Contents

• Administration of DOJ Grants
• The Office of Justice Programs
• The Office on Violence Against Women
• Community Oriented Policing Services Office
• A Brief History of Laws Authorizing DOJ Grant Programs
• Authorized Funding and Appropriations for DOJ Grants
• Considerations for Congress
• Reauthorizing Expired Authorizations of Appropriations
• Unfunded Grant Programs
• Overlapping Grant Programs
• Authorization and Appropriations Alignment

Summary

Over the past several fiscal years, the annual Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (CJS) Appropriations Act has provided around $4 billion for approximately 100 U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) grant programs each fiscal year. DOJ grant programs are administered by three agencies. The Office of Justice Programs administers the widest portfolio of grant programs, including those that are intended to aid law enforcement operations, provide substance abuse treatment for people involved in the criminal justice system, reduce backlogs of DNA evidence, improve juvenile justice systems, manage sex offenders, and help prisoners transition back into society after a period of incarceration. The Office on Violence Against Women administers grant programs authorized by the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA, Title IV of P.L. 103-322, as amended). The Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office administers the COPS grant program along with other law enforcement-related funding provided through the COPS account. All of these programs are funded through various accounts in the annual CJS appropriations act.

DOJ has awarded grants to help state and local governments improve their criminal justice systems and address crime issues in their jurisdictions for over 55 years. DOJ was initially given the authority to make grants to state and local governments when the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-351, as amended) was signed into law. Six years later, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (JJDPA, P.L. 93-415, as amended) expanded the scope of grant authorities available to DOJ. The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Street Act of 1968 and the JJDPA contain many of DOJ's current grant authorities.

The scope of DOJ grant programs started to expand in the 1990s and 2000s. Whereas the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 and JJDPA authorized a few grant programs that were broader in scope, law authorizing new DOJ grant programs tended to focus on addressing specific issues or crimes. For example, the Violent Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-322) authorized the COPS program to support the hiring of 100,000 new law enforcement officers. The act contained VAWA, which authorized several new programs to combat violence against women. The act also authorized the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) program, the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP), and the Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-Sentencing Incentive Grants.

CRS has identified 151 DOJ grant programs with a statutory authorization in the U.S. Code. Many of these programs (113 of 151) were first authorized from FY1990 to FY2009. For approximately two-thirds of these programs (95 of 151), the authorization of appropriations provisions in their statutory authorizations have expired. From FY2016 to FY2025, total appropriations authorized for DOJ grant programs ranged from $1.175 billion to $2.332 billion in any given year. During this period, actual appropriations for DOJ grant programs were not provided in the full amount explicitly authorized for them (excluding "such sums" authorizations of appropriations). Appropriations for DOJ grant programs for FY2024 and FY2025 were closer to the total amount authorized than in previous fiscal years, but this is partially due to authorizations of appropriations for some programs expiring. Total appropriations for DOJ grant programs had an upward trend from FY2016 to FY2026. During this period, an increasing share of funding for DOJ grant programs went to programs that received an appropriation but did not have a statutory authorization.

The current state of authorizations and appropriations for DOJ grant programs might raise several issues for policymakers. First, policymakers might examine these programs to determine if they continue to serve a need or address crime issues facing the nation. If so, is there a need to reshape the current authorization for a program and what is the needed level of funding to effectively implement it? Policymakers may examine whether there is a need to repeal, modify, or consolidate grant programs that might duplicate the purposes of other authorized grant programs. Congress might also consider legislation to authorize some of the DOJ grant programs that have been consistently funded over the years but do not have authorizing legislation that dictates what funds can be used for under the program and which entities are eligible to receive funding.

---

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) annually administers billions of dollars in grant funding. The annual Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (CJS) appropriations act includes appropriations for numerous grant programs that support a variety of criminal justice-related initiatives, such as helping state and local governments hire law enforcement officers, combatting substance abuse, addressing violence against women, supporting prisoner reentry programs, reducing backlogs of DNA evidence, and improving the completeness of criminal history records. State and local governments operate much of the criminal justice system in the United States. Local governments operate police departments and sheriff's offices. Prosecutions of criminal cases are conducted in state courts by attorneys working for offices that represent the state and typically operate at the county level.¹ Generally speaking, states' correctional agencies imprison convicted offenders who have been sentenced for felonies, while county jails hold convicted offenders sentenced for non-felony offenses, and may hold defendants during the pendency of their trial. Authorizing grant programs and providing funding for them is one option for federal policymakers to support state and local criminal justice system agencies or try to influence the way they operate.

In general, legislation to establish or continue federal programs, such as grant programs, is presumed to be enacted prior to legislation to provide funding for these purposes. In order for this two-step process to work, congressional rules distinguish between authorizing legislation that addresses questions of policy (usually, provisions of law codified in the U.S. Code, which are referred to in this report as "statutory authorizations"), and appropriations legislation that addresses questions of funding. Because this distinction is based on House and Senate rules, rather than a constitutional or general statutory requirement, Congress may choose nevertheless to appropriate funds even when some or all of the provisions in an authorizing statute have expired. In such cases, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), "the enacted appropriation, in effect, carries its own authorization and is available to the agency for obligation and expenditure."²

Some of the DOJ grant programs that are funded through the CJS appropriations act have a separate statutory authorization. These statutory authorizations specify what grant funds can be used for, which entities are eligible to receive grants, and requirements for submitting an application for funding. They may also include provisions explicitly authorizing appropriations (for a specific dollar amount or "such sums as are necessary") in a particular fiscal year. Explicit authorizations of appropriations do not provide funding for the programs. An authorization of appropriations also does not establish a requirement that funds be provided in a subsequent appropriation, but it does serve as a recommended level. Explicit authorizations of appropriations for DOJ programs, if present, are typically provided for a specified number of fiscal years, after which time the authority expires if not statutorily extended. However, a program does not cease to exist if its authorization of appropriations expires; as explained above, funds can still be provided for these programs through appropriations acts.³ In addition, certain other DOJ grant programs do not have a separate statutory authorization establishing program parameters, but have nonetheless received appropriations provided through the annual CJS appropriations act. These programs are considered to be authorized through the provisions in the appropriations acts that fund them because those provisions provide authority for DOJ to award grants for the purpose specified in an appropriations act.

