U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

TECHNICAL REPORT September 2016, NCJ 250157

Justice Assistance Grant Program, 2016

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

 The total allocation for the 2016 JAG funding was approximately 

$274.9 million, of which $268.2 million went to states and $6.7 million to 

U.S. territories and the District of Columbia.

 The five states with the largest total allocations included California 

($30.5 million), Texas ($21.4 million), Florida ($17.8 million), New York 

($15.6 million), and Illinois ($10.4 million).

 A total of 1,501 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 were New York City ($4.3 million), Chicago ($2.1 million), 

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

($1.4 million).

 Two states had 100 or more local governments eligible to receive award 

funds either directly or through a shared award, California (214) and 

Florida (118).

HIGHLIGHTS 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 

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 $274,906,565 was available 

for the 2016 JAG awards (figure 1). 

This report describes the steps in the 

JAG award calculation process and 

presents summary results of the 2016 

JAG formula calculations.

Figure 1

Distribution of fiscal year 2016 JAG awards

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.

$6.7 million 

to U.S. territories and the 

District of Columbia

$274.9 million 

total allocation

Millions (dollars)

0 100 200 300

$181.8 million 

to state governments

$86.4 million 

to local 

governments
JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM, 2016 | SEPTEMBER 2016 2

Overview of process

Once the fiscal year (FY) JAG 

allocation has been determined, 

BJS begins its four-step award 

calculation process:

 Computing an initial allocation for 

each state and U.S. 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 U.S. 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 four-step award calculation 

process

Step 1: Initial allocation to states 

and U.S. territories

[Legislative mandate: 42 USC § 

3755(a)(1)]

Using the congressional appropriation 

and formula for the 2016 JAG 

program, BJS calculates the initial 

allocation amounts for the 50 states 

and U.S. territories. BJS allocates half 

of the available funds using a state 

or U.S. territory’s share of violent 

crime and half of the funds using 

its share of the nation’s population.1

The most recent 3-year period of 

official violent crime data for states 

and U.S. territories from the FBI 

covered the period between 2011 and 

2013. The population shares for the 

50 states, the District of Columbia, and 

U.S. territories were determined based 

on the results of the 2015 midyear 

population estimates published by the 

U.S. Census Bureau.

Examples—

 California accounts for 12.89% 

of the nation’s total violent crime 

and 12.03% of the nation’s total 

population. Therefore, California’s 

initial allocation equals 12.89% of 

$137,453,283 (half of $274,906,565) 

plus 12.03% of $137,453,283, 

totaling $34,255,164

 Wyoming accounts for 0.10% of 

the nation’s total violent crime 

and 0.18% of the nation’s total 

population. Wyoming’s initial 

allocation is 0.10% of $137,453,283 

plus 0.18% of $137,453,283, totaling 

$380,324.

Step 2: De minimus awards

[Legislative mandate: 42 USC § 

3755(a)(2)]

The JAG legislation requires that each 

state or U.S. territory be awarded 

a minimum allocation equal to 

0.25% of the total JAG allocation 

($687,266 in 2016), regardless of its 

population or crime average. If a state 

or U.S. territory’s initial allocation 

based on crime and population is 

less than the minimum amount, 

that state or U.S. territory receives 

the minimum award amount as 

its total JAG allocation. If a state 

or U.S. territory’s initial allocation 

exceeds the minimum amount, it 

1

For purposes of the initial calculations for 

the 2016 state and U.S. territory allocations, 

the FBI legacy definition of rape was used 

for the 2014 violent crime total to maintain 

consistency within the 3-year violent crime 

average. See Methodology.

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% 

($460,468) and the Northern Mariana 

Islands receiving 33% ($226,798). 

(See Methodology.)

In 2016, 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 $37,799,653 was allocated for 

minimum awards under the 2016 JAG 

program, leaving $237.1 million to be 

allocated based on the states’ share of 

population and violent crime.

Examples—

 Wyoming’s initial allocation of 

$380,324 is less than the minimum 

value, so Wyoming’s total 

JAG allocation will be the minimum 

amount of $687,266.

 California’s initial allocation of 

$34,255,164 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 U.S. 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.
JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM, 2016 | SEPTEMBER 2016 3

Examples—

 Wyoming receives only the 

minimum award, so its crime and 

population data are removed from 

the pool.

