Have any studies or reports quantified criminal-history rates among DHS personnel versus other agencies since 2020?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
There is no single, public study since 2020 that directly compares criminal-history rates among Department of Homeland Security (DHS) personnel to other federal agencies; DHS publishes component data and dashboards but not a cross-agency criminal‑history comparison (available sources do not mention a comparative study) [1] [2]. Federal crime-data agencies such as the FBI and Bureau of Justice Statistics publish broad arrest and incident data, but those data sets do not report criminal‑history rates for federal agency workforces in a way that yields the requested comparison [3] [4].
1. What the sources actually provide — DHS data portals and component reports
DHS points researchers to a central data page and to component-level publications and machine‑readable datasets — the department’s data hub and DHS Open Data facilitate access to statistical reports, but they are organized by topic and component rather than producing cross‑agency workforce criminal‑history comparisons [1] [5]. The Office of Homeland Security Statistics (OHSS) publishes topic pages and reports on immigration and law‑enforcement activity, but the available material is focused on operational metrics and immigration enforcement, not on internal workforce criminal‑history prevalence across federal agencies [2] [6].
2. What law‑enforcement crime statistics sources cover — and their limits
The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting / NIBRS releases provide detailed counts of offenses and arrests nationally (the FBI released nearly 8.9 million offense records for 2020), but they are built from state and local reporting and are not designed to enumerate criminal‑history rates among federal agency employees or to compare agencies like DHS with DOJ components or the FBI itself [3] [7]. The Bureau of Justice Statistics supplies complementary national criminal justice datasets, but again these datasets track crimes, victims, and arrest outcomes— not employment background rates for federal workforces [4].
3. DHS’s public messaging emphasizes arrests of noncitizens — not internal workforce vetting
Recent DHS pressures and product lines (for example, public releases touting arrests of “criminal illegal aliens” and new searchable public websites of DHS enforcement cases) focus on enforcement outcomes and removals rather than on internal personnel criminal‑history metrics or comparisons with other federal agencies [8] [9]. DHS press materials and enforcement statistics therefore do not substitute for an independent study comparing employee criminal histories across agencies [10] [11].
4. Independent critiques and oversight literature show interest in DHS powers, not workforce criminality
Scholars and watchdogs such as the Brennan Center and commentaries on DHS’s expanded law‑enforcement role examine mission creep, oversight gaps and civil‑liberties risks — these reports underscore scrutiny of DHS practices but do not present quantified comparisons of criminal histories among agency personnel versus peers at other agencies [12]. The reporting indicates strong interest in transparency and oversight, which would be necessary for any credible cross‑agency workforce study [12].
5. News reporting shows operational data and disputes over claims — transparency is uneven
Recent news coverage documents disputes over DHS claims about crime impacts from enforcement operations and highlights limited disclosure (e.g., local analyses contradicting DHS crime‑decline claims). That pattern signals researchers should treat agency assertions cautiously and seek independently verifiable data; nevertheless, the cited press pieces do not report studies comparing employee criminal histories across agencies [13] [14].
6. Why a direct comparison is hard — data, definitions, and privacy
Available federal data sources are fragmented: operational enforcement counts (DHS/ICE/CBP), national crime reports (FBI/NIBRS), and justice statistics (BJS) all use different definitions and unit‑of‑analysis constructs. Personnel‑level criminal‑history data for federal employees are typically privacy‑sensitive and handled within internal security‑clearance and human‑resources procedures rather than published as comparative public datasets; none of the provided sources supplies a public comparative dataset since 2020 (available sources do not mention such a dataset; [1]; [6]; p1_s8).
7. What to request or where to look next
To obtain the comparison you want, a clear Freedom of Information Act request to DHS and to comparator agencies (for example, DOJ, FBI, DHS components like ICE/CBP) asking for anonymized counts of employees with criminal convictions or adverse adjudications since 2020 would be the method implied by the documentation trail; OHSS and DHS data portals could provide related component statistics but currently do not publish a cross‑agency analysis [1] [2]. Legislative oversight reports or Inspector General audits are the other plausible venues where a researcher might find comparative workforce integrity audits — search the DHS and agency IG pages for audits or request them directly [15] [12].
Limitations and caveats: this analysis relies solely on the supplied search results; none of those documents presents a published study or report that quantifies criminal‑history rates among DHS personnel versus other federal agencies since 2020 (available sources do not mention such a study) [1] [3] [2].