U.S. Department of Justice

Offi ce of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

BJS

TECHNICAL REPORT April 2011, NCJ 233811

Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program 2010

Alexia D. Cooper and Brian A. Reaves, 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. Th e Bureau of Justice 

Assistance (BJA) administers the JAG 

program, and the Bureau of Justice 

Statistics (BJS) calculates the JAG 

formula-based award amounts using 

specifi cations outlined in the legislation. 

Th e JAG program has seven purpose 

areas under which funds may be 

awarded:

 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 $456,954,707 was available 

for the 2010 JAG awards. Th is report 

describes the steps in the JAG award 

calculation process and presents 

summary results of the 2010 JAG 

formula calculations.

 The total 2010 allocation for the JAG funding was approximately 

$457.0 million, of which $445.9 million went to states and $11.1 million to territories and the District of Columbia. 

 The fi ve states eligible to receive the largest total state allocation 

included California ($51.1 million), Texas ($34.0 million), Florida ($30.9 

million), New York ($24.8 million), and Illinois ($18.9 million). 

 2,214 local governments were eligible for awards, either directly 

or through a joint allocation with other governments within their 

county. The fi ve local governments eligible to receive the largest 

awards included New York City ($6.4 million), Chicago ($4.9 million), 

Los Angeles ($3.1 million), Philadelphia ($3.0 million), and Houston 

($2.7 million).

 Three states had more than 100 local governments eligible to receive 

awards either directly or through a joint allocation, including 

California (272), Florida (152), and Texas (145).

HIGHLIGHTS

$0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500

$457.0 million 

total allocations

Millions

$267.5 million

to state governments

$178.4 million

to local governments

$11.1 million

to territories and the 

District of Columbia

FIGURe 1

Distribution of FY 2010 JAG funds

Revised 5/10/2011
2 Bureau of Justice Statistics Technical Report

Overview of process

Once the fiscal year JAG allocation has 

been determined, BJS begins its fourstep award calculation process which 

consists of—

 Computing an initial allocation for 

each state and territory, based on its 

share of 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 their proportion 

of the state’s three-year violent crime 

average. If a local award amount 

is less than $10,000, the funds are 

returned to the state. If it 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 

determination to appropriate $457.0 

million for the 2010 JAG program, BJS 

calculates the initial allocation amounts 

for the 50 states and territories. Using the 

congressionally established formula, BJS 

allocates half of the available funds based 

on a state’s or territory’s share of violent 

crime and half of the funds based on its 

share of the population. The most recent 

three-year period of official violent 

crime data for states and territories from 

the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 

covered the period between 2006 and 

2008. The population shares for states 

and territories were determined based 

on 2009 population estimates published 

by the U.S. Census Bureau.

Examples:

 California accounts for 13.34% of 

the nation’s total violent crime and 

11.87% of its total population. 

California’s initial allocation is 

13.34% of $228,477,354 (half of 

$456,954,707) plus 11.87% of 

$228,477,354, totaling $57,596,839.

 Vermont accounts for 0.06% of total 

violent crime and 0.20% of total population. Vermont’s initial allocation 

is 0.06% of $228,477,354 plus 0.20% 

of $228,477,354, totaling $592,255. 

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 ($1,142,387 in 2010), regardless 

of its population or crime average. If a 

state’s or territory’s initial allocation based 

on crime and population is less than the 

minimum amount, that state or territory 

receives the minimum amount as its total 

JAG allocation. If a state’s 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. A total of 

$62,831,272 was allocated for minimum 

awards in the 2010 JAG program. 

Congress 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% ($765,399) and the 

Northern Mariana Islands receiving 33% 

($376,988). (See Methodology for more 

information on allocation procedures for 

the territories.) 

Examples:

 Vermont’s initial allocation of 

$592,255 is less than the minimum 

value, so Vermont’s total JAG allocation will be the minimum amount of 

$1,142,387. 

 California’s initial allocation of 

$57,596,839 exceeds the minimum 

value, so California will receive the 

minimum plus an award based on 

its share of total 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 received only the minimum 

award, so its crime and population 

data are removed from the pool. 

