SEX OFFENDER 

REGISTRATION AND 

NOTIFICATION ACT

Additional Outreach 

and Notification of 

Tribes about 

Offenders Who Are 

Released from Prison 

Needed

Report to the Subcommittee on Crime, 

Terrorism, Homeland Security, and 

Investigations, Committee on the 

Judiciary, House of Representatives

November 2014

GAO-15-23

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-15-23, a report to the 

Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland 

Security, and Investigations, Committee on the 

Judiciary, House of Representatives

November 2014

SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION AND 

NOTIFICATION ACT

Additional Outreach and Notification of Tribes about 

Offenders Who Are Released from Prison Needed

Why GAO Did This Study

According to DOJ, tribal nations are 

disproportionately affected by violent 

crimes and sex offenses in particular. 

In 2006, Congress passed SORNA, 

which introduced new sex offender 

registration and notification standards 

for states, territories, and eligible 

tribes. The act made special provisions 

for eligible tribes to elect either to act 

as registration jurisdictions or to 

delegate SORNA functions to the 

states in which they are located. GAO 

was asked to assess the status of 

tribes’ efforts to implement SORNA 

and the challenges they face doing so. 

This report addresses, among other 

things, (1) the extent to which eligible 

tribes have retained their authority to 

implement, and for those that did, 

describe their implementation status

and (2) implementation challenges

tribes that retained their authority

reported, and steps federal agencies 

have taken or could take to address 

these challenges. GAO reviewed data 

on eligible tribes’ implementation 

status; conducted a survey of tribes 

that retained their authority; and 

interviewed federal, state, and local 

officials. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that, among other 

things, the SMART Office encourage 

states to notify tribes about offenders 

who plan to live, work, or attend school 

on tribal land upon release from prison.

GAO also recommends that BIA reach

out to all tribes that retained their 

authority to determine what, if any, 

assistance they would like from BIA.

DOJ and Interior concurred.

What GAO Found

Most eligible tribes have retained their Sex Offender Registration and Notification 

Act (SORNA) implementation authority and have either substantially 

implemented the act or are in the process of doing so. As of August 2014, 77

percent (164 of the 214) of eligible tribes had retained their implementation 

authority. Tribes that lacked the resources, among other factors, to implement

SORNA either delegated their own authority, or the SMART Office delegated the 

tribe’s authority, to a state. According to the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, 

Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (SMART Office)—the office 

SORNA established within the Department of Justice (DOJ) to administer and 

assist jurisdictions with implementing the law—43 percent (71 of 164) of tribes 

that retained their authority to implement SORNA have substantially implemented 

the act; the SMART Office has not yet made a final determination on 43 percent 

(70 of 164); and 13 percent (22 of 164) have not submitted complete packages.

The SMART Office determined that 1 tribe has not yet substantially implemented

SORNA.

In GAO’s survey of tribes that retained their authority, the four most frequently 

reported implementation challenges included inability to submit convicted sex 

offender information to federal databases, lack of notification from state prisons 

upon the release of sex offenders, lack of staff, and inability to cover the costs of 

SORNA implementation. Federal agencies have taken steps to address these 

challenges, but more could be done. For example, DOJ and the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs (BIA) within the Department of the Interior (Interior) have formed a 

working group to better coordinate federal efforts to address tribes’ difficulties 

submitting convicted sex offender information to federal databases. However, 

some states have not notified tribes—those that retained their SORNA authority, 

as well as ineligible and delegated tribes—when sex offenders who will be or 

have been released from state prison register with the state and indicate that 

they intend to live, work or attend school on tribal land, as SORNA requires; and 

while the SMART Office has taken some actions, more could be done to 

encourage states to provide notification to tribes. Such notification would help

tribes identify and monitor sex offenders who live on their lands and enforce tribal

laws pertaining to sex offenders. The SMART Office, U.S. Marshals Service, and 

BIA provided financial assistance, equipment, and staff to help tribes address 

their resource needs. However, BIA offered assistance only to tribes for which 

BIA provides direct law enforcement services, which account for only 20 percent 

of the tribes that retained their SORNA implementation authority, even though 

BIA is responsible for assisting and advising all federally recognized tribes 

regarding their law enforcement and public safety needs. Taking steps to 

ascertain what, if any, resource or other needs all tribes that retained their 

authority may have could better position BIA to support the tribes’ efforts to 

implement the act.

View GAO-15-23. For more information, 

contact Eileen R. Larence at (202) 512-8777 

or larencee@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

Letter 1

Background 6

Most Eligible Tribes Have Retained Their SORNA Implementation 

Authority and Have Either Substantially Implemented the Act or 

Are in the Process of Doing So 11

Federal Agencies Have Helped Tribes Address Challenges, but 

Some States Do Not Notify Tribes about Registered Offenders 

Who Plan to Live, Work, or Attend School on Tribal Land upon 

Release from State Prison 17

States Are Including Convicted Sex Offenders from Ineligible and 

Delegated Tribes, but States Are Not Consistently Notifying 

Tribes about Offenders Who Indicate That They Plan to Live, 

Work, or Attend School on Tribal Lands 35

Conclusions 39

Recommendations for Executive Action 40

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 41

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 44

Appendix II SORNA Substantial Implementation Checklist Tool 49

Appendix III Extent to Which Eligible Tribes Have Implemented the Sex Offender 

Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) 51

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Justice 60

Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 64

Tables

Table 1: Titles and Descriptions of the 14 Sections of the Sex 

Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) 

Substantial Implementation Checklist Tool and 

Implementation Reports 49

Contents
Page ii GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

Table 2: Implementation Status of Eligible Tribes and Their 

Corresponding States, as of August 2014 51

Figures

Figure 1: Eligible Tribes That Have Retained and Delegated Their 

Authority to Implement the Sex Offender Registration and 

Notification Act (SORNA), as of August 2014 12

Figure 2: Implementation Status of Tribes That Have Retained 

Their Authority to Implement the Sex Offender 

Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) 14

Figure 3: Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) 

Implementation Status of States and Eligible Tribes, as of 

August 2014 15

Figure 4: Most Common Factors Tribes Reported to Be a Major 

Challenge, Minor Challenge, or Not a Challenge to 

Implementation of the Sex Offender Registration and 

Notification Act (SORNA) 18
Page iii GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

Abbreviations:

AWA Adam Walsh Act Implementation Grant Program 

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs

BOP Bureau of Prisons

CJIS Criminal Justice Information Services Division

CODIS Combined DNA Index System

COPS Community Oriented Policing Services 

CSA CJIS Systems Agency

DOJ Department of Justice

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation

IAFIS Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification 

System

JAG Justice Assistance Grant 

JMD Justice Management Division

JUST Justice Telecommunications System

MOA memorandum of agreement

NCIC National Crime Information Center 

NSOR National Sex Offender Registry 

OJP Office of Justice Programs

OJS Office of Justice Services

ORI Originating Agency Identifier

OTJ Office of Tribal Justice

PROTECT Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the 

Exploitation of Children Today

SMART Office Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, 

Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking

SORNA Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

TTSORS Tribe and Territory Sex Offender Registry System 

USMS U.S. Marshals Service

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

November 18, 2014

The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner

Chairman

The Honorable Robert C. Scott

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and

 Investigations

Committee on the Judiciary 

House of Representatives

In 2009, the United States Attorney General launched a Department of 

Justice (DOJ) initiative on public safety in tribal communities and 

identified combating violence against women and children in tribal 

communities as one of the department’s priority goals. According to DOJ, 

tribal nations are disproportionately affected by violent crime, particularly 

violent crime against women. Starting in 1994, Congress passed several 

laws that required states to establish sex offender registries—which are 

systems that enable law enforcement officials to monitor convicted sex 

offenders who live in the state, and to establish notification systems to 

alert the public about these offenders.1

 1

The Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender 

Registration Act (Wetterling Act), Pub. L. No. 103-322, tit. XVII, subtit. A, 108 Stat. 1796, 

2038-42 (1994), provided a national baseline for sex offender registration programs. This 

affected matters such as defining the offenses that require registration and the duration of 

registration periods, requiring periodic verification of the registered address, continued 

registration of sex offenders when they move from one state to another (if the new state 

had a registration requirement), and community notification. In the years subsequent to 

the enactment of the Wetterling Act, Congress passed a series of amendments to this 

federal legislation, which in part reflected and promoted trends and developments in 

individual states’ registration programs. Key legislative amendments were enacted by 

Megan’s Law, Pub. L. No. 104-145, 110 Stat. 1345 (1996); the Pam Lychner Sexual 

Offender Tracking and Identification Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-236, 110 Stat. 3093; the 

Jacob Wetterling Improvements Act, Pub. L. No. 105-119, § 115, 111 Stat. 2440, 2461-67 

(1997); Protection of Children from Sexual Predators Act, of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-314, 

112 Stat. 2974; the Campus Sex Crimes Prevention Act, Pub. L. No. 106-386, § 1601, 

114 Stat. 1464, 1537-38 (2000); and the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End 

the Exploitation of Children Today (PROTECT) Act, Pub. L. No. 108-21, 117 Stat. 650 

(2003).

Since these sex offender 

registration and notification laws applied only to states and territories, 

there were public safety concerns that convicted sex offenders would 

move to tribal lands to avoid registration. To protect the public, including 
Page 2 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

tribal nations, from sex offenders, in 2006, Congress passed the Sex 

Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) as Title I of the Adam 

Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act (Adam Walsh Act).2 SORNA 

sought to introduce comprehensive standards to make state and territory 

sex offender registration systems more uniform. It also provided certain 

tribes the opportunity to create sex offender registration and notification 

systems where, for most tribes, these systems did not previously exist. 

The initial statutory deadline for implementing SORNA was July 2009—3 

years after the Adam Walsh Act was enacted. However, given that none 

of the jurisdictions had substantially implemented SORNA by the original 

deadline, the Attorney General exercised his authority under SORNA to 

authorize two 1-year extensions of the deadline to July 2011.3

SORNA establishes that federally recognized tribes, with the exception of 

those tribes that are subject to the criminal jurisdiction of a state, under a 

specific federal statute, are eligible to implement the act.4 SORNA grants 

authority to the states where ineligible tribes are located to implement the 

act on behalf of these tribes. In 2013, we reported that 19 of 56 states 

and territories had substantially implemented SORNA.5

 2

Pub. L. No. 109-248, tit. I, 120 Stat. 587, 590-607 (2006).

We noted that a 

majority of nonimplemented jurisdictions reported that generating the 

political will to incorporate the necessary changes to their state laws and 

related policies or reconciling legal conflicts between SORNA and state 

laws were among the greatest challenges to implementation. Since our 

2013 report, the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, 

Apprehension, Registering, and Tracking (SMART Office)—the office 

responsible for administering the standards for SORNA implementation—

has determined that 1 additional state has substantially implemented 

SORNA.

3

See 42 U.S.C. § 16924(b).

4

42 U.S.C. § 16927(a)(1), (a)(2)(A). Federally recognized tribes are eligible to receive 

federal funding and services. Under 42 U.S.C. § 16927(a)(2)(A), tribes that are subject to 

the criminal jurisdiction of a state under 18 U.S.C. § 1162 are not eligible to implement the 

act. Tribes subject to state criminal jurisdiction under section 1162 are located in 6 states: 

California, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, Wisconsin, and Alaska. In addition, the 

Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas is also subject to state criminal jurisdiction pursuant to 

section 1162 and is therefore ineligible to implement SORNA. See 25 U.S.C. § 1300b-15.

5

GAO, Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act: Jurisdictions Face Challenges to 

Implementing the Act, and Stakeholders Report Positive and Negative Effects, 

GAO-13-211 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 7, 2013).
Page 3 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

Recognizing that tribes may vary in their capacities for discharging the 

sex offender registration and notification functions, SORNA made special 

provisions for eligible tribes to elect either to act as registration 

jurisdictions or to delegate their registration and notification functions to 

the states.6 SORNA requires delegation for tribes subject to state criminal 

jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1162, tribes that do not elect to 

implement SORNA, and tribes that the Attorney General determines have 

not substantially implemented the act and are not likely to become 

capable of doing so within a reasonable amount of time.7

Considering the unique circumstances tribes face with eligibility and 

capability to implement the act, you asked us to assess the status of 

tribes’ efforts to implement SORNA and the challenges they face with 

implementation. Specifically, this report addresses the following 

questions:

• To what extent have eligible tribes retained their authority to 

implement SORNA, and for those that did, what is their 

implementation status?

• What implementation challenges, if any, have tribes that retained their 

authority to implement SORNA reported, and what steps have federal 

agencies and others taken or could they take to address these 

challenges?

• To what extent are states incorporating ineligible and delegated tribes 

into their state sex offender registration and notification systems?

To address our first objective, we reviewed the SMART Office’s data of 

eligible tribes’ implementation status as of August 2014 to identify (1) 

tribes that have retained their authority to implement SORNA, (2) tribes 

that have delegated their implementation authority to a state, and (3) 

tribes whose implementation authority the SMART Office delegated to a 

state. To address the reliability of the SMART Office’s data on tribes’

implementation status, among other steps, we obtained written responses 

to our questions on how SMART Office representatives who use and 

maintain the data ensure the data’s reliability. We found the data 

 6

Pursuant to section 127 of SORNA, designated federally recognized Indian tribes were 

entitled to elect to become SORNA registration and notification jurisdictions or to delegate 

the responsibility to the jurisdiction or jurisdictions within which the territory of the tribe is 

located. See 42 U.S.C. § 16927(a)(1).

7

42 U.S.C. § 16927(a)(2).
Page 4 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

sufficiently reliable for the purpose of identifying tribes’ SORNA 

implementation status. In addition, we surveyed the SORNA points of 

contact for each of the tribes that retained their authority to implement 

SORNA to obtain more detailed information on these tribes’

implementation status. We received responses from 80 percent (129 of 

161) of all tribes surveyed.8

To address our second objective, we interviewed legal advisers and 

management officials from the SMART Office, the Office of Tribal Justice 

(OTJ), the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), and the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation (FBI), as well as the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) within the 

Department of the Interior, to determine the implementation challenges 

tribes have reported and steps the agencies, the tribes, and others have 

taken to address these challenges.9

 8

At the time of our survey, 166 tribes had retained their authority to implement SORNA. 

We did not survey 5 of the 166 because, according to the SMART Office, these tribes are 

either newly recognized tribes and have not elected whether or not they want to 

implement SORNA, or are still in the process of acquiring land. These tribes include the 

Cayuga Nation, the Delaware Tribe of Indians, the Samish Indian Nation, and the 

Shinnecock Indian Nation. We also did not survey the Onondaga Indian Nation because 

tribal officials told us that at the time of our survey they were in the process of delegating 

their SORNA authority to the state and had not taken any actions to implement the act. 

