Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program: Legislative and Funding History

Edward Byrne Memorial Justice
Assistance Grant Program:
Legislative and Funding History
Nathan James
Analyst in Crime Policy
Domestic Social Policy Division
Summary
The Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of
2005 (P.L. 109-162) combined the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law
Enforcement Assistance (Byrne Grant) programs and the Local Law Enforcement Block
Grant (LLEBG) program into the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant
(JAG) program. JAG funds are allocated to states using a formula that closely
approximates the way funds were distributed under the Byrne Formula Grant program
and LLEBG. P.L. 109-162 also consolidated the 28 program purpose areas under the
Byrne Formula Grant program and the 7 LLEBG program purpose areas into 7 program
purpose areas.
Background
Historically, crime control has been the responsibility of local and state governments,
with little involvement from the federal government. However, as crime became more
rampant in the United States, the federal government increased its support for domestic
crime control by creating a series of grant programs designed to assist state and local law
enforcement. Congress created the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law
Enforcement Assistance (Byrne Grant) programs and the Local Law Enforcement Block
Grant (LLEBG) program, along with other grant programs, to assist state and local law
enforcement in their efforts to control domestic crime.¹
The Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of

2005 (P.L. 109-162) combined the Byrne Grant programs and LLEBG into the Edward

¹ Other grant programs created by Congress to assist state and local law enforcement are not
discussed in this report. For a discussion of some of these programs, see CRS Report RL33308,
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS): Background, Legislation, and Issues, by Nathan
James.

Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program. The next section will discuss
JAG’s predecessor grant programs, the Byrne Grant program and LLEBG.
JAG Predecessor Grant Programs
Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance
Programs. The Byrne Grant programs were authorized by the Anti-drug Abuse Act of
1988 (P.L. 100-690). The Byrne Grant programs had two components, a formula grant
program² (Byrne Formula Grant program) and a discretionary grant program (Byrne
Discretionary Grant program). Funds awarded to states under the Byrne Formula Grant
program were to be used to provide personnel, equipment, training, technical assistance,
and information systems for more widespread apprehension, prosecution, adjudication,
detention, and rehabilitation of offenders who violate state and local laws.³ Grant funds⁴
could also be used to provide assistance (other than compensation) to victims of crime.
Twenty-nine purposes areas were established by Congress to define the nature and scope⁵
of the programs and projects that could be funded with the formula grant funds.
The Byrne Discretionary Grant program received $50 million or 20% of the total
allocation for the Byrne Grant program, whichever was less. The funds were to provide
additional federal financial assistance to private or public agencies and nonprofit
organizations for various purposes.⁶

² All 50 states, the District of Columbia, and all U.S. territories were eligible to apply for Byrne
formula grant funds. Under the formula, each state and territory received a minimum allocation
of $500,000 or 0.25%, whichever was greater, of the total amount allocated for the fiscal year.
After the minimum allocation was made to each state, the remaining funds were allocated by
using a formula whereby each state’s and territory’s allocation was based on its portion of the
total U.S. population. Each state and territory was required to “pass through” a certain
percentage of its allocation to units of local government. The pass-through percentage for each
eligible state was the ratio of the total amount of criminal justice funding provided by all units
of local government in the state for the previous fiscal year to the total amount of criminal justice
funding provided by both the state and all units of local government in the previous fiscal year.
³ P.L. 100-690, §501(b).
⁴ Ibid.
⁵ A list of the program purposes areas can be found online at [http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/
BJA/grant/byrnepurpose.html]. P.L. 100-690, §§5104 and 6901(a) established 21 program
purpose areas for the Byrne Formula Grant program. Additional program purpose areas were
created by P.L. 103-322, §§100003, 140004, 15003, and 210302(a); P.L. 104-132, §822(a); P.L.

106-177, §103; and P.L. 106-561, §2(a).

⁶ Byrne Discretionary Grant program funds could be used for the following purposes: (1)
undertaking educational and training programs for criminal justice professionals and the general
public about lawful and safe gun ownership, storage, and carriage; (2) providing technical
assistance to states and local units of government; (3) providing financial assistance to public
agencies and nonprofit organizations for demonstrations programs which, in light of research,
would likely be successful in multiple jurisdictions; (4) undertaking projects that are national or
multijurisdictional in nature, which addressed one of the 29 purposes areas.

The Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program. LLEBG, which was
also a formula grant program,⁷ was first authorized by Congress in the FY1996
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary and Other Related Agencies Appropriations
Act (P.L. 104-134). In the conference report that accompanied P.L. 104-134 (H.Rept.^th

104-537), Congress cited H.R. 728 (introduced in the first session of the 104 Congress)

as the legislation governing the program.⁸ The purpose of the LLEBG program was to
provide units of local government with federal grant funds so they could either hire police
officers or create programs that would combat crime and increase public safety.⁹ Like the
Byrne Grant program, LLEBG had program purpose areas that stated what types of
programs LLEBG funds could support. H.R. 728 outlined six program purpose areas,¹⁰
which Congress instructed the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) to use when
administering the LLEBG program.¹¹
Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant
(JAG) Program
The Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of
2005 (P.L. 109-162) combined the Byrne Grant programs and LLEBG into the Edward
Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program (JAG). Congress consolidated the¹²

programs to streamline the process for states applying for funding under the programs.
⁷ All 50 states, the District of Columbia, and all U.S. territories were eligible to apply for LLEBG
funds. The formula used to distribute LLEBG funds was computed in two stages. First, funds
were distributed to each state and territory based on the state’s or territory’s proportion of the
average number of Uniform Crime Report (UCR) Part I violent crimes committed in the United
States. The average number of UCR Part I violent crimes was calculated using the three most
recent years available. Each state and territory received a minimum allocation of 0.25% of the
total funds available. In the second stage, some of the funds awarded to each state were directly
awarded to units of local government. Each unit of local government’s share of the state
allocation was based on the jurisdiction’s proportion of the average number of UCR Part I violent
crimes committed in its respective state. However, funding was only directly awarded to a unit
of local government if it was eligible to receive $10,000 or more in funding. The funds that
remained after direct allocations were made to units of local government were administered by
the state. The state could choose to award funds to units of local government that did not receive
a direct allocation.
⁸ H.R. 728 was passed by the House, but the bill never passed the Senate.
⁹ U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Local Government Law Enforcement Block
Grants Act of 1995, report to accompany H.R. 728, 104^th Cong., 1^st sess., H.Rept. 104-24
(Washington: GPO, 1995), p. 8.
¹⁰ H.R. 728, §101(a)(2).
¹¹ U.S. Congress, Making Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996 to Make a Further Downpayment
Toward a Balanced Budget, and for Other Purposes, report to accompany H.R. 3019, 104^th^nd
Cong., 2 sess., H.Rept 104-537 (Washington: GPO, 1995), p. 401.
¹² Senate Debate, “Statement on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions,” vol. 150 (September 29,

2004), pp. S9938-9956; House Debate, “Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act,

Fiscal Years 2004 Through 2006,” vol. 150 (March 30, 2004), pp. H1666-1683; Senate Debate,
“Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2006 Through 2009,”
(continued...)

JAG funds are allocated to states by using a formula. The formula allocating JAG
funds to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands,
America Samoa, and the Northern Marinara Islands combines elements of the formulas
used in the Byrne Formula Grant program and LLEBG (see discussion below). Under the
current JAG formula, the total allocated to a state is based on the state’s population and
average reported Uniform Crime Report (UCR) Part I violent crimes. Specifically, half
of a state’s allocation is based on a state’s respective share of the U.S. population, and the
other half is based on the state’s respective share of the UCR Part I violent crimes in the
United States for the three most recent years for which data are available. Under current
law, each state and territory receives a guaranteed minimum amount of funding, set at
0.25% of the total JAG funds available. If any state does not receive the minimum
allocation after calculating each state’s allocation using the formula, then each state
receives the minimum allocation. The balance of the total funds available is then allocated
to states that did not receive the minimum allocation of 0.25% by using the formula
discussed above. When the remaining funds are allocated to states that did not receive
a minimum allocation, the population and UCR Part I crime data from the states receiving
the minimum allocation is not considered for the purposes of calculating the allocations.
Like LLEBG, JAG funds are directly awarded to local jurisdictions in the state.
After the initial state allocation is calculated, 40% of the state’s allocation is directly
awarded to units of local government.¹³ Awards to units of local government under JAG
are made the same way they were under LLEBG; namely, each unit of local government’s
award is based on the jurisdiction’s proportion of the average number of UCR Part I
violent crimes committed in its respective state. Only units of local government that
would receive $10,000 or more are eligible for a direct allocation. The balance of funds
not directly awarded to units of local government is administered by the state. Also, like
the Byrne Formula Grant program, each state is required to “pass through” a certain
percentage of the funds directly awarded to the state.¹⁴ For JAG, the pass-through
percentage is calculated as the ratio of the total amount of expenditures on criminal justice
by the state for the most recent fiscal year to the total amount of expenditures on criminal
justice by both the state and all units of local government in the past fiscal year.
JAG Program Purpose Areas
P.L. 109-162 consolidated the 28 program purpose areas under the Byrne Formula
Grant program and the 7 LLEBG program purpose areas into seven program purpose
areas. The seven broad program purpose areas are intended to give states and local units

