United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

Report to Congressional Requesters

March 2011

CRIMINAL ALIEN
STATISTICS
Information on
Incarcerations,
Arrests, and Costs

GAO-11-187

March 2011

CRIMINAL ALIEN STATISTICS
Accountability • Integrity • Reliability

Information on Incarcerations, Arrests, and Costs
Highlights of GAO-11-187, a report to
congressional requesters

Why GAO Did This Study

What GAO Found

The Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) estimated that as of
fiscal year 2009 the total alien—nonU.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.

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.

View GAO-11-187 or key components.
For more information, contact Charles A.
Jeszeck at (202) 512-8777 or
jeszeckc@gao.gov.

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.

United States Government Accountability Office

Contents

Letter

1
Background
Criminal Alien Incarcerations and Nationalities
Criminal Alien Arrests and Convictions
Estimated Costs of Criminal Alien Incarcerations
Agency and Third-Party Comments

4
6
17
34
48

Scope and Methodology

49

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

49
50
56

Appendix II

Criminal Alien Costs in Fiscal Year 2010 Dollars

58

Appendix III

SCAAP Criminal Alien Incarcerations in State Prisons
and Local Jails (Corresponds to Fig. 4)
62

Appendix IV

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

Appendix I

64

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

Page i

6
21

25
26
26
53
54

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

Table 8: Number of State Criminal Alien Assistance Program
(SCAAP) Criminal Alien Incarcerations in Each State

62

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

Page ii

7
9

10
12
13
15
17
18
20
22
23
28
29
31
32
33
35
36

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

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

Page iii

38

39
41
42
43
45
46

58

59
60

61

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

Abbreviations
BOP
BJA
BJS
DHS
DOJ
FBI
IAFIS
ICE
INS
SCAAP
USCIS

Bureau of Prisons
Bureau of Justice Assistance
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Department of Homeland Security
Department of Justice
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Immigration and Naturalization Service
State Criminal Alien Assistance Program
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the
United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety
without further permission from GAO. However, 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.

Page iv

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

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. 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. 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). 3 SCAAP is intended to provide

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, 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).

Page 1

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

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. 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

4
GAO, Information on Criminal Aliens Incarcerated in Federal and State Prisons and
Local Jails, GAO-05-337R (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 7, 2005) and Information on Certain
Illegal Aliens Arrested in the United States, GAO-05-646R (Washington, D.C.: May 9, 2005).

Page 2

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

apprehensions for reentering the country illegally after a prior removal, we
analyzed ICE data from fiscal years 2007 through 2010. 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. 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. 7 Applying
relevant inflation factors and SCAAP reimbursement data, we calculated
these selected operating costs for incarcerating criminal aliens for state

5

The periods of time covered by these data vary because they reflect updates since we last
reported on these issues in 2005 (see GAO-05-337R and 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.

Page 3

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

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. 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. 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. 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

8

See GAO-05-337R.

9

See GAO, GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Developing
and Managing Capital Program Costs, 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.

Page 4

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

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 webbased 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.

Page 5

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

General Terms and
Definitions

Table 1: Common Terms and Definitions Used in this Report
Term

Definition

Alien

Any person who is not a citizen of the United States.

Criminal aliens

Noncitizens who are residing in the United States legally
or illegally and are convicted of a crime.

Primary conviction

When convicted of multiple offenses, the primary
conviction is the offense with the longest maximum
sentence.
a

SCAAP criminal aliens–divided into two subgroups
SCAAP illegal aliens

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.

SCAAP unknown aliens

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.

Criminal Alien
Incarcerations and
Nationalities

Page 6

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

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. 11
Figure 1: Number of Criminal Aliens and U.S. Citizens Incarcerated in Federal
Prisons from Fiscal Years 2005 through 2010
Number of inmates
250,000

200,000

189,304

205,608

209,421

51,805

52,929

54,718

50,785

144,077

150,520

153,803

156,492

160,348

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

50,711

50,991

215,066

201,305

194,788

150,000

100,000
138,313
50,000

0
2005
Fiscal year
Criminal aliens
U.S. citizens
Source: GAO analysis of BOP data.

