SEX OFFENDER 

REGISTRATION AND 

NOTIFICATION ACT

Jurisdictions Face 

Challenges to 

Implementing the Act, 

and Stakeholders 

Report Positive and 

Negative Effects

Report to the Subcommittee on Crime, 

Terrorism, and Homeland Security, 

Committee on the Judiciary, House of 

Representatives 

February 2013

GAO-13-211

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-211, a report to the 

Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 

Homeland Security, Committee on the 

Judiciary, House of Representatives

February 2013

SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION AND 

NOTIFICATION ACT

Jurisdictions Face Challenges to Implementing the 

Act, and Stakeholders Report Positive and Negative 

Effects

Why GAO Did This Study

Studies estimate that about 1 in every 

5 girls and 1 in every 7 to 10 boys are 

sexually abused. In 2006, Congress 

passed SORNA, which introduced new

sex offender registration standards for 

all 50 states, 5 U.S. territories 

(American Samoa, Guam, the Northern 

Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the 

U.S. Virgin Islands), the District of 

Columbia, and certain Indian tribes. 

SORNA established the SMART Office

to determine if these jurisdictions have 

“substantially implemented” the law, 

and to assist them in doing so. The 

deadline to implement SORNA was 

July 2009; given that none of the 

jurisdictions met this deadline, DOJ 

authorized two 1-year extensions. This 

report addresses: (1) To what extent 

has the SMART Office determined that 

jurisdictions have substantially 

implemented SORNA, and what 

challenges, if any, have jurisdictions 

faced? (2) For jurisdictions that have 

substantially implemented SORNA, 

what are the reported effects that the 

act has had on public safety, criminal 

justice stakeholders, and registered 

sex offenders? 

GAO analyzed SMART Office 

implementation status reports from

September 2009 through September 

2012. To identify any challenges, GAO

surveyed officials in the 50 states, 5 

U.S. territories, and the District of 

Columbia; GAO received responses 

from 93 percent (52 of 56) of them.

The survey results can be viewed at 

GAO-13-234SP. GAO visited or 

interviewed criminal justice officials in 

five jurisdictions that have substantially 

implemented SORNA, chosen to 

represent a range in the number of 

registered sex offenders per 100,000 

residents. Their perspectives are not

generalizable, but provided insights.

What GAO Found

The Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, 

and Tracking (SMART Office) within the Department of Justice (DOJ) has 

determined that 19 of the 37 jurisdictions that have submitted packages for 

review have substantially implemented the Sex Offender Registration and 

Notification Act (SORNA). Although the SMART Office has determined that 17 of 

the jurisdictions that submitted packages have not yet substantially implemented 

SORNA, the office concluded that 15 of these 17 jurisdictions have implemented 

at least half of the SORNA requirements; the office has not yet made a 

determination for 1 jurisdiction that submitted a package. 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 are among the greatest challenges to implementation. 

For example, officials from 27 nonimplemented jurisdictions reported reconciling 

conflicts between SORNA and state laws—such as which offenses should 

require registration—as a challenge to implementing SORNA. Officials from 5 of 

18 jurisdictions that responded to a survey question asking how DOJ could help 

address these challenges reported that the SMART Office could provide greater 

flexibilities; however, SMART Office officials said they have offered as many 

flexibilities as possible and further changes would take legislative action. 

A few studies have been conducted on the effects of certain SORNA 

requirements on jurisdictions and registered sex offenders, but GAO did not find 

any that evaluated the effects on public safety following SORNA implementation; 

stakeholders reported both positive and negative effects as a result of 

implementing the law. Officials from 4 of 12 implementing jurisdictions who 

responded to the survey reported that one benefit was improved monitoring of 

registered sex offenders. Stakeholders also reported that SORNA resulted in 

enhanced information sharing on registered sex offenders between criminal 

justice components, in part through the use of certain databases that enable 

jurisdictions to share information with one another. Stakeholders and survey 

respondents also identified negative or unintended consequences of 

implementing SORNA. For example, officials from three of five state agencies 

and all eight of the local law enforcement agencies GAO interviewed stated that 

their workload has increased, in part because of the increased frequency at 

which sex offenders must update their registration information as a result of the 

act. Officials from a majority of the public defender and probation offices also 

said that SORNA implementation has made it more difficult for registered sex 

offenders to obtain housing and employment, which can negatively affect their 

ability to reintegrate into their communities. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) 

is statutorily required to study SORNA’s effectiveness in increasing compliance 

with requirements and the effect of these requirements on increasing public 

safety. As of December 2012, DOJ had not requested the funding to conduct this 

study and the funding had not been appropriated. NIJ officials stated that NIJ 

does not proactively request funding for specific studies, but waits for Congress 

to decide when to appropriate the funding. Neither DOJ nor the Administrative 

Office of the United States Courts provided written comments on this report. View GAO-13-211. For more information, 

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

or larencee@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-13-211 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

Letter 1 

Background 6

DOJ Has Determined That 19 of 56 Jurisdictions Have Substantially 

Implemented SORNA; Other Jurisdictions Reported Political 

Will and Legal Barriers as Challenges 13

Stakeholders Reported Improvements in Jurisdictions’ Ability to 

Share Information and Monitor Offenders but Had Mixed Views 

on Effects on Resources and Sex Offenders 23

Agency Comments 33

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 35

Appendix II SORNA Substantial Implementation Checklist Tool 40

Appendix III Deviations Allowed by the SMART Office in Jurisdictions That 

Have Substantially Implemented SORNA 42

Appendix IV SORNA Requirements Met by Nonimplemented Jurisdictions 

That Submitted Complete Implementation Packages for 

SMART Office Review 44

Appendix V Challenges to Implementing SORNA Reported by Survey 

Respondents from Nonimplemented Jurisdictions 45

Appendix VI Department of Justice Written Guidance Addressing 

Challenges with Substantially Implementing SORNA 47

Appendix VII U. S. Marshals Service Investigations and U.S. Attorneys’ 

Offices Prosecutions of SORNA Violations 48

Contents 
Page ii GAO-13-211 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