 After removing the crime and 

population data for the states and 

U.S. territories receiving only 

the minimum award, California 

accounts for 12.96% of violent 

crime and 12.15% of the nation’s 

population. California’s new JAG 

allocation is equal to $15,360,486 

(12.96% of half of $237.1 million) 

plus $14,409,349 (12.15% of half of 

$237.1 million), plus the minimum 

amount of $687,266. These three 

components equal $30,457,101. 

($237.1 million equals the original 

$274.9 million total JAG 2016 award 

allocation minus the $37.8 million 

JAG 2016 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 $30,457,101, or $18,274,260. 

The remaining 40%, or $12,182,840, 

is set aside for distribution to local 

governments in California.

 Wyoming’s state government 

retains 60% of the minimum 

award of $687,266, or $412,359. 

The remaining 40%, or 274,907, is 

set aside for distribution to local 

governments in Wyoming.

Step 4: Determining local award 

allocations

[Legislative mandate: 42 USC § 

3755(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(h)]

To allocate 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 past 

10 years.2

 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.3 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 

2

For purposes of the 2016 local award 

calculations, Part I violent crime totals 

included the definition of rape (legacy or 

2013 revised) that an agency reported to the 

FBI. See Methodology.

3

Before 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).

10-year limit was applied for the first 

time in FY 2012 and has been in effect 

for each year since.

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, such as 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 $12.2 million set 

aside for local awards. The 3-year 

violent crime averages reported 

by local jurisdictions in California 

equal 152,220.67 crimes. Dividing 

the $12.2 million set-aside by the 

state crime total (152,220.67) results 

in the number of dollars available 

for each crime ($80.03). Therefore, 

a local California jurisdiction needs 

a 3-year violent crime average of at 

least 124.95 violent crimes ($10,000 

divided by $80.03) to be eligible for 

a direct award.

 Wyoming has $274,907 set aside 

for local governments. The sum 

of 3-year average violent crimes 

reported is 1138.67. The dollars 

per crime ratio in Wyoming equals 

$274,907 divided by 1138.67 

crimes, or $247.43 per crime (after 

rounding). The threshold is 41.42 

violent crimes ($10,000 divided 

by $247.43) to be eligible for a 

direct award.
Table 1

State and local allocation amounts, fiscal year 2016

Initial allocations Total state 

government 

State award

State 

government

Local 

governments

Dollars per 

crime Threshold

Eligible local awards Reallocated 

to state

Total 

Number Amount allocation

Total $160,940,804 $107,293,869 ~ ~ $1,501 $79,523,714 $20,862,037 $181,802,841 $268,234,673 

Alabama 2,727,487 1,818,325 $89.96 $111.16 28 1,069,493 626,248 3,353,735 4,545,812 

Alaska 846,506 564,337 160.31 62.38 6 455,275 70,696 917,203 1,410,844 

Arizona 3,541,625 2,361,083 87.35 114.48 32 1,922,528 245,959 3,787,584 5,902,708 

Arkansas 1,890,836 1,260,557 92.58 108.02 26 804,516 387,322 2,278,159 3,151,394 

California 18,274,260 12,182,840 80.03 124.95 214 10,291,887 1,141,661 19,415,922 30,457,101 

Colorado 2,571,827 1,714,552 106.83 93.61 27 1,347,132 231,990 2,803,817 4,286,379 

Connecticut 1,758,045 1,172,030 130.67 76.53 17 953,437 172,132 1,930,177 2,930,075 

Delaware 901,210 600,807 188.16 53.15 10 494,825 46,540 947,750 1,502,017 

Florida 10,654,235 7,102,823 77.33 129.32 118 5,795,701 684,953 11,339,188 17,757,058 

Georgia 4,892,851 3,261,901 89.63 111.57 60 2,188,767 797,871 5,690,722 8,154,752 

Hawaii 937,517 625,011 253.97 39.38 4 577,958 0 937,517 1,562,528 

Idaho 979,852 653,234 193.26 51.74 15 404,126 201,899 1,181,751 1,633,086 

Illinois 6,260,165 4,173,444 84.07 118.95 42 3,105,966 850,726 7,110,891 10,433,609 