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. 12 In fiscal year 2005,

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 GAO-05-337R. In 2005, we reported federal incarceration data as of the end of the
calendar year.

Page 7

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

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. 13

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.

Page 8

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

Figure 2: Country of Citizenship for Criminal Aliens Incarcerated in Federal Prisons
as of December 2010

1%
Guatemala

2%
Honduras

2%
El Salvador

2%
Jamaica

3%
Cuba

5%

Dominican Republic

5%

Colombia

10%

Remaining 172 countries

68%

Mexico
Source: GAO analysis of BOP data.

Note: Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding.

These data are similar to what we reported in 2005. 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.

14

See GAO-05-337R.

Page 9

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

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. 15
Figure 3: Number of State and Local SCAAP Criminal Alien Incarcerations from
Fiscal Year 2003 through Fiscal Year 2009
Number of incarcerations
300,000

294,218

295,959

201,739

204,136

268,444
246,337

250,000

232,008

233,803

220,078
200,000

150,000

162,309

181,740

151,695

151,686

73,751

80,313

82,117

84,028

86,704

92,479

91,823

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

146,327

100,000

50,000

0
Fiscal year
Total number of SCAAP incarcerations of aliens in local jails
Total number of SCAAP incarcerations of aliens in state prisons plus District of Columbia jails
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.

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.

Page 10

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

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. 16 See
appendix III for additional information on figure 4.

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).

Page 11

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

Figure 4: Number of SCAAP Criminal Alien Incarcerations in Each State

Wash.
Mont.
Ore.

Mich.
Nebr.

Ill.

Kans.

Ariz.

Pa.

Iowa

Colo.

Calif.

Mass.

N.Y.

Wis.

S.Dak.
Wyo.

Utah

N.H.

Vt.

Minn.
Idaho

Nev.

Maine

Mich.

N.Dak.

Okla.

N.Mex.

Ind.

Mo.

Ky.

RI.

Va.

W.Va.

N.C.

Tenn.

Conn.

S.C.

Ark.
Miss. Ala.

Tex.

N.J.

Ohio

Ga.

La.
De.

Interactive features:

Fla.

Roll your mouse over each
state to see SCAAP criminal
alien incarceration trends
from 2003 through 2009.

Md.
DC.

Hawaii
SCAAP criminal alien incarcerations (2009)

Alaska

Less than 1,000
1,000 to 2,499

See Appendix III for additional details.

2,500 to 9,999
10,000 to 100,000
More than 100,000
Source: GAO analysis of BJA SCAAP data; Map Resources.

Page 12 	

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

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. 17
Figure 5: Country of Birth for SCAAP Criminal Aliens in State Prison Systems as of
Fiscal Year 2009

1%
Vietnam

2%
Germany

2%
Jamaica

2%
Dominican Republic

2%
Guatemala

3%
Honduras

4%
4%
14%

El Salvador
Cuba

Remaining 191 countries

66%

Mexico
Source: GAO analysis of DOJ Bureau of Justice Assistance data.

Note: Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding.

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.

Page 13

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

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. 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. 19

18

See 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.

Page 14

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

Figure 6: Country of Birth for SCAAP Criminal Aliens in Local Jails as of Fiscal Year
2009

1%
Cuba

1%
Dominican Republic

2%
Germany

3%
Honduras

4%
Guatemala

4%
14%

El Salvador

Remaining 213 countries

70%

Mexico
Source: GAO analysis of DOJ Bureau of Justice Assistance data.

Note: Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding.

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. 20

20

See GAO-05-337R.

Page 15

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

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 21 increased significantly from
calendar years 2007 through 2010. 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.

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.

