U.S. Department of Justice

Offi ce of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

BJS

TECHNICAL REPORT March 2012, NCJ 237732

Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program 2011

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

Introduction

As part of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act of 2005, the 108th 

Congress merged the discretionary 

Edward Byrne Memorial Grant 

Program with the formula-based Local 

Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) 

program to establish the Edward Byrne 

Memorial Justice Assistance Grant 

(JAG) program. Th e Bureau of Justice 

Assistance (BJA) administers the JAG 

program, and the Bureau of Justice 

Statistics (BJS) calculates the JAG 

formula-based award amounts using 

specifi cations outlined in the legislation. 

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 $368,268,838 was available 

for the 2011 JAG awards (fi gure 1). Th is 

report describes the steps in the JAG 

award calculation process and presents 

summary results of the 2011 JAG 

formula calculations.

 Th e total 2011 allocation for the JAG funding was approximately $368.3 

million, of which $359.4 million went to states and $8.9 million to 

territories and the District of Columbia. 

 Th e fi ve largest total state allocations included California ($41.1 million), 

Texas ($27.8 million), Florida ($24.8 million), New York ($19.7 million), 

and Illinois ($15.2 million). 

 A total of 1,909 local governments were eligible for awards, either 

directly or through a joint allocation with other governments within 

their county. Th e fi ve local governments eligible to receive the largest 

awards included New York City ($5.1 million), Chicago ($3.8 million), 

Los Angeles ($2.4 million), Philadelphia ($2.4 million), and Houston 

($2.3 million).

 Th ree states had more than 100 local governments eligible to receive 

award funds either directly or through a joint allocation, including 

California (253), Florida (136), and Texas (120).

HIGHLIGHTS

FIGURe 1

Distribution of FY 2011 JAG funds

0 100 200 300 400 500

Millions (dollars)

$215.6 million

to state governments

$143.8 million

to local governments

$8.9 million

to territories and the 

District of Columbia

$368.3 million 

total allocations

Source: BJS calculations based on data from the Uniform Crime Reporting Program and the U.S. 

Census Bureau.
2 Bureau of Justice Statistics Technical Report

Overview of process

Once the fiscal year JAG allocation has 

been determined, BJS begins its fourstep award calculation process:

 Computing an initial allocation 

for each state and territory, based 

on its share of violent crime and 

population (weighted equally).

 Reviewing the initial allocation 

amount to determine if it is less 

than the minimum (de minimus) 

award amount defined in the JAG 

legislation (0.25% of the total). If 

this is the case, the state or territory 

is funded at the minimum level, 

and the funds required for this are 

deducted from the overall pool of 

funds. Each of the remaining states 

receives the minimum award plus an 

additional amount based on its share 

of violent crime and population.

 Dividing each state’s final amount at 

a rate of 60% for state governments 

and 40% for local governments.

 Determining local award allocations, 

which are based on their proportion 

of the state’s 3-year violent crime 

average. If a local award amount 

is less than $10,000, the funds are 

returned to the state. If it is $10,000 

or more, then the local government 

is eligible to apply for an award.

The JAG award calculation process, 

with examples, is explained in more 

detail below.

The four-step award calculation 

process

Step 1: Initial allocation to states and 

territories

[Legislative mandate: 42 USC 3755 (a)

(1)]

Based on the congressional 

appropriation of $368.3 million for 

the 2011 JAG program, BJS calculates 

the initial allocation amounts for the 

50 states and territories. Using the 

congressionally established formula, 

BJS allocates half of the available funds 

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

violent crime and half of the funds based 

on its share of the 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 2007 and 2009. The population 

shares for the 50 states and Puerto 

Rico were based on the 2010 census 

conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau. 

The remaining territories’ population 

shares were based on the 2010 mid-year 

population estimates published by the 

U.S. Census Bureau.

Examples:

 California accounts for 13.23% 

of the nation’s total violent crime 

and 11.91% of the nation’s total 

population. Therefore, California’s 

initial allocation equals 13.23% of 

$184,134,419 (half of $368,268,838) 

plus 11.91% of $184,134,419, totaling 

$46,278,471.