For more details of our survey results see GAO, Sex Offender Registration and 

Notification Act: Survey of Federally Recognized Tribes on Implementation of the Act 

(

In addition, we interviewed FBI 

Criminal Justice Information Services Division (CJIS) management and 

program officials to determine CJIS policies and procedures for granting 

tribes access to federal criminal justice databases, which CJIS manages 

and are required for SORNA implementation. We also interviewed state 

and tribal, as well as local, law enforcement officials from 5 states—

Florida, Michigan, Nevada, New York, and Oklahoma. We selected these 

5 states because each contains territory of tribes that retained their 

authority to implement SORNA, and the states vary with regard to their 

SORNA implementation status and geographic diversity. In addition, we 

interviewed management and law enforcement officials from the two BIA 

Office of Justice Services (OJS) regional districts that are responsible for 

most of the direct service tribes that retained their authority to implement 

GAO-15-30SP, November 2014), an E-supplement to GAO-15-23, (Washington, D.C.: 

Nov. 18, 2014).

9

USMS is responsible for locating and apprehending noncompliant convicted sex 

offenders, while the FBI is responsible for operating the National Sex Offender Registry, 

the database for registering convicted sex offenders. 
Page 5 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

SORNA.10

We also included questions in our survey of tribes that retained their 

authority to implement SORNA about the types and extent of challenges 

the tribes experienced with SORNA implementation; steps the tribes are 

taking to address the challenges; and the funding and other assistance 

the tribes have received or could receive from federal, state, or local law 

enforcement agencies to assist them with implementing the act. To 

determine if any additional actions could address such challenges, we 

compared our survey results against SORNA provisions as well as the 

National Guidelines for Sex Offender Registration and Notification 

(National Guidelines).

We discussed with these officials what, if any, assistance they 

have provided to tribes with regard to SORNA implementation. Although 

the perspectives we obtained from our interviews with these state, BIA, 

and tribal officials are not generalizable, the interviews provided insights 

regarding the challenges that tribes face with implementing SORNA and 

actions that federal agencies have taken or could take to address the 

challenges.

11

To address our third objective, we interviewed state SORNA and sex 

offender registry officials from all 6 states where ineligible tribes are 

located as well as 8 ineligible tribes—at least 1 each from the 6 states. 

We selected the tribes based on whether they submitted a resolution to 

implement SORNA in spite of their ineligibility, and the challenges the 

states in which the tribes are located reportedly faced with SORNA 

implementation.12

 10The Bureau of Indian Affairs provides direct services, such as law enforcement services, 

to certain tribes, commonly referred to as direct service tribes, that do not operate certain 

programs themselves. See 25 U.S.C. §§ 450f, 2802(c)(1).

The information from these interviews enabled us to 

determine if these states include the ineligible tribes in their state SORNA 

registration and notification systems, as SORNA requires, as well as to 

identify the challenges, if any, the states and tribes face with having the 

states implement SORNA on the tribes’ behalf. We also interviewed tribal 

1173 Fed. Reg. 38,030 (July 2, 2008). DOJ issued these guidelines in support of 

jurisdictions’ efforts to implement the act. The guidelines outline measures jurisdictions 

must implement in order for the agency to determine that they have “substantially 

implemented” SORNA.

12SORNA required eligible tribes wishing to implement the act to submit a resolution within 

a year of the act’s enactment, electing to implement the law themselves as opposed to 

delegating their authority to implement to a state. 42 U.S.C. § 16927(a)(1)(A), (a)(2)(B).
Page 6 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

leaders from 4 delegated tribes that opted out or were delegated by the 

SMART Office, and solicited perspectives of sex offender registry officials 

in the 15 states to which tribes’ SORNA authority has been delegated.

To supplement the information we received from our interviews as well as 

our survey of tribes that retained their authority, we interviewed officials 

from three relevant national associations: the National Congress of 

American Indians, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and 

the National Criminal Justice Association, to obtain their perspectives on 

the challenges that tribes face with implementation, and the actions that 

the SMART Office and others have taken to address these challenges. 

We selected these associations because they represent the interests of 

tribal communities or state and local law enforcement agencies that assist 

jurisdictions, including tribes, with SORNA implementation.

We conducted this performance audit from September 2013 to November 

2014 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Appendix I includes more 

details about our scope and methodology.

The purpose of SORNA is to protect the public from convicted sex 

offenders and offenders against children by providing a comprehensive 

set of sex offender registration and notification standards.13

 13Under SORNA, a convicted sex offender must be informed of his or her registration 

obligations, initial registration shall take place prior to the offender being released from 

prison, and registration information is to be immediately forwarded to any other jurisdiction 

in which the sex offender is required to register. 42 U.S.C. §§ 16911(10)(H), 16913(b)(1), 

16917(a), 16921(b). Sex offenders who are not sentenced to a term of imprisonment are 

to register not later than 3 business days after being sentenced. 42 U.S.C. § 16913(b)(2).

These 

standards require convicted sex offenders to register prior to their release 

from imprisonment or within 3 days of their sentencing, if the sentence 

does not involve imprisonment. Further, the standards require these 

Background

SORNA Requirements
Page 7 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

offenders to register and keep the registration current in the jurisdictions 

in which they live, work, and attend school. SORNA implementing 

jurisdictions are to maintain a jurisdiction-wide sex offender registry and 

website and adopt registration requirements that are at least as strict as 

those SORNA established. Convicted sex offenders are required to 

continue to update or verify their registration information, the duration and 

frequency of which depends on the seriousness of the crimes they 

committed. For example, SORNA requires a lifetime registration for 

convicted offenses in the most serious class such as aggravated sexual 

abuse (tier III), a 25-year registration for many felony sex offenses or 

sexual exploitation crimes with minors (tier II), and a 15-year registration 

for convicted offenses that do not support a higher classification such as 

possession of child pornography (tier I). SORNA requires in-person 

appearances depending on the convicted sex offender’s tier classification 

(tier I annually, tier II semiannually, and tier III quarterly) at established 

registration locations to update or verify registration information.14

Under the act, implementing jurisdictions are to submit basic identifier 

information for each convicted sex offender, such as the offender’s name, 

Social Security number, and address to the FBI’s National Sex Offender 

Registry (NSOR), which is a subfile of the National Crime Information 

Center (NCIC).15 In addition, these jurisdictions are to submit the sex 

offender’s fingerprints to the Integrated Automated Fingerprint 

Identification System (IAFIS), the sex offender’s palm prints to the 

National Palm Print System (NPPS), and a DNA sample to the Combined 

DNA Index System (CODIS).16

 14For the standards described in this paragraph, see 42 U.S.C. §§ 16911-16913, 16915-

16916, 16918. 

According to FBI officials, FBI CJIS has 

authorized state CJIS Systems Agencies (CSA) to determine which 

15NCIC is a computerized index of criminal justice information (i.e., fugitives, stolen 

properties, and missing persons) that is available to authorized federal, state, local, 

territorial, and tribal law enforcement and other criminal justice agencies 24 hours a day, 

throughout the year. NSOR is a national database within NCIC that authorized federal, 

state, local, territorial, and tribal law enforcement officials can use to access information 

on registered sex offenders throughout the United States. 

16IAFIS is a national automated fingerprint identification and criminal history system 

maintained by the FBI that provides automated fingerprint search capabilities, electronic 

image storage, and electronic exchange of fingerprints. CODIS, also maintained by the 

FBI, is a multilevel database where DNA profiles can be stored and searched. The FBI’s 

National Palm Print System is a centralized repository for palm print data that law 

enforcement can access nationwide to solve crimes.
Page 8 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

entities within their states, including tribes, can access these federal 

criminal databases.17 The implementing jurisdictions are also to provide 

information from the registry about the sex offender to (1) appropriate law 

enforcement agencies (including probation agencies), and each school 

and public housing agency, in each area in which the individual resides, is 

an employee, or is a student; (2) each jurisdiction where the sex offender 

resides, is an employee, or is a student; (3) each jurisdiction from or to 

which a change of residence, employment, or student status occurs; and 

(4) any organization, company, or individual who requests such 

notification, among others.18

Under SORNA, 353 of the 566 federally recognized tribes are ineligible to 

implement the act, while 214 tribes are eligible.19 SORNA based tribes’

eligibility on whether the tribe is subject to the criminal jurisdiction of a 

state under section 1162 of title 18, United States Code, making those 

tribes that are subject to such jurisdiction ineligible to implement the act.20

 17A CSA is the agency responsible for the administration and usage of the CJIS Division 

Programs for a state.

Section 1162 gives states criminal jurisdiction over offenses committed by 

or against Indians in the areas of Indian country within 6 states—Alaska, 

1842 U.S.C. § 16921(b). SORNA defines jurisdiction as any of the 50 states, the District of 

Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. 

Virgin Islands, and federally recognized tribes implementing SORNA under 42 U.S.C. § 

16927. See 42 U.S.C. § 16911(10).

19The sum total of eligible tribes (214) and ineligible tribes (353) is 1 tribe greater than the 

total number of federally recognized tribes (566) because the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, 

for SORNA purposes, was split into two eligibility categories. One component of the 

tribe—the Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake)—became eligible because the state retroceded

jurisdiction to this band only, while other components of the tribe remained ineligible.

20See 42 U.S.C. § 16927(a)(2)(A).

Tribes’ SORNA Eligibility
Page 9 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

California, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, and Wisconsin.21

SORNA provided tribes 1 year from its July 27, 2006, enactment, to 

choose—by resolution or other enactment of the tribal council or 

comparable governmental body—to either retain the tribe’s SORNA 

implementation authority and act as a registration jurisdiction or delegate 

the tribe’s registration and notification functions to the state.

Accordingly, 

tribes are generally ineligible to implement SORNA for tribal lands located 

within these states. The states are responsible for incorporating these 

tribal lands in state-wide SORNA implementation efforts.

22 Delegation, 

however, is automatic for a tribe that did not affirmatively elect to 

implement the act itself prior to July 27, 2007. SORNA authorizes tribes 

that retained their implementation authority to enter into cooperative 

agreements with states and decide which functions to maintain or 

delegate to the state. The Attorney General can also delegate a tribe’s 

SORNA registration and notification functions to a state if the Attorney 

General determines that the tribe has not substantially implemented the 

requirements of SORNA and is not likely to become capable of doing so 

within a reasonable amount of time.

SORNA established the SMART Office within DOJ to both assist 

jurisdictions in implementing the act, such as by providing technical 

 2118 U.S.C. § 1162(a). Section 1162, however, does not give the state criminal jurisdiction 

over the Red Lake Reservation of Minnesota, the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, 

and the Metlakatla Indian Community of the Annette Islands Reservation in Alaska. In 

addition to these three statutory exceptions, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to 

accept retrocession of jurisdiction by a state. See 25 U.S.C. § 1323(a). For example, 

Wisconsin retroceded state jurisdiction over the Menominee Reservation pursuant to the 

Menominee Restoration Act, Pub. L. No. 93-197, 87 Stat. 770 (1973) (codified at 25 

U.S.C. §§ 903-903f); Menominee Indian Reservation in Wisconsin; Acceptance of Offer to 

Retrocede Jurisdiction, 41 Fed. Reg. 8516 (Feb. 27, 1976); State v. Webster, 338 N.W.2d 

474, 476-77 (Wis. 1983). Accordingly, the tribes located on these reservations, as well as 

tribes subject to retrocession of state criminal jurisdiction, are eligible to implement 

SORNA. The Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas is also subject to state criminal 

jurisdiction in accordance with section 1162, and is therefore ineligible to implement 

SORNA. See 25 U.S.C. § 1300b-15.

2242 U.S.C. § 16927(a). 

Federal Role in Sex 

Offender Registration and 

Notification

SMART Office
Page 10 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

assistance and grant funds, and administer the standards for determining

whether jurisdictions have implemented the law.23

After reviewing the package, the SMART Office determines whether the 

jurisdiction has “substantially implemented” or “not substantially 

implemented” the minimum requirements of SORNA. To do so, the 

SMART Office must follow the standards set forth in the (1) act; (2) 

SORNA National Guidelines, issued in July 2008; and (3) Supplemental 

Guidelines for Sex Offender Registration and Notification (Supplemental 

Guidelines), issued in January 2011.

Eligible jurisdictions 

submit a substantial implementation package that outlines their 

implementation efforts for SMART Office review. The package can 

include tribal laws pertaining to sex offender registration administrative 

policy and procedures, and the jurisdiction’s public sex offender website, 

among other things. The SMART Office developed the SORNA 

Substantial Implementation Checklist tool (described in app. II) that 

jurisdictions can use to prepare the package.

24

Pursuant to SORNA, DOJ has designated the U.S. Marshals Service as 

the lead federal agency in three key missions: to assist state, local, tribal, 

and territorial authorities in the location and apprehension of 

noncompliant convicted sex offenders; to investigate violations of the 

criminal provisions of the act; and to identify and locate convicted sex 

offenders displaced as a result of a major disaster. USMS has designated 

a senior inspector in each of its 94 district offices to carry out the agency’s 

SORNA responsibilities.

The substantial implementation 

standard does allow for some latitude, and accordingly, the National 

Guidelines require the SMART Office to consider, on a case-by-case 

basis, whether jurisdictions’ rules or procedures substantially implement 

SORNA.

Within the Department of the Interior (Interior), the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs is responsible for supporting tribes in their efforts to ensure public 

safety and administer justice within their reservations, as well as to 

provide related services directly or to enter into contracts or compacts 

with federally recognized tribes to administer the law enforcement 

 2342 U.S.C. § 16945. 

24See 76 Fed. Reg. 1630, 1636-39 (Jan. 11, 2011).

United States Marshals 

Service

Bureau of Indian Affairs
Page 11 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

program.25 To that end, BIA’s Office of Justice Services investigates 

major federal crimes, including sexual offenses, committed on, or 

involving, Indian country. OJS provides oversight and technical 

assistance to tribal law enforcement programs.

 25Under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, as 

amended, federally recognized tribes can enter into self-determination contracts and selfgovernance compacts with the federal government to take over administration of certain 

federal programs previously administered on their behalf. Pub. L. No. 93-638, 88 Stat. 

2203 (codified as amended at 25 U.S.C. §§ 450-458ddd-2). Self-determination contracts 

allow tribes to assume responsibility for managing the program’s day-to-day operations,

with BIA providing technical oversight to ensure that the tribe meets contract terms, as 

opposed to BIA administering the program on their behalf. Self-governance compacts 

transfer to tribes the administration of the program and provide the tribes with some 

flexibility in program administration. For both self-determination contracts and selfgovernance compacts, the Secretary of the Interior negotiates and enters into written 

annual funding agreements with the governing body of the tribe, which specifies the 

Interior program that the tribe will administer, the tribe’s and Interior’s obligations, and the 

funds being transferred to the tribe.