Appendix VIII GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 50

Tables

Table 1: Key Differences between the Wetterling Act and the Sex 

Offender Registration and Notification Act 8

Table 2: Challenges Nonimplemented Jurisdictions Most 

Frequently Reported with Regard to Substantially 

Implementing the Sex Offender Registration and 

Notification Act 19

Table 3: Selected Stakeholder Perspectives on Effects of 

Implementing the Sex Offender Registration and 

Notification Act 26

Table 4: Titles and Descriptions of the 14 Sections of the Sex 

Offender Registration and Notification Act Substantial 

Implementation Checklist Tool and Implementation 

Reports 40

Table 5: Department of Justice Written Guidance to Jurisdictions 

That Addressed Their Specific Challenges in Substantially 

Implementing the Sex Offender Registration and 

Notification Act 47

Figures

Figure 1: Status of Substantial Implementation of the Sex Offender 

Registration and Notification Act, as of November 2012 14

Figure 2: Extent to Which 17 Jurisdictions Have Substantially 

Implemented Sections of the Sex Offender Registration 

and Notification Act Requirements 17

Figure 3: Number of Sections of Requirements in Which 

Substantially Implemented Jurisdictions Have Allowable 

Deviations 42

Figure 4: Number of Substantially Implemented Jurisdictions with 

Allowable Deviations, by Section of Requirements 43

Figure 5: Number of Sections of Requirements Met by 

Nonimplemented Jurisdictions That Submitted Complete 

Implementation Packages for Review, as of December 

2012 44

Figure 6: Number of Survey Respondents from NonImplemented 

Jurisdictions That Reported Experiencing Major and 
Page iii GAO-13-211 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

Minor Challenges in Efforts to Substantially Implement 

the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act 46

Figure 7: Total Number of Closed U.S. Marshals Service 

Investigations, Fiscal Years 2007-2011 48

Figure 8: Total Number of Defendants in Closed Failure-to-Register 

Cases Prosecuted by U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, Fiscal Years 

2007-2011 49

Abbreviations

ACLU American Civil Liberties Union

Byrne JAG Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant

CURE Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants

DOJ Department of Justice

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation

NCIC National Crime Information Center

NIJ National Institute of Justice

NSOPW Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender Public Website

NSOR National Sex Offender Registry

OJP Office of Justice Programs

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

USAO U.S. Attorneys’ Offices

View GAO-13-234SP Key Components

SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION ACT: Survey of 

States and Territories on Implementation of the Act (GAO-13-234SP), an 

e-supplement to GAO-13-211

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-13-211 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

February 7, 2013

The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner

Chairman 

The Honorable Robert C. Scott

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security

Committee on the Judiciary

House of Representatives

Sex offenses are fairly common in the United States and largely go 

unrecognized and underreported. Studies estimate that about 1 in every 5 

girls and 1 in every 7 to 10 boys are sexually abused by the time they 

reach adulthood, and about 1 in 6 adult women and 1 in 33 adult men 

experience an attempted or completed sexual assault.1 In the wake of 

several tragic attacks in 2005 in which young children were kidnapped, 

sexually assaulted, and murdered, public and congressional attention 

became increasingly focused on what was described as the growing 

epidemic of sexual violence against children. Attention was also focused 

on the fact that sex offender registration and notification programs in the 

United States consisted of a combination of 50 individual state 

registration systems that lacked uniformity and effective operation.2 Citing

a need to address loopholes and deficiencies in individual state 

registration programs that made it possible for convicted sex offenders to 

move from one jurisdiction to another and evade registration 

requirements, in 2006, Congress passed and the President signed the 

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

Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act (Adam Walsh Act).3

 

1

David Finkelhor, “Current Information on the Scope and Nature of Child Sexual Abuse,” 

Sexual Abuse of Children, vol. 4, no. 2 (1994): 31-53. P. Tjaden and N. Thoennes, Extent, 

Nature, and Consequences of Rape Victimization: Findings from the National Violence 

Against Women Survey. Special Report. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 

Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, 2006).

SORNA 

sought to introduce comprehensive standards to make state and territory 

2

Sex offender registration programs are systems that law enforcement agencies and other 

authorities use to maintain and track certain identifying information about convicted sex 

offenders following their release into the community. Registration also provides the 

informational base for the other key aspect of these programs—notification—which 

involves making information about released sex offenders more broadly available to the 

public.

3

Pub. L. No. 109-248, 120 Stat. 587 (2006).

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-211 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

sex offender registration systems more uniform, and to create and include 

tribal sex offender registration systems. 

SORNA established the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, 

Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (SMART Office) within the 

Department of Justice (DOJ) to both assist jurisdictions in implementing 

the act, such as by providing technical assistance and grant funds, and 

administer the standards for determining whether jurisdictions have 

“substantially implemented” the law.4 The initial deadline for 

implementation of SORNA was July 2009—3 years after the date of 

enactment of the Adam Walsh Act. 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 2011.5

Considering the status of implementation and these differing 

perspectives, you asked us to assess the status of jurisdictions’ efforts to 

implement SORNA and the effect that implementation has had in those 

jurisdictions that have substantially implemented the law. Specifically, this 

report addresses the following questions: 

For many

jurisdictions, complying with the act’s guidelines requires significant 

legislative changes. Some who question the impact of these laws on the 

criminal justice system and the effectiveness of sex offender registration 

and notification requirements in increasing public safety have strongly 

opposed these changes. 

• To what extent has the SMART Office determined that jurisdictions 

have met the requirements for substantial implementation of SORNA, 

and what challenges, if any, have jurisdictions faced in implementing 

the act?

 

4

The term “substantial implementation” is not defined in the Adam Walsh Act. However, 

SORNA delegated to the Attorney General the authority to determine whether a 

jurisdiction has failed to substantially implement the act (see 42 U.S.C. §16925). The 

SORNA National Guidelines for Sex Offender Registration and Notification, issued in July 

2008, interpret the “substantial implementation” standard as being satisfied if a jurisdiction 

implements measures identified in the National Guidelines as sufficient to implement, or 

“substantially” implement, the SORNA requirements. The National Guidelines further 

clarify that the SMART Office is responsible for determining whether a jurisdiction has 

sufficiently implemented measures to have substantially implemented SORNA.

5

See 42 U.S.C. § 16924(b).
 

Page 3 GAO-13-211 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

• For jurisdictions that have substantially implemented SORNA, what 

are the reported effects that the act has had on public safety, criminal 

justice stakeholders, and registered sex offenders?

For this report, we assessed SORNA implementation efforts for the 50 

states, the 5 principal U.S. territories (American Samoa, Guam, the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the 

U.S. Virgin Islands), and the District of Columbia. We did not include 

federally recognized Indian tribes eligible under the act’s provisions as 

part of this review because of the unique challenges tribes face in 

implementing SORNA compared with the states, territories, and the 

District of Columbia. For example, most tribes did not have a sex offender 

registry in place prior to SORNA. We plan to analyze implementation 

efforts for eligible tribal jurisdictions in a separate review and issue the 

results no later than 2014.