Page 16

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

Figure 7: Number of Criminal Alien Apprehensions, Removals, and Reentries
Number of criminal aliens
140,000
125,943
120,000
108,154
95,804

100,000
80,000

75,030
68,025

78,690

64,082

60,000
46,445

50,143
40,816

37,452

40,000

29,512 27,337
19,214

20,000

17,797

8,877
0
Apprehensions

Removal proceedings

Ordered removed

Reentered

2007
2008
2009
2010
Source: GAO analysis of ICE data.

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. 23 They were
arrested for a total of about 2.9 million offenses, averaging about 12

23

See GAO-05-646R. See app. I for information on the margin of error for these estimates.

Page 17

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

offenses per criminal alien, slightly lower than the 13 offenses per criminal
alien we reported in 2005. 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
Number of criminal aliens
160,000
140,000

135,097
(54%)

120,000

100,000

89,480
(36%)
68,676
(28%) 60,405
(24%)

80,000
60,000
40,000

26,568
(11%)

36,093
(14%)

26,067
(10%)
11,028
(4%)

20,000

24,814
(10%)
12,532
4,762 (5%)
(2%)

3,258
(1%)

0
1 to 5

6 to 10

11 to 15

16 to 20

21 to 25

26 or greater

Number of arrests and offenses
Number of arrests
Number of offenses
Source: GAO analysis of IAFIS data.

Note: For information on the margin of error, see app. I.

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.

Page 18

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

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.

Page 19

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

Figure 9: Percentage of Criminal Aliens Arrested At Least Once by Offense
Category
Category
65%

Immigration
48%

Drugs
39%

Traffic violations

38%

Obstruction of justice

35%

Assault

31%

Other
Fraud, forgery,
and counterfeiting

21%

Larceny/theft

21%
19%

Weapons violations

18%

Burglary

15%

Motor vehicle theft
Disorderly conduct

12%

Sex offenses

12%
10%

Stolen property
Robbery

9%

Property damage

9%
8%

Homicide

4%

Kidnapping
1%

Arson
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent
Source: GAO analysis of FBI IAFIS data.

Note: For information on the margin of error, see app. I.

Page 20

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

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

Number

Percent

Immigration

529,859

18

Drugs

504,043

17

Traffic violations

404,788

14

Obstruction of justice

252,899

9

Assault

213,047

7

Larceny/theft

125,322

4

Fraud, forgery, and counterfeiting

120,810

4

Burglary

115,045

4

Weapons violations

94,492

3

Motor vehicle theft

81,710

3

Sex offenses

69,929

2

a

Disorderly conduct

52,384

2

Stolen property

49,126

2

Property damage

42,609

1

Robbery

42,609

1

Homicide

25,064

1

Kidnapping

14,788

1

Arson

2,005

<1

Other

151,138

5

Total

2,891,668

100b

Source: GAO analysis of FBI IAFIS data.

Note: For information on the margin of error, see app. 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 app. I for
information on the margin of error.

b

Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

Page 21

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

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. 25
Figure 10: Location of Criminal Alien Arrests

1%
Oregon

1%
Georgia

1%
Colorado

1%
Virginia

2%
Florida

2%
Illinois

3%
New York

3%
9%

Washington

Arizona

54%
10%

Remaining 36 states, District of
Columbia and U.S. territories

10%
Texas

California
Source: GAO analysis of FBI's IAFIS data.

Note: For information on the margin of error, see app. I. Percentages do not add to 100 due to
rounding.

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.

Page 22

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

Almost 90 Percent of
Primary Federal
Convictions Related to
Criminal Alien Offenders
in Fiscal Year 2009 Were
for Immigration or DrugRelated 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. 26
Figure 11: Primary Convictions Related to Criminal Alien Federal Offenders in
Fiscal Year 2009

1%
Money Laundering/Racketeering/Extortion

2%
Othera

2%
Firearms
Economic Crimes

7%

20%

Drugs

68%

Immigration
Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Sentencing Commission data.
a

“Other” offenses include homicide, kidnapping, sex offenses, assault, arson, burglary, and auto theft.