Indiana 3,254,115 2,169,410 98.36 101.66 25 1,600,759 404,176 3,658,291 5,423,525 

Iowa 1,595,275 1,063,517 131.93 75.80 17 620,502 393,497 1,988,772 2,658,792 

Kansas 1,651,202 1,100,801 111.53 89.66 17 687,929 325,682 1,976,884 2,752,003 

Kentucky 1,948,730 1,299,153 154.03 64.92 15 890,943 327,934 2,276,664 3,247,883 

Louisiana 2,836,034 1,890,689 82.28 121.54 34 1,358,666 402,574 3,238,609 4,726,724 

Maine 805,839 537,226 357.44 27.98 13 270,062 239,720 1,045,559 1,343,065 

Maryland 3,368,259 2,245,506 86.29 115.88 21 1,936,802 171,435 3,539,694 5,613,765 

Massachusetts 3,497,694 2,331,796 89.17 112.15 39 1,701,242 511,413 4,009,106 5,829,489 

Michigan 5,196,955 3,464,637 80.75 123.83 52 2,608,255 695,810 5,892,765 8,661,592 

Minnesota 2,363,729 1,575,820 124.56 80.28 15 909,443 559,694 2,923,423 3,939,549 

Mississippi 1,552,532 1,035,021 159.75 62.60 26 630,073 337,282 1,889,814 2,587,553 

Missouri 3,331,900 2,221,267 83.35 119.97 21 1,381,219 713,433 4,045,332 5,553,166 

Montana 817,995 545,330 184.82 54.11 15 296,276 196,089 1,014,085 1,363,326 

Nebraska 1,126,185 750,790 156.88 63.74 5 543,742 159,079 1,285,264 1,876,975 

Nevada 2,065,865 1,377,243 81.65 122.48 9 1,183,308 57,151 2,123,016 3,443,108 

New Hampshire 871,073 580,715 235.71 42.42 9 301,744 257,632 1,128,705 1,451,788 

New Jersey 3,859,921 2,573,281 106.62 93.79 43 1,813,444 630,250 4,490,171 6,433,202 

New Mexico 1,601,499 1,067,666 93.04 107.48 20 783,554 198,920 1,800,420 2,669,166 

New York 9,349,451 6,232,967 82.69 120.93 27 5,359,612 505,567 9,855,018 15,582,418 

North Carolina 4,609,949 3,073,299 96.14 104.02 54 2,049,823 817,743 5,427,692 7,683,248 

North Dakota 412,360 274,907 143.83 69.53 7 164,975 98,379 510,738 687,266 

Ohio 4,971,782 3,314,521 102.92 97.16 29 2,414,222 786,071 5,757,853 8,286,303 

Oklahoma 2,278,235 1,518,824 89.96 111.16 16 1,053,034 400,091 2,678,326 3,797,059 

Oregon 1,859,790 1,239,860 131.93 75.80 18 828,034 334,538 2,194,328 3,099,650 

Pennsylvania 5,760,492 3,840,328 98.99 101.02 29 2,588,651 1,121,056 6,881,548 9,600,820 

Rhode Island 796,449 530,966 211.91 47.19 10 424,595 69,010 865,460 1,327,416 

South Carolina 2,962,180 1,974,787 80.00 125.00 42 1,439,257 448,034 3,410,214 4,936,967 

South Dakota 412,360 274,907 103.83 96.31 3 158,378 118,920 531,279 687,266 

Tennessee 4,209,060 2,806,040 71.05 140.74 29 1,967,521 705,044 4,914,104 7,015,100 

Texas 12,853,519 8,569,013 80.30 124.54 96 6,498,782 1,398,464 14,251,983 21,422,532 

Utah 1,445,707 963,805 149.68 66.81 15 653,725 233,004 1,678,711 2,409,512 

Vermont 412,360 274,907 487.14 20.53 7 109,956 139,483 551,842 687,266 

Virginia 3,213,588 2,142,392 135.31 73.90 35 1,558,265 427,141 3,640,728 5,355,979 

Washington 3,191,998 2,127,998 106.19 94.17 39 1,528,027 426,833 3,618,831 5,319,996 

