U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

TECHNICAL REPORT

Celebrating

 35 years

October 2015, NCJ 249105

Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program, 2015

Alexia D. Cooper, Ph.D., and Shelley S. Hyland, Ph.D., BJS Statisticians

 The total allocation for the 2015 JAG funding was approximately 

$255.8 million, of which $249.5 million went to states and $6.3 million 

went to U.S. territories and the District of Columbia. 

 The five states with the largest total allocations included California 

($28.4 million), Texas ($19.7 million), Florida ($16.2 million), New York 

($14.6 million), and Illinois ($9.9 million). 

 A total of 1,408 local governments were eligible for awards, either directly or 

through a joint award with other governments within their county. The five 

local governments eligible to receive the largest awards included New York 

City ($4.0 million), Chicago ($2.0 million), Philadelphia ($1.6 million), Houston 

($1.6 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 (114).

HIGHLIGHTS

Figure 1

Distribution of FY 2015 JAG awards

100 200 300 400 500

Millions (dollars)

$170.0 million 

to state governments

$79.5 million 

to local 

governments

$6.3 million 

to U.S. territories and the 

District of Columbia

0

$255.8 million 

total allocation

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

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics calculations based on data from the Uniform Crime Reporting 

program and the U.S. Census Bureau.

Introduction

As part of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act of 2005, the 108th 

Congress merged the discretionary 

Edward Byrne Memorial Grant 

Program with the formula-based 

Local Law Enforcement Block Grant 

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 $255,795,278 was available 

for the 2015 JAG awards (figure 1). 

This report describes the steps in the 

JAG award calculation process and 

presents summary results of the 2015 

JAG formula calculations.
JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT (JAG) PROGRAM, 2015 | OCTOBER 2015 2

Overview of process

Once the fiscal year JAG allocation 

has been determined, BJS begins its 

four-step award calculation process:

 Computing an initial allocation 

for each state and territory, based 

on its share of violent crime and 

population (weighted equally).

 Reviewing the initial allocation 

amount to determine if it is less 

than the minimum (de minimus) 

award amount defined in the JAG 

legislation (0.25% of the total). If 

this is the case, the state or territory 

is funded at the minimum level, 

and the funds required for this are 

deducted from the overall pool 

of funds. Each of the remaining 

states receives the minimum 

award plus an additional amount 

based on its share of violent crime 

and population.

 Dividing each state’s final amount at 

a rate of 60% for state governments 

and 40% for local governments.

 Determining local award 

allocations, which are based on 

a jurisdiction’s proportion of the 

state’s 3-year violent crime average. 

If a local jurisdiction’s calculated 

award is less than $10,000, the 

funds are returned to the state to 

distribute. If the calculated local 

award is $10,000 or more, then the 

local government is eligible to apply 

for an award.

The 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 2015 JAG 

program, BJS calculates the initial 

allocation amounts for the 50 states 

and U.S. territories. Using the 

congressionally established formula, 

BJS allocates half of the available 

funds based on a state’s or territory’s 

share of violent crime and half of 

the funds based on its share of the 

nation’s population.1

 The most recent 

3-year period of official violent 

crime data for states and territories 

from the FBI covered from 2011 to 

2013. The population shares for the 

50 states, the District of Columbia, 

and U.S. territories were determined 

based on results of the 2014 midyear 

population estimates published by the 

U.S. Census Bureau.

Examples—

 California accounts for 12.94% 

of the nation’s total violent crime 

and 12.02% of the nation’s total 

population. Therefore, California’s 

initial allocation equals 12.94% of 

$127,897,639 (half of $255,795,278) 

plus 12.02% of $127,897,639, 

totaling $31,919,362.

 Vermont accounts for 0.07% of 

the nation’s total violent crime 

and 0.19% of the nation’s total 

population. Vermont’s initial 

allocation is 0.07% of $127,897,639 

plus 0.19% of $127,897,639, totaling 

$337,965.

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 ($639,488 in 

2015), regardless of its population or 

crime average. If a state or territory’s 

initial allocation based on crime and 

population is less than the minimum 

amount, that state or territory receives 

the minimum award amount as its 

total JAG allocation. If a state or 

territory’s initial allocation exceeds 

the minimum amount, it receives the 

minimum award plus the amount 

based on its share of violent crime 

and population.

1

For purposes of the initial calculations for 

the 2015 state and 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.