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

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.

Page 23

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

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 TerrorismRelated 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. 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 terrorismrelated 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 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.

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.

Page 24

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

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

Number of
individuals

Percent

Aliens with legal immigration status

105

26

83

21

Naturalized U.S. citizens
Aliens without legal immigration status

68

17

U.S. citizensa

59

15

Aliens brought into the United States for
prosecution

50

13

34

9

399

100

b

Unknown
Total

c

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

About 20 Percent of Individuals
Convicted under Statutes
Directly Related to Terrorism
Were Aliens

Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

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.

Page 25

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

Table 4: Number of Individuals Convicted under Statutes Directly Related to
Terrorism According to DOJ
Number of
convicted individuals

Percent

U.S. citizens

30

28

Aliens brought into the United States for
prosecution

30

28

Naturalized U.S. citizens

16

15

Aliens with legal immigration status

Immigration or citizenship status

13

12

Aliens without legal immigration status

9

8

Unknown

9

8

107

100

Total

a

Source: GAO Analysis of DOJ and USCIS data.
a

Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

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

Number of
convicted individuals

Percent

Aliens with legal immigration status

92

32

Naturalized U.S. citizens

67

23

Aliens without legal immigration status

59

20

U.S. citizens

29

10

Aliens brought into the United States for
prosecution

20

7

Unknown

25

9

292

100

Total

a

Source: GAO Analysis of DOJ and USCIS data.
a

Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

Page 26

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

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.

Page 27

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

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. 29
Figure 12: Arizona State Convictions for SCAAP Illegal Aliens in Fiscal Year 2008 by
Offense

Drugs

3%
Kidnapping
Weapons Violations

4%

30%

Larceny/Theft

4%
4%
4%

Homicide

5%

Robbery

5%

Burglary

5%
13%

Sex Offenses

Othera

6%
11%

6%

Fraud, Forgery, and Counterfeiting
Motor Vehicle Theft
Assault
Traffic Violations

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.

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

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.

Page 28

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

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. 30
Figure 13: California State Primary Convictions of SCAAP Illegal Aliens in Fiscal
Year 2008 by Offense

Drugs

3%
Weapons Violation
Larceny/Theft

4%

Motor Vehicle Theft

4%
4%

27%

13%

8%

Robbery

8%

Burglary

9%
11%

Traffic Violations

Homicide

9%
Othera
Sex Offenses
Assault

Source: GAO analysis of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation data.
a

“Other” offenses include stolen property, fraud, forgery, counterfeiting, kidnapping, property damage,
arson, and obstruction of justice.

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.

Page 29

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

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. 31

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.

Page 30

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

Figure 14: Florida State Convictions of SCAAP Illegal Aliens in Fiscal Year 2008 by
Offense
Sex Offenses
Drugs

3%
Traffic Violations
Kidnapping

4%

Miscellaneous

5%

16%

7%
13%

13%

7%

Assault

8%

Homicide

8%
9%

Fraud, Forgery, and Counterfeiting

8%

Larceny/Theft
Othera
Robbery
Burglary

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.

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, drugrelated offenses led to more convictions in Florida than other offenses.

Page 31

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

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. 32
Figure 15: New York State Primary Convictions of SCAAP Illegal Aliens for Fiscal
Year 2008 by Offense
Homicide

2%
Larceny/Theft

2%
Kidnapping
Weapons Violations

27%

4%
5%
6%
9%
11%

23%

Othera
Burglary

Assault

Sex Offenses

12%
Robbery
Drugs
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.

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,

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.

Page 32

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

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. 33
Figure 16: Texas State Primary Convictions of SCAAP Illegal Aliens for Fiscal Year
2008 by Offense
Drugs

3%
Obstruction of Justice
Othera

8%
20%

8%
9%

Burglary

Homicide

18%
10%
12%

Robbery

11%
Traffic Violations
Assault
Sex Offenses

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.