 After removing the crime and 

population data for the minimum 

amounts for states and territories, 

California accounts for 13.39% of 

the violent crime and 11.99% of the 

population. Its new JAG allocation 

is equal to $26,384,282 (13.39% 

of one half of $394 million) plus 

$23,621,737 (11.99% of one half of 

$394 million), plus the minimum 

amount of $1,142,387. These three 

components equal $51,148,405.

Step 3: 60/40 split to state and local 

governments 

[Legislative mandate: 42 USC 3755 

(b)]

Except for the 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 $51,148,405, or $30,689,043. 

The remaining 40%, or $20,459,362, 

is set aside for distribution to local 

governments in California.
Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program 2010 3

 Vermont’s state government retains 

60% of the minimum award of 

$1,142,387, or $685,432. The remaining 40%, or $456,955, 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, it 

is first necessary to determine which 

jurisdictions should be included in the 

calculation of the three-year violent 

crime averages on which local awards 

are based. These crime averages are 

computed using data published by 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 violent crimes known 

to law enforcement each year for a 

minimum of three years in the last ten. 

Jurisdictions that have not reported 

data for at least three of the last ten 

years are excluded from the calculations 

and cannot receive an award. 

For the 2010 JAG, the ten-year limit 

on the age of UCR data was waived 

because some agencies had difficulty 

meeting the new requirements. Instead, 

all years of UCR data provided to BJS 

by the FBI could be used to meet the 

three-year reporting requirement, 

as had been done previously under 

the “Transitional Rule.” (See 505(d)

(2)(B).) This waiver was given to the 

agencies that agreed to begin the timely 

reporting of data on Part I violent 

crimes of the UCR to the FBI starting 

no later than the end of federal Fiscal 

Year 2010 (September 30, 2010). The 

UCR data used for the 2010 JAG 

included the 18-year period from 1991 

through 2008. 

After determining which law 

enforcement agencies have the three 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 three 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 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 local 

governments may receive. 

Examples:

 California has $20.5 million set 

aside for local awards. The threeyear violent crime averages reported 

by local jurisdictions in California 

equal 187,835. Dividing the $20.5 

million set aside by the state crime 

totals results in the number of dollars 

available for each crime: $20.5 million/187,835 crimes = $108.92 per 

crime. Therefore, a local California 

jurisdiction needs a three-year average of at least 91.81 violent crimes 

($10,000/$108.92) to be eligible for 

an award.

 Vermont has $456,955 set aside for 

local governments. The sum of threeyear average violent crimes reported 

is 615.67. The dollars per crime ratio 

in Vermont equals $456,955/615.67 

crimes, or $742.21 per crime. The 

threshold is 13.47 violent crimes 

($10,000/$742.21) to be eligible for 

an award.

Finally, BJS calculates the initial amount 

of each local award. Each local award 

amount is equal to the product of a 

local jurisdiction’s three-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 and/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)] on 

page 5.)

Examples: 

 The city of Oakland, California, has 

a three-year average of 7,703 violent 

crimes, or 4.1% of all violent crimes 

reported by jurisdictions in California. Oakland exceeds the state 

threshold of 91.81 violent crimes. It 

is eligible for 4.1% of the $20.5 million set-aside for local governments 

in California, or about $839,000 

(7,703 X $108.92).

 The city of Swanton, Vermont, has 

a three-year average of 2.67 violent 

crimes. This does not meet the state 

threshold of 13.47, so it is ineligible 

for a JAG award. Its crime, less than 

1% of all violent crime in Vermont, 

accounts for about $1,979 of award 

funds. These funds are transferred to 

the state for redistribution.