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% 

($428,457) and the Northern Mariana 

Islands receiving 33% ($211,031). (See 

Methodology for more information 

on allocation procedures for 

the territories.)

In 2015, 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 $35,171,851 was allocated 

for minimum awards under the 2015 

JAG program.

Examples—

 Vermont’s initial allocation of 

$337,965 is less than the minimum 

value, so Vermont’s total JAG 

allocation will be the minimum 

amount of $639,488.

 California’s initial allocation of 

$31,919,362 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. 
JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT (JAG) PROGRAM, 2015 | OCTOBER 2015 3

Examples—

 Vermont 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 13.00% of violent 

crime and 12.14% of the nation’s 

population. California’s new JAG 

allocation is equal to $14,343,532 

(13.00% of half of $220.6 million) 

plus $13,392,811 (12.14% of half of 

$220.6 million), plus the minimum 

amount of $639,488. These three 

components equal $28,375,832. 

(The total amount of $220.6 million 

equals the original $255.8 million 

total JAG 2015 award allocation 

minus the $35.2 million JAG 2015 

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 $28,375,832, or $17,025,499. 

The remaining 40%, or $11,350,333, 

is set aside for distribution to local 

governments in California.

 Vermont’s state government 

retains 60% of the minimum 

award of $639,488, or $383,693. 

The remaining 40%, or $255,795, 

is set aside for distribution to local 

governments in Vermont.

Step 4: Determining local award 

allocations

[Legislative mandate: 42 USC § 3755 

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

In order to determine local awards, 

BJS determines which jurisdictions 

should be included in the calculation 

of the 3-year violent crime averages on 

which local awards are based. These 

crime averages are computed using 

data reported to the FBI’s Uniform 

Crime Reporting (UCR) program. 

To be eligible, a jurisdiction must 

have provided to the UCR a count of 

the number of Part I violent crimes 

known to law enforcement each year 

for a minimum of 3 years in the 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 2015 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 (e.g., local government) 

for the 3 most recent years in which 

they reported data.

Since awards to local governments 

are based on their share of all 

violent crimes reported by the 

law enforcement agencies in their 

state, BJS computes the sum of 

these averages within each state to 

determine the jurisdiction’s share of 

the total local award allocation.

Examples—

 California has $11.4 million set 

aside for local awards. The 3-year 

violent crime averages reported 

by local jurisdictions in California 

equal 153,562.67 crimes. Dividing 

the $11,350,333 set-aside by the 

state crime total (153,562.67) results 

in the number of dollars available 

for each crime ($73.91). Therefore, 

a local California jurisdiction needs 

a 3-year violent crime average of at 

least 135.29 violent crimes ($10,000 

divided by $73.91) to be eligible for 

a direct award.

 Vermont has $255,795 set aside 

for local governments. The sum 

of 3-year average violent crimes 

reported is 629.67. The dollars 

per crime ratio in Vermont equals 

$255,795 divided by 629.67 

crimes, or $406.24 per crime (after 

rounding). The threshold is 24.62 

violent crimes ($10,000 divided 

by $406.24) to be eligible for a 

direct award.
Table 1

State and local allocation amounts, FY 2015

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 $149,703,334 $99,802,223 ~ ~ $1,408 $79,523,714 $20,278,509 $169,981,843 $249,505,557 

Alabama 2,529,927 1,686,618 $83.35 $119.98 25 1,069,493 617,125 3,147,052 4,216,545 

Alaska 780,189 520,126 151.29 66.10 6 455,275 64,851 845,041 1,300,316 

Arizona 3,281,941 2,187,961 80.74 123.86 29 1,922,528 265,433 3,547,374 5,469,902 

Arkansas 1,756,292 1,170,861 86.40 115.75 24 804,516 366,345 2,122,637 2,927,153 

California 17,025,499 11,350,333 73.91 135.29 214 10,291,887 1,058,446 18,083,945 28,375,832 

Colorado 2,364,527 1,576,351 99.31 100.69 25 1,347,132 229,219 2,593,746 3,940,878 

Connecticut 1,666,227 1,110,818 117.95 84.78 17 953,437 157,381 1,823,609 2,777,046 

Delaware 846,564 564,376 170.75 58.57 7 494,825 69,551 916,114 1,410,939 

Florida 9,696,055 6,464,037 68.66 145.64 114 5,795,701 668,336 10,364,390 16,160,091 