This report discusses the roles of the DOJ agencies that administer grant programs, provides a brief history of salient laws that have shaped the current slate of DOJ grant programs, and provides an analysis of changes in authorized funding and appropriations for the programs. The report concludes with discussion of considerations for policymakers related to the authorizations and funding for DOJ grants.

Administration of DOJ Grants

The Office of Justice Programs (OJP), the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW), and the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office are the three agencies that administer DOJ's grant programs. This section of the report discusses these agencies' responsibilities regarding the administration of the programs.

The Office of Justice Programs

OJP is the largest of DOJ's three grant administering agencies.¹³ OJP provides "federal leadership, funding, training and technical assistance, research and statistics, and other critical resources to advance work that strengthens community safety, promotes civil rights, increases access to justice, supports crime victims and individuals impacted by the justice system, and builds trust between law enforcement and communities."¹⁴ OJP is comprised of six offices and bureaus that are responsible for administering certain portfolios of grant programs.

• The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) administers the broadest range of grant programs, including those that focus on "law enforcement, courts, corrections, treatment, reentry, justice information sharing, and community-based partners to address chronic and emerging criminal justice challenges nationwide."¹⁵
• The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) administers programs authorized under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (JJDPA, P.L. 93-415, as amended) and other grant programs that focus on reducing juvenile delinquency or aiding juveniles involved in the justice system.
• The Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) administers programs funded through the Crime Victims Fund (CVF), which provides funding for state victim compensation and assistance programs as well as other programs focused on the needs of crime victims.¹⁶
• The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) is the research and evaluation arm of DOJ. NIJ funds research, development, and technology assistance. It also assesses programs, policies, and technologies.
• The Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (SMART) administers grant programs related to the registration, notification, and management of sex offenders. It also provides jurisdictions with guidance regarding the implementation of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA, Title I of P.L. 109-248).
• The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) is DOJ's primary statistical agency, but it also administers grant programs related to improving data collection and the quality and utility of criminal history information.

The Office on Violence Against Women

OVW administers grant programs authorized under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA, P.L. 103-322, as amended). Grant programs administered by OVW are "designed to develop the nation's capacity to reduce domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking by strengthening services to victims and holding offenders accountable."¹⁷

Community Oriented Policing Services Office

The COPS Office administers funds provided for the COPS program, a portion of the annual funding provided for the Matching Grant Program for School Security, and other law enforcement-related grants where appropriations are provided under the COPS account in the annual CJS appropriations act. The mission of the COPS Office is to advance community policing in jurisdictions across the United States.¹⁸ The COPS program awards grants to state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies so they can hire and train law enforcement officers in community policing, purchase and deploy new crime-fighting technologies, and develop and test new and innovative policing strategies.¹⁹ Unlike OJP and OVW, the COPS Office is not authorized in statute; DOJ created the COPS Office administratively.²⁰ However, many of the grant program administered by the COPS Office have a statutory authorization, as discussed below.

A Brief History of Laws Authorizing DOJ Grant Programs

This section provides a brief overview of certain laws that authorized DOJ grant programs. This is not a comprehensive overview; it is not meant to provide a discussion of every law that has authorized a DOJ grant program or reauthorized appropriations. Rather, it is meant to provide a sense of notable laws regarding DOJ grants—such as laws that established significant DOJ grant programs, authorized several DOJ grant programs, or established offices that administer DOJ grant programs. A more complete accounting of laws that have authorized or reauthorized DOJ grant programs can be found in Appendix A.

The passage of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (Omnibus Crime Control Act, P.L. 90-351) marked the start of the federal government providing grant funding to state and local governments to address crime and improve the criminal justice system. Laws enacted in the 1960s and 1970s focused on authorizing a few programs that provided funding, commonly by formula, to states to address a variety of state criminal and juvenile justice system issues. Congress stated that the purpose of passing the Omnibus Crime Control Act was to address the threats that high incidences of crime (at the time) posed to the "peace, security, and general welfare of the Nation and its citizens," and that law enforcement efforts to address crime needed to be "better coordinated, intensified, and made more effective at all levels of government."²¹ While Congress noted that "crime is essentially a local problem that must be dealt with by State and local governments if it is to be controlled effectively," there was a need to "assist State and local governments in strengthening and improving law enforcement at every level by national assistance."²²

The Omnibus Crime Control Act established the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA, a predecessor to OJP) to administer the grant programs authorized by the legislation. The act authorized planning grants to "encourage States and units of general local government to prepare and adopt comprehensive law enforcement plans based on their evaluation of State and local problems of law enforcement."²³ The act also authorized grants for law enforcement purposes that could be used to help recruit and train law enforcement personnel, strengthen law enforcement and reduce crime, improve responses to riots and civil disorders, combat organized crime, and improve police-community relations. The Omnibus Crime Control Act, as amended, contains the authorizations for many of the current DOJ grant programs.