To address the first objective, we analyzed reports that the SMART Office 

prepared from September 2009 through September 2012 for jurisdictions 

that submitted packages on their implementation efforts to the office for 

review. For those jurisdictions that the office determined to have 

substantially implemented SORNA, we identified areas where the office 

has allowed for flexibility in meeting the act’s requirements. For the 

remaining jurisdictions, we identified which requirements the office 

determined these jurisdictions had met and which they had not met. We 

then analyzed this information to identify any patterns across these 

requirements. To identify the types and prevalence of any challenges 

jurisdictions have faced in implementing SORNA, we surveyed jurisdiction 

officials the SMART Office identified as being responsible for 

implementing the act in the 50 states, 5 U.S. territories, and the District of 

Columbia. These officials included representatives of state police 

departments or attorney general offices. For jurisdictions that have not 

substantially implemented SORNA, we used the survey to determine to 

what extent jurisdiction officials are actively working to do so. We also 

used the survey to identify what actions, if any, jurisdictions are taking or 

that the federal government could take to address implementation 

challenges. Additionally, we used the survey to obtain jurisdiction 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 received responses from 93 percent (52 of 56) of all 

jurisdictions surveyed, including 100 percent (19 of 19) of jurisdictions 
 

Page 4 GAO-13-211 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

that have been determined by the office to have substantially 

implemented the act and 89 percent (33 of 37) of jurisdictions that have 

not substantially implemented it.

6 Not all survey respondents provided 

answers to all survey questions.7

To address the second objective, we conducted site visits or interviewed 

officials from a nonprobability sample of five jurisdictions that the SMART 

Office determined to have substantially implemented SORNA—the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Florida, Louisiana, 

Maryland, and Ohio. We selected these jurisdictions to represent a range 

in the number of registered sex offenders per 100,000 residents and the 

year that the jurisdiction substantially implemented the act. In each 

jurisdiction, we interviewed officials representing components of the 

criminal justice system who are involved in implementing or enforcing 

SORNA requirements. Specifically, at the federal level, we interviewed 

officials from Federal Probation and Pretrial Services, Federal Public 

Defenders Offices, U.S. Attorneys’ Offices (USAO), and the U.S. 

Marshals Service. At the state and local levels, we interviewed officials 

responsible for implementing the act, as well as law enforcement officers, 

prosecutors, public defenders, and adult and juvenile probation and 

parole officials. While these officials’ perspectives on the effects of 

SORNA cannot be generalized to all substantially implemented 

jurisdictions, they provided insights into the effects of the act’s

implementation. 

We also analyzed DOJ reports to 

Congress on the status of SORNA implementation nationwide and related 

guidance documents and implementation tools the SMART Office 

prepared in support of jurisdictions’ efforts. These included the National 

Guidelines and Supplemental Guidelines for Sex Offender Registration 

and Notification. Furthermore, we interviewed officials from the office to 

identify and describe the types of assistance provided to jurisdictions in 

support of implementation and to solicit their perspectives on the issues 

and challenges jurisdictions in our survey identified. 

To supplement information obtained during the site visits, we included 

questions in our nationwide survey of jurisdiction officials about the types 

and prevalence of effects observed or expected from implementing 

 

6

We did not receive survey responses from the following jurisdictions: American Samoa, 

New Hampshire, Oregon, and Washington.

7

An electronic supplement to this report—GAO-13-234SP (February 2013)—provides 

survey results.
 

Page 5 GAO-13-211 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

SORNA and whether they were positive or negative. We also selected 

relevant national associations and organizations, such as the American 

Civil Liberties Union and the National Center for Missing and Exploited 

Children, based on factors such as whether they had testified before 

Congress on the effects of SORNA. We interviewed representatives from 

these organizations to obtain their perspectives on the effects of SORNA 

implementation in various areas. We also sought to identify studies on the 

effect of the act’s requirements in jurisdictions that have implemented the 

law. Specifically, we searched various databases, reviewed related GAO 

reports, and corresponded with recognized experts on sex offender 

registration and notification policies. As a result, we identified five studies 

that assessed certain aspects of SORNA requirements. We also identified 

an analysis that evaluated the results of seven studies in selected states 

on the effect of sex offender registration and notification, in general, on 

recidivism among sex offenders.8

We conducted this performance audit from January 2012 through 

February 2013 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 

We assessed the evaluation 

methodologies of these studies against generally accepted social science 

standards and confirmed that the studies’ methods were reasonable for 

our purposes. We also analyzed other documents, such as a U.S. 

Marshals Service training manual, and data related to federal 

enforcement of the SORNA requirements. Specifically, we analyzed 

trends in federal investigations and prosecutions of failure-to-register 

violations from fiscal years 2007 to 2011. We assessed the reliability of 

these data by interviewing staff responsible for the data or by reviewing

relevant documentation, and determined that these data were sufficiently 

reliable for the purposes of this report. To the extent relevant data were 

available from the locations where we conducted our site visits, such as 

the number of failure-to-register violations or information contained in 

individual jurisdictions’ sex offender registries, we used these data in this 

report primarily for contextual purposes. 

 

8

Recidivism is the act of relapsing into a problem or criminal behavior during or after 

receiving sanctions, or while undergoing an intervention because of a previous behavior or 

crime. In criminal justice settings, recidivism is often measured by criminal acts that result 

in rearrest, reconviction, or return to prison.
 

Page 6 GAO-13-211 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Appendix I 

includes more details about our scope and methodology.

The practice of requiring criminal offenders to register certain identifying 

information with law enforcement agencies began in the 1930s in 

response to the increased mobility of criminals upon their release. At the 

time, offender registries were viewed primarily as tools for law 

enforcement personnel, who needed a way of keeping track of high-risk 

offenders. Registries were generally operated at the local level and 

primarily targeted gangsters. According to the Vera Institute of Justice, in 

1937, Florida enacted the first statewide registration law for certain felons, 

and in 1947 California passed the first state registration law that focused 

specifically on sex offenders. By the end of the 1980s, a number of states 

had enacted sex offender registration laws. In response to a number of 

high-profile child abductions, sexual assaults, and murders, states have 

steadily expanded laws to create registration systems that focused 

specifically on sex offenders since the early 1990s. 

In 1994, the federal government responded to the increase in state sex 

offense registries by enacting the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against 

Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act (Wetterling Act).9

 

9

Pub. L. No. 103-322, tit. XVII, subtit. A, 108 Stat. 1796, 2038-42 (1994).

This act 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 

Background 

Evolution of Sex Offender 

Registration and 

Notification Legislation 
 

Page 7 GAO-13-211 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

programs.10 For example, the act was amended in 1996 to provide for the 

public dissemination of information from states’ sex offender registries 

and in 2003 to require states to maintain websites containing registry 

information. 