Most Eligible Tribes 

Have Retained Their 

SORNA 

Implementation 

Authority and Have 

Either Substantially 

Implemented the Act 

or Are in the Process 

of Doing So
Page 12 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

As of August 2014, 164 of the 214 (nearly 77 percent) eligible tribes had 

retained their authority to implement SORNA, while the remainder did not 

retain their authority because they either elected to delegate their 

authority to a state (24 tribes) or the SMART Office delegated their 

authority to a state (26 tribes), as shown in figure 1.

Figure 1: Eligible Tribes That Have Retained and Delegated Their Authority to 

Implement the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), as of 

August 2014

According to SMART Office representatives, the agency delegated the 

SORNA implementation authority of 26 tribes primarily because the tribes 

(1) chose not to delegate their authority although they did not plan to 

implement the act, because they thought delegating their authority was 

equivalent to relinquishing their sovereignty; (2) indicated that they lacked 

the necessary resources to implement the act in a reasonable amount of 

time; or (3) were nonresponsive to the SMART Office’s repeated inquiries 

to gauge the tribes’ interest in implementing the act. Our interviews with 

tribal council and law enforcement officials from 2 of the 24 tribes that 

elected to delegate their authority to a state similarly revealed that these 

tribes chose to delegate their authority because they did not have the 

necessary resources to implement the act.26

 26We selected 2 tribes from the states we had already selected for our review. We did not 

interview the remaining 22 tribes. 

Furthermore, officials from 1 

Most Eligible Tribes

Retained Their 

Implementation Authority, 

and Tribes That Lacked 

the Resources or Did Not 

Take the Necessary Steps 

toward Implementation 

Had Their Authority 

Delegated
Page 13 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

tribe stated that implementation did not seem worth the expense for their 

tribe considering the small number of tribal members, the fact that none of 

the tribal members live on tribal land year-round, and the remote location 

of their tribal land.27

According to the SMART Office, 43 percent (71 of 164) of tribes that 

retained their authority to implement SORNA have substantially 

implemented the act; nearly 43 percent (70 of 164) have submitted an 

implementation package, but the SMART Office has not yet made a 

determination; and 13 percent (22 of 164) have not submitted a complete 

package. The SMART Office has determined, to date, that 1 tribe has not 

substantially implemented SORNA, as shown in figure 2 and appendix III. 

For the implementation status and location of all eligible tribes, see figure 

3.

 27SORNA requires law enforcement officials to continually monitor registered sex 

offenders to ensure that offenders comply with the terms of their registration. See 42 

U.S.C. §§ 16916, 16922. Where offenders are located in areas considered as remote, this 

may pose access challenges for monitoring officials.

SMART Office Determined 

That 43 Percent of Tribes 

That Retained Their 

Authority Have 

Substantially Implemented 

SORNA, and Nearly 43 

Percent More Are in 

Process
Page 14 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

Figure 2: Implementation Status of Tribes That Have Retained Their Authority to 

Implement the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA)

Note: Of the 22 tribes that have not yet submitted a complete package, 2 tribes are being “held in 

abeyance” because they are in the process of acquiring land. The SMART Office has granted an 

implementation deadline extension to 19 other tribes that it determined can implement the act in a 

“reasonable” amount of time.
Page 15 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

Figure 3: Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) Implementation Status of States and Eligible Tribes, as of 

August 2014

According to the SMART Office, the number of tribes that have submitted 

implementation packages for review as well as the number of tribes that 

have substantially implemented SORNA continue to increase.
Page 16 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

Representatives of two of the three tribal and law enforcement 

associations we interviewed in January 2014 said that the number of 

tribes that had substantially implemented SORNA—at the time, 49 

tribes—was far greater than what these representatives said that they 

expected, given the magnitude of the implementation challenges that 

tribes face, such as limitations with information sharing, a high staff 

turnover, and the lack of cooperation between tribes and local law 

enforcement. We discuss such challenges and steps to address them in 

detail later in this report. According to the tribes that have submitted an 

implementation package for review that responded to our survey, it took a 

majority of these tribes 2 years to submit a complete implementation 

package to the SMART Office for review. SMART Office representatives 

said that it takes the office, on average, 6 months from the time it receives 

a tribe’s package to begin reviewing it. This is because the office’s review 

depends on a number of factors, such as the availability of SMART Office 

staff to review implementation packages. At the time of our review, 

SMART Office representatives indicated that there were three policy 

advisers on staff to review implementation packages. Additionally, the 

time it takes for the SMART Office to determine a tribe’s implementation 

status depends on how quickly the tribe can address any issues the 

SMART Office identifies in its review and can be affected by factors such 

as the frequency with which a tribal council meets, and thereby can 

address the office’s questions.

Nineteen of the 22 tribes that have not submitted an implementation 

package responded to our survey and provided a variety of reasons why 

they have not done so, as well as an estimate of when they expect to do 

so. Specifically, 7 of the 19 tribes did not submit a package because they 

are in the process of amending their tribal codes, 4 tribes indicated that 

they needed additional time to complete and submit their packages, and 3 

others either currently have agreements or are in the process of entering 

into agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies to assist 

with SORNA implementation.28

 28Additional reasons why tribes did not submit a package included staff turnover (2 tribes), 

lack of cooperation from federal or state partners (2 tribes), and prioritizing other law 

enforcement issues (1 tribe). 

Fourteen of the 19 tribes plan to submit a 

package by the end of calendar year 2014, 2 tribes expect to submit a 

package in calendar year 2015 or later, and 3 tribes are uncertain about 

when they will submit a package.
Page 17 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

SMART Office representatives stated that the office has granted each of 

these 22 tribes additional time to submit its package. SMART Office 

representatives said that they have not set a final deadline for tribes to 

substantially implement SORNA and that the office will continue to work 

with every tribe that shows interest and is working on implementing the 

act.

About 76 percent of tribes that retained their authority to implement 

SORNA reported experiencing at least one major or minor challenge to 

implementing the act. These tribes most frequently reported inability to 

submit convicted sex offender information to NCIC and NSOR as a major 

challenge. DOJ and BIA, as well as state and local law enforcement 

agencies, have taken actions to help address these challenges. However, 

additional steps to ensure that states notify tribes about registered sex 

offenders who plan to live, work, or attend school on tribal lands upon 

release from state prison, and to identify what, if any, assistance tribes 

may need in order to implement SORNA, would help further address 

tribes’ challenges.

Tribal officials from 98 of the 129 tribes (76 percent) that retained their 

authority to implement SORNA and responded to our survey questions on 

challenges to implementing SORNA reported that their tribes experienced 

at least one major or minor challenge to implementing the act.29

 29Our survey presented a list of 19 factors that could pose a challenge to tribes’

implementation of SORNA. For each factor, we asked tribes to check whether the factor 

applied to them, and if so, if it posed a major challenge, a minor challenge, or no 

challenge to SORNA implementation. We also provided tribes the opportunity to identify 

other challenges in an open comment box.

As shown 

in figure 4, the major challenges tribes most frequently reported included 

inability to submit convicted sex offender information to NCIC or NSOR;

lack of notification from state prisons about sex offenders who indicate 

that they plan to live, work, or attend school on tribal lands; insufficient 

Federal Agencies 

Have Helped Tribes 

Address Challenges, 

but Some States Do 

Not Notify Tribes 

about Registered 

Offenders Who Plan 

to Live, Work, or 

Attend School on 

Tribal Land upon 

Release from State 

Prison

Tribes Most Frequently 

Reported Lack of Access 

to NCIC, Lack of 

Notification when 

Convicted Sex Offenders 

Are Released, and 

Insufficient Staff
Page 18 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

staff; and inability to cover costs to implement SORNA or maintain the 

tribe’s registry.

Figure 4: Most Common Factors Tribes Reported to Be a Major Challenge, Minor Challenge, or Not a Challenge to 

Implementation of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA)
Page 19 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

Note: In our survey, we asked tribes to indicate whether each factor indicated in the graphic applied 

to their tribe, and if so, whether it was a major, a minor, or not a challenge to SORNA implementation. 

This graphic does not include the number of tribes that indicated whether or not the factor applied to 

them. Instead, this graphic includes only the number of tribes that indicated whether the factor was a 

major or a minor challenge, or not a challenge, to SORNA implementation. The median number of 

major challenges that tribes reported was 3 and the maximum was 12. In contrast, the median 

number of minor challenges that tribes reported was 2 and the maximum was 8.

Under SORNA, as well as DOJ’s National Guidelines for SORNA 

Implementation, jurisdictions are to provide convicted sex offender 

information for inclusion in NSOR, which is part of NCIC.30

These tribes, as well as the federal, state, and tribal sex offender registry 

and law enforcement officials we interviewed, cited reasons why some 

tribes do not submit convicted sex offender information to NCIC or are 

able to do so only with the assistance of other state and local law 

enforcement agencies.

However, 39 

of the 129 (about 30 percent) tribes that responded to our survey reported 

difficulties meeting this requirement as a major or minor challenge to 

SORNA implementation.

31

• Cost of NCIC access. Ten tribes that responded to our survey 

reported that they cannot cover the associated costs for NCIC access. 

According to federal, state, and tribal officials, these costs can include 

purchasing servers or NCIC terminals, the cost of the required highspeed Internet connection, or the fees required to obtain NCIC 

access.

• Requirements for submitting information to NCIC. Thirteen tribes 

reported that they do not meet certain requirements for submitting 

information to NCIC. CJIS has established requirements that all law 

enforcement agencies seeking to submit information to federal 

criminal justice databases must meet in order to ensure the quality 

and the security of criminal justice data entered into these databases. 

For example, some tribes do not meet CJIS requirements because 

they do not have a criminal justice agency (police force, court, etc.) or 

 3042 U.S.C. §§ 16919, 16921(b)(1)

31Of the tribes that responded to our survey, 58 reported that they are able to submit sex 

offender information to NSOR, but only with the assistance of another federal, state, or 

local law enforcement agency. They are not able to submit this information on their own.

DOJ and BIA Have 

Formed a Working Group 

to Better Coordinate 

Federal Efforts to Address 

Tribes’ Difficulties 

Submitting Convicted Sex 

Offender Information to 

NCIC or NSOR
Page 20 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

an officer available 24 hours, 7 days a week to respond to any 

inquiries about persons or property included in NCIC.

• State statutes or policies. Twelve tribes reported that state statutes or 

policies prevent them from submitting to NCIC through the states’

criminal justice information systems. According to FBI officials, CJIS 

Systems Agencies determine which entities within their states, 

including tribes, can access these federal criminal databases through 

state systems. However, some states, such as New York, have 

statutes or policies prohibiting CSAs from granting tribal law 

enforcement entities access to their state switches and, therefore, to 

NCIC through such switches.32

According to DOJ officials, the public safety benefit of including convicted 

sex offender information in NSOR is that if a law enforcement officer 

comes into contact with an individual, such as through a traffic stop or an 

arrest, the officer can query NCIC and learn that the individual is a 

convicted sex offender and potentially determine if the offender is in 

compliance with registration requirements. The officer can also enforce 

any requirements that the officer’s jurisdiction may have with regard to 

convicted sex offenders. For example, according to tribal officials, some 

tribal jurisdictions banish convicted sex offenders from their lands or 

prohibit offenders from living or working within proximity to schools or day 

care centers.

Federal and state, as well as local, law enforcement agencies have 

undertaken efforts to help address such barriers, although the efforts 

have some limitations, as discussed below.

Memorandums of agreement (MOA). Federal, state, and local law 

enforcement agencies have entered into memorandums of agreement 

with tribes, whereby these law enforcement agencies generally agree to 

enter convicted sex offender information into NSOR on behalf of the 

tribes. For example, 28 of 129 (about 22 percent) tribes that responded to 

our survey reported that county or local law enforcement enters 

information in NSOR for their tribe, while another 7 tribes indicated that 

BIA enters this information for them. However, the DOJ and BIA officials 

 32See, e.g., N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 1.20(34) (McKinney 2014) (tribal law enforcement 

officers are not specifically listed as persons considered “police officers” under New York 

law). State switches enable access to federal and state databases.
Page 21 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

and representatives from the National Criminal Justice Association and 

the National Congress of American Indians that we interviewed noted that 

not all tribes have good relationships with state or local law enforcement 

agencies, and that these agencies may not be willing to assist the tribes. 

In addition, according to DOJ, tribal, and local law enforcement officials, 

when another law enforcement agency enters information into NSOR on 

behalf of a tribe, the information is often not associated with the tribe 

because state or local law enforcement agencies frequently use their own 

Originating Agency Identifier number (ORI), as opposed to the tribe’s 

number, in NSOR.33

Representatives we interviewed from the SMART Office and CJIS, as 

well as local and tribal law enforcement, stated that these data entry 

practices can also lead to imprecise data in NSOR. For example, at our 

request, CJIS identified 22 tribes as having a total of 247 registered sex 

offenders in NSOR. However, 120 of 129 tribes that responded to our 

survey reported that they had a total of 2,167 registered sex offenders on 

their lands. According to CJIS officials, this discrepancy should not pose a 

public safety threat because an officer querying an individual in NCIC will 

know immediately if the individual is a convicted sex offender. Further, 

CJIS and USMS officials said that the FBI and USMS generally do not 

use NSOR as their primary source for informing decisions, such as 

funding or resource allocation for sex offender related operations.

As a result, the convicted sex offender appears in 

NSOR as having registered with the entity that submitted the information 

as opposed to the tribe.

Collaboration to remove state barriers to tribes’ NCIC access. The 

SMART Office has collaborated with state and tribal officials in three 

states to successfully address state policies preventing tribes in these 

states from submitting information to NSOR through the state criminal 

justice database. SMART Office representatives told us that until recently, 

tribes in Arizona and Washington were unable to submit convicted sex 

offender information to NSOR because of various state statutes or 

policies. SMART Office representatives reportedly worked closely with 

state and tribal officials to provide alternative conduits that will allow tribes 

to submit convicted sex offender information directly to NSOR. SMART 

Office representatives also reported that they have tried to persuade 

 33FBI CJIS assigns an Originating Agency Identification number to each agency that it has 

granted access to federal criminal databases so as to easily link the information to a 

particular agency.
Page 22 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

officials in at least 2 other states to implement similar solutions, but 

without success.

Justice Telecommunications System (JUST). DOJ, with the assistance of 

the Office of Tribal Justice and the Justice Management Division (JMD), 

established JUST in 2010 as a pilot project to provide tribes that meet FBI 

requirements with NCIC access. OTJ representatives said that DOJ 

provided $1 million for the pilot under the Community Oriented Policing 

Services (COPS) Office and has used approximately $250,000 to provide 

21 tribes with NCIC access—6 of which are eligible to implement 

SORNA.34

Tribal Public Safety Working Group. DOJ officials reported that, in 

addition to the efforts described above, DOJ and BIA established the 

Tribal Public Safety Working Group in 2014; it consists of representatives 

from BIA, OTJ, JMD, CJIS, the Office on Violence Against Women, 

Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA), the SMART Office, and 

other Office of Justice Programs (OJP) component agencies to identify 

which tribes lack access to federal databases and to work on the 

appropriate solution based on the unique circumstances of each tribe.

