U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

BJS

TECHNICAL REPORT July 2013, NCJ 242412

Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program, 2013

Alexia D. Cooper, Ph.D., BJS Statistician

 The total allocation for the 2013 JAG funding was approximately $278.4 

million, of which $271.5 million went to states and $6.9 million to 

territories and the District of Columbia. 

 The five largest total state allocations included California ($30.8 million), 

Texas ($21.4 million), Florida ($18.0 million), New York ($15.4 million), 

and Illinois ($11.2 million). 

 A total of 1,541 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 ($4.0 million), Chicago ($2.7 million), 

Philadelphia ($1.8 million), Houston ($1.7 million), and Los Angeles 

($1.7 million).

 Three states had around 100 or more local governments eligible to 

receive award funds either directly or through a shared award: California 

(221), Florida (126), and Texas (94).

HIGHLIGHTS

FIGURE 1

Distribution of FY 2013 JAG awards

0 100 200 300 400 500

Millions (dollars)

$183.1 million 

to state governments

$88.4 million 

to local 

governments

$6.9 million 

to U.S. territories and the 

District of Columbia

$278.4 million 

total allocations

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 $278,392,240 was available 

for the 2013 JAG awards (figure 1). 

This report describes the steps in the 

JAG award calculation process and 

presents summary results of the 2013 

JAG formula calculations.
JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT (JAG) PROGRAM, 2013 | JULY 2013 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 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 2013 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 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 

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 

covered the period between 2009 and 

2011. The population shares for the 50 

states, the District of Columbia, and 

U.S. territories were determined based 

on the results of the 2012 midyear 

population estimates published by the 

U.S. Census Bureau.

Examples—

 California accounts for 12.96% 

of the nation’s total violent crime 

and 11.96% of the nation’s total 

population. Therefore, California’s 

initial allocation equals 12.96% of 

$139,196,120 (half of $278,392,240) 

plus 11.96% of $139,196,120, 

totaling $34,693,113.

 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 $139,196,120 

plus 0.20% of $139,196,120, totaling 

$365,495. 

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 ($695,981 in 

2013), 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 award 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. 

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% 

($466,307) and the Northern Mariana 

Islands receiving 33% ($229,674). (See 

Methodology for more information 

on allocation procedures for the 

territories.) 

In 2013, four states (North Dakota, 

South Dakota, Vermont, and 

Wyoming) and four of the 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, Washington, 

DC, and Puerto Rico were all awarded 

the minimum award plus an additional 

allocation. A total of $38,278,933 was 

allocated for minimum awards under 

the 2013 JAG program.

Examples—

 Vermont’s initial allocation of 

$365,495 is less than the minimum 

value, so Vermont’s total JAG 

allocation will be the minimum 

amount of $695,981.

 California’s initial allocation of 

$34,693,113 exceeds the minimum 

value, so California will receive 

the minimum plus an award based 

on its share of total violent crime 

and population.

After removing the $38.3 million 

allocated to minimum awards, $240.1 

million remained for additional 

awards. 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. 
JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT (JAG) PROGRAM, 2013 | JULY 2013 3

 After removing the crime and 

population data for the states 

and territories receiving only 

the minimum award, California 

accounts for 13.02% of violent 

crime and 12.08% of the nation’s 

population. California’s new JAG 

allocation is equal to $15,628,704 

(13.02% of one half of $240.1 

million) plus $14,505,920 (12.08% 

of one half of $240.1 million), plus 

the minimum amount of $695,981. 

These three components equal 

$30,830,605.

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 $30,830,605, or $18,498,363. 

The remaining 40%, or $12,332,242, 

is set aside for distribution to local 

governments in California.

 Vermont’s state government 

retains 60% of the minimum 

award of $695,981, or $417,588. 

The remaining 40%, or $278,392, 

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 violent crimes known 

to law enforcement each year for a 

minimum of 3 years in the last 10. 

Jurisdictions that have not reported 

data for at least 3 of the last 10 years 

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. 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 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 the federal 

fiscal year 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.1 The 

10-year limit was applied in FY 2013 

and the UCR data used for the 2013 

JAG award calculations included the 

10-year period from 2002 to 2011.