The JJDPA was signed into law six years after the enactment of the Omnibus Crime Control Act. With the enactment of the JJDPA, the federal government started assisting states with further developing their juvenile justice systems to aid in reducing juvenile delinquency. Congress stated that its purpose in passing the JJDPA was to

provide the necessary resources, leadership, and coordination (1) to develop and implement effective methods of preventing and reducing juvenile delinquency; (2) to develop and conduct effective programs to prevent delinquency, to divert juveniles from the traditional juvenile justice system, and to provide critically needed alternative to institutionalization; (3) to improve the quality of juvenile justice in the United States; and (4) to increase the capacity of State and local governments and public and private agencies to conduct effective juvenile justice and delinquency prevention and rehabilitation programs and to provide research, evaluation, and training services in the field of juvenile delinquency prevention.²⁴

The JJDPA established OJJDP in the LEAA to administer the programs authorized by the act. The JJDPA authorized a formula grant program to provide grants to state and local governments to assist them in "planning, establishing, operating, coordinating, and evaluating projects directly or through contracts with public and private agencies for the development of more effective education, training, research, prevention, diversion, treatment, and rehabilitation programs in the area of juvenile delinquency and programs to improve the juvenile justice system."²⁵

The Justice System Improvements Act of 1979 (P.L. 96-157) established BJS and NIJ as agencies within DOJ. Many of NIJ's and BJS's current authorities were established by this act. It also changed the structure of the grant programs administered by LEAA. The act repealed the grant programs authorized by the Omnibus Crime Control Act and replaced them with a formula grant program. Grants could be used for a variety of purposes to improve the functioning of the criminal justice system, including the following:

• enhancing communities' capacity to address crime and delinquency,
• improving and strengthening law enforcement agencies,
• supporting joint police-community projects to prevent and control crime,
• developing alternatives to prosecution and pretrial detention,
• improving indigent defense programs, and
• reducing violence in prisons and jails.

In addition to the formula grant program, the act authorized a National Priority Grant program and a discretionary grant program. Grants under both programs were to be awarded by LEAA for the purposes of improving the operation of the criminal justice system.

Two pieces of legislation were signed into law in the 1980s that continued to modify and expand the scope of federal grant assistance provided to state and local governments to address crime and develop their criminal justice systems. The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-473) established OJP as a replacement for LEAA. Many of OJP's responsibilities were similar to those of LEAA, but OJP was given the responsibility of coordinating the activities of NIJ, BJS, and OJJDP, as well as BJA (which was also established by this act). Under the act, BJA was responsible for administering a formula grant program that provided funds to states for many of the same purposes for which grants could be used under the formula grant program established by the Justice System Improvements Act of 1979. The act also repealed the National Priority Grant program. The discretionary grant program was retained, though the act modified the purposes for which discretionary grants could be used. The act authorized the Emergency Federal Law Enforcement Assistance program, which allows states to apply for federal law enforcement assistance if a law enforcement emergency exists in the state. The act also amended the JJDPA to authorize grants to support programs to help locate missing children.

The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-690) established the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance programs at BJA. These programs had both a formula and discretionary grant component. They replaced the formula and discretionary grant programs authorized by the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act also marked a change in the purpose for which grants were provided to state and local governments. Rather than providing funding solely for the purpose of improving the functioning of the criminal justice system, funds could also be used specifically to address drug-related crime. The act noted that:

It is the purpose of [the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance programs] to assist States and units of local government in carrying out specific programs which offer a high probability of improving the functioning of the criminal justice system, with special emphasis on a nationwide and multilevel drug control strategy by developing programs and projects to assist multijurisdictional and multi-State organizations in the drug control problem and to support national drug control priorities.²⁶

Under the Byrne Formula Grant program, states could use grants for one or more of 20 enumerated purposes, several of which were similar to those of the formula grant programs established by the Justice Systems Improvements Act of 1979 and the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. However, several of the additional purposes for which formula grants could be used focused on combatting drug-related crime.

The 1990s marked the beginning of a period spanning the next several decades in which legislation was enacted that either expanded the scope of existing programs or created grant programs to address specific issues in the criminal justice system. For instance, the Incentive Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention Programs Act (P.L. 102-586) added several new parts to Title II of the JJDPA. These new parts authorized grant programs to prevent juveniles from joining criminal gangs, provide treatment to juvenile offenders who are the victims of child abuse or neglect, start mentoring programs for at-risk youth, and establish military-style boot camps for juvenile offenders. The act also authorized the Incentive Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention program, which provides funding for delinquency prevention programs for juveniles who have come into contact with, or are at risk of contact with, the juvenile justice system.

The Violent Crime Control and Safe Street Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-322) was an omnibus crime control measure that, among other things, authorized numerous DOJ grant programs. The act authorized the COPS program in support of the Clinton Administration's goal to fund 100,000 new law enforcement officer positions. It also contained VAWA (Title IV), which authorized several notable grant programs, including the Service‒Training‒Officers‒Prosecutors (STOP) Formula Grant program, which is the primary program for providing assistance to states to support law enforcement and prosecution strategies to combat violent crimes against women and to develop and strengthen services for victims of domestic violence. In addition to the COPS program and VAWA, the Violent Crime Control and Safe Streets Act authorized several other grant programs, including the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) program, the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP), and the Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-Sentencing Incentive Grants.

The 21^st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-273) made several amendments to the JJDPA. It repealed the authorization for several grant programs created by the Incentive Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention Programs Act, and amended the JJDPA to consolidate many of those grant programs' purpose areas into a newly authorized Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Block Grant program. It also authorized grants for research to prevent and reduce juvenile delinquency. The act codified the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant (JABG) program, which authorized DOJ to make grants to states and units of local government that strengthen their juvenile justice systems, with a focus on holding juveniles accountable for their actions.²⁷

In addition to the amendments made to the JJDPA, the 21^st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act authorized grants to support drug court programs, which are designed to help reduce recidivism and substance abuse among offenders with drug or alcohol dependency problems and increase an offender's likelihood of successful rehabilitation through early, continuous, and intense judicially supervised treatment, mandatory periodic drug testing, community supervision, and appropriate sanctions and other rehabilitation services.

The act also established the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) to administer programs authorized by VAWA.

The Justice for All Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-405) authorized many DNA-related grant programs at DOJ. The act established the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program by amending a program that was previously authorized by the DNA Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-546). The Debbie Smith program provides grants to increase the capacity of state and local governments to conduct DNA analyses of samples collected from crime scenes and prepare samples from individuals either arrested or convicted for criminal offenses for inclusion in the national DNA database. Grants under the program can also be used to increase the capacity of state and local governments to process evidence collected through sexual assault test kits. The Justice for All Act also authorized grants to states to help defray the costs of post-conviction DNA testing programs, establish qualified regional sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE) training programs, use DNA technology to identify missing persons and unidentified human remains, and improve representation of defendants in and prosecution of state capital cases.

The Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-162) reauthorized many VAWA programs and amended VAWA to authorize additional grant programs, including programs to prevent domestic and dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking against individuals with disabilities; address domestic and dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking against women age 50 and older; and investigate and prosecute domestic and dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking on college and university campuses. In addition to reauthorizing and expanding VAWA grant programs, the act reauthorized several other DOJ grant programs, such as the Matching Grant Program for Armor Vests, SCAAP, the Matching Grant Program for School Security, and the Adult Treatment Courts program. The act reauthorized appropriations for the COPS program, and also changed its structure into a single grant program under which funds could be awarded for a variety of policing-related purposes. The act also authorized the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program, which combined elements of the Byrne Formula Grant and the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) programs.²⁸ JAG provides funding to state, local, and tribal governments for various purposes such as law enforcement programs, prosecution and court programs, prevention and education programs, corrections and community corrections programs, and drug treatment and enforcement programs.

The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-248) authorized several grant programs under which grants could be awarded to state and local governments to prevent sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children. The act authorized grants to help offset the costs of sex offender registration and community notification, operate civil commitment programs for sexually dangerous persons, supervise sex offenders with electronic monitoring devices, enforce sex offender registration requirements, provide treatment to juvenile sex offenders, and assist in verifying the residence of all or some registered sex offenders.

The Second Chance Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-199) reauthorized appropriations and expanded the scope of a grant program for prisoner reentry demonstration projects that was first authorized by the 21^st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act. The act also authorized grants for family-based substance abuse treatment programs as alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent drug offenders who are parents of minor children and prison-based family treatment programs for incarcerated parents of minor children. The act authorized grants to improve drug treatment programs in prisons and reduce alcohol and substance use among people under correctional supervision (e.g., people on probation and parole). It authorized grants to help prisons provide career training to inmates and to improve their academic and vocational education programs. The act also authorized grants for mentoring and transitional assistance programs for prisoners prior to their release.

Legislation was signed into law in 2013 and 2022 that reauthorized and further amended VAWA. The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (P.L. 113-4) reauthorized appropriations for many of the programs that were authorized by VAWA in 1994 or the VAWA reauthorization in 2005. This act also consolidated several grant programs that were authorized by the 1994 and 2005 VAWA acts into three new grant programs: (1) grants to improve responses to families with histories of domestic violence or sexual assault and abuse; (2) grants to enhance the safety of children who are victims of, or exposed to, domestic or sexual violence in order to prevent future violence that might be committed by these victims; and (3) grants to prevent domestic violence by intervening with children exposed to violence and reaching out to men as leaders and influencers of social norms.

In addition to reauthorizing appropriations for many VAWA programs, the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of 2022 (Division W of P.L. 117-103) established several new grant programs. The act authorized grants to

• implement evidence-based or promising investigative policies and practices that incorporate trauma-informed, victim-centered techniques;
• support restorative practices to prevent or address domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking;
• aid state and tribal governments with implementing pilot programs that serve protective orders through electronic communications; and
• support states that have laws that make it a criminal offense for any person acting under color of law to knowingly engage in a sex act with any individual who is in law enforcement custody.

The act also authorized DOJ to increase the amount awarded to states under the STOP grants that have state laws in effect that meets certain standards for child custody hearings and requires judges, magistrates, and other relevant court personnel involved in child custody cases to complete not less than 20 hours of initial training and not less than 15 hours of continuing education every five years.

Authorized Funding and Appropriations for DOJ Grants

CRS identified 151 DOJ grant programs with statutory authorizations currently codified in the U.S. Code. This section of the report provides an analysis of changes in the authorizations of appropriations for these programs. It also examines trends in funding for DOJ grants and how they relate to those authorizations of appropriations. Appendix B provides information on funding provided through appropriations and their corresponding authorization of appropriations amounts for DOJ grant programs for the past 10 fiscal years (FY2017-FY2026). Appendix C provides information on authorizations of appropriations for DOJ grant programs from FY2027 to FY2031. Appendix D provides an overview of public laws that have authorized appropriations for DOJ grant programs.

Figure 1 shows the number of DOJ grant programs with an unexpired statutory authorization of appropriations and the total of amounts authorized to be appropriated for those programs each year from FY2017 to FY2026. The total number of programs with an authorization of appropriations each year reflects programs where there was an active authorization of appropriations for that fiscal year, including those with an authorization or appropriations of "such sums as necessary." It also includes programs where DOJ is authorized to make grants, but the act that established the program did not explicitly authorize appropriations.²⁹ The total amount of authorized appropriations does not include any amounts for programs where the authorization of appropriations for the program was "such sums as necessary."

The number of programs with unexpired statutory authorizations of appropriations and the amount of appropriations authorized by those statutory provisions increased from FY2016 to FY2018 because several grant programs—such as grants related to school safety, criminal history information systems, improving the criminal justice system's response to people with mental illness, and forensic evidence—were reauthorized during this period. The number of grant programs with active authorizations of appropriations decreased between FY2018 and FY2022 due to the expiration of authorizations of appropriations for VAWA grant programs that were authorized or reauthorized by Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, before being reauthorized by the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of 2022. The 2022 VAWA reauthorization contributes to the increase in authorizations of appropriations and programs observed in FY2023. Even though the number of programs with unexpired authorizations of appropriations decreased in FY2019 and held steady in FY2020 and FY2021, the level of appropriations authorized during that time did not experience a concomitant decrease. The total amount of appropriations authorized from FY2019 to FY2021 was about what it was for FY2018. During this period, authorized appropriations for the Comprehensive Opioid Abuse program increased from $103 million in FY2018 to $330 million in FY2019 and grant programs under the JJDPA and the Second Chance Act were reauthorized in FY2019. In addition, there was a new $50 million authorization of appropriations for Project Safe Neighborhoods that started in FY2019. These authorizations of appropriations offset the expiration of the authorizations of appropriations for several VAWA programs, which were relatively small. The decrease in both the number of DOJ grant programs with unexpired authorizations of appropriations and the total amount of funding for those programs after FY2023 is attributable to the expiration of the authorizations of appropriations for grants authorized under the Second Chance Act, the Drug Courts program, and the Comprehensive Opioid Abuse program, as well as grants authorized under the JJDPA.

