Criminal Alien Statistics
Information on Incarcerations, Arrests, and Costs Gao ID: GAO-11-187 March 24, 2011The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) estimated that as of fiscal year 2009 the total alien--non-U.S.-citizen--population was about 25.3 million, including about 10.8 million aliens without lawful immigration status. Some aliens have been convicted and incarcerated (criminal aliens). The federal government bears these incarceration costs for federal prisons and reimburses states and localities for portions of their costs through the Department of Justice's (DOJ) State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP). GAO was asked to update its April and May 2005 reports that contained information on criminal aliens. This report addresses (1) the number and nationalities of incarcerated criminal aliens; (2) the types of offenses for which criminal aliens were arrested and convicted; and (3) the costs associated with incarcerating criminal aliens and the extent to which DOJ's methodology for reimbursing states and localities for incarcerating criminal aliens is current and relevant. GAO analyzed federal and SCAAP incarceration and cost data of criminal aliens from fiscal years 2003 through 2010, and conviction and cost data from five states that account for about 70 percent of the SCAAP criminal alien population in 2008. GAO analyzed a random sample of 1,000 criminal aliens to estimate arrest information due to the large volume of arrests and offenses. GAO also estimated selected costs to incarcerate criminal aliens nationwide using
The number of criminal aliens in federal prisons in fiscal year 2010 was about 55,000, and the number of SCAAP criminal alien incarcerations in state prison systems and local jails was about 296,000 in fiscal year 2009 (the most recent data available), and the majority were from Mexico. The number of criminal aliens in federal prisons increased about 7 percent from about 51,000 in fiscal year 2005 while the number of SCAAP criminal alien incarcerations in state prison systems and local jails increased about 35 percent from about 220,000 in fiscal year 2003. The time period covered by these data vary because they reflect updates since GAO last reported on these issues in 2005. Specifically, in 2005, GAO reported that the percentage of criminal aliens in federal prisons was about 27 percent of the total inmate population from 2001 through 2004. Based on our random sample, GAO estimates that the criminal aliens had an average of 7 arrests, 65 percent were arrested at least once for an immigration offense, and about 50 percent were arrested at least once for a drug offense. Immigration, drugs, and traffic violations accounted for about 50 percent of arrest offenses. About 90 percent of the criminal aliens sentenced in federal court in fiscal year 2009 (the most recently available data) were convicted of immigration and drug-related offenses. About 40 percent of individuals convicted as a result of DOJ terrorism-related investigations were aliens. SCAAP criminal aliens incarcerated in selected state prison systems in Arizona, California, Florida, New York, and Texas were convicted of various offenses in fiscal year 2008 (the most recently available data at the time of GAO's analysis). The highest percentage of convictions for criminal aliens incarcerated in four of these states was for drug-related offenses. Homicide resulted in the most primary offense convictions for SCAAP criminal aliens in the fifth state--New York--in fiscal year 2008. GAO estimates that costs to incarcerate criminal aliens in federal prisons and SCAAP reimbursements to states and localities ranged from about $1.5 billion to $1.6 billion annually from fiscal years 2005 through 2009; DOJ plans to update its SCAAP methodology for reimbursing states and localities in 2011 to help ensure that it is current and relevant. DOJ developed its reimbursement methodology using analysis conducted by the former Immigration and Naturalization Service in 2000 that was based on 1997 data. Best practices in cost estimating and assessment of programs call for new data to be continuously collected so it is always relevant and current. During the course of its review, GAO raised questions about the relevancy of the methodology. Thus, DOJ developed plans to update its methodology in 2011 using SCAAP data from 2009 and would like to establish a 3-year update cycle to review the methodology in the future. Doing so could provide additional assurance that DOJ reimburses states and localities for such costs consistent with current trends. In commenting on a draft of this report, DHS and DOJ had no written comments to include in the report.
GAO-11-187, Criminal Alien Statistics: Information on Incarcerations, Arrests, and Costs
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-187
entitled 'Criminal Alien Statistics: Information on Incarcerations,
Arrests, and Costs' which was released on April 21, 2011.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Report to Congressional Requesters:
March 2011:
Criminal Alien Statistics:
Information on Incarcerations, Arrests, and Costs:
GAO-11-187:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-11-187, a report to congressional requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) estimated that as of fiscal
year 2009 the total alien”non-U.S.-citizen”population was about 25.3
million, including about 10.8 million aliens without lawful
immigration status. Some aliens have been convicted and incarcerated
(criminal aliens). The federal government bears these incarceration
costs for federal prisons and reimburses states and localities for
portions of their costs through the Department of Justice‘s (DOJ)
State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP). GAO was asked to
update its April and May 2005 reports that contained information on
criminal aliens. This report addresses (1) the number and
nationalities of incarcerated criminal aliens; (2) the types of
offenses for which criminal aliens were arrested and convicted; and
(3) the costs associated with incarcerating criminal aliens and the
extent to which DOJ‘s methodology for reimbursing states and
localities for incarcerating criminal aliens is current and relevant.
GAO analyzed federal and SCAAP incarceration and cost data of criminal
aliens from fiscal years 2003 through 2010, and conviction and cost
data from five states that account for about 70 percent of the SCAAP
criminal alien population in 2008. GAO analyzed a random sample of
1,000 criminal aliens to estimate arrest information due to the large
volume of arrests and offenses. GAO also estimated selected costs to
incarcerate criminal aliens nationwide using DOJ data, among other
sources.
What GAO Found:
The number of criminal aliens in federal prisons in fiscal year 2010
was about 55,000, and the number of SCAAP criminal alien
incarcerations in state prison systems and local jails was about
296,000 in fiscal year 2009 (the most recent data available), and the
majority were from Mexico. The number of criminal aliens in federal
prisons increased about 7 percent from about 51,000 in fiscal year
2005 while the number of SCAAP criminal alien incarcerations in state
prison systems and local jails increased about 35 percent from about
220,000 in fiscal year 2003. The time period covered by these data
vary because they reflect updates since GAO last reported on these
issues in 2005. Specifically, in 2005, GAO reported that the
percentage of criminal aliens in federal prisons was about 27 percent
of the total inmate population from 2001 through 2004.
Based on our random sample, GAO estimates that the criminal aliens had
an average of 7 arrests, 65 percent were arrested at least once for an
immigration offense, and about 50 percent were arrested at least once
for a drug offense. Immigration, drugs, and traffic violations
accounted for about 50 percent of arrest offenses. About 90 percent of
the criminal aliens sentenced in federal court in fiscal year 2009
(the most recently available data) were convicted of immigration and
drug-related offenses. About 40 percent of individuals convicted as a
result of DOJ terrorism-related investigations were aliens. SCAAP
criminal aliens incarcerated in selected state prison systems in
Arizona, California, Florida, New York, and Texas were convicted of
various offenses in fiscal year 2008 (the most recently available data
at the time of GAO‘s analysis). The highest percentage of convictions
for criminal aliens incarcerated in four of these states was for drug-
related offenses. Homicide resulted in the most primary offense
convictions for SCAAP criminal aliens in the fifth state”New York”in
fiscal year 2008.
GAO estimates that costs to incarcerate criminal aliens in federal
prisons and SCAAP reimbursements to states and localities ranged from
about $1.5 billion to $1.6 billion annually from fiscal years 2005
through 2009; DOJ plans to update its SCAAP methodology for
reimbursing states and localities in 2011 to help ensure that it is
current and relevant. DOJ developed its reimbursement methodology
using analysis conducted by the former Immigration and Naturalization
Service in 2000 that was based on 1997 data. Best practices in cost
estimating and assessment of programs call for new data to be
continuously collected so it is always relevant and current. During
the course of its review, GAO raised questions about the relevancy of
the methodology. Thus, DOJ developed plans to update its methodology
in 2011 using SCAAP data from 2009 and would like to establish a 3-
year update cycle to review the methodology in the future. Doing so
could provide additional assurance that DOJ reimburses states and
localities for such costs consistent with current trends.
In commenting on a draft of this report, DHS and DOJ had no written
comments to include in the report.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-187] or key
components. For more information, contact Charles A. Jeszeck at (202)
512-8777 or jeszeckc@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
Criminal Alien Incarcerations and Nationalities:
Criminal Alien Arrests and Convictions:
Estimated Costs of Criminal Alien Incarcerations:
Agency and Third-Party Comments:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Incarcerated Criminal Alien Population in Federal and State Prison
Systems and Local Jails:
Types of Criminal Alien Arrest Offenses and Convictions:
Costs Associated with Incarcerating the Criminal Alien Population:
Appendix II: Criminal Alien Costs in Fiscal Year 2010 Dollars:
Appendix III: SCAAP Criminal Alien Incarcerations in State Prisons and
Local Jails (Corresponds to figure 4):
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Common Terms and Definitions Used in this Report:
Table 2: Estimated Number and Percent of Criminal Alien Arrest
Offenses by Type of Offense:
Table 3: Immigration or Citizenship Status at the Time of Charging of
Individuals Convicted as a Result of Terrorism-Related Investigations:
Table 4: Number of Individuals Convicted under Statutes Directly
Related to Terrorism According to DOJ:
Table 5: Number of Individuals Convicted under Other Statutes
According to DOJ:
Table 6: Major Offense Categories for Federal Convictions:
Table 7: Major Offense Categories for Arrest Offenses and State
Convictions:
Table 8: Number of State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP)
Criminal Alien Incarcerations in Each State:
Figures:
Figure 1: Number of Criminal Aliens and U.S. Citizens Incarcerated in
Federal Prisons from Fiscal Years 2005 through 2010:
Figure 2: Country of Citizenship for Criminal Aliens Incarcerated in
Federal Prisons as of December 2010:
Figure 3: Number of State and Local SCAAP Criminal Alien
Incarcerations from Fiscal Year 2003 through Fiscal Year 2009:
Figure 4: Number of SCAAP Criminal Alien Incarcerations in Each State:
Figure 5: Country of Birth for SCAAP Criminal Aliens in State Prison
Systems as of Fiscal Year 2009:
Figure 6: Country of Birth for SCAAP Criminal Aliens in Local Jails as
of Fiscal Year 2009:
Figure 7: Number of Criminal Alien Apprehensions, Removals, and
Reentries:
Figure 8: Number of Arrests and Offenses per Criminal Alien from
August 1955 to April 2010:
Figure 9: Percentage of Criminal Aliens Arrested At Least Once by
Offense Category:
Figure 10: Location of Criminal Alien Arrests:
Figure 11: Primary Convictions Related to Criminal Alien Federal
Offenders in Fiscal Year 2009:
Figure 12: Arizona State Convictions for SCAAP Illegal Aliens in
Fiscal Year 2008 by Offense:
Figure 13: California State Primary Convictions of SCAAP Illegal
Aliens in Fiscal Year 2008 by Offense:
Figure 14: Florida State Convictions of SCAAP Illegal Aliens in Fiscal
Year 2008 by Offense:
Figure 15: New York State Primary Convictions of SCAAP Illegal Aliens
for Fiscal Year 2008 by Offense:
Figure 16: Texas State Primary Convictions of SCAAP Illegal Aliens for
Fiscal Year 2008 by Offense:
Figure 17: Federal Prison and SCAAP Costs to Incarcerate Criminal
Aliens from Fiscal Years 2005 through 2009:
Figure 18: SCAAP Reimbursements to States and Localities from Fiscal
Years 2003 through 2009:
Figure 19: Estimated Operating Costs to Incarcerate SCAAP Criminal
Aliens in All 50 States:
Figure 20: Estimated Operating Costs (i.e., correctional officer
salaries, medical care, food service, and utilities) per Inmate to
Incarcerate SCAAP Criminal Aliens in All 50 States:
Figure 21: Selected State Costs to Incarcerate SCAAP Criminal Aliens
in Fiscal Year 2008:
Figure 22: Selected State Costs to Incarcerate SCAAP Criminal Aliens
in Fiscal Year 2009:
Figure 23: Selected State Costs per Inmate to Incarcerate SCAAP
Criminal Aliens in Fiscal Year 2009:
Figure 24: Selected Localities' Costs and Reimbursements for
Incarcerating Criminal Aliens in Fiscal Year 2008:
Figure 25: Selected Localities' Costs and Reimbursements for
Incarcerating Criminal Aliens in Fiscal Year 2009:
Figure 26: Federal Prison and State Criminal Alien Assistance Program
(SCAAP) Costs in Fiscal Year 2010 Dollars to Incarcerate Criminal
Aliens from Fiscal Years 2005 through 2009:
Figure 27: SCAAP Reimbursements to States and Localities in Fiscal
Year 2010 Dollars from Fiscal Years 2003 through 2009:
Figure 28: Estimated Operating Costs in Fiscal Year 2010 Dollars to
Incarcerate SCAAP Criminal Aliens in All 50 States:
Figure 29: Estimated Operating Costs per Inmate in Fiscal Year 2010
Dollars to Incarcerate SCAAP Criminal Aliens in All 50 States:
Abbreviations:
BOP: Bureau of Prisons:
BJA: Bureau of Justice Assistance:
BJS: Bureau of Justice Statistics:
DHS: Department of Homeland Security:
DOJ: Department of Justice:
FBI: Federal Bureau of Investigation:
IAFIS: Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System:
ICE: Immigration and Customs Enforcement:
INS: Immigration and Naturalization Service:
SCAAP: State Criminal Alien Assistance Program:
USCIS: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
March 24, 2011:
The Honorable Zoe Lofgren:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement:
Committee on the Judiciary:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Steve King:
House of Representatives:
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) estimated that as of fiscal
year 2009 the total alien--non-U.S.-citizen--population in the United
States was about 25.3 million, including about 14.5 million aliens
with lawful immigration status and about 10.8 million aliens without
lawful immigration status.[Footnote 1] Some of the alien population
have been arrested and convicted of various crimes and incarcerated in
federal and state prisons and local jails. DHS refers to these
individuals as criminal aliens.[Footnote 2] Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE), one of DHS's components, is responsible for
apprehending and removing those criminal aliens that do not have a
legal right to remain in the United States.
The costs associated with incarcerating criminal aliens are borne by
the federal government as well as state and local governments.
Criminal aliens convicted in federal court and sentenced to a term of
imprisonment are committed to the custody of the Department of
Justice's (DOJ) Bureau of Prisons (BOP), and the federal government
bears the total cost of incarcerating these individuals. The federal
government also reimburses state and local government entities for
portions of their incarceration costs for certain criminal alien
populations through DOJ's State Criminal Alien Assistance Program
(SCAAP).[Footnote 3] SCAAP is intended to provide reimbursement to
states and localities for a portion of the correctional officer salary
costs associated with incarcerating criminal aliens who met the
following criteria: (1) had at least one felony or two misdemeanor
convictions for violations of state or local law; and (2) were
incarcerated for at least 4 consecutive days during the reporting
period. Therefore, SCAAP is not intended to reimburse state and local
governments for all of the costs associated with incarcerating all
criminal aliens.
We issued two reports that contained information on criminal aliens in
2005.[Footnote 4] You asked that we update and expand upon the
information in those reports. Specifically, this report provides
information on the following:
* The number and nationalities of criminal aliens incarcerated in
federal and state prisons and local jails and the number of criminal
alien (1) apprehensions, (2) removals, and (3) apprehensions for
illegal reentry into the United States after removal.
* The types of offenses for which criminal aliens were arrested and
convicted.
* The costs associated with incarcerating criminal aliens and the
extent to which DOJ's methodology for reimbursing states and
localities for incarcerating certain criminal aliens is relevant and
current.