Results of the calculations for 

the 2010 Justice Assistance Grant 

Program 

For the 2010 JAG, approximately 

$445.9 million of the $457.0 million 

available was allocated to the 50 states 

(table 1) with the remainder allocated 

to the District of Columbia and the 

U.S. territories. As required by the 

legislation, 40% of this amount ($178.4 

million) was initially reserved for local 

governments. A total of 2,214 local 

governments had law enforcement 

agencies that provided a sufficient 

number of reported crimes to the 

FBI to receive a JAG award and were 

eligible for a collective total of $155.3 

million. The balance of unawarded 

local allocations ($23.1 million) was 

returned to the state governments for 

redistribution to state law enforcement 

agencies and local governments.
4 Bureau of Justice Statistics Technical Report

Table 1 

State and local allocation amounts, FY 2010

Initial Allocations

Dollars per 

crime Threshold

Eligible local awards Reallocated 

to state

Total state 

government award

Total 

State allocation

State 

government

Local 

governments Number Amount

 Total $267,525,151 $178,350,101 2,214 $155,257,118 $23,092,983 $290,618,134 $445,875,252

Alabama $4,194,263 $2,796,176 $140.99 70.93 47 $2,116,721 $679,455 $4,873,718 $6,990,439

Alaska 1,330,793 887,195 249.75 40.04 9 820,011 67,184 1,397,977 2,217,988

Arizona 5,919,921 3,946,614 123.83 80.75 42 3,735,686 210,928 6,130,849 9,866,535

Arkansas 3,048,224 2,032,149 138.11 72.40 33 1,537,798 494,351 3,542,575 5,080,373

California 30,689,043 20,459,362 108.92 91.81 272 19,511,016 948,346 31,637,389 51,148,405

Colorado 4,080,881 2,720,587 156.69 63.82 30 2,329,530 391,057 4,471,938 6,801,468

Connecticut 2,915,374 1,943,583 192.14 52.05 22 1,702,709 240,874 3,156,248 4,858,957

Delaware 1,533,173 1,022,115 250.46 39.93 9 948,648 73,467 1,606,640 2,555,288

Florida 18,551,117 12,367,412 96.32 103.82 152 11,649,797 717,615 19,268,732 30,918,529

Georgia 8,318,261 5,545,507 126.75 78.90 89 4,690,114 855,393 9,173,655 13,863,769

Hawaii 1,477,869 985,246 279.19 35.82 4 985,246 0 1,477,869 2,463,115

Idaho 1,585,873 1,057,249 286.75 34.87 21 828,517 228,732 1,814,605 2,643,122

Illinois 11,345,675 7,563,784 144.96 68.98 54 7,032,357 531,427 11,877,102 18,909,459

Indiana 4,904,285 3,269,523 166.89 59.92 35 2,822,543 446,980 5,351,265 8,173,808

Iowa 2,568,836 1,712,557 200.13 49.97 25 1,306,698 405,859 2,974,695 4,281,393

Kansas 2,777,250 1,851,500 158.53 63.08 26 1,436,371 415,129 3,192,378 4,628,749

Kentucky 3,363,024 2,242,016 208.88 47.87 21 1,786,650 455,366 3,818,391 5,605,041

Louisiana 4,960,414 3,306,943 112.20 89.13 58 2,892,039 414,904 5,375,318 8,267,357

Maine 1,320,471 880,314 602.95 16.58 18 549,893 330,421 1,650,891 2,200,784

Maryland 5,910,482 3,940,322 113.05 88.45 32 3,798,439 141,883 6,052,365 9,850,804

Massachusetts 5,769,490 3,846,326 128.99 77.52 56 3,288,422 557,904 6,327,394 9,615,816

Michigan 9,005,298 6,003,532 115.26 86.76 77 5,201,756 801,776 9,807,074 15,008,830

Minnesota 3,950,805 2,633,870 192.20 52.03 22 1,978,157 655,713 4,606,518 6,584,675

Mississippi 2,550,246 1,700,164 224.24 44.60 42 1,299,680 400,484 2,950,730 4,250,410

Missouri 5,603,227 3,735,484 118.89 84.11 45 2,931,440 804,044 6,407,271 9,338,711

Montana 1,336,338 890,892 274.12 36.48 22 663,553 227,339 1,563,677 2,227,230

Nebraska 1,824,345 1,216,230 229.88 43.50 11 1,062,898 153,332 1,977,677 3,040,575

Nevada 3,278,904 2,185,936 116.71 85.68 8 2,100,933 85,003 3,363,907 5,464,840

New Hampshire 1,368,431 912,287 491.45 20.35 18 595,467 316,820 1,685,252 2,280,719