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 $12.3 million set 

aside for local awards. The 3-year 

violent crime averages reported 

by local jurisdictions in California 

sum to 161,997 crimes. Dividing 

the $12.3 million set aside by the 

state crime total results in the 

number of dollars available for each 

crime: $12,332,242/161,997 crimes 

= $76.13 per crime. Therefore, a 

local California jurisdiction needs 

a 3-year average of at least 131.36 

violent crimes ($10,000/$76.13) to 

be eligible for an award.

 Vermont has $278,392 set aside 

for local governments. The sum 

of 3-year average violent crimes 

reported is 623. The dollars per 

crime ratio in Vermont equals 

$278,392/623 crimes, or $446.86 per 

crime. The threshold is 22.38 violent 

crimes ($10,000/$446.86) to be 

eligible for an 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 “Passthrough requirement” [42 USC § 3755 

(c)] on page 5.)

Examples— 

 The city of Oakland, California, 

has a 3-year average of 6,570.67 

violent crimes, or 4.1% of all violent 

crimes reported by jurisdictions 

in California. Oakland exceeds the 

state threshold of 131.36 violent 

crimes. It is eligible for 4.1% of the 

$12.3 million set aside for local 

governments in California, or about 

$500,200 (6,570.67 X $76.13).

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).]
TABLE 1 

State and local allocation amounts, FY 2013

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 $162,923,114 $108,615,409 1,541 $88,393,202 $20,222,207 $183,145,321 $271,538,524 

Alabama 2,654,628 1,769,752 $94.66 105.64 31 1,175,520 594,232 3,248,860 4,424,380 

Alaska 838,231 558,821 161.31 61.99 5 479,027 79,794 918,024 1,397,051 

Arizona 3,453,817 2,302,545 85.90 116.42 30 2,021,658 280,887 3,734,703 5,756,361 

Arkansas 1,922,683 1,281,789 89.64 111.56 27 914,065 367,724 2,290,407 3,204,472 

California 18,498,363 12,332,242 76.13 131.36 221 11,284,613 1,047,629 19,545,992 30,830,605 

Colorado 2,548,694 1,699,129 102.59 97.48 28 1,470,432 228,697 2,777,391 4,247,823 

Connecticut 1,816,797 1,211,198 123.44 81.01 17 1,029,658 181,540 1,998,337 3,027,995 

Delaware 938,637 625,758 173.18 57.74 8 560,295 65,463 1,004,100 1,564,395 

Florida 10,792,046 7,194,697 67.96 147.15 126 6,581,448 613,249 11,405,296 17,986,744 

Georgia 4,922,769 3,281,846 86.92 115.05 61 2,511,612 770,234 5,693,003 8,204,615 

Hawaii 946,874 631,249 180.60 55.37 4 631,249 0 946,874 1,578,123 

Idaho 981,094 654,063 190.19 52.58 13 439,591 214,472 1,195,566 1,635,157 

Illinois 6,714,840 4,476,560 91.20 109.65 37 3,968,603 507,957 7,222,797 11,191,400 

Indiana 3,129,325 2,086,217 104.75 95.47 25 1,713,114 373,103 3,502,427 5,215,541 

Iowa 1,586,028 1,057,352 133.57 74.87 19 721,258 336,094 1,922,122 2,643,380 

Kansas 1,689,528 1,126,352 108.89 91.83 17 797,714 328,638 2,018,167 2,815,881 

Kentucky 2,027,397 1,351,598 142.36 70.25 16 1,032,955 318,643 2,346,041 3,378,996 

Louisiana 2,979,990 1,986,660 78.50 127.39 36 1,537,170 449,490 3,429,480 4,966,650 

Maine 813,511 542,341 367.61 27.20 14 310,994 231,347 1,044,858 1,355,852 

Maryland 3,548,766 2,365,844 78.35 127.64 21 2,184,393 181,451 3,730,217 5,914,610 

Massachusetts 3,636,263 2,424,175 84.15 118.83 40 1,906,203 517,972 4,154,235 6,060,438 

Michigan 5,383,743 3,589,162 78.71 127.05 53 2,923,030 666,132 6,049,875 8,972,905 