Georgia 4,505,581 3,003,721 83.88 119.21 50 2,188,767 814,954 5,320,534 7,509,301 

Hawaii 866,936 577,958 191.00 52.36 4 577,958 0 866,936 1,444,894 

Idaho 903,401 602,267 182.45 54.81 14 404,126 198,141 1,101,542 1,505,668 

Illinois 5,922,514 3,948,342 76.37 130.94 38 3,105,966 842,376 6,764,890 9,870,856 

Indiana 2,985,371 1,990,247 93.94 106.46 23 1,600,759 389,488 3,374,859 4,975,618 

Iowa 1,470,775 980,516 125.35 79.77 16 620,502 360,014 1,830,789 2,451,291 

Kansas 1,536,656 1,024,438 102.86 97.22 14 687,929 336,509 1,873,165 2,561,094 

Kentucky 1,832,230 1,221,487 139.90 71.48 13 890,943 330,544 2,162,774 3,053,717 

Louisiana 2,667,991 1,778,661 77.16 129.61 32 1,358,666 419,995 3,087,986 4,446,652 

Maine 748,909 499,273 333.00 30.03 12 270,062 229,211 978,120 1,248,182 

Maryland 3,178,539 2,119,026 78.81 126.89 19 1,936,802 182,224 3,360,764 5,297,566 

Massachusetts 3,295,109 2,196,740 82.27 121.55 37 1,701,242 495,498 3,790,607 5,491,849 

Michigan 4,850,345 3,233,563 74.62 134.00 51 2,608,255 625,308 5,475,654 8,083,909 

Minnesota 2,191,661 1,461,108 115.80 86.36 13 909,443 551,665 2,743,326 3,652,769 

Mississippi 1,441,200 960,800 147.75 67.68 25 630,073 330,727 1,771,927 2,402,000 

Missouri 3,103,664 2,069,109 77.62 128.83 19 1,381,219 687,890 3,791,555 5,172,774 

Montana 742,891 495,261 178.62 55.98 13 296,276 198,985 941,876 1,238,152 

Nebraska 1,034,336 689,557 147.84 67.64 4 543,742 145,815 1,180,151 1,723,893 

Nevada 1,867,849 1,245,233 78.52 127.36 8 1,183,308 61,925 1,929,774 3,113,082 

New Hampshire 812,036 541,357 222.96 44.85 9 301,744 239,613 1,051,650 1,353,394 

New Jersey 3,676,135 2,450,757 96.14 104.02 39 1,813,444 637,313 4,313,448 6,126,892 

New Mexico 1,478,067 985,378 86.88 115.10 19 783,554 201,824 1,679,892 2,463,446 

New York 8,770,721 5,847,147 76.79 130.22 26 5,359,612 487,535 9,258,256 14,617,868 

North Carolina 4,301,922 2,867,948 87.56 114.21 50 2,049,823 818,125 5,120,046 7,169,869 

North Dakota 383,693 255,795 141.25 70.80 7 164,975 90,820 474,513 639,488 

Ohio 4,660,444 3,106,963 94.54 105.77 29 2,414,222 692,741 5,353,184 7,767,406 

Oklahoma 2,141,625 1,427,750 82.50 121.21 16 1,053,034 374,716 2,516,341 3,569,375 

Oregon 1,736,267 1,157,511 124.08 80.59 16 828,034 329,477 2,065,744 2,893,778 

Pennsylvania 5,484,063 3,656,042 90.33 110.71 28 2,588,651 1,067,391 6,551,454 9,140,105 

Rhode Island 745,994 497,329 191.75 52.15 9 424,595 72,734 818,728 1,243,323 

South Carolina 2,819,403 1,879,602 72.14 138.63 41 1,439,257 440,345 3,259,748 4,699,005 

South Dakota 383,693 255,795 107.96 92.63 4 158,378 97,417 481,110 639,488 

Tennessee 3,906,655 2,604,437 66.52 150.32 31 1,967,521 636,916 4,543,571 6,511,092 

Texas 11,797,526 7,865,017 74.77 133.75 88 6,498,782 1,366,235 13,163,761 19,662,543 

Utah 1,316,146 877,430 142.91 69.97 14 653,725 223,705 1,539,851 2,193,576 

Vermont 383,693 255,795 406.24 24.62 5 109,956 145,839 529,532 639,488 

Virginia 2,976,660 1,984,440 126.01 79.36 31 1,558,265 426,175 3,402,835 4,961,100 