To determine the number and nationalities of criminal aliens
incarcerated, we analyzed BOP data on criminal aliens incarcerated in
federal prisons from fiscal years 2005 through 2010 and SCAAP data on
criminal aliens incarcerated in state prisons and local jails from
fiscal years 2003 thorough 2009. There are no reliable population data
on criminal aliens incarcerated in all state prison systems and local
jails. The data we obtained represent a portion of the total
population of criminal aliens who may be incarcerated at the state and
local levels, since by statute SCAAP does not reimburse states and
localities for certain criminal aliens, such as aliens with lawful
immigration status, and not all jurisdictions may apply for
reimbursement. To determine the number of criminal alien
apprehensions, removals, and apprehensions for reentering the country
illegally after a prior removal, we analyzed ICE data from fiscal
years 2007 through 2010.[Footnote 5]
To determine the types of offenses for which criminal aliens were
arrested, we obtained the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) arrest
histories of about 203,000 criminal aliens incarcerated in state
prisons and local jails from July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2008, and
48,000 criminal aliens incarcerated in federal prisons as of December
27, 2008, for a total of 251,000 criminal aliens. Due to the large
volume of arrests and offenses, we selected a random sample of 1,000
criminal aliens and analyzed their arrest records to estimate the
number and types of offenses in our study population of approximately
249,000.[Footnote 6] There were nearly 1.7 million arrest records
relating to nearly 3 million offenses for these 249,000 criminal
aliens. To determine the type of offenses for which criminal aliens
were convicted, we analyzed data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission
on federal convictions of criminal aliens from fiscal years 2003
through 2009 and conviction data from five states--Arizona,
California, Florida, New York, and Texas--from fiscal years 2005
through 2008. We selected these five states based on the number of
SCAAP criminal aliens. Collectively, these states accounted for about
70 percent of the SCAAP criminal alien population in fiscal year 2008.
To determine the costs associated with incarcerating criminal aliens
in federal prisons, we analyzed BOP inmate and cost data. To determine
the costs of incarcerating criminal aliens in state prison systems, we
used a DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) study that estimated
selected costs of incarcerating inmates (i.e., correctional officer
salary, medical care, food service, and utilities) for all 50 state
prison systems in 2001.[Footnote 7] Applying relevant inflation
factors and SCAAP reimbursement data, we calculated these selected
operating costs for incarcerating criminal aliens for state prisons
systems that sought SCAAP reimbursement from fiscal years 2003 through
2009. Since our nationwide estimate only includes selected costs, to
estimate the total cost of incarcerating criminal aliens, we analyzed
cost and SCAAP data for 5 state prisons systems--Arizona, California,
Florida, New York, and Texas--and 5 local jails--New York City, New
York; Los Angeles County, California; Orange County, California;
Maricopa County, Arizona; and Harris County, Texas. We selected these
state prison systems and local jails because they are the same prison
systems and local jails that we used in our April 2005
report.[Footnote 8] To determine the extent to which DOJ's SCAAP
reimbursement methodology was relevant and current, we analyzed agency
documentation, such as current SCAAP guidelines, and spoke with DOJ
officials regarding the methodology. We evaluated this methodology
using best practices in cost estimating.[Footnote 9] For more details
on our scope and methodology, see appendix I.
We determined that the data in our study were sufficiently reliable
for the purposes of this report by analyzing available documentation,
such as related data dictionaries, conducting tests to identify
missing data or anomalies, and following up with agency officials
knowledgeable about the data to address any questions about the data.
We conducted this performance audit from October 2009 through March
2011 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.[Footnote 10] Those standards require that we plan and
perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to
provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on
our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives.
Background:
As of fiscal year 2009, DHS estimated that the total alien population
in the United States was about 25.3 million. Some of the alien
population have been arrested and incarcerated in federal and state
prisons and local jails, adding to already overcrowded prisons and
jails. The federal government bears the total cost of incarcerating
all criminal aliens in federal prisons and reimburses state and local
governments for portions of their incarceration costs for certain
criminal alien populations through SCAAP. Any costs related to
incarcerating criminal aliens not reimbursed by the federal government
are borne by state and local governments.
Arrest Histories:
In general, individuals arrested by federal, state, and local law
enforcement authorities are fingerprinted and their prints are sent to
the FBI. For each individual submitted, the FBI creates a unique
identification number allowing, among other things, law enforcement to
determine an individual's arrest history. The fingerprints are stored
in the FBI's Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System
(IAFIS).
SCAAP Reimbursement:
State and local entities wishing to get reimbursed for incarcerating
eligible criminal aliens submit identification data each year, such as
the individual alien's name, and date and country of birth to DOJ by
means of a web-based system. DOJ then sends this data to ICE, which
researches DHS databases to try to determine the individual's
immigration or citizenship status. For each individual name submitted,
ICE reports to DOJ that it (1) verified the individual was illegally
in the United States at the time of incarceration (called SCAAP
illegal aliens), (2) lacked documentation to confirm an individual's
immigration status (called SCAAP unknown aliens), or (3) verified that
the individual was an alien legally in the United States or a United
States citizen and therefore not eligible for reimbursement under
SCAAP. According to ICE officials, some of the unknown aliens may be
in the United States illegally but have not come into contact with DHS
authorities, which is why ICE could not verify their immigration
status. Table 1 summarizes the terms and definitions used in this
report.
General Terms and Definitions:
Table 1: Common Terms and Definitions Used in this Report:
Term: Alien;
Definition: Any person who is not a citizen of the United States.
Term: Criminal aliens;
Definition: Noncitizens who are residing in the United States legally
or illegally and are convicted of a crime.
Term: Primary conviction;
Definition: When convicted of multiple offenses, the primary
conviction is the offense with the longest maximum sentence.
Term: SCAAP illegal aliens;
Definition: Noncitizens whom ICE verified were illegally in the United
States at the time of incarceration and for whom state and local
jurisdictions received federal reimbursement through SCAAP.
Term: SCAAP unknown aliens;
Definition: Individuals whom states and local jurisdictions believe to
be illegally in the United States. However, ICE lacks documentation to
confirm their immigration status. States and local jurisdictions
received partial federal reimbursement through SCAAP.
Source: GAO.
[A] SCAAP criminal aliens are a subset of all criminal aliens because
criminal aliens with lawful immigration status do not meet the
statutory criteria for SCAAP reimbursement. SCAAP data do not
represent the number of unique individuals since these individuals
could be incarcerated in multiple SCAAP jurisdictions during the
reporting period.
[End of table]
Criminal Alien Incarcerations and Nationalities:
Proportion of Criminal Aliens Incarcerated in Federal Prisons Remained
Consistent from Fiscal Years 2005 through 2010:
As shown in figure 1, the number of criminal aliens incarcerated in
federal prisons increased about 7 percent from about 51,000 in fiscal
year 2005 to about 55,000 in fiscal year 2010. The number of total
inmates incarcerated in federal prisons increased about 14 percent
from about 189,000 in fiscal year 2005 to about 215,000 in fiscal year
2010.[Footnote 11]
Figure 1: Number of Criminal Aliens and U.S. Citizens Incarcerated in
Federal Prisons from Fiscal Years 2005 through 2010:
[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph]
Fiscal year: 2005;
U.S. citizens: 138,313;
Criminal aliens: 50,991;
Total: 189,304.
Fiscal year: 2006;
U.S. citizens: 144,077;
Criminal aliens: 50,711;
Total: 194,788.
Fiscal year: 2007;
U.S. citizens: 150,520;
Criminal aliens: 50,785;
Total: 201,305.
Fiscal year: 2008;
U.S. citizens: 153,803;
Criminal aliens: 51,805;
Total: 205,608.
Fiscal year: 2009;
U.S. citizens: 156,492;
Criminal aliens: 52,929;
Total: 209,421.
Fiscal year: 2010;
U.S. citizens: 160,348;
Criminal aliens: 54,718;
Total: 215,066.
Source: GAO analysis of BOP data.
[End of figure]
Further, the criminal alien population as a percentage of the total
federal inmate population has remained relatively constant since 2001.
In 2005, we reported that the overall percentage of the criminal alien
population incarcerated in federal prisons remained consistently
around 27 percent of the total inmate population from 2001 though
2004.[Footnote 12] In fiscal year 2005, the criminal alien population
in federal prisons was around 27 percent of the total inmate
population, and from fiscal years 2006 through 2010 remained
consistently around 25 percent.
Mexico Represents the Country of Citizenship for Most Criminal Aliens
Incarcerated in Federal Prisons as of December 2010:
As shown in figure 2, about 68 percent of the approximately 51,000
criminal aliens incarcerated in federal prison at the end of December
2010 were citizens of Mexico, and almost 90 percent were citizens of
one of eight countries, including Mexico.[Footnote 13]
Figure 2: Country of Citizenship for Criminal Aliens Incarcerated in
Federal Prisons as of December 2010:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart]
Mexico: 68%;
Colombia: 5%;
Dominican Republic: 5%;
Cuba: 3%;
Jamaica: 2%;
El Salvador: 2%;
Honduras: 2%;
Guatemala: 1%;
Remaining 172 countries: 10%.
Source: GAO analysis of BOP data.
Note: Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding.
[End of figure]
These data are similar to what we reported in 2005.[Footnote 14]
Specifically, in 2005, we reported that about 63 percent of the
approximately 49,000 criminal aliens incarcerated in federal prison at
year-end 2004 were citizens of Mexico and about 90 percent were
citizens of the same eight countries in figure 2.
Number of State and Local SCAAP Criminal Alien Incarcerations
Increased from Fiscal Years 2003 through 2009:
From fiscal years 2003 through 2009, the number of SCAAP criminal
alien incarcerations in state prison systems and local jails increased
from about 220,000 in fiscal year 2003 to about 296,000 in fiscal year
2009. Specifically, the number of SCAAP criminal alien incarcerations
in state prison systems increased by about 25 percent and the number
of SCAAP criminal alien incarcerations in local jails increased by
about 40 percent, as shown in Figure 3.[Footnote 15]
Figure 3: Number of State and Local SCAAP Criminal Alien
Incarcerations from Fiscal Year 2003 through Fiscal Year 2009:
[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph]
Fiscal year: 2003;
Total number of SCAAP incarcerations of aliens in state prisons plus
District of Columbia jails: 73,751;
Total number of SCAAP incarcerations of aliens in local jails: 146,327;
Total incarcerations: 220,078.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Total number of SCAAP incarcerations of aliens in state prisons plus
District of Columbia jails: 80,313;
Total number of SCAAP incarcerations of aliens in local jails: 151,695;
Total incarcerations: 232,008.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Total number of SCAAP incarcerations of aliens in state prisons plus
District of Columbia jails: 82,117;
Total number of SCAAP incarcerations of aliens in local jails: 151,686;
Total incarcerations: 233,803.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Total number of SCAAP incarcerations of aliens in state prisons plus
District of Columbia jails: 84,028;
Total number of SCAAP incarcerations of aliens in local jails: 162,309;
Total incarcerations: 246,337.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Total number of SCAAP incarcerations of aliens in state prisons plus
District of Columbia jails: 86,704;
Total number of SCAAP incarcerations of aliens in local jails: 181,740;
Total incarcerations: 268,444.
Fiscal year: 2008;
Total number of SCAAP incarcerations of aliens in state prisons plus
District of Columbia jails: 92,479;
Total number of SCAAP incarcerations of aliens in local jails: 201,739;
Total incarcerations: 294,218.
Fiscal year: 2009;
Total number of SCAAP incarcerations of aliens in state prisons plus
District of Columbia jails: 91,823;
Total number of SCAAP incarcerations of aliens in local jails: 204,136;
Total incarcerations: 295,959.
Source: GAO analysis of DOJ Bureau of Justice Assistance data.
Note: These fiscal years represent data on SCAAP criminal alien
incarcerations from July 1 through June 30 for the respective fiscal
year. For example, fiscal year 2009 includes incarcerations from July
1, 2008, through June 30, 2009. Fiscal year 2009 data are the most
recent data available from DOJ.
[End of figure]
In addition, 49 state prison systems and the District of Columbia
received reimbursement in fiscal year 2009 compared to 47 state prison
systems and the District of Columbia for fiscal year 2003. Of the
total number of inmate days spent by all inmates in state prisons that
received SCAAP reimbursements, SCAAP criminal aliens accounted for
about 5 percent of all days in fiscal year 2009 and about 4 percent in
fiscal year 2003. The number of local jurisdictions receiving
reimbursement under SCAAP increased about 16 percent from about 700
local jails in fiscal year 2003 to about 810 local jails in fiscal
year 2009. In fiscal year 2009, SCAAP criminal aliens accounted for
about 6 percent of the total number of days spent by all inmates in
these 810 local jails compared to about 5 percent in fiscal year 2003.
About 70 Percent of SCAAP Criminal Alien Incarcerations in State
Prison Systems and Local Jails Were in Six States--California, Texas,
Arizona, Florida, New York, and Illinois--in Fiscal Year 2009:
Six states--California, Texas, Arizona, Florida, New York, and
Illinois--incarcerated 66 percent of the nearly 296,000 SCAAP criminal
alien incarcerations nationwide in fiscal year 2009, as shown in
figure 4.[Footnote 16] See appendix III for additional information on
figure 4.
Figure 4: Number of SCAAP Criminal Alien Incarcerations in Each State:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated U.S. map]
Interactive features: Roll your mouse over each state to see SCAAP
criminal alien incarceration trends from 2003 through 2009. See
Appendix III for additional details.
SCAAP criminal alien incarcerations (2009):
Less than 1,000:
Alabama:
Alaska:
Connecticut:
Delaware:
District of Columbia:
Hawaii:
Iowa:
Louisiana:
Maine:
Mississippi:
Missouri:
Montana:
New Hampshire:
North Dakota:
Rhode Island:
South Dakota:
Vermont:
West Virginia:
Wyoming:
1,000 to 2,499:
Arkansas:
Idaho:
Indiana:
Kansas:
Kentucky:
Michigan:
Minnesota:
Nebraska:
New Mexico:
Oklahoma:
Pennsylvania:
Tennessee:
2,500 to 9,999:
Arizona:
Colorado:
Georgia:
Illinois:
Maryland:
Massachusetts:
Nevada:
New Jersey:
North Carolina:
Ohio:
Oregon:
South Carolina:
Utah:
Virginia:
Washington:
Wisconsin:
10,000 to 100,000:
Florida:
New York:
Texas:
More than 100,000:
California:
Source: GAO analysis of BJA SCAAP data; Map Resources.
[End of figure]
Mexico Represents the Country of Birth for Most SCAAP Criminal Aliens
in State Prison Systems as of Fiscal Year 2009:
As shown in figure 5, about 66 percent of the SCAAP criminal aliens
incarcerated in state prison systems from July 1, 2008, through June
30, 2009, were born in Mexico and about 85 percent were born in one of
nine countries, including Mexico.[Footnote 17]
Figure 5: Country of Birth for SCAAP Criminal Aliens in State Prison
Systems as of Fiscal Year 2009:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart]
Mexico: 66%;
Cuba: 4%;
El Salvador: 4%;
Honduras: 3%;
Guatemala: 2%;
Dominican Republic: 2%;
Jamaica: 2%;
Germany: 2%;
Vietnam: 1%;
Remaining 191 countries: 14%.
Source: GAO analysis of DOJ Bureau of Justice Assistance data.
Note: Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding.
[End of figure]
Similarly, we reported in 2005 that about 58 percent of approximately
52,000 SCAAP criminal aliens incarcerated in five state prison systems
with the most criminal aliens--Arizona, California, Florida, New York,
and Texas--as of mid-year 2004 were born in Mexico.[Footnote 18] At
that time, about 80 percent of these SCAAP criminal aliens were born
in one of six countries--Mexico, the Dominican Republic, Cuba, El
Salvador, Jamaica, and Vietnam.