Further, the total number of SCAAP illegal aliens incarcerated in Texas
state prisons in fiscal year 2008 was about 10,000, which accounted for

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.

Page 33

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

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. 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.

34

See GAO-05-337R.

Page 34

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

Figure 17: Federal Prison and SCAAP Costs to Incarcerate Criminal Aliens from
Fiscal Years 2005 through 2009
Dollars (in millions)
2,000
1,800
1,600

1,516

1,554

1,575

376

376

385

1,178

1,190

2006

2007

1,400

1,627

1,632

393

323

1,234

1,309

2008

2009

1,200
1,000
800
600

1,140

400
200
0
2005
Fiscal year
SCAAP reimbursements
Costs associated with incarcerations in BOP facilities
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.

Page 35

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

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. 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
SCAAP reimbursements (dollars in millions)
400

376

376

129

130

385

393

350
300

287

281

135

323

143

125

250

93

102
200
150

247
100

179

194

2003

2004

246

250

250
198

50
0
2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Fiscal year
Local
States plus District of Columbia
Source: GAO analysis of DOJ Bureau of Justice Assistance data.

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.

Page 36

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

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. 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. 37

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.

Page 37

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

Figure 19: Estimated Operating Costs to Incarcerate SCAAP Criminal Aliens in All 50 States
Dollars (in millions)
1,167

1,200

1,149

1,084

1,100
1,000

983

943

912

900
800

736

764

721

700

742

641

632
584

600
463

500
400
300

247

250

250

246

198

194

179

200
100
0
2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Year
Total estimated SCAAP illegal alien cost
Total estimated SCAAP unknown alien cost
SCAAP eligible illegal inmate costs
SCAAP eligible unknown inmate costs
SCAAP reimbursement for illegal inmates
SCAAP reimbursement for unknown inmates
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.

Page 38

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

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
State cost in dollars
15,000

12,624

12,506
11,745

12,000

12,520

11,698
11,112

9,978

9,000

6,000

3,009

3,000

2,428

2,923

2,882

2,410

2,701
2,152

0
2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Year
Total per inmate costs
SCAAP reimbursement per inmate
Sources: GAO analysis of DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics and Bureau of Justice Assistance data.

Page 39

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

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. 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. 39

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 GAO-05-337R.

Page 40

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

Figure 21: Selected State Costs to Incarcerate SCAAP Criminal Aliens in Fiscal Year 2008
Dollars (in millions)
1,093

1,100
1,000
900
800
700
600
500
400

320
300
200
100

112

92
36

47

13

140

134

103

74
26

17

51

18

0
Arizona

California

Florida

New York

Texas

Jurisdictions
Total estimated SCAAP illegal alien cost
Total estimated SCAAP unknown alien cost
SCAAP eligible illegal inmate costs
SCAAP eligible unknown inmate costs
SCAAP reimbursement for illegal inmates
SCAAP reimbursement for unknown inmates
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.

Page 41

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

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
Dollars (in millions)
1,200
1,102

1,100
1,000
900
800
700
600
500
400

298

300
200
100

98

88
33

10

144

117

102
47

61
14

18

54

16

0
Arizona

California

Florida

New York

Texas

Jurisdictions
Total estimated SCAAP illegal alien cost
Total estimated SCAAP unknown alien cost
SCAAP eligible illegal inmate costs
SCAAP eligible unknown inmate costs
SCAAP reimbursement for illegal inmates
SCAAP reimbursement for unknown inmates
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.

Page 42

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

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
State cost in dollars
34,448

35,000
30,000

29,523

25,000

20,000

15,000

14,828

14,093

12,168
10,000

4,511

5,000

2,755
1,406

2,020

1,353

0
Arizona

California

Florida

New York

Texas

States
Total per inmate cost
SCAAP reimbursement per inmate
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.

Page 43

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

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. 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. 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.

40

Fiscal year 2008 includes the period from July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2008.

41

See GAO-05-337R.