Washington 2,951,488 1,967,659 98.36 101.67 35 1,528,027 439,632 3,391,120 4,919,147 

West Virginia 1,076,175 717,450 178.81 55.92 22 498,526 218,924 1,295,099 1,793,625 

Wisconsin 2,424,055 1,616,036 105.19 95.06 16 1,178,998 437,038 2,861,093 4,040,091 

Wyoming 383,693 255,795 217.08 46.07 7 119,759 136,036 519,729 639,488 

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, 2011–2013, and U.S. Census Bureau, 2014; and 

local calculations based on data from the UCR Program, 2004–2013.
JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT (JAG) PROGRAM, 2015 | OCTOBER 2015 5

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 18,372.00 

violent crimes, or about 12.0% 

of all violent crimes reported by 

potentially eligible jurisdictions in 

California. Los Angeles exceeds the 

state threshold of 135.29 violent 

crimes and is eligible for 12.0% of 

the $11.4 million set aside for local 

governments in California, or about 

$1,357,936 (18,372.00 multiplied by 

$73.91).

 The city of Vergennes, Vermont, 

has a 3-year average of 4.00 violent 

crimes. This does not meet the 

state threshold of 24.62, so it is 

ineligible for a direct JAG award. Its 

crimes, less than 1% of all violent 

crimes in Vermont, account for 

about $1,625 of award funds. These 

funds are transferred to the state 

for redistribution.

Results of the calculations for 

the 2015 Justice Assistance 

Grant program

For the 2015 JAG awards, 

approximately $249.5 million of the 

$255.8 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 ($99.8 million) was initially 

reserved for local governments. A total 

of 1,408 local governments had law 

enforcement agencies that provided a 

sufficient number of reported crimes 

to the FBI to receive a JAG award—

either directly or through a joint 

award with other governments within 

their county—and were eligible for a 

collective total of $79.5 million. The 

balance of unawarded local allocations 

($20.3 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 

(114). The five local governments 

eligible to receive the largest awards 

included New York City ($4.0 million), 

Chicago ($2.0 million), Philadelphia 

($1.6 million), Houston ($1.6 million), 

and Los Angeles ($1.4 million).

In addition, the District of Columbia was 

eligible for $1.6 million and Puerto Rico 

was eligible for $2.8 million (table 2). 

Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands were 

each eligible for the minimum award of 

$639,488. American Samoa ($428,457) 

and the Northern Mariana Islands 

($211,031) split one minimum award.

Additional JAG provisions

Disparate jurisdictions and joint 

allocations

[Legislative mandate: 42 USC § 3755 

(d)(3)(4)]

In some cases, as defined by the 

legislation, a disparity may exist between 

the funding eligibility of a county and 

associated municipalities. Three different 

types of disparities may exist.

The first type is a zero-county disparity. 

This situation exists when one or more 

municipalities within a county are 

eligible for a direct award and the county 

is not, yet the county is responsible for 

providing criminal justice services (such 

as prosecution and incarceration) for 

the municipality. In this case, the county 

is entitled to part of the municipality’s 

award because it shares in the cost of 

criminal justice operations, although 

it may not report crime data to the 

FBI. This is the most common type 

of disparity.

Example—

 Sioux Falls, South Dakota, is eligible 

for an award of $62,365. Minnehaha 

County, South Dakota (which 

includes the city of Sioux Falls), is 

not eligible for a direct award, but it 

provides criminal justice services to 

Sioux Falls. In this case, Minnehaha 

County and Sioux Falls are 

considered zero-county disparate. 

Sioux Falls must share its award 

funds with Minnehaha 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—

 Montgomery County, Ohio, is 

eligible for a direct award of 

$23,383. The city of Dayton in 

Montgomery County is eligible for 

a direct award of $126,403. Dayton’s 

Table 2

Allocations to U.S. territories and 

the District of Columbia, FY 2015

Award amount

Total $6,289,721 

American Samoa 428,457 

Northern Mariana Islands 639,488 

Guam 211,031 

Puerto Rico 2,781,111 

Virgin Islands 639,488 

District of Columbia 1,590,146 

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

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, based on 

data from the Uniform Crime Reporting program, 

2011–2013, and the U.S. Census Bureau, 2014.
JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT (JAG) PROGRAM, 2015 | OCTOBER 2015 6

award amount is more than 150% 

of Montgomery County’s award 

amount. Consequently, the two 

governments’ awards ($149,786) 

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 the 2015 

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—

 King County, Washington, is 

eligible for an award of $39,737. The 

cities of Auburn ($26,950), Bellevue 

($13,967), Burien ($21,868), Federal 

Way ($27,344), Kent ($47,212), 

Renton ($27,409), Seatac ($14,819), 

Seattle ($367,401), and Tukwila 

($18,229) (all located in King 

County) are also eligible for awards. 