¹² (...continued)
vol. 151 (December 16, 2005), pp. S13749-13766; U.S. Congress, House Committee on the
Judiciary, Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2006 Through^th^st

2009, report to accompany H.R. 3402, 109 Cong., 1 sess., H.Rept. 109-233 (Washington: GPO,

2005), p. 89.

¹³ P.L. 109-162, Section 1111(a).
¹⁴ Ibid.

of government flexibility in creating programs to address local needs.¹⁵ The seven
program purpose areas are
^!law enforcement programs,
^!prosecution and court programs,
^!prevention and education programs,
^!corrections and community corrections programs,
^!drug treatment programs,
^!planning, evaluation, and technology improvement programs, and
^!crime victim and witness programs (other than compensation).
The program purposes areas are broad enough to allow programs funded under the Byrne
Grant program and LLEBG to continue to be funded under JAG.¹⁶
Funding to Local Law Enforcement Through the
Byrne Grant Programs, LLEBG, and JAG
The final funding levels for FY2009 for JAG have not been determined. Division
A of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act,
2009 (P.L. 110-329), funded JAG at FY2008 levels until either March 6, 2009, or until
a final appropriations bill is enacted. However, section 109 of Division A prevents OJP
from making any grant awards until final funding for this grant programs is enacted.
The total amount of funding for local law enforcement provided through the Byrne
Grant programs and LLEBG remained fairly consistent for FY1999 through FY2003 (see
Table 1). Funding for local law enforcement under these programs decreased each fiscal
year between FY2003 and FY2006. In FY2004, Congress appropriated $884 million for
the Byrne Grant programs and LLEBG, 16% less than what was appropriated for the two
programs in FY2003. In FY2005 (the first year of JAG), Congress appropriated $804
million for JAG and the Byrne Discretionary Grant program, which was 9% less than
what Congress appropriated in FY2004 for the Byrne Grant programs and LLEBG. In
FY2006, Congress appropriated $608 million for JAG and the Byrne Discretionary Grant
program, 24% less than what was appropriated for the two programs in FY2005. In
FY2007, Congress appropriated $759 million in total for both JAG and the Byrne
Discretionary Grant program, 25% more than Congress appropriated for the two programs
in FY2006. In FY2008, Congress appropriated $374 million for JAG, the Byrne
Discretionary Grant program, and the Byrne Competitive Grant program, 51% less than
what was appropriated for JAG and the Byrne Discretionary Grant program in FY2007.

¹⁵ U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Department of Justice Appropriations
Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2006 Through 2009, report to accompany H.R. 3402, 109^th^st
Cong., 1 sess., H.Rept. 109-233 (Washington: GPO, 2005), p. 89.
¹⁶ Senate Debate, “Statement on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions,” vol. 150 (September 29,

2004), pp. S9938-9956.

