U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

BJS

TECHNICAL REPORT August 2014, NCJ 247137

Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program, 2014

Alexia D. Cooper, Ph.D., and Kimberly Martin, Ph.D., BJS Statisticians

 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).

HIGHLIGHTS

FIGURE 1

Distribution of FY 2014 JAG awards

Millions (dollars)

$191.4 million 

to state governments

$92.4 million 

to local 

governments

$7.2 million 

to U.S. territories and the 

District of Columbia

0 100 200 300 400 500

$290.9 million 

total allocation

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.

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.

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.
JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT (JAG) PROGRAM, 2014 | AUGUST 2014 2

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.

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. 

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.

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 

minimum award, so its crime and 

population data are removed from 

the pool.
JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT (JAG) PROGRAM, 2014 | AUGUST 2014 3

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). 

 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 10-

year 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 

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)]).
TABLE 1 

State and local allocation amounts, FY 2014

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 $170,256,556 $113,504,370 ~ ~ 1,593 $92,387,002 $21,117,369 $191,373,924 $283,760,926 

Alabama 2,814,775 1,876,516 $99.20 100.81 30 1,232,966 643,550 3,458,325 4,691,291 

Alaska 884,044 589,362 171.63 58.27 6 516,993 72,369 956,413 1,473,406 

Arizona 3,673,779 2,449,186 92.16 108.51 31 2,173,695 275,491 3,949,270 6,122,965 

Arkansas 2,012,022 1,341,348 95.50 104.71 29 975,396 365,952 2,377,974 3,353,370 

California 19,347,478 12,898,319 81.97 122.00 222 11,810,798 1,087,521 20,434,999 32,245,797 

Colorado 2,677,424 1,784,950 110.37 90.61 29 1,563,704 221,246 2,898,670 4,462,374 

Connecticut 1,906,070 1,270,714 131.09 76.29 17 1,088,767 181,947 2,088,017 3,176,784 

Delaware 978,492 652,328 186.10 53.74 8 584,589 67,739 1,046,230 1,630,819 

Florida 11,092,015 7,394,676 75.92 131.71 124 6,729,876 664,800 11,756,815 18,486,691 

Georgia 5,126,789 3,417,860 93.57 106.87 62 2,622,147 795,713 5,922,502 8,544,649 

Hawaii 982,290 654,860 188.07 53.17 4 654,860 0 982,290 1,637,149 

Idaho 1,023,249 682,166 206.11 48.52 15 470,350 211,816 1,235,066 1,705,416 

Illinois 6,868,140 4,578,760 85.90 116.41 49 3,749,812 828,948 7,697,089 11,446,901 

Indiana 3,329,133 2,219,422 109.05 91.70 26 1,831,676 387,746 3,716,878 5,548,554 

Iowa 1,664,495 1,109,663 142.48 70.18 18 731,748 377,915 2,042,410 2,774,158 

Kansas 1,757,933 1,171,955 114.66 87.21 19 838,405 333,550 2,091,483 2,929,888 

Kentucky 2,109,956 1,406,638 154.32 64.80 16 1,070,127 336,511 2,446,467 3,516,594 

Louisiana 3,036,232 2,024,155 86.22 115.98 34 1,549,733 474,422 3,510,654 5,060,387 

Maine 851,764 567,843 384.20 26.03 14 326,439 241,404 1,093,168 1,419,607 

Maryland 3,652,174 2,434,783 85.80 116.55 22 2,257,944 176,839 3,829,013 6,086,957 

Massachusetts 3,781,380 2,520,920 90.41 110.61 40 1,984,104 536,816 4,318,196 6,302,300 

Michigan 5,592,674 3,728,450 83.98 119.08 56 3,072,985 655,465 6,248,139 9,321,124 

Minnesota 2,484,903 1,656,602 130.95 76.37 17 1,066,426 590,176 3,075,078 4,141,504 

Mississippi 1,632,924 1,088,616 159.60 62.66 27 713,190 375,426 2,008,350 2,721,540 

Missouri 3,536,635 2,357,757 87.35 114.48 24 1,637,079 720,678 4,257,312 5,894,391 

Montana 845,514 563,676 204.03 49.01 15 354,948 208,728 1,054,241 1,409,189 

Nebraska 1,178,019 785,346 164.79 60.68 4 615,061 170,285 1,348,304 1,963,365 

Nevada 2,123,530 1,415,687 85.94 116.36 8 1,348,510 67,177 2,190,707 3,539,217 

New Hampshire 904,941 603,294 269.77 37.07 9 343,325 259,969 1,164,909 1,508,234 

New Jersey 4,184,115 2,789,410 106.67 93.75 47 2,114,397 675,013 4,859,128 6,973,525 

New Mexico 1,661,251 1,107,501 95.76 104.43 20 887,476 220,025 1,881,275 2,768,751 

New York 9,875,410 6,583,607 86.67 115.38 29 6,021,967 561,640 10,437,049 16,459,016 

North Carolina 4,870,744 3,247,163 97.33 102.75 62 2,444,009 803,154 5,673,898 8,117,907 

