How does SCAAP collect data and what are its reporting limitations?
Executive summary
The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) collects inmate-level and facility-level submissions from state and local jurisdictions via an online Grants Management System (GMS), requiring records for incarcerated noncitizens who meet narrow eligibility criteria; those uploads are validated by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) and transmitted to DHS for final determination [1] [2]. The dataset is designed as a reimbursement mechanism for correctional salary costs, not as a comprehensive or statistically clean measure of immigrant criminality, and it carries structural, definitional, and processing limitations that make misuse or overinterpretation of its numbers likely [3] [4] [5].
1. How SCAAP collects data: application-driven, file-upload system
SCAAP relies on jurisdictions to prepare and submit detailed inmate files and facility data through an online GMS upload that produces a "File Upload Status Report" showing completeness and format errors; the process is administratively intensive and time-limited by strict deadlines [1] [2]. Applicants must assign a unique inmate identification number across records, can report aliases as separate name entries tied to that ID, and must include salary and per-diem cost information that the system uses to calculate prorated awards [2] [1].
2. Who gets counted and what rules govern eligibility
Only noncitizens who meet statutory thresholds—at least one felony or two misdemeanor convictions under state/local law and at least four consecutive days incarcerated during the reporting period—are eligible for SCAAP reporting and reimbursement; pre-trial and post-conviction time served can be included once those criteria are met [6] [3]. The program is explicitly confined to reimbursement for certain correctional officer salary costs and related correctional purposes, not full incarceration costs or civil immigration custody [6] [4].
3. Validation, transmission, and award calculation: a multi-agency chain
After upload, BJA validates and analyzes the submitted data, may require documentation to verify per-diem or salary claims, and then transmits validated files to DHS as part of the award determination; awards are prorated based on appropriation, submitted costs, and inmate counts [1] [6]. The administrative burden is nontrivial—OMB paperwork estimates and Federal Register notices cite response time and job-aid guidance—so data quality depends substantially on jurisdictions’ capacity to prepare compliant files [7] [8].
4. Reporting limitations built into the design
SCAAP is a claims-based reimbursement program, not a population survey; as the Congressional Research Service notes, it measures a mix of stock and flow of eligible incarcerated noncitizens over a year and therefore is ill-suited as a denominator-based incarceration rate source [9] [5]. Jurisdictions report only those inmates who satisfy SCAAP criteria and choose to apply—local-level coverage varies and some local numbers are not collected by BJS—so national or temporal comparisons can be incomplete or inconsistent [5].
5. Common sources of error and avenues for misuse
Operational choices create predictable errors: separate name entries for aliases tied to one ID can create complexities; separate agencies within a state could potentially submit overlapping claims in rare cases leading to double-counting; and per-diem calculations hinge on jurisdictions’ reported salary totals, which BJA may cap or audit [2] [1] [10]. Analysts and advocacy groups diverge sharply: FAIR treats SCAAP counts as evidence of higher offending among undocumented immigrants [10], while critics like Cato argue that SCAAP’s design and lack of a reliable denominator render such inferences unsound [5].
6. What SCAAP cannot tell reporters or policymakers
SCAAP cannot reliably produce a national incarceration rate for undocumented immigrants because it lacks a consistent denominator, excludes many local data in some datasets, and was never intended as a prevalence survey; CRS and methodological critiques warn against extrapolating from reimbursement counts to population-level criminality [9] [5]. The program also excludes civil immigration detainees and does not cover all incarceration costs, restricting analytical scope to reimbursable salary-related expenses [6] [11].
Conclusion: useful ledger, not definitive proof
SCAAP is best understood as an administrative ledger to allocate limited federal reimbursements for a narrowly defined class of incarcerated noncitizens; its structured uploads, validation checks, and statutory eligibility rules produce a usable but partial dataset that requires careful contextualization—and skepticism—when used for broader crime-rate claims, as shown by both program guidance and outside critiques [1] [3] [5].