 Vermont accounts for 0.06% of the 

nation’s total violent crime and 0.20% 

of the nation’s total population. 

Vermont’s initial allocation is 0.06% 

of $184,134,419 plus 0.20% of 

$184,134,419, totaling $478,286. 

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 ($920,672 in 2011), 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. A total of $50,636,965 

was allocated for minimum awards in the 

2011 JAG program. 

Congress made one exception to this 

rule: American Samoa and the Northern 

Mariana Islands are required to split 

one minimum award, with American 

Samoa receiving 67% ($616,850) and the 

Northern Mariana Islands receiving 33% 

($303,822). (See Methodology for more 

information on allocation procedures for 

the territories.) 

Examples:

 Vermont’s initial allocation of 

$478,286 is less than the minimum 

value, so Vermont’s total JAG 

allocation will be the minimum 

amount of $920,672. 

 California’s initial allocation of 

$46,278,471 exceeds the minimum 

value, so California will receive the 

minimum plus an award based on 

its share of total violent crime and 

population.

To compute the additional amounts, the 

crime and population data for states and 

territories receiving only the minimum 

award are removed from the pool, and 

the remaining JAG funds are reallocated 

to the rest of the states based on violent 

crime and population as in Step 1. 

Examples:

 Vermont received only the minimum 

award, so its crime and population 

data are removed from the pool. 

 After removing the crime and 

population data for the minimum 

amounts for states and territories, 

California accounts for 13.28% of 

violent crime and 12.03% of the 

nation’s population. California’s 

new JAG allocation is equal to 

$21,090,027 (13.28% of one half of 

$317.6 million) plus $19,098,172 

(12.03% of one half of $317.6 

million), plus the minimum amount 

of $920,672. These three components 

equal $41,108,871. ($317.6 million 

equals the $368.3 million total JAG 

2011 award allocation minus the 

$50.6 million JAG 2011 minimum 

allocation.)
Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program 2011 3

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 $41,108,871, or $24,665,323. 

The remaining 40%, or $16,443,548, 

is set aside for distribution to local 

governments in California.

 Vermont’s state government 

retains 60% of the minimum 

award of $920,672, or $552,403. 

The remaining 40%, or $368,269, 

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 

published by the FBI’s Uniform Crime 

Reporting (UCR) Program. To be eligible, 

a jurisdiction must have provided to the 

UCR a count of the number of violent 

crimes known to law enforcement each 

year for a minimum of 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 

cannot receive an award.

The 10-year limit on the age of UCR 

data that can be used for JAG local 

award calculations was applied for the 

first time during the 2009 Recovery 

Act.1 Previously, 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).] The 10-year 

limit was applied in FY 2011 and the 

UCR data used for the 2011 JAG award 

calculations included the 10-year 

period from 2000 to 2009.

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 local 

governments may receive. 

Examples:

 California has $16.4 million set 

aside for local awards. The 3-year 

violent crime averages reported 

by local jurisdictions in California 

equal 181,216. Dividing the $16.4 

million set aside by the state crime 

totals results in the number of 

dollars available for each crime: 

$16,443,548/181,216 crimes = 

$90.74 per crime. Therefore, a 

local California jurisdiction needs 

a 3-year average of at least 110.20 

violent crimes ($10,000/$90.74) to be 

eligible for an award.

 Vermont has $368,269 set aside 

for local governments. The sum 

of 3-year average violent crimes 

reported is 603. The dollars per 

crime ratio in Vermont equals 

$368,269/603 crimes, or $610.73 per 

crime. The threshold is 16.37 violent 

crimes ($10,000/$610.73) to be 

eligible for an award.

Finally, BJS calculates the initial amount 

of each local award. Each local award 

amount is equal to the product of a 

local jurisdiction’s 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)] on 

page 5.)