Mexico Represents the Country of Birth for Most SCAAP Criminal Aliens
in Local Jails as of Fiscal Year 2009:
As shown in figure 6, about 70 percent of the SCAAP criminal aliens
incarcerated in local jails from July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009,
were born in Mexico and about 85 percent were born in one of seven
countries, including Mexico.[Footnote 19]
Figure 6: Country of Birth for SCAAP Criminal Aliens in Local Jails as
of Fiscal Year 2009:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart]
Mexico: 77%;
El Salvador: 4%;
Guatemala: 4%;
Honduras: 3%;
Germany: 2%;
Dominican Republic: 1%;
Cuba: 1%;
Remaining 213 countries: 14%.
Source: GAO analysis of DOJ Bureau of Justice Assistance data.
Note: Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding.
[End of figure]
Similarly, we reported in 2005 that about 65 percent of the
approximately 170,000 SCAAP criminal aliens in five local
jurisdictions--New York City, New York; Los Angeles County,
California; Orange County, California; Maricopa County, Arizona; and
Harris County, Texas--in fiscal year 2003 were born in Mexico. At that
time, about 80 percent of these SCAAP criminal aliens were born in one
of eight countries--Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, South
Korea, Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, and the Philippines.[Footnote
20]
Number of Criminal Alien Apprehensions and Removals Increased from
Calendar Years 2007 through 2010:
As shown in figure 7, the number of criminal alien apprehensions by
ICE, removal proceedings, and removals ordered[Footnote 21] increased
significantly from calendar years 2007 through 2010.[Footnote 22] The
number of criminal alien:
* apprehensions increased by about 85 percent,
* removal proceedings increased by 71 percent, and:
* removals ordered increased more than seven fold from about 9,000 in
2007 to about 79,000 in 2010.
The number of criminal alien removals from the United States in which
ICE later recorded an individual was apprehended for reentering the
country illegally increased about 42 percent (about 8,000) from
calendar years 2007 through 2009, but declined 35 percent (about
10,000) from 2009 to 2010.
Figure 7: Number of Criminal Alien Apprehensions, Removals, and
Reentries:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Apprehensions:
2007: 68,025;
2008: 95,804;
2009: 108,154;
2010: 125,943.
Removal proceedings:
2007: 37,452;
2008: 46,445;
2009: 50,143;
2010: 64,082.
Ordered removed:
2007: 8,877;
2008: 40,816;
2009: 75,030;
2010: 78,690.
Reentered:
2007: 19,214;
2008: 29,512;
2009: 27,337;
2010: 17,797.
Source: GAO analysis of ICE data.
[End of figure]
Criminal Alien Arrests and Convictions:
The Majority of Criminal Aliens in Our Study Population Had from 1 to
5 Arrests and from 1 to 10 Offenses:
Based on our random sample of 1,000 criminal aliens, we estimate that
our study population of about 249,000 criminal aliens were arrested
about 1.7 million times, averaging about 7 arrests per criminal alien,
slightly lower than the 8 arrests per criminal alien we reported in
2005.[Footnote 23] They were arrested for a total of about 2.9 million
offenses, averaging about 12 offenses per criminal alien, slightly
lower than the 13 offenses per criminal alien we reported in 2005.
[Footnote 24]
As shown in figure 8, 54 percent of the criminal aliens in our study
population had from one to five arrests in their arrest history
record. About 9 percent of the criminal aliens in our study population
(about 23,000) had one arrest. About 60 percent of the criminal aliens
in our study population had from 1 to 10 offenses in their arrest
history record. Our analysis includes criminal aliens with arrests
dating from August 1955 to April 2010. About 90 percent of the arrests
in our study population occurred after 1990.
Figure 8: Number of Arrests and Offenses per Criminal Alien from
August 1955 to April 2010:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Number of arrests and offenses: 1 to 5;
Number of arrests: 135,097 (54%);
Number of offenses: 89,480 (36%).
Number of arrests and offenses: 6 to 10;
Number of arrests: 68,676 (28%);
Number of offenses: 60,405 (24%).
Number of arrests and offenses: 11 to 15;
Number of arrests: 26,568 (11%);
Number of offenses: 36,093 (14%).
Number of arrests and offenses: 16 to 20;
Number of arrests: 11,028 (4%);
Number of offenses: 26,067 (10%).
Number of arrests and offenses: 21 to 25;
Number of arrests: 4,762 (2%);
Number of offenses: 12,532 (5%).
Number of arrests and offenses: 26 or greater;
Number of arrests: 3,258 (1%);
Number of offenses: 24,814 (10%).
Source: GAO analysis of IAFIS data.
Note: For information on the margin of error, see appendix I.
65 Percent of the Criminal Aliens in Our Study Population Were
Arrested at Least Once for an Immigration Offense:
Sixty-five percent of the 249,000 criminal aliens in our study
population were arrested at least once for either a civil or criminal
immigration violation. The two types of arrests typically lead to
different outcomes: arrests for civil immigration violations are for
the purpose of placing individuals into removal proceedings, whereas
arrests for criminal violations can lead to criminal prosecution.
About 50 percent of the criminal aliens in our study population were
arrested at least once for either assault, homicide, robbery, a sex
offense, or kidnapping. About half of the criminal aliens were
arrested at least once for a drug violation. Figure 9 shows the
percentage of criminal aliens arrested at least once by offense
category.
Figure 9: Percentage of Criminal Aliens Arrested At Least Once by
Offense Category:
[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph]
Category: Immigration;
Percent: 65%.
Category: Drugs;
Percent: 48%.
Category: Traffic violations;
Percent: 39%.
Category: Obstruction of justice;
Percent: 38%.
Category: Assault;
Percent: 35%.
Category: Other;
Percent: 31%.
Category: Fraud, forgery, and counterfeiting;
Percent: 21%.
Category: Larceny/theft;
Percent: 21%.
Category: Weapons violations;
Percent: 19%.
Category: Burglary;
Percent: 18%.
Category: Motor vehicle theft;
Percent: 15%.
Category: Disorderly conduct;
Percent: 12%.
Category: Sex offenses;
Percent: 12%.
Category: Stolen property;
Percent: 10%.
Category: Robbery;
Percent: 9%.
Category: Property damage;
Percent: 9%.
Category: Homicide;
Percent: 8%.
Category: Kidnapping;
Percent: 4%.
Category: Arson;
Percent: 1%.
Source: GAO analysis of FBI IAFIS data.
Note: For information on the margin of error, see appendix I.
[End of figure]
Immigration, Drugs, and Traffic Violations Accounted for about 50
Percent of Offenses in Our Study Population:
Of the nearly 3 million arrest offenses in our study population, we
estimate that about 50 percent were related to immigration, drugs, or
traffic violations, as shown below in table 2.
Table 2: Estimated Number and Percent of Criminal Alien Arrest
Offenses by Type of Offense:
Arrest offense: Immigration[A];
Number: 529,859;
Percent: 18%.
Arrest offense: Drugs;
Number: 504,043;
Percent: 17%.
Arrest offense: Traffic violations;
Number: 404,788;
Percent: 14%.
Arrest offense: Obstruction of justice;
Number: 252,899;
Percent: 9%.
Arrest offense: Assault;
Number: 213,047;
Percent: 7%.
Arrest offense: Larceny/theft;
Number: 125,322;
Percent: 4%.
Arrest offense: Fraud, forgery, and counterfeiting;
Number: 120,810;
Percent: 4%.
Arrest offense: Burglary;
Number: 115,045;
Percent: 4%.
Arrest offense: Weapons violations;
Number: 94,492;
Percent: 3%.
Arrest offense: Motor vehicle theft;
Number: 81,710;
Percent: 3%.
Arrest offense: Sex offenses;
Number: 69,929;
Percent: 2%.
Arrest offense: Disorderly conduct;
Number: 52,384;
Percent: 2%.
Arrest offense: Stolen property;
Number: 49,126;
Percent: 2%.
Arrest offense: Property damage;
Number: 42,609;
Percent: 1%.
Arrest offense: Robbery;
Number: 42,609;
Percent: 1%.
Arrest offense: Homicide;
Number: 25,064;
Percent: 1%.
Arrest offense: Kidnapping;
Number: 14,788;
Percent: 1%.
Arrest offense: Arson;
Number: 2,005;
Percent: less than 1%.
Arrest offense: Other;
Number: 151,138;
Percent: 5%.
Arrest offense: Total;
Number: 2,891,668;
Percent: 100%[B].
Source: GAO analysis of FBI IAFIS data.
Note: For information on the margin of error, see appendix I.
[A] Offenses included in our immigration category included both
criminal offenses (63,914) and civil immigration violations--those
that lead to removal proceedings (305,784). For 160,161 immigration
offenses, we were unable to distinguish whether the offense was
criminal or civil. See appendix I for information on the margin of
error.
[B] Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.
[End of table]
The Majority of Criminal Aliens in Our Study Population Were Arrested
in California, Texas, or Arizona:
As shown in figure 10, about 75 percent of criminal aliens in our
study population were arrested in one of three states--California,
Texas, and Arizona.[Footnote 25]
Figure 10: Location of Criminal Alien Arrests:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart]
California: 54%;
Texas: 10%;
Arizona: 9%;
New York: 3%;
Washington: 3%;
Illinois: 2%;
Florida: 2%;
Virginia: 1%;
Colorado: 1%;
Georgia: 1%;
Oregon: 1%;
Remaining 36 states, District of Columbia and U.S. territories: 10%.
Source: GAO analysis of FBI's IAFIS data.
Note: For information on the margin of error, see appendix I.
Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding.
[End of figure]
Almost 90 Percent of Primary Federal Convictions Related to Criminal
Alien Offenders in Fiscal Year 2009 Were for Immigration or Drug-
Related Offenses:
In fiscal year 2009, immigration and drug offenses accounted for
nearly 90 percent of federal primary convictions for criminal aliens
based upon U.S. Sentencing Commission data, as shown in figure 11.
[Footnote 26]
Figure 11: Primary Convictions Related to Criminal Alien Federal
Offenders in Fiscal Year 2009:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart]
Immigration: 68%;
Drugs: 20%;
Economic Crimes: 7%;
Firearms: 2%;
Money Laundering/Racketeering/Extortion: 1%;
Other[A]: 2%.
Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Sentencing Commission data.
[A"] Other" offenses include homicide, kidnapping, sex offenses,
assault, arson, burglary, and auto theft.
[End of figure]
Moreover, the number of criminal aliens convicted of immigration
violations has increased while the number convicted of drug violations
has remained stable. In fiscal year 2004, immigration offenses
accounted for about 13,000 primary federal convictions of criminal
aliens compared to 24,000 (an 85 percent increase) in fiscal year
2009. In fiscal year 2004, drug offenses accounted for about 7,000
primary convictions compared to the same number in 2009.
Forty-Three Percent of Individuals Convicted as a Result of Terrorism-
Related Investigations Were Aliens:
In March 2010, DOJ's National Security Division reported information
on convictions resulting from international terrorism investigations
conducted since September 11, 2001. According to DOJ, the convictions
represent cases where defendants were directly linked to international
terrorism as well as those who at the time of charging appeared to
have a connection to international terrorism.[Footnote 27] To
determine if any of the individuals convicted in these terrorism-
related cases were aliens, we requested that U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS) provide us the immigration or citizenship
status, if known, of these individuals.
Based on USCIS information, 173 (43 percent) of the 399 individuals
included in DOJ's list of convictions resulting from international
terrorism-related investigations were, at the time of charging, aliens
with or without legal immigration status. The remaining 226
individuals (57 percent) were either U.S. citizens[Footnote 28],
naturalized U.S. citizens, aliens brought into the United States for
prosecution, or unknown. Of the 105 aliens with legal immigration
status, 68 (65 percent) were lawful permanent residents. Table 3 shows
the immigration or citizenship status related to these individuals.
Table 3: Immigration or Citizenship Status at the Time of Charging of
Individuals Convicted as a Result of Terrorism-Related Investigations:
Immigration or citizenship status: Aliens with legal immigration
status;
Number of individuals: 105;
Percent: 26%.
Immigration or citizenship status: Naturalized U.S. citizens;
Number of individuals: 83;
Percent: 21%.
Immigration or citizenship status: Aliens without legal immigration
status;
Number of individuals: 68;
Percent: 17%.
Immigration or citizenship status: U.S. citizens[A];
Number of individuals: 59;
Percent: 15%.
Immigration or citizenship status: Aliens brought into the United
States for prosecution;
Number of individuals: 50;
Percent: 13%.
Immigration or citizenship status: Unknown[B];
Number of individuals: 34;
Percent: 9%.
Immigration or citizenship status: Total[C];
Number of individuals: 399;
Percent: 100%.
Source: GAO Analysis of DOJ and USCIS data.
[A] This category includes U.S. citizens who were born in the United
States (52 individuals) or derived U.S. citizenship (2 individuals).
For 5 of the individuals included in this category, the source of
their U.S. citizenship could not be determined. For this analysis, we
treated naturalized U.S. citizens as a separate category.
[B] The immigration/citizenship status of some individuals is unknown
because of a lack of identifying information needed to determine their
status.
[C] Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.
[End of table]
About 20 Percent of Individuals Convicted under Statutes Directly
Related to Terrorism Were Aliens:
According to DOJ, some of the defendants on the DOJ list were charged
with violations of federal statutes that are directly related to
international terrorism, such as hostage taking and bombings of places
of public use. Twenty-two individuals (21 percent) of the 107
individuals convicted of statutes identified by DOJ as directly
related to terrorism were aliens with or without legal immigration
status, as shown in table 4. The remaining 85 individuals (79 percent)
were either U.S. citizens, naturalized U.S. citizens, aliens brought
into the United States for prosecution, or unknown. Of the 107
individuals, 62 individuals were also convicted under other statutes
not directly related to terrorism.
Table 4: Number of Individuals Convicted under Statutes Directly
Related to Terrorism According to DOJ:
Immigration or citizenship status: U.S. citizens;
Number of convicted individuals: 30;
Percent: 28%.
Immigration or citizenship status: Aliens brought into the United
States for prosecution;
Number of convicted individuals: 30;
Percent: 28%.
Immigration or citizenship status: Naturalized U.S. citizens;
Number of convicted individuals: 16;
Percent: 15%.
Immigration or citizenship status: Aliens with legal immigration
status;
Number of convicted individuals: 13;
Percent: 12%.
Immigration or citizenship status: Aliens without legal immigration
status;
Number of convicted individuals: 9;
Percent: 8%.
Immigration or citizenship status: Unknown;
Number of convicted individuals: 9;
Percent: 8%.
Immigration or citizenship status: Total[A];
Number of convicted individuals: 107;
Percent: 100%.
Source: GAO Analysis of DOJ and USCIS data.
[A] Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.
[End of table]
About 50 Percent of Individuals Convicted under Other Statutes Were
Aliens:
DOJ also included on its list defendants where the investigation
involved an identified link to international terrorism but they were
charged with violating other statutes, including fraud, immigration,
drugs, false statements, and general conspiracy charges. Of the 292
individuals convicted under other statutes, 151 individuals (52
percent) were aliens with or without legal immigration status. The
remaining 141 individuals (48 percent) were either U.S. citizens,
naturalized U.S. citizens, aliens brought into the United States for
prosecution, or unknown, as shown in table 5.
Table 5: Number of Individuals Convicted under Other Statutes
According to DOJ:
Immigration or citizenship status: Aliens with legal immigration
status;
Number of convicted individuals: 92;
Percent: 32%.
Immigration or citizenship status: Naturalized U.S. citizens;
Number of convicted individuals: 67;
Percent: 23%.
Immigration or citizenship status: Aliens without legal immigration
status;
Number of convicted individuals: 59;
Percent: 20%.
Immigration or citizenship status: U.S. citizens;
Number of convicted individuals: 29;
Percent: 10%.
Immigration or citizenship status: Aliens brought into the United
States for prosecution;
Number of convicted individuals: 20;
Percent: 7%.
Immigration or citizenship status: Unknown;
Number of convicted individuals: 25;
Percent: 9%.
Immigration or citizenship status: Total[A];
Number of convicted individuals: 292;
Percent: 100%.