North Dakota 436,392 290,928 175.93 56.84 8 202,026 88,902 525,295 727,321 

Ohio 5,352,520 3,568,346 106.27 94.10 31 2,805,496 762,850 6,115,370 8,920,866 

Oklahoma 2,440,123 1,626,749 91.53 109.26 17 1,195,967 430,782 2,870,905 4,066,872 

Oregon 1,961,118 1,307,412 137.44 72.76 18 957,343 350,069 2,311,186 3,268,529 

Pennsylvania 6,275,367 4,183,578 100.69 99.31 35 3,056,961 1,126,617 7,401,984 10,458,945 

Rhode Island 848,466 565,644 216.17 46.26 10 492,289 73,355 921,820 1,414,109 

South Carolina 3,250,111 2,166,741 79.19 126.28 51 1,748,740 418,001 3,668,112 5,416,852 

South Dakota 436,392 290,928 134.73 74.22 4 183,009 107,919 544,312 727,321 

Tennessee 4,417,682 2,945,122 74.57 134.10 36 2,263,394 681,728 5,099,410 7,362,804 

Texas 13,346,370 8,897,580 82.76 120.83 100 7,478,688 1,418,892 14,765,262 22,243,950 

Utah 1,479,771 986,514 169.56 58.98 14 738,161 248,353 1,728,125 2,466,286 

Vermont 436,392 290,928 454.81 21.99 9 180,562 110,366 546,759 727,321 

Virginia 3,394,452 2,262,968 140.89 70.98 34 1,821,288 441,680 3,836,132 5,657,420 

Washington 3,352,169 2,234,779 109.62 91.22 41 1,795,598 439,181 3,791,351 5,586,949 

West Virginia 1,223,127 815,418 203.38 49.17 24 592,243 223,175 1,446,302 2,038,545 

Wisconsin 2,709,417 1,806,278 121.98 81.98 20 1,339,543 466,735 3,176,152 4,515,695 

Wyoming 436,392 290,928 249.22 40.12 8 152,192 138,736 575,129 727,321 

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. 
JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT (JAG) PROGRAM, 2014 | AUGUST 2014 5

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.

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.

Example—

 Decatur, Illinois, is eligible for an 

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.

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 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 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 

TABLE 2

Allocations to U.S. territories and 

the District of Columbia, FY 2014

Award amount

Total $7,167,326 

American Samoa 487,305 

Northern Mariana Islands 240,016 

Guam 727,321 

Puerto Rico 3,207,973 

Virgin Islands 727,321 

District of Columbia 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.
JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT (JAG) PROGRAM, 2014 | AUGUST 2014 6

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.

Examples—

 Maricopa County, Arizona, is 

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), 

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.

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.

Pass-through requirement 

[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 
JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT (JAG) PROGRAM, 2014 | AUGUST 2014 7

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 

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 

TABLE 3 

Sex Offender Registration and 

Notification Act bonus fund 

allocations, FY 2014

Bonus award amount

Total $1,107,438

Alabama 52,188 

Delaware 14,119 

Florida 229,588 

Guam* 2,769 

Kansas 30,980 

Louisiana 58,659 

Maryland 71,268 

Michigan 111,839 

Mississippi 28,520 

Missouri 68,069 

Nevada 37,904 

Northern Mariana Islands* 914 

Ohio 108,330 

Pennsylvania 126,577 

South Carolina 61,632 

South Dakota 9,660 

Tennessee 84,365 

Virgin Islands* 2,769 

Wyoming 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.
JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT (JAG) PROGRAM, 2014 | AUGUST 2014 8

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

Bonus award amount

Total $753,573 

Alabama 15,055 

Alaska 4,367 

American Samoa* 1,262 

Arkansas 10,615 

California 106,610 

Colorado 14,276 

Connecticut 10,008 

Delaware 4,890 

District of Columbia* 5,389 

Georgia 27,847 

Guam* 1,884 

Hawaii 4,900 

Illinois 37,506 

Iowa 8,670 

Kansas 9,197 

Kentucky 11,127 

Louisiana 16,297 

Maine 4,172 

Maryland 19,707 

Massachusetts 20,410 

Michigan 30,452 

Minnesota 13,197 

Mississippi 8,496 

Missouri 19,058 

Montana 4,145 

Nebraska 5,982 

Nevada 11,243 

New Hampshire 4,469 

New Jersey 22,606 

New Mexico 8,677 

New York 54,143 

North Carolina 26,419 

North Dakota 1,884 

Ohio 29,069 

Oklahoma 12,985 

Oregon 10,307 

Pennsylvania 34,196 

Puerto Rico* 10,112 

Rhode Island 4,161 

South Carolina 17,489 

South Dakota 3,782 

Tennessee 23,970 

Vermont 1,884 

Virgin Islands* 1,884 

Virginia 18,209 

Washington 18,005 

West Virginia 6,234 

Wisconsin 14,444 

Wyoming 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.
JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT (JAG) PROGRAM, 2014 | AUGUST 2014 9

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.

Allocations to U.S. territories

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 

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.

Sources of additional information

For more information on the legal 

foundation of the allocation formula, 

see 42 USC § 3754 and 42 USC § 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 at 

http://www.bja.gov.
Office of Justice Programs

Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods

www.ojp.usdoj.gov

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