The award for Seattle ($367,401) 

is individually more than 150% of 

King County’s award, so Seattle’s 

award will be pooled together with 

the county’s award. The other eight 

cities’ awards sum to $197,798. This 

summed amount is more than 400% 

of King County’s direct award of 

$39,737. As a result, the funds for 

all 12 jurisdictions ($604,936) are 

pooled together and must be shared.

 Jefferson County, Alabama, is 

eligible for an award of $54,178. 

The cities of Bessemer ($43,703), 

Birmingham ($257,052), and 

Fairfield ($14,586) are also eligible 

for awards. The award amount for 

the city of Birmingham is more 

than 150% of the award amount for 

Jefferson County. This jurisdiction 

is disparate with the county, and 

the two jurisdictions will share 

the combined total of $311,230. 

The remaining cities of Bessemer 

and Fairfield are individually less 

than 150% of the award amount 

for Jefferson County, and the 

two awards combined are less 

than 400% of the county’s award. 

Accordingly, the awards for these 

two cities remain separate.

For disparate situations, regardless of 

the type, the total of all award funds of 

the separate units of local governments 

(counties and municipalities) are 

pooled together and split among the 

units of local government as agreed 

upon by the affected jurisdictions. 

To qualify for payment, the disparate 

units of local government must 

submit a joint application for the 

aggregated funds.

Pass-through requirement

[Legislative mandate: 42 USC § 3755]

According to the JAG legislation, 

states may only retain award amounts 

that bear the same ratio of “(A) total 

expenditures on criminal justice by the 

state government in the most recently 

completed fiscal year to (B) the total 

expenditure on criminal justice by 

the state government and units of 

local government within the state in 

such year.”

The determination of proportionate 

criminal justice spending by state 

and local governments is referred to 

as the variable pass-through (VPT) 

process under JAG. The VPT process 

identifies the amounts each state must 

pass down to local governments within 

the state.

During 2014, the U.S. Census Bureau 

finished compiling current criminal 

justice expenditure information from 

FY 2010 to calculate updated VPT 

amounts. Several sources of data were 

used to calculate the percentages, 

including initial expenditure data 

from the 2010 Annual Survey of State 

and Local Government Finances 

conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau 

(http://www.census.gov/govs/local/

historical_data_2010.html) and federal 

justice grant data from the Federal 

Award Assistance Data System (http://

www.census.gov/govs/www/faads.

html). Source data were assigned 

to state and local governments. 

Intergovernmental expenditures and 

grants were removed from the total 

justice expenditure for the appropriate 

type of government. The resulting 

expenditure data were then used 

to calculate the VPT percentages 

by comparing the total justice 

expenditures of all local governments 

in a state to the expenditures of the 

state government itself. A simple 

percentage resulted, which represented 

the combined local government 

expenditures within the state divided 

by the total state criminal justice 

expenditures. These updated VPT 

percentages were used for the 2015 

JAG program and can be found on the 

BJA website.

Sex Offender Registration and 

Notification Act (SORNA) 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 
JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT (JAG) PROGRAM, 2015 | OCTOBER 2015 7

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 2015, a total of 36 states and 

U.S. territories were not compliant 

with SORNA’s requirements. As a 

result, these jurisdictions suffered a 

combined $5,812,248 reduction to 

their FY 2015 Byrne JAG award. These 

jurisdictions were allowed to apply to 

reallocate the 10% penalty to promote 

SORNA implementation. Seven states 

were SORNA noncompliant and did 

not apply to reallocate the penalty. Per 

the SORNA legislation, the $1,038,781 

withheld from these jurisdictions will 

be reallocated to jurisdictions that did 

substantially implement SORNA [(42 

USC § 16925(c)]. These funds will be 

reallocated to compliant states in the 

FY 2016 JAG award.