Source: GAO Analysis of DOJ and USCIS data.
[A] Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.
[End of table]
Three of the Individuals on DOJ's List Received U.S. Citizenship after
Their Conviction:
An individual applying for naturalization must demonstrate good moral
character for a statutory period of time--from 5 years preceding the
application up to admission to citizenship. This includes not having
been convicted of crimes, such as murder, rape, drug trafficking, or
other aggravated felonies prior to or during that period, as well as
not having been convicted of other crimes during that period, such as
certain drug offenses or convictions that led to 180 days or more of
prison time.
Based upon our analysis of USCIS and DOJ data, three of the
individuals on the DOJ list received U.S. citizenship after their
convictions. Two were convicted of unlawful production of an identity
document and one was convicted of transferring funds out of the
country in violation of U.S. sanctions.
According to USCIS documentation, in all three cases:
* the convictions were outside of the statutory period, were not
aggravated felonies, and resulted in no prison time for the defendants;
* all required background checks were conducted and resolved with
appropriate law enforcement agencies; and:
* no national security, public safety, or other grounds of
ineligibility existed.
As a result, USCIS determined that each of these individuals were able
to demonstrate good moral character within the required period of time
and met all other requirements for naturalization.
About 50 Percent of All Arizona State Convictions of SCAAP Illegal
Alien Inmates in Fiscal Year 2008 Were Related to Drugs, Traffic
Violations, and Assault:
As shown in figure 12, about 50 percent of all convictions for
Arizona's SCAAP illegal alien incarcerations in fiscal year 2008 were
related to three offenses: drugs, traffic violations, and assault.
[Footnote 29]
Figure 12: Arizona State Convictions for SCAAP Illegal Aliens in
Fiscal Year 2008 by Offense:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart]
Drugs: 30%;
Traffic Violations: 13%;
Assault: 11%;
Motor Vehicle Theft: 6%;
Fraud, Forgery, and Counterfeiting: 6%;
Burglary: 5%;
Robbery: 5%;
Homicide: 4%;
Sex Offenses: 4%;
Larceny/Theft: 4%;
Weapons Violation: 4%;
Kidnapping: 3%;
Other[A]: 5%.
Source: GAO analysis of Arizona Department of Corrections data.
[A] "Other" offenses include obstruction of justice, property damage,
disorderly conduct, immigration, stolen property, and arson.
[End of figure]
Additionally, the total number of SCAAP illegal aliens incarcerated in
Arizona state prisons in fiscal year 2008 was about 6,000, which
accounted for about 11 percent of all inmate days. From fiscal years
2005 through 2008, drug-related offenses led to more convictions than
other offenses, increasing about 6 percent.
About 50 Percent of California State Primary Convictions of SCAAP
Illegal Alien Inmates in Fiscal Year 2008 Were Related to Drugs,
Assault, and Sex Offenses:
As shown in figure 13, about 50 percent of California's primary
convictions related to SCAAP illegal aliens were for drugs, assault,
and sex offenses.[Footnote 30]
Figure 13: California State Primary Convictions of SCAAP Illegal
Aliens in Fiscal Year 2008 by Offense:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart]
Drugs: 27%;
Assault: 13%;
Sex Offenses: 11%;
Homicide: 9%;
Burglary: 8%;
Robbery: 8%;
Traffic Violations: 4%;
Motor Vehicle Theft: 4%;
Larceny/Theft: 4%;
Weapons Violation: 3%;
Other[A]: 9%.
[A] "Other" offenses include stolen property, fraud, forgery,
counterfeiting, kidnapping, property damage, arson, and obstruction of
justice.
Source: GAO analysis of California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation data.
[End of figure]
Further, the total number of SCAAP illegal aliens incarcerated in
California state prisons in fiscal year 2008 was about 27,000, which
accounted for about 10 percent of all inmate days. From fiscal years
2005 through 2008, drug-related convictions decreased by about 4
percent. Moreover, in fiscal year 2008, drug-related convictions
accounted for about 27 percent of primary convictions for SCAAP
illegal aliens in California.
About 50 Percent of All Florida State Convictions of SCAAP Illegal
Alien Inmates in Fiscal Year 2008 Were Related to Drugs, Sex Offenses,
Burglary, and Robbery:
As shown in figure 14, about 50 percent of all Florida state
convictions of SCAAP illegal alien inmates were for drugs, sex
offenses, burglary and robbery in fiscal year 2008.[Footnote 31]
Figure 14: Florida State Convictions of SCAAP Illegal Aliens in Fiscal
Year 2008 by Offense:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart]
Drugs: 16%;
Sex Offenses: 13%;
Burglary: 13%;
Robbery: 9%;
Larceny/Theft: 8%;
Homicide: 8%;
Assault: 7%;
Fraud, Forgery, and Counterfeiting: 7%;
Miscellaneous: 5%;
Kidnapping: 4%;
Traffic Violations: 3%;
Other[A]: 8%.
Source: GAO analysis of Florida Department of Corrections data.
Note: Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding.
[A] "Other" offenses include motor vehicle theft, weapons violations,
obstruction of justice, stolen property, property damage, arson, and
disorderly conduct.
[End of figure]
Also, the total number of SCAAP illegal aliens incarcerated in Florida
state prisons in fiscal year 2008 was about 6,000, which accounted for
about 5 percent of all inmate days. From fiscal years 2005 through
2008, drug-related offenses led to more convictions in Florida than
other offenses.
50 Percent of New York State Primary Convictions of SCAAP Illegal
Alien Inmates in Fiscal Year 2008 Were Related to Homicide and Drugs:
As shown in figure 15, 50 percent of primary convictions related to
SCAAP illegal aliens in New York state prison for fiscal year 2008
were for homicide and drugs.[Footnote 32]
Figure 15: New York State Primary Convictions of SCAAP Illegal Aliens
for Fiscal Year 2008 by Offense:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart]
Homicide: 27%;
Drugs: 23%;
Sex Offenses: 11%;
Assault: 9%;
Burglary: 6%;
Weapons Violations: 4%;
Kidnapping: 2%;
Larceny/Theft: 2%;
Other[A]: 5%.
Source: GAO analysis of New York State Department of Correctional
Services data.
Note: Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding.
[A] "Other" offenses include fraud, forgery, counterfeiting, traffic
violations, obstruction of justice, arson, stolen property, motor
vehicle theft, and property damage.
[End of figure]
Additionally, the total number of SCAAP illegal aliens incarcerated in
New York state prisons in fiscal year 2008 was about 5,000, which
accounted for about 5 percent of all inmate days. From fiscal years
2005 through 2006, drugs led to more primary convictions than any
other offense. However, beginning in fiscal year 2007, homicide
primary convictions surpassed drug primary convictions as the primary
offense resulting in the most convictions in New York.
50 Percent of Texas State Primary Convictions of SCAAP Illegal Alien
Inmates in Fiscal Year 2008 Were Related to Drugs, Sex Offenses, and
Assault:
As shown in figure 16, 50 percent of primary convictions related to
SCAAP illegal alien inmates in Texas state prisons in fiscal year 2008
were for drugs, sex offenses, and assault.[Footnote 33]
Figure 16: Texas State Primary Convictions of SCAAP Illegal Aliens for
Fiscal Year 2008 by Offense:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart]
Drugs: 20%;
Sex Offenses: 18%;
Assault: 12%;
Traffic Violations: 11%;
Robbery: 10%;
Homicide: 9%;
Burglary: 8%;
Obstruction of Justice: 3%;
Other[A]: 8%.
Source: GAO analysis of Texas Department of Criminal Justice data.
Note: Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding.
[A] "Other" offenses include larceny/theft, kidnapping, motor vehicle
theft, weapons violations, fraud, forgery, counterfeiting, arson,
property damage, and stolen property.
[End of figure]
Further, the total number of SCAAP illegal aliens incarcerated in
Texas state prisons in fiscal year 2008 was about 10,000, which
accounted for about 4 percent of all inmate days. From fiscal years
2005 through 2008, drugs, sex offenses, and assault remained the top
three offenses for SCAAP illegal alien incarcerations.
Estimated Costs of Criminal Alien Incarcerations:
Federal Prison and SCAAP Costs to Incarcerate Criminal Aliens
Increased from Fiscal Years 2005 through 2009:
The estimated annual cost to incarcerate criminal aliens in BOP
facilities plus SCAAP reimbursements ranged from about $1.5 billion in
fiscal year 2005 to $1.6 billion in fiscal year 2009, as shown in
figure 17. About 77 percent of these costs were associated with
incarcerating criminal aliens in BOP facilities. In 2005, we estimated
that the costs to incarcerate criminal aliens in BOP facilities along
with SCAAP reimbursements ranged from about $1.5 billion in fiscal
year 2001 to about $1.4 billion in fiscal year 2004.[Footnote 34] For
data in fiscal year 2010 dollars, see appendix II. The cost to
incarcerate criminal aliens in BOP facilities increased by about 15
percent from about $1.1 billion in fiscal year 2005 to about $1.3
billion in fiscal year 2009 due to increases in both the criminal
alien population incarcerated and costs to incarcerate inmates in BOP
facilities. SCAAP reimbursements to states and localities increased by
about 5 percent from fiscal years 2005 to 2008.
Figure 17: Federal Prison and SCAAP Costs to Incarcerate Criminal
Aliens from Fiscal Years 2005 through 2009:
[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph]
Fiscal year: 2005;
Costs associated with incarcerations in BOP facilities: $1.140 billion;
SCAAP reimbursements: $376 million;
Total: $1.516 billion.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Costs associated with incarcerations in BOP facilities: $1.178 billion;
SCAAP reimbursements: $376 million;
Total: $1.554 billion.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Costs associated with incarcerations in BOP facilities: $1.190 billion;
SCAAP reimbursements: $385 million;
Total: $1.575 billion.
Fiscal year: 2008;
Costs associated with incarcerations in BOP facilities: $1.234 billion;
SCAAP reimbursements: $393 million;
Total: $1.627 billion.
Fiscal year: 2009;
Costs associated with incarcerations in BOP facilities: $1.309 billion;
SCAAP reimbursements: $323 million;
Total: $1.632 billion.
Source: GAO analysis of BOP and BJA SCAAP data.
Note: Forty-nine states and the District of Columbia received SCAAP
reimbursement in both fiscal years 2005 and 2009. About 810 local
jurisdictions received reimbursement in fiscal year 2009 compared to
about 730 local jurisdictions in fiscal year 2005.
[End of figure]
SCAAP Reimbursements to States and Local Jurisdictions Increased from
Fiscal Years 2003 through 2008 but Declined in Fiscal Year 2009:
As shown in figure 18, SCAAP reimbursements to states and localities
increased by about 40 percent from fiscal years 2003 to 2008. SCAAP
reimbursements for fiscal year 2009 decreased about 18 percent from
fiscal year 2008 due to lower appropriations.[Footnote 35] For data in
fiscal year 2010 dollars, see appendix II.
Figure 18: SCAAP Reimbursements to States and Localities from Fiscal
Years 2003 through 2009:
[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph]
SCAAP reimbursements:
Fiscal year: 2003;
States plus District of Columbia: $179 million;
Local: $102 million;
Total: $281 million.
Fiscal year: 2004;
States plus District of Columbia: $194 million;
Local: $93 million;
Total: $287 million.
Fiscal year: 2005;
States plus District of Columbia: $247 million;
Local: $129 million;
Total: $376 million.
Fiscal year: 2006;
States plus District of Columbia: $246 million;
Local: $130 million;
Total: $376 million.
Fiscal year: 2007;
States plus District of Columbia: $250 million;
Local: $135 million;
Total: $385 million.
Fiscal year: 2008;
States plus District of Columbia: $250 million;
Local: $143 million;
Total: $393 million.
Fiscal year: 2009;
States plus District of Columbia: $198 million;
Local: $125 million;
Total: $323 million.
Source: GAO analysis of DOJ Bureau of Justice Assistance data.
[End of figure]
Estimated Selected Operating Costs to Incarcerate SCAAP Criminal
Aliens in Prisons Nationwide Increased about 56 Percent from Fiscal
Years 2003 through 2009:
We estimated that selected operating costs (i.e., correctional officer
salaries, medical care, food service, and utilities) associated with
incarcerating criminal aliens in our nation's state prison systems
totaled $7 billion from fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2009.
These costs ranged from about $736 million in 2003 to $1.1 billion in
2009, about a 56 percent increase, as illustrated by the white bars in
figure 19. For data in fiscal year 2010 dollars, see appendix II. In
the aggregate, states were eligible for reimbursement of about $4.5
billion in correctional officer salary costs of the estimated $7
billion, as illustrated by the light blue bars in figure 19.[Footnote
36] Based on available appropriations, states were reimbursed for
about $1.6 billion of the $7 billion, about 23 percent, as illustrated
by the dark blue bars in figure 19.[Footnote 37]
Figure 19: Estimated Operating Costs to Incarcerate SCAAP Criminal
Aliens in All 50 States:
[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph]
Year: 2003;
Total estimated SCAAP illegal alien cost: $562 million;
Total estimated SCAAP unknown alien cost: $175 million;
Subtotal: $736 million;
SCAAP eligible illegal inmate costs: $355 million;
SCAAP eligible unknown inmate costs: $109 million;
Subtotal: $463 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for illegal inmates: $150 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for unknown inmates: $30 million;
Subtotal: $179 million.
Year: 2004;
Total estimated SCAAP illegal alien cost: $705 million;
Total estimated SCAAP unknown alien cost: $238 million;
Subtotal: $943 million;
SCAAP eligible illegal inmate costs: $476 million;
SCAAP eligible unknown inmate costs: $156 million;
Subtotal: $632 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for illegal inmates: $160 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for unknown inmates: $34 million;
Subtotal: $194 million.
Year: 2005;
Total estimated SCAAP illegal alien cost: $680 million;
Total estimated SCAAP unknown alien cost: $232 million;
Subtotal: $912 million;
SCAAP eligible illegal inmate costs: $438 million;
SCAAP eligible unknown inmate costs: $146 million;
Subtotal: $584 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for illegal inmates: $203 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for unknown inmates: $44 million;
Subtotal: $247 million.
Year: 2006;
Total estimated SCAAP illegal alien cost: $732 million;
Total estimated SCAAP unknown alien cost: $250 million;
Subtotal: $983 million;
SCAAP eligible illegal inmate costs: $481 million;
SCAAP eligible unknown inmate costs: $160 million;
Subtotal: $641 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for illegal inmates: $202 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for unknown inmates: $44 million;
Subtotal: $246 million.
Year: 2007;
Total estimated SCAAP illegal alien cost: $828 million;
Total estimated SCAAP unknown alien cost: $246 million;
Subtotal: $1.084 billion;
SCAAP eligible illegal inmate costs: $555 million;
SCAAP eligible unknown inmate costs: $166 million;
Subtotal: $721 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for illegal inmates: $209 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for unknown inmates: $41 million;
Subtotal: $250 million.
Year: 2008;
Total estimated SCAAP illegal alien cost: $929 million;
Total estimated SCAAP unknown alien cost: $239 million;
Subtotal: $1.167 billion;
SCAAP eligible illegal inmate costs: $611 million;
SCAAP eligible unknown inmate costs: $153 million;
Subtotal: $764 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for illegal inmates: $215 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for unknown inmates: $35 million;
Subtotal: $250 million.
Year: 2009;
Total estimated SCAAP illegal alien cost: $821 million;
Total estimated SCAAP unknown alien cost: $328 million;
Subtotal: $1.149 billion;
SCAAP eligible illegal inmate costs: $534 million;
SCAAP eligible unknown inmate costs: $208 million;
Subtotal: $742 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for illegal inmates: $158 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for unknown inmates: $40 million;
Subtotal: $198 million.
Sources: GAO analysis of DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics and Bureau
of Justice Assistance data.
