U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

BJS

TECHNICAL REPORT September 2012, NCJ 239232 

Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program, 2012

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. 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 $295,580,175 was available 

for the 2012 JAG awards (figure 1). This 

report describes the steps in the JAG 

award calculation process and presents 

summary results of the 2012 JAG 

formula calculations.

 The total 2012 allocation for the JAG funding was approximately 

$295.6 million, of which $288.4 million went to states and $7.2 million to 

territories and the District of Columbia. 

 The five largest total state allocations included California ($32.9 million), 

Texas ($22.7 million), Florida ($19.5 million), New York ($16.0 million), 

and Illinois ($12.0 million). 

 A total of 1,606 local governments were eligible for awards, either 

directly or through a joint allocation with other governments within 

their county. The five local governments eligible to receive the largest 

awards included New York City ($4.1 million), Chicago ($2.9 million), 

Philadelphia ($1.9 million), Houston ($1.9 million), and Los Angeles 

($1.8 million).

 Three states had around 100 or more local governments eligible to 

receive award funds either directly or through a joint allocation: 

California (224), Florida (130), and Texas (98).

HIGHLIGHTS

FIGURE 1

Distribution of FY 2012 JAG funds

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.

0 100 200 300 400 500

Millions (dollars)

$173.0 million 

to state governments

$115.3 million 

to local 

governments

$7.2 million 

to territories and the 

District of Columbia

$295.6 million 

total allocations
JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT (JAG) PROGRAM, 2012 | AUGUST 2012 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 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 for the 2012 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 2008 and 

2010. The population shares for the 50 

states and territories were determined 

based on the results of the 2011 mid-year 

population estimates published by the 

U.S. Census Bureau.

Examples—

 California accounts for 13.12% 

of the nation’s total violent crime 

and 11.94% of the nation’s total 

population. Therefore, California’s 

initial allocation equals 13.12% of 

$147,790,088 (half of $295,580,175) 

plus 11.94% of $147,790,088, totaling 

$37,035,131.

 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 $147,790,088 plus 0.20% of 

$147,790,088, totaling $385,914. 

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 ($738,950 in 2012), 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 $40,642,274 

was allocated for minimum awards in the 

2012 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% ($495,097) and the 

Northern Mariana Islands receiving 33% 

($243,854). (See Methodology for more 

information on allocation procedures for 

the territories.) 

Examples—

 Vermont’s initial allocation of 

$385,915 is less than the minimum 

value, so Vermont’s total JAG 

allocation will be the minimum 

amount of $738,950.

 California’s initial allocation of 

$37,035,131 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 13.18% of 

violent crime and 12.06% of the 

nation’s population. California’s 

new JAG allocation is equal 

to $16,795,770 (13.18% of one 

half of $254.9 million) plus 

$15,369,833 (12.06% of one half of 

$254.9 million), plus the minimum 

amount of $738,950. These three 

components equal $32,904,554. 

($254.9 million equals the $295.6 

million total JAG 2012 award 

allocation minus the $40.6 million 

JAG 2012 minimum allocation.)
JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT (JAG) PROGRAM, 2012 | AUGUST 2012 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 $32,904,554, or $19,742,732. 

The remaining 40%, or $13,161,821, 

is set aside for distribution to local 

governments in California.

 Vermont’s state government 

retains 60% of the minimum 

award of $738,950, or $443,370. 

The remaining 40%, or $295,580, 

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 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 

required deadline, making it unnecessary 

to authorize an additional waiver of the 

10-year rule in 2012.

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 $13.2 million set 

aside for local awards. The 3-year 

violent crime averages reported 

by local jurisdictions in California 

equal 171,591 crimes. Dividing the 

$13.2 million set aside by the state 

crime totals results in the number 

of dollars available for each crime: 

$13,161,821/171,591 crimes = 

$76.70 per crime. Therefore, a local 

California jurisdiction needs a 

3-year average of at least 130.37 

violent crimes ($10,000/$76.70) to be 

eligible for an award.

 Vermont has $295,580 set aside 

for local governments. The sum 

of 3-year average violent crimes 

reported is 613. The dollars per 

crime ratio in Vermont equals 

$295,580/613 crimes, or $481.92 per 

crime. The threshold is 20.75 violent 

crimes ($10,000/$481.92) 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.)