Examples: 

 The city of Oakland, California 

has a 3-year average of 7,434.33 

violent crimes, or 4.1% of all violent 

crimes reported by jurisdictions 

in California. Oakland exceeds the 

state threshold of 110.20 violent 

crimes. It is eligible for 4.1% of the 

$16.4 million set aside for local 

governments in California, or about 

$674,600 (7,434.33 X $90.74).

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 federal Fiscal Year 2010 (September 

30, 2010). All agencies that used the waiver 

in 2010 reported updated UCR data by the 

requried deadline, making it unnecessary to 

authorize an additional waiver of the 10-year 

rule in 2011. 
4 Bureau of Justice Statistics Technical Report

Table 1 

State and local allocation amounts, FY 2011

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 $215,633,550 $143,755,700 1,909 $122,250,484 $21,505,215 $237,138,766 $359,389,250

Alabama 3,469,078 2,312,718 $114.49 87.34 38 1,648,608 664,110 4,133,188 5,781,796

Alaska 1,078,577 719,051 202.47 49.39 9 657,770 61,281 1,139,858 1,797,628

Arizona 4,640,346 3,093,564 102.72 97.35 38 2,889,012 204,552 4,844,897 7,733,909

Arkansas 2,476,169 1,650,779 113.83 87.85 29 1,200,983 449,796 2,925,965 4,126,948

California 24,665,323 16,443,548 90.74 110.20 253 15,467,004 976,544 25,641,867 41,108,871

Colorado 3,282,650 2,188,433 128.24 77.98 30 1,876,251 312,182 3,594,832 5,471,083

Connecticut 2,382,621 1,588,414 156.23 64.01 19 1,369,013 219,401 2,602,022 3,971,035

Delaware 1,241,360 827,574 207.55 48.18 10 772,296 55,278 1,296,638 2,068,934

Florida 14,858,451 9,905,634 80.21 124.67 136 9,186,325 719,309 15,577,760 24,764,085

Georgia 6,658,734 4,439,156 102.00 98.04 77 3,611,006 828,150 7,486,883 11,097,889

Hawaii 1,213,980 809,320 231.85 43.13 4 809,319 0 1,213,980 2,023,300

Idaho 1,294,293 862,862 237.03 42.19 16 632,078 230,784 1,525,078 2,157,156

Illinois 9,096,519 6,064,346 114.56 87.29 45 5,643,838 420,508 9,517,027 15,160,865

Indiana 4,020,999 2,680,666 133.06 75.15 29 2,277,806 402,860 4,423,859 6,701,665

Iowa 2,088,072 1,392,048 164.21 60.90 22 1,032,143 359,905 2,447,976 3,480,119

Kansas 2,249,645 1,499,764 132.46 75.49 24 1,144,536 355,228 2,604,873 3,749,409

Kentucky 2,713,105 1,808,737 173.84 57.52 21 1,451,962 356,775 3,069,880 4,521,842

Louisiana 4,017,052 2,678,034 93.35 107.13 48 2,258,965 419,069 4,436,121 6,695,086

Maine 1,069,159 712,773 484.22 20.65 18 447,258 265,515 1,334,674 1,781,932

Maryland 4,737,923 3,158,615 94.30 106.05 26 2,981,556 177,059 4,914,982 7,896,538

Massachusetts 4,610,175 3,073,450 105.44 94.84 48 2,531,543 541,907 5,152,082 7,683,625

Michigan 7,149,184 4,766,123 96.20 103.94 66 4,030,512 735,611 7,884,795 11,915,307

Minnesota 3,141,922 2,094,615 159.50 62.70 19 1,495,441 599,174 3,741,096 5,236,537

Mississippi 2,058,916 1,372,610 187.67 53.29 39 1,026,922 345,688 2,404,604 3,431,526

Missouri 4,508,242 3,005,495 98.63 101.39 36 2,287,508 717,987 5,226,229 7,513,737