Note: SCAAP reimbursement figures may not equal appropriation due to
rounding. Our analysis includes those states that received SCAAP
reimbursement in the associated fiscal year. As a result, not all 50
states may be included in each fiscal year. Our analysis also includes
the District of Columbia.
[End of figure]
Estimated Operating Costs per Inmate to Incarcerate SCAAP Criminal
Aliens in Prisons in All 50 States Ranged from about $10,000 to
$12,500:
We estimated that selected operating costs (i.e., correctional officer
salaries, medical care, food service, and utilities) per inmate
associated with incarcerating criminal aliens in state prisons ranged
from about $10,000 in fiscal year 2003 to about $12,500 in fiscal year
2009, as shown in figure 20. We found that, on average, SCAAP
reimbursed states about $2,400 per inmate (about 24 percent) in fiscal
year 2003 and about $2,200 per inmate (about 17 percent) in fiscal
year 2009. For data in fiscal year 2010 dollars, see appendix II.
Figure 20: Estimated Operating Costs (i.e., correctional officer
salaries, medical care, food service, and utilities) per Inmate to
Incarcerate SCAAP Criminal Aliens in All 50 States:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
State costs in dollars:
Year: 2003;
Total per inmate cost: $9,995;
SCAAP reimbursement per inmate: $2,428.
Year: 2004;
Total per inmate cost: $11,745;
SCAAP reimbursement per inmate: $2,410.
Year: 2005;
Total per inmate cost: $11,112;
SCAAP reimbursement per inmate: $3,009.
Year: 2006;
Total per inmate cost: $11,698;
SCAAP reimbursement per inmate: $2,923.
Year: 2007;
Total per inmate cost: $12,506;
SCAAP reimbursement per inmate: $2,882.
Year: 2008;
Total per inmate cost: $12,624;
SCAAP reimbursement per inmate: $2,701.
Year: 2009;
Total per inmate cost: $12,520;
SCAAP reimbursement per inmate: $2,152.
Sources: GAO analysis of DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics and Bureau
of Justice Assistance data.
[End of figure]
California Accounted for about 70 Percent of Total Costs for Selected
States to Incarcerate SCAAP Criminal Aliens in Fiscal Year 2008:
We estimated that California's total cost to incarcerate SCAAP
criminal aliens in fiscal year 2008 was about $1.1 billion. This
represents about 70 percent of the $1.6 billion total estimated costs
for the five states we reviewed, as shown in figure 21.[Footnote 38]
California's estimated cost is higher than the other four states due
to higher per inmate incarceration costs and the larger number of
SCAAP criminal aliens. In 2005, we estimated that California's total
cost to incarcerate SCAAP criminal aliens was about $510 million in
fiscal year 2002 and $635 million in fiscal year 2003.[Footnote 39]
Figure 21: Selected State Costs to Incarcerate SCAAP Criminal Aliens
in Fiscal Year 2008:
[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph]
Jurisdiction: Arizona;
Total estimated SCAAP illegal alien cost: $90 million;
Total estimated SCAAP unknown alien cost: $2 million;
Subtotal: $92 million;
SCAAP eligible illegal inmate costs: $35 million;
SCAAP eligible unknown inmate costs: $1 million;
Subtotal: $36 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for illegal inmates: $12.6 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for unknown inmates: $0.2 million;
Subtotal: $13 million.
Jurisdiction: California;
Total estimated SCAAP illegal alien cost: $875 million;
Total estimated SCAAP unknown alien cost: $218 million;
Subtotal: $1.093 billion;
SCAAP eligible illegal inmate costs: $275 million;
SCAAP eligible unknown inmate costs: $45 million;
Subtotal: $320 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for illegal inmates: $97 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for unknown inmates: $16 million;
Subtotal: $112 million.
Jurisdiction: Florida;
Total estimated SCAAP illegal alien cost: $89 million;
Total estimated SCAAP unknown alien cost: $13 million;
Subtotal: $103 million;
SCAAP eligible illegal inmate costs: $43 million;
SCAAP eligible unknown inmate costs: $4 million;
Subtotal: $47 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for illegal inmates: $15 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for unknown inmates: $1 million;
Subtotal: $17 million.
Jurisdiction: New York;
Total estimated SCAAP illegal alien cost: $130 million;
Total estimated SCAAP unknown alien cost: $4 million;
Subtotal: $134 million;
SCAAP eligible illegal inmate costs: $72 million;
SCAAP eligible unknown inmate costs: $2 million;
Subtotal: $74 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for illegal inmates: $5 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for unknown inmates: $1 million;
Subtotal: $26 million.
Jurisdiction: Texas;
Total estimated SCAAP illegal alien cost: $116 million;
Total estimated SCAAP unknown alien cost: $24 million;
Subtotal: $140 million;
SCAAP eligible illegal inmate costs: $45 million;
SCAAP eligible unknown inmate costs: $6 million;
Subtotal: $51 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for illegal inmates: $16 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for unknown inmates: $2 million;
Subtotal: $18 million.
Source: GAO analysis of BJA SCAAP data and Arizona Department of
Corrections, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,
Florida Department of Corrections, New York State Department of
Correctional Services, and Texas Department of Criminal Justice data.
Note: SCAAP reimbursement figures may not equal appropriation due to
rounding.
[End of figure]
California Accounted for about 70 Percent of Total Costs for Selected
States to Incarcerate SCAAP Criminal Aliens in Fiscal Year 2009:
We estimated that California's total cost to incarcerate SCAAP
criminal aliens in fiscal year 2009 was about $1.1 billion. This
represents about 70 percent of the about $1.6 billion total estimated
costs for the five states we reviewed, as shown in figure 22.
California's estimated cost is higher than the other four states due
to higher incarceration costs and the larger number of SCAAP criminal
aliens.
Figure 22: Selected State Costs to Incarcerate SCAAP Criminal Aliens
in Fiscal Year 2009:
[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph]
Jurisdiction: Arizona;
Total estimated SCAAP illegal alien cost: $70 million;
Total estimated SCAAP unknown alien cost: $28 million;
Subtotal: $98 million;
SCAAP eligible illegal inmate costs: $26 million;
SCAAP eligible unknown inmate costs: $7 million;
Subtotal: $33 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for illegal inmates: $8 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for unknown inmates: $2 million;
Subtotal: $10 million.
Jurisdiction: California;
Total estimated SCAAP illegal alien cost: $844 million;
Total estimated SCAAP unknown alien cost: $257 million;
Subtotal: $1.102 billion;
SCAAP eligible illegal inmate costs: $249 million;
SCAAP eligible unknown inmate costs: $49 million;
Subtotal: $298 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for illegal inmates: $73 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for unknown inmates: $15 million;
Subtotal: $88 million.
Jurisdiction: Florida;
Total estimated SCAAP illegal alien cost: $79 million;
Total estimated SCAAP unknown alien cost: $22 million;
Subtotal: $102 million;
SCAAP eligible illegal inmate costs: $40 million;
SCAAP eligible unknown inmate costs: $7 million;
Subtotal: $47 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for illegal inmates: $12 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for unknown inmates: $2 million;
Subtotal: $14 million.
Jurisdiction: New York;
Total estimated SCAAP illegal alien cost: $102 million;
Total estimated SCAAP unknown alien cost: $15 million;
Subtotal: $17 million;
SCAAP eligible illegal inmate costs: $55 million;
SCAAP eligible unknown inmate costs: $6 million;
Subtotal: $61 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for illegal inmates: $16 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for unknown inmates: $2 million;
Subtotal: $18 million.
Jurisdiction: Texas;
Total estimated SCAAP illegal alien cost: $128 million;
Total estimated SCAAP unknown alien cost: $16 million;
Subtotal: $144 million;
SCAAP eligible illegal inmate costs: $50 million;
SCAAP eligible unknown inmate costs: $4 million;
Subtotal: $54 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for illegal inmates: $15 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for unknown inmates: $1 million;
Subtotal: $16 million.
Source: GAO analysis of BJA SCAAP data and Arizona Department of
Corrections, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,
Florida Department of Corrections, New York State Department of
Correctional Services, and Texas Department of Criminal Justice data.
Note: SCAAP reimbursement figures may not equal appropriation due to
rounding.
[End of figure]
Selected Total State Costs per Inmate to Incarcerate SCAAP Criminal
Aliens in Fiscal Year 2009 Ranged from about $12,000 to about $34,000:
We estimated that total costs per inmate to incarcerate SCAAP criminal
aliens in fiscal year 2009 in five selected states ranged from about
$12,000 for Texas to about $34,000 for California, as shown in figure
23. SCAAP reimbursements per inmate ranged from about $1,400 for Texas
(about 11 percent) to about $4,500 for New York (about 15 percent).
Figure 23: Selected State Costs per Inmate to Incarcerate SCAAP
Criminal Aliens in Fiscal Year 2009:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
State: Arizona;
Total per inmate cost: $14,093;
SCAAP reimbursement per inmate: $1,406.
State: California;
Total per inmate cost: $34,448;
SCAAP reimbursement per inmate: $2,755.
State: Florida;
Total per inmate cost: $14,828;
SCAAP reimbursement per inmate: $2,020.
State: New York;
Total per inmate cost: $29,523;
SCAAP reimbursement per inmate: $4,511.
State: Texas;
Total per inmate cost: $12,168;
SCAAP reimbursement per inmate: $1,353.
Source: GAO analysis of BJA SCAAP data and Arizona Department of
Corrections, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,
Florida Department of Corrections, New York State Department of
Correctional Services, and Texas Department of Criminal Justice data.
[End of figure]
Selected Localities' Costs to Incarcerate SCAAP Criminal Aliens Ranged
from $21 Million to $86 Million in Fiscal Year 2008:
In fiscal year 2008, the total estimated costs to incarcerate criminal
aliens in the localities we reviewed ranged from $21 million in Harris
County, Texas, to $86 million in New York City, New York, as shown in
figure 24.[Footnote 40] In 2005, we reported that the total estimated
costs to incarcerate criminal aliens in the same localities in fiscal
year 2003 ranged from $15 million in Maricopa County, Arizona, to $95
million in New York City, New York.[Footnote 41] SCAAP reimbursements
ranged from $3 million to $15 million in these localities or between
about 9 percent (Maricopa County, Arizona) and about 19 percent (Los
Angeles County, California) of the localities' total estimated costs,
as shown in figure 24.
Figure 24: Selected Localities' Costs and Reimbursements for
Incarcerating Criminal Aliens in Fiscal Year 2008:
[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph]
Jurisdiction: New York City, NY;
Total estimated SCAAP illegal alien cost: $18 million;
Total estimated SCAAP unknown alien cost: $68 million;
Subtotal: $86 million;
SCAAP eligible illegal inmate costs: $10 million;
SCAAP eligible unknown inmate costs: $23 million;
Subtotal: $34 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for illegal inmates: $4 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for unknown inmates: $8 million;
Subtotal: $12 million.
Jurisdiction: Los Angeles County, California;
Total estimated SCAAP illegal alien cost: $60 million;
Total estimated SCAAP unknown alien cost: $20 million;
Subtotal: $79 million;
SCAAP eligible illegal inmate costs: $35 million;
SCAAP eligible unknown inmate costs: $9 million;
Subtotal: $44 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for illegal inmates: $12 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for unknown inmates: $3 million;
Subtotal: $15 million.
Jurisdiction: Orange County, California;
Total estimated SCAAP illegal alien cost: $48 million;
Total estimated SCAAP unknown alien cost: $24 million;
Subtotal: $72 million;
SCAAP eligible illegal inmate costs: $13 million;
SCAAP eligible unknown inmate costs: $5 million;
Subtotal: $19 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for illegal inmates: $5 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for unknown inmates: $2 million;
Subtotal: $7 million.
Jurisdiction: Maricopa County, Arizona;
Total estimated SCAAP illegal alien cost: $38 million;
Total estimated SCAAP unknown alien cost: $6 million;
Subtotal: $44 million;
SCAAP eligible illegal inmate costs: $10 million;
SCAAP eligible unknown inmate costs: $1 million;
Subtotal: $11 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for illegal inmates: $4 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for unknown inmates: $0 million;
Subtotal: $4 million.
Jurisdiction: Harris County, Texas;
Total estimated SCAAP illegal alien cost: $10 million;
Total estimated SCAAP unknown alien cost: $11 million;
Subtotal: $21 million;
SCAAP eligible illegal inmate costs: $4 million;
SCAAP eligible unknown inmate costs: $4 million;
Subtotal: $8 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for illegal inmates: $2 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for unknown inmates: $1 million;
Subtotal: $3 million.
Source: GAO analysis of BJA SCAAP data, and Los Angeles County,
California, Sheriff‘s Department; Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff‘s
Office; Orange County, California Sheriff‘s Department; New York City
Department of Corrections; and Harris County, Texas Sheriff‘s Office
data.
Note: SCAAP reimbursement figures may not equal appropriation due to
rounding.
[End of figure]
Selected Localities' Costs to Incarcerate SCAAP Criminal Aliens Ranged
from $30 Million to $139 Million in Fiscal Year 2009:
In fiscal year 2009, the total estimated costs to incarcerate criminal
aliens in the localities we reviewed ranged from $30 million in Harris
County, Texas, to $139 million in Los Angeles County, California, as
shown in Figure 25. SCAAP reimbursements ranged from $3 million to $14
million in these localities or between about 7 percent (Orange County,
California) and about 15 percent (New York City, New York) of the
total estimated costs.
Figure 25: Selected Localities' Costs and Reimbursements for
Incarcerating Criminal Aliens in Fiscal Year 2009:
[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph]
Jurisdiction: New York City, NY;
Total estimated SCAAP illegal alien cost: $20 million;
Total estimated SCAAP unknown alien cost: $68 million;
Subtotal: $88 million;
SCAAP eligible illegal inmate costs: $15 million;
SCAAP eligible unknown inmate costs: $30 million;
Subtotal: $46 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for illegal inmates: $4 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for unknown inmates: $9 million;
Subtotal: $13 million.
Jurisdiction: Los Angeles County, California;
Total estimated SCAAP illegal alien cost: $37 million;
Total estimated SCAAP unknown alien cost: $102 million;
Subtotal: $139 million;
SCAAP eligible illegal inmate costs: $15 million;
SCAAP eligible unknown inmate costs: $33 million;
Subtotal: $48 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for illegal inmates: $4 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for unknown inmates: $10 million;
Subtotal: $1. million.
Jurisdiction: Orange County, California;
Total estimated SCAAP illegal alien cost: $16 million;
Total estimated SCAAP unknown alien cost: $58 million;
Subtotal: $74 million;
SCAAP eligible illegal inmate costs: $5 million;
SCAAP eligible unknown inmate costs: $13 million;
Subtotal: $18 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for illegal inmates: $1 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for unknown inmates: $4 million;
Subtotal: $5 million.
Jurisdiction: Maricopa County, Arizona;
Total estimated SCAAP illegal alien cost: $27 million;
Total estimated SCAAP unknown alien cost: $15 million;
Subtotal: $42 million;
SCAAP eligible illegal inmate costs: $7 million;
SCAAP eligible unknown inmate costs: $3 million;
Subtotal: $10 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for illegal inmates: $2 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for unknown inmates: $1 million;
Subtotal: $3 million.
Jurisdiction: Harris County, Texas;
Total estimated SCAAP illegal alien cost: $10 million;
Total estimated SCAAP unknown alien cost: $20 million;
Subtotal: $30 million;
SCAAP eligible illegal inmate costs: $3 million;
SCAAP eligible unknown inmate costs: $6 million;
Subtotal: $9 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for illegal inmates: $1 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for unknown inmates: $3 million;
Subtotal: $3 million.
Source: GAO analysis of BJA SCAAP data, and Los Angeles County,
California, Sheriff‘s Department; Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff‘s
Office; Orange County, California Sheriff‘s Department; New York City
Department of Corrections; and Harris County, Texas Sheriff‘s Office
data.