Signed into law on July 27, 2006, on the 25th anniversary of the 

abduction and murder of a 6-year-old boy in Hollywood, Florida, the 

Adam Walsh Act is intended to protect children from sexual exploitation 

and violent crime. The act is also intended to prevent child abuse and 

child pornography, to promote Internet safety, and to honor the memory 

of Adam Walsh and other child crime victims. The purpose of Title I of the 

Adam Walsh Act, or SORNA, is to protect the public from sex offenders 

and those who offend against children by repealing the Wetterling Act 

standards and establishing in their place a comprehensive set of sex 

offender registration and notification standards. These standards are 

designed to address gaps in individual state registration programs 

resulting from variations across states’ laws, policies, and informationsharing and technology systems. These standards encompass the results 

of prior legislative developments but also extend and supplement them, 

with the main differences from the Wetterling Act and its subsequent 

amendments summarized in table 1.

 

10Key legislative amendments were enacted by Megan’s Law, Pub. L. No. 104-145, 110 

Stat. 1345 (1996); the Pam Lychner Sex Offender Tracking and Notification 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, of 2003, Pub. L. No. 108-21, 117 Stat. 650.

SORNA Requirements
 

Page 8 GAO-13-211 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

Table 1: Key Differences between the Wetterling Act and the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

Requirement Wetterling Act, as amended SORNA

Covered 

jurisdictions

• Covered the states, the District of 

Columbia, and the principal territories

• Expands covered jurisdictions to include federally recognized 

tribal jurisdictions.a

Registerable 

offenses

• Covered offenses involving adult 

victims but generally limited to assaults 

involving sexual acts, such as rape

• Covered offenses against child victims 

that involved sexual acts and sexual 

contact, but did not include certain 

other offenses, such as possession of 

child pornography

• Requires juveniles convicted of 

covered offenses as adults to register

• Expands covered offenses involving adult victims to include 

crimes for which the elements involve sexual contact, as well 

as sexual acts. 

• Expands the covered offenses involving children. 

• Expands juvenile registration requirements to include juveniles 

adjudicated delinquent for certain aggravated sex offenses 

who were 14 or older at the time of the offense.

Classification 

requirements for 

sex offenders

• Distinguished between (1) sex 

offenders subject to lifetime 

registration, such as recidivists and 

those convicted of aggravated 

offenses, and (2) other sex offenders 

subject to a 10-year minimum 

registration requirement

• Provides a three-tier gradation based on the convicted sex 

offense or recidivism: 

• Tier III: Requires lifetime registration for convicted offenses in 

the most serious class, such as rape or sexual contact 

offenses against children under 13. 

• Tier II: Requires 25-year registration for convicted offenses, 

including most felonious sexual abuse or sexual exploitation 

crimes with victims who are minors.

• Tier I: Requires 15-year registration for convicted offenses that 

do not support a higher classification, such as simple 

possession of child pornography.

Periodic 

appearance 

requirement

• At least annual verification of a 

residence address; did not specify 

means of verification or require inperson appearances

• Requires in-person appearances (Tier I annually, Tier II 

semiannually, and Tier III quarterly) at established registration 

locations to update or verify registration information.

Required 

registration 

information

• Required residence address 

information, with relatively limited 

requirements for other types of 

information

• Requires name (including aliases used), residence 

information, employment and school information, physical 

description and photograph, criminal history, fingerprints, palm 

prints, Internet identifiers,b and a DNA sample, among other 

elements.

Sex offender 

website

• Required the establishment of sex 

offender websites; left to states’ 

discretion which sex offenders and 

what information would be posted

• Generally all information, subject to certain statutory 

exemptions and supplemental guidance, about each offender 

is to be made available on the Internet.c

• Includes specifications about search capabilities, such as by 

ZIP code, and search capabilities needed for participation in 

the national sex offender website.

Source: GAO analysis of the Wetterling Act, as amended, SORNA, and DOJ SMART Office documents. 

a

Pursuant to §127 of the Adam Walsh Act, 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. b

Examples of Internet identifiers are electronic mail addresses, instant message addresses/identifiers, 

or any other designations or monikers used for self-identification or purposes of routing in Internet 

communications or postings. c

SORNA established statutory exemptions for victim identities, offenders’ Social Security numbers, 

and references to arrests that did not result in convictions. See 42 U.S.C. § 16918(b). In addition, the 
 

Page 9 GAO-13-211 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual Predators Act of 2008 exempted offenders’ Internet identifiers 

from disclosure to the public. See 42 U.S.C. § 16915a(c).

Constitutional limits on the power of the federal government may prevent 

it from actually requiring states to implement specific registration and 

notification provisions. Instead, SORNA conditions receipt of federal 

Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne JAG) funds on 

implementation of its requirements.11 The act initially required that DOJ 

reduce Byrne JAG funds by 10 percent for those states that failed to 

substantially implement SORNA standards by July 27, 2009—3 years 

after the date of enactment of the Adam Walsh Act.

12 SORNA provides 

that DOJ is to redistribute Byrne JAG funds from nonimplemented

jurisdictions to jurisdictions that have substantially implemented the act. It

also authorizes nonimplemented jurisdictions to avoid losing 10 percent of 

their Byrne JAG funds if the jurisdictions agree to reallocate those funds 

solely for the purpose of working to implement SORNA standards.

The SMART Office. In administering the standards set forth in SORNA, 

the SMART Office is responsible for making determinations on whether 

covered jurisdictions have substantially implemented the minimum 

requirements of the law.13

 

11The Byrne JAG Program is the primary 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. Entities can use Byrne JAG funds to support all components of the 

criminal justice system to improve their effectiveness and efficiency, from 

multijurisdictional drug and gang task forces to crime prevention and domestic violence 

programs, courts, corrections, treatment, and justice information-sharing initiatives.

When making a substantial implementation 

determination, the office is required to follow the standards set forth (1) in 

12The Attorney General has since exercised his authority under the act to extend this 

deadline to July 27, 2011, first providing a blanket extension through July 27, 2010, and 

then granting an additional 1-year extension to jurisdictions upon request. See 42 U.S.C 

§ 16924(b). 

13The term “substantial implementation” is not defined in the Adam Walsh Act. However, 

SORNA did delegate to the Attorney General the authority to determine whether a 

jurisdiction has failed to substantially implement the act (see 42 U.S.C. §16925). The 

SORNA National Guidelines for Sex Offender Registration and Notification, issued in July 

2008, interpret the “substantial implementation” standard as being satisfied if a jurisdiction 

implements measures identified in the National Guidelines as sufficient to implement, or 

“substantially” implement, the SORNA requirements. The National Guidelines further 

clarify that the SMART Office is responsible for determining whether a jurisdiction has 

sufficiently implemented measures to have substantially implemented SORNA.