According to OTJ, all tribes that have requested NCIC access 

through JUST thus far have received access. OTJ representatives said 

that the JUST funding covers tribes’ costs for access fees as well as other 

licensing and transaction fees; however, tribes will have to pay these fees 

on their own once the remaining $750,000 for JUST runs out. According 

to OTJ and JMD representatives, for JUST to become a viable and longterm solution for tribes’ lack of NCIC access, DOJ will need to identify and 

secure a more sustainable source of funding. Identifying sustainable 

sources of funding, according to these officials, is one of the goals of the 

Tribal Public Safety Working Group, discussed below.

35

 34The COPS Office is a DOJ component agency that seeks to advance the practice of 

community policing in state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies. COPS does its 

work principally by sharing information and making grants to police departments around 

the United States.

According to OTJ officials, the working group held its kickoff meeting on 

35The Office on Violence Against Women, a component of DOJ, is responsible for 

providing federal leadership in developing the national capacity to reduce violence against 

women and administer justice for and strengthen services to victims of domestic violence, 

dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. The Office of Justice Programs, within DOJ, 

provides leadership to federal, state, local, and tribal, justice systems, by disseminating 

state-of-the art knowledge and practices on crime-fighting strategies across America, and 

providing grants for the implementation of these strategies.
Page 23 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

May 12, 2014, and has established both short-term and long-term goals. 

In the short term, OTJ representatives said that by using information from 

outreach efforts and other existing sources, the working group plans to 

determine the extent to which each tribe has or wants access to all 

federal criminal databases, and the unique solution based on the 

circumstances of each tribe. OTJ representatives reported that the 

working group’s long-term goals include identifying sustainable funding 

sources; identifying best practices for addressing specific barriers; 

evaluating potential systematic solutions, such as establishing a federal 

CSA for tribes; and reviewing federal rules and regulations to identify 

those that should be revised to remove any regulatory barriers to tribes’

access to federal criminal databases.

The Tribal Public Safety Working Group’s plans and initial activities are in 

line with addressing the types of barriers to NCIC access that tribes 

identified. However, given that the Tribal Public Safety Working Group is 

in its early planning phase, it is too early to evaluate how its efforts will 

help provide tribes with access to NCIC.
Page 24 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

Of the 129 tribes that responded to our survey, 41 (approximately 32 

percent) reported that their state prisons had not notified them when the 

prisons released a sex offender to the tribes’ lands.36 In addition, about 

half of these 41 tribes reported that lack of notification when offenders are 

released from state prisons was a major challenge to SORNA 

implementation, with some consequences. Tribal officials that we 

interviewed and that responded to our survey reported instances of 

offenders on tribal lands that may not be monitored or registered as 

required because they had not been notified of the offenders’ release 

from prison.37

A consequence of not being notified about registered sex offenders who 

plan to live, work, or attend school on tribal land upon release from state 

prisons that tribal officials highlighted was that they may not be able to 

enforce their own laws governing the extent to which convicted sex 

offenders can live, work, or attend school in their communities. For 

example, a state tribal liaison officer told us that 9 of the 29 tribes in his 

state have laws that ban all sex offenders or restrict the types of sex 

offenders allowed to live on the tribes’ lands. Similarly, officials from 2 

tribes we interviewed said that their tribes either did not allow convicted 

sex offenders to live on the tribes’ lands or had more stringent laws than 

states regarding the proximity of a convicted sex offender’s residence to a 

school. Absent notification from states about registered sex offenders 

who plan to live, work, or attend school on tribal lands upon release from 

state prison, tribal authorities would not be aware of the presence of 

convicted sex offenders on their lands and therefore would be unable to 

enforce tribal law. 

For example, one tribal law enforcement official told us that 

he learned of a convicted sex offender with an extensive criminal record 

who was released from prison and lived on the tribe’s land from 

anonymous letters the official received. He said that because his tribe 

received no notification from state prison officials about this sex offender, 

the sex offender had lived on the tribe’s territory unmonitored for over a 

year.

 36Three of the 41 tribes that indicated that lack of notification from state prisons was a 

factor that applied to them did not identify whether the lack of notification was a major 

challenge, a minor challenge, or not a challenge.

37We interviewed sex offender registry and SORNA officials in 10 states where tribes that 

have retained their authority are located, and the officials told us that they include 

convicted sex offenders who live, work, or attend school on tribal lands in the state sex 

offender registry.

Additional SMART 

Oversight of, and 

Outreach to, States Could 

Help Ensure That 

Relevant Tribal 

Jurisdictions Are Notified 

about Registered Sex 

Offenders Who Have 

Indicated That They Will 

Be Moving to Tribal Land 

upon Release from State 

Prisons
Page 25 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

Under SORNA, initial registration of a convicted sex offender is to take 

place prior to the offender being released from prison, and the registration 

jurisdiction must immediately forward the offender’s registration 

information to any other jurisdiction in which the sex offender is required 

to register.38 However, according to the SMART Office, in many states, 

the state prison is not a SORNA registering entity and therefore does not 

register the sex offender or notify other relevant registration jurisdictions 

prior to the offender’s release. In these instances, the sex offender’s initial 

registration may not take place until after the offender is released from 

prison and through a state registering entity, such as a county sheriff’s 

office. In instances when a sex offender informs a state registering 

entity—whether that be the state prison, a county sheriff’s office, or 

another agency—that he or she plans to live, work, or attend school on 

tribal land, under SORNA, notification must be sent to tribes that retained 

their SORNA implementation authority.39

State prison and registry officials who responded to our requests for 

information provided two reasons why their states do not notify tribes 

when a registered offender indicates that he or she will be living, working, 

or attending school on the tribe’s land upon release from prison. In some 

cases, resolving these barriers may be difficult, but in other cases, there 

are promising practices that could help states to address barriers to 

notifying tribes. First, 10 of the 20 states that responded to our inquiry 

said that they do not have laws or policies that require that tribes be 

 3842 U.S.C. §§ 16911(10)(H), 16913(b), 16917(a), 16921(b). Sex offenders who are not 

sentenced to a term of imprisonment are to register not later than 3 business days after 

being sentenced. 42 U.S.C. §16913(b)(2). In addition, the SMART Office has interpreted 

the requirement to forward sex offenders’ registration information “immediately” to mean 

within 3 business days. See 73 Fed. Reg. 38,030, 38,044, 38,060.

39See 42 U.S.C. §§ 16913, 16921. Under SORNA, for ineligible and delegated tribes, 

such notification would go to the jurisdiction carrying out the tribes’ SORNA functions. We 

will discuss the notification requirements pertaining to these tribes later in this report. 

Regarding tribes that retained SORNA implementation authority as well as ineligible, and 

delegated tribes, notification would also go to the law enforcement agencies, schools, and 

public housing agencies located on the tribes’ land. 42 U.S.C. § 16921(b)(2).

Reasons Why Some States Do 

Not Notify Tribes 
Page 26 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

notified.40

Second, it can be difficult for state prisons, in particular, to determine if 

the address that the offender has identified as that person’s residence is 

located on tribal lands. According to state, local, and tribal officials we 

interviewed, unlike other jurisdictions, such as cities or counties, tribal 

lands are not always clearly identifiable by a ZIP code or even a city 

name. However, the Federal Bureau of Prisons manages this challenge 

by asking the offender whether the address is located on tribal lands as 

part of the prison release procedures. In regard to federal notification 

requirements, officials from the Bureau of Prisons said that they have 

removed law-enforcement-sensitive information from their notifications. 

As of May 2014, they can now send prisoner release notifications to both 

tribal law enforcement and tribal sex offender registry officials to ensure 

Of the 41 tribes that reported that state prisons had not notified 

them, 22 are located in these states. In the absence of state laws or 

policies regarding notification to tribes, states may leave it up to the 

discretion of local law enforcement agencies, which may conduct the 

initial registration of the sex offender, to decide whether they will notify 

tribes. However, as discussed earlier, several federal, state, and tribal 

officials we interviewed acknowledged that not all tribes have cordial 

relationships with their local law enforcement organizations. As a result, 

this method of notification may not be effective for all tribes. 

 40Even though notification to tribes is a SORNA requirement, as we reported in February 

2013, some states have had to amend existing state laws or enact new laws in order to 

implement certain SORNA provisions. See GAO-13-211. We contacted officials in 25 

states to determine whether these states require their state departments of corrections or 

appropriate registration officials to notify tribes that have retained their authority to 

implement SORNA, prior to releasing a sex offender who plans to live, work, or attend 

school on tribal lands. These 25 states included (1) states where tribes that responded to 

our survey identified as having not been notified about registered sex offenders who 

indicated that they would be living, working, or attending school on tribal lands upon 

release from prison; (2) states that have substantially implemented SORNA and also have 

tribes that have retained their authority to implement SORNA within their borders; and (3) 

states whose officials we contacted previously to conduct other audit work. Officials from 

20 of the 25 states responded to our requests for information.
Page 27 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

that all tribes are notified when a sex offender is released from federal 

prison, as required by federal law.41

Of the 30 states that have tribes that retained their authority within their 

borders, the SMART Office has determined that 10 have substantially 

implemented SORNA. This means that these states should be notifying 

tribes; however, 2 of the 10 states are not. In addition, 9 of the 41 tribes 

located within 6 of the substantially implemented states reported that 

state prisons had not notified them. Because the SMART Office is 

responsible for determining the extent to which states are implementing

SORNA, it is in a position to verify whether these states are complying 

with this notification requirement. The SMART Office requires a state to 

demonstrate how it plans to notify tribes that retained their authority as 

part of its implementation review.42

 41Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4042, notice shall be provided to state, tribal, and local 

jurisdictions where one who is required to register under SORNA, is released from prison 

or sentenced to probation. Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) officials reported that the 

agency implemented a new policy in May 2014 to ensure the agency complies with the 

statutory requirements regarding notification of sex offenders’ release. According to BOP 

officials, the new policy requires that federal correctional facilities are to mail and fax or email copies of the Prisoner Release Notification form (BP-A0710) to the chief law 

enforcement officer and sex offender registration official(s) of the tribe when releasing a 

prisoner convicted of a sex offense. Federal correctional facilities are also to provide this 

information to the SORNA contact in the state where the tribe has territory, local law 

enforcement officials who are in proximity to the tribe, as well as federal probation officials 

in the state.

However, the SMART Office granted 

substantial implementation to 7 states that did not demonstrate how they 

planned to notify tribes that retained their authority within their borders. 

SMART Office representatives stated that they granted substantial 

implementation to these states because, at the time of their review, all or 

some of the tribes within these states’ borders had not yet implemented 

SORNA. Therefore, these states were unable to provide the SMART 

42To assist jurisdictions to develop, organize, and submit their substantial implementation 

package materials, the SMART Office developed the SORNA Substantial Implementation 

Checklist tool. To complete the checklist, states must identify the specific statute or 

regulation that is to fulfill each SORNA requirement, including forwarding sex offender 

information to other relevant SORNA jurisdictions. The SMART Office also requires that 

states that have a tribe or tribes eligible to implement SORNA located within their 

boundaries provide MOAs or other information-sharing agreements to facilitate notification 

of sex offender release. For states that have substantially implemented SORNA, the 

SMART Office uses this information as the basis for an additional section titled “Tribal 

Considerations” in these states’ Substantial Implementation Review reports.

Ensuring Substantially 

Implemented States Are 

Notifying Tribes
Page 28 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

Office with plans for how they would notify these tribes until the tribes 

implemented SORNA themselves.

Also, according to SMART Office representatives, under the flexibility built 

into SORNA, the SMART Office may determine that a state has 

substantially implemented the law if lack of notification to tribes was the 

only area of noncompliance. This is because even though the tribe may 

not be aware of a convicted sex offender living on its land, it is likely that 

state or local law enforcement officials have registered and are aware of 

the sex offender, and can take steps to monitor the offender.43

The SMART Office has opportunities to continue to work with 

substantially implemented states to ensure that they meet this notification 

requirement. According to SMART Office representatives, the office 

conducts annual compliance reviews to evaluate the extent to which 

substantially implemented jurisdictions remain in continued compliance. 

The office issued its substantial implementation assurance guidance that 

details the types of information that a SMART Office evaluator is to 

request when conducting these annual reviews, such as whether the 

state has signed any new MOAs with tribes. However, the guidance does 

not require that the evaluator request information on whether and how the 

state, or a designated agency within the state, notifies tribes following 

registration of a convicted sex offender who will be, or has recently been, 

released from state prison and indicates that he or she plans to live, work, 

or attend school on tribal land. By amending its substantial 

implementation assurance guidance, the SMART Office could better 

ensure that substantially implemented states are in compliance with 

SORNA requirements to notify tribes that retained their authority, thereby 

enabling these tribes to enforce their own laws pertaining to convicted sex 

offenders.

However, 

the SMART Office still expects substantially implemented states to notify 

tribes following registration of a sex offender who plans to live, work, or 

attend school on tribal land.

The SMART Office is also in a position to encourage states that have not 

yet substantially implemented SORNA to make efforts to implement 

certain provisions of the law, such as the requirement to notify tribes. This 

 43Tribes may have MOAs with local law enforcement officials who authorize these officials 

to carry out certain law enforcement functions on tribal lands.

Encouraging Nonimplementing 

States to Notify Tribes
Page 29 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

is particularly important considering that we found that 7 of 12 

nonimplementing states that have tribes that retained their SORNA 

authority and that responded to our inquiry do not notify tribes. 

Furthermore, 22 of the 41 tribes that reported state prisons had not 

notified them are located within these 7 states. The SMART Office has 

provided guidance and conducted outreach to encourage tribes, once 

they take responsibility for registering convicted sex offenders, to 

coordinate with their respective states to ensure that the tribes are 

notified about sex offenders who plan to live, work, or attend school on 

their lands upon release from state prison. According to SMART Office 

representatives, the agency has issued a policies and procedures manual 

that calls for tribes to, among other things, establish procedures that 

ensure that the tribe receives notification about a sex offender who is 

released from a state, county, or local jail, and has indicated that he or 

she will be living, working, or attending school on tribal land. SMART 

Office representatives also reported that they have widely encouraged

tribes, as a best practice, to contact relevant state, county, and local 

officials to ensure that these officials are aware that the tribe is a 

registering jurisdiction and the officials have the tribe’s current information 

on who should receive notifications. SMART Office representatives 

reported conducting some outreach to states as part of the substantial 

review process, but acknowledged that more could be done to encourage 

states to provide notification to tribes. SMART Office representatives said 

that, prior to our review, they were not aware of tribes’ concerns that 

states were not notifying tribes about sex offenders who were released 

from prison and planned to live, work, or attend school on tribal lands. 

