U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics

TECHNICAL REPORT

August 2014, NCJ 247137

Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program, 2014
Alexia D. Cooper, Ph.D., and Kimberly Martin, Ph.D., BJS Statisticians

Introduction
As part of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2005, the 108th
Congress merged the discretionary
Edward Byrne Memorial Grant
Program with the formula-based
Local Law Enforcement Block Grant
(LLEBG) program to establish the
Edward Byrne Memorial Justice
Assistance Grant (JAG) program. The
Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA)
administers the JAG program, and
the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)
calculates the JAG formula-based
award amounts using specifications
outlined in the legislation.

HIGHLIGHTS
FIGURE 1
Distribution of FY 2014 JAG awards
$7.2 million
to U.S. territories and the
District of Columbia

$92.4 million
to local
governments

$191.4 million
to state governments

$290.9 million
total allocation

JAG awards may be used for the
following seven purposes—
„„law enforcement
„„prosecution and courts
„„prevention and education
„„corrections and community

corrections

„„drug treatment
„„planning, evaluation, and

technology improvement

„„crime victim and witness programs.

A total of $290,928,252 was available
for the 2014 JAG awards (figure 1).
This report describes the steps in the
JAG award calculation process and
presents summary results of the 2014
JAG formula calculation.

0

100

200
300
Millions (dollars)

400

500

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics calculations based on data from the Uniform Crime Reporting
Program and the U.S. Census Bureau.
„„The total allocation for the 2014 JAG funding was approximately

$290.9 million, of which $283.8 million went to states and $7.2 million to
territories and the District of Columbia.

„„The five states with the largest total allocations included California

($32.2 million), Texas ($22.2 million), Florida ($18.5 million), New York
($16.5 million), and Illinois ($11.4 million).

„„A total of 1,593 local governments were eligible for awards, either

directly or through a joint award with other governments within
their county. The five local governments eligible to receive the largest
awards included New York City ($4.4 million), Chicago ($2.3 million),
Philadelphia ($1.8 million), Houston ($1.8 million), and Los Angeles
($1.6 million).

„„Three states had 100 or more local governments eligible to receive award

funds either directly or through a shared award: California (222), Florida
(124), and Texas (100).

BJS

Overview of process
Once the fiscal year JAG allocation has
been determined, BJS begins its fourstep award calculation process:
„„Computing an initial allocation for

each state and territory, based on its
share of the nation’s violent crime
and population (weighted equally).

„„Reviewing the initial allocation

amount to determine if it is less
than the minimum (de minimus)
award amount defined in the JAG
legislation (0.25% of the total). If
this is the case, the state or territory
is funded at the minimum level,
and the funds required for this are
deducted from the overall pool
of funds. Each of the remaining
states receives the minimum
award plus an additional amount
based on its share of violent crime
and population.

„„Dividing each state’s final amount at

a rate of 60% for state governments
and 40% for local governments.

„„Determining local award

allocations, which are based on
a jurisdiction’s proportion of the
state’s 3-year violent crime average.
If a local jurisdiction’s calculated
award is less than $10,000, the
funds are returned to the state to
distribute. If the calculated local
award is $10,000 or more, then the
local government is eligible to apply
for an award.

The JAG award calculation process,
with examples, is explained in more
detail below.

The four-step award calculation
process
Step 1: Initial allocation to states
and territories
[Legislative mandate: 42 USC § 3755
(a)(1)]
Based on the congressional
appropriation for the 2014 JAG
program, BJS calculates the initial
allocation amounts for the 50 states

and U.S. territories. Using the
congressionally established formula,
BJS allocates half of the available funds
based on a state’s or territory’s share
of the nation’s violent crime and half
of the funds based on its share of the
nation’s population. The most recent
3-year period of official violent crime
data for states and territories from
the FBI covered the period between
2010 and 2012. The population
shares for the 50 states, the District of
Columbia, and U.S. territories were
determined based on the results of the
2013 midyear population estimates
published by the U.S. Census Bureau.
Examples—
„„California accounts for 12.96%

of the nation’s total violent crime
and 11.97% of the nation’s total
population. Therefore, California’s
initial allocation equals 12.96% of
$145,464,126 (half of $290,928,252)
plus 11.97% of $145,464,126,
totaling $36,277,474.

„„Vermont accounts for 0.07% of

the nation’s total violent crime
and 0.20% of the nation’s total
population. Vermont’s initial
allocation is 0.07% of $145,464,126
plus 0.20% of $145,464,126, totaling
$388,388.