Federal Role in Sex 

Offender Registration and 

Notification 
 

Page 10 GAO-13-211 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

the act; (2) in the SORNA National Guidelines for Sex Offender 

Registration and Notification (National Guidelines), which were issued in 

July 2008; and (3) in the Supplemental Guidelines for Sex Offender 

Registration and Notification (Supplemental Guidelines), which were

issued in January 2011.

14

Each jurisdiction is to submit a comprehensive set of materials (which we 

refer to as a complete implementation package in this report) so as to 

allow an assigned SMART Office policy adviser to conduct a substantial 

implementation review. These materials can include applicable state 

statutes, codes, administrative policy and procedures manuals, and 

documentation of database or data-sharing systems and the jurisdiction’s 

public sex offender website. To assist covered jurisdictions, the SMART 

Office developed the SORNA Substantial Implementation Checklist tool 

that jurisdictions can use in developing, organizing, and submitting these 

materials for review. While not intended to be a definitive guide to full 

implementation requirements, the checklist is organized into 14 sections 

covering the major requirements of the act, which are described in detail 

in appendix II.

These guidelines state that DOJ cannot 

approve jurisdictions’ programs if they substitute a different approach to 

sex offender registration and notification that does not incorporate 

SORNA’s baseline requirements. Likewise, the SMART Office cannot 

approve implementation programs if they dispense wholesale with 

categorical requirements set forth in the act. The substantial 

implementation standard does allow for some latitude to approve a 

jurisdiction’s implementation efforts. As such, the National Guidelines 

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

jurisdictions’ rules or procedures implement SORNA. Accordingly, for 

each jurisdiction, the office must assess whether any deviations in a 

jurisdiction’s sex offender registration and notification program from a 

SORNA requirement will or will not substantially disserve the objectives of 

the requirement. As a result, according to the SMART Office, it must 

review each jurisdiction’s implementation program, sometimes iteratively. 

After reviewing a jurisdiction’s substantial implementation package, the 

SMART Office makes a determination as to whether a jurisdiction has 

substantially implemented SORNA by taking all of the jurisdiction’s efforts 

into account. The result is a Substantial Implementation Review report, 

 

1473 Fed. Reg. 38,030, 38,044-70 (July 2, 2008); 76 Fed. Reg. 1630, 1636-39 

(Jan. 11, 2011).
 

Page 11 GAO-13-211 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

which, similar to the checklist tool, is organized into 14 sections.15

Other federal agencies. The national sex offender registration system is 

composed of a national database and a national website that compiles 

information obtained under the registration programs of the states and 

other jurisdictions and make it readily available to law enforcement or the 

public on a nationwide basis. The national registry database is called the 

National Sex Offender Registry (NSOR), which is part of the National 

Crime Information Center (NCIC), and is operated by the Federal Bureau 

of Investigation (FBI). The database is accessible to law enforcement but 

not to the public.

Each 

report delineates, by section, where a jurisdiction may meet, not meet, or 

deviate in some way from all of the SORNA requirements. Where the 

office finds that a jurisdiction has deviated in some way, the determination 

report states whether that deviation does or does not substantially 

disserve the purposes of the requirements of that section. For a 

jurisdiction to have substantially implemented SORNA, the SMART Office 

must determine that any and all deviations from the requirements in each 

section do not substantially disserve the purposes of the law, and that a 

jurisdiction has substantially implemented all 14 sections of requirements 

as outlined in the checklist tool.

16

The responsibility for implementing various elements of SORNA is also 

assigned to other components within DOJ. Under the authority of the 

Adam Walsh Act, DOJ has designated the U.S. Marshals Service as the 

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

The national website is the Office of Justice Programs’ 

(OJP) Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender Public Website (NSOPW), which 

is an online portal linked to all states’ public sex offender registries. Using 

this website, members of the public can access information on sex 

offenders in any of the states’ individual public registries. State and local 

authorities that conduct and manage sex offender registration and 

notification activities are exclusively responsible for the inclusion, 

accuracy, and integrity of the information in the national registries. 

 

15If a jurisdiction has a tribe or tribes located within its boundaries that have elected to 

implement SORNA, the SMART Office also requests that these jurisdictions submit 

additional information as part of the complete implementation package materials. In these 

instances, the SMART Office provides a Substantial Implementation Review report that 

includes an additional section titled “Tribal Considerations.”

16NCIC is an information system that provides law enforcement agencies with around-theclock access to federal, state, and local crime data, including criminal record histories and 

wanted and missing person records.
 

Page 12 GAO-13-211 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

territorial authorities in the location and apprehension of noncompliant sex 

offenders; to investigate violations of the criminal provisions of the act; 

and to identify and locate sex offenders displaced as a result of a major 

disaster. Under the criminal provisions of the act, USAOs can pursue 

charges against sex offenders who are not in compliance with registration 

requirements resulting from prior federal convictions, as well as the law of 

the District of Columbia, Indian tribal law, or the law of any territory or 

possession of the United States. In addition, USAOs can pursue federal 

charges against sex offenders who are not in compliance with registration 

requirements resulting from state convictions if those offenders travel in 

interstate or foreign commerce or enter, leave, or reside in Indian 

country.

17

 

17Pursuant to § 2250 of title 18 of the U.S. Code, someone required to register under 

SORNA who either (1) travels in interstate or foreign commerce (or enters, leaves, or 

resides in Indian country) and knowingly fails to register or update a registration as 

required by SORNA or (2) falls under the SORNA definition of “sex offender” as a result of 

a conviction under federal law (including the Uniform Code of Military Justice), the law of 

the District of Columbia, Indian tribal law, or the law of any territory or possession of the 

United States, and knowingly fails to register or update a registration as required by 

SORNA can be fined under title 18 or imprisoned for up to 10 years, or both. 
 

Page 13 GAO-13-211 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

As of November 2012, 37 of 56 jurisdictions had submitted complete 

implementation packages for review, and the SMART Office has 

determined that 19 of those jurisdictions (16 states and 3 territories) have 

substantially implemented SORNA and another 17 have not, as shown in 

figure 1.18

 

18One jurisdiction, Puerto Rico, had submitted a complete implementation package to the 

SMART Office for review but a final determination on this jurisdiction had not yet been 

made as of November 2012. 