Montana 1,073,414 715,609 225.48 44.35 21 539,732 175,877 1,249,291 1,789,023

Nebraska 1,487,784 991,856 188.07 53.17 9 844,914 146,942 1,634,727 2,479,641

Nevada 2,689,617 1,793,078 95.53 104.68 8 1,723,788 69,290 2,758,907 4,482,695

New Hampshire 1,096,642 731,095 387.51 25.81 13 449,766 281,329 1,377,971 1,827,737

New Jersey 5,183,101 3,455,401 126.14 79.27 58 2,695,641 759,760 5,942,861 8,638,502

New Mexico 2,079,805 1,386,536 109.85 91.03 24 1,166,608 219,928 2,299,733 3,466,341

New York 11,847,115 7,898,076 105.51 94.78 36 7,246,946 651,130 12,498,245 19,745,191

North Carolina 6,312,881 4,208,588 107.51 93.02 81 3,413,152 795,436 7,108,317 10,521,469

North Dakota 552,403 368,269 268.03 37.31 10 290,004 78,265 630,668 920,672

Ohio 6,841,189 4,560,792 120.98 82.66 43 3,763,279 797,513 7,638,702 11,401,981

Oklahoma 2,993,936 1,995,957 107.41 93.10 19 1,485,688 510,269 3,504,205 4,989,893

Oregon 2,439,191 1,626,128 167.68 59.64 27 1,331,967 294,161 2,733,352 4,065,319

Pennsylvania 7,923,005 5,282,003 117.02 85.46 44 4,033,803 1,248,200 9,171,205 13,205,008

Rhode Island 1,054,062 702,708 276.55 36.16 11 612,186 90,522 1,144,584 1,756,770

South Carolina 4,226,390 2,817,593 86.83 115.17 65 2,427,267 390,326 4,616,716 7,043,983

South Dakota 552,403 368,269 200.73 49.82 6 254,590 113,679 666,082 920,672

Tennessee 5,561,773 3,707,849 83.77 119.38 46 2,980,447 727,402 6,289,174 9,269,621

Texas 16,709,158 11,139,439 91.47 109.33 120 9,650,046 1,489,393 18,198,551 27,848,597

Utah 1,827,001 1,218,001 201.87 49.54 15 948,978 269,023 2,096,024 3,045,002

Vermont 552,403 368,269 610.73 16.37 10 245,921 122,348 674,751 920,672

Virginia 4,372,358 2,914,906 150.96 66.24 40 2,423,142 491,764 4,864,122 7,287,264

Washington 4,135,819 2,757,213 126.59 79.00 47 2,324,867 432,346 4,568,165 6,893,032

West Virginia 1,479,541 986,361 273.96 36.50 26 770,022 216,339 1,695,879 2,465,901

Wisconsin 3,367,662 2,245,108 145.91 68.54 21 1,693,959 551,149 3,918,811 5,612,770

Wyoming 552,403 368,269 286.81 34.87 9 204,116 164,153 716,556 920,672
Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program 2011 5

 The city of Swanton, Vermont, has 

a 3-year average of 3.00 violent 

crimes. This does not meet the state 

threshold of 16.37, so it is ineligible 

for a JAG award. Its crimes, less than 

1% of all violent crimes in Vermont, 

account for about $1,832 of award 

funds. These funds are transferred to 

the state for redistribution.

Results of the calculations for 

the 2011 Justice Assistance Grant

Program 

For the 2011 JAG, approximately $359.4 

million of the $368.3 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 ($143.8 million) was 

initially reserved for local governments. 

A total of 1,909 local governments 

had law enforcement agencies that 

provided a sufficient number of 

reported crimes to the FBI to receive 

a JAG award and were eligible for a 

collective total of $122.3 million. The 

balance of unawarded local allocations 

($21.5 million) was returned to state 

governments for redistribution to state 

law enforcement agencies and local 

governments.

In addition, the District of Columbia was 

eligible for $2.2 million and Puerto Rico 

was eligible for $3.9 million (table 2). 

Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands were 

each eligible for the minimum award of 

$920,672. American Samoa ($616,850) 

and the Northern Mariana Islands 

($303,822) split one minimum award. 

