Is Previous Removal From the United States a Marker for High Recidivism Risk? Results From a 9-Year Follow-Up Study of Criminally Involved Unauthorized Immigrants

• Author: Jennifer Wong,Laura J. Hickman,Marika Suttorp-Booth
• DOI: 10.1177/0887403414552892
• Published date: 01 June 2016
• Date: 01 June 2016
• Subject Matter: Articles

Criminal Justice Policy Review

2016, Vol. 27(4) 378 –401

© 2014 SAGE Publications

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0887403414552892

cjp.sagepub.com

Article

Is Previous Removal From the

United States a Marker for

High Recidivism Risk? Results

From a 9-Year Follow-Up

Study of Criminally Involved

Unauthorized Immigrants

Laura J. Hickman1,2, Jennifer Wong3,

and Marika Suttorp-Booth1

Abstract

The present study examines the long-term recidivism patterns of a group of

unauthorized immigrants identified to be at high risk of recidivism. Using a sample of

517 male unauthorized immigrants, we used three measures of recidivism to assess

9-year rearrest differences between unauthorized immigrants who have and who

have not been previously removed from the United States. Results indicate that

prior removal was a significant risk marker for recidivism, with previously removed

immigrants showing a higher likelihood of rearrest, a greater frequency of rearrest,

and a more rapid time-to-first rearrest. While the present study does not establish

whether previous removal is a consistent indicator of high recidivism, it suggests

that this group of unauthorized immigrants may be worthy of review and policy

consideration. Much potential value for law enforcement lies in the sharing of federal

immigration records with academics to further study the outcomes of unauthorized

immigrants.

Keywords

immigration, recidivism, illegal immigrants, jail populations, propensity scores

1RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA

2Portland State University, OR, USA

3Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada

Corresponding Author:

Laura J. Hickman, Professor, Criminology and Criminal Justice Division, Portland State University, P.O.

Box 751, Portland, OR 97207-0751, USA.

Email: lhickman@pdx.edu

552892CJPXXX10.1177/0887403414552892Criminal Justice Policy ReviewHickman et al.

research-article2014

Hickman et al. 379

Particularly since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the enforcement of civil

immigration law within the interior of the United States has been an increasing focus

of attention and controversy (Saunders, Lim, & Prosnitz, 2010). Estimates suggest that

this population has grown to 11 million, up from an estimated 8 million in 2000 (Passel

& Cohn, 2012). What to do about this population has been the subject of considerable

controversy. There is, however, comparably less rancor over potential enforcement

responses to unauthorized immigrants who are identified within a criminal justice

population. Perhaps as a result, this particular subgroup (i.e., criminally involved

unauthorized immigrants) has been an increasing focus of federal immigration enforce-

ment efforts over the past decade (U.S. Government Accountability Office [GAO],

2012). Within this subgroup, a high priority has been placed on identifying and remov-

ing those who have previously been removed from the country (Morton, 2012).1

Central to this focus is the expectation that criminally involved unauthorized immi-

grants with a record of previous removal pose a high relative risk to public safety. To

date, however, almost no empirical information has been available to test this expecta-

tion. We could identify only a single study (Hickman & Suttorp, 2010) on the topic.

This work found a substantial difference in rearrest patterns, in a direction of greater

recidivism risk for those with a record of previous removal relative to those without.

This study, however, is limited by a relatively short 1-year follow-up period. Previous

research with other criminal justice populations suggests that short-term differences in

recidivism do not necessarily predict long-term differences (e.g., Huebner, 2009;

Johnson, 2004; Maltz, 1984; Ostermann, 2013; Worrall, 2008). The purpose of the

current study is to examine whether the considerable differences in rearrest detected

over a short period in the Hickman and Suttorp study persist over a substantially lon-

ger follow-up period. While rearrest measures cannot be used as an indicator of under-

lying criminal propensity (Elliott, 1995), empirical analyses based on these data can

contribute useful information for informing federal and state/local policy choices

around unauthorized immigrants. In particular, analyses of the relationship between

previous removal and recidivism can assist federal policy makers in evaluating unau-

thorized immigrant detention and removal priorities. Moreover, the availability of

empirical data about rearrest may also help local jurisdictions in weighing the complex

policy choices surrounding the extent and form of their active cooperation with federal

authorities in immigration enforcement.

Interior Immigration Law Enforcement

Historically, interior immigration enforcement (i.e., enforcement in areas not immedi-

ately adjacent to the U.S. border) has been the purview of the federal government, with

local law enforcement agencies largely unconnected to such efforts (Vogel et al.,

2009). In recent years, however, the involvement of local law enforcement expanded

dramatically with the passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration

Responsibility Act of 1996. This federal legislation included Section 287(g), which

allowed the federal government to essentially “deputize” members of state and local

law enforcement agencies to perform certain enforcement roles previously reserved