What research exists on recruitment practices and incentives that shape racial/ethnic composition of immigration enforcement agencies?
Executive summary
Academic and policy research shows a layered literature on how recruitment practices, formal incentives, and historical legacies shape the racial and ethnic composition of U.S. immigration enforcement agencies: empirical staff-diversity data and case studies highlight underrepresentation of women and persistent racialized cultures, while studies of selection criteria, citizenship rules, and recruiting materials point to structural barriers and mixed evidence about whether increased diversity changes enforcement outcomes [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. Recruitment rules and formal barriers that filter applicants
Scholars and federal reviews find that baseline selection standards and legal requirements—especially citizenship prerequisites and fitness tests—systematically disqualify many people of color and noncitizen residents, limiting candidate pools for enforcement roles and helping explain demographic gaps in agencies; the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights reported that selection systems often include measures that disproportionately exclude women and racial minorities and that citizenship requirements in particular reduce Hispanic and Asian applicant eligibility [3]. Researchers who compiled agency-level diversity data also document persistent gender and racial imbalances across CBP, ICE and related components, noting that administrative structures and branch specializations influence who is recruited and retained [1].
2. Recruiting practices, messaging, and the optics of diversity
Comparative studies of digital recruiting materials and agency outreach show that law enforcement agencies attempt to signal inclusivity through images and text, but that such signals vary widely and often fall short of substantive accommodation or targeted retention strategies; one content analysis of online materials found mixed use of diversity imagery and few concrete commitments to support women or minority candidates beyond recruitment language [4]. The University of Oklahoma analysis similarly highlights that recruiting more women of color requires not only outreach but institutional changes—training, workplace supports, and culture shifts—to convert applicants into long-term officers [1].
3. Historical culture, institutional memory, and racialized missions
Historical and policy research places recruitment and composition within a long lineage: the Border Patrol and predecessor agencies were built amid explicit racial exclusion and drew recruits from other organizations with violent racial histories, embedding cultures that scholars link to contemporary racialized enforcement practices; historians and policy reports trace these origins and argue they continue to shape organizational norms and recruitment pools [2] [6]. Critical scholars emphasize that recruitment cannot be decoupled from the racialized missions and discretionary powers of enforcement, which produce differential treatment of Mexicans, Central Americans, and other groups [7] [8].
4. Theory and evidence on how diversity affects enforcement outcomes
Social-science reviews introduce the “racial diversity hypothesis,” which posits that the racial composition of authorities can influence policy implementation and potentially produce more equitable outcomes, yet empirical findings are mixed and call for more systematic measurement; recent literature urges attention to whether diversity at leadership or frontline levels matters more, and notes gaps in causal evidence linking workforce demographics to enforcement behavior [5]. Policy briefs and empirical analyses argue that data systems, discretionary practices, and crimmigration dynamics complicate any direct link between having more minority agents and reduced racialized enforcement without concurrent institutional reforms [9] [10].
5. Incentives, local partnerships, and political pressures shaping recruitment
Research on interior enforcement and federal-local collaboration shows that political incentives—administration priorities, 287(g)-style programs, and state recruitment drives—affect hiring demands and the types of candidates sought, with administrations actively recruiting partners and expanding local roles in immigration policing, which in turn reshapes career incentives and who applies for enforcement positions [11]. Observers warn that recruitment incentives tied to expansionary enforcement missions can deepen racialized practices unless accompanied by oversight, anti-bias selection tools, and changes in incentive structures that reward community trust and procedural neutrality [12].