OIG’s follow-ups show ICE’s concurrence has not always translated into full, verifiable implementation [2] [3] [4] [8].