Therefore, these representatives did not think it was necessary at the 

time to provide any additional guidance to the states.

Nevertheless, given our survey results, it may be beneficial for the 

SMART Office to expand upon its existing outreach efforts to encourage 

states to develop mechanisms to notify tribes that retained their SORNA 

implementation authority. SMART Office representatives told us that they 

often reach out to law enforcement and sex offender registry officials 

located in both implementing and nonimplementing states and that 

officials from these states attend various SORNA training events and 

conferences that the SMART Office sponsors. The representatives 

agreed that they could use these existing outreach efforts to educate 

states on the importance of, and best practices for, notifying tribes about 

sex offenders who have indicated that they plan to live, work, or attend 

school on tribal lands upon release from state prison. In doing so, the 

SMART Office will help ensure that implementing, as well as 

nonimplementing, states have the information they need to effectively 
Page 30 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

notify tribes, and that tribes have the information they need to identify and 

monitor convicted sex offenders who live, work, or attend school on their 

lands, and to enforce their laws governing the extent to which convicted 

sex offenders can live, work, or attend school in their communities.

Insufficient staff and difficulty covering the costs of SORNA 

implementation were each cited by 21 of 129 (16 percent) tribes as major 

challenges. Several tribal and federal officials, as well as subject matter 

experts that we interviewed, also reported that insufficient staff and the 

costs of SORNA implementation were major challenges that tribes faced 

when implementing SORNA. For example, BIA and SMART Office 

representatives and representatives from the National Congress of 

American Indians told us that because the majority of tribes did not have 

sex offender registries prior to SORNA, many tribes have not had the 

necessary resources for conducting sex offender registration, such as 

office space, staff, and equipment, and therefore would have had to incur 

significant costs to acquire these resources. In addition, the sex offender 

registry official from a tribe that has substantially implemented SORNA 

reported that his tribe spent approximately $173,000 over a period of 2 

years to fund his salary, purchase the information technology 

infrastructure required to set up the tribe’s sex offender registry, and 

acquire a fingerprint scanner. In addition, according to BIA officials and 

subject matter experts staff turnover can result in large lapses in some 

tribes’ SORNA implementation programs, when staff often leave their 

positions without providing documentation of past efforts toward 

implementing the law, requiring incoming staff to start the tribe’s 

implementation efforts anew. For example, according to representatives 

from the National Criminal Justice Association, 1 tribe has experienced up 

to six turnovers for its SORNA coordinator position.

DOJ and BIA reported the following as ways in which their agencies have 

provided tribes with financial assistance, equipment, and staff to help 

address challenges related to limited resources:

• The SMART Office provided $23.69 million in Adam Walsh Act 

Implementation Grant Program (AWA) funds to 125 tribes from fiscal 

years 2008 to 2013 and $1.92 million in Edward Byrne Justice 

Additional BIA Outreach to 

Tribes to Identify the Help 

They Need and That BIA 

Can Provide Could Assist 

Tribes with SORNA 

Implementation
Page 31 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

Memorial Discretionary Grants Program funds to 17 tribes in fiscal 

year 2008 to assist with SORNA implementation.44

• The SMART Office also has provided tribes with training and technical 

assistance related to SORNA implementation as well as numerous 

tools, including a customizable web-based tool—the Tribe and 

Territory Sex Offender Registry System (TTSORS)—for tribes to use 

to set up their sex offender registries and public websites.

• USMS has provided manpower and equipment to assist tribes with 

conducting operations to ensure convicted sex offenders are 

complying with their sex offender registration requirements.45

• BIA OJS assisted 19 tribes with SORNA implementation tasks, such 

as providing input on the tribes’ draft sex offender codes, assisting 

tribes with installing or configuring the tribes’ registry systems (i.e., 

TTSORS), and assisting tribes with identifying and implementing 

alternative means of submitting information to federal criminal 

databases.

In our survey, 7 tribes reported receiving assistance from BIA, 33 from 

USMS, and 69 from the SMART Office and almost all of the tribes that 

reported they received assistance from these three agencies 

characterized the agencies’ assistance as very useful or moderately 

useful. In addition, tribal leaders we interviewed reported that Byrne and 

AWA grants have assisted tribes with offsetting the cost of SORNA 

implementation. Tribal officials responsible for implementing SORNA for 5 

tribes reported that their tribes received AWA grant funds and had used 

the funds to cover various implementation expenses including hiring 

additional staff, purchasing necessary equipment, and covering fees to 

query or submit information on convicted sex offenders to federal criminal 

databases (20 of the 26 tribes that reported challenges with covering 

SORNA implementation costs and insufficient staff had received AWA 

grant funds).

 44The Byrne Justice Memorial Discretionary Grants Program is a key provider of federal 

criminal justice funding to state and local jurisdictions. Established to streamline justice 

funding and grant administration, the Byrne JAG Program allows states, tribes, and local 

governments to support a broad range of activities to prevent and control crime based on 

their own local needs and conditions. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 3750-3758. The Adam Walsh Act 

Implementation Grant Program assists jurisdictions eligible to implement SORNA with 

developing or enhancing programs designed to implement the law. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 

16925(c), 16945(c)(2).

45Federal, state, tribal, and local law enforcement agencies conduct compliance 

operations to ensure sex offenders within a certain area reside at their registered address 

or are otherwise compliant with sex offender registration laws.
Page 32 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

A number of tribes that responded to our survey reported that they would 

like additional assistance from each of the three federal agencies. 

Specifically, 40 tribes reported that they would like additional assistance 

from the SMART Office, 30 tribes reported that they would like additional 

assistance from BIA, and 22 tribes reported that they would like additional 

assistance from USMS. However, most of the tribes that reported wanting 

additional assistance from SMART and USMS had already received 

assistance from these two agencies, and found the assistance to be 

useful. On the other hand, most of the tribes that reported wanting

additional assistance from BIA reported that they had not received any 

prior assistance from BIA and raised concerns about this. Specifically, 26 

tribes that responded to our survey indicated that either BIA did not offer 

assistance to them at all (14 tribes), they were unsure of the assistance 

BIA could offer (6 tribes), or that BIA did not provide the assistance they 

requested (6 tribes). Tribes did not report that the SMART Office or 

USMS had not offered them assistance or had refused their request for 

assistance.

Unlike the SMART Office and USMS, BIA does not have an explicit role 

for SORNA implementation. However, BIA is statutorily responsible for 

enforcing federal law and, with the consent of the tribe, tribal law in Indian 

country.46 Further, the agency is responsible for developing and providing 

training and technical assistance to tribal law enforcement, and for 

consulting with tribal leaders to develop regulatory policies and other 

actions that affect public safety in Indian country— responsibilities that 

are related to tribes’ implementation of SORNA.47 Moreover, BIA serves 

as the law enforcement agency for the 40 direct service tribes, 33 of 

which have retained their authority to implement SORNA.48

According to BIA OJS officials, BIA OJS districts have reached out to 

select tribes that retained their SORNA implementation authority. 

 4625 U.S.C. § 2802(c)(1).

4725 U.S.C. § 2802(c)(9), (12).

48Tribes with self-governance compacts operate their tribal law enforcement agencies 

themselves, tribes with self-determination contracts perform criminal investigation and 

police services under BIA oversight, and direct service tribes receive all law enforcement 

services directly from BIA. In some cases, the tribe provides uniformed police services 

and BIA continues to provide criminal investigation services. According to BIA, SORNArelated functions, such as arresting sex offenders who fail to comply with registration 

requirements, are the responsibility of uniformed police rather than criminal investigators.
Page 33 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

However, these officials acknowledged that BIA OJS has not made a 

concerted effort to offer assistance to all tribes that retained their authority 

because, according to a senior BIA OJS official, BIA’s initial outreach was 

limited only to tribes that were on a list the agency had received from the 

SMART Office of tribes that had elected to implement SORNA at the time, 

and therefore did not include all tribes that subsequently retained their 

authority to implement.49 As of July 2013, BIA reported that it had 

contacted each of the 33 direct service tribes that retained their SORNA 

implementation authority to determine the tribes’ implementation status 

and what, if any, assistance the tribes would like to have from BIA. BIA 

OJS reported that the agency provided some form of assistance to 19 of 

the 33 tribes that the agency contacted. Specifically, BIA OJS reported 

that it had provided office space to 2 tribes, purchased a fingerprint 

scanner for another tribe, and assigned officers to 5 tribes to implement 

or perform some or all aspects of the tribes’ sex offender registry and 

notification systems, and provided technical assistance to the remaining 

14 tribes. BIA OJS’s officials stated that some tribes refused OJS’s offer 

and others did not respond at all to the offer.50

Subsequently, BIA OJS officials reported that the agency conducted 

another round of outreach to tribes in preparation for a meeting with GAO, 

in August 2014. However, BIA reached out to only the 33 direct service 

tribes that had retained their authority but had not yet implemented 

SORNA and did not contact the remaining 131 tribes that have retained 

their authority to implement SORNA—71 of which have not yet 

implemented the law. Furthermore, BIA OJS officials reported that they 

asked each of the 33 tribes where the tribes were in the implementation 

process, what challenges they are currently facing, and what if any, 

assistance BIA had previously offered the tribes, but did not ask what 

additional help these tribes would like to receive from BIA OJS.

SMART Office representatives said that in addition to tribes’ lack of 

access to NCIC, lack of BIA assistance is the second most frequently 

reported SORNA implementation challenge that tribes have 

 49The BIA OJS senior official did not recall when the SMART Office provided BIA with the 

initial list of tribes that had retained their SORNA implementation authority.

50The types of additional assistance these tribes indicated they would like from BIA 

include funding, equipment, or the manpower to perform at least some aspects of their sex 

offender registry programs.
Page 34 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

communicated to the SMART Office. A BIA OJS senior official stated that 

the agency could better support tribes that choose to retain their SORNA 

implementation authority, and attributed the agency’s challenges in 

providing this assistance to several factors. First, according to the senior 

BIA official, tribes experience high staff turnover and incoming staff are 

often unaware of assistance that BIA may have offered in the past. 

Therefore, the BIA OJS senior official stated, it is important for BIA to 

reach out to tribes more than once. Second, the BIA senior official also 

said that not all BIA field officers have received training on SORNA or 

how to assist tribes with SORNA implementation. BIA officials said that 

the agency is working on providing training to its officers so that they have 

the base knowledge on assisting tribes with SORNA implementation. This 

training, BIA officials added, will be open to all tribal police chiefs and 

mandatory for BIA police chiefs.

Third, because BIA conducted outreach to 33 and not all 164 tribes that 

retained their authority to implement SORNA, BIA may not be aware of 

the needs of the tribes it has not contacted. BIA officials acknowledged 

that they could expand their outreach to include all tribes that retained 

their authority to implement SORNA, including tribes for which the agency 

does not provide direct services. Taking steps to ascertain what, if any, 

resource or other needs all tribes that have not implemented SORNA may 

have could better support the tribes’ efforts to substantially implement the 

act, and thereby better ensure monitoring of convicted sex offenders on 

tribal lands.
Page 35 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

Those states with tribes that are not implementing SORNA—that is, tribes 

that are not eligible to implement SORNA and tribes whose 

implementation authority was delegated to a state—reported that the 

states are including convicted sex offenders on these tribes’ lands in the 

states’ own sex offender registration and notification systems. However, 

states are not consistently notifying these tribes about registered sex 

offenders who plan to live, work, or attend school on tribal lands upon 

release from state prison—similar to the problem we discussed earlier 

that tribes that retained their implementation authority experienced. As a 

result, some ineligible and delegated tribes are unaware of convicted sex 

offenders on their lands, in which case they are not able to take actions 

they deem appropriate to ensure public safety, such as banning certain 

sex offenders from living on their land.

Under SORNA, states are responsible for registering convicted sex 

offenders who live, work, or attend school on the territory of tribes that 

have not retained SORNA implementation authority, which are ineligible 

tribes subject to state criminal jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 1162, as well 

as tribes whose SORNA functions have been delegated to a state.51

With respect to ineligible tribes, we interviewed sex offender registry and 

SORNA officials in the 6 states where these tribes are located, and they 

told us that they include convicted sex offenders who live, work, or attend 

school on tribal lands in the state sex offender registry and had mostly 

experienced no challenges in doing so. Tribal officials from 7 of 8 

ineligible tribes we interviewed confirmed that the states had incorporated 

convicted sex offenders who live on their lands into the state sex offender 

registry. An official from the remaining ineligible tribe was not aware of 

We 

found that states have incorporated ineligible and delegated tribes into 

state sex offender registries, as required.

 5142 U.S.C. § 16927; 73 Fed. Reg. at 38,039.

States Are Including 

Convicted Sex 

Offenders from 

Ineligible and 

Delegated Tribes, but 

States Are Not 

Consistently Notifying 

Tribes about 

Offenders Who 

Indicate That They 

Plan to Live, Work, or 

Attend School on 

Tribal Lands

States Are Including 

Convicted Sex Offenders 

from Ineligible and 

Delegated Tribes in State 

Registries and Generally 

Reported No Challenges 

in Doing So
Page 36 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

any efforts by the state to include sex offenders who live, work, or attend 

school on the tribe’s land into the state’s sex offender registration system.

Officials from 5 of the 6 states where we conducted interviews also 

reported that their states had experienced no challenges with 

incorporating convicted sex offenders from ineligible tribes into the state 

sex offender registry. These state officials reported that for registration 

purposes, convicted sex offenders on tribal land are required to report to

the tribe, a nearby county or city to register. Officials from 3 of the 5 

states added that they treat tribes like any other local jurisdiction. Sex 

offender registry officials we interviewed from the sixth state said that 

many tribes in their state are located in remote areas, and this poses a 

challenge for convicted sex offenders located on tribal lands to travel to 

the nearest county to register. The remote location of these tribes also 

makes it difficult for county law enforcement to monitor convicted sex 

offenders to ensure that they are complying with the terms of their 

registration. According to tribal and sex offender registry officials from this 

state, the state has tried to address the location challenge by giving 

offenders who live in remote areas the choice to register in person, by 

mail or fax and having the tribal community complete forms to verify the 

addresses of tribal members who are registered sex offenders.

With respect to delegated tribes, SORNA and sex offender registry 

officials from 10 of the 12 states with these tribes that provided written

responses to our questions reported that the states incorporate or expect 

to incorporate convicted sex offenders from delegated tribes into their 

state sex offender registry, as required.52 However, officials from 5 of the 

12 states reported difficulties doing so. These included contacting but not 

receiving a response from tribes and resolving differing requirements 

between state laws and SORNA regarding registration of sex offenders 

and community notification. Nevertheless, we found that states were able 

to overcome these challenges and register and monitor offenders, as 

required.