Congress has made one exception
to this rule: American Samoa and
the Northern Mariana Islands are
required to split one minimum award,
with American Samoa receiving 67%
($487,305) and the Northern Mariana
Islands receiving 33% ($240,016). (See
Methodology for more information
on allocation procedures for the
territories.)
In 2014, four states (North Dakota,
South Dakota, Vermont, and
Wyoming) and four U.S. territories
(American Samoa, Guam, Northern
Mariana Islands, and the Virgin
Islands) received only the minimum
award as their total JAG allocation.
The remainder of the states, the
District of Columbia, and Puerto
Rico were all awarded the minimum
award plus an additional allocation.
A total of $40,002,635 was allocated
for minimum awards under the 2014
JAG program.
Examples—
„„Vermont’s initial allocation of

$388,388 is less than the minimum
value, so Vermont’s total JAG
allocation is the minimum amount
of $727,321.

„„California’s initial allocation of

$36,277,474 exceeds the minimum
value, so California receives the
minimum plus an award based
on its share of total violent crime
and population.

Step 2: De minimus awards
[Legislative mandate: 42 USC § 3755
(a)(2)]
The JAG legislation requires that
each state or territory be awarded a
minimum allocation equal to 0.25% of
the total JAG allocation ($727,321 in
2014), regardless of its population or
crime average. If a state or territory’s
initial allocation based on crime and
population is less than the minimum
amount, that state or territory receives
the minimum award amount as its
total JAG allocation. If a state or
territory’s initial allocation exceeds
the minimum amount, it receives the
minimum award plus the amount
based on its share of the violent crime
and population.

To compute the additional amounts,
the crime and population data for
states and territories receiving only the
minimum award are removed from
the pool, and the remaining JAG funds
are reallocated to the rest of the states
based on violent crime and population
as in Step 1.
Examples—
„„Vermont receives only the

J U S T I C E A S S I S TA N C E G R A N T ( J AG ) P R O G R A M , 2014 | AU G U S T 2014	

minimum award, so its crime and
population data are removed from
the pool.

2

„„After removing the crime and

population data for the states and
U.S. territories receiving only
the minimum award, California
accounts for 13.03% of violent
crime and 12.09% of the nation’s
population. California’s new JAG
allocation is equal to $16,345,555
(13.03% of half of $250.9 million)
plus $15,172,921 (12.09% of half of
$250.9 million), plus the minimum
amount of $727,321. These three
components equal $32,245,797.
($250.9 million equals the original
$290.9 million total JAG 2014 award
allocation minus the $40.0 million
JAG 2014 minimum allocation.)

Step 3: 60%/40% split to state and
local governments
[Legislative mandate: 42 USC § 3755
(b)]
Except for the U.S. territories and the
District of Columbia, 60% of the total
allocation to a state is retained by the
state government, and 40% is set aside
to be allocated to local governments.
Examples—
„„California’s state government retains

60% of $32,245,797, or $19,347,478.
The remaining 40%, or $12,898,319,
is set aside for distribution to local
governments in California.

„„Vermont’s state government

retains 60% of the minimum
award of $727,321, or $436,392.
The remaining 40%, or $290,928,
is set aside for distribution to local
governments in Vermont.

Step 4: Determining local award
allocations
[Legislative mandate: 42 USC § 3755
(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(h)]
In order to determine local awards,
BJS determines which jurisdictions
should be included in the calculation
of the 3-year violent crime averages on
which local awards are based. These
crime averages are computed using
data reported to the FBI’s Uniform

Crime Reporting (UCR) Program.
To be eligible, a jurisdiction must
have provided to the UCR a count of
the number of Part I violent crimes
known to law enforcement each year
for a minimum of 3 years in the last
10 years. Jurisdictions that have not
met the reporting requirements are
excluded from the calculations and are
not eligible to receive an award.
The 10-year limit on the age of
UCR data used for JAG local award
calculations was applied for the
first time during the 2009 Recovery
Act.1 For the 2010 JAG, the 10-year
window for eligible UCR data was
waived because some agencies were
having difficulty meeting the new
requirements. Instead, all of the FBI’s
UCR data dating back to 1991 were
used to meet the 3-year reporting
requirement. Agencies that used this
waiver signed an agreement indicating
they would begin to report timely
data on Part I violent crimes to the
FBI starting no later than the end
of FY 2010 (September 30, 2010).
All agencies that used the waiver in
2010 reported updated UCR data
by the required deadline, making it
unnecessary to authorize any further
waivers of the 10-year rule. The 10year limit was applied for the first time
in FY 2012 and has been in effect for
each year since then.
After determining which law
enforcement agencies have the 3 years
of reported violent crime data required
to be included in the calculations,
BJS computes the average number
of violent crimes reported by all
law enforcement agencies in each
jurisdiction (e.g., local government)
for the 3 most recent years in which
they reported data.
Since awards to local governments
are based on their share of all
violent crimes reported by the
1Before

2009, all years of the FBI’s UCR data
could be used to meet the 3-year reporting
requirement. Although the 10-year limit was
stipulated in the 2005 legislation that created
the JAG program, it was not implemented
until 2009 per the “Transitional Rule.”
See 42 USC § 3755 (d)(2)(B).

law enforcement agencies in their
state, BJS computes the sum of
these averages within each state to
determine the jurisdiction’s share of
the total local award allocation.
Examples—
„„California has $12.9 million set

aside for local awards. The 3-year
violent crime averages reported
by local jurisdictions in California
equal 157,358 crimes. Dividing
the $12.9 million set aside by the
state crime total results in the
number of dollars available for
each crime: $12,898,319 divided by
157,358 crimes equals $81.97 per
crime. Therefore, a local California
jurisdiction needs a 3-year violent
crime average of at least 122.00
violent crimes ($10,000 divided
by $81.97) to be eligible for a
direct award.