Note: SCAAP reimbursement figures may not equal appropriation due to
rounding.
[End of figure]
DOJ Plans to Update Its SCAAP Reimbursement Methodology Consistent
with Best Practices:
The amount DOJ awards states, counties, and cities (localities) in
SCAAP reimbursements depends on, among other things, the extent to
which DHS can verify the alien's immigration status at the time of
incarceration. States and localities receive the maximum reimbursable
amount for criminal aliens for whom DHS can verify their lack of legal
status (SCAAP illegal aliens). States and localities also receive
partial reimbursement for criminal aliens for whom DHS is unable to
verify their immigration status (SCAAP aliens of unknown immigration
status). DOJ is to reimburse states for 65 percent, cities for 60
percent, and counties for 80 percent of correctional officer salary
costs associated with unknown aliens. According to DOJ officials, this
methodology was developed based on analysis that the former
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) conducted in 2000 where
it analyzed the records of aliens submitted for SCAAP reimbursement in
1997 whose immigration status was at that time unknown. Based upon
this analysis, INS determined that 65 percent of those unknown aliens
submitted for reimbursement by states did not have legal status, 60
percent submitted for reimbursement by cities did not have legal
status, and 80 percent submitted for reimbursement by counties did not
have legal status.
Best practices in cost estimating and assessment of programs call for
new data to be continuously collected so it is always relevant and
current. Most programs do not remain static; they tend to change in
the natural evolution of the program.[Footnote 42] During the course
of our review, we discussed with DOJ officials the relevancy of the
current SCAAP reimbursement methodology since it is based on 1997
data. Thus, in January 2011, DOJ officials said that they had
developed plans to update DOJ's SCAAP methodology, as appropriate,
using SCAAP data from 2009 to help ensure that this methodology for
reimbursing states and localities for unknown aliens is relevant and
current. DOJ plans to use this data along with other factors to
determine how to update its methodology for its next reimbursement
cycle in 2011. DOJ stated that it would like to work with DHS to
establish a 3-year update cycle to review the methodology in the
future. Updating the SCAAP methodology would provide additional
assurance that DOJ reimburses states and localities for such costs
consistent with current trends.
Agency and Third-Party Comments:
We requested comments on a draft of this report from DHS and DOJ. We
also provided relevant portions of a draft of this report to the U.S.
Sentencing Commission, Arizona Department of Corrections, California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Florida Department of
Corrections, New York State Department of Correctional Services, and
Texas Department of Criminal Justice for review and comment. DHS, DOJ,
and the U.S. Sentencing Commission notified us through e-mails
received on March 15, 17, and 16, 2011, respectively, that they had no
written comments to include in our report. In addition to these
responses, USCIS and DOJ each provided technical comments, which have
been incorporated into the report, as appropriate. The five state
departments did not provide comments.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until up to 30
days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this
report to the Attorney General, Secretary of Homeland Security, and
other interested congressional committees.
In addition, this report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web
site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. If you or your staff have
questions concerning this report or wish to discuss the matter
further, please contact me at (202) 512-8777 or jeszeckc@gao.gov.
Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public
Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors
to this report are acknowledged in appendix IV.
Signed by:
Charles A. Jeszeck:
Acting Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
This appendix provides additional details on the scope and methodology
used to update our 2005 reports.[Footnote 43] Specifically, our work
provides information on the following:
1. The number and nationalities of criminal aliens incarcerated in
federal and state prisons and local jails and the number of criminal
alien (1) apprehensions, (2) removals, and (3) apprehensions for
illegal reentry into the United States after removal.
2. The types of offenses for which criminal aliens were arrested and
convicted.
3. The costs associated with incarcerating the criminal alien
population and the extent to which the Department of Justice's (DOJ)
methodology for reimbursing states and localities for the
incarceration of certain criminal aliens is relevant and current.
Incarcerated Criminal Alien Population in Federal and State Prison
Systems and Local Jails:
To determine the number and nationalities of criminal aliens
incarcerated in federal and state prison systems and local jails, we
analyzed DOJ's Bureau of Prisons (BOP) federal incarceration data on
criminal aliens incarcerated in federal prisons from fiscal years 2005
through 2010 and DOJ's State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP)
incarceration data on criminal aliens incarcerated in state prison
systems and local jails from fiscal years 2003 through 2009.[Footnote
44] BOP incarceration data are based on an average of the 12 monthly
population snapshots for each type of BOP institution, such as minimum
security, within the fiscal year. These data do not include inmates
for whom citizenship is unknown. There are no reliable population data
on criminal aliens incarcerated in all state prison systems and local
jails. The data we obtained represent a portion of the total
population of criminal aliens who may be incarcerated at the state and
local levels, since by statute SCAAP does not reimburse states and
localities for certain criminal aliens, such as aliens with lawful
immigration status, and not all jurisdictions may apply for
reimbursement.[Footnote 45] To determine the nationalities of criminal
aliens incarcerated in federal and state prison systems and local
jails, we analyzed BOP country of citizenship data as of December 2010
for federal prisons, and SCAAP country of birth data from fiscal year
2009 for state prisons and local jails.[Footnote 46] These data were
the most recent as of the time of our analysis. BOP country of
citizenship data do not include criminal alien inmates for whom BOP
does not have country of citizenship. BOP obtains country of
citizenship data from presentence investigation reports, which may be
based on documentation such as a birth certificate or immigration
documents, or be self-reported. SCAAP country of birth data are
provided to DOJ by jurisdictions. According to DOJ, these data may be
provided directly from inmates, the jurisdiction's database, or U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). To determine the number of
criminal alien apprehensions, removals, and apprehensions for
reentering the country illegally after a prior removal, we analyzed
ICE data from fiscal years 2007 through 2010.
Types of Criminal Alien Arrest Offenses and Convictions:
To determine the types of offenses criminal aliens incarcerated in
federal and state prison systems and local jails were arrested for, we
selected a random sample of aliens. Specifically, we obtained data
from BOP on the population of aliens incarcerated in federal prisons
as of December 27, 2008 (approximately 49,000 inmates). We added to
this the population of convicted criminal aliens incarcerated in state
prison systems and local jails from July 1, 2004, through June 30,
2008, for whom state and local governments sought reimbursement under
SCAAP (approximately 460,000 inmates) for a total of about 509,000.
These two populations were chosen because they were the most recent
population data available when we began our analysis. In order to
obtain an alien's arrest history, we needed to first determine which
criminal aliens had a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
identification number. The FBI identification number is a unique
identifier the FBI assigns to a set of fingerprints that allows the
linking of relevant arrest records and any subsequent activity within
the criminal justice system. The arrest histories are stored in the
FBI's Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS).
About 251,000 (about 48,000 BOP inmates and 203,000 SCAAP inmates) of
the 509,000 criminal aliens had a valid FBI identification number in
the data records we obtained.[Footnote 47] We provided the FBI number
and other identifying information to the FBI and requested the arrest
history for these 251,000 criminal aliens. The arrest history record
for each criminal alien with a unique FBI identification number
contained the dates of arrest, the arresting agency, location of the
arrest, and a description of each offense that resulted in the arrest,
such as drug possession, burglary, and robbery. We used data available
in IAFIS as of May 2010 to determine the arrest history for each alien.
The arrest history records for the 251,000 contained several hundred
thousand different descriptions of arrest offenses. From these 251,000
criminal aliens, we selected a simple random sample of 1,000 criminal
aliens to analyze. We found that 5 of the criminal aliens from our
sample were out of scope because their records did not reflect actual
arrests but rather administrative actions (e.g., being booked into a
prison or transferred between facilities). As such, our analysis is of
995 criminal aliens, and our estimated study population is about
249,000. Based on this analysis, we determined the estimated numbers
of criminal alien arrests and offenses in our study population. We
categorized the arrest history records for this sample into 1 of 19
major offense categories, such as immigration, using FBI's Reference
Guide to Aid in Understanding Arrest Abbreviations on how to
categorize different types of crimes (see table 7 below). Because the
time period for the federal population of aliens is a single point in
time, whereas the time periods for the state prison and local jail
population are over four SCAAP years, our combined population
understates the federal population of aliens since it does not account
for federal prisoners that flowed in and out of BOP facilities. Given
this difference in time period for these populations, we are not
reporting comparisons between federal and state and local prisons,
except in cases where we note that the subpopulations may differ as a
result of the time difference rather than as a result of a difference
between the two subpopulations. For the study population, the analysis
includes criminal aliens with arrests submitted to the FBI dating from
August 1955 to April 2010.
Because our estimates regarding criminal alien arrests and offenses
are based on a probability sample, each estimate we report has a
measurable margin of error due to sampling. The margin of error
surrounding an estimate is expressed as (1) a number of percentage
points higher or lower than the percentage estimate, (2) a percent
higher or lower than the estimated number, or (3) the entire range the
margin of error covers, which is referred to as a confidence interval.
Margins of error are calculated based on a certain confidence level,
which for estimates in this report are 95 percent. For the estimated
number of criminal aliens in our study population, total arrests,
total offenses, and the average number of arrests and offenses per
criminal alien, the margin of error is no more than +/-6 percent. For
estimates of the number of arrests and offenses per criminal alien
(see figure 8 of this report), the margin of error for percentage
estimates is no more than +/-3 percentage points and the margin of
error for the estimated numbers of criminal aliens is no more than +/-
30 percent of the estimate unless otherwise note[Footnote 48]d. For
estimated percentages of criminal aliens with at least 1 arrest per
offense category (see figure 9 of this report), the margin of error is
no more than +/-3 percentage points. For estimated offenses by arrest
offense categories (see table 2 of this report), the margin of error
for percentage estimates is no more than +/-2 percentage points, and
the margin of error for the estimated numbers of arrest offenses is no
more than +/-20 percent of the estimated number unless otherwise
no[Footnote 49]ted. For estimates related to arrest locations (see
figure 10 of this report), the margin of error for the percentage
estimates is no more than +/-1 percentage point.
To determine offenses for which criminal aliens were convicted, we
analyzed federal data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission on federal
court convictions from fiscal years 2003 through 2009; and data from
five states--Arizona, California, Florida, New York, and Texas--on
state convictions from fiscal years 2005 through 2008.[Footnote 50] We
selected these five states because they are the states with the
largest number of SCAAP criminal aliens. Collectively, these states
accounted for about 70 percent of the SCAAP criminal alien population
in fiscal year 2008. Criminal aliens may be convicted of multiple
offenses. For federal court convictions, we analyzed data on the
primary offense per offender--the offense with the longest maximum
sentence when an individual is convicted of multiple offenses. Table 6
describes the multiple offense categories for federal court
convictions.
Table 6: Major Offense Categories for Federal Convictions:
Major offense category: Immigration;
Category includes: Alien smuggling; trafficking in documents needed
for entry into the United States, such as U.S. passports; fraudulently
acquiring entry documents;
unlawfully entering the United States.
Major offense category: Drugs;
Category includes: Drug distribution, manufacture, possession.
Major offense category: Economic crimes;
Category includes: Larceny, fraud, embezzlement,
forgery/counterfeiting, tax offenses, and antitrust (i.e., price
fixing).
Major offense category: Firearms;
Category includes: Unlawful possession/transportation of firearms or
ammunition, use of firearms or ammunition to commit crime.
Major offense category: Money Laundering/Racketeering/Extortion;
Category includes: Monetary transaction from unlawful activity,
failure to report monetary transactions, violent crimes in aid of
racketeering, blackmail, extortion by force or threat.
Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Sentencing Commission data.
[End of table]
Our analysis of state conviction data was based on convictions related
to SCAAP illegal alien incarcerations from fiscal years 2005 through
2008 (incarcerations from July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2008), which
were the most recent SCAAP data available at the time of our analysis.
The data provided by Arizona and Florida did not distinguish primary
convictions, thus we presented our analysis of all offenses provided
per inmate. For California, New York, and Texas, we analyzed the
primary conviction provided per inmate. Table 7 describes the multiple
offense categories for state convictions.
Table 7: Major Offense Categories for Arrest Offenses and State
Convictions:
Major offense category: Arson;
Category includes: Arson, reckless burning, and possession of arson
materials.
Major offense category: Assault;
Category includes: Assault, battery, assault with a deadly weapon,
endangerment, and threats.
Major offense category: Burglary;
Category includes: Breaking and entering, burglary, and possession of
burglary tools.
Major offense category: Disorderly conduct;
Category includes: Disturbing the peace, fighting, intoxication,
public nuisance, and disorderly conduct.
Major offense category: Drugs;
Category includes: Use/under the influence, possession, possession
with intent to distribute, sales, manufacturing, transporting, and
possession of drug paraphernalia.
Major offense category: Fraud, forgery, and counterfeiting;
Category includes: Deceptive practices or identification, fraud,
giving false information, altering or forging documents, and
counterfeiting or possession of counterfeit materials or tools.
Major offense category: Homicide;
Category includes: Murder, manslaughter, and homicide.
Major offense category: Immigration;
Category includes: Illegal entry, illegal reentry, false claim to U.S.
citizenship, alien smuggling, and removal proceedings.
Major offense category: Kidnapping;
Category includes: False imprisonment, kidnapping, and taking hostages.
Major offense category: Larceny/theft;
Category includes: Grand and petty larceny and theft, shoplifting,
embezzlement, and money laundering.
Major offense category: Motor vehicle theft;
Category includes: Auto theft, carjacking, and taking a vehicle
without consent.
Major offense category: Obstruction of justice;
Category includes: Escaping, evading, being a fugitive of justice,
failing to appear, failing to register as a sex offender, resisting
arrest, and interfering with or obstructing an officer or justice
proceedings.
Major offense category: Property damage;
Category includes: Destruction of property, vandalism, and criminal or
malicious mischief.
Major offense category: Robbery;
Category includes: Armed robbery, robbery of a dwelling, robbery of a
bank, and unarmed robbery.
Major offense category: Sex offenses;
Category includes: Lewd and lascivious acts, rape, sexual assault,
indecent exposure, prostitution, and molestation.
Major offense category: Stolen property;
Category includes: Buying, selling, receiving, or possessing stolen
property.
Major offense category: Traffic violations;
Category includes: Driving under the influence, hit and run, no proof
of insurance, no driver's license, and moving violations such as
speeding and failure to stop.
Major offense category: Weapons violations;
Category includes: Possession of a weapon, discharging a weapon,
altering a weapon, and carrying a concealed weapon.
Major offense category: Other;
Category includes: Includes trespassing, gang participation,
littering, child cruelty, racketeering, and illegal waste dumping.
Source: GAO analysis of FBI data.
Note: All offenses include any attempt or conspiracy to commit the
respective offense. We developed the criminal offense categories using
the FBI's classification for offense codes as our guidance.
[End of table]
To determine the immigration or citizenship status of individuals
identified by DOJ as having been convicted as a result of
international terrorism investigations, we obtained unique identifiers
(alien identification number or U.S. Marshals identification number)
for these individuals, as available, from the U.S. Sentencing
Commission and BOP.[Footnote 51] An alien identification number is a
unique number assigned to an alien who has come into contact with
immigration authorities. The U.S. Marshals identification number is a
unique number assigned to individuals who have been processed into the
federal prison system. Based on the identifying information, the U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) provided information on
the immigration or citizenship status of these individuals. We
analyzed this information to determine the immigration status of these
individuals at the time charges were filed against them as a result of
an international terrorism investigation. We also analyzed additional
information provided by USCIS on three individuals who were
naturalized after their conviction dates, including the offenses of
conviction, sentence imposed, and steps taken to vet these individuals
prior to their naturalization. We interviewed USCIS officials on the
immigration and citizenship status information provided for all
individuals on the DOJ list and the actions taken to vet the three
individuals who were naturalized. We did not independently verify
these individuals' links to terrorism.