 52According to GAO’s analysis of data from the SMART Office, there are 15 states with 

delegated tribes; however, officials from only 13 states responded to our inquiry, including 

1 official who incorrectly reported that the state had not been delegated authority for any 

tribe and had no delegated tribes. Therefore, we received valid responses from only 12 

states. 
Page 37 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

We reported earlier in this report that some states are not notifying tribes 

that retained their SORNA implementation authority following registration 

of a sex offender who plans to live, work, or attend school on tribal land 

upon release from state prison. Similarly, sex offender registry officials we 

interviewed from 3 of the 6 states where ineligible tribes are located told 

us that they do not notify ineligible tribes, and officials from 7 of the 12 

states with delegated tribes that responded to our inquiry reported that 

they also do not notify tribes. Officials from the remaining 3 states where 

ineligible tribes are located were unsure or did not state whether they 

notified ineligible tribes while officials from the remaining 5 states with 

delegated tribes said that they provide tribes with this information.

The specific SORNA provision that requires such notification to ineligible 

and delegated tribes is section 121(b)(2). It states that immediately after a 

convicted sex offender registers or updates a registration, an appropriate 

official in the registration jurisdiction—in this instance, the state—shall 

provide the information in the registry (other than information exempted 

from disclosure by the Attorney General) about that offender to all 

appropriate law enforcement agencies, as well as schools, and public 

housing agencies, in each area where the offender resides, works, or 

attends school.53 Therefore, states should notify all ineligible and 

delegated tribes that have a law enforcement agency, a school, or a 

public housing agency when a convicted sex offender registers with the 

state and plans to live, work, or attend school on tribal land. Of the 50 

delegated tribes, 22 have a police department, at least 10 have schools, 

and 38 have public housing.

54

 5342 U.S.C. § 16921(b). The SORNA National Guidelines interpret “immediately” as within 

3 business days. See 73 Fed. Reg. at 38,060.

Similarly, of the 353 ineligible tribes, 17 

have their own police department, at least 165 have schools, and 323 

have public housing. Yet, states are not consistently notifying these tribes 

about sex offenders who were released from state prison and registered 

or updated a registration with the state indicating that they will be living, 

working, or attending school on tribal lands, as SORNA requires. Without 

such notification, tribes may be unaware, as noted earlier in this report, of 

the presence of convicted sex offenders on their lands and may be 

unable to enforce tribal law and ordinances related to sex offenders.

54We obtained data from the Department of Education specifically regarding only public 

schools located on tribal lands, therefore, there may be additional tribes that have private 

schools on their lands; however, we did not obtain this information. 

States Are Not 

Consistently Notifying 

Ineligible and Delegated 

Tribes about Registered 

Sex Offenders Who Plan 

to Live, Work, or Attend 

School on Tribal Land 

upon Release from Prison
Page 38 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

States are not providing notification to ineligible and delegated tribes that 

have police departments for a couple of reasons. First, 1 state has 

determined that tribal law enforcement agencies do not meet the state’s 

definition of a law enforcement agency, in which case the state would not 

provide this notice. Second, in the absence of state laws or policies to 

notify tribes, some states let the counties decide on their own whether or 

not to notify tribal law enforcement, but as we reported earlier in this 

report, this could be a concern if the tribal and county law enforcement 

officials do not have a good working relationship.

With respect to the requirement that states notify schools and public 

housing agencies, the National Guidelines indicate that it is potentially 

challenging for states to proactively notify schools and public housing 

agencies because of problems such as identifying comprehensive lists of 

recipients and maintaining up-to-date contact information for each school 

and public housing agency. For example, Oklahoma has approximately 

1,800 public schools. SMART officials stated that California and Alaska,

which have the vast majority of ineligible tribes, might find it particularly 

challenging. Therefore, the National Guidelines allow states to satisfy the 

requirement to immediately notify schools and public housing agencies, 

as well as other community and social service organizations, by posting 

information on the state’s sex offender public website within 3 days of the 

offender’s registration or update, provided that the website includes an 

automatic notification function whereby requesters may receive e-mails 

when new information pertaining to a ZIP code or geographic radius area 

is available.55 However, this poses challenges. First, tribes can only 

search by name, ZIP code, county, city or geographic radius, and as we 

discussed previously, it would be difficult for the tribe to know whether a 

convicted sex offender who lives within the same ZIP code as the tribe 

actually lives on tribal land. Second, some states have opted not to 

include all convicted sex offenders on their public websites, as SORNA 

allows. For example, jurisdictions can exclude information about tier I 

offenders whose victims were not minors.56

Also, with regard to tribes, an alternative to directly notifying the school or 

public housing agency located on tribal land could be that the state notify 

the tribal council or another entity that the tribe deems appropriate. Given 

 55See 73 Fed. Reg. at 38,061.

5642 U.S.C. §§ 16911(1)-(3), 16918(c)(1).
Page 39 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

the relatively small number of tribes in most states, the number of tribes is 

likely to be much lower than the number of public housing agencies and 

schools, making it easier to obtain contact information on tribes and notify 

them of released offenders. For example, Nevada has 673 public schools, 

but only 11 delegated tribes, and is the state with the greatest number of 

delegated tribes. States with ineligible tribes, however, may have a larger 

number of tribes and find it more difficult to contact each tribe. For 

example, Alaska and California in particular could find it difficult 

considering that 226 and 108 ineligible tribes have territory in these 

states, respectively.

According to the SMART Office, it has taken steps to inform both 

implementing and nonimplementing states about tribes whose authority 

has been delegated to the state, and has provided states with points of 

contact for these tribes. However, the SMART Office has not explicitly 

advised states, as part of these efforts, to notify delegated tribes about 

registered sex offenders who intend to live, work, or attend school on 

tribal land upon release from state prison. Given that the SMART Office 

conducts annual compliance reviews of implementing states and 

conducts ongoing outreach to implementing as well as nonimplementing 

states on a range of SORNA issues, the office is well positioned to 

provide explicit guidance to states regarding the necessary steps to 

implement SORNA’s notification requirement for ineligible and delegated 

tribes. Also, through its outreach and compliance reviews, the SMART 

Office has the opportunity to consult with states on steps they can take to 

overcome some of the barriers that make it difficult for states to provide 

these notifications. Such efforts on behalf of the SMART Office would 

enable ineligible and delegated tribes to take actions they deem 

necessary to ensure public safety when a convicted sex offender is 

released from state prison and has registered or updated a registration 

indicating that he or she will be living, working, or attending school on 

their lands.

SORNA sought to enhance public safety, in part, by requiring eligible 

tribes to develop their own sex offender registration and notification 

systems to help address concerns about convicted sex offenders avoiding 

registration by moving to tribal lands. Considering that many tribes did not 

have their own sex offender registration systems prior to SORNA, tribes 

faced a number of challenges in implementing the act, such as lack of 

access to federal criminal justice databases and difficulty covering 

implementation costs. Several agencies provided assistance to help 

tribes address these challenges, but according to tribes that responded to 

Conclusions
Page 40 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

our survey, additional assistance and communication, particularly from 

BIA, would be beneficial. Also, as part of the SMART Office’s annual 

compliance review of implementing states, and ongoing outreach with 

implementing and nonimplementing states, determining whether states 

are notifying tribes that retained their authority about convicted sex 

offenders who initially register or update a registration indicating that they 

will be living, working, or attending school on tribal land upon release from 

state prison could help ensure that tribes are aware of and can monitor 

convicted sex offenders in their communities. Further, taking additional 

actions to ensure that states notify all tribes, including ineligible and 

delegated tribes, would better position tribes to enforce their own laws 

and policies regarding sex offenders who live, work, or attend school on 

their land. Further, these actions would enhance DOJ’s initiative to 

increase public safety in tribal communities by providing the federal 

support these communities need to overcome the unique law 

enforcement challenges they face, which, as noted by the Attorney 

General in his 2009 launching of the initiative, had resulted in 

unacceptable rates of violence against women and children in tribal 

communities.

To help ensure that tribes that retained their SORNA implementation 

authority, as well as ineligible and delegated tribes, are notified when 

convicted sex offenders who intend to live, work, or attend school on tribal 

land initially register or update a registration, we recommend that the 

Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs direct the 

SMART Office to take the following two actions:

• Amend its substantial implementation assurance guidance to require 

its evaluators to determine whether substantially implemented states 

are notifying tribes that retained their authority to implement SORNA, 

as well as ineligible and delegated tribes, as required, and use this 

information in the office’s ongoing outreach to the states.

• Encourage implementing as well as nonimplementing states, as part 

of the office’s ongoing outreach to these states, to develop policies 

and procedures to notify tribes that retained their authority to 

implement SORNA, as well as ineligible and delegated tribes, about 

convicted sex offenders who registered or updated a registration with 

the state—either prior or subsequent to their release from state 

prison—and indicated that they will be living, working, or attending 

school on tribal lands. As part of this outreach and to help states 

overcome any barriers to notifying tribes, educate state officials on 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
Page 41 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

best practices for overcoming barriers to notifying tribes that the 

SMART Office has identified.

To help determine what additional assistance tribes may need to help 

them toward SORNA implementation, we recommend that the Director of 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs direct each Office of Justice Services district 

office to contact the tribes within its district that have retained their 

implementation authority to determine if the tribes would like BIA to assist 

them with SORNA implementation efforts. For tribes that would like 

assistance from BIA, where possible, BIA should provide this assistance 

or refer the tribe to other resources.

We provided a draft of this report to Interior and DOJ for review and 

comment. We received written comments from DOI via e-mail and from 

DOJ in a formal letter, which is reproduced in full in appendix IV. DOI and 

DOJ agreed with our recommendations in their comments. We also 

received technical comments from DOJ, which are incorporated 

throughout our report as appropriate.

In comments that DOI provided via e-mail on October 21, 2014, the 

department agreed with our recommendation that BIA direct each OJS 

district office to contact the tribes within its district that have retained their 

implementation authority, to determine if the tribes would like BIA to assist 

them with SORNA implementation efforts. DOI noted that the department 

plans to send correspondence to each of these tribes to determine if the 

tribes need BIA assistance with SORNA implementation and will provide 

the necessary assistance to these tribes, considering the department’s 

authority, access, and resources. Further, DOI stated that it will reach out 

to states and other entities outside of OJS’s control that may be posing 

challenges to tribes’ ability to comply with SORNA. We believe that these 

are beneficial steps that, once fully implemented, would address our 

recommendation and help address resource or other needs that have 

made it difficult for some tribes to substantially implement the act.

In addition to taking actions to address our recommendation, DOI also 

identified additional efforts that BIA OJS has under way to help ensure 

tribes are able to implement SORNA. For example, BIA OJS has renewed 

its relationship with the SMART Office so as to receive internal policy and 

procedure updates, as well as training opportunities for OJS employees 

on SORNA.

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Page 42 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

DOJ agreed with our recommendation that the SMART Office amend its 

substantial implementation assurance guidance to require its evaluators 

to determine whether substantially implemented states are notifying tribes 

that retained their authority to implement SORNA, as well as ineligible 

and delegated tribes. The department also noted in its response that the 

SMART Office will continue to propose individualized solutions for 

jurisdictions with legislation or public policy practices that inhibit or 

prohibit working with tribal law enforcement.

DOJ also agreed with our recommendation to encourage implementing as 

well as nonimplementing states to develop policies and procedures to 

notify all tribes about sex offenders who would be living, working, or 

attending school on tribal lands, either prior or subsequent to their release 

from state prison. In its letter, DOJ noted that the SMART Office will 

request in future substantial implementation reviews that states provide 

information on how state incarceration facilities notify tribes when sex 

offenders are released and have indicated that they will be living, working, 

or attending school on tribal land. Accordingly, the SMART office will use 

the information solicited from these reviews in its ongoing outreach to 

implementing as well as nonimplementing states to help improve their 

communication with tribes. DOJ stated that to the extent possible, the 

department will encourage the sharing of sex offender information 

through the SORNA Exchange Portal—the tool that facilitates the 

exchange of information about sex offenders moving to other SORNA 

jurisdictions—as well as through extensive outreach and education to 

states on how they can use public notification to share information with 

ineligible and delegated tribes that do not have access to this portal. We 

believe that, once implemented, these actions would address our 

recommendations and enhance tribes’ ability to receive the notification 

they need in order to enforce their laws pertaining to sex offenders.

Although DOJ agreed with our recommendations, the department 

expressed concerns that our report is not responsive to the primary 

challenge that tribes that responded to our survey identified—that is, an 

inability to submit sex offender information to federal criminal databases. 

However, we noted in this report that at the time of our review, DOJ and 

BIA had established a Tribal Public Safety Working Group to identify 

which tribes lack access to federal databases and to work on the 

appropriate solution based on the unique circumstances of each tribe. We 

believe that it is too soon to evaluate the effectiveness of the working 

group’s current efforts, given that the group is in its early planning phase.
Page 43 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Interior, and other 

interested parties. This report is also available at no charge on GAO’s 

website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions, please contact me at (202) 512-

8777 or larencee@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. Staff acknowledgments are provided in appendix IV.

Eileen R. Larence

Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 44 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

Our objectives for this report were to address the following questions:

• To what extent have eligible tribes retained their authority to 

implement the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act 

(SORNA), and for those that did, what is their implementation status?

• What implementation challenges, if any, have tribes that retained their 

authority to implement SORNA reported, and what steps have federal 

agencies and others taken or could take to address these challenges?

• To what extent are states incorporating ineligible and delegated tribes 

into their state sex offender registration and notification systems?

To address our first two objectives, we surveyed tribal officials whom the 

Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehension, 

Registering, and Tracking (SMART Office) identified as being responsible 

for implementing the act in the 164 tribes that retained their authority to 

implement SORNA.1

 1

At the time of our survey, 166 tribes had retained their authority to implement SORNA.

We did not survey 4 of the 166 because, according to the SMART Office, these tribes are 

either newly recognized tribes that have not elected whether or not to implement SORNA, 

or are still in the process of acquiring land. These tribes include the Cayuga Nation, the 

Delaware Tribe of Indians, the Samish Indian Nation, and the Shinnecock Indian Nation. 

We did not also survey the Onondaga Indian Nation because tribal officials told us at the 

time of our survey that they were in the process of delegating their SORNA authority to the 

state and had not taken any actions to implement the act.