Page 44

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

Figure 24: Selected Localities’ Costs and Reimbursements for Incarcerating Criminal Aliens in Fiscal Year 2008
Dollars (in millions)
100
86
79

80

72

60
44
40

44

34
21

20
12

15

19
11
7

8
4

3

0
New York City,
N.Y.

Los Angeles County,
Calif.

Orange County,
Calif.

Maricopa County,
Ariz.

Harris County,
Tex.

Jurisdictions
Total estimated SCAAP illegal alien cost
Total estimated SCAAP unknown alien cost
SCAAP eligible illegal inmate costs
SCAAP eligible unknown inmate costs
SCAAP reimbursement for illegal inmates
SCAAP reimbursement for unknown inmates
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.

Page 45

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

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
Dollars (in millions)
139

140

120

100
88
80

74

60
48

46

42

40
30
20

13

14

18
10
5

9
3

3

0
New York City,
N.Y.

Los Angeles County,
Calif.

Orange County,
Calif.

Maricopa County,
Ariz.

Harris County,
Tex.

Jurisdictions
Total estimated SCAAP illegal alien cost
Total estimated SCAAP unknown alien cost
SCAAP eligible illegal inmate costs
SCAAP eligible unknown inmate costs
SCAAP reimbursement for illegal inmates
SCAAP reimbursement for unknown inmates
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.

Page 46

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

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. 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 3year 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.

42

See GAO-09-3SP.

Page 47

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

Agency and ThirdParty 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
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.

Charles A. Jeszeck
Acting Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues

Page 48

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

This appendix provides additional details on the scope and methodology
used to update our 2005 reports. 1 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. 2 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

1
GAO, Information on Criminal Aliens Incarcerated in Federal and State Prisons and
Local Jails, GAO-05-337R (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 7, 2005) and Information on Certain
Illegal Aliens Arrested in the United States, GAO-05-646R (Washington, D.C.: May 9, 2005).
2

The period of time covered by these data vary because they reflect updates since we last
reported on these issues in 2005 (see GAO-05-337R and 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 GAO-05-337R and GAO-05-646R.

Page 49

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

reimbursement. 3 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. 4 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

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. The program is not intended to reimburse for all costs
associated with criminal alien incarcerations.
4
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.

Page 50

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

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. 5 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

5

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.

Page 51

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

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 noted. 6 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 noted. 7 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

6

For our 21 to 25 arrest category in fig. 8 of this report, the confidence interval is from 2,642
through 6,882 criminal aliens. For our 26 or greater arrest category in fig. 8 of this report,
the confidence interval is from 1,499 through 5,018 criminal aliens.
7
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.

Page 52

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

convictions from fiscal years 2005 through 2008. 8 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

Category includes

Immigration

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.

Drugs

Drug distribution, manufacture, possession.

Economic crimes

Larceny, fraud, embezzlement,
forgery/counterfeiting, tax offenses, and antitrust
(i.e., price fixing).

Firearms

Unlawful possession/transportation of firearms or
ammunition, use of firearms or ammunition to
commit crime.

Money Laundering/Racketeering/
Extortion

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.

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

8

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.

Page 53

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

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

Category includes

Arson

Arson, reckless burning, and possession of arson
materials

Assault

Assault, battery, assault with a deadly weapon,
endangerment, and threats

Burglary

Breaking and entering, burglary, and possession of
burglary tools

Disorderly conduct

Disturbing the peace, fighting, intoxication, public
nuisance, and disorderly conduct

Drugs

Use/under the influence, possession, possession with
intent to distribute, sales, manufacturing, transporting,
and possession of drug paraphernalia

Fraud, forgery, and
counterfeiting

Deceptive practices or identification, fraud, giving false
information, altering or forging documents, and
counterfeiting or possession of counterfeit materials or
tools

Homicide

Murder, manslaughter, and homicide

Immigration

Illegal entry, illegal reentry, false claim to U.S.
citizenship, alien smuggling, and removal proceedings

