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

November 1999, NCJ 178235

Justice Expenditure and Employment
in the United States, 1995

By Lea S. Gifford
BJS Statistician
with assistance from
Sue A. Lindgren
BJS Statistician

Most of the tables in this report are not included in this text version.
They are available in the pdf version or in spreadsheet format at 
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/jeeus95.htm.

This report is one in a series.  More recent editions may be available. 
To view a list of all in the series go to 
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pubalp2.htm#jee

Between 1985 and 1995 expenditures for operating the Nation's
justice system increased from almost $65 billion to over $112
billion, an increase of about 73% in constant 1995 dollars.

In 1995, criminal and civil justice expenditure comprised 4.4%
of all Federal, State, and local expenditures. 

Data presented in this report are derived from the Justice
Expenditure and Employment Extracts, a compilation from the
Census Bureau's Annual Government Finance Survey and Annual
Survey of Public Employment.  The extracts present public
expenditure and employment data pertaining to justice 
activities in the United States, including police, judicial 
and legal services, and correctional activities.

Compared to justice expenditures, the Nation spent 5.6 times as
much on social insurance payments, 3.4 times as much on
education, 2.7 times as much on national defense and
international relations, 2.4 times as much on interest on debt,
2.1 times as much on public welfare, and 1.3 times as much on
housing and the environment. 

--------------------------------------------------------------
Highlights

*Federal, State, and local governments in the United States
spent more than $112 billion in fiscal year 1995 for criminal
and civil justice, an increase of 9% over 1994.

* In 1995 the Nation spent $48.6 billion for police protection,
and $39.8 billion for corrections, including jails, prisons,
probation, and parole.  The combined activities of courts,
prosecution and legal services, and public defense accounted
for $24.5 billion.

* The Federal Government alone spent more than $22 billion on
criminal and civil justice in 1995, an increase of 253% since
1985.  This included about $5.9 billion for grants to State and
local governments.  About $9 billion was spent on police
protection and $4.2 billion on corrections.

* State governments spent more than $41 billion on criminal and
civil justice in 1995, 153% more than in 1985.  The majority was
spent on corrections, at more than $26 billion.

* Local governments spent nearly $59 billion on justice
activities in 1995.  The largest component was on police
protection, at more than $35 billion.

* In October 1995 the Nation's justice system employed almost 2
million persons, with a total October payroll of $5.8 billion. 
More than 900,000 employees worked in police protection, 401,000
were in judicial and legal services, and 656,000 worked in
corrections.
   -----------------End of highlights-------------------

The justice share of all spending

Four cents (or 4.4%) of every government dollar spent throughout
the Nation in 1995 was for justice activities: 1.8% for police
protection, 1.7% for corrections, and 0.9% for judicial and
legal services (table 1).

One of the lowest percentages of Federal Government expenditure
was for criminal and civil justice (1.1%).  In 1995,  37.9% of
Federal spending went to social insurance, 22.2% to national
defense and international relations, and 15.8% to interest on
debt (figure 1).

Compared to the Federal Government, State and local governments
had higher percentages going for justice activities, 7.4% and
7.9% respectively.  Fifteen percent of combined State and local
dollars went to public welfare and 31% went to education. 

Of all State and local spending, 3.3% was for police, 2.9% was
for corrections, and 1.5% was for judicial and legal service
activities.

From 1994 to 1995 justice spending increased more than total
government spending for all activities (excluding interest on
debt).

Between 1985 and 1995 per capita expenditures across 
all levels of government in 1995 constant dollars for --

* all justice activities rose 57% to $429.56
* police protection rose 35% to $185.13
* corrections rose 99% to $151.29
* judicial and legal rose 56% to $93.14.

Among some other government functions during 
the decade --

* education increased 78%
* public welfare increased 139%
* hospitals and healthcare increased 88%
* National defense and international relations increased 3%.

Changes in per capita expenditure on corrections have been more
erratic than changes in spending on judicial/legal services and
police between 1985 and 1995, mainly due to the year-to-year
fluctuation in capital outlays, including the cost of prison
construction.

Between 1985 and 1995 the Federal government increased its
expenditure on police protection by 121%, judicial/legal
services by 152%, and corrections by 326%.  The State and local
governments combined increased their police protection
expenditure by 96%, their judicial/legal services by 127%, and
their corrections by 179%.

