Researchers from the University of Texas at El Paso presented findings Thursday from two related studies of jail bookings and interview data that examined the relationship between immigration status, acculturation and criminogenic risk factors among people processed in the county jail.

Dr. Theodore Curry, lead presenter, summarized the first study, which used county jail intake records for a consecutive cohort (more than 5,000 bookings in 2019). He said immigrants accounted for roughly 13% of jail bookings in that sample while constituting about 23% of the county population, and that immigrant bookings were associated with lower pretrial risk-assessment scores. Curry said Mexican immigrants in the sample were comparatively more likely to appear with DWI/DUI charges while U.S.-born people had higher proportions of drug-related charges in the intake data.

Dr. Jennifer Eno Loudoun (name as stated in the record) described study 2, a set of in-depth interviews with 273 people sampled from bookings and releases. Researchers oversampled non–U.S.-born people to produce roughly comparable groups of U.S.-born, documented immigrants and undocumented immigrants. Study 2 used the LSCMI risk instrument to measure eight validated criminogenic needs (criminal history; antisocial personality; antisocial companions; pro-criminal attitudes; substance abuse; family/marital problems; education/employment; and lack of pro-social leisure). Dr. Eno Loudoun said undocumented immigrants recorded the lowest average total LSCMI scores; all immigrant groups showed lower levels on most criminogenic measures except that immigrants reported greater education and employment problems.

The researchers reported an association between orientation toward Mexican culture (measured with an acculturation scale) and lower scores on several criminogenic measures. They emphasized limitations: the studies measure people at booking (not community crime rates), official records may miss out-of-country histories, and study 2 relies on self-report and participation bias.

Implications discussed by commissioners and county staff included diverting immigration-only arrests from jail settings where incarceration might increase future criminal involvement, and aligning county reentry and workforce programs (such as Promise programs) with the criminogenic needs identified. Commissioners and researchers discussed next steps: tracking recidivism prediction by risk factors, analyzing neighborhood/address data, and further work on victimization and resilience among migrants. The court took no formal action.