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 2012 and the UCR data used for 

the 2012 JAG award calculations included the 

10-year period from 2001 to 2010.
TABLE 1 

State and local allocation amounts, FY 2012

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 $173,019,586 $115,346,390 1,606 $94,944,267 $20,402,123 $193,421,709 $288,365,976

Alabama 2,778,388 1,852,259 $98.02 102.02 34 1,265,377 586,882 3,365,270 4,630,647

Alaska 878,398 585,598 164.13 60.93 5 502,661 82,937 961,335 1,463,996

Arizona 3,677,872 2,451,914 86.57 115.52 31 2,181,357 270,557 3,948,429 6,129,786

Arkansas 2,013,305 1,342,204 93.33 107.14 27 951,352 390,852 2,404,157 3,355,509

California 19,742,732 13,161,821 76.70 130.37 224 12,113,628 1,048,193 20,790,926 32,904,554

Colorado 2,668,339 1,778,893 104.58 95.62 28 1,523,500 255,393 2,923,732 4,447,232

Connecticut 1,922,522 1,281,681 127.35 78.52 18 1,097,231 184,450 2,106,972 3,204,203

Delaware 1,001,137 667,424 171.78 58.21 9 611,768 55,656 1,056,793 1,668,561

Florida 11,673,899 7,782,599 67.65 147.82 130 7,169,332 613,267 12,287,166 19,456,498

Georgia 5,314,192 3,542,795 86.61 115.46 63 2,749,219 793,576 6,107,768 8,856,987

Hawaii 984,095 656,063 186.89 53.51 4 656,063 0 984,095 1,640,158

Idaho 1,041,590 694,393 192.51 51.94 14 483,913 210,480 1,252,071 1,735,984

Illinois 7,201,034 4,800,689 93.03 107.49 38 4,341,204 459,485 7,660,519 12,001,723

Indiana 3,255,614 2,170,409 108.59 92.09 25 1,803,751 366,658 3,622,272 5,426,023

Iowa 1,682,056 1,121,370 136.87 73.06 19 785,083 336,287 2,018,343 2,803,426

Kansas 1,790,506 1,193,671 111.69 89.53 21 879,105 314,566 2,105,071 2,984,176

Kentucky 2,169,976 1,446,651 144.03 69.43 15 1,093,148 353,503 2,523,479 3,616,627

Louisiana 3,164,952 2,109,968 79.48 125.82 39 1,668,413 441,555 3,606,507 5,274,920

Maine 860,056 573,370 389.17 25.70 14 334,162 239,208 1,099,264 1,433,426

Maryland 3,803,338 2,535,559 78.65 127.14 24 2,372,141 163,418 3,966,756 6,338,897

Massachusetts 3,807,592 2,538,395 86.19 116.03 38 1,984,696 553,699 4,361,291 6,345,987

Michigan 5,738,420 3,825,613 79.94 125.09 54 3,114,809 710,804 6,449,224 9,564,033

Minnesota 2,505,196 1,670,131 129.71 77.10 15 1,108,895 561,236 3,066,432 4,175,327

Mississippi 1,660,150 1,106,767 154.17 64.86 32 767,534 339,233 1,999,383 2,766,917

Missouri 3,575,617 2,383,745 83.36 119.96 26 1,708,787 674,958 4,250,575 5,959,362

Montana 851,019 567,346 192.13 52.05 16 368,689 198,657 1,049,675 1,418,364

Nebraska 1,199,236 799,491 154.33 64.80 6 645,622 153,869 1,353,105 1,998,727

Nevada 2,175,328 1,450,219 78.78 126.94 8 1,392,082 58,137 2,233,465 3,625,547

New Hampshire 888,435 592,290 298.18 33.54 9 337,544 254,746 1,143,181 1,480,725

New Jersey 4,187,390 2,791,594 103.64 96.49 48 2,091,111 700,483 4,887,873 6,978,984

New Mexico 1,679,269 1,119,513 91.81 108.92 20 898,441 221,072 1,900,341 2,798,782