Spending by level of government

Local governments spent over half of the Nation's civil and
criminal direct justice expenditures in 1995: almost $59
billion, followed by State governments with $37.4 billion and
the Federal Government with $16.7 billion (table 2).

Reflecting a change in responsibility for criminal and civil
justice, the Federal Government had a larger average annual
increase in justice spending from 1982 to 1995 (9%) than the
State and local governments (6.3% and 4.5% respectively).  The
average annual increase for all levels of government between
1982 and 1995 was 5.3%.

Between 1982 and 1995, the Federal Government increased its
intergovernmental spending on justice activities by an annual
average of 24%, to $5,910 million in 1995.

Federal intergovernmental spending on activities such as
corrections and judicial and legal services rose from $564
million in 1989 to almost $3 billion in 1990 (in 1995 constant
dollars).  This unusually large increase was primarily due to
the creation of the Family Services Administration within the
Department of Health and Human Services which gives grants to
States for child support enforcement.  

Within each category of justice activity, the distribution of
expenditure by level of government reflects the different
responsibilities of each level (table 3):

* Police protection is primarily a local responsibility;
accordingly, local governments spent 72.7% of the total police
protection expenditure in the country in 1995.

* Corrections is primarily a State responsibility, and the State
governments accounted for 65.6% of the Nation's corrections
expenditure.

* Overall, local police spending represented 31.3% of the Nation's
total justice expenditure, and State corrections accounted for
the second largest portion, 23.1%.

The Federal Government spent the most on intergovernmental
grants-in-aid, shared revenues, and amounts paid to another
government for services performed.  More than half of the
Federal intergovernmental expenditure was for judicial and legal
services, much of which were the grants for child support
enforcement.  About half of the State intergovernmental
expenditure and more than two-thirds of local intergovernmental
expenditure were for corrections.

--------------------------------------------------------------
What is included in total 
expenditure?

The expenditure data discussed in this Bulletin include direct
expenditure and intergovernmental expenditure. Intergovernmental 
expenditure is the sum of payments from one government to another, 
including grants-in-aid, shared revenues, and amounts for services 
performed by one government for another on a reimbursable or 
cost-sharing basis.   

The three levels of government in the United States  (Federal,
State, and local) have varying responsibilities for justice
activities, and monies are often passed between governments to
reflect these responsibilities.  For example, Federal
intergovernmental expenditures include grants to States, and
State direct expenditures will include those grants.  

Therefore, to avoid double counting the sum of Federal, State,
and local intergovernmental expenditures, the direct expenditure
is used to calculate total expenditure for all governments.  
or 1995 the total expenditure for all governments was $112,868 
million (table 2).

---------------------------------------------------------------

State comparisons

Across the Nation, State and local governments spent $354 per
capita on justice activities.  This ranged from $156 per capita
in West Virginia to more than $500 per capita in New York ($542), 
Alaska ($773), and the District of Columbia ($1,224) (table 4).

Table 4.  State and local justice
system per capita expenditure,
by State, fiscal year 1995
 
                                  Justice
                                  expenditure
  Rank   State                    per capita
    1    District of Columbia      $1,223.71
    2    Alaska                     772.66
    3    New York                   541.86
    4    Maryland                   493.47
    5    California                 487.12
    6    New Jersey                 462.01
    7    Nevada                     458.44
    8    Florida                    436.72
    9    Delaware                   409.25
   10    Connecticut                385.83
   11    Arizona                    383.24
   12    Hawaii                     381.94
   13    Michigan                   362.73
   14    Rhode Island               359.72
 
         All State and local        353.95
 
   15    Massachusetts              348.86
   16    Texas                      340.30
   17    Illinois                   331.28
   18    Wisconsin                  330.19
   19    Washington                 328.69
   20    New Mexico                 328.44
   21    Ohio                       326.39
   22    Colorado                   319.00
   23    Oregon                     310.28
   24    North Carolina             305.63
   25    Wyoming                    292.66
   26    Virginia                   292.13
   27    Georgia                    291.09
   28    Pennsylvania               290.81
   29    Louisiana                  285.14
   30    Utah                       276.99
   31    Minnesota                  270.28
   32    Kansas                     266.60
   33    Idaho                      265.33
   34    South Carolina             251.88
   35    Tennessee                  247.28
   36    New Hampshire              244.46
   37    Oklahoma                   236.84
   38    Iowa                       235.40
   39    Missouri                   234.37
   40    Vermont                    231.49
   41    Alabama                    224.17
   42    Montana                    216.29
   43    Nebraska                   209.99
   44    South Dakota               204.28
   45    Kentucky                   199.59
   46    Indiana                    196.99
   47    Arkansas                   191.65
   48    Maine                      186.62
   49    Mississippi                180.58
   50    North Dakota               162.21
   51    West Virginia              156.26
 
Note:  These data are based on a summation
of responses from individual State and local
government agencies.  Some data for
individual governments may be for a prior
reporting period.
 