„„Vermont has $290,928 set aside

for local governments. The sum
of 3-year average violent crimes
reported is 639.7. The dollars per
crime ratio in Vermont equals
$290,928 divided by 639.7 crimes,
or $454.81 per crime (after
rounding). The threshold is 21.99
violent crimes ($10,000 divided
by $454.81) to be eligible for a
direct award.

BJS then calculates the initial amount
of each local award. Each local award
amount is equal to the product of a
local jurisdiction’s 3-year violent crime
average and the “dollars per crime”
ratio for the state in which it is located.
By statute, the minimum award a local
jurisdiction may receive is $10,000.
Jurisdictions that are eligible for an
initial award greater than or equal to
$10,000 are eligible to apply to receive
the funds for their own use. If the
initial award is less than $10,000, the
award funds are transferred to the state
administering agency for distribution
to the state police or any units of
local government that were ineligible
for a direct award greater than or
equal to $10,000. (See “Pass-through
requirement” [42 USC § 3755 (c)]).

J U S T I C E A S S I S TA N C E G R A N T ( J AG ) P R O G R A M , 2014 | AU G U S T 2014	

3

TABLE 1
State and local allocation amounts, FY 2014
Initial allocations
State
Total
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

State
government
$170,256,556
2,814,775
884,044
3,673,779
2,012,022
19,347,478
2,677,424
1,906,070
978,492
11,092,015
5,126,789
982,290
1,023,249
6,868,140
3,329,133
1,664,495
1,757,933
2,109,956
3,036,232
851,764
3,652,174
3,781,380
5,592,674
2,484,903
1,632,924
3,536,635
845,514
1,178,019
2,123,530
904,941
4,184,115
1,661,251
9,875,410
4,870,744
436,392
5,352,520
2,440,123
1,961,118
6,275,367
848,466
3,250,111
436,392
4,417,682
13,346,370
1,479,771
436,392
3,394,452
3,352,169
1,223,127
2,709,417
436,392

Local
governments
$113,504,370
1,876,516
589,362
2,449,186
1,341,348
12,898,319
1,784,950
1,270,714
652,328
7,394,676
3,417,860
654,860
682,166
4,578,760
2,219,422
1,109,663
1,171,955
1,406,638
2,024,155
567,843
2,434,783
2,520,920
3,728,450
1,656,602
1,088,616
2,357,757
563,676
785,346
1,415,687
603,294
2,789,410
1,107,501
6,583,607
3,247,163
290,928
3,568,346
1,626,749
1,307,412
4,183,578
565,644
2,166,741
290,928
2,945,122
8,897,580
986,514
290,928
2,262,968
2,234,779
815,418
1,806,278
290,928

Dollars per
crime
~
$99.20
171.63
92.16
95.50
81.97
110.37
131.09
186.10
75.92
93.57
188.07
206.11
85.90
109.05
142.48
114.66
154.32
86.22
384.20
85.80
90.41
83.98
130.95
159.60
87.35
204.03
164.79
85.94
269.77
106.67
95.76
86.67
97.33
175.93
106.27
91.53
137.44
100.69
216.17
79.19
134.73
74.57
82.76
169.56
454.81
140.89
109.62
203.38
121.98
249.22

Threshold
~
100.81
58.27
108.51
104.71
122.00
90.61
76.29
53.74
131.71
106.87
53.17
48.52
116.41
91.70
70.18
87.21
64.80
115.98
26.03
116.55
110.61
119.08
76.37
62.66
114.48
49.01
60.68
116.36
37.07
93.75
104.43
115.38
102.75
56.84
94.10
109.26
72.76
99.31
46.26
126.28
74.22
134.10
120.83
58.98
21.99
70.98
91.22
49.17
81.98
40.12