Additional JAG provision

Pass-through requirement

[Legislative Mandate: 42 USC 3755 (c)]

According to the JAG legislation, 

states may only retain award amounts 

that bear the same ratio of “(A) total 

expenditures on criminal justice by the 

state government in the most recently 

completed fiscal year to (B) the total 

expenditure on criminal justice by the 

state government and units of local 

government within the state in such year.” 

After determining the amount spent on 

criminal justice expenditures by the state 

government, the state may retain that 

amount. The remainder of the funds are 

passed down to the local governments 

within the state. These criminal justice 

expenditure amounts are referred to 

as “variable 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 pass-through 

amounts. These pass-through amounts, 

based on data from 2006, were used for 

the 2011 JAG program and can be found 

on the BJA website at http://www.bja.gov. 

Disparate jurisdictions and joint 

allocations

[Legislative Mandate: 42 USC 3755 (d)

(3)(4)]

In some cases, as defined by the 

legislation, a disparity may exist 

between the funding eligibility of a 

county and associated municipalities. 

There are three different types of 

disparities that may exist. 

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

when 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.

Example:

 Decatur, Illinois, is eligible for an 

award of $67,170. 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 

$146,220. The city of Tacoma in 

Pierce County is eligible for a 

direct award of $255,429. Tacoma’s 

award amount is more than 150% 

of Pierce County’s award amount. 

Consequently, the two governments’ 

awards ($401,649) 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. In 2011, there were no 

counties and municipalities that 

were exclusively 400% disparate. The 

following example is taken from the 

2010 JAG calculations.

Table 2

Allocations to territories and the 

District of Columbia, FY 2011

Territories and D.C. Award amount

Total $8,879,588 

American Samoa 616,850 

Northern Mariana Islands 303,822 

Guam 920,672 

Puerto Rico 3,935,901 

Virgin Islands 920,672 

District of Columbia 2,181,670 

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

Source: BJS calculations based on 2007–2009 data 

from the Uniform Crime Reporting Program and 

2010 population counts from the U.S. Census Bureau.
6 Bureau of Justice Statistics Technical Report

Example:

 In 2010, San Mateo County, 

California, was eligible for a direct 

award of $24,798. The cities of Daly 

($31,406), East Palo Alto ($33,475), 

Redwood ($32,168), San Bruno 

($12,962), San Mateo ($35,981), and 

South San Francisco ($20,296) (all 

located within San Mateo County) 

were also eligible for direct awards. 

The six cities’ awards summed to 

$166,288. This summed amount 

was more than 400% of San Mateo 

County’s direct award amount of 

$24,798. Consequently, all of the 

funds ($191,086) were pooled 

together and shared among the 

seven units of local government as 

mutually agreed upon.

These three types of disparity are 

examined in order, and if a municipality 

is found to be disparate in one of these 

three ways, its award is not included 

in calculations to test other disparity 

situations. For instance, if a municipality 

is found to be 150% disparate with the 

county, its award is set aside, and the 

rest of the municipalities within the 

same county are checked for 400% 

disparity. If no other disparity is found, 

the single municipality and county share 

the sum of their two awards. However, 

it is possible for a county to have both 

a 150% disparity and a 400% disparity 

simultaneously. For instance, counties 

can have one or more municipalities 

whose individual awards are more than 

150% of the county’s award and other 

municipalities whose combined award is 

more than 400% of the county’s award.

Examples: 

 Essex County, New Jersey, is eligible 

for an award of $11,689. The 

cities and townships of Belleville 

($13,413), Bloomfield ($14,170), 

East Orange ($63,030), Irvington 

($145,149), Montclair ($11,437), 

Newark ($322,590), Orange City 

($45,201), and West Orange 

($10,764) (all located in Essex 

County), are also eligible for awards. 

The awards for East Orange City, 

Irvington Township, Newark, and 

Orange City Township individually 

are more than 150% of Essex 

County’s award, and therefore will 

be pooled with the county. The other 

four cities’ awards sum to $49,784. 