Bonus funds from FY 2014

Per 42 USC § 16925(c), any state 

or 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 based 

on SORNA penalty funds from 

nonimplementing states and territories 

during the current fiscal year. For 

example, any state that substantially 

implemented SORNA in FY 2014 

would have bonus funds added to 

its FY 2015 state JAG award, made 

up of SORNA penalty funds from 

nonimplementing states and territories 

in FY 2014. The amounts available for 

compliant bonus funds will vary from 

year to year, depending on the amount 

of SORNA penalty funds from the 

previous year.

Bonus funds are allocated using the 

same general approach as the overall 

JAG award allocation calculations. 

First, an initial allocation is calculated 

for each eligible state and territory, 

based on its share of violent crime 

and population (weighted equally). 

Next, this initial allocation is reviewed 

to determine if it is less than the 

minimum award amount (defined as 

0.25% of the total funds available). If 

this is the case, the state or territory 

is allocated 0.25% of the total funds 

available, and the funds required for 

this are deducted from the overall 

pool of funds. These states and 

territories are then removed from the 

calculations. Each of the remaining 

states receives the minimum award 

plus an additional amount based on its 

share of violent crime and population 

for the remaining states and territories.

For FY 2015, a total of $1,137,459 was 

available from the FY 2014 SORNA 

reductions from the noncompliant 

states. These funds were distributed 

to the 20 states and territories that 

substantially implemented SORNA 

during the fiscal year. Of the 

20 states eligible for bonus funds, 

Florida ($222,906) and Pennsylvania 

($124,748) received the largest 

awards (table 3). Of the eligible U.S. 

territories, Guam received $2,844, the 

Northern Mariana Islands received 

$938, and the U.S. Virgin Islands 

received $2,844.

For additional information regarding 

the SORNA penalty and bonus 

funds, including implementation 

requirements and a list of states and 

territories that were impacted in FY 

2015, contact the SMART Office 

Policy Advisor assigned to assist the 

jurisdiction of interest at http://www.

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

Table 3

Sex Offender Registration and 

Notification Act bonus fund 

allocations, FY 2015

Bonus award amount

Total $1,137,459 

Alabama 52,263 

Colorado 49,865 

Delaware 13,995 

Florida 222,906 

Guam* 2,844 

Kansas 30,436 

Louisiana 56,443 

Maryland 69,275 

Michigan 109,610 

Mississippi 28,063 

Missouri 67,098 

Nevada 37,491 

Northern Mariana Islands* 938 

Ohio 106,002 

Pennsylvania 124,748 

South Carolina 60,705 

South Dakota 10,071 

Tennessee 84,549 

Virgin Islands* 2,844 

Wyoming 7,314 

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, 2014.
JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT (JAG) PROGRAM, 2015 | OCTOBER 2015 8

Prison Rape Elimination Act 

(PREA) certification reduction 

and bonus funds

[Legislative mandate: 42 USC § 15607 

(e)]

Reduction

The PREA statute provides that a state 

whose governor does not certify full 

compliance with the 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.

For FY 2015, a combination of 

45 states and U.S. territories were not 

compliant with PREA requirements. 

As a result, these jurisdictions suffered 

a combined $3,641,486 reduction to 

their FY 2015 Byrne JAG award. These 

jurisdictions were allowed to apply to 

reallocate the 5% reduction to achieve 

compliance with PREA standards and 

become certified. A combination of 

five states and U.S. territories were 

PREA noncompliant and did not 

apply to reallocate the reduction. Per 

the PREA legislation, the $166,341 

withheld from these jurisdictions 

were reallocated to jurisdictions that 

either were certified or were working 

to achieve certification. These funds 

were allocated to compliant states 

and territories.

Bonus funds

PREA bonus funds are allocated 

using the same general approach 

as the overall JAG award allocation 

calculations. First, an initial allocation 

is calculated for each eligible state and 

territory, based on its share of violent 

crime and population (weighted 

equally). Next, the initial allocation is 

reviewed to determine if it is less than 

the minimum award amount (0.25% of 

the total funds available). If this is the 

case, the state or territory is allocated 

0.25% of the total funds available, 

and the funds required for this are 

deducted from the overall pool of 

funds. These states and territories are 

then removed from the calculations. 

Each of the remaining states receives 

the minimum award plus an additional 

amount based on its share of violent 

crime and population for the 

remaining states and territories.