In 1995 full-time equivalent employment in State and local
justice functions was 65.7 persons per 10,000 population nationally. 
California had the highest number of justice employees (almost
57,000 full-time equivalent employees).  Excluding the District
of Columbia, New York had the most justice employees per 10,000
residents (89.3) (table 5).

Table 5.  Ratio of justice full-time
equivalent (FTE) employment to
resident population and average
monthly earnings, by State, October
1995
 
                           State and local
                           justice systems
                        Number       Average
                        of FTE       employee
                        employees    earnings
                        per 10,000   October
State                   residents    1995
 
     All States            65.7      $2,951
 
Alabama                    51.5       2,404
Alaska                     71.2       4,268
Arizona                    73.4       2,727
Arkansas                   52.2       1,951
California                 63.3       3,909
Colorado                   60.1       3,035
Connecticut                63.2       3,361
Delaware                   73.9       2,938
District of Columbia      189.7       3,568
Florida                    81.8       2,827
 
Georgia                    75.7       2,219
Hawaii                     68.4       3,068
Idaho                      65.0       2,440
Illinois                   68.2       3,258
Indiana                    52.4       2,183
Iowa                       45.3       2,732
Kansas                     63.4       2,374
Kentucky                   51.9       2,155
Louisiana                  69.7       2,012
Maine                      42.9       2,501
 
Maryland                   86.6       2,891
Massachusetts              59.5       3,166
Michigan                   57.6       3,193
Minnesota                  48.2       3,233
Mississippi                54.9       1,959
Missouri                   57.2       2,176
Montana                    47.7       2,262
Nebraska                   51.6       2,474
Nevada                     75.7       3,468
New Hampshire              48.4       2,902
 
New Jersey                 86.5       3,516
New Mexico                 73.4       2,411
New York                   89.3       3,797
North Carolina             58.1       2,275
North Dakota               43.5       2,315
Ohio                       61.0       2,743
Oklahoma                   66.2       1,964
Oregon                     54.2       3,093
Pennsylvania               58.3       2,794
Rhode Island               58.7       3,727
 
South Carolina             65.5       2,067
South Dakota               46.0       2,228
Tennessee                  57.0       2,291
Texas                      75.5       2,319
Utah                       50.6       2,564
Vermont                    46.3       2,693
Virginia                   62.3       2,688
Washington                 55.1       3,112
West Virginia              33.8       2,030
Wisconsin                  55.2       2,849
Wyoming                    66.6       2,315
 
Note:  These data are based on a summation
of responses from individual State and local
government agencies.  Some data for
individual governments may be for a prior
reporting period.  Average earnings are
computed by dividing the October payrolls by
the number of full-time equivalent employees.
 

The monthly average earnings of State and local full-time
equivalent justice employees was $2,951 for October, 1995. 
Alaska had the highest average earnings at $4,268.  The lowest
average State and local justice system earnings were in Arkansas
($1,951) and Oklahoma ($1,964).

There were regional variations in State justice expenditure.  
In 1995 per capita spending for justice was --

* $428 in the South
* $425 in the Northeast
* $334 in the West
* $309 in the Midwest

In general crime rates and expenditure are related.  States with
high crime rates tend to have higher than average expenditures
and employment devoted to criminal and civil justice.  These
States include Alaska, California, and Maryland.  Other States,
such as North Dakota, West Virginia, and New Hampshire have both
low crime rates and low justice expenditure (figure 2).

Justice employment

In October 1995 the Nation's civil and criminal justice system
employed almost 2 million persons, with a total October payroll
of $5.8 billion (table 6).

Local governments accounted for more civil and criminal justice
employment than the Federal and State governments combined.  Of
all the Nation's justice employees, 60% were engaged in local
justice activities.

Combined, the State and local governments employed 91.6% of all
justice system workers.  The Federal Government employed 8.4% of
all justice system employees.