Figure 1. Number of Programs with an Unexpired Authorization of Appropriations and Amount of Appropriations Authorized, FY2017-FY2026

Source: CRS review of statutory authorizations for DOJ grant programs in U.S. Code Title 34; Title 22, Chapter 78; Title 21, Chapter 13; Title 28, Chapters 31, 33, 35, 37, 39, 40, and 40A; and Title 25, Chapters 15 and 38A. Notes: Amounts are in nominal dollars. Grant programs where the statutory authorization of appropriations is "such sums as necessary" are not included in the total amount of authorized appropriations. The total number of programs includes any grant program with a statutory authorization, even if the statutory authorization did not include an explicit authorization of appropriations.

Figure 2 provides data on the total number of DOJ grant programs funded by fiscal year from FY2017 to FY2026, along with data on the range of appropriations for these programs. The total number of DOJ grant programs that received an appropriation increased from FY2017 to FY2023 before leveling off in FY2024 and decreasing in FY2025 and FY2026. Approximately two-thirds of DOJ grant programs from FY2017 to FY2026 received an appropriation of less than $25 million. From FY2017 to FY2023, there was an increase in the number of grant programs funded across each range of appropriations, but there was a notable increase in appropriations for grant programs that received appropriations of $50 million or more. Some of the increase in the number of grant programs receiving appropriations at the higher ranges is attributable to decisions appropriators made to increase funding for some grant programs. For example, appropriations for the Sexual Assault Victims Services program under VAWA increased from $35 million in FY2017 to $79 million in FY2023. In other cases, supplemental appropriations from the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA; P.L. 117-159) increased funding for some DOJ grant programs starting with FY2022. Also, two grant programs that provide funding for community funding projects, both of which have been funded at over $100 million, were re-established starting in FY2022.

Figure 2. Total Number and Range of Appropriations for DOJ Grant Programs, FY2017-FY2026

Source: Text of the FY2017 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 115-31), FY2018 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 115-141), FY2019 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 116-6), FY2020 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 116-93), FY2021 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 116-260), FY2022 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 117-103), FY2023 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 117-328), FY2024 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 118-42), year-long CR (P.L. 119-4) and DOJ's FY2026 budget summary, FY2026 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 119-74), CARES Act (P.L. 116-136), and Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (P.L. 117-159).

Figure 3 presents data on the fiscal year in which the DOJ grant programs discussed in this report were first authorized. The data are shown by decade from FY1970 to FY2019 and for the seven fiscal years starting with FY2020. The vast majority of these DOJ grant programs were first authorized in the 1990s or 2000s. Nearly half (15 of 34) of the grant programs first authorized in the 1990s had authorizations of appropriations that started in FY1996. All of these programs were authorized by the Violent Crime Control and Safe Street Act of 1994. Twenty-three of the 79 grant programs first authorized in the 2000s had authorization of appropriations that started in FY2007 and another 13 had authorizations of appropriations that started in FY2009. Most of the programs first authorized in FY2007 were established by the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 and the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. Several laws authorized appropriations for grant programs beginning in FY2009, with the Second Chance Act of 2007 authorizing half of these programs.

Figure 3. First Fiscal Year DOJ Grant Programs' Authorization of Appropriations

Source: CRS review of statutory authorizations for DOJ grant programs in U.S. Code Title 34; Title 22, Chapter 78; Title 21, Chapter 13; Title 28, Chapters 31, 33, 35, 37, 39, 40, and 40A; and Title 25, Chapters 15 and 38A.

For DOJ grant programs with expired authorizations of appropriations, Figure 4 shows the last fiscal years for which those authorizations of appropriations were in effect. Approximately two-thirds (95 of 151) of DOJ grant programs do not have a current statutory authorization of appropriations; of these, two-thirds (64 of 97) expired more than 10 fiscal years ago. One-third (50 of 151) of DOJ grant programs with an authorization in the U.S. Code were not reauthorized after their initial authorized appropriations expired. There were three fiscal years with notable spikes in expiring authorizations of appropriations: FY2000, FY2009, and FY2023. Nearly all of the authorizations of appropriations expiring in FY2000 were for programs authorized by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Most of the programs with authorizations of appropriations that expired at the end of FY2009 were first authorized by the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 and the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. Programs for which authorizations of appropriations expired at the end of FY2023 include grants authorized by the Second Chance Act, grants authorized under the JJDPA, and substance abuse-related programs such as the Adult Treatment Courts and Comprehensive Opioid Abuse programs.

Figure 4. Last Fiscal Year of Authorized Appropriations for Programs with Lapsed Authorizations of Appropriations

Source: CRS review of statutory authorizations for DOJ grant programs in U.S. Code Title 34; Title 22, Chapter 78; Title 21, Chapter 13; Title 28, Chapters 31, 33, 35, 37, 39, 40, and 40A; and Title 25, Chapters 15 and 38A.