DOJ Has Determined 

That 19 of 56 

Jurisdictions Have 

Substantially 

Implemented SORNA; 

Other Jurisdictions 

Reported Political 

Will and Legal 

Barriers as Challenges 

DOJ Has Determined That 

19 Jurisdictions Have 

Substantially Implemented 

SORNA and Another 17 

Have Implemented More 

than Half of the Act’s 

Requirements
 

Page 14 GAO-13-211 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

Figure 1: Status of Substantial Implementation of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, as of November 2012 

Note: In administering the standards set forth in SORNA, the SMART Office is responsible for making 

determinations on whether covered jurisdictions have substantially implemented the minimum 

requirements of the law. While the term “substantial implementation” is not defined in the Adam 

Walsh Act, SORNA delegated to the Attorney General the authority to determine whether a 
 

Page 15 GAO-13-211 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

jurisdiction has failed to substantially implement the act (see 42 U.S.C. §16925) and the SORNA 

National Guidelines for Sex Offender Registration and Notification, issued in July 2008, further clarify 

that the SMART Office is responsible for determining whether a jurisdiction has sufficiently 

implemented measures to have substantially implemented SORNA. Each jurisdiction is to submit a 

comprehensive set of materials (which we refer to as a complete implementation package in this 

report) so as to allow an assigned SMART Office policy adviser to conduct a substantial 

implementation review. These materials can include applicable state statutes, codes, administrative 

policy and procedures manuals, and documentation of database or data-sharing systems and the 

jurisdiction’s public sex offender website.

According to the SMART Office, even though these jurisdictions have 

“substantially implemented” the act, not all of them have “fully 

implemented” the law given that most of these jurisdictions still deviate 

from certain requirements—that is, the jurisdiction does not exactly follow 

the act or the guidelines in all respects. Specifically, 18 of the 19 

substantially implemented jurisdictions deviate in some way from 

SORNA’s requirements, including 4 jurisdictions that deviate in 7 or more

of the 14 sections of requirements as outlined in the checklist tool. (See 

app. II for a description of the 14 sections.) According to the office, the 

substantial implementation standard allows it some latitude to approve a 

jurisdiction’s implementation efforts that deviate from SORNA as long as 

the deviation does not “substantially disserve,” or undermine, the intent of 

the act’s requirement. For example, while one of the substantially 

implemented jurisdictions does not include employer address, school 

address, or vehicle information of offenders on its public registry website, 

as SORNA requires, the jurisdiction does provide the public instructions 

on its website on how to access this information. The SMART Office 

determined that this deviation does not substantially disserve the purpose 

of this requirement of the act. Substantially implemented jurisdictions 

most frequently deviated from the following requirements: the information 

offenders must provide at registration, tiering of offenses, retroactive 

application of the requirements, and offenses that a jurisdiction must 

include in its sex offender registry. Officials from SMART explained that 

these requirements, in particular, contain many different components, and 

as a result, a jurisdiction is unlikely to fully implement all of them. For 

example, SORNA lists 22 categories of information sex offenders must 

provide at registration, and many of these categories have subcategories. 

(See app. III for more information on the deviations the SMART Office 

allowed for jurisdictions that have substantially implemented SORNA.) 

Although the SMART Office determined that the remaining 17 states and 

territories that submitted complete implementation packages for review 

have not yet substantially implemented SORNA, the office concluded that 

15 of these 17 jurisdictions have implemented at least half of the 14 

sections of requirements outlined in the checklist tool. For example, all 17 
 

Page 16 GAO-13-211 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

of these jurisdictions met the sections of SORNA that require jurisdictions 

to prescribe where a sex offender is required to register (i.e., the 

jurisdictions in which the sex offender resides, works, and goes to school) 

and impose a criminal penalty for sex offenders who fail to comply with 

registration requirements. Conversely, these 17 jurisdictions least 

frequently met those requirements contained in the following categories

related to 

• maintaining a public website that provides certain information on sex 

offenders, such as an offender’s employer address or vehicle 

information (4 jurisdictions met); 

• specifying the types of offenses and offenders that must be included 

in a jurisdiction’s sex offender registry, such as both adults and 

juveniles that have committed certain sex offenses (5 jurisdictions

met); and

• specifying that sex offenders must register for certain periods of time 

and make a certain number of in-person appearances each year at a 

registering agency based on the tier of the offense for which the 

person was convicted (8 jurisdictions met). 

Figure 2 provides an overview of the extent to which the 17 jurisdictions 

have implemented the 14 sections of SORNA requirements. (See app. IV 

for more information on which sections of SORNA requirements these 17 

jurisdictions have substantially implemented.) 
 

Page 17 GAO-13-211 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

Figure 2: Extent to Which 17 Jurisdictions Have Substantially Implemented 

Sections of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act Requirements

Note: These 17 jurisdictions submitted complete implementation packages for review, and the 

SMART Office determined that they have not yet substantially implemented SORNA. 

Officials from 11 of the remaining 19 jurisdictions that have not submitted 

a complete implementation package for SMART Office review responded 

to our survey that they are actively working to substantially implement the 

requirements of SORNA. Officials from 7 of the remaining 8 jurisdictions 

responded that they are not actively working to substantially implement 

the act’s requirements because of various challenges, which we discuss 
 

Page 18 GAO-13-211 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

later in this report.

19 Officials from 2 of the 19 jurisdictions reported that 

they plan to submit an implementation package to the SMART Office for 

review in calendar year 2013, and officials from 9 other jurisdictions 

responded that they did not know when an implementation package may 

be submitted.20 For example, an official from 1 of these jurisdictions 

responded that a time frame has not been set for submitting an 

implementation package because the staff is engaged in ongoing 

upgrades to the registration program and has not yet accomplished 

required legislative changes. 

Officials from 29 of the 33 nonimplemented jurisdictions that responded to 

our survey questions on challenges to implementing SORNA reported 

that their jurisdictions faced challenges. Officials from all but 4 of the 29 

jurisdictions stated that these challenges were keeping their jurisdictions 

from substantially implementing the law.21 Jurisdictions and DOJ have 

taken actions, and Congress has considered legislation, to address some 

or all of these challenges, but jurisdictions identified additional steps that 

DOJ or Congress could take to help address their challenges. Table 2 

describes the challenges these jurisdictions most frequently reported, and 

appendix V provides additional information on all of the reported 

challenges.

 

19One of the remaining 19 jurisdictions that have not submitted a complete implementation 

package for SMART Office review, American Samoa, did not submit responses to our 

survey. According to the SMART Office, however, as of September 2012, American 

Samoa was in the process of drafting legislation related to implementation of SORNA 

requirements.

20Not all survey respondents provided answers to all survey questions. In addition to 

American Samoa’s not responding to the survey, officials from another 7 jurisdictions were 

not asked the question about when they planned to submit an implementation package 

because they had reported that they were not actively working to implement SORNA. 21Officials from 29 nonimplemented jurisdictions reported 3 to 13 challenges to their 

jurisdiction’s efforts to substantially implement SORNA. However, the number of 

challenges reported does not indicate a jurisdiction’s progress toward substantial 

implementation. 