Kidnapping

False imprisonment, kidnapping, and taking hostages

Larceny/theft

Grand and petty larceny and theft, shoplifting,
embezzlement, and money laundering

Motor vehicle theft

Auto theft, carjacking, and taking a vehicle without
consent

Obstruction of justice

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

Property damage

Destruction of property, vandalism, and criminal or
malicious mischief

Robbery

Armed robbery, robbery of a dwelling, robbery of a bank,
and unarmed robbery

Sex offenses

Lewd and lascivious acts, rape, sexual assault, indecent
exposure, prostitution, and molestation

Stolen property

Buying, selling, receiving, or possessing stolen property

Traffic violations

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

Weapons violations

Possession of a weapon, discharging a weapon, altering
a weapon, and carrying a concealed weapon

Page 54

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Major offense category

Category includes

Other

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.

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. 9 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.

9

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).

Page 55

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

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. 10
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. 11 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

10

See GAO-05-337R.

11

BJS, State Prison Expenditures, 2001 (Washington, D.C.: June 2004).

Page 56

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

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. 12
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.

12

See GAO, GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Developing
and Managing Capital Program Costs, GAO-09-3SP (Washington, D.C.: March 2009).

Page 57

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

Appendix II: Criminal Alien Costs in Fiscal
Year 2010 Dollars

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
Dollars (in millions)
1,800

1,685

1,671

1,644

1,660

1,644

418

404

402

401

325

1,267

1,267

1,242

1,259

2005

2006

2007

2008

1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600

1,319

400
200
0
2009

Fiscal year
SCAAP reimbursements
Costs associated with incarcerations in BOP facilities
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.

Page 58

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

Appendix II: Criminal Alien Costs in Fiscal
Year 2010 Dollars

Figure 27: SCAAP Reimbursements to States and Localities in Fiscal Year 2010
Dollars from Fiscal Years 2003 through 2009
SCAAP reimbursements (dollars in millions)
450
418

404

402

401

140

141

146

400
350

331

330

120

107

211

223

2003

2004

143

325

300
126

250
200
150
100

275

265

261

255
199

50
0
2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Year
Local
States plus District of Columbia
Source: GAO analysis of DOJ Bureau of Justice Assistance data.

Note: Numbers may not be exact due to rounding.

Page 59

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

Appendix II: Criminal Alien Costs in Fiscal
Year 2010 Dollars

Figure 28: Estimated Operating Costs in Fiscal Year 2010 Dollars to Incarcerate SCAAP Criminal Aliens in All 50 States
Dollars (in millions)
1,191

1,200

1,157

1,132
1,083

1,100

1,057

1,015
1,000
900

867

800
700

747

689

650

600

780

752

726

545

500
400
275

300

264

222

211

261

255
199

200
100
0
2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Year
Total estimated SCAAP illegal alien cost
Total estimated SCAAP unknown alien cost
SCAAP eligible illegal inmate costs
SCAAP eligible unknown inmate costs
SCAAP reimbursement for illegal inmates
SCAAP reimbursement for unknown inmates
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.

Page 60

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

Appendix II: Criminal Alien Costs in Fiscal
Year 2010 Dollars

Figure 29: Estimated Operating Costs per Inmate in Fiscal Year 2010 Dollars to
Incarcerate SCAAP Criminal Aliens in All 50 States
State cost in dollars
15,000
13,488

13,053

12,881

12,579

12,357

12,608

12,000 11,753

9,000

6,000

3,346
2,860

3,000

2,768

3,143

3,008

2,756
2,167

0
2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Year
Total per inmate costs
SCAAP reimbursement per inmate
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.