Eligible local awards
Reallocated
Number
Amount
to state
1,593
$92,387,002 $21,117,369
30
1,232,966
643,550
6
516,993
72,369
31
2,173,695
275,491
29
975,396
365,952
222
11,810,798 1,087,521
29
1,563,704
221,246
17
1,088,767
181,947
8
584,589
67,739
124
6,729,876
664,800
62
2,622,147
795,713
4
654,860
0
15
470,350
211,816
49
3,749,812
828,948
26
1,831,676
387,746
18
731,748
377,915
19
838,405
333,550
16
1,070,127
336,511
34
1,549,733
474,422
14
326,439
241,404
22
2,257,944
176,839
40
1,984,104
536,816
56
3,072,985
655,465
17
1,066,426
590,176
27
713,190
375,426
24
1,637,079
720,678
15
354,948
208,728
4
615,061
170,285
8
1,348,510
67,177
9
343,325
259,969
47
2,114,397
675,013
20
887,476
220,025
29
6,021,967
561,640
62
2,444,009
803,154
8
202,026
88,902
31
2,805,496
762,850
17
1,195,967
430,782
18
957,343
350,069
35
3,056,961 1,126,617
10
492,289
73,355
51
1,748,740
418,001
4
183,009
107,919
36
2,263,394
681,728
100
7,478,688 1,418,892
14
738,161
248,353
9
180,562
110,366
34
1,821,288
441,680
41
1,795,598
439,181
24
592,243
223,175
20
1,339,543
466,735
8
152,192
138,736

Total state
Total
government award allocation
$191,373,924
$283,760,926
3,458,325
4,691,291
956,413
1,473,406
3,949,270
6,122,965
2,377,974
3,353,370
20,434,999
32,245,797
2,898,670
4,462,374
2,088,017
3,176,784
1,046,230
1,630,819
11,756,815
18,486,691
5,922,502
8,544,649
982,290
1,637,149
1,235,066
1,705,416
7,697,089
11,446,901
3,716,878
5,548,554
2,042,410
2,774,158
2,091,483
2,929,888
2,446,467
3,516,594
3,510,654
5,060,387
1,093,168
1,419,607
3,829,013
6,086,957
4,318,196
6,302,300
6,248,139
9,321,124
3,075,078
4,141,504
2,008,350
2,721,540
4,257,312
5,894,391
1,054,241
1,409,189
1,348,304
1,963,365
2,190,707
3,539,217
1,164,909
1,508,234
4,859,128
6,973,525
1,881,275
2,768,751
10,437,049
16,459,016
5,673,898
8,117,907
525,295
727,321
6,115,370
8,920,866
2,870,905
4,066,872
2,311,186
3,268,529
7,401,984
10,458,945
921,820
1,414,109
3,668,112
5,416,852
544,312
727,321
5,099,410
7,362,804
14,765,262
22,243,950
1,728,125
2,466,286
546,759
727,321
3,836,132
5,657,420
3,791,351
5,586,949
1,446,302
2,038,545
3,176,152
4,515,695
575,129
727,321

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding.
~Not applicable.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, state calculations based on data from the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, 2010–2012, and U.S. Census Bureau, 2013; and
local calculations based on data from the UCR Program, 2003–2012.

Examples—
„„The city of Los Angeles, California,

has a 3-year average of 20,025.33
violent crimes, or 12.7% of
all violent crimes reported by
potentially eligible jurisdictions in
California. Los Angeles exceeds the
state threshold of 122.00 violent
crimes. It is eligible for 12.7% of
the $12.9 million set aside for local
governments in California, or about
$1,641,440 (20,025.33 multiplied
by $81.97).

„„The city of Vergennes, Vermont,

has a 3-year average of 4.00 violent
crimes. This does not meet the
state threshold of 21.99, so it is
ineligible for a direct JAG award. Its
crimes, less than 1% of all violent
crimes in Vermont, account for
about $1,819 of award funds. These
funds are transferred to the state
for redistribution.

Results of the calculations for
the 2014 Justice Assistance Grant
Program
For the 2014 JAG awards, approximately
$283.8 million of the $290.9 million
available was allocated to the 50
states, with the remainder allocated
to the District of Columbia and U.S.
territories (table 1). As required by the
legislation, 40% of this amount ($113.5
million) was initially reserved for local
governments. A total of 1,593 local
governments had law enforcement
agencies that provided a sufficient
number of reported crimes to the FBI
to receive a JAG award—either directly
or through a joint award with other
governments within their county—and
were eligible for a collective total of $92.4
million. The balance of unawarded local
allocations ($21.1 million) was returned
to state governments for redistribution
to state law enforcement agencies and
local governments.
Three states had 100 or more local
governments eligible to receive award
funds either directly or through a
shared award: California (222), Florida
(124), and Texas (100). The five local
governments eligible to receive the

largest awards included New York City
($4.4 million), Chicago ($2.3 million),
Philadelphia ($1.8 million), Houston
($1.8 million), and Los Angeles
($1.6 million).
In addition, the District of Columbia
was eligible for $1.8 million
and Puerto Rico was eligible for
$3.2 million (table 2). Guam and the
U.S. Virgin Islands were each eligible
for the minimum award of $727,321.
American Samoa ($487,305) and the
Northern Mariana Islands ($240,016)
split one minimum award.

Additional JAG provisions
Disparate jurisdictions and joint
allocations
[Legislative mandate: 42 USC § 3755
(d)(3)(4)]
In some cases, as defined by the
legislation, a disparity may exist between
the funding eligibility of a county and
associated municipalities. Three different
types of disparities may exist.