These officials included tribal chiefs as well as 

representatives of tribal police departments and court systems. We used 

the survey to identify the implementation status of tribes that retained 

their authority to implement SORNA; the challenges they face with 

implementation; and the steps that tribes, as well as state, local, and 

federal government entities, are taking or could take to address 

implementation challenges. Additionally, we used the survey to obtain the 

tribal officials’ perspectives on the SMART Office’s guidance and the 

criteria it used to determine whether or not a jurisdiction has substantially 

implemented SORNA. We collaborated closely with a GAO social science 

survey specialist and conducted an expert review as well as pretests with 

4 tribes that retained their authority to implement SORNA; doing so 

helped us to develop and refine our survey questions, clarify any 

ambiguous portions of the survey, and identify any potentially biased 

questions. We launched our web-based survey on April 1, 2014, and 

closed out the survey on June 30, 2014. Login information for the webAppendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 45 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

based survey was e-mailed to all participants, and we sent three follow-up 

e-mail messages to all nonrespondents and contacted the remaining 

nonrespondents by telephone. We received responses from 80 percent 

(129 of 161) of all tribes surveyed. Not all survey respondents provided 

answers to all survey questions.2

To address our first objective, we also reviewed the SMART Office’s data 

on eligible tribes’ implementation status to identify (1) tribes that have 

retained their authority to implement SORNA, (2) tribes that have 

delegated their implementation authority to a state, and (3) tribes whose 

implementation authority was delegated to a state by the SMART Office. 

To assess the reliability of the SMART Office’s data on tribes’

implementation status, we (1) obtained written responses to our questions 

on how SMART Office representatives who use and maintain the data 

ensure the data’s reliability; (2) checked the data for missing information, 

and obvious errors; and (3) compared the data regarding tribes’

responses against our survey questions regarding their implementation 

status and, where applicable, interviewed SMART Office officials to 

determine the reason(s) for and resolve any differences. We found the 

data to be sufficiently reliable for the purpose of identifying tribes’ SORNA 

implementation status. We also used our survey to determine how long it 

Because the survey was conducted with 

all tribes that retained their authority to implement SORNA, there are no 

sampling errors. However, the practical difficulties of conducting any 

survey may introduce nonsampling errors. For example, differences in 

how a particular question is interpreted, the sources of information 

available to respondents, or the types of people who do not respond can 

introduce unwanted variability into the survey results. We included steps 

in both the data collection and data analysis stages to minimize such 

nonsampling errors. We also made multiple contact attempts with 

nonrespondents during the survey by e-mail and telephone. Since this 

was a web-based survey, respondents entered their answers directly into 

the electronic questionnaire, eliminating the need to key data into a 

database, minimizing error. We examined the survey results and 

performed computer analyses to identify inconsistencies and other 

indications of error. A second independent analyst checked the accuracy 

of all computer analyses.

 2

An electronic supplement to this report provides the survey results. See GAO, Sex 

Offender Registration and Notification Act, : Survey of Federally Recognized Tribes on 

Implementation of the Act (GAO-15-30SP, November 2014), an E-supplement to 

GAO-15-23, (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 16, 2014).
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 46 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

took tribes to prepare and submit a complete implementation package for 

SMART Office review, the reasons why some tribes have not submitted a 

complete package, and when the latter anticipate submitting a complete 

package.

To address our second objective, we interviewed Department of Justice 

(DOJ) headquarters officials from the SMART Office, Office of Tribal 

Justice (OTJ), U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), and the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation (FBI), as well as Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) officials 

within the Department of the Interior, to determine the implementation 

challenges tribes have reported and steps the agencies, the tribes, and 

others have taken to address the challenges. In addition, we interviewed 

FBI Criminal Justice Information Services Division (CJIS) officials to 

determine CJIS policies and procedures for granting tribes access to 

federal criminal justice databases, which are required for SORNA 

implementation. We also interviewed state, tribal, as well as local law 

enforcement officials from 5 states—Florida, Michigan, Nevada, New 

York, and Oklahoma. We selected these 5 states because each contains 

territory of tribes that retained their authority to implement SORNA and 

because the states vary with regard to their SORNA implementation 

status and geographic diversity. In each of the 5 states, we interviewed 

CJIS System Agency (CSA) officials, the designated state SORNA 

contact, or state sex offender registry officials to obtain information about 

state laws, policies, and procedures for granting tribes access to federal 

criminal justice databases. We also interviewed tribal leaders from 9 

eligible tribes in these 5 states—5 of these tribes retained their authority 

to implement SORNA. We selected the 9 tribes based on factors such as 

the tribes’ implementation status, whether the tribes are direct service 

tribes, and whether the tribes have agreements for SORNA 

implementation with any local law enforcement agencies, as well as the 

challenges that the SMART Office and others reported that these tribes 

face with implementation.3

 3

The Bureau of Indian Affairs provides direct services, such as law enforcement services, 

to certain tribes, commonly referred to as direct service tribes, that do not operate certain 

programs themselves. 25 U.S.C. §§ 450f, 2802(c)(1). 

In addition to the 5 states, we contacted 

officials in 20 states to determine whether these states require their state 

departments of corrections or registries to notify tribes that have retained 

their authorities to implement SORNA upon releasing a sex offender who 

plans to live, work or attend school on tribal lands. Officials from 15 of the 

20 states responded to our request. These 15 states plus the 5 we visited 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 47 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

included states identified by tribes that responded to our survey as those 

that do not notify tribes upon releasing sex offenders who plan to live, 

work, or attend school on tribal lands, as well as states that have

substantially implemented SORNA and also have tribes that have 

retained their authority to implement SORNA. Finally, we interviewed 

officials from four local law enforcement agencies in proximity to the 

selected tribes and with whom the tribes had an agreement for SORNA 

implementation, as well as officials from the two BIA Office of Justice 

Services (OJS) regional districts with the most direct service tribes that 

are implementing SORNA to determine what, if any, assistance they have 

provided the tribes with SORNA implementation. Although the 

perspectives we obtained from our interviews with these state, BIA, and 

tribal officials are not generalizable, they provided insights regarding the 

challenges that tribes face with implementing SORNA and actions that 

have or could be taken to address the challenges.

We also included questions in our survey of tribes that retained their 

authority to implement SORNA about the types and extent of challenges 

the tribes experienced with SORNA implementation; steps the tribes are 

taking to address the challenges; and the funding and other assistance 

the tribes have received or could receive from the SMART Office, USMS, 

BIA, and state or local law enforcement agencies to assist them with 

implementing the act. In addition, we obtained information from our 

survey that enabled us to identify tribes that have the required access to 

the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) and the National Sex 

Offender Registry (NSOR), and the reasons why some tribes do not have 

this access.4

To address our third objective, we interviewed state SORNA and sex 

offender registry officials from all 6 states where ineligible tribes are 

located as well as 8 ineligible tribes—at least 1 each from these 6 states. 

To determine if any improvements are needed to address 

any of the challenges tribes identified with SORNA implementation, we 

compared our survey results against SORNA provisions as well as the 

National Guidelines for Sex Offender Registration and Notification.

 4

NCIC is a computerized index of criminal justice information (i.e., criminal record history 

information, fugitives, stolen properties, and missing persons) that is available to 

authorized federal, state, and local law enforcement and other criminal justice agencies 24 

hours a day, throughout the year. NSOR is a national database within the FBI’s NCIC that 

authorized federal, state, local, territorial, and tribal law enforcement officials can use to 

gain access to information on registered sex offenders throughout the United States.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 48 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

The information from these interviews enabled us to determine if these 

states include the ineligible tribes in their state SORNA registration and 

notification systems, as SORNA requires, as well as to identify the 

challenges, if any, the states and tribes face with having the states 

implement SORNA on the tribes’ behalf. We selected the tribes based on 

their SORNA implementation status, whether they submitted a resolution 

to implement SORNA in spite of their ineligibility, and the challenges the 

tribes reportedly faced with SORNA implementation.5

To supplement the information we received from our interviews as well as 

our survey of tribes that retained their SORNA authority, we interviewed 

officials from three relevant national associations: the National Congress 

of American Indians, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and 

the National Criminal Justice Association, to obtain their perspectives on 

SORNA eligibility criteria, the SMART Office’s delegation criteria and 

process, the challenges that tribes face with implementation, and the 

actions that the SMART Office and others have taken to address these 

challenges. We selected these associations because they represent the 

interests of tribal communities or state and local law enforcement 

agencies that assist jurisdictions, including tribes, with SORNA 

implementation.

We also 

interviewed tribal leaders from 4 tribes that opted out of SORNA and 

delegated their registration and notification functions to the state, and 

solicited responses to written questions from sex offender registry officials 

in the 15 states to which tribes’ authority have been delegated, to 

determine how states are incorporating delegated tribes into their state 

sex offender registration and notification systems, as SORNA requires.

We conducted this performance audit from September 2013 to November 

2014 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

 5

SORNA required eligible tribes wishing to implement the act to submit a resolution within 

a year of the act’s enactment, electing to implement the law themselves as opposed to 

delegating their authority to implement to a state. 42 U.S.C. § 16927(a).
Appendix II: SORNA Substantial 

Implementation Checklist Tool

Page 49 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

The Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, 

Registering, and Tracking (SMART Office) has developed the Sex 

Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) Substantial 

Implementation Checklist tool to be used by jurisdictions in developing, 

organizing, and submitting a substantial implementation package for 

review. While not intended to be a definitive guide to SORNA’s full 

implementation requirements, the SORNA checklist is organized into 14 

sections covering the major requirements of the law, as shown in table 1.

Table 1: Titles and Descriptions of the 14 Sections of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) Substantial

Implementation Checklist Tool and Implementation Reports

Section Basic tenets of covered requirements

I. Immediate Transfer of Information • Initial and updated registration information must be immediately sent to other 

jurisdictions where an offender has to register, to relevant federal law enforcement 

authorities, and to the jurisdiction’s public sex offender website.

II. Offenses That Must Be Included in the 

Registry

• Certain federal, military, and foreign offenses must be included in a jurisdiction’s 

registration scheme, as well as certain sex offenses for which juveniles were 

adjudicated as delinquent.

• A jurisdiction must capture certain sex offenses, both offenses from its jurisdiction 

and from other SORNA registration jurisdictions, in its registration scheme. 

III. Tiering of Offenses • Offenses must be classified based on the nature of the offense of conviction, 

established through a baseline three-tier classification system.

IV. Required Registration Information • A jurisdiction must collect certain pieces of information from and for each offender 

that it registers and keep that registration information in a digitized form in its registry.

V. Where Registration Is Required • A jurisdiction must register an offender if the jurisdiction is the one in which the 

offender is convicted or incarcerated. In addition, SORNA requires that the jurisdiction 

register offenders who reside, work, or attend school in the jurisdiction.

VI. Initial Registration: Timing and Notice • When an offender is incarcerated within the jurisdiction, registration must occur 

before release from imprisonment.

• When an offender is sentenced within the jurisdiction, but not incarcerated, 

registration must occur within 3 business days of sentencing.

• When an offender has been convicted, sentenced, or incarcerated in another 

jurisdiction (including federal or military court), registration must occur within 3 

business days of the offender establishing residence, employment, or school 

attendance within the jurisdiction.

• During initial registration, the offender must be informed of his or her registration 

duties and acknowledge in writing that he or she understands those duties.

VII. Initial Registration: Retroactive 

Classes of Offenders

• A jurisdiction must have a procedure in place to recapture three categories of sex 

offenders:

o those currently incarcerated or under supervision,

o those already registered or subject to a preexisting registration 

requirement, and

o those who reenter the jurisdiction’s criminal justice system because of a 

conviction for some other felony (whether or not it is a sex offense). 

Appendix II: SORNA Substantial 

Implementation Checklist Tool
Appendix II: SORNA Substantial 

Implementation Checklist Tool

Page 50 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

Section Basic tenets of covered requirements

VIII. Keeping the Registration Current • A registered sex offender must appear in person to update certain changes to 

required registration information, and must immediately provide changes to other 

pieces of registration information.

• When an offender intends to travel outside the United States, that person must notify 

the residence jurisdiction at least 21 days in advance.

• When a jurisdiction receives notice of an offender’s intent to relocate or travel to 

another country, that jurisdiction must immediately notify any other jurisdiction where 

the person is required to register, notify the U.S. Marshals, and update the National 

Sex Offender Registry within the National Crime Information Center.

IX. Verification/Appearance Requirements • Offenders must register for a duration of time and make in-person appearances at the 

registering agency based on the tier of the offense of conviction.

X. Registry Website Requirements • A jurisdiction must maintain a public sex offender registry website and publish certain 

registration information on that website, such as the offender’s name, address 

information, the sex offense for which the offender is registered, and a current 

photograph.

• Certain information must not be displayed on a jurisdiction’s public registry website, 

such as the offender’s Social Security number or the identity of the victim.

XI. Community Notification • A jurisdiction must disseminate certain initial and updated registration information to 

(1) particular agencies within the jurisdiction and (2) the community.

XII. Failure to Register as a Sex Offender: 

State Penalty

• Each jurisdiction, other than a federally recognized Indian tribe, must provide a 

criminal penalty that includes a maximum term of imprisonment that is greater than 1 

year for the failure of a sex offender to comply with its registration requirements.

XIII. When Sex Offender Fails to Appear 

for Registration

• When a jurisdiction is notified that a sex offender intends to reside, be employed, or 

attend school in its jurisdiction, and that offender fails to appear for registration as 

required, the jurisdiction receiving that notice must inform the originating jurisdiction 

(the jurisdiction that provided the initial notification) that the sex offender failed to 

appear for registration.

XIV. When a Jurisdiction Has Information 

that a Sex Offender May Have Absconded

• When a jurisdiction has information that a sex offender may have absconded, the 

jurisdiction must take certain actions to investigate the absconder and notify various 

law enforcement agencies.

Source: Department of Justice: Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (SMART Office) | GAO-15-23.

Note: If a state has a tribe or tribes located within its boundaries that have elected to implement 

SORNA, the SMART Office also requests that these states provide additional information, such as an 

explanation of the working relationship with the relevant SORNA tribe(s), when submitting a 

substantial implementation package for review.
Appendix III: Extent to Which Eligible Tribes 

Have Implemented the Sex Offender 

Registration and Notification Act (SORNA)

Page 51 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

According to the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, 

Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (SMART Office), the 214 tribes 

that are eligible to implement SORNA are located in 33 states; of these 

states, 11 have substantially implemented SORNA. As of August 2014, 

the SMART Office has determined that 164 tribes have retained their 

authority to implement SORNA, while the remainder did not retain their 

authority because they either elected to delegate their authority to a state 

(24 tribes) or the SMART Office delegated their authority to a state (26 

tribes). Of the tribes that have retained their authority to implement the 

act, 71 tribes have substantially implemented SORNA; 70 tribes have 

submitted a complete package, but the SMART Office has not yet made a 

determination; 22 tribes have not submitted a complete package; and 1 

tribe has not substantially implemented the act.