Costs Associated with Incarcerating the Criminal Alien Population:
To determine the costs associated with incarcerating the criminal
alien population, we obtained and analyzed cost and inmate data from
BOP, data on SCAAP reimbursements to states for incarcerating criminal
aliens, and cost and inmate data from five states (Arizona,
California, Florida, New York, and Texas) and five localities
(Maricopa County, Arizona; Orange County, California; Los Angeles
County, California; New York City, New York; Harris County, Texas). We
selected these five states based on the number of SCAAP criminal
aliens. Collectively, these states accounted for about 70 percent of
the SCAAP criminal alien population in fiscal year 2008. We selected
the five localities based on the localities with the largest criminal
alien populations in SCAAP for fiscal year 2003, which allowed us to
compare our current analysis to our work conducted in 2005. We also
selected these state prison systems and local jails because they are
the same prison systems and local jails that we used in our April 2005
report.[Footnote 52] To estimate the total costs for incarcerating
criminal aliens in these selected states and localities, we used the
average daily cost data provided by the states and localities and the
number of SCAAP illegal alien and unknown inmate days submitted by
these states and localities for reimbursement. While our analysis
provides insight into the costs associated with incarcerating criminal
aliens in these states and localities, the results of this analysis
are not generalizable to other states and localities. In addition, we
did not independently evaluate the accuracy of the cost data provided
by these states and localities.
To calculate the total BOP and SCAAP costs, we added the BOP and SCAAP
data for each year. For all 50 states, we estimated selected operating
costs associated with incarcerating criminal aliens from fiscal years
2003 through 2009 using Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and SCAAP
reimbursement data as well as inflation factors.[Footnote 53] These
selected operating costs include correctional officer salaries,
medical care, food service, and utilities. The salaries for
correctional officers were obtained for each year from SCAAP data. The
other three categories were calculated using BJS data and HIS Global
Insight price deflators for the corresponding categories. Our
estimation may not include all related costs and therefore may not
reflect actual costs but rather a lower-bound cost estimation that is
consistent across the reporting time frame. Our analysis includes
those states that received SCAAP reimbursement in the associated
fiscal year. As a result, not all 50 states may be included in each
fiscal year. Our analysis also includes the District of Columbia. The
following state prison systems did not apply for SCAAP reimbursement:
Illinois, Montana, and Oregon in fiscal year 2003; Montana in fiscal
year 2004; Alaska in fiscal year 2005; Virginia and West Virginia in
fiscal year 2006; and West Virginia in fiscal years 2007, 2008, and
2009. We used federal inflation factors to present criminal alien
costs in fiscal year 2010 dollars. To determine estimated operating
costs and total state costs per inmate, we divided the total estimated
operating costs and total state costs by the number of related SCAAP
illegal and unknown inmates. To determine the extent to which DOJ's
SCAAP reimbursement methodology was relevant and current, we analyzed
agency documentation and spoke with DOJ officials regarding the
methodology. We evaluated this methodology using best practices in
cost estimating.[Footnote 54]
We determined that the data used in our study were sufficiently
reliable for the purposes of this report by analyzing available
documentation, such as related data dictionaries, interviewing
officials knowledgeable about the data, conducting electronic tests to
identify missing data and anomalies, and following up with officials,
as appropriate, to address any questions.
We conducted this performance audit from October 2009 through March
2011 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Criminal Alien Costs in Fiscal Year 2010 Dollars:
Figure 26: Federal Prison and State Criminal Alien Assistance Program
(SCAAP) Costs in Fiscal Year 2010 Dollars to Incarcerate Criminal
Aliens from Fiscal Years 2005 through 2009:
[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph]
Year: 2005;
Costs associated with incarcerations in BOP facilities: $1.267 billion;
SCAAP reimbursements: $418 million;
Total: $1.685 billion.
Year: 2006;
Costs associated with incarcerations in BOP facilities: $1.267 billion;
SCAAP reimbursements: $404 million;
Total: $1.671 billion.
Year: 2007;
Costs associated with incarcerations in BOP facilities: $1.242 billion;
SCAAP reimbursements: $402 million;
Total: $1.644 billion.
Year: 2008;
Costs associated with incarcerations in BOP facilities: $1.259 billion;
SCAAP reimbursements: $401 million;
Total: $1.660 billion.
Year: 2009;
Costs associated with incarcerations in BOP facilities: $1.319 billion;
SCAAP reimbursements: $325 million;
Total: $1.644 billion.
Source: GAO analysis of BOP and BJA SCAAP data.
Note: Forty-nine states and the District of Columbia received SCAAP
reimbursement in both fiscal years 2005 and 2009. About 810 local
jurisdictions received reimbursement in fiscal year 2009 compared to
about 730 local jurisdictions in fiscal year 2005. Numbers may not be
exact due to rounding.
[End of figure]
Figure 27: SCAAP Reimbursements to States and Localities in Fiscal
Year 2010 Dollars from Fiscal Years 2003 through 2009:
[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph]
SCAAP reimbursements:
Year: 2003;
States plus District of Columbia: $211 million;
Local: $120 million;
Total: $331 million.
Year: 2004;
States plus District of Columbia: $223 million;
Local: $107 million;
Total: $330 million.
Year: 2005;
States plus District of Columbia: $275 million;
Local: $143 million;
Total: $418 million.
Year: 2006;
States plus District of Columbia: $265 million;
Local: $140 million;
Total: $404 million.
Year: 2007;
States plus District of Columbia: $261 million;
Local: $141 million;
Total: $402 million.
Year: 2008;
States plus District of Columbia: $255 million;
Local: $146 million;
Total: $401 million.
Year: 2009;
States plus District of Columbia: $199 million;
Local: $126 million;
Total: $325 million.
Source: GAO analysis of DOJ Bureau of Justice Assistance data.
Note: Numbers may not be exact due to rounding.
[End of figure]
Figure 28: Estimated Operating Costs in Fiscal Year 2010 Dollars to
Incarcerate SCAAP Criminal Aliens in All 50 States:
[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph]
Year: 2003;
Total estimated SCAAP illegal alien cost: $662 million;
Total estimated SCAAP unknown alien cost: $206 million;
Subtotal: $867 million;
SCAAP eligible illegal inmate costs: $418 million;
SCAAP eligible unknown inmate costs: $127 million;
Subtotal: $545 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for illegal inmates: $176 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for unknown inmates: $35 million;
Subtotal: $211 million.
Year: 2004;
Total estimated SCAAP illegal alien cost: $810 million;
Total estimated SCAAP unknown alien cost: $273 million;
Subtotal: $1.083 billion;
SCAAP eligible illegal inmate costs: $547 million;
SCAAP eligible unknown inmate costs: $179 million;
Subtotal: $726 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for illegal inmates: $183 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for unknown inmates: $39 million;
Subtotal: $222 million.
Year: 2005;
Total estimated SCAAP illegal alien cost: $757 million;
Total estimated SCAAP unknown alien cost: $258 million;
Subtotal: $1.015 billion;
SCAAP eligible illegal inmate costs: $487 million;
SCAAP eligible unknown inmate costs: $163 million;
Subtotal: $650 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for illegal inmates: $226 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for unknown inmates: $49 million;
Subtotal: $275 million.
Year: 2006;
Total estimated SCAAP illegal alien cost: $788 million;
Total estimated SCAAP unknown alien cost: $172 million;
Subtotal: $1.057 billion;
SCAAP eligible illegal inmate costs: $517 million;
SCAAP eligible unknown inmate costs: $172 million;
Subtotal: $689 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for illegal inmates: $217 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for unknown inmates: $47 million;
Subtotal: $261 million.
Year: 2007;
Total estimated SCAAP illegal alien cost: $864 million;
Total estimated SCAAP unknown alien cost: $267 million;
Subtotal: $1.132 billion;
SCAAP eligible illegal inmate costs: $579 million;
SCAAP eligible unknown inmate costs: $173 million;
Subtotal: $752 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for illegal inmates: $218 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for unknown inmates: $42 million;
Subtotal: $261 million.
Year: 2008;
Total estimated SCAAP illegal alien cost: $948 million;
Total estimated SCAAP unknown alien cost: $244 million;
Subtotal: $1.191 billion;
SCAAP eligible illegal inmate costs: $623 million;
SCAAP eligible unknown inmate costs: $157 million;
Subtotal: $780 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for illegal inmates: $219 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for unknown inmates: $36 million;
Subtotal: $255 million.
Year: 2009;
Total estimated SCAAP illegal alien cost: $827 million;
Total estimated SCAAP unknown alien cost: $330 million;
Subtotal: $1.157 billion;
SCAAP eligible illegal inmate costs: $538 million;
SCAAP eligible unknown inmate costs: $210 million;
Subtotal: $747 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for illegal inmates: $159 million;
SCAAP reimbursement for unknown inmates: $40 million;
Subtotal: $199 million.
Sources: GAO analysis of DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics and Bureau
of Justice Assistance data.
Note: Our analysis includes those states that received SCAAP
reimbursement in the associated fiscal year. As a result, not all 50
states may be included in each fiscal year. Our analysis also includes
the District of Columbia. Numbers may not be exact due to rounding.
SCAAP illegal aliens are noncitizens whom Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) verified were illegally in the United States at the
time of incarceration and for whom state and local jurisdictions
received federal reimbursement through SCAAP. SCAAP unknown aliens are
individuals whom states and local jurisdictions believe to be
illegally in the United States. However, ICE lacks documentation to
confirm their immigration status.
[End of figure]
Figure 29: Estimated Operating Costs per Inmate in Fiscal Year 2010
Dollars to Incarcerate SCAAP Criminal Aliens in All 50 States:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
State costs in dollars:
Year: 2003;
Total per inmate cost: $11,753;
SCAAP reimbursement per inmate: $2,860.
Year: 2004;
Total per inmate cost: $13,488;
SCAAP reimbursement per inmate: $2,768.
Year: 2005;
Total per inmate cost: $12,357;
SCAAP reimbursement per inmate: $3,346.
Year: 2006;
Total per inmate cost: $12,579;
SCAAP reimbursement per inmate: $3,143.
Year: 2007;
Total per inmate cost: $13,053;
SCAAP reimbursement per inmate: $3,008.
Year: 2008;
Total per inmate cost: $12,881;
SCAAP reimbursement per inmate: $2,756.
Year: 2009;
Total per inmate cost: $12,608;
SCAAP reimbursement per inmate: $2,152.
Sources: GAO analysis of DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics and Bureau
of Justice Assistance data.
Note: Our analysis includes those states that received SCAAP
reimbursement in the associated fiscal year. The following state
prison systems did not apply for SCAAP reimbursement: Illinois,
Montana, and Oregon in fiscal year 2003; Montana in fiscal year 2004;
Alaska in fiscal year 2005; Virginia and West Virginia in fiscal year
2006; and West Virginia in fiscal years 2007, 2008, and 2009.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix III: SCAAP Criminal Alien Incarcerations in State Prisons and
Local Jails (Corresponds to figure 4):
This appendix provides additional details on figure 4: Number of SCAAP
Criminal Alien Incarcerations in Each State.
Table 8: Number of State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP)
Criminal Alien Incarcerations in Each State:
State: Alaska;
2003: 77;
2004: 87;
2005: 0;
2006: 93;
2007: 107;
2008: 101;
2009: 87.
State: Alabama;
2003: 98;
2004: 113;
2005: 102;
2006: 214;
2007: 259;
2008: 295;
2009: 313.
State: Arkansas;
2003: 493;
2004: 488;
2005: 486;
2006: 788;
2007: 1,007;
2008: 1,353;
2009: 1,342.
State: Arizona;
2003: 10,941;
2004: 11,985;
2005: 12,200;
2006: 13,268;
2007: 14,613;
2008: 18,357;
2009: 17,488.
State: California;
2003: 85,210;
2004: 91,614;
2005: 89,381;
2006: 93,048;
2007: 99,189;
2008: 102,121;
2009: 102,795.
State: Colorado;
2003: 5,761;
2004: 5,857;
2005: 6,968;
2006: 6,487;
2007: 7,174;
2008: 7,340;
2009: 7,574.
State: Connecticut;
2003: 409;
2004: 422;
2005: 432;
2006: 476;
2007: 469;
2008: 481;
2009: 517.
State: District of Columbia;
2003: 48;
2004: 107;
2005: 33;
2006: 96;
2007: 168;
2008: 251;
2009: 432.
State: Delaware;
2003: 40;
2004: 49;
2005: 99;
2006: 57;
2007: 44;
2008: 38;
2009: 36.
State: Florida;
2003: 10,383;
2004: 11,473;
2005: 12,416;
2006: 16,203;
2007: 15,186;
2008: 16,935;
2009: 17,229.
State: Georgia;
2003: 2,319;
2004: 2,889;
2005: 3,075;
2006: 3,449;
2007: 4,361;
2008: 6,062;
2009: 7,371.
State: Hawaii;
2003: 101;
2004: 171;
2005: 179;
2006: 174;
2007: 198;
2008: 253;
2009: 286.
State: Iowa;
2003: 659;
2004: 591;
2005: 492;
2006: 523;
2007: 691;
2008: 543;
2009: 501.
State: Idaho;
2003: 1,238;
2004: 1,214;
2005: 1,315;
2006: 1,250;
2007: 1,262;
2008: 1,134;
2009: 1,271.
State: Illinois;
2003: 4,967;
2004: 7,271;
2005: 7,528;
2006: 7,499;
2007: 8,335;
2008: 11,114;
2009: 10,677.
State: Indiana;
2003: 553;
2004: 953;
2005: 1,138;
2006: 1,410;
2007: 1,534;
2008: 1,684;
2009: 1,793.
State: Kansas;
2003: 973;
2004: 1,090;
2005: 841;
2006: 1,048;
2007: 1,043;
2008: 1,252;
2009: 1,328.
State: Kentucky;
2003: 681;
2004: 652;
2005: 692;
2006: 626;
2007: 623;
2008: 1,139;
2009: 1,343.
State: Louisiana;
2003: 236;
2004: 213;
2005: 174;
2006: 172;
2007: 228;
2008: 204;
2009: 246.
State: Massachusetts;
2003: 1,897;
2004: 2,509;
2005: 2,789;
2006: 2,778;
2007: 2,639;
2008: 2,731;
2009: 2,523.
State: Maryland;
2003: 1,730;
2004: 1,488;
2005: 1,644;
2006: 1,635;
2007: 1,971;
2008: 2,369;
2009: 2,710.
State: Maine;
2003: 35;
2004: 53;
2005: 60;
2006: 119;
2007: 103;
2008: 100;
2009: 406.
State: Michigan;
2003: 1,723;
2004: 1,523;
2005: 1,736;
2006: 1,831;
2007: 1,829;
2008: 1,850;
2009: 1,700.
State: Minnesota;
2003: 1,594;
2004: 1,418;
2005: 1,049;
2006: 1,472;
2007: 1,866;
2008: 2,193;
2009: 2,140.
State: Missouri;
2003: 725;
2004: 786;
2005: 607;
2006: 661;
2007: 707;
2008: 805;
2009: 723.
State: Mississippi;
2003: 72;
2004: 66;
2005: 100;
2006: 78;
2007: 78;
2008: 183;
2009: 342.
State: Montana;
2003: 19;
2004: 41;
2005: 50;
2006: 42;
2007: 54;
2008: 39;
2009: 24.
State: North Carolina;
2003: 4,084;
2004: 4,753;
2005: 6,126;
2006: 6,297;
2007: 7,439;
2008: 8,150;
2009: 8,948.
State: North Dakota;
2003: 29;
2004: 28;
2005: 41;
2006: 37;
2007: 55;
2008: 43;
2009: 46.
State: Nebraska;
2003: 1,082;
2004: 1,064;
2005: 1,142;
2006: 737;
2007: 1,328;
2008: 1,424;
2009: 1,754.