TABLE 2
Allocations to U.S. territories and
the District of Columbia, FY 2014
Total
American Samoa
Northern Mariana Islands
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
District of Columbia

Award amount
$7,167,326
487,305
240,016
727,321
3,207,973
727,321
1,777,391

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, based on
data from the Uniform Crime Reporting Program,
2010–2012, and the U.S. Census Bureau, 2013.

A second type of disparity exists when
both a county and a municipality
within that county qualify for a direct
award, yet the award amount for the
municipality exceeds 150% of the
county’s award amount.
Example—
„„Bibb County, Georgia, is eligible

for a direct award of $20,460. The
city of Macon in Bibb County
is eligible for a direct award of
$57,794. Macon’s award amount is
more than 150% of Bibb County’s
award amount. Consequently, the
two governments’ awards ($78,254)
are pooled together and shared as
mutually agreed upon.

The first type is a zero-county disparity.
This situation exists when one or
more municipalities within a county
are eligible for a direct award and
the county is not, yet the county is
responsible for providing criminal
justice services (such as prosecution
and incarceration) for the municipality.
In this case, the county is entitled to
part of the municipality’s award because
it shares in the cost of criminal justice
operations, although it may not report
crime data to the FBI. This is the most
common type of disparity.

The third type of disparity occurs
when a county and multiple
municipalities within that county are
all eligible for direct awards, but the
sum of the awards for the individual
municipalities exceeds 400% of the
county’s award amount.

Example—

Example—

„„Decatur, Illinois, is eligible for an

„„San Mateo County, California,

award of $37,653. Macon County,
Illinois (which includes the city
of Decatur), is not eligible for
a direct award, but it provides
criminal justice services to Decatur.
In this case, Macon County and
Decatur are considered zero-county
disparate. Decatur must share its
award funds with Macon County as
mutually agreed upon.

J U S T I C E A S S I S TA N C E G R A N T ( J AG ) P R O G R A M , 2014 | AU G U S T 2014	

is eligible for a direct award
of $20,301. The cities of Daly
($17,760), Redwood ($15,273),
San Mateo ($21,831), South San
Francisco ($10,956), and East Palo
Alto ($23,689) are also eligible for
direct awards. The five cities’ awards
sum to $89,509. This amount is
more than 400% of San Mateo
County’s direct award amount
of $20,301. Consequently, the

5

funds from all of the jurisdictions
($109,810) are pooled together and
shared among the six governments
as mutually agreed upon.
These three types of disparity are
examined in order. If a municipality
is found to be disparate in one of
these three ways, its award is not
included in calculations to test other
disparity situations. For instance,
if a municipality is found to be
150% disparate with the county, its
award is set aside, and the rest of the
municipalities within the same county
are checked for 400% disparity. If no
other disparity is found, the single
municipality and county share the
sum of their two awards. However, it
is possible for a county to have both a
150% disparity and a 400% disparity
simultaneously. For instance, counties
can have one or more municipalities
whose individual awards are more
than 150% of the county’s award and
other municipalities whose combined
award is more than 400% of the
county’s award.

Centennial ($17,622), and Aurora
($158,522), are also eligible for
awards. The award amount for
the city of Aurora is more than
150% of the award amount for
Arapahoe County. This jurisdiction
is disparate with the county, and
the two jurisdictions will share the
combined total of $182,876. The
remaining cites of Englewood and
Centennial are individually less
than 150% of the award amount
for Arapahoe County, and the
two awards combined are less
than 400% of the County’s award.
Accordingly, the awards for these
two cities remain separate.

Examples—

For disparate situations, regardless of
the type, the total of all award funds of
the separate units of local governments
(counties and municipalities) are
pooled together and split among the
units of local government as agreed
upon by the affected jurisdictions.
To qualify for payment, the disparate
units of local government must
submit a joint application for the
aggregated funds.

„„Maricopa County, Arizona, is

Pass-through requirement

eligible for an award of $85,768.
The cities of Avondale ($20,828),
Chandler ($61,439), Glendale
($98,977), Goodyear ($10,598),
Mesa ($166,836), Peoria ($27,002),
Phoenix ($784,816), Scottsdale
($33,238), Tempe ($75,078),
Surprise (12,257), and Gilbert
($18,278) (all located in Maricopa
County) are also eligible for awards.
The awards for Mesa ($166,836)
and Phoenix ($784,816) are both
individually more than 150% of
Maricopa County’s award, so they
will be pooled together with the
county’s award. The other nine
cities’ awards sum to $357,695. This
summed amount is more than 400%
of Maricopa County’s direct award
of $85,768. As a result, the funds for
all twelve jurisdictions ($1,395,115)
are pooled together and must
be shared.