West Virginia 1,157,136 771,424 192.81 51.87 25 498,526 206,110 1,363,246 1,928,560 

Wisconsin 2,650,810 1,767,207 109.72 91.14 17 1,178,998 445,306 3,096,116 4,418,017 

Wyoming 412,360 274,907 241.43 41.42 8 119,759 141,477 553,836 687,266 

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, 2012–14, and U.S. Census Bureau, 2015; and local 

calculations based on data from the UCR Program, 2005–14.
JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM, 2016 | SEPTEMBER 2016 5

Table 2

Allocations to U.S. territories and 

the District of Columbia, fiscal 

year 2016

Award amount

Total $6,671,892 

American Samoa 460,468 

Guam 687,266 

Northern Mariana Islands 226,798 

Puerto Rico 2,874,288 

Virgin Islands 687,266 

District of Columbia 1,735,805 

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

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, based on 

data from the Uniform Crime Reporting program, 

2012–14, and the U.S. Census Bureau, 2015.

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)].)

Examples—

 The city of Los Angeles, California, 

has a 3-year average of 18,080.67 

violent crimes, or about 12.0% 

of all violent crimes reported by 

potentially eligible jurisdictions in 

California. Los Angeles exceeds the 

state threshold of 124.95 violent 

crimes and is eligible for 12.0% of 

the $12.2 million set aside for local 

governments in California, or about 

$1,447,069 (18,080.67 multiplied 

by $80.03).

 The town of Pine Bluffs, Wyoming, 

has a 3-year average of 5.67 violent 

crimes. This does not meet the 

state threshold of 41.42, so it is 

ineligible for a direct JAG award. Its 

crimes, less than 1.0% of all violent 

crimes in Wyoming, account for 

about $1,368 of award funds. These 

funds are transferred to the state 

for redistribution.

Results of the calculations for the 

2016 JAG program

For the 2016 JAG awards, 

approximately $268.2 million of the 

$274.9 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 ($107.3 million) was initially 

reserved for local governments. A total 

of 1,501 local governments had law 

enforcement agencies with a sufficient 

number of Part 1 violent crimes that 

were reported to the FBI to receive a 

JAG award—either directly or through 

a joint award with other governments 

within their county. These local 

governments were eligible for a 

collective total of $86.4 million. The 

balance of unawarded local allocations 

($20.9 million) was returned to state 

governments for redistribution to 

state law enforcement agencies and 

local governments.

Two states had 100 or more local 

governments eligible to receive award 

funds either directly or through 

a shared award, California (214) 

and Florida (118). The five local 

governments eligible to receive the 

largest awards were New York City 

($4.3 million), Chicago ($2.1 million), 

Houston ($1.7 million), Philadelphia 

($1.7 million), and Los Angeles 

($1.4 million).

In addition, the District of Columbia 

was eligible for $1.7 million and 

Puerto Rico was eligible for $2.9 

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

Virgin Islands were each eligible for 

the minimum award of $687,266. 

American Samoa ($460,468) and the 

Northern Mariana Islands ($226,798) 

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 its 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 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—

 Lansing City, Michigan, is eligible 

for an award of $95,990. Ingham 

County, Michigan (which includes 

the city of Lansing), is not eligible 

for a direct award, but it provides 

criminal justice services to Lansing. 

In this case, Ingham County and 

Lansing are considered zero-county 

disparate. Lansing must share its 

award funds with Ingham 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—

 Pima County, Arizona, is eligible for 

a direct award of $62,574. The city 

of Tucson in Pima County is eligible 

for a direct award of $310,484. 

Tucson’s award amount is more 

than 150% of Pima County’s award 
JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM, 2016 | SEPTEMBER 2016 6

amount. Consequently, the two 

governments’ awards are pooled 

together ($373,058) 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. In the 2016 

JAG calculations, this type of disparity 

only occurred with another type of 

disparity within the same county. 

An example of a situation in which 

this was the only type of disparity 

within a county is available in Justice 

Assistance Grant (JAG) Program, 2014, 

(NCJ 247137, BJS web, August 2014).

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—

 Alameda County, California, is 

eligible for an award of $50,341. 