State: New Hampshire;
2003: 167;
2004: 164;
2005: 116;
2006: 106;
2007: 103;
2008: 104;
2009: 185.
State: New Jersey;
2003: 5,455;
2004: 5,085;
2005: 6,006;
2006: 6,305;
2007: 8,434;
2008: 9,693;
2009: 9,971.
State: New Mexico;
2003: 1,732;
2004: 2,220;
2005: 2,507;
2006: 2,067;
2007: 2,021;
2008: 2,675;
2009: 2,112.
State: Nevada;
2003: 4,957;
2004: 4,923;
2005: 5,623;
2006: 5,369;
2007: 6,605;
2008: 6,148;
2009: 6,918.
State: New York;
2003: 16,130;
2004: 14,536;
2005: 14,286;
2006: 12,962;
2007: 12,138;
2008: 13,192;
2009: 11,096.
State: Ohio;
2003: 756;
2004: 792;
2005: 901;
2006: 924;
2007: 1,240;
2008: 1,777;
2009: 3,879.
State: Oklahoma;
2003: 1,751;
2004: 1,429;
2005: 1,397;
2006: 1,993;
2007: 2,471;
2008: 4,128;
2009: 1,666.
State: Oregon;
2003: 2,056;
2004: 3,464;
2005: 3,892;
2006: 4,307;
2007: 4,755;
2008: 5,158;
2009: 3,609.
State: Pennsylvania;
2003: 1,414;
2004: 1,162;
2005: 1,232;
2006: 1,516;
2007: 1,615;
2008: 2,054;
2009: 2,169.
State: Rhode Island;
2003: 663;
2004: 400;
2005: 352;
2006: 402;
2007: 429;
2008: 359;
2009: 421.
State: South Carolina;
2003: 925;
2004: 1,117;
2005: 1,472;
2006: 1,721;
2007: 2,649;
2008: 2,051;
2009: 3,750.
State: South Dakota;
2003: 292;
2004: 267;
2005: 317;
2006: 352;
2007: 486;
2008: 547;
2009: 93.
State: Tennessee;
2003: 764;
2004: 1,148;
2005: 1,196;
2006: 1,409;
2007: 1,630;
2008: 2,499;
2009: 1,993.
State: Texas;
2003: 32,127;
2004: 31,047;
2005: 27,980;
2006: 30,689;
2007: 33,221;
2008: 36,065;
2009: 37,021.
State: Utah;
2003: 2,338;
2004: 2,574;
2005: 2,316;
2006: 2,395;
2007: 2,648;
2008: 2,018;
2009: 3,438.
State: Virginia;
2003: 2,432;
2004: 2,882;
2005: 3,743;
2006: 3,298;
2007: 4,554;
2008: 5,819;
2009: 4,968.
State: Vermont;
2003: 20;
2004: 24;
2005: 25;
2006: 17;
2007: 20;
2008: 28;
2009: 13.
State: Washington;
2003: 5,668;
2004: 5,375;
2005: 4,891;
2006: 5,164;
2007: 6,050;
2008: 6,384;
2009: 5,976.
State: Wisconsin;
2003: 2,174;
2004: 2,362;
2005: 2,592;
2006: 2,724;
2007: 2,756;
2008: 2,882;
2009: 2,690.
State: West Virginia;
2003: 5;
2004: 6;
2005: 8;
2006: 0;
2007: 0;
2008: 22;
2009: 5.
State: Wyoming;
2003: 75;
2004: 63;
2005: 56;
2006: 49;
2007: 59;
2008: 71;
2009: 65.
Source: GAO analysis of Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) SCAAP data.
Note: This is not an exhaustive list of all state prison systems and
local jails, nor does it capture all criminal aliens incarcerated in
the United States. Submission to the SCAAP program for reimbursement
is voluntary, and as such, not all state prison systems and local
jails will be included.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Charles A. Jeszeck, (202) 512-8777 or jeszeckc@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Michael Dino, Assistant
Director, and Ryan Consaul managed this assignment. Michelle R. Su
made significant contributions to the work. Hiwotte Amare, Virginia
Chanley, Ruben Montes de Oca, and Karen O'Conor assisted with the
design, methodology, and data analysis. Pedro Almoguera assisted with
issues related to costs. Frances Cook provided legal support. Lara
Miklozek provided assistance in report preparation.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] DHS's estimate for aliens with lawful status included lawful
permanent residents, refugees, asylees, and other nonimmigrants such
as temporary visitors.
[2] As we reported in April 2005, criminal aliens are noncitizens
convicted of crimes while in this country legally or illegally. For
more information, see GAO, Information on Criminal Aliens Incarcerated
in Federal and State Prisons and Local Jails, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-337R] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 7,
2005).
[3] By statute, criminal aliens reimbursed under SCAAP are limited to
those who entered the United States illegally, were in removal
proceedings when taken into custody, or failed to maintain or comply
with the conditions of their immigration status. See 8 U.S.C. §
1231(i)(3)(B).
[4] GAO, Information on Criminal Aliens Incarcerated in Federal and
State Prisons and Local Jails, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-337R] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 7,
2005) and Information on Certain Illegal Aliens Arrested in the United
States, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-646R]
(Washington, D.C.: May 9, 2005).
[5] The periods of time covered by these data vary because they
reflect updates since we last reported on these issues in 2005 (see
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-337R] and [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-646R]). Moreover, they reflect the
most recent data available at the time of our analysis.
[6] We found that five of the criminal aliens from our random sample
of 1,000 were out of scope because their records did not reflect
actual arrests but rather administrative actions (e.g., being booked
into a prison or transferred from one correctional facility to
another). As such, our analysis is of 995 criminal aliens and our
estimated study population is about 249,000. See appendix I for
details on the margin of error for sample estimates presented in this
report.
[7] BJS, State Prison Expenditures, 2001 (Washington, D.C.: June
2004). See appendix II for criminal alien costs in fiscal year 2010
dollars.
[8] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-337R].
[9] See GAO, GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide: Best Practices
for Developing and Managing Capital Program Costs, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-3SP] (Washington, D.C.: March 2009).
[10] As part of this review, we briefed the reporting subcommittee on
our preliminary results. In addition, the length of this review
reflects delays we encountered in obtaining conviction data on SCAAP
illegal aliens and cost data from states due to unforeseen
circumstances caused by state furloughs.
[11] BOP incarceration data are based on an average of the 12 monthly
population snapshots for each type of BOP institution, such as minimum
security, within the fiscal year. These data do not include inmates
for which citizenship is unknown.
[12] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-337R]. In
2005, we reported federal incarceration data as of the end of the
calendar year.
[13] BOP's data were as of December 25, 2010. These data do not
include criminal alien inmates for which BOP does not have country of
citizenship. BOP obtains country of citizenship data from presentence
investigation reports, which may be based on documentation such as a
birth certificate or immigration documents, or be self-reported.
[14] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-337R].
[15] The following state prison systems did not apply for SCAAP
reimbursement: Illinois, Montana, and Oregon in fiscal year 2003;
Montana in fiscal year 2004; Alaska in fiscal year 2005; Virginia and
West Virginia in fiscal year 2006; and West Virginia in fiscal years
2007, 2008, and 2009. SCAAP data do not represent the number of unique
individuals since these individuals could be incarcerated in multiple
SCAAP jurisdictions during the reporting period.
[16] Other studies have researched criminal alien populations in
certain states. For examples, see Public Policy Institute of
California, Crime, Corrections, and California: What Does Immigration
Have to Do with It? (San Francisco, California: February 2008) and
State of New York, The Impact of Foreign Born Inmates on the New York
State Department of Correctional Services (Albany, New York: July
2008).
[17] Of the inmates we analyzed, about 63,000 were SCAAP illegal
aliens and about 28,000 were SCAAP unknown aliens. We did not include
about 1,300 inmates of unknown country of birth. SCAAP country of
birth data are provided to DOJ by jurisdictions. According to DOJ,
these data may be provided directly from inmates, the jurisdiction's
database, or ICE. SCAAP criminal aliens from the District of Columbia
were included in our analysis of SCAAP criminal aliens in state prison
systems.
[18] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-337R].
[19] Of the inmates we analyzed, about 60,000 were SCAAP illegal
aliens and about 144,000 were SCAAP unknown aliens. We did not include
about 1,000 inmates of unknown country of birth. SCAAP country of
birth data are provided to DOJ by jurisdictions. According to DOJ,
these data may be provided directly from inmates, the jurisdiction's
database, or ICE.
[20] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-337R].
[21] Removal proceedings are administrative hearings before an
immigration judge for the purpose of determining the inadmissibility
or deportability of aliens. Aliens ordered removed are those who have
received an order of removal that is administratively final, or, if
the order was judicially reviewed in federal court and the court
ordered a stay of removal, those who have received a final order from
the court affirming the administrative order of removal.
[22] These data do not represent unique individuals since an
individual could be apprehended multiple times in the same year. Also,
aliens apprehended in one year may be placed in removal proceedings or
removed in a later year. Similarly, aliens placed in removal
proceedings in one year may be removed in a later year.
[23] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-646R]. See
appendix I for information on the margin of error for these estimates.
[24] A single arrest can be for multiple offenses, if the arrest for
each of those offenses occurred within the same jurisdiction on the
same date. An arrest does not necessarily result in prosecution or a
conviction.
[25] Arrests were made by federal, state, and local authorities. In
two arrest histories in our sample, there were arrests made in
countries other than the United States.
[26] An offender may be convicted of multiple offenses. For each
offender, the U.S. Sentencing Commission tracks the offense that
carries the greatest sentence, called the primary conviction. Since
these data are of federal convictions, they include offenders who were
sentenced to a period of incarceration and those who were not.
[27] See DOJ, Introduction to National Security Division Statistics on
Unsealed International Terrorism and Terrorism-Related Convictions
(Washington, D.C. March 2010). DOJ included individuals identified and
detained in the course of a nationwide investigation conducted after
September 11, 2001, and subsequently charged with a criminal offense,
as well as additional defendants who, at the time of charging,
appeared to have a connection to international terrorism even if they
were not charged with a terrorism-related offense. We did not verify
these individuals' connections to terrorism.
[28] This category includes U.S. citizens who were born in the United
States (52 individuals) or derived U.S. citizenship (2 individuals).
For 5 of the individuals included in this category, the source of
their U.S. citizenship could not be determined. For this analysis, we
treated naturalized U.S. citizens as a separate category.
[29] We were not able to distinguish the primary offenses for Arizona
convictions, and instead presented our analysis of all offenses
provided per inmate (approximately 10,000 convictions). Our analysis
of state conviction data was based on convictions related to SCAAP
illegal alien incarcerations in fiscal year 2008 (incarcerations from
July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2008), which were the most recent SCAAP
data available at the time of our analysis.
[30] Our analysis is of the primary offense provided per case (some
inmates have more than one case associated with them, and as a result
the 2008 analysis is of about 34,000 primary offenses related to about
27,000 inmates). Our analysis of state conviction data was based on
convictions related to SCAAP illegal alien incarcerations in fiscal
year 2008 (incarcerations from July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2008),
which were the most recent SCAAP data available at the time of our
analysis.
[31] We were not able to distinguish the primary offenses for Florida
convictions, and instead presented our analysis of all offenses
provided per inmate (approximately 25,000 convictions). Our analysis
of state conviction data was based on convictions related to SCAAP
illegal alien incarcerations in fiscal year 2008 (incarcerations from
July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2008), which were the most recent SCAAP
data available at the time of our analysis.
[32] Our analysis is of the primary offense provided per inmate. Our
analysis of state conviction data was based on convictions related to
SCAAP illegal alien incarcerations in fiscal year 2008 (incarcerations
from July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2008), which were the most recent
SCAAP data available at the time of our analysis.
[33] Our analysis is of the primary offense provided per inmate. Our
analysis of state conviction data was based on convictions related to
SCAAP illegal alien incarcerations in fiscal year 2008 (incarcerations
from July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2008), which were the most recent
SCAAP data available at the time of our analysis.
[34] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-337R].
[35] For the purposes of our analysis, territories that received SCAAP
reimbursement during fiscal years 2003 through 2009 are not included.
Figures may not be exact due to rounding. The following state prison
systems did not apply for SCAAP reimbursement: Illinois, Montana, and
Oregon in fiscal year 2003; Montana in fiscal year 2004; Alaska in
fiscal year 2005; Virginia and West Virginia in fiscal year 2006; and
West Virginia in fiscal years 2007, 2008, and 2009.
[36] SCAAP is intended to provide reimbursement to states and
localities for a portion of the correctional officer salary costs
associated with incarcerating criminal aliens who met the following
criteria: (1) had at least one felony or two misdemeanor convictions
for violations of state or local law; and (2) were incarcerated for at
least 4 consecutive days during the reporting period.
[37] These selected operating costs include correctional officer
salaries, medical care, food service, and utilities.
[38] We selected the five states based on the number of SCAAP criminal
aliens. Collectively, these states accounted for about 70 percent of
the SCAAP criminal alien population in fiscal year 2008. We also
selected these state prison systems and local jails because they were
the same prison systems and local jails that we used in our April 2005
report.
[39] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-337R].
[40] Fiscal year 2008 includes the period from July 1, 2007, through
June 30, 2008.
[41] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-337R].
[42] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-3SP].
[43] GAO, Information on Criminal Aliens Incarcerated in Federal and
State Prisons and Local Jails, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-337R] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 7,
2005) and Information on Certain Illegal Aliens Arrested in the United
States, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-646R]
(Washington, D.C.: May 9, 2005).
[44] The period of time covered by these data vary because they
reflect updates since we last reported on these issues in 2005 (see
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-337R] and [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-646R). Moreover, they reflect the
most recent data available at the time of our analysis. For more
information on our prior work, see [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-337R] and [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-646R].
[45] SCAAP is intended to provide reimbursement to states and
localities for a portion of the correctional officer salary costs
associated with incarcerating criminal aliens who met the following
criteria: (1) had at least one felony or two misdemeanor convictions
for violations of state or local law; and (2) were incarcerated for at
least 4 consecutive days during the reporting period. The program is
not intended to reimburse for all costs associated with criminal alien
incarcerations.
[46] For the purposes of our report, data on SCAAP criminal alien
incarcerations cover the period from July 1 through June 30 for the
respective fiscal year. For example, SCAAP fiscal year 2008 data
represents the time frame from July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2008.
BOP maintains its nationality data based on country of citizenship and
SCAAP maintains its data based on country of birth.
[47] States and localities applying for SCAAP reimbursement are not
required to submit an individual's FBI identification number to verify
the individual's immigration status.
[48] For our 21 to 25 arrest category in figure 8 of this report, the
confidence interval is from 2,642 through 6,882 criminal aliens. For
our 26 or greater arrest category in figure 8 of this report, the
confidence interval is from 1,499 through 5,018 criminal aliens.
[49] For our kidnapping category in table 2 of this report, the
confidence interval is from 11,112 through 18,464 offenses. For our
arson category in table 2 of this report, the confidence interval is
from 648 through 3,362.
[50] We analyzed federal data from fiscal years 2003 through 2009 to
determine trends in federal convictions, if any, since our past work.
We analyzed state data from fiscal years 2005 through 2008 to
determine trends in selected state convictions, if any, using the 4
most recent fiscal years at the time of our analysis.
[51] We analyzed information including the individuals' names,
charges, conviction charges, date of conviction and sentence, and
sentence description from DOJ, Introduction to National Security
Division Statistics on Unsealed International Terrorism and Terrorism-
Related Convictions (Washington, D.C.: March 2010).
[52] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-337R].
[53] BJS, State Prison Expenditures, 2001 (Washington, D.C.: June
2004).
[54] See GAO, GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide: Best Practices
for Developing and Managing Capital Program Costs, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-3SP] (Washington, D.C.: March 2009).
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