„„Arapahoe County, Colorado, is

eligible for an award of $24,354.
The cities of Englewood ($10,080),

[Legislative mandate: 42 USC § 3755]
According to the JAG legislation,
states may only retain award amounts
that bear the same ratio of “(A) total
expenditures on criminal justice by the
state government in the most recently
completed fiscal year to (B) the total
expenditure on criminal justice by
the state government and units of
local government within the state in
such year.”
The determination of proportionate
criminal justice spending by state
and local governments is referred to
as the variable pass-through (VPT)
process under JAG. The VPT process
identifies the amounts each state must
pass down to local governments within
the state.
During 2013, the U.S. Census Bureau
finished compiling current criminal
justice expenditure information from
FY 2010 to calculate updated VPT
amounts. Several sources of data were

used to calculate the percentages,
including initial expenditure data
from the 2010 Annual Survey of State
and Local Government Finances
conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau
(http://www.census.gov//govs/local/
historical_data_2010.html) and federal
justice grant data from the Federal
Award Assistance Data System (http://
www.census.gov/govs/www/faads.
html). Source data were assigned
to state and local governments.
Intergovernmental expenditures and
grants were removed from the total
justice expenditure for the appropriate
type of government. The resulting
expenditure data were then used
to calculate the VPT percentages
by comparing the total justice
expenditures of all local governments
in a state to the expenditures of the
state government itself. A simple
percentage resulted, which represented
the combined local government
expenditures within the state divided
by the total state criminal justice
expenditures. These updated VPT
percentages were used for the 2014
JAG program and can be found on the
BJA website at https://www.bja.gov/.

Sex Offender Registration and
Notification Act (SORNA) penalty
and compliant bonus funds
[Legislative mandate: 42 USC § 16925
(a)(c)]
Penalty
The Sex Offender Registration and
Notification Act (SORNA), Title I of
the Adam Walsh Child Protection and
Safety Act of 2006 required that the
50 states, the District of Columbia,
the five principal U.S. territories,
and some federally recognized tribes
substantially implement SORNA by
July 27, 2009. Two full-year deadline
extensions were provided, and a final
statutory deadline of July 27, 2011,
was established. SORNA mandated a
10% reduction in JAG funding for any
jurisdictions that failed to substantially
implement SORNA by the deadline.
For those jurisdictions that fail to meet
this deadline, the SORNA penalty is

J U S T I C E A S S I S TA N C E G R A N T ( J AG ) P R O G R A M , 2014 | AU G U S T 2014	

6

calculated by subtracting 10% from
the state government’s allocation (60%
of the total award), after deducting
the mandatory VPT that states are
required to send to local governments.
The penalty applies to the portion
of JAG funding that is returned to
the state to be shared with local
governments that were not eligible for
a direct JAG award (less than $10,000
jurisdictions).
The penalty does not apply to the
VPT, which is the portion of JAG
funds awarded directly to local law
enforcement, as the state cannot
retain any portion of that award.
Penalizing local agencies would also
seriously undermine the purpose of
the statute, since doing so would be
detrimental to local law enforcement
efforts, including the investigation,
prosecution, and apprehension of sex
offenders. An example of how the
SORNA penalty was assessed can be
found in the BJA’s JAG Frequently
Asked Questions on the BJA website
at https://www.bja.gov/Funding/
JAGFAQ.pdf.
In FY 2014, a total of 36 states and U.S.
territories were not compliant with
SORNA’s requirements. As a result,
these jurisdictions suffered a combined
$6,474,445 reduction to their FY 2014
Byrne JAG award. These jurisdictions
were allowed to apply to reallocate
the 10% penalty to promote SORNA
implementation. Seven states were
SORNA noncompliant and did not
apply to reallocate the penalty. Per the
SORNA legislation, the $1,137,459
withheld from these jurisdictions will
be reallocated to jurisdictions that
did substantially implement SORNA
[(42 USC § 16925 (c)]. These funds
will be reallocated to compliant
states in the FY 2015 JAG award as
described below.
Bonus funds from FY 2013
Per 42 USC § 16925(c), any state
or territory that has substantially
implemented SORNA during the
current fiscal year, as determined by
the SMART Office, will be eligible
to receive compliant bonus funds
in addition to its JAG award for the

following year. This bonus allocation
is calculated based on SORNA penalty
funds from nonimplementing states
and territories during the current
fiscal year. For example, any state that
substantially implemented SORNA
in FY 2013 would have bonus funds
added to its FY 2014 state JAG award,
comprised of SORNA penalty funds
from nonimplementing states and
territories in FY 2013. The amounts
available for compliant bonus funds
will vary from year to year, depending
on the amount of SORNA penalty
funds from the previous year.
Bonus funds are allocated using the
same general approach as the overall
JAG award allocation calculations.
First, an initial allocation is calculated
for each eligible state and territory,
based on its share of violent crime
and population (weighted equally).
Next, this initial allocation is reviewed
to determine if it is less than the
minimum award amount (defined as
0.25% of the total funds available). If
this is the case, the state or territory
is allocated 0.25% of the total funds
available, and the funds required for
this are deducted from the overall
pool of funds. These states and
territories are then removed from the
calculations. Each of the remaining
states receives the minimum award
plus an additional amount based on its
share of violent crime and population
for the remaining states and territories.
For FY 2014, a total of $1,107,438 was
available from the FY 2013 SORNA
reductions from the noncompliant
states. These funds were distributed
to the 19 states and territories that
substantially implemented SORNA
during the fiscal year. Of the
19 states eligible for bonus funds,
Florida ($229,588) and Pennsylvania
($126,577) received the largest awards
(table 3). Of the eligible U.S. territories,
Guam received $2,769, the Northern
Mariana Islands received $914, and the
U.S. Virgin Islands received $2,769.
(For additional information regarding
the SORNA penalty and bonus
funds, including implementation
requirements and a list of states and
territories that were impacted in