Minnesota 2,354,678 1,569,785 122.83 81.41 16 1,010,385 559,400 2,914,079 3,924,464 

Mississippi 1,565,302 1,043,535 148.25 67.45 28 678,940 364,595 1,929,897 2,608,837 

Missouri 3,386,840 2,257,894 81.63 122.50 22 1,569,390 688,504 4,075,344 5,644,734 

Montana 803,226 535,484 191.52 52.21 18 365,031 170,453 973,679 1,338,710 

Nebraska 1,126,027 750,685 154.12 64.88 5 593,531 157,154 1,283,181 1,876,712 

Nevada 2,033,527 1,355,685 79.30 126.10 8 1,296,735 58,950 2,092,477 3,389,212 

New Hampshire 848,966 565,978 266.51 37.52 9 325,675 240,303 1,089,269 1,414,944 

New Jersey 3,990,299 2,660,199 100.09 99.91 46 1,993,873 666,326 4,656,625 6,650,498 

New Mexico 1,590,861 1,060,574 89.25 112.05 20 839,453 221,121 1,811,983 2,651,436 

New York 9,243,676 6,162,451 82.95 120.56 28 5,594,604 567,847 9,811,523 15,406,127 

North Carolina 4,668,424 3,112,283 90.27 110.78 62 2,346,529 765,754 5,434,178 7,780,707 

North Dakota 417,588 278,392 184.33 54.25 7 192,128 86,264 503,853 695,981 

Ohio 5,148,610 3,432,407 99.63 100.38 29 2,698,927 733,480 5,882,090 8,581,017 

Oklahoma 2,313,563 1,542,375 85.95 116.34 17 1,123,017 419,358 2,732,921 3,855,938 

Oregon 1,864,034 1,242,689 133.21 75.07 18 919,485 323,204 2,187,238 3,106,723 

Pennsylvania 5,995,988 3,997,325 94.32 106.03 30 2,883,982 1,113,343 7,109,332 9,993,314 

Rhode Island 809,532 539,688 205.94 48.56 10 466,374 73,314 882,846 1,349,220 

South Carolina 3,120,939 2,080,626 72.41 138.09 48 1,645,173 435,453 3,556,391 5,201,564 

South Dakota 417,588 278,392 144.92 69.00 4 178,301 100,091 517,680 695,981 

Tennessee 4,168,476 2,778,984 69.89 143.08 31 2,083,550 695,434 4,863,910 6,947,460 

Texas 12,829,501 8,553,001 75.97 131.63 94 7,148,183 1,404,818 14,234,318 21,382,501 

Utah 1,401,460 934,306 161.90 61.77 14 702,739 231,567 1,633,027 2,335,766 

Vermont 417,588 278,392 446.86 22.38 8 170,551 107,841 525,430 695,981 

Virginia 3,264,249 2,176,166 129.79 77.05 33 1,744,888 431,278 3,695,527 5,440,415 

Washington 3,204,156 2,136,104 102.21 97.84 38 1,690,927 445,177 3,649,333 5,340,260 

West Virginia 1,164,801 776,534 203.44 49.15 24 570,786 205,748 1,370,548 1,941,334 

Wisconsin 2,531,600 1,687,733 118.48 84.40 19 1,237,610 450,123 2,981,723 4,219,333 

Wyoming 417,588 278,392 232.70 42.97 6 127,833 150,559 568,148 695,981 

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics calculations. State calculations are based on 2009–2011 data from the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program and 2012 population 

estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau. Local calculations are based on 2002–2011 UCR data.
JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT (JAG) PROGRAM, 2013 | JULY 2013 5

 The city of Swanton, Vermont, has 

a 3-year average of 4.00 violent 

crimes. This does not meet the 

state threshold of 22.38, so it is 

ineligible for a JAG award. Its 

crimes, less than 1% of all violent 

crimes in Vermont, account for 

about $1,787 of award funds. These 

funds are transferred to the state 

for redistribution.

Results of the calculations for 

the 2013 Justice Assistance Grant 

Program 

For the 2013 JAG awards, approximately 

$271.5 million of the $278.4 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 ($108.6 million) was 

initially reserved for local governments. 

