How to Fund a License Plate Reader (LPR) Program in 2026: 7 Funding Sources Police Agencies Are Using

Police agencies can fund License Plate Reader (LPR) programs through a mix of dedicated and discretionary sources, including asset forfeiture funds, jail commissary revenue, public safety sales taxes, alcohol and gaming tax allocations, and prosecutor partnerships. Many agencies combine two or three sources to launch a program before moving costs into the general fund.

If your department has looked at license plate reader technology and landed on "we just don't have the budget," try looking at the sources below. Agencies of all sizes are funding programs without waiting on a grant cycle, and most are doing it with funds they already have access to.

The 7 Funding Sources Agencies are Using:

1. Asset Forfeiture Funds

Asset forfeiture funds are specifically designed to be reinvested into law enforcement operations, equipment, and technology. License plate readers are naturally a good fit. Better vehicle intelligence leads to more successful investigations, which can result in more seized assets, which replenish the fund.

Many agencies use asset forfeiture dollars to cover the first year of an LPR deployment, then transition ongoing subscription costs into the general fund once leadership has seen the results. This approach keeps the initial ask small and ties continued investment to demonstrated outcomes. It makes for a much easier conversation with city leadership than a cold budget request.

Asset forfeiture rules vary meaningfully by state. Some states have strict limitations on how and when forfeiture funds can be accessed, while others give agencies broad discretion. Before moving forward, it is worth having a quick conversation with your jurisdiction's legal counsel or finance director to confirm what is permissible locally.

2. Jail Commissary Funds

For sheriff's offices, commissary revenue is one of the most underutilized funding paths available. These funds come from inmate purchases at the jail - items like snacks, hygiene products, and phone time - and in most jurisdictions, they are discretionary, meaning the sheriff has significant flexibility in how they are spent.

Commissary funds typically require fewer internal approvals than a standard budget request; they do not compete with patrol or operations budgets, and they do not require a grant application or a waiting period tied to a funding cycle. A sheriff may be able to move from decision to deployment in a short amount of time.

Agencies in multiple states have used commissary revenue to fund initial LPR deployments, often shifting the ongoing cost into the general fund once the program was established and producing results. If you are a sheriff's office that has never looked at the commissary as a technology funding source, the first step is a conversation with your finance director about current balances and allowable uses.

Watch this on-demand webinar, “How Law Enforcement Can Afford Modern Tech with Limited Budget and Staff” to hear how an Indiana sheriffs office used multiple funding sources, including jail commissary funds, to get multiple LPRs in his district. 

3. Alcohol Tax and ABC Revenue

Many jurisdictions allocate a portion of alcohol-related tax revenue to law enforcement, but those designated funds frequently sit underused. Finance directors have found accounts with significant balances and steady monthly contributions that had simply never been flagged as available for technology purchases.

The key question is whether your jurisdiction receives ABC revenue or an alcohol tax allocation and whether public safety technology qualifies as an allowable use. In most cases, it does, but it often requires someone to ask. 

This path works particularly well for agencies in states with strong alcohol enforcement programs or high-volume liquor license activity, where the revenue stream is consistent and the balance meaningful. 

4. Video Gaming Tax Revenue

In states where video gaming terminals are legal, municipalities collect a portion of tax revenue from gaming activity that can often be directed toward public safety. This is a steadier and more predictable source than it might appear - in high-gaming states, the revenue flows monthly, and the balances accumulate quickly.

States like Illinois have established video gaming tax structures that fund a range of local priorities, including law enforcement equipment and technology. Some departments have used this revenue to fund LPR programs entirely outside the general fund.

The first step is confirming whether your municipality receives gaming tax revenue and whether public safety technology is a permissible use under your state's distribution rules. Your city or county finance office will have that information. 

5. Red Light and Speed Camera Revenue

In jurisdictions where red light or speed camera programs are active, that revenue is already earmarked for public safety purposes. In many cases, the language is broad enough to cover LPR infrastructure.

The connection is not just administrative. License plate readers and traffic enforcement technology work better together. LPR data supplements traffic enforcement by surfacing vehicles with flagged plates, adding investigative value to what is already a traffic safety tool. That overlap makes the case for using traffic camera revenue to fund LPR easier to defend.

6. Prosecutor Partnerships

Prosecutors and district attorneys have a direct stake in the quality of evidence that reaches their office. Weak cases, missing timelines, and partial plate data make their jobs harder and reduce the likelihood of conviction. When LPR is framed as an evidence pipeline improvement rather than a law enforcement purchase, the conversation with a prosecutor's office changes.

Many district attorneys' offices have discretionary funds for initiatives that strengthen case outcomes or improve coordination with local law enforcement. Some have funded technology partnerships directly. Others have advocated for budget allocations alongside a police department's request, adding weight to the ask.

The practical approach is to go into the conversation with specifics: what types of cases would benefit, what evidence gaps currently exist, and how LPR data has strengthened prosecutions in comparable jurisdictions. Prosecutors respond to case outcomes. If the framing connects the investment to clearance rates, evidence quality, and conviction support, the conversation tends to move forward.

7. Public Safety Sales Tax

Public safety sales taxes exist in hundreds of jurisdictions across the country, and many of the agencies covered by those taxes have never confirmed whether technology purchases qualify. The assumption is often that the funds are for personnel, facilities, or vehicles.

Public safety sales taxes typically fund technology that improves community safety outcomes. LPR programs fit squarely within that definition - they reduce response time, support investigations, and contribute to crime deterrence. 