TABLE 3
Sex Offender Registration and
Notification Act bonus fund
allocations, FY 2014
Total
Alabama
Delaware
Florida
Guam*
Kansas
Louisiana
Maryland
Michigan
Mississippi
Missouri
Nevada
Northern Mariana Islands*
Ohio
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Virgin Islands*
Wyoming

Bonus award amount
$1,107,438
52,188
14,119
229,588
2,769
30,980
58,659
71,268
111,839
28,520
68,069
37,904
914
108,330
126,577
61,632
9,660
84,365
2,769
7,288

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding.
*U.S. territory.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, based on data
from Justice Assistance Grant awards, 2013.

FY 2014, contact the Office of Sex
Offender Sentencing, Monitoring,
Apprehending, Registering, and
Tracking (SMART) Policy Advisor
assigned to assist the jurisdiction of
interest: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/
smart/sorna.htm.)

Prison Rape Elimination Act
(PREA) certification reduction
and bonus funds
[Legislative mandate: 42 USC § 15607
(e)]
Reduction
The PREA statute provides that a state
whose governor does not certify full
compliance with the DOJ National
Standards to Prevent, Detect, and
Respond to Prison Rape, 42 U.S.C.
15607(e), is subject to the loss of 5%
of any DOJ grant funds that it would
otherwise receive for prison purposes,
unless the governor submits to the
Attorney General an assurance that

J U S T I C E A S S I S TA N C E G R A N T ( J AG ) P R O G R A M , 2014 | AU G U S T 2014	

7

such 5% will be used only to enable
the state to adopt and achieve full
compliance with the National PREA
Standards in future years.
For those without a certification of full
compliance, the PREA reduction was
calculated by subtracting 5% from the
state government’s allocation (60% of
the total award), after deducting the
VPT that states are required to send
to local governments. The reduction
applies to the portion of JAG funding
returned to the state to be shared
with local governments that were not
eligible for a direct JAG award (less
than $10,000 jurisdictions).
The reduction does not apply to the
VPT, which is the portion of JAG
funds awarded directly to local law
enforcement, as the state cannot retain
any portion of that award. An example
of how the PREA reduction was assessed
can be found in the BJA’s JAG Program
Frequently Asked Questions regarding
the PREA certification requirement
and 5% reduction FAQ located on the
BJA website at https://www.bja.gov/
Programs/JAG-PREA-FAQ.pdf.
For FY 2014, a total of 54 states and
U.S. territories were not compliant with
PREA requirements (New Jersey and
New Hampshire were fully certified).
As a result, these jurisdictions suffered
a combined $4,653,215 reduction to
their FY 2014 Byrne JAG award. These
jurisdictions were allowed to apply to
reallocate the 5% reduction to achieve
compliance with PREA standards
and become certified. A total of seven
states and U.S. territories were PREA
noncompliant and did not apply to
reallocate the reduction. Per the PREA
legislation, the $753,573 withheld from
these jurisdictions were reallocated
to jurisdictions that either were
certified or were working to achieve
certification. These funds were allocated
to compliant states and territories as
described below.
Bonus funds
PREA bonus funds are allocated
using the same general approach
as the overall JAG award allocation
calculations. First, an initial allocation
is calculated for each eligible state and

territory, based on its share of violent
crime and population (weighted
equally). Next, the initial allocation is
reviewed to determine if it is less than
the minimum award amount (0.25% of
the total funds available). If this is the
case, the state or territory is allocated
0.25% of the total funds available,
and the funds required for this are
deducted from the overall pool of
funds. These states and territories are
then removed from the calculations.
Each of the remaining states receives
the minimum award plus an additional
amount based on its share of violent
crime and population for the
remaining states and territories.
For the FY 2014 JAG awards, a
total of $753,573 was available from
PREA reductions from the seven
noncompliant states and territories.
These funds were distributed to the
44 states, 4 territories, and the District
of Columbia that were PREA certified
or were working to become certified.
Of the 44 states eligible for bonus funds,
California ($106,610) and New York
($54,143) received the largest awards
(table 4). Of the eligible U.S. territories,
Puerto Rico ($10,112) received the
largest bonus award. (For additional
information regarding the PREA
reduction and bonus funds, including
implementation requirements and a
list of states and U.S. territories that
were impacted in FY 2014, contact
the PREA Management Office at
PREACompliance@usdoj.gov.)