The cities of Alameda ($12,352), 

Berkeley ($39,483), Emeryville 

($11,311), Fremont ($23,023), 

Hayward ($48,207), Livermore 

($21,529), Newark ($10,698), 

Oakland ($609,780), San Leandro 

($32,014), and Union ($17,607) 

(all located in Alameda County) 

are also all eligible for awards. The 

award for Oakland ($609,780) 

is individually more than 150% 

of Alameda County’s award, so 

Oakland’s award will be pooled 

together with the county’s award. 

The other nine cities’ awards sum 

to $216,224. This summed amount 

is more than 400% of Alameda 

County’s direct award of $50,341. 

As a result, the funds for all 11 

jurisdictions ($876,345) are pooled 

together and must be shared.

 Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, 

is eligible for an award of $12,044. 

The jurisdictions of McKeesport 

($39,629), Pittsburgh ($232,988), 

Wilkinsburg ($15,475), and Penn 

Hills ($14,586), are also eligible 

for awards. The award amount for 

Pittsburgh is more than 150% of 

the award amount for Allegheny 

County. The award amount for 

McKeesport is also more than 

150% of the award amount of the 

county. These two jurisdictions 

are disparate with the county, and 

the three jurisdictions will share 

the combined total of $284,661. 

The remaining jurisdictions of 

Wilkinsburg and Penn Hills are 

individually less than 150% of 

the award amount for Allegheny 

County, and the two awards 

combined are less than 400% of the 

County’s award. Accordingly, they 

are eligible for direct awards, and 

the awards for these two cities will 

remain separate.

For disparate situations, regardless 

of the type, the total of all award 

funds for 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 2014, the U.S. Census 

Bureau finished compiling the most 

recent 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 

2016 JAG program and can be found 

on the BJA website at https://www.bja.

gov/ProgramDetails.aspx?Program_

ID=59.
JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM, 2016 | SEPTEMBER 2016 7

Sex Offender Registration and 

Notification Act penalty and 

compliance 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 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 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 BJA’s JAG Frequently Asked 

Questions (FAQ) on the BJA website 

at https://www.bja.gov/Funding/

JAGFAQ.pdf.

In FY 2016, a total of 36 states and 

U.S. territories were not compliant 

with SORNA’s requirements. As a 

Table 3

Sex Offender Registration and 

Notification Act bonus fund 

allocations, fiscal year 2016

Bonus award amount

Total $1,038,781 

Alabama 49,020 

Colorado 45,927 

Delaware 12,548 

Florida 203,389 

Guam* 2,597 

Kansas 27,700 

Louisiana 51,724 

Maryland 62,862 

Michigan 99,109 

Mississippi 25,804 

Missouri 61,384 

Nevada 34,416 

Northern Mariana Islands* 857 

Ohio 96,166 

Pennsylvania 113,613 

South Carolina 54,911 

South Dakota 9,418 

Tennessee 78,021 

Virgin Islands* 2,597 

Wyoming 6,719 

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, 2015.

result, these jurisdictions received a 

combined $6,168,218 reduction to 

their FY 2016 Byrne JAG award. These 

jurisdictions were allowed to apply to 

reallocate the 10% penalty to promote 

SORNA implementation. Six states 

were SORNA noncompliant and did 

not apply to reallocate the penalty. Per 

the SORNA legislation, the $1,003,487 

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 as part 

of the FY 2017 JAG award.

Bonus funds from FY 2015

Per 42 USC § 16925(c), any 

state or U.S. territory that has 

substantially implemented SORNA 

during the current fiscal year, as 

determined by the Office of Sex 

Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, 

Apprehending, Registering, and 

Tracking (SMART), will be eligible 

to receive compliant bonus funds 

in addition to its JAG award for the 

following year. This bonus allocation 

is calculated using SORNA penalty 

funds from nonimplementing states 

and U.S. territories during the current 

fiscal year. For example, any state that 

substantially implemented SORNA 

in FY 2015 would have bonus funds 

added to its FY 2016 state JAG 

award, made up of SORNA penalty 

funds from nonimplementing states 

and U.S. territories in FY 2015. 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 U.S. territory 

using 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 

U.S. 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 

U.S. 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 U.S. territories.