Figure 5 shows the total amount appropriated for DOJ grant programs from FY2017 to FY2026 for programs where there is a statutory authorization in the U.S. Code (even if the statutory authorization of appropriations expired before or during this period) and for those without a statutory authorization. A majority of annual appropriations for DOJ grant programs from FY2017 to FY2026 were for programs that have a statutory authorization. Funding for programs with a statutory authorization generally increased from FY2017 to FY2023 before leveling off thereafter. The noticeable increase in funding for programs without a statutory authorization in FY2020 is mostly due to the $850 million appropriated during the COVID-19 pandemic for DOJ's Coronavirus Emergency Supplemental Funding program under the CARES Act (P.L. 116-136). Increased funding for programs without a statutory authorization from FY2022 to FY2024 and FY2026 is attributable, in part, to the reestablishment via annual appropriations of two programs that provide funding for community funding projects and increasing funding for those programs during these years. Funding for these two programs increased from $296 million in FY2022 to $939 million in FY2026. The Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025 (FY2025 CR, P.L. 119-4) did not provide funding for community project funding, which are directed to specified projects that are not typically statutorily authorized on an individual basis. This contributed to the decrease in appropriations for programs without a statutory authorization in FY2025. (Community project funding through appropriations resumed in FY2026.) Additionally, starting with FY2022, the CJS appropriations act included $50 million for a community violence intervention and prevention grant program, and another $50 million per fiscal year for this program was provided through the BSCA, which also contributed to some of the increase in appropriations for programs without a statutory authorization.

Figure 5. Total Appropriations for DOJ Grant Programs With and Without a Statutory Authorization, FY2017-FY2026

Source: Text of the FY2017 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 115-31), FY2018 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 115-141), FY2019 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 116-6), FY2020 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 116-93), FY2021 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 116-260), FY2022 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 117-103), FY2023 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 117-328), FY2024 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 118-42), year-long CR (P.L. 119-4) and DOJ's FY2026 budget summary, FY2026 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 119-74), CARES Act (P.L. 116-136), and Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (P.L. 117-159). Notes: Amounts are in nominal dollars.

Figure 6 shows changes in the number of programs with statutory authorizations (active and expired) that received an appropriation in a given year from FY2017 to FY2026, as demonstrated by the blue bars according to the scale on the left side of the figure. The figure also shows how the average and median appropriation for these programs changed over this period as marked by the orange and silver lines measured by the scale on the right side of the figure. The median appropriation for these programs shows whether relatively large appropriations for a small number of programs might be affecting the average appropriation. The average appropriation for these programs generally increased from FY2017 to FY2023, which coincides with a general increase in total appropriations for these programs. The total number of programs funded also increased during this time period. Appropriations for several larger DOJ grant programs consistently increased from FY2020 to FY2023. For example, during this period funding increased from $349 million to $412 million for the JAG program, from $202 million to $327 million for the COPS program, from $125 million to $195 million for the Matching Grant Program for School Security, from $53 million to $110 million for the National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP), and from $215 million to $255 million for the STOP program. On the other hand, funding for smaller programs (annual appropriations under $20 million) was flat or had relatively small increases in appropriations. This is demonstrated by the divergence between the average annual appropriation and the median appropriation from FY2020 to FY20203. Also, some of the newly authorized programs that were funded after FY2020 received relatively small appropriations. An increase in the number of programs funded along with rising appropriations for the larger grant programs helps explain the increasing trend in appropriations for programs with a statutory authorization from FY2017 to FY2023 seen in Figure 5. The average appropriation for programs with a statutory authorization decreased in FY2024 due to enacted cuts for many DOJ grant programs and an increase in the number of programs. The total number of funded programs, along with the average and median appropriation, was relatively flat from FY2024 to FY2025 because the FY2025 CR funded most DOJ grant programs at the FY2024-enacted level. The average appropriation for programs with a codified authorization decreased from FY2025 to FY2026 because the total amount of funding for these programs decreased (Figure 5), while the number of programs funded increased slightly from FY2025.

Figure 6. Number of Funded DOJ Grant Programs with a Statutory Authorization and Average and Median Appropriation for These Programs, FY2017-FY2026

Source: Text of the FY2017 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 115-31), FY2018 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 115-141), FY2019 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 116-6), FY2020 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 116-93), FY2021 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 116-260), FY2022 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 117-103), FY2023 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 117-328), FY2024 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 118-42), year-long CR (P.L. 119-4) and DOJ's FY2026 budget summary, FY2026 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 119-74), CARES Act (P.L. 116-136), and Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (P.L. 117-159). Notes: Amounts are in nominal dollars.

Figure 7 shows changes in the number of programs without a statutory authorization that received appropriations in a given year from FY2017 to FY2026, as demonstrated by the green bars measured by the scale on the left of the figure, as well as how the average and median appropriation for these programs changed over this period, as marked by the dark and light gray lines measured by the scale on the right side of the figure. The median appropriation for these programs is presented in Figure 7 to show whether relatively large appropriations for a small number of programs might be affecting the average appropriation. The median appropriation for programs without statutory authorizations remained relatively flat from FY2017 to FY2026. Many of these programs are set-asides from appropriations for larger programs, such as JAG and Title V grants under the JJDPA, and they received relatively small appropriations that did not increase much, if at all, over the past 10 fiscal years. The spike in the average appropriation for programs without a statutory authorization in FY2020 was the result of the $850 million in supplemental funding provided in the CARES Act. The increase in the average appropriation for these programs from FY2021 to FY2024 is attributable to the $100 million in annual funding provided for community violence intervention and prevention programs and increased funding for community funding projects. The decrease in the average appropriation in FY2025 reflects the elimination of funding for community funding projects under the FY2025 CR, while the increase in the average appropriation for FY2026 is largely attributable to the restoration of funding for community funding projects. The general increase in total appropriations for programs without statutory authorizations observed in Figure 5 coincides with an increase in the number of these programs funded along with an increase in the average appropriation for the programs.

Figure 7. Number of Funded DOJ Grant Programs Without Statutory Authorizations and Average and Median Appropriation for These Programs, FY2017-FY2026

Source: Text of the FY2017 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 115-31), FY2018 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 115-141), FY2019 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 116-6), FY2020 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 116-93), FY2021 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 116-260), FY2022 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 117-103), FY2023 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 117-328), FY2024 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 118-42), year-long CR (P.L. 119-4) and DOJ's FY2026 budget summary, FY2026 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 119-74), CARES Act (P.L. 116-136), and Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (P.L. 117-159). Notes: Amounts are in nominal dollars.

