What did FAIR research on SCAAP data show
Executive summary
FAIR's analysis of State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) data concluded that undocumented immigrants are incarcerated at much higher rates than U.S. citizens and lawfully present immigrants—finding incarceration “up to five and a half times” higher in the states they examined and arguing this refutes claims that immigrants are less criminally prone than natives [1] [2]. Critics counter that SCAAP was never designed to measure incarceration rates and that FAIR’s methodology misuses the program’s data, producing misleading conclusions [3] [4] [5].
1. FAIR’s headline finding: illegal aliens jailed far more often per FAIR’s calculations
The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) used SCAAP counts of undocumented people in jail and compared them to population estimates to calculate incarceration rates, concluding that in the states they examined undocumented people were incarcerated “up to five and a half times” as frequently as citizens and lawful immigrants and framing this as a rebuttal to narratives that immigrants commit less crime [1] [2].
2. How FAIR used SCAAP and why that choice matters
FAIR’s approach hinges on treating SCAAP counts—the program’s reported number of incarcerated undocumented aliens eligible for reimbursement—as a numerator for incarceration rates and pairing it with external population estimates as a denominator; SCAAP itself documents incarcerated aliens who meet program rules (at least one felony or two misdemeanor convictions and four consecutive days incarcerated), and the Bureau of Justice Assistance describes SCAAP as a reimbursement program rather than a population survey [6] [7] [2].
3. Methodological critiques: experts say SCAAP is the wrong tool for a rate
Academic and policy critics argue FAIR’s core error is using SCAAP—an administrative reimbursement count that measures a flow of eligible incarcerated aliens for a reporting year—as if it were a representative “stock” suitable for simple rate calculations; Cato and others note SCAAP captures admissions and reimbursements, has missing values, and lacks a comparable denominator the way prison statistics do, meaning dividing SCAAP counts by population can substantially over- or understate true incarceration rates [3] [4] [2].
4. Supporters’ rebuttals and the legal-conviction point FAIR raises
FAIR anticipates critiques by emphasizing that SCAAP eligibility requires felony or two misdemeanor convictions and cites conviction rates in some state jurisdictions—84% in Texas, 82% in California, 67% in New York—as evidence that those counted by SCAAP are overwhelmingly people who were convicted, not merely charged, and that court outcomes validate the program’s focus on criminal convictions [2]. The Congressional Research Service and BJA documentation confirm SCAAP’s eligibility rules requiring specified conviction thresholds or incarceration days [8] [9] [7].
5. What this debate actually proves—and what it does not
The debate demonstrates that SCAAP data document a subset of incarcerated undocumented people eligible for federal reimbursement and can show where jurisdictions report higher numbers of such inmates, but it does not, by itself, provide an undisputed, population-normalized crime rate for undocumented immigrants; critics maintain that when SCAAP is analyzed with corrections for stock vs. flow, missing applications, and appropriate denominators, the evidence can point in a different direction—some researchers find lower crime or incarceration rates among immigrants—highlighting that FAIR’s headline claim depends on contested methodological choices [3] [4] [5] [2].
6. Political framing and incentives behind competing readings
FAIR’s report advances a policy argument for stricter immigration enforcement by treating SCAAP-derived rates as evidence of higher criminality among undocumented immigrants, while think tanks like Cato and R Street push back partly to defend more permissive immigration narratives and to caution policymakers against using administrative reimbursement data as forensic evidence of criminal propensity; both sides have policy agendas that shape interpretation of the same underlying program description from BJA and CRS [1] [3] [4] [5] [8].