For FY 2016, a total of $1,038,782 was 

available from the FY 2015 SORNA 

reductions from the noncompliant 

states. These funds were distributed 

to the 20 states and U.S. territories 

that substantially implemented 

SORNA during the fiscal year. Of 

the 20 states eligible for bonus funds, 

Florida ($203,389) and Pennsylvania 

($113,613) received the largest 

awards (table 3). Of the eligible 

U.S. territories, the U.S. Virgin Islands 

received $2,597, Guam received 

$2,597, and the Northern Mariana 

Islands received $857.

For additional information regarding 

the SORNA penalty and bonus 

funds, including implementation 
JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM, 2016 | SEPTEMBER 2016 8

requirements and a list of states and 

U.S. territories that were affected in 

FY 2016, contact the SMART Office 

Policy Advisor assigned to assist the 

jurisdiction of interest: http://www.ojp.

usdoj.gov/smart/sorna.htm.

Prison Rape Elimination Act 

certification reduction and 

bonus funds

[Legislative mandate: 42 USC § 

15607(e)]

Reduction

The Prison Rape Elimination Act 

(PREA) statute dictates that a state 

whose governor does not certify full 

compliance with the U.S. Department 

of Justice (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 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 BJA’s 

JAG program FAQ regarding the 

PREA certification requirement and 

5% reduction FAQ located on the 

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

Programs/JAG-PREA-FAQ.pdf.

Table 4

Prison Rape Elimination Act bonus 

fund allocations, fiscal year 2016

Bonus award amount

Total $150,562 

Alabama 2,548 

Alaska 784 

American Samoa* 252 

Arizona 3,312 

California 17,134 

Colorado 2,403 

Connecticut 1,639 

Delaware 835 

District of Columbia* 966 

Florida 9,984 

Georgia 4,580 

Guam* 869 

Hawaii 909 

Illinois 5,863 

Indiana 3,043 

Iowa 1,486 

Kansas 1,539 

Kentucky 1,818 

Louisiana 2,650 

Maine 746 

Maryland 3,149 

Massachusetts 3,271 

Michigan 4,865 

Minnesota 2,208 

Mississippi 1,446 

Missouri 3,115 

Montana 757 

Nebraska 1,046 

Nevada 1,927 

New Hampshire 807 

New Jersey 3,611 

New Mexico 1,492 

New York 8,761 

North Carolina 4,315 

North Dakota 376 

Ohio 4,654 

Oklahoma 2,127 

Oregon 1,735 

Pennsylvania 5,394 

Puerto Rico* 1,608 

Rhode Island 737 

South Carolina 2,768 

South Dakota 376 

Tennessee 3,938 

Texas 12,048 

Vermont 376 

Virgin Islands* 376 

Virginia 3,005 

Washington 2,985 

West Virginia 1,075 

Wisconsin 2,477 

Wyoming 376 

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, 2016.

For FY 2016, 39 states, District of 

Columbia, and 5 U.S. territories were 

not compliant with PREA requirements. 

As a result, these jurisdictions suffered 

a combined $3,877,473 reduction to 

their FY 2016 Byrne JAG award. These 

jurisdictions were allowed to apply to 

reallocate the 5% reduction to achieve 

compliance with PREA standards 

and become certified. Two states 

and two U.S. territories were PREA 

noncompliant and did not apply to 

reallocate the reduction. Per the PREA 

legislation, the $150,562 withheld from 

these jurisdictions was reallocated to 

jurisdictions that either were certified or 

were working to achieve certification.

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 U.S. territory, using 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. territories.

For the FY 2016 JAG awards, a 

total of $150,562 was available 

from PREA reductions from the 

four noncompliant states and U.S. 

territories that did not apply to 

reallocate the reduction. These 

funds were distributed to the states, 

the District of Columbia, and U.S. 

territories that were PREA certified 

or were working to become certified. 

Of the states that were eligible for 

bonus funds, California ($17,134) 

and Texas ($12,048) received the 

largest awards (table 4). Of the eligible 

U.S. territories, Puerto Rico ($1,608) 

received the largest bonus award.
JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM, 2016 | SEPTEMBER 2016 9

For additional information regarding 

the PREA reduction and bonus 

funds, including implementation 

requirements and a list of states and 

U.S. territories that were affected in FY 

2016, contact the PREA Management 

Office at PREACompliance@usdoj.gov.