Page 61

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

Appendix III: SCAAP Criminal Alien
Incarcerations in State Prisons and Local
Jails (Corresponds to Fig. 4)

Appendix III: SCAAP Criminal Alien
Incarcerations in State Prisons and Local
Jails (Corresponds to Fig. 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

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Alaska

77

87

-

93

107

101

87

Alabama

98

113

102

214

259

295

313

Arkansas

493

488

486

788

1,007

1,353

1,342

Arizona

10,941

11,985

12,200

13,268

14,613

18,357

17,488

California

85,210

91,614

89,381

93,048

99,189

102,121

102,795

Colorado

5,761

5,857

6,968

6,487

7,174

7,340

7,574

409

422

432

476

469

481

517

48

107

33

96

168

251

432

Connecticut
District of Columbia
Delaware

40

49

99

57

44

38

36

Florida

10,383

11,473

12,416

16,203

15,186

16,935

17,229

Georgia

2,319

2,889

3,075

3,449

4,361

6,062

7,371

Hawaii

101

171

179

174

198

253

286

Iowa

659

591

492

523

691

543

501

Idaho

1,238

1,214

1,315

1,250

1,262

1,134

1,271

Illinois

4,967

7,271

7,528

7,499

8,335

11,114

10,677

Indiana

553

953

1,138

1,410

1,534

1,684

1,793

Kansas

973

1,090

841

1,048

1,043

1,252

1,328

Kentucky

681

652

692

626

623

1,139

1,343

Louisiana

236

213

174

172

228

204

246

Massachusetts

1,897

2,509

2,789

2,778

2,639

2,731

2,523

Maryland

1,730

1,488

1,644

1,635

1,971

2,369

2,710

Maine

35

53

60

119

103

100

406

Michigan

1,723

1,523

1,736

1,831

1,829

1,850

1,700

Minnesota

1,594

1,418

1,049

1,472

1,866

2,193

2,140

725

786

607

661

707

805

723

72

66

100

78

78

183

342

Missouri
Mississippi
Montana

19

41

50

42

54

39

24

4,084

4,753

6,126

6,297

7,439

8,150

8,948

29

28

41

37

55

43

46

1,082

1,064

1,142

737

1,328

1,424

1,754

167

164

116

106

103

104

185

New Jersey

5,455

5,085

6,006

6,305

8,434

9,693

9,971

New Mexico

1,732

2,220

2,507

2,067

2,021

2,675

2,112

North Carolina
North Dakota
Nebraska
New Hampshire

Page 62

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

Appendix III: SCAAP Criminal Alien
Incarcerations in State Prisons and Local
Jails (Corresponds to Fig. 4)

State

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Nevada

4,957

4,923

5,623

5,369

6,605

6,148

6,918

16,130

14,536

14,286

12,962

12,138

13,192

11,096

New York
Ohio

756

792

901

924

1,240

1,777

3,879

Oklahoma

1,751

1,429

1,397

1,993

2,471

4,128

1,666

Oregon

2,056

3,464

3,892

4,307

4,755

5,158

3,609

Pennsylvania

1,414

1,162

1,232

1,516

1,615

2,054

2,169

Rhode Island

663

400

352

402

429

359

421

South Carolina

925

1,117

1,472

1,721

2,649

2,051

3,750

South Dakota

292

267

317

352

486

547

93

Tennessee

764

1,148

1,196

1,409

1,630

2,499

1,993

Texas

32,127

31,047

27,980

30,689

33,221

36,065

37,021

Utah

2,338

2,574

2,316

2,395

2,648

2,018

3,438

Virginia

2,432

2,882

3,743

3,298

4,554

5,819

4,968

20

24

25

17

20

28

13

Washington

5,668

5,375

4,891

5,164

6,050

6,384

5,976

Wisconsin

2,174

2,362

2,592

2,724

2,756

2,882

2,690

5

6

8

-

-

22

5

75

63

56

49

59

71

65

Vermont

West Virginia
Wyoming

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.

Page 63

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff
Acknowledgments

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.

(440834)

Page 64

GAO-11-187 Criminal Alien Statistics

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 (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO
posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products,
go to 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,
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:

Congressional
Relations

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, DC 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, DC 20548

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Please Print on Recycled Paper