This summed amount is more than 

400% of Essex County’s direct award 

of $11,689. As a result, all of the 

funds ($637,443) are pooled together 

and must be shared.

 Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, is 

eligible for an award of $24,675. The 

cities of Lake Charles ($59,121) and 

Sulphur ($17,549), both located in 

Calcasieu Parish, are also eligible for 

awards. These two award amounts 

sum to $76,670, which is less than 

400% of the county’s award amount. 

Although no 400% disparity exists, 

the award amount for the city of 

Lake Charles is more than 150% 

of the award amount for Calcasieu 

Parish. These two jurisdictions are 

disparate and will share $83,796, the 

pooled amount of these two awards. 

The award for Sulphur remains 

separate. 

For disparate situations, regardless of 

the type, the total of all award funds of 

the separate units of local governments 

(counties and municipalities) are 

pooled together and split among the 

units of local government as agreed 

upon by the affected jurisdictions. To 

qualify for payment, the disparate units 

of local government must submit a joint 

application for the aggregated funds.

Maximum allocation to local units of 

government

[Legislative Mandate: 42 USC 3755 (e)

(1)]

According to the legislation, units 

of local government may not receive 

a JAG award that “exceeds such 

unit’s total expenditures on criminal 

justice services for the most recently 

completed fiscal year for which data are 

available.” Award amounts in excess of 

total expenditures “shall be allocated 

proportionately among units of local 

government whose allocations...do not 

exceed their total expenditures on such 

services.” 
Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program 2011 7

Methodology

The population data used to calculate 

state and territory JAG allocations 

are from the 2010 census provided by 

the U.S. Census Bureau. The statelevel 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 2011 JAG program, 

state-level crime data for the years 2007 

through 2009 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 2011 JAG, local 

crime data from 2000 through 2009 

were used.

The sum of the UCR violent crimes for 

all local governments within a state for 

a given year will not equal the estimated 

crime total reported for that state 

published by the FBI. These state-level 

estimates are based on crimes reported 

by all state, local, and special district 

law enforcement agencies within a 

state, plus an imputation adjustment to 

account for non-reporting agencies and 

agencies reporting less than 12 months 

of data for the year. These imputed 

values do not appear on the electronic 

data file provided to BJS and are not 

used in the local award calculations.

Allocations to U.S. territories

Puerto Rico was the only territory 

receiving an initial allocation larger 

than the minimum amount, and also 

the only territory for which violent 

crime data were available. The JAG 

calculations for the other territories 

were based solely on population data. 

Because the other territories have 

relatively small populations (none 

exceeding 181,000), 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 2011, the locallevel UCR data provided by the FBI 

did not include any crime data for local 

jurisdictions in Puerto Rico. Therefore, 

the local government JAG program 

allocation in Puerto Rico was $0.

Sources of additional information

For more information on the legal 

foundation of the allocation formula, 

please see 42 USC sec. 3754 and 42 

USC sec. 3755.

The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice 

Assistance Grant (JAG) Program 

was established to streamline justice 

funding and grant administration. 

Administered by the Bureau of 

Justice Assistance (BJA), the JAG 

program allows states, tribes, and 

local governments to support a broad 

range of activities to prevent and 

control crime based on local needs 

and conditions. JAG consolidates the 

previous Byrne Formula and Local Law 

Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) 

Programs. More information about the 

JAG program and application process 

can be found on the BJA website at 

http://www.bja.gov. 
PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/BJS

Permit No. G-91

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business 

Penalty for Private Use $300

NCJ237732

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

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

Justice. James P. Lynch is the director.

This technical report was prepared by Alexia Cooper. Jessica Rexroat verified the 

report. Catherine Bird, Vanessa Curto, and Jill Thomas edited the report, and Tina 

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

March 2012, NCJ 237732

The full text of each report is available in PDF and ASCII formats on the BJS 

website at www.bjs.gov. Tables are also available in PDF and CSV formats. Related 

datasets are made available on the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data 

website at http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/NACJD/index.jsp.