For the FY 2015 JAG awards, a total 

of $166,341 was available from PREA 

reductions from the five noncompliant 

states and territories. These funds 

were distributed to the 46 states, 

4 territories, and the District of 

Columbia that were PREA certified 

or were working to become certified. 

Of the 46 states eligible for bonus 

funds, California ($19,133) and 

Texas ($13,254) received the largest 

awards (table 4). Of the eligible 

U.S. territories, Puerto Rico ($1,862) 

received the largest bonus award.

For additional information regarding 

the PREA reduction and bonus 

funds, including implementation 

requirements and a list of states 

and U.S. territories that were 

impacted in FY 2015, contact 

the PREA Management Office at 

PREACompliance@usdoj.gov.

Table 4

Prison Rape Elimination Act bonus 

fund allocations, FY 2015

Bonus award amount

Total $166,341 

Alabama 2,830 

American Samoa* 279 

Arizona 3,676 

California 19,133 

Colorado 2,644 

Connecticut 1,859 

Delaware 936 

District of Columbia* 1,057 

Florida 10,888 

Georgia 5,052 

Guam* 416 

Hawaii 960 

Illinois 6,646 

Indiana 3,342 

Iowa 1,639 

Kansas 1,713 

Kentucky 2,046 

Louisiana 2,985 

Maine 827 

Maryland 3,559 

Massachusetts 3,690 

Michigan 5,439 

Minnesota 2,450 

Mississippi 1,606 

Missouri 3,475 

Montana 820 

Nebraska 1,148 

Nevada 2,085 

New Hampshire 898 

New Jersey 4,120 

New Mexico 1,646 

New York 9,849 

North Carolina 4,823 

North Dakota 416 

Ohio 5,227 

Oklahoma 2,393 

Oregon 1,938 

Pennsylvania 6,153 

Puerto Rico* 1,862 

Rhode Island 824 

South Carolina 3,155 

South Dakota 416 

Tennessee 4,377 

Texas 13,254 

Vermont 416 

Virgin Islands* 416 

Virginia 3,334 

Washington 3,305 

West Virginia 1,195 

Wisconsin 2,711 

Wyoming 416 

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, 2015.
JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT (JAG) PROGRAM, 2015 | OCTOBER 2015 9

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.”

Methodology

The population data used to calculate 

state and U.S. territory Justice 

Assistance Grant (JAG) allocations 

are from the 2014 census estimates 

provided to the Bureau of Justice 

Statistics (BJS) by the U.S. Census 

Bureau. The state-level violent crime 

data are estimates published by the 

FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) 

program in the annual publication, 

Crime in the United States. For the 2015 

JAG program, state-level crime data 

from 2011 to 2013 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 2015 JAG, local 

crime data from 2004 through 2013 

were used.

The sum of the UCR violent crimes 

for all local governments within a 

state for a given year will not equal 

the estimated crime total reported 

for that state published by the FBI. 

These state-level estimates are based 

on crimes reported by all state, local, 

and special district law enforcement 

agencies within a state, plus an 

imputation adjustment to account for 

nonreporting agencies and agencies 

reporting less than 12 months of data. 

These imputed values do not appear 

on the electronic data file provided 

to BJS and are not used in the local 

award calculations.

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 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 (i.e., 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.

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 

2015 JAG calculations for local awards.

For additional information on the UCR 

program changes to the definition of 

rape and how the changes impact CIUS, 

contact the FBI’s UCR program via 

email at crimestatsinfo@ic.fbi.gov.
JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT (JAG) PROGRAM, 2015 | OCTOBER 2015 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 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 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 2015, 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

Celebrating

 35 years

NCJ249105

The Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice 

is the principal federal agency responsible for measuring crime, 

criminal victimization, criminal offenders, victims of crime, correlates 

of crime, and the operation of criminal and civil justice systems at 

the federal, state, tribal, and local levels. BJS collects, analyzes, and 

disseminates reliable and valid statistics on crime and justice systems 

in the United States, supports improvements to state and local 

criminal justice information systems, and participates with national 

and international organizations to develop and recommend national 

standards for justice statistics. William J. Sabol is director.

This technical report was prepared by Alexia D. Cooper and Shelley S. 

Hyland. Marshay Lentini verified the report. 

Irene Cooperman and Jill Thomas edited the report. Tina Dorsey 

produced the report.

October 2015, NCJ 249105