How does DHS calculate “self‑deportation” and what data sources does it use?
Executive summary
DHS’s notion of “self‑deportation” centers on voluntary departures facilitated or incentivized by programs such as the CBP Home app and related Project Homecoming initiatives, and the department reports these movements using a mix of program records and its standard enforcement statistics frameworks rather than a single new metric [1] [2] [3]. Independent observers and data projects say DHS combines administrative program enrollments, confirmed travel returns, and broader population and enforcement datasets — but critics note DHS has not published a fully transparent, reproducible methodology tying those sources together [4] [5] [6] [7].
1. What DHS says it is measuring: voluntary departures and program‑confirmed returns
DHS frames “self‑deportation” as individuals who choose to leave the United States with help from voluntary programs — notably CBP Home, which offers a streamlined questionnaire, travel assistance and a post‑departure stipend — and it treats confirmed movement out of the U.S. connected to those programs as a form of return distinct from forcible removals [1] [2] [3]. The department’s public statements emphasize program confirmations — for example, that stipends are paid after return is “confirmed through the app” — implying reliance on app records and documented travel as primary evidence of voluntary departure [2] [1].
2. The data building blocks DHS appears to use
DHS has a catalogue of enforcement and migration datasets maintained by OHSS and component agencies — monthly enforcement tables (encounters, removals, returns), the Yearbook definitions for “returns” versus “removals,” and open data portals — which serve as the institutional backbone for reporting population movements and agency actions [4] [8] [9]. Programmatic sources such as CBP Home provide transaction‑level records (questionnaire submissions, reported co‑travelers, confirmations) that DHS can link to its administrative returns data when counting program‑facilitated departures [1] [2]. External aggregators like the Deportation Data Project also harvest public DHS/ICE releases, which researchers use to cross‑check published figures [5].
3. How counts and labels differ: returns, removals, and voluntary departures
DHS’s established statistical vocabulary distinguishes “removals” (compulsory, based on an order of removal) from “returns” (movement out not based on an order), and voluntary program departures fit under the latter category when they are documented as departures rather than enforcement removals [8]. That distinction matters because “self‑deportation” claims often combine several administrative streams — app confirmations, booked repatriation flights, and declines in survey‑based foreign‑born population estimates — producing headline totals that mix different concepts and timeframes [4] [3].
4. Transparency gaps and independent scrutiny
Multiple outside analysts caution that DHS has not released a single, reproducible methodology that details how program records, OHSS tables, and population survey changes are combined to produce high‑level “self‑deportation” tallies; academics and watchdogs describe available program counts as “thin or anecdotal” and note DHS declined to provide granular verification separating government‑funded travel assistance from independent departures [3] [6]. Journalists and data scholars also warn DHS’s agencies sometimes publish numbers using differing as‑of dates and counting rules, complicating external validation unless the department publishes explicit linking logic [7] [4].
5. Competing narratives and political stakes
Advocates of the program argue it produces major cost savings versus forcible repatriations — a DHS claim of roughly 70% cost reduction is cited in the department’s announcements — while critics and independent researchers say the numbers touted (including large aggregate counts of people who have “self‑deported”) are politically useful but insufficiently documented and, in some high‑profile cases, inconsistent with independent population estimates and observed migration dynamics [2] [3] [6] [10]. The Deportation Data Project and academic commentators urge treating DHS program counts as one piece of evidence to be cross‑validated against OHSS tables, ICE administrative releases, and independent surveys [5] [7].
6. Bottom line and limits of available reporting
DHS calculates what it calls self‑deportation primarily by tallying program enrollments and confirmed departures from initiatives like CBP Home and by classifying those confirmed moves as “returns” within its OHSS/agency data ecosystem, but it has not published a unified, replicable formula tying app records, enforcement tables and population surveys into the headline totals; outside researchers therefore rely on piecing together program records, OHSS monthly tables and independent datasets to evaluate DHS’s claims [1] [2] [4] [5] [3]. Reporting reviewed here documents the data sources DHS uses and highlights significant transparency questions that remain open for independent verification [6] [7].