Jurisdictions Reported 

Several Challenges in 

Implementing SORNA
 

Page 19 GAO-13-211 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

Table 2: Challenges Nonimplemented Jurisdictions Most Frequently Reported with Regard to Substantially Implementing the 

Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

Reported challenge

Number of survey respondents 

reporting challenge Example of challenge from survey respondents

Reconciling conflicts between state 

laws and SORNA

27 of 30 Under one jurisdiction’s current law, juveniles adjudicated 

delinquent for sex offenses are not subject to registration, 

whereas SORNA requires registration of juveniles 

adjudicated delinquent for offenses committed when they 

were age 14 or older that are at least as severe as 

aggravated sexual abuse.a

Generating the political will to 

implement the necessary changes

25 of 28 One jurisdiction reported that state policymakers were 

unwilling to enact legislative changes that would require 

juveniles adjudicated delinquent for certain sex offenses to 

register as sex offenders.

Applying the requirements 

retroactively

24 of 30 One jurisdiction reported that applying SORNA 

requirements retroactively would increase the number of 

registered sex offenders in the jurisdiction’s registry, which, 

as of July 2012, is nearly 100,000, and thereby pose a 

major budgetary challenge for local law enforcement 

agencies to include these offenders in the registry.

Covering the costs associated with 

implementation of SORNA

23 of 27 One jurisdiction reported that implementing SORNA would 

require an investment of an estimated $23.8 million to 

provide scanners to digitize registry information as well as 

purchase sex offender registration software for each local 

jurisdiction. Officials from this jurisdiction also said that 

ongoing budgetary constraints negatively affected their 

ability to implement SORNA requirements.

Applying the conviction-based tiering 

structure 

23 of 28 One jurisdiction reported that conviction-based tiering 

would result in a less accurate depiction of the risk posed 

by registered sex offenders than the jurisdiction’s current 

practice of tiering offenders based on their risk of 

reoffending. Consequently, the jurisdiction elected not to 

implement this requirement or achieve substantial 

implementation.

Applying the juvenile registration 

requirements

21 of 30 One jurisdiction reported choosing to not amend its laws to 

include juvenile registration after a working group found no 

evidence that the current system in place to address the 

most serious and violent juvenile sex offenders is not 

functioning adequately. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey responses.

Note: Some jurisdictions either answered “don’t know” or did not provide an answer regarding 

whether they experienced certain challenges; so each item does not total 33. a

“Adjudicated delinquent” refers to offenses prosecuted in juvenile court; SORNA requires registration 

for all juveniles tried and convicted of sex offenses in adult court.

In addition to the challenges they reported above, officials from 22 of the 

33 nonimplemented jurisdictions responding to our survey reported that 

the criteria the SMART Office uses to determine substantial 

implementation are somewhat or not at all clear, although 6 had 
 

Page 20 GAO-13-211 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

submitted packages.

22

Officials who responded to our survey identified actions their jurisdictions 

were taking to address implementation challenges. The most frequent 

action officials noted (10) was meeting and collaborating with 

stakeholders. For example, 1 jurisdiction’s senate created a special 

legislative commission composed of state-level designees from various 

components of the jurisdiction’s criminal justice system to study and 

report on the legal, fiscal, and policy implications of implementing the 

SORNA requirements. In addition, officials from 4 nonimplemented 

jurisdictions reported that they have proposed necessary legislative or 

policy changes that they believe would enable the jurisdiction to 

substantially implement the act.

Officials from the SMART Office presented 

reasons why jurisdictions may have responded in this manner. First, 

jurisdictions may have taken all of the steps toward substantial 

implementation they can—except for implementing requirements that the 

jurisdiction fundamentally disagrees with, such as applying the 

requirements retroactively—and believe that these efforts should be 

sufficient for substantial implementation. Second, jurisdictions’ 

understanding of substantial implementation is dependent on the extent 

to which they interact with the SMART Office policy adviser assigned to 

their jurisdiction; and jurisdictions interact more frequently with the policy 

adviser once they have submitted a package. Furthermore, to increase 

jurisdictions’ understanding of the substantial implementation process, as 

of September 2012, the SMART Office posted copies of all the reports for 

those jurisdictions that substantially implemented SORNA on its website. 

Senior officials from the SMART Office said this should help other 

jurisdictions better understand what the office requires for substantial 

implementation and where it has allowed deviations from the 

requirements.

DOJ has also taken steps to address challenges jurisdictions faced in 

their efforts to substantially implement SORNA, primarily by providing 

guidance and funding. In particular, senior officials from the SMART 

Office reported that they communicated to all nonimplemented 

jurisdictions that they are available to explain the act’s requirements to 

policy stakeholders—and have done so, in person, in 11 jurisdictions—to 

 

22Officials from 7 jurisdictions stated that the criteria the SMART Office uses to determine 

substantial implementation were very clear, and officials from 4 jurisdictions stated that 

they did not know. 
 

Page 21 GAO-13-211 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

aid jurisdictions’ efforts to reconcile SORNA and state laws.23

In addition, in fiscal year 2012, DOJ awarded 11 of the 37 

nonimplemented jurisdictions a total of $3.1 million through the Adam 

Walsh Act Implementation Grant Program to assist jurisdictions with 

implementing SORNA’s requirements.

Specifically, 

DOJ released National Guidelines in July 2008 and Supplemental 

Guidelines in January 2011, which were intended to help address 

challenges with applying the act’s requirements retroactively, 

implementing a conviction-based tiering structure, and implementing the 

juvenile requirements, among other things. See appendix VI for additional 

details regarding this guidance.

24 In applying for this grant, 

nonimplemented jurisdictions most frequently planned to use this funding 

to acquire information technology, such as electronic sex offender 

registration software; purchase equipment, such as a system that 

captures fingerprints, palm prints, and photographs, which SORNA 

requires; and fund additional personnel. Moreover, the SMART Office 

received and approved requests from 34 of the 39 nonimplemented 

jurisdictions as of July 27, 2011, to reallocate the 10 percent of their 

Byrne JAG funding—funding that they would have otherwise lost—to 

implement SORNA requirements.25 For example, jurisdictions could have 

used this funding to meet costs associated with applying the requirements 

retroactively.

26

Jurisdictions identified additional steps that DOJ or Congress could take 

to help address their challenges. Specifically, 5 of 18 jurisdictions that 

responded to a survey question asking how DOJ could help address 

these challenges reported that the SMART Office could provide greater 

flexibility. For example, one respondent reported that allowing additional 

flexibility in applying the SORNA requirements retroactively would lessen 

the jurisdiction’s burden with related litigation and operational deficiencies 

such as hiring additional personnel to register sex offenders convicted 

prior to SORNA. According to officials from the SMART Office, they have 

 

 

23The SMART Office has also provided guidance to jurisdictions on how to address 

challenges during workshops, video conferences, and teleconferences. 