Figure 8 shows the amount appropriated from FY2017 to FY2026 for programs with a current statutory authorization of appropriations compared to appropriations for programs without a current authorization of appropriations. Figure 8 excludes programs with a statutory authorization that do not contain an explicit authorization of appropriations, and also those programs that lack a statutory authorization altogether. (In contrast, Figure 5 shows appropriations for a larger universe of programs—those with and without a statutory authorization.) From FY2017 to FY2026, with the exception of FY2018 and FY2023, appropriations for programs without a current statutory authorization of appropriations accounted for around 55% of funding for DOJ grants with a statutory authorization. In the three most recent fiscal years, appropriations have been close to evenly split between DOJ grant programs with and without a current statutory authorization of appropriations. VAWA programs have been funded every year over the past 10 fiscal years, but authorizations of appropriations for these programs lapsed from FY2019 to FY2022; this contributed to the increase in appropriations for grant programs without a current statutory authorization of appropriations in those fiscal years. The reauthorization of many VAWA programs for FY2023 to FY2027 by P.L. 117-103 contributed to the increased share of FY2023 appropriations being for grant programs with a current statutory authorization of appropriations. However, the statutory authorization of appropriations for a handful of grant programs that receive tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in annual appropriations have expired over the past few fiscal years, which contributed to the higher amounts of appropriations for grant programs without a current statutory authorization of appropriations from FY2024 to FY2026. Examples include programs authorized under the JJDPA and the Second Chance Act, NCHIP, and the Comprehensive Opioid Abuse program. Additionally, the noticeable increase in appropriations for programs without a current statutory authorization of appropriations from FY2021 to FY2022 is attributable to the $150 million per fiscal year in funding provided for the Byrne State Crisis Intervention Program (SCIP) for FY2022 to FY2026 in the BSCA. Despite the increase related to SCIP, the share of overall appropriations going to grant programs without a current statutory authorization of appropriations dipped in FY2023 due to the reauthorization of VAWA, but increased again as statutory authorizations of appropriations for some previously discussed programs expired.

Figure 8. Appropriations for DOJ Grant Programs With and Without a Current Statutory Authorization of Appropriations, FY2017-FY2026

Source: Text of the FY2017 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 115-31), FY2018 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 115-141), FY2019 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 116-6), FY2020 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 116-93), FY2021 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 116-260), FY2022 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 117-103), FY2023 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 117-328), FY2024 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 118-42), year-long CR (P.L. 119-4) and DOJ's FY2026 budget summary, FY2026 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 119-74), CARES Act (P.L. 116-136), and Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (P.L. 117-159). Notes: Amounts are in nominal dollars.

Figure 9 shows, for DOJ grant programs having an authorization of appropriations of a specific dollar amount that was current for a given fiscal year, how the total amount appropriated for those programs in FY2017 to FY2026 compares to the amount that was authorized to be appropriated. (The total amount authorized does not include any amounts for programs where the authorized amount was "such sums as necessary.") Figure 9 shows that the gap between the amount authorized for DOJ grant programs and the amount appropriated pursuant to those authorizations has narrowed since FY2017. In fact, since FY2024 appropriations have been roughly equal to the amount authorized. The narrowing gap between the amount authorized and the amount appropriated pursuant to those authorizations is attributable to a decrease in the number of programs with current authorizations of appropriations since FY2023, but also an increase in funding for programs with a current authorization of appropriations in recent years. The notable increase in both total appropriations authorized and subsequent funding for programs with a current authorization of appropriations in FY2023 was the result of the reauthorization of VAWA.

Figure 9. Total Authorizations of Appropriations and Appropriations for Grants, FY2017-FY2026

Source: Authorization of appropriations are based on a CRS review of statutory authorizations for DOJ grant programs in U.S. Code Title 34; Title 22, Chapter 78; Title 21, Chapter 13; Title 28, Chapters 31, 33, 35, 37, 39, 40, and 40A; and Title 25, Chapters 15 and 38A. Appropriation amounts were taken from the text of the FY2017 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 115-31), FY2018 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 115-141), FY2019 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 116-6), FY2020 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 116-93), FY2021 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 116-260), FY2022 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 117-103), FY2023 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 117-328), FY2024 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 118-42), year-long CR (P.L. 119-4) and DOJ's FY2026 budget summary, FY2026 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 119-74), CARES Act (P.L. 116-136), and Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (P.L. 117-159). Notes: Amounts are in nominal dollars. Grant programs where the authorization of appropriations is "such sums as necessary" are not included in the total amount of authorized appropriations. Appropriations for grants with a current authorization of appropriations include appropriations for grant programs with an authorization of appropriations of "such sums as necessary."

Figure 10 shows the total number of DOJ grant programs with a current authorization of appropriations in a given year from FY2017 to FY2026 and the number of these programs that received an appropriation, as demonstrated by the green and blue bars measured by the scale on the left of the figure. Figure 10 also shows what proportion of programs with a current authorization of appropriations received an appropriation, as marked by the yellow line measured by the scale on the right side of the figure. The data in the figure show 64% to 77% of programs with a current authorization of appropriations being funded, meaning that funds have not been provided to every grant program with a current authorization in any of the past 10 fiscal years. There was a notable increase in the percentage of programs with a current authorization of appropriations funded from FY2023 to FY2026, but this is mostly attributable to the 2023 reauthorization of VAWA. Many VAWA programs have been consistently funded since they were established by the initial VAWA or one of its subsequent reauthorizations. (In a few cases, the 2023 VAWA reauthorization established some new grant programs that started receiving an appropriation in FY2023.)

