How did the Priority Enforcement Program (PEP) differ from Secure Communities in practice and outcome?
Executive summary
The Priority Enforcement Program (PEP) replaced Secure Communities in late 2014 with the stated goal of narrowing immigration enforcement to convicted criminals and other high‑risk individuals rather than sweeping everyone identified through jail fingerprinting into federal removal processes [1] [2]. In practice the two programs shared the same biometric pipeline and local‑law‑enforcement gateway, but PEP changed the paperwork, limited use of detainers, and reframed enforcement priorities—changes advocates called meaningful and critics called mostly cosmetic [3] [4] [5].
1. What Secure Communities actually did: an expansive biometric dragnet
Secure Communities routed fingerprints taken at local booking through FBI and DHS systems so ICE could identify removable noncitizens, producing widespread referrals from local jails to federal immigration authorities and a steep rise in interior enforcement between 2008 and 2014 [6] [7]. That automation meant ICE could issue detainers asking local agencies to hold people for transfer, a practice that critics and some jurisdictions argued undermined community policing and swept in many low‑level offenders and noncriminals [7] [6].
2. What PEP changed on paper: priorities, forms, and limits on detainers
PEP, announced by DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson, retained the same fingerprint sharing but introduced a narrower list of enforcement priorities focused on convicted felons, gang members, and threats to national security while replacing the I‑247 detainer form with new I‑247 variants that—ICE said—do not request holding someone beyond normal release and require ICE to identify the enforcement priority [2] [3]. ICE framed PEP as restoring public safety while reducing controversies that had driven jurisdictions to limit cooperation [1] [2].
3. The practical overlap: same data flow, different rhetoric
Despite reformist language, PEP used the same IDENT/IAFIS interoperability and fingerprint alerts that had powered Secure Communities, so the technical gateway from local arrests to ICE identification remained unchanged [2] [8]. Many legal‑aid and immigrant‑rights groups argued PEP was a rebrand that left core enforcement mechanisms intact and continued to funnel immigrants from local custody into federal removal pipelines [4] [5].
4. Outcomes and contested impacts: fewer noncriminal arrests but enforcement still broad
Analyses from researchers and policy groups show a drop in the share of noncriminal arrests after PEP’s introduction—noncriminals fell from a high share under Secure Communities to roughly 13 percent of arrests in later years—consistent with a move toward prioritizing convicted offenders; proponents credit PEP for this shift [9] [10]. Opponents, including some congressional Republicans and county law enforcement associations, countered that restricting detainers meant ICE sometimes lost custody windows and that dangerous individuals could be released before federal pickup, arguing PEP weakened public safety tools [11] [12].
5. Politics, trust, and hidden agendas behind the policy swap
The transition was as much political damage control as policy: DHS and ICE sought to reduce backlash from sanctuary jurisdictions and immigrant communities while preserving enforcement capacity [1] [13]. Advocacy groups saw PEP as an attempt to rebuild cooperation with local police while critics viewed the change as a tactical concession that left ICE’s arrest funnel intact; congressional opponents framed the move as politically motivated and dangerous, exposing conflicting agendas across federal, state, and local actors [5] [12].
6. Bottom line—what actually differed in practice and outcome
In concrete terms the difference was a narrowing of stated enforcement priorities and new procedural limits on detainer use, producing measurable declines in noncriminal arrests and some local cooperation restored in places that had resisted Secure Communities [3] [9] [13]. Yet the persistent use of the fingerprint pipeline, continued referrals from jails, and critiques from immigrant‑rights groups and watchdogs demonstrate that in practice PEP left many of Secure Communities’ core mechanisms and consequences intact—meaning outcomes shifted but did not reverse the fundamental coupling of local policing and federal immigration enforcement [2] [4] [5].