The first step is pulling the original ballot language or the governing ordinance for your jurisdiction's public safety tax. That language defines what is allowable. If technology is included, or if the language is broad enough to support a reasonable interpretation, your finance director or city attorney can confirm. 

The Investment Case: What a License Plate Reader Program Actually Pays Back

Budget conversations focus on what technology costs, but they should include the financial savings and the impact the technology can have on a community. A license plate reader program reduces the manual labor costs of investigations, improves the efficiency of patrol resources, and supports higher clearance rates that close cases faster. In jurisdictions where crime and property loss decline over time, there are downstream savings in emergency response, repeat calls for service, and community programs designed to address the effects of crime.

Investigator time is not free

Every hour a detective spends manually cross-referencing plates, pulling footage tied to a vehicle lead, or rebuilding a case timeline from a partial plate is an hour that costs the department money. LPR reduces that work by turning a search that could take days into one that takes minutes. At the average detective salary, that time difference represents real budget dollars recovered through the work the technology removes.

Clearance rates have a cost, too

Unsolved cases stay open and consume resources. They take time from detectives, space in case management systems, and, in serious crimes, they carry ongoing community and reputational costs for the department. A higher clearance rate is not just a public safety metric; it is an operational one. Gwinnett County PD used LPR to recover a stolen vehicle and make an arrest in approximately 10 minutes. Faster leads mean faster resolutions, which frees investigators for the next case.

Recovered property is recovered value

When Gwinnett County PD deployed LPR coverage, they recovered more than 630 stolen vehicles. That is 630 cases where a vehicle was returned to its owner instead of being written off - value recovered for residents, insurers, and the broader community. Property recovery has direct financial implications for the people in your jurisdiction.

Putting It All Together

Funding an LPR program doesn’t always come down to a single source. Many successful deployments start with one or two available sources - asset forfeiture, commissary revenue, or an existing tax allocation - to get a program started. Once you get enough to start, outcomes can help make the case for what comes next.

Some agencies are getting even more creative. In November 2025, the Colorado Springs City Council passed a Police Technology Surcharge - a $20 fee applied to municipal court convictions for criminal and traffic ordinance violations. The revenue is dedicated specifically to technology used by the department to respond to, investigate, and document violations. It took a proposal from the department and a council vote, but it created a dedicated, self-sustaining funding stream that did not require competing with other budget priorities. Tennesse launched a sexual offender registration fee that local law enforcement agencies can use for technology. 

These are just a couple of examples. Agencies across the country are finding paths that fit their jurisdiction, their relationships, and their existing resources.

The sources in this post are just a starting point. The full guide covers additional funding options and how agencies are structuring them to launch programs, expand coverage, and build long-term sustainability.

FAQs

What is a unique way agencies have used reallocations to fund LPR programs?

In one case, a department had spent more than $700,000 on camera technology, only to find that 70% of the cameras had been non-functional for more than a year. Facing a breakdown in critical infrastructure, the department secured a refund from the original vendor and redirected those funds toward a solution from Flock. Strategic budget reallocation allowed them to rebuild without further draining city resources.

Can asset forfeiture funds be used to buy license plate readers?

Yes, in most states. Asset forfeiture funds are intended to be reinvested in law enforcement operations, equipment, and technology. Many agencies have used them to launch LPR programs directly. State laws vary, so it is worth confirming local statutes, but this is one of the most commonly used paths for getting a program off the ground quickly.

Do JAG, COPS, or BSIR grants cover LPR purchases?

Yes, all three can cover LPR technology. The Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) and COPS Technology Program are among the most widely used federal funding sources for law enforcement tech. Grant cycles take time and may not fit within your needed timeline to implement technology, but these programs have funded LPR deployments before.

How much does a license plate reader program cost annually?

Program costs vary based on the number of cameras, coverage area, and the features included. Flock offers subscription-based pricing that bundles hardware, installation, maintenance, and software into a single annual cost. Most agencies work with a Flock safety expert to right-size a program to their budget and get a specific quote based on their deployment goals.

Can a sheriff's office use jail commissary funds for technology?

Yes, and it is more common than most sheriffs realize. Commissary revenue comes from inmate purchases and is typically discretionary, making it one of the more flexible funding sources available. Agencies in Indiana, Missouri, South Dakota, and Kansas have used commissary funds to cover initial LPR deployment, often without competing against patrol or operations budgets. Some vendors have even fronted year one costs, with repayment structured through future commissary revenue.

Can two agencies share the cost of an LPR program?

Yes. Interagency agreements and shared services arrangements allow neighboring agencies to split costs and share coverage. This is common in county-wide deployments where a sheriff's office and multiple municipal departments pool resources to build a broader network. Shared deployments often mean better coverage at a lower cost per agency than going it alone.

Is there a minimum budget needed to get started?

No fixed minimum. Flock's subscription-based model bundles hardware, installation, maintenance, and software into a single annual cost, which means there is no large capital outlay required upfront. Program size is scaled to what an agency can fund, so the right starting point depends on coverage goals and available resources, rather than a predetermined price floor.

Can we start with a small deployment and expand later?

Yes, and most agencies do. A common approach is to start with a focused deployment in a high-priority area, demonstrate results, and use those outcomes to justify expanding coverage in future budget cycles. Flock's subscription model is designed for this. Adding cameras as funding grows is straightforward, and the data from early deployment supports the case for expansion.