Table 2: Implementation Status of Eligible Tribes and Their Corresponding States, as of August 2014

State

Number of

tribes Tribe Implementation authority

SORNA 

implementation 

status

Alabama 1 ●

Poarch Band of Creeks Retained authority ●

Alaska 1 □

Metlakatla Indian Community Retained authority ▣

Arizona 21 □

Ak-Chin Indian Community Council Retained authority ◉

Cocopah Tribal Council Retained authority ◉

*Colorado River Indian Tribes Retained authority ●

Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation Retained authority ●

~*Fort Mojave Indian Tribe Retained authority ●

Gila River Indian Community Retained authority ●

Havasupai Tribe Retained authority ◉

Hopi Tribe Retained authority ●

Hualapai Indian Tribe Retained authority ●

Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians Retained authority ◉

~ Navajo Nation Retained authority ◉

Pascua Yaqui Tribe Retained authority ●

*Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian 

Reservation

Delegated (SMART) n/a

Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Retained authority ●

San Carlos Apache Tribe Retained authority ▣

Appendix III: Extent to Which Eligible Tribes 

Have Implemented the Sex Offender 

Registration and Notification Act (SORNA)
Appendix III: Extent to Which Eligible Tribes 

Have Implemented the Sex Offender 

Registration and Notification Act (SORNA)

Page 52 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

State

Number of

tribes Tribe Implementation authority

SORNA 

implementation 

status

San Juan Southern Paiute tribe of Arizona Delegated Office of Sex 

Offender Sentencing, 

Monitoring, Apprehending, 

Registering, and Tracking 

(SMART Office)

n/a

Tohono O’odham Nation Retained authority ●

Tonto Apache Tribe Retained authority ◉

White Mountain Apache Tribe Retained authority ◉

Yavapai-Apache Nation Retained authority ●

Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe Retained authority ◉

Colorado 2 ●

Southern Ute Indian Tribe Retained authority ●

~ Ute Mountain Ute Tribe Retained authority ▣

Connecticut 2 □

Mashantucket Pequot Indian Tribe Retained authority ◉

Mohegan Indian Tribe of Connecticut Delegated (Tribe) n/a

Florida 2 ●

Miccosukee Indian Tribe Retained authority ◉

Seminole Tribe of Florida Retained authority ◉

Idaho 5 □

Coeur D’Alene Tribe Retained authority ◉

Kootenai Tribe of Idaho Retained authority ●

Nez Perce Tribe Retained authority ◉

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall 

Reservation

Retained authority ●

~ Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck 

Valley Reservation

Retained authority ●

Iowa 1 □

Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa Retained authority ●

Kansas 4 ●

*Iowa Tribe of Kansas & Nebraska Retained authority ●

Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo 

Reservation in Kansas

Delegated (Tribe) n/a

Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation Retained authority ●

*Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas 

and Nebraska

Delegated (SMART) n/a

Louisiana 4 ●

Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana Retained authority ●
Appendix III: Extent to Which Eligible Tribes 

Have Implemented the Sex Offender 

Registration and Notification Act (SORNA)

Page 53 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

State

Number of

tribes Tribe Implementation authority

SORNA 

implementation 

status

Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana Delegated (Tribe) n/a

Jena Band of Choctaw Indians Delegated (Tribe) n/a

Tunica-Biloxi Tribe Retained authority ▣

Maine 4 □

Aroostook Band of Micmacs Delegated (SMART) n/a

Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians Delegated (Tribe) n/a

Passamaquoddy Tribe Delegated (SMART) n/a

Penobscot Indian Nation Delegated (SMART) n/a

Massachusetts 2 □

Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Delegated (Tribe) n/a

Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head / Aquinnah Retained authority ▣

Michigan 12 ●

Bay Mills Indian Community Retained authority ●

Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and 

Chippewa Indians

Retained authority ●

Hannahville Indian Community Retained authority ●

Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Retained authority ●

Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior 

Chippewa Indians

Retained authority ◉

Little River Band of Ottawa Indians Retained authority ◉

Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians Retained authority ●

Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of 

Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan

Retained authority ●

Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the 

Potawatomi

Retained authority ●

Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians Retained authority ◉

Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan Retained authority ●

Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians 

of Michigan

Retained authority ●

Minnesota 2 □

Minnesota Chippewa Tribe Bois Forte Band Retained authority ●

Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians of 

Minnesota

Retained authority ◉

Mississippi 1 ●

Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians Retained authority ●

Montana 7 □
Appendix III: Extent to Which Eligible Tribes 

Have Implemented the Sex Offender 

Registration and Notification Act (SORNA)

Page 54 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

State

Number of

tribes Tribe Implementation authority

SORNA 

implementation 

status

Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort 

Peck Indian Reservation

Retained authority ◉

Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian 

Reservation of Montana

Retained authority ▣

Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy’s 

Reservation

Retained authority ●

Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes of 

the Flathead Reservation

Delegated (Tribe) n/a

Crow Tribe of Montana Retained authority ◉

Fort Belknap Indian Community of the Fort 

Belknap Reservation of Montana

Retained authority ◉

Northern Cheyenne Tribe Retained authority ◉

Nebraska 3 □

Omaha Tribe of Nebraska Retained authority ●

Santee Sioux Nation Retained authority ●

Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska Retained authority ●

Nevada 19 ●

~Confederated Tribes of Goshute 

Reservation

Delegated (SMART) n/a

Duckwater Shoshone Tribe Delegated (Tribe) n/a

Ely Shoshone Tribe of Nevada Retained authority ◉

*Fort McDermitt Paiute & Shoshone Tribes 

of the Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation

Delegated (SMART) n/a

~ *Fort Mojave Indian Tribe Retained authority ●

Las Vegas Tribe of the Paiute Indians of the 

Las Vegas Colony

Delegated (SMART) n/a

Lovelock Paiute Tribe of the Lovelock Indian 

Colony

Delegated (SMART) n/a

Moapa Band of Paiute Indians of the Moapa 

River Indian reservation

Delegated (SMART) n/a

Paiute-Shoshone Tribe of the Fallon 

Reservation and Colony

Delegated (SMART) n/a

Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe Retained authority ◉

Reno-Sparks Indian Colony Retained authority ◉

~Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley 

Reservation

Retained authority ●

Summit Lake Paiute Tribe Delegated (SMART) n/a

Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone 

Indians of Nevada

Retained authority ◉

Walker River Paiute Tribe Delegated (Tribe) n/a
Appendix III: Extent to Which Eligible Tribes 

Have Implemented the Sex Offender 

Registration and Notification Act (SORNA)

Page 55 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

State

Number of

tribes Tribe Implementation authority

SORNA 

implementation 

status

*Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California Retained authority ●

Winnemucca Indian Colony of Nevada Delegated (SMART) n/a

Yerington Paiute Tribe Delegated (SMART) n/a

Yomba Shoshone Tribe Delegated (SMART) n/a

New Mexico 23 □

Jicarilla Apache Nation Retained authority ●

Kewa Pueblo (Pueblo of Santo Domingo) Retained authority ◉

Mescalero Apache Tribe Retained authority ●

Ohkay Owingeh Retained authority ●

Pueblo of Acoma Retained authority ●

Pueblo of Cochiti Retained authority ◉

Pueblo of Isleta Retained authority ●

Pueblo of Jemez Retained authority ◉

Pueblo of Laguna Retained authority ◉

Pueblo of Nambe Delegated (Tribe) n/a

Pueblo of Picuris Delegated (SMART) n/a

Pueblo of Pojoaque Delegated (Tribe) n/a

Pueblo of San Felipe Retained authority ▣

Pueblo of San Ildefonso Retained authority ◉

Pueblo of Sandia Delegated (Tribe) n/a

Pueblo of Santa Ana Retained authority ●

Pueblo of Santa Clara Retained authority ◉

Pueblo of Taos Retained authority ◉

Pueblo of Tesuque Retained authority ▣

Pueblo of Zia Delegated (SMART) n/a

~ Navajo Nation Retained authority ◉

~ Ute Mountain Ute Tribe Retained authority ▣

Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation (Pueblo 

Zuni)

Retained authority ◉

New York 8 □

Cayuga Nation Retained authority ◊

Oneida Nation of New York Retained authority ◉

Onondaga Nation Retained authority ▣

Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe Retained authority ◉

Seneca Nation of Indians Delegated (Tribe) n/a

Shinnecock Indian Nation Retained authority ▣
Appendix III: Extent to Which Eligible Tribes 

Have Implemented the Sex Offender 

Registration and Notification Act (SORNA)

Page 56 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

State

Number of

tribes Tribe Implementation authority

SORNA 

implementation 

status

Tonawanda Band of Seneca Retained authority ▣

Tuscarora Nation Retained authority ▣

North Carolina 1 □

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Retained authority ◉

North Dakota 4 □

Spirit Lake Tribe Retained authority ◉

~ Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Retained authority ●

Three Affiliated Tribes Retained authority ◉

Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Retained authority ◉

Oklahoma 38 □

Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of 

Oklahoma

Retained authority ●

Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town Delegated (SMART) n/a

Apache Tribe of Oklahoma Delegated (SMART) n/a

Caddo Nation of Oklahoma Retained authority ◉

Cherokee Nation Retained authority ●

Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma Retained authority ▣

Chickasaw Nation Retained authority ●

Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma Delegated (Tribe) n/a

Citizen Potawatomi Nation Retained authority ●

Comanche Nation Retained authority ●

Delaware Nation Retained authority ◉

Delaware Tribe of Indians Retained authority △

Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma Retained authority ◉

Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma Delegated (SMART) n/a

Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma Retained authority ●

Kaw Nation Retained authority ●

Kialegee Tribal Town Delegated (SMART) n/a

Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma Retained authority ●

Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma Retained authority ◉

Miami Tribe of Oklahoma Retained authority ●

Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma Retained authority ●

Muscogee (Creek) Nation Retained authority ●

Osage Nation Retained authority ●

Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians Retained authority ▣

Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma Retained authority ◉
Appendix III: Extent to Which Eligible Tribes 

Have Implemented the Sex Offender 

Registration and Notification Act (SORNA)

Page 57 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

State

Number of

tribes Tribe Implementation authority

SORNA 

implementation 

status

Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma Retained authority ▣

Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma Retained authority ◉

Ponca Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma Delegated (Tribe) n/a

Quapaw Tribe of Indians Retained authority ◉

Sac and Fox Nation Retained authority ◉

Seminole Nation of Oklahoma Retained authority ●

Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma Retained authority ●

Shawnee Tribe Delegated (SMART) n/a

Thlopthlocco Tribal Town Delegated (Tribe) n/a

Tonkawa Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma Retained authority ◉

United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee 

Indians in Oklahoma

Retained authority ●

Wichita and Affiliated Tribes Delegated (SMART) n/a

Wyandotte Nation Retained authority ●

Oregon 3 □

Burns Paiute Tribe Retained authority ◉

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian 

Reservation

Retained authority ●

Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs 

Reservation

Retained authority ●

Rhode Island 1 □

Narragansett Indian Tribe Retained authority ◉

South Carolina 1 ●

Catawba Indian Nation Delegated (SMART) N/A

South Dakota 9 ●

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the 

Cheyenne River Reservation

Retained authority ◉

Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek 

Reservation

Retained authority ◉

Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South 

Dakota 

Retained authority ◉

Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the Lower Brule 

Reservation

Retained authority ◉

Oglala Sioux Tribe Retained authority ◉

Rosebud Sioux Tribe Retained authority ◉

Sisseton - Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake 

Traverse Reservation

Retained authority ●

~ Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Retained authority ●
Appendix III: Extent to Which Eligible Tribes 

Have Implemented the Sex Offender 

Registration and Notification Act (SORNA)

Page 58 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

State

Number of

tribes Tribe Implementation authority

SORNA 

implementation 

status

Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota Retained authority ◉

Texas 2 □

Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas Retained authority ◉

Ysleta del Sur Pueblo of Texas Delegated (Tribe) n/a

Utah 7 □

~ Confederated Tribes of Goshute 

Reservation

Delegated (SMART) n/a

~ Navajo Nation Retained authority ◉

Northwestern Band of Shoshone Nation Delegated (Tribe) n/a

Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Delegated (SMART) n/a

Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians Delegated (Tribe) n/a

Ute Indian Tribe Retained authority ◉

~ Ute Mountain Ute Tribe Retained authority ▣

Washington 29 □

Confederated Tribes and Bands of the 

Yakama Nation

Retained authority ●

Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis 

Reservation

Retained authority □

Confederated Tribes of the Colville 

Reservation

Retained authority ◉

Cowlitz Indian Tribe Delegated (Tribe) n/a

Hoh Indian Tribe Delegated (Tribe) n/a

Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe Delegated (Tribe) n/a

Kalispel Tribe of Indians Retained authority ●

Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe Retained authority ●

Lummi Tribe of the Lummi Reservation Retained authority ◉

Makah Indian Tribe of the Makah Indian 

Reservation 

Retained authority ◉

Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Retained authority ▣

Nisqually Indian Tribe Retained authority ▣

Nooksack Indian Tribe Retained authority ◉

Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe Retained authority ◉

Puyallup Tribe of the Puyallup Reservation Retained authority ◉

Quileute Tribe Retained authority ▣

Quinault Indian Nation Retained authority ●

Samish Indian Nation Retained authority ◊

Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe Retained authority ◉
Appendix III: Extent to Which Eligible Tribes 

Have Implemented the Sex Offender 

Registration and Notification Act (SORNA)

Page 59 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

State

Number of

tribes Tribe Implementation authority

SORNA 

implementation 

status

Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe Retained authority ◉

Skokomish Indian Tribe Retained authority ●

Snoqualmie Indian Tribe Delegated (Tribe) n/a

Spokane Tribe of the Spokane Reservation Retained authority ●

Squaxin Island Tribe Retained authority ◉

Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians of 

Washington

Delegated (Tribe) n/a

Suquamish Indian Tribe of the Port Madison 

Reservation

Retained authority ▣

Swinomish Indian Tribal Community Retained authority ◉

Tulalip Tribes of Washington Retained authority ◉

Upper Skagit Indian Tribe Retained authority ●

Wisconsin 1 □

Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin Retained authority ●

Wyoming 2 ●

Arapaho Tribe of the Wind River 

Reservation

Retained authority ●

Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River 

Reservation

Retained authority ●

Source: GAO analysis of SMART Office data | GAO-15-23

Legend:

n/a = not applicable.

*Tribe = the tribe has territory in another state, but is ineligible to implement SORNA in that state.

~Tribe = the tribe has territory in multiple states and is eligible to implement SORNA in each of those 

states. Thus, the tribe is represented under multiple states.

● = Substantially implemented

◉ = Submitted a complete package, determination not yet made

□ = Not substantially implemented

▣ = Not submitted a complete package for review

◊ = Held in abeyance

△ = Newly recognized tribes
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Justice

Page 60 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Department of Justice
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Justice

Page 61 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Justice

Page 62 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Justice

Page 63 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 64 GAO-15-23 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

Eileen R. Larence, (202) 512-8777 or larencee@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Kristy Love, Assistant Director, 

and Edith Sohna, Analyst-in-Charge, managed this engagement. Orlando 

Copeland, Michael Lenington, Alicia Loucks, and Leah Marshall made 

significant contributions to the report. Frances Cook, Katherine Davis, 

Michele Fejfar, Eric Hauswirth, Kirsten Lauber, Sasan J. Najmi, and 

Jerome Sandau also provided valuable assistance.

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(441155)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.