New York 9,599,530 6,399,687 86.48 115.63 31 5,830,069 569,618 10,169,148 15,999,217

North Carolina 5,029,856 3,353,237 90.27 110.78 65 2,570,243 782,994 5,812,850 8,383,093

North Dakota 443,370 295,580 206.70 48.38 8 214,002 81,578 524,948 738,950

Ohio 5,480,061 3,653,374 101.38 98.64 32 2,924,635 728,739 6,208,800 9,133,435

Oklahoma 2,445,381 1,630,254 87.59 114.16 17 1,188,748 441,506 2,886,888 4,075,636

Oregon 1,958,204 1,305,469 137.56 72.69 21 1,003,841 301,628 2,259,832 3,263,673

Pennsylvania 6,361,952 4,241,301 96.64 103.47 34 3,125,847 1,115,454 7,477,407 10,603,254

Rhode Island 854,998 569,999 215.91 46.32 10 491,552 78,447 933,445 1,424,997

South Carolina 3,340,696 2,227,131 73.56 135.95 51 1,783,083 444,048 3,784,744 5,567,827

South Dakota 443,370 295,580 152.39 65.62 7 211,108 84,472 527,842 738,950

Tennessee 4,426,947 2,951,298 70.71 141.42 33 2,246,720 704,578 5,131,525 7,378,245

Texas 13,614,465 9,076,310 76.40 130.90 98 7,668,784 1,407,526 15,021,990 22,690,774

Utah 1,479,365 986,243 167.15 59.83 15 762,206 224,037 1,703,402 2,465,608

Vermont 443,370 295,580 481.92 20.75 8 179,917 115,663 559,033 738,950

Virginia 3,487,293 2,324,862 128.64 77.74 33 1,869,780 455,082 3,942,375 5,812,155

Washington 3,371,272 2,247,515 104.26 95.91 40 1,808,944 438,571 3,809,843 5,618,787

West Virginia 1,212,284 808,190 218.47 45.77 24 600,502 207,688 1,419,972 2,020,474

Wisconsin 2,692,147 1,794,765 122.48 81.65 19 1,323,139 471,626 3,163,773 4,486,912

Wyoming 443,370 295,580 243.41 41.08 6 140,529 155,051 598,421 738,950

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

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics state calculations based on 2008–2010 data from the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program and 2011 population estimates from the 

U.S. Census Bureau; local calculations based on 2001–2010 UCR data.
JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT (JAG) PROGRAM, 2012 | AUGUST 2012 5

Examples—

 The city of Oakland, California 

has a 3-year average of 6,988.33 

violent crimes, or 4.1% of all violent 

crimes reported by jurisdictions 

in California. Oakland exceeds the 

state threshold of 130.37 violent 

crimes. It is eligible for 4.1% of the 

$13.2 million set aside for local 

governments in California, or about 

$536,000 (6,988.33 X $76.70).

 The city of Swanton, Vermont, has 

a 3-year average of 4.33 violent 

crimes. This does not meet the state 

threshold of 20.75, so it is ineligible 

for a JAG award. Its crimes, less than 

1% of all violent crimes in Vermont, 

account for about $2,100 of award 

funds. These funds are transferred to 

the state for redistribution.

Results of the calculations for 

the 2012 Justice Assistance Grant 

Program 

For the 2012 JAG, approximately $288.4 

million of the $295.6 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 ($115.3 million) was 

initially reserved for local governments. 

A total of 1,606 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 $94.9 

million. The balance of unawarded local 

allocations ($20.4 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 $1.8 million and Puerto Rico 

was eligible for $3.2 million (table 2). 

Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands were 

each eligible for the minimum award of 

$738,950. American Samoa ($495,097) 

and the Northern Mariana Islands 

($243,854) 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 2012 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 $52,749. 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 

$120,738. The city of Tacoma in 

Pierce County is eligible for a 

direct award of $196,572. Tacoma’s 

award amount is more than 150% 

of Pierce County’s award amount. 

Consequently, the two governments’ 

awards ($317,310) are pooled 

together and shared as mutually 

agreed upon.