A total of 1,541 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. 

These goverments were eligible for a 

collective total of $88.4 million. The 

balance of unawarded local allocations 

($20.2 million) was returned to state 

governments for redistribution to 

state law enforcement agencies and 

local governments.

Three states had around 100 or more 

local governments eligible to receive 

award funds either directly or through 

a shared award: California (221), 

Florida (126), and Texas (94). The five 

local governments eligible to receive 

the largest awards included New York 

City ($4.0 million), Chicago ($2.7 

million), Philadelphia ($1.8 million), 

Houston ($1.7 million), and Los 

Angeles ($1.7 million). 

In addition, the District of Columbia 

was eligible for $1.7 million and 

Puerto Rico was eligible for $3.1 

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

Virgin Islands were each eligible for 

the minimum award of $695,981. 

American Samoa ($466,307) and the 

Northern Mariana Islands ($229,674) 

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. 

There are three different types of 

disparities that may exist. 

The first type is referred to as a zerocounty 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 $46,084. 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 a direct award of 

$110,859. The city of Tacoma in 

Pierce County is eligible for a 

direct award of $175,760. Tacoma’s 

award amount is more than 150% 

of Pierce County’s award amount. 

Consequently, the two governments’ 

awards ($286,619) 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—

 Riverside County, California, 

was eligible for a direct award of 

$79,831. The cities of Banning 

($12,053), Coachella ($18,372), 

Corona ($15,555), Hemet ($28,014), 

Indio ($33,267), Palm Springs 

($21,188), Perris ($13,068), 

Riverside ($108,937), Moreno Valley 

($60,317), Cathedral ($17,205), 

La Quinta ($ 11,368), and Desert 

Hot Springs ($26,238) were also 

eligible for direct awards. The 12 

cities’ awards summed to $445,413. 

This summed amount was more 

than 400% of Riverside County’s 

direct award amount of $79,831. 

Consequently, the funds from all of 

the jurisdictions ($445,413) were 

pooled together and shared among 

the 13 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 

TABLE 2

Allocations to U.S. territories and 

the District of Columbia, FY 2013

Territories and D.C. Award amount

Total $6,853,716 

American Samoa 466,307 

Northern Mariana Islands 229,674 

Guam 695,981 

Puerto Rico 3,083,831 

Virgin Islands 695,981 

District of Columbia 1,681,944 

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics calculations 

based on 2009–2011 data from the Uniform Crime 

Reporting Program and 2012 population estimates 

from the U.S. Census Bureau.
JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT (JAG) PROGRAM, 2013 | JULY 2013 6

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—

 King County, Washington, is 

eligible for an award of $50,183. The 

cities of Auburn ($26,846), Bellevue 

($14,990), Kent ($53,999), Renton 

($30,185), Seattle ($376,118), 

Tukwila ($17,375), Seatac ($12,844), 

Federal Way ($31,990), and 

Burien ($21,088) (all located in 

King County), are also eligible 

for awards. The award for Seattle 

($376,118) is more than 150% of 

King County’s award, so it will be 

pooled together with the county’s 

award. The other eight cities’ awards 

sum to $209,317. This amount is 

more than 400% of King County’s 

direct award of $50,183. As a result, 

the funds for all ten jurisdictions 

($635,618) are pooled together and 

must be shared.

 Pulaski County, Arkansas, is eligible 

for an award of $33,226. The cities 

of Jacksonville ($20,079), Little 

Rock ($258,635), North Little Rock 

($58,623), and Sherwood ($12,758) 

are also eligible for awards. The 

award amounts for the cities 

of Little Rock and North Little 

Rock are each individually more 

than 150% of the award amount 

for Pulaski County. These two 

jurisdictions are disparate with the 

county and the three jurisdictions 

will share the combined total of 

$350,484. The remaining cites of 

Jacksonville and Sherwood are 

individually less than 150% of the 

award amount for Pulaski 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.”