New Jersey 6,448,664 4,299,109 150.78 66.32 69 3,488,541 810,568 7,259,232 10,747,773

New Mexico 2,549,959 1,699,973 133.21 75.07 28 1,477,825 222,148 2,772,107 4,249,932

New York 14,883,015 9,922,010 127.87 78.20 43 9,176,313 745,697 15,628,711 24,805,024

North Carolina 7,832,241 5,221,494 127.67 78.33 95 4,393,965 827,529 8,659,769 13,053,734

North Dakota 685,432 456,955 411.18 24.32 10 357,722 99,233 784,665 1,142,387

Ohio 8,483,811 5,655,874 147.10 67.98 55 4,775,900 879,974 9,363,785 14,139,685

Oklahoma 3,632,995 2,421,997 131.67 75.95 26 1,870,160 551,837 4,184,832 6,054,992

Oregon 3,016,090 2,010,727 197.23 50.70 29 1,662,873 347,854 3,363,944 5,026,817

Pennsylvania 9,893,946 6,595,964 139.64 71.61 50 5,119,978 1,475,986 11,369,932 16,489,910

Rhode Island 1,298,416 865,611 350.45 28.53 14 780,101 85,510 1,383,926 2,164,027

South Carolina 5,226,998 3,484,665 104.42 95.77 76 3,132,698 351,967 5,578,965 8,711,663

South Dakota 685,432 456,955 251.40 39.78 8 331,507 125,448 810,880 1,142,387

Tennessee 6,913,214 4,608,810 100.99 99.02 67 3,954,538 654,272 7,567,486 11,522,024

Texas 20,377,342 13,584,894 111.52 89.67 145 12,072,916 1,511,978 21,889,320 33,962,236

Utah 2,256,999 1,504,666 250.78 39.88 19 1,220,032 284,634 2,541,633 3,761,665

Vermont 685,432 456,955 742.21 13.47 12 328,800 128,155 813,587 1,142,387

Virginia 5,445,920 3,630,613 176.39 56.69 50 3,141,711 488,902 5,934,822 9,076,533

Washington 5,058,624 3,372,416 155.02 64.51 52 2,933,618 438,798 5,497,422 8,431,040

West Virginia 1,805,731 1,203,821 339.39 29.46 26 943,393 260,428 2,066,158 3,009,551

Wisconsin 4,177,147 2,784,765 175.23 57.07 25 2,168,642 616,123 4,793,269 6,961,911

Wyoming 685,432 456,955 349.98 28.57 15 322,796 134,159 819,591 1,142,387
Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program 2010 5

In addition, the District of Columbia 

was eligible for $2,709,606 million and 

Puerto Rico was eligible for $4,942,689 

million (table 2). Guam and the U.S. 

Virgin Islands were each eligible for 

the minimum award of $1,142,387. 

American Samoa ($765,399) and the 

Northern Mariana Islands ($376,988) 

split one minimum award.

Additional JAG provision

Pass-through requirement

[Legislative Mandate: 42 USC 3755 (c)]

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.” 

After determining the amount spent 

on criminal justice expenditures by 

the state government, the state may 

retain that amount. The remainder of 

the funds are passed down to the local 

governments within the state. These 

criminal justice expenditure amounts 

are referred to as “variable passthrough” data for the purpose of JAG 

awards. 

During 2009, the U.S. Census Bureau 

finished compiling current criminal 

justice expenditure data in order to 

determine updated variable passthrough amounts. These pass-through 

amounts, based on data from 2006, were 

utilized for the 2010 JAG program and 

can be found on the BJA website: http://

www.bja.gov. 

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. 

There are three different types of 

disparities that may exist. 

The first type is referred to as a zerocounty disparity. This situation exists 

when a municipality within a county 

is 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 

although it may not report crime 

data to the FBI, it shares in the cost of 

criminal justice operations. 

Example:

 Decatur, Illinois, is eligible for an 

award of $85,140. 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.

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: 

 Pierce County, Washington, is eligible for an direct award of $178,681. 