TABLE 2

Allocations to territories and the 

District of Columbia, FY 2012

Territories and D.C. Award amount

Total $7,214,199 

American Samoa 495,097 

Northern Mariana Islands 243,854 

Guam 738,950 

Puerto Rico 3,218,421 

Virgin Islands 738,950 

District of Columbia 1,778,926 

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

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics calculations 

based on 2008–2010 data from the Uniform Crime 

Reporting Program and 2011 population estimates 

from the U.S. Census Bureau.
JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT (JAG) PROGRAM, 2012 | AUGUST 2012 6

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 $96,085. 

The cities of Banning ($12,324), 

Coachella ($16,901), Corona 

($17,795), Lake Elsinore ($10,534), 

Hemet ($29,915), Indio ($32,497), 

Palm Springs ($24,111), Perris 

($15,469), Riverside ($125,412), San 

Jacinto ($10,994), Moreno Valley 

($69,724), Cathedral ($17,719), 

La Quinta ($11,812), and Desert 

Hot Springs ($25,952) were also 

eligible for direct awards. The 14 

cities’ awards summed to $421,159. 

This summed amount was more 

than 400% of Riverside County’s 

direct award amount of $96,085. 

Consequently, all of the funds 

($517,244) 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—

 Maricopa County, Arizona, is 

eligible for an award of $86,540. The 

cities and townships of Avondale 

($29,058), Chandler ($64,407), 

Gilbert ($18,439), Glendale 

($99,265), Goodyear ($11,889), 

Mesa ($175,417), Peoria ($26,490), 

Phoenix ($784,774), Scottsdale 

($34,223), and Tempe ($73,785) (all 

located in Maricopa County) are 

also eligible for awards. The awards 

for Mesa City and Phoenix City 

individually are more than 150% 

of Maricopa County’s award, and 

therefore will be pooled with the 

county. The other eight cities’ awards 

sum to $357,556. This summed 

amount is more than 400% of 

Maricopa County’s direct award of 

$86,540. As a result, all of the funds 

($1,404,287) are pooled together and 

must be shared.

 Galveston County, Texas, is eligible 

for an award of $10,721. The cities 

of Galveston ($31,272), La Marque 

($11,052), and Texas ($16,043) are 

also eligible for awards. These three 

award amounts sum to $58,367, 

which is less than 400% of the 

county’s award amount. Although 

no 400% disparity exists, the award 

amount for the city of Galveston 

is more than 150% of the award 

amount for Galveston County. 

These two jurisdictions are disparate 

and will share $41,993, the pooled 

amount of these two awards. The 

award for the cities of La Marque and 

Texas 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.

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.” 

Sex Offender Registration and 

Notification Act penalty 

[Legislative Mandate: 42 USC 16925 

(a)]

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, District of Columbia, 

5 principal 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 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”). 
JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT (JAG) PROGRAM, 2012 | AUGUST 2012 7

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 JAG frequently asked 

questions on the BJA website at https://

www.bja.gov/Funding/JAGFAQ.pdf.

For additional information regarding 

the SORNA penalty, including 

implementation requirements and a 

list of states and territories that were 

impacted in FY 2012 by the 10% 

penalty, contact the Office of Sex 

Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, 

Apprehending, Registering, and 

Tracking (SMART) Policy Advisor 

assigned to assist your jurisdiction, 

located on the SMART website at http://

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/smart/sorna.htm.

Methodology

The population data used to calculate 

state and territory JAG allocations 

are from the 2011 census estimates 

provided by the United States Census 

Bureau (2011). Population data for the 

United States and Puerto Rico were 

drawn from the midyear estimates 

of the resident population as of July 

1, 2011 and are available at http://

www.census.gov/popest/data/state/

totals/2011/index.html. The other 

territory populations are midyear 

estimates available at http://www.

census.gov/population/international/

data/idb/informationGateway.php.

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 2012 

JAG program, state-level crime data for 

the years 2008 through 2010 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 2012 JAG, local 

crime data from 2001 through 2010 

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 184,000), 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 2012, however, 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. 
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 D. Cooper. Matt Durose 

verified the report. Morgan Young edited the report, and Tina Dorsey 

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

September 2012, NCJ 239232

Office of Justice Programs

Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods

www.ojp.usdoj.gov