The distribution of corrections employees reflects State
government dominance in that sector --  63% of corrections
employees worked for State governments, followed by 32.7% at the
local level and 4.3% at the Federal level.

Because law enforcement is essentially the responsibility of
local governments, 80.9% of the Nation's police employees were
working at the local level.  State governments employed 9.9% of
police protection workers; the Federal Government, 9.3%.

The October 1995 average earnings for Federal-level justice
employees (such as Federal law enforcement officers,
investigators, and judges) was $4,310.  The monthly average
earnings for State justice employees was $2799, and for local 
justice employees it was $2,803 (figure 3).

State and local employees' average earnings were similar for
police protection activities ($3,141 and $2,925 respectively)
and corrections ($2,569 and $2,612).  State judicial earnings
(averaging $3,290 per employee ) were higher than those of local
judicial earnings (averaging $2,585 per employee).

Definition of terms

Expenditure includes only external cash payments made from any
source of monies, including any payments financed from
borrowing, fund balances, intergovernmental revenue, and other
current revenue.  It excludes any intragovernmental transfers
and noncash transactions, such as the provision of meals or
housing of employees.  It also excludes retirement of debt,
investment in securities, extensions of loans, or agency
transactions.  Total expenditures for all government functions
do include interest payments on debt, but the justice
expenditure data do not.

Expenditure is divided into two major 
categories

*Direct expenditure is all expenditure except that classified
as intergovernmental.  It includes "direct current expenditure"
(salaries, wages, fees, and commissions and purchases of
supplies, materials, and contractual services) and "capital
outlays" (construction and purchase of equipment, land, and
existing structures).  Capital outlays are included for the year
when the direct expenditure is made, regardless of how the funds
are raised (for example, by bond issue) or when they are paid
back.

*Intergovernmental expenditure is the sum of payments from one
government to another, including grants-in-aid, shared revenues,
payments in lieu of taxes, and amounts for services performed by
one government for another on a reimbursable or cost-sharing
basis (for example, payments by one government to another for
boarding prisoners).  It excludes amounts paid to other
governments for purchase of commodities, property, or utility
services.

Employees are all persons on government payrolls during the pay
period including October 12, 1995.  They include all paid
officials and persons on paid leave, but exclude unpaid
officials, persons on unpaid leave, pensioners, and contractors.

Full-time employees are all persons employed on a full-time
basis, including all full-time temporary or seasonal workers who
were employed during this pay period.

Full-time equivalent employment (FTE) is a statistical measure
that estimates the number of full-time employees that could have
been employed if the reported number of hours worked by
part-time employees had been worked by full-time employees. 
This statistic is calculated separately for each function of a
government by dividing the "part-time hours paid" by the
standard number of hours for full-time employees in the
particular government and then adding the resulting quotient to
the number of full-time employees.  

Payroll is the gross 1-month payroll before deductions and
includes salaries, wages, fees, and commissions paid to
employees as defined above for October 1995.

Police protection is the function of enforcing the law,
preserving order, and apprehending those who violate the law,
whether these activities are performed by a city police
department, sheriff's department, State police, or Federal law
enforcement agency such as the FBI and the Drug Enforcement
Administration.  Private security police are outside the scope
of the survey.

Judicial and legal services includes all civil and criminal
courts and activities associated with courts such as law
libraries, grand juries, petit juries, medical and social
service activities, court reporters, judicial councils,
bailiffs, and probate functions.  It also includes the civil and
criminal justice activities of the attorneys general, district
attorneys, State's attorneys, and their variously named
equivalents and corporation counsels, solicitors, and legal
departments with various names.  It excludes legal units of
noncriminal justice agencies, whose functions may be performed
by a legal service department in other jurisdictions (such as a
county counsel).

Corrections involves the confinement and rehabilitation of
adults and juveniles convicted of offenses against the law and
the confinement of persons suspected of a crime awaiting trial
or adjudication.  It includes the costs of operation and
employment for jails, prisons, probation, parole, pardon, and
correctional administration.  Data for institutions with
authority to hold prisoners beyond arraignment (usually 48 hours
or more) are included in this sector.  Data for lockups or
"tanks" holding prisoners less than 48 hours are included in
"police protection."

Methodology

The justice data in this report include the expenditures and
employment of the Federal Government, the State governments, and
a sample of county, municipal, and township governments.  Unless
otherwise noted, data for total governmental functions and
non-justice governmental functions also include the expenditures
of special districts and school districts, which generally do
not have justice functions.