Maximum allocation to local
units of government
[Legislative mandate: 42 USC § 3755
(e)(1)]
According to the legislation, units of
local government may not receive a JAG
award that “exceeds such unit’s total
expenditures on criminal justice services
for the most recently completed fiscal
year for which data are available.” Award
amounts in excess of total expenditures
“shall be allocated proportionately
among units of local government whose
allocations do not exceed their total
expenditures on such services.”

TABLE 4
Prison Rape Elimination Act bonus
fund allocations, FY 2014
Total
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa*
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia*
Georgia
Guam*
Hawaii
Illinois
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico*
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Vermont
Virgin Islands*
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Bonus award amount
$753,573
15,055
4,367
1,262
10,615
106,610
14,276
10,008
4,890
5,389
27,847
1,884
4,900
37,506
8,670
9,197
11,127
16,297
4,172
19,707
20,410
30,452
13,197
8,496
19,058
4,145
5,982
11,243
4,469
22,606
8,677
54,143
26,419
1,884
29,069
12,985
10,307
34,196
10,112
4,161
17,489
3,782
23,970
1,884
1,884
18,209
18,005
6,234
14,444
1,884

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding.
*U.S. territory or the District of Columbia.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, based on data
from Justice Assistance Grant awards, 2014.

J U S T I C E A S S I S TA N C E G R A N T ( J AG ) P R O G R A M , 2014 | AU G U S T 2014	

8

Methodology
The population data used to calculate
state and U.S. territory Justice
Assistance Grant (JAG) allocations
are from the 2013 census estimates
provided to the Bureau of Justice
Statistics (BJS) by the U.S. Census
Bureau. The state-level violent crime
data are estimates published by the
FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting
(UCR) Program in the annual
publication, Crime in the United States.
For the 2014 JAG program, state-level
crime data for the years 2010 through
2012 were used.
The crime data used to calculate
local JAG allocation amounts are also
provided by the UCR program. Data
for local jurisdictions are obtained
in an electronic format directly from
the FBI and processed by BJS to link
each crime-reporting entity to a local
government. For the 2014 JAG, local
crime data from 2003 through 2012
were used.
The sum of the UCR violent crimes
for all local governments within a
state for a given year will not equal
the estimated crime total reported

for that state published by the FBI.
These state-level estimates are based
on crimes reported by all state, local,
and special district law enforcement
agencies within a state, plus an
imputation adjustment to account for
nonreporting agencies and agencies
reporting less than 12 months of data.
These imputed values do not appear
on the electronic data file provided
to BJS and are not used in the local
award calculations.

awards. However, as of 2014, the
local-level UCR data provided by the
FBI did not include any crime data
for local jurisdictions in Puerto Rico.
Therefore, the local government JAG
program allocation in Puerto Rico
was $0.

Allocations to U.S. territories

The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice
Assistance Grant (JAG ) Program
was established to streamline justice
funding and grant administration.
Administered by the Bureau of
Justice Assistance (BJA), the JAG
program allows states, tribes, and
local governments to support a broad
range of activities to prevent and
control crime based on local needs
and conditions. JAG consolidates the
previous Byrne Formula and Local Law
Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG)
Programs. More information about the
JAG program and application process
can be found on the BJA website at
http://www.bja.gov.

Puerto Rico was the only U.S.
territory to receive an initial allocation
larger than the minimum amount,
and it was also the only territory
for which violent crime data were
available. The JAG calculations for
the other territories were based
solely on population data. Because
the other territories have relatively
small populations (none exceeding
161,000), it is unlikely the inclusion of
crime data would have changed their
minimum status.
The current JAG legislation specifies
that 40% of the total allocation for
Puerto Rico be set aside for local

Sources of additional information
For more information on the legal
foundation of the allocation formula,
see 42 USC § 3754 and 42 USC § 3755.

J U S T I C E A S S I S TA N C E G R A N T ( J AG ) P R O G R A M , 2014 | AU G U S T 2014	

9

The Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice
is the principal federal agency responsible for measuring crime,
criminal victimization, criminal offenders, victims of crime, correlates
of crime, and the operation of criminal and civil justice systems at
the federal, state, tribal, and local levels. BJS collects, analyzes, and
disseminates reliable and valid statistics on crime and justice systems
in the United States, supports improvements to state and local
criminal justice information systems, and participates with national
and international organizations to develop and recommend national
standards for justice statistics. William J. Sabol is acting director.
This technical report was prepared by Alexia D. Cooper and Kimberly
Martin. Christina Davis verified the report.
Vanessa Curto and Jill Thomas edited the report. Tina Dorsey
produced the report.
August 2014, NCJ 247137

Office of Justice Programs
Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods
www.ojp.usdoj.gov