Table 1. Appropriations for Byrne Formula, Byrne Discretionary,
Byrne Competitive, LLEBG, and JAG, FY1999-FY2008
(funding in millions of $)
^Byrⁿ^e^Byrⁿ^e^Byrⁿ^e
^FY^Form^u^l^a^Dis^cretionary^L^L^E^B^G^J^AG^Co^m^p^et^it^iv^e^T^o^t^a^l
¹⁹⁹⁹^$505.0^$47.0^$523.0^a^—^—^$1,075.0
²⁰⁰⁰^$500.0^$52.0^$523.0^b^—^—^$1,075.0
²⁰⁰¹^$500.0^$69.1^$523.0^c^—^—^$1,092.1
²⁰⁰²^$500.0^$94.5^$400.0^d^—^—^$994.5
²⁰⁰³^$500.0^$150.9^$400.0^e^—^—^$1,050.9
²⁰⁰⁴^$500.0^$159.1^$225.0^f^—^—^$884.1
²⁰⁰⁵^—^$170.0^—^$634.0^g^—^$804.0
²⁰⁰⁶^—^$191.7^—^$416.5^h^—^$608.2
²⁰⁰⁷^—^$239.3ⁱ^—^$519.9^j^—^$759.2
²⁰⁰⁸^—^$187.5^—^$170.4^k^$16.0^$373.9
^Sources^:^F^Y^{1999 appropri}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^t^a^k^eⁿ^f^r^om^H^.^R^e^pt^{. 105-}^825;^F^Y^{2002 appropri}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^t^a^k^eⁿ^f^r^om^H^.^R^e^pt^.
^106-^479;^F^Y²⁰⁰¹^a^p^p^r^o^p^ri^atⁱ^oⁿ^s^t^a^k^eⁿ^f^r^om^H^.^R^e^pt^{. 106-}^1005;^F^Y^{2002 appropri}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^t^a^k^eⁿ^f^r^om^H^.^R^e^pt^.
^107-^278;^F^Y^{2003 appropri}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^t^a^k^eⁿ^f^r^om^H^.^R^e^pt^{. 108-}^10;^F^Y^{2004 appropri}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^t^a^k^eⁿ^f^r^om^H^.^R^e^pt^.
^108-^401;^F^Y²⁰⁰⁵^appropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^t^a^k^eⁿ^f^r^om^H^.^R^e^pt^{. 108-}^792;^F^Y^{2006 appropri}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^t^a^k^eⁿ^f^r^om^H^.^R^e^pt^.
^109-^272;^F^Y^{2007 en}^act^{ed t}^a^k^eⁿ^f^r^om^O^J^P’^s^F^Y²⁰⁰⁹^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^al^Bu^dg^et^Ju^s^tⁱ^fⁱ^catⁱ^oⁿ^s^;^F^Y^{2008 en}^act^ed
^t^a^ke^{n fr}^o^m^H^ous^{e Appr}^oprⁱ^a^tⁱ^ons^C^o^m^mⁱ^t^t^{ee Pr}ⁱⁿ^t^{on t}^h^{e C}^ons^olⁱ^d^a^t^{ed Appr}^oprⁱ^a^tⁱ^ons^Act^,^{2008 (}^H^.R.
^2764/^P.L^.^110-161^).
^No^te:^A^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^{do n}^o^tⁱⁿ^cl^u^d^{e res}^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^s^.
^{a. FY1999 appropriated f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^{r L}^L^E^B^Gⁱⁿ^clu^d^{ed $40}^m^illion^f^o^{r th}^{e B}^o^y^s^an^d^Girls^C^l^u^b^of^A^m^erica
^an^{d $20 m}^illion^f^o^{r th}^e^Nation^a^l^In^s^titu^{te of}^J^u^s^{tice (NIJ}^{) f}^o^{r dev}^e^lopin^g^law^en^f^o^rcem^en^{t tech}ⁿ^o^log^y^.
^{b. FY2000 appropriated f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^{r L}^L^E^B^Gⁱⁿ^clu^d^ed^$50^m^illion^f^o^r^th^e^B^o^y^s^an^{d Girls}^C^l^u^b^of^A^m^erica
^an^{d $20 m}^illion^f^o^{r NIJ}^f^o^{r dev}^e^lopin^g^law^en^f^o^rcem^en^{t tech}ⁿ^o^log^y^.