The city of Tacoma in Pierce County 

is eligible for a direct award of 

$317,782. Tacoma’s award amount is 

more than 150% of Pierce County’s 

award amount. Consequently, the 

two governments’ awards ($496,463) 

are pooled together and shared as 

mutually agreed upon.

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:

 San Mateo County, California, 

is eligible for an direct award of 

$24,798. The cities of Daly ($31,406), 

East Palo Alto ($33,475), Redwood 

($32,168), San Bruno ($12,962), 

San Mateo ($35,981), and South 

San Francisco ($20,296) (all located 

within San Mateo County) are also 

eligible for direct awards. The six 

cities’ awards sum to $166,288. This 

summed amount is more than 400% 

of San Mateo County’s direct award 

amount of $24,798. Consequently, all 

of the funds ($191,086) are pooled 

together and must be shared among 

the seven units of local government 

as mutually agreed upon.

These three types of disparity are 

examined in order, and 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.

Examples: 

 Rockingham County, New Hampshire, is eligible for an award of 

$15,890. The cities of Derry Town 

($33,910), Londonderry ($11,303), 

Portsmouth ($19,166), Salem 

($23,589), and Seabrook ($10,157) 

Table 2. 

Allocations to territories and 

District of Columbia, FY 2010

Territories and D.C. Award amount

Total $11,079,455 

American Samoa $765,399 

Northern Mariana Islands $376,988 

Guam $1,142,387 

Puerto Rico $4,942,689 

Virgin Islands $1,142,387 

District of Columbia $2,709,606
6 Bureau of Justice Statistics Technical Report

(all located in Rockingham County) 

are also eligible for awards. The 

award for Derry Town is more than 

150% of Rockingham County’s 

award, and therefore Derry’s award 

will be pooled with the county. The 

other four cities’ awards sum to 

$64,215. This summed amount is 

more than 400% of Rockingham 

County’s direct award of $15,890. 

Consequently, all of the funds 

($114,015) are pooled together and 

must be shared.

 Deschutes County, Oregon, is 

eligible for an award of $16,633. 

The cities of Bend ($29,782) and 

Redmond ($15,187), both located 

in Deschutes County, are also 

eligible for awards. These two award 

amounts sum to $44,969, which is 

less than 400% of the county’s award 

amount. Although no 400% disparity 

exists, the award amount for the 

city of Bend is more than 150% of 

the award amount for Deschutes 

County. These two jurisdictions are 

disparate and will share $46,415, the 

pooled amount of these two awards. 

The award for Redmond remains 

separate.

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.

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.” 
Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program 2010

7

Methodology

The population data used to calculate 

state and territory JAG allocations are 

estimates for 2009 provided by the U.S. 

Census Bureau. The state-level violent 

crime data used are estimates published 

by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting 

(UCR) Program in the annual 

publication Crime in the United States. 

For the 2010 JAG program, state-level 

crime data for the years 2006 through 

2008 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 2010 JAG, local 

crime data from 1991 through 2008 

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 non-reporting agencies and 

agencies reporting less than 12 months 

of data for the year. These imputed 

values do not appear on the electronic 

data file provided to BJS and are not 

used in the local award calculations.

Territory allocations

Puerto Rico was the only territory 

receiving an initial allocation larger 

than the minimum amount, and 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 180,000), 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 

awards; however, as of 2010, the locallevel 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.

Sources of additional information

For more information on the legal 

foundation of the allocation formula, 

please see 42 USC sec. 3754 and 42 

USC sec. 3755.

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: http://

www.bja.gov. 
PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/BJS

Permit No. G-91

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business 

Penalty for Private Use $300

ncj233811

Office of Justice Programs • Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods • http://www.ojp.gov

The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistical agency of the U.S. Department of 

Justice. James P. Lynch is the director.

This technical report was prepared by Alexia Cooper and Brian Reaves. Josephine 

Palma and Sheri Simmons verified the report. Vanessa Curto and Jill Thomas 

edited the report, Barbara Quinn produced the report, and Jayne Robinson 

prepared the report for final printing, under the supervision of Doris J. James.

April 2011, NCJ 233811

This report in PDF and in ASCII and its related statistical data and tables are 

available at the BJS website: http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2412