After determining the amount spent 

on criminal justice expenditures by the 

state government, the state may retain 

that amount. The remaining funds are 

passed down to the local governments 

within the state. These criminal justice 

expenditure amounts are referred to 

as “variable pass-through” 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 used for the 2013 JAG program 

and can be found on the BJA website 

at http://www.bja.gov. 

Sex Offender Registration and 

Notification Act 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 (AWA) required that 

the 50 states, the District of Columbia 

(DC), 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 failed 

to meet this deadline, the SORNA 

penalty was calculated by subtracting 

10% from the state government’s 

allocation (60% of the total award), 

after deducting the mandatory 

“variable pass-through” that states are 

required to send to local governments. 

The penalty also 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 

mandatory pass-through, 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, which include 

the investigation, prosecution, and 

apprehension of sex offenders. An 

example of how the SORNA penalty 

was assessed can be found in the 

Bureau of Justice Assistance’s JAG 

Frequently Asked Questions on the 

BJA website at https://www.bja.gov/

Funding/JAGFAQ.pdf.
JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT (JAG) PROGRAM, 2013 | JULY 2013 7

For FY 2013, 34 states, two U.S. 

territories, and the District of 

Columbia were not compliant with 

SORNA’s requirements. As a result, 

these jurisdictions suffered a combined 

$6,564,559 reduction to their FY 2013 

Byrne JAG award. These jurisdictions 

were allowed to apply to reallocate 

the 10% penalty to promote SORNA 

implementation. A total of six states 

that were SORNA noncompliant did 

not apply to reallocate the penalty. Per 

the SORNA legislation, the $1,062,609 

withheld from these jurisdictions will 

be reallocated to jurisdictions that 

substantially implemented SORNA 

[(42 USC § 16925 (c)]. These funds 

will be reallocated to compliant states 

and added to their FY 2014 JAG award 

as described below.

Bonus funds

Per 42 USC § 16925(c), any state 

or territory that has substantially 

implemented SORNA during the 

current fiscal year (FY), 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 that current 

fiscal year. For example, any state that 

substantially implemented SORNA 

in FY 2012 would have bonus funds 

added to its FY 2013 State JAG award, 

comprised of SORNA penalty funds 

from nonimplementing states and 

territories in FY 2012. 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 the FY 2013 JAG awards, a total 

of $1,775,811 was available from the 

FY 2012 SORNA reductions from 

the five noncompliant states. These 

funds were distributed to the 17 states 

and territories that substantially 

implemented SORNA during the 

fiscal year. Of the 17 states eligible 

for bonus funds, Florida ($418,204) 

and Michigan ($203,600) received the 

largest awards (table 3). In addition, 

Guam received $4,440 and the 

Northern Mariana Islands received 

$1,465.

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 2013, 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/pdfs/

PolicyAdvisorAssignmentsState2013.

pdf.

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 3 

Sex Offender Registration and 

Notification Act bonus fund 

allocations, FY 2013

State/territory Bonus award amount

Total $1,775,811

Alabama 94,790

Delaware 25,129

Florida 418,204

Guam* 4,440

Kansas 56,059

Louisiana 106,344

Maryland 129,414

Michigan 203,600

Mississippi 51,674

Missouri 123,711

Nevada 68,458

Northern Mariana Islands* 1,465

Ohio 197,836

South Carolina 111,723

South Dakota 17,091

Tennessee 153,127

Wyoming 12,747

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding.

*U.S. territory.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics calculations 

based on allocations from 2012 JAG awards.
JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT (JAG) PROGRAM, 2013 | JULY 2013 8

Methodology

The population data used to calculate 

state and U.S. territory JAG allocations 

are from the 2012 census estimates 

provided 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 2013 

JAG program, state-level crime data 

for the years 2009 through 2011 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 2013 JAG, local 

crime data from 2002 through 2011 

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 and 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 

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.

Allocations to U.S. territories

Puerto Rico was the only U.S. 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 160,000), 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. As of 2013, however, 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, 

please 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

NCJ242412

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

Department of Justice. William J. Sabol is acting director.

This technical report was prepared by Alexia D. Cooper. Tara Martin 

verified the report. Vanessa Curto edited the report, and Barbara 

Quinn produced the report, under the supervision of Doris J. James.

July 2013, NCJ 242412