Maximum allocation to units of 

local 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.”

Methodology

The population data used to calculate 

state and U.S. territory Justice 

Assistance Grant (JAG) allocations 

are from the 2015 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 its annual publication, 

Crime in the United States. The 2016 

JAG program used state-level crime 

data for the years 2012 through 2014.

The UCR program also provided 

the crime data used to calculate 

local JAG allocation amounts. BJS 

obtained data for local jurisdictions 

in electronic format directly from the 

FBI and processed the data to link 

each crime-reporting entity to a local 

government. The 2016 JAG used local 

crime data from 2005 through 2014.

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 published by 

the FBI for that state. 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 that 

BJS used and are not used to calculate 

the local award.

UCR modification to the definition 

of rape

Historically, the UCR program 

defined rape as “the carnal knowledge 

of a female forcibly and against her 

will.” Many agencies recognized that 

this definition excludes a long list 

of sex offenses that are criminal in 

most jurisdictions, such as offenses 

involving oral or anal penetration, 

penetration with objects, and rapes 

of males. Because these sex offenses 

were excluded, the UCR rape data 

represented an undercount of rape 

known to law enforcement.

To be more inclusive and increase 

accuracy in the scope and volume of 

rape, in December 2011, FBI Director 

Robert S. Mueller III approved 

revisions to the UCR’s 80-year-old 

definition of rape. The new definition 

(referred to as the revised definition) 

was broadened to “penetration, no 

matter how slight, of the vagina or 

anus with any body part or object, 

or oral penetration by a sex organ of 

another person, without the consent of 

the victim.”4

4

Frequently asked questions about the revised 

definition of rape are available at https://www.

fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/recent-programupdates/new-rape-definition-frequentlyasked-questions.

The new definition was approved in 

2011, and the FBI encouraged agencies 

to begin reporting data using the 

revised definition starting on January 

1, 2013. However, in 2013, some 

agencies reported rape counts using 

only the legacy definition, while other 

agencies reported data using only 

the revised definition. Accordingly, 

the FBI chose to report rape counts 

collected under both definitions in 

the Crime in the United States (CIUS) 

publication. The published 2013 and 

2014 violent crime totals were created 

using the revised definition. However, 

to be consistent with prior years, the 

legacy definition of rape was used 

to calculate the violent crime counts 

in any tables that showed trend data 

(multiyear estimates).

For the initial part of the JAG 

calculations, which determines the 

initial allocation to each state and 

how much is available for local awards 

within each state, the formula uses the 

most recent 3 years of crime data as 

published by the FBI. Therefore, to be 

consistent with the totals published in 

CIUS, BJS used the FBI’s legacy rape 

counts for the first part of the formula. 

BJS will begin using the revised 

rape counts once there are 3 years of 

published revised rape counts, which is 

anticipated to occur in 2017.

For local award allocations, BJS uses 

an electronic data file provided by the 

FBI. The file includes agency-level 

counts of homicide, rape, robbery, and 

aggravated assault that are summed 

together to create the violent crime 

total used in the formula. Unlike 

the estimates published in CIUS, 

the electronic file has only a single 

category for rape for each agency. This 

category reflects the counts provided 

by the agency but does not indicate 

which definition of rape was reported. 

This variable was used in the 2016 JAG 

calculations for local awards.

For additional information on the 

UCR program’s changes to the 

definition of rape and how the changes 

affects CIUS, contact the FBI’s UCR 

program via email at crimestatsinfo@

ic.fbi.gov.
JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM, 2016 | SEPTEMBER 2016 10

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 U.S. territory 

for which violent crime data were 

available. The JAG calculations for 

the other U.S. territories were based 

solely on population data. Because the 

other U.S. territories have relatively 

small populations (none exceeding 

162,000), 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 2016, 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 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 

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

NCJ250157

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. Jeri M. Mulrow is acting director.

This technical report was prepared by Alexia D. Cooper. Marshay 

Lentini verified the report. 

Brigitte Coulton and Jill Thomas edited the report. Tina Dorsey and 

Barbara Quinn produced the report.

September 2016, NCJ 250157