This report is based on a compilation of data from the Census
Bureau's annual surveys of governmental finances and employment.
The survey sample was selected from the 1987 Census of Local
Governments and consists of large units of government (including
all 50 States) sampled with certainty and smaller units selected
with a probability proportional to the unit's expenditure or
indebtedness.  The total number of local governments in the
sample is 13,035.

Certain limitations reflect the fact that the surveys from which
this Bulletin was extracted are not designed to obtain data on
specific justice functions.  The sampling variability, or
"standard error" for each of the justice activities is likely to
be larger than for the major categories that the surveys were
designed to estimate.  Similarly, the standard error is likely
to be greater for local governments than for State-local
aggregates which are sampled in part, with certainty.  Specific
standard errors can be found on the Census Bureau's website
(www.census.gov). 

Differences in functional responsibilities from State to State
and government to government can affect the comparability of
expenditure and employment data.  Readers should be generally
cautious in comparing governmental expenditures because of this
variation in the division of responsibilities.

The data in this report are preliminary and subject to change. 
They differ in some cases from those previously published in the
Census Bureau's finance and employment survey reports because of
definitional differences and the more intensive review
procedures and data refinements used for this compilation.  

The data here differ from other BJS series which collect
agency-based employment and expenditure data because of
collection methods, units of analysis, and data collection
purposes.  These include --

Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics,
Prosecutors in State Courts and various court statistics series,
The Census of Local Jails, The Census of State and Federal
Correctional Facilities, and the report State Prison
Expenditures, 1996.

Financial data for the Federal Government were extracted from
The Budget of the United States Government, FY 1997, Appendix. 
The historical finance data may differ slightly from the justice
expenditure data found in the Expenditure and Employment
Extracts because of definitional differences.

Federal Government civilian employment data were obtained from
the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.  Statistics for State
and local governments were obtained by a mail survey including
all State departments, agencies, and institutions, and a local
central reporting office supplemented by special mailings.

The deflation procedures to produce constant dollars are
described in Report to the Nation on Crime and Justice: 
Technical Appendix, Second Edition, pp. 82-86.  The current
analysis differs from the methodology described there in two
ways.  First, the current analysis adjusted Federal expenditures
in addition to State and local expenditures.  The second
deviation was that current methodology used October payroll data
for the collection year rather than the fiscal year of the
payroll period.  The procedures employed were identical, using
the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis
"government implicit price deflators" separately for total State
and local expenditures and Federal nondefense expenditures.

Trend comparisons between the data in this report and reports
covering data for 1971-79, 1985, 1988, and 1990 from the Justice
Expenditure and Employment survey series are complicated by
differences in methodology.  These differences are described in
the BJS reports for these years, and on the BJS website.  In
making trend comparisons, users should limit their analysis to
one of the two sources:

* long-term trends for 1971-79, 1985, 1988, and 1990 from the
Justice Expenditure and Employment survey series

* recent year-to-year trends from the 1980-95 Justice
Expenditure and Employment Extracts data.

A more detailed description of the survey methodology (including
sample design and sampling errors) can be found in the Justice
Expenditure and Employment Extracts at
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics 
is the statistical agency of the 
U.S. Department of Justice.  
Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D., is director.

BJS Bulletins present the first 
release of findings from permanent 
data collection programs.

Lea S. Gifford and Sue A. Lindgren, 
under the supervision of Steve K. 
Smith, wrote this report. Marika F.X.
Litras provided statistical review.
Tom Hester and Tina Dorsey produced and 
edited the report.  Jayne Robinson 
prepared the report for publication.

The data extraction, editing and tabulation for the 
1995 Justice Expenditure and Employment Extracts
were performed at the U.S. Bureau of the Census
by Carl Handy with assistance from Victoria
Campbell and Duane Cavanaugh under the supervision 
of Steve Owens and Stephanie Brown.

November 1999, NCJ 178235

This report and others from the Bureau of Justice
Statistics are available through the internet --
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/

The data from the Justice Expenditure and Employment
Extracts are available from the National Archive
of Criminal Justice Data, maintained by the Institute 
for Social Research at the University of Michigan
1-800-999-0960.  The archive may also be accessed
through BJS Internet site.  Refer to study number 2840.

End of report
IH 11/17/99