^{c. FY2001 appropriated f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^{r L}^L^E^B^Gⁱⁿ^clu^d^{ed $60}^m^illion^f^o^{r th}^{e B}^o^y^s^an^{d Girls}^C^l^u^b^of^A^m^erica
^an^{d $20 m}^illion^f^o^{r NIJ}^f^o^{r dev}^e^lopin^g^law^en^f^o^rcem^en^{t tech}ⁿ^o^log^y^.
^{d. FY2002 appropriated f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^{r L}^L^E^B^Gⁱⁿ^clu^d^{ed $70}^m^illion^f^o^{r th}^{e B}^o^y^s^an^{d Girls}^C^l^u^b^of^A^m^erica
^an^{d $20 m}^illion^f^o^{r NIJ}^f^o^{r dev}^e^lopin^g^law^en^f^o^rcem^en^{t tech}ⁿ^o^log^y^.
^{e. FY2003 appropriated f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^{r L}^L^E^B^Gⁱⁿ^clu^d^ed^$80^m^illion^f^o^{r th}^{e B}^o^y^s^an^{d Girls}^C^l^u^b^of^A^m^erica,
^{$20 m}^illion^f^o^{r NIJ}^f^o^{r dev}^e^lopin^g^law^en^f^o^rcem^en^{t tech}ⁿ^o^log^y^{, an}^{d $3 m}^illion^f^o^{r C}^itizen^C^o^rps^.
^f^.^{FY2004 appropriated f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^{r L}^L^E^B^Gⁱⁿ^clu^d^ed^$80^m^illion^f^o^{r th}^{e B}^o^y^s^an^{d Girls}^C^l^u^b^of^A^m^erica,
^{$10 m}^illion^f^o^{r NIJ}^f^o^{r dev}^e^lopin^g^law^en^f^o^rcem^en^{t tech}ⁿ^o^log^y^{, an}^{d $3 m}^illion^fo^r^U^S^A^Freedom
^Co^r^p^s.
^g^.^FY2005^appropriated^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^{r J}^A^{G in}^clu^d^{ed $85 m}^illion^f^o^{r th}^{e B}^o^y^s^an^{d Girls}^C^l^u^b^of^A^m^erica,$10
^m^illioⁿ^f^o^r^NI^J^f^o^r^d^e^v^e^lo^pⁱⁿ^g^law^en^f^o^r^cem^en^{t tech}ⁿ^o^lo^g^y^{, an}^d^$²^.⁵^m^illioⁿ^f^o^r^USA^Fr^eed^o^m
^Co^r^p^s.
^h^.^{FY2006 appropriated f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^{r J}^A^{G in}^clu^d^{ed $85 m}^illion^f^o^{r th}^{e B}^o^y^s^an^{d Girls}^C^l^u^b^of^A^m^erica^an^d
^{$10 m}^illion^f^o^{r NIJ}^f^o^{r dev}^e^lopin^g^law^en^f^o^rcem^en^{t tech}ⁿ^o^log^y^.
^{i. FY2007 appropriated f}^uⁿ^d^ing^{for th}^{e B}^y^rn^{e Dis}^c^retion^a^ry^Gran^{t prog}^ramⁱⁿ^clu^d^es^{a $50 m}^illion
^su^p^p^l^em^en^{tal ap}^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^f^o^r^sta^t^e^aⁿ^d^lo^{cal law}^en^f^o^rcem^en^{t as}^sⁱ^s^t^an^{ce in}^th^{e area af}^f^{ected by}
^H^u^rri^can^{e K}^a^t^rⁱⁿ^{a (P.L}^{. 110-}^28).
^j^.^{FY2007 appropriated f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^r^J^A^Gⁱⁿ^clu^d^ed^$19.^{745 m}^illion^f^o^{r NIJ}^f^o^{r dev}^e^lopin^g^law^en^f^o^rcem^en^t
^t^e^c^hno^l^o^gy^.
^k^.^{FY2008 appropriated f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^{r J}^A^{G in}^clu^d^ed^{$2 m}^illion^f^o^{r NIJ}^f^o^{r developin}^g^law^en^f^o^rcem^en^t
^techⁿ^o^lo^g^y^an^d^$²^m^illioⁿ^toⁱⁿ^cr^{ease th}^{e in}^tellig^en^{ce cap}^ab^{ilities o}^f^lo^{cal law}^en^f^o^r^cem^en^t.