Figure 10. Total Number of DOJ Grant Programs with a Current Authorization of Appropriations and the Number Funded, FY2017-FY2026

Source: The number of statutorily authorized programs is based on a CRS review of statutory authorizations for DOJ grant programs in U.S. Code Title 34; Title 22, Chapter 78; Title 21, Chapter 13; Title 28, Chapters 31, 33, 35, 37, 39, 40, and 40A; and Title 25, Chapters 15 and 38A. Appropriations for programs with a current authorization of appropriations were taken from the text of the FY2017 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 115-31), FY2018 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 115-141), FY2019 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 116-6), FY2020 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 116-93), FY2021 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 116-260), FY2022 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 117-103), FY2023 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 117-328), FY2024 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 118-42), year-long CR (P.L. 119-4) and DOJ's FY2026 budget summary, FY2026 CJS appropriations act (P.L. 119-74), CARES Act (P.L. 116-136), and Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (P.L. 117-159).

Considerations for Congress

Since FY2022, around $4 billion has been appropriated each fiscal year for approximately 100 DOJ grant programs. Providing funding for state and local criminal justice programs and activities is the primary way in which the federal government influences and shapes the criminal justice system in the United States.³⁰ A majority of these programs have authorizing legislation that specifies how grants under the program are to be awarded and which entities are eligible to receive funding. However, many grant programs do not have a corresponding statutory authorization. For many of those that do, their authorizations of appropriations provisions have lapsed.

There are several issues related to authorizations for DOJ grant programs that policymakers might consider, including

• reauthorizing grant programs with expired authorizations of appropriations,
• examining whether there is still a need for some programs that were authorized in the past but have not been recently funded,
• evaluating whether there is overlap in the purposes of some programs that warrants consolidation, and
• examining whether the amounts authorized to be appropriated for specific DOJ grant programs are optimal and to what extent such amounts should align with amounts that have been appropriated in recent years.

Reauthorizing Expired Authorizations of Appropriations

Policymakers might consider whether to take up legislation to reauthorize appropriations for DOJ grant programs where those statutory provisions have expired. A DOJ grant program does not end when authorization of appropriations expires if funding for the program is provided in the annual CJS appropriations act. When funds are appropriated for grant programs for which authorization has expired, those funds will still be awarded based on the requirements of the authorizing statute.

Renewing the provisions that authorize appropriations indicates, among other things, that Congress believes the program is still relevant and addressing a state or local need. When extending the period over which appropriations are authorized to be provided for a program, the statute may specify a particular amount of funding for a given fiscal year or "such sums as necessary." On the other hand, Congress may choose not to expend legislative efforts (i.e., committee and floor time) on reauthorizing grant programs with expired authorizations of appropriations when there is general satisfaction with the program's parameters in the authorizing law and the level of funding that is being annually appropriated.³¹

Unfunded Grant Programs

As discussed previously, CRS identified 151 DOJ grant programs with a statutory authorization, and appropriations for many of these programs were not reauthorized after their initial authorization. In addition, many authorized grant programs do not currently receive an appropriation and have not been funded for several fiscal years (and some were never funded at all). Policymakers might review the current scope of DOJ grant programs that are statutorily authorized and examine whether they still serve a need or address a current crime issue facing the nation. Policymakers might examine whether there is no longer a need for the type of programs or actions supported by the grants, and if so, whether the underlying statutory authorization for such programs might be considered for repeal.

If policymakers determine that a grant program continues to address a need, they might consider whether that authorization needs to be modified to either expand or narrow the scope of funding uses or who is eligible to receive those funds. During such a review, policymakers might also consider whether there is a need to establish new grant programs to address new crime problems or issues in the criminal justice system.

Overlapping Grant Programs

Numerous grant programs have been authorized over the years, many of which focus on addressing a particular issue or crime problem. As the slate of DOJ grant programs has expanded, some programs allow funds to be used for purposes that overlap with or are substantially similar to purposes of other grant programs. For example, state and local governments can use funds under the JAG program for purposes that are similar to those of many other DOJ grant programs, such as hiring law enforcement officers, reducing backlogs of DNA evidence, supporting prisoner reentry programs, or improving the completeness of criminal history records. Funds under the Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Grant program can be used to support drug courts and mental health courts, both of which can be funded through the Drug Courts and Adult and Juvenile Collaboration programs.

There are many reasons why Congress might choose to authorize programs with overlapping purposes, including that they target different populations, have different types of grantees, or are being carried out by federal agencies with different missions. In certain cases, however, Congress might determine in a review of DOJ grant programs that some are duplicative. Such programs might be candidates for restructuring, consolidation, or repeal.

Authorization and Appropriations Alignment

Over the past 10 fiscal years, many DOJ grant programs with unexpired authorizations of appropriations have been funded at a level below their authorization. For example, the Sexual Assault Victims Services program is authorized at $100 million for FY2026, and it received $80 million in funding for that fiscal year. At the same time, numerous DOJ grant programs have been regularly funded without having a separate statutory authorization. For example, since FY2015 $531 million in funding has been provided for a grant program to help state and local governments work through backlogs of untested sexual assault evidence kits and to pursue leads generated by evidence from those kits. Since FY2022, $400 million in funding has been provided for another grant program for community violence intervention and prevention programs.

Congress might consider whether this patchwork approach to authorizations, with much of the programmatic and funding decisionmaking occurring through the annual appropriations process, is desirable for different groups of DOJ programs. In cases where there is dissatisfaction with the amount of funding provided for programs with expired authorizations of appropriations, Congress could seek to reauthorize those funding levels. Congress might also consider whether to take up legislation to authorize DOJ grant programs that have been regularly funded but do not have a statutory authorization. Providing statutory authorization for these and other programs would give policymakers the ability to specify in greater detail how DOJ is to award grants provided for a specific purpose in the annual CJS appropriations act.

Appendix A. Laws That Authorize or Reauthorize DOJ Grant Programs

Appendix B. Appropriated and Authorized Amounts for DOJ Grant Programs

Appendix C. Future Authorized Appropriations for DOJ Grant Programs

Appendix D. Authorization History for DOJ Grant Programs