24In fiscal year 2012, DOJ also awarded $3.4 million to 12 of the 19 substantially 

implemented jurisdictions through the Adam Walsh Act Implementation Grant Program. 

25The SMART Office determined that an additional 2 jurisdictions substantially 

implemented SORNA between July 27, 2011, and September 2012. 

26Five of these jurisdictions did not apply for the Byrne JAG reallocation. 
 

Page 22 GAO-13-211 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

offered as many flexibilities to jurisdictions as they can think of within the 

framework that established SORNA and its guidelines, but they remain 

open to receiving submissions from jurisdictions proposing alternative 

methods for meeting the purpose of any particular SORNA requirement. 

These officials stated that, in their experience, funding the costs 

associated with retroactive application of SORNA is the true barrier to 

implementation for many jurisdictions that report challenges with this 

section of requirements. These officials added that, as new grant funding 

is made available and Byrne JAG funding is reallocated each year, these 

jurisdictions should have less of a challenge with applying the SORNA 

requirements retroactively. Officials stated that for other jurisdictions, 

however, the retroactive application of SORNA is more of a policy 

challenge in that some do not agree with that section of requirements and 

do not want to implement them. 

Officials from the SMART Office stated that, despite their efforts, 

jurisdictions may continue to report the same implementation challenges 

for several reasons: 

1. It may take jurisdictions several legislative sessions to make the many 

changes necessary to reconcile their laws and SORNA, and 

legislators may face difficulty keeping the act a priority over that 

period of time, especially if elected officials who were supportive of 

the act leave office. 

2. Organizations that oppose SORNA have generated political 

resistance to making the statutory changes to implement the act. 

3. The SMART Office is unable to fully meet the financial needs of 

jurisdictions through the Adam Walsh Act Implementation grant 

program. For example, of the 66 applications that met the basic 

minimum requirements for fiscal year 2012 funding under this grant 

program, the office was able to fund 56 applicants but was not able to 

fund the remaining 10.

Jurisdictions continue to oppose implementing certain requirements, such 

as applying the requirements retroactively and the juvenile requirements, 

because of policy preferences. For example, 15 of 31 nonimplementing 

jurisdictions that responded to our survey question about aspects of 

SORNA they would change suggested changing or eliminating specific 

requirements, such as the requirements to register juveniles as sex 

offenders (7 jurisdictions), apply the requirements retroactively (6

jurisdictions), and publicly post employer addresses (4 jurisdictions). 
 

Page 23 GAO-13-211 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

Officials from the SMART Office stated that they have addressed all the 

barriers to implementation that the office currently has the authority to 

address in the existing legislation and that further changes would take 

legislative action. These officials stated that they have discussed 

jurisdictions’ challenges and concerns regarding SORNA implementation 

with congressional staff, and Congress has taken some action. In July 

2012, the House of Representatives passed the Adam Walsh 

Reauthorization Act, which, among other things, would have further 

reduced the registration period for certain juvenile sex offenders from 

lifetime to 15 years if a clean record is maintained and exempts 

jurisdictions from disclosing public information about juvenile sex 

offenders. After House passage, the bill was referred to the Senate 

Committee on the Judiciary; the 112th Congress took no further action on 

reauthorization of the act. 

Few studies have been conducted on the effects of SORNA 

implementation on jurisdictions and registered sex offenders. However, 

criminal justice stakeholders from select jurisdictions we visited reported 

both positive and negative effects from implementing SORNA. In 

particular, stakeholders stated that since implementing SORNA, their 

efforts to track sex offenders have improved through increased 

information sharing, frequency of registration, and collaboration. On the 

other hand, stakeholders reported that SORNA’s requirement to tier 

offenders based on the crime for which they were convicted does not 

consider the offender’s risk of reoffending, and that implementation 

increased workload and caused difficulties in sex offenders’ ability to 

reintegrate into the community. SORNA requires DOJ’s National Institute 

of Justice (NIJ) to conduct a comprehensive study on SORNA’s effects, 

which could help address current research gaps.

SORNA’s purpose is to protect the public from sex offenders and those 

who offend against children by establishing a comprehensive, national 

system for the registration of those offenders.27

 

2742 U.S.C § 16901. 

However, analysis of the 

act’s effect on public safety has been limited. We found seven studies 

that assessed aspects of SORNA requirements specifically; however, 

none of these studies evaluated the effects on public safety following 

implementation of the act in a jurisdiction. Four of the studies 

Stakeholders 

Reported 

Improvements in 

Jurisdictions’ Ability 

to Share Information 

and Monitor 

Offenders but Had 

Mixed Views on 

Effects on Resources 

and Sex Offenders

Few Studies on the Effects 

of SORNA 
 

Page 24 GAO-13-211 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

prospectively examined the predictive ability of SORNA classification (i.e., 

the tiering of offenses) to identify high-risk offenders and concluded that 

the SORNA tiering system was not a good predictor of sex offenders’ risk 

to reoffend.28 Another study provided a descriptive examination of how 

the SORNA classification system would affect the distribution of 

registered sex offenders and associated characteristics across the 

different tiers.29

Although research has not been done specifically on SORNA’s 

effectiveness, research has been done more generally on the 

effectiveness of sex offender registration and notification laws. Several 

academic studies have used changes in recidivism as an outcome 

measure—or metric to describe the intended result of a program or 

activity—to evaluate these laws.

In addition to the results of our search, survey responses 

also indicate that there are few studies on the effects that SORNA

implementation has had on public safety. Specifically, 48 of the 50

officials who responded to the survey question on studies conducted on 

the effects of SORNA reported that they were not aware of any studies 

conducted in their jurisdiction. 

30

 

28Michael F. Caldwell, Michael J. Vitacco, and Mitchell H. Ziemke, “An Examination of 

SORNA as Applied to Juveniles,” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, vol. 14, no. 2 

(2008); Ashely B. Batastini et al., “Federal Standards for Community Registration of 

Juvenile Sex Offenders: An Evaluation of Risk Prediction and Future Implications,” 

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, vol. 17, no. 3 (2011); Naomi J. Freeman and Jeffrey 

C. Sandler, “The Adam Walsh Act: A False Sense of Security or an Effective Public Policy 

Initiative?” Criminal Justice Policy Review, vol. 21, no. 1 (2010); Kristen M. Zgoba et al., 

“A Multi-State Recidivism Study Using Static-99R and Static-2002 Risk Scores and Tier 

Guidelines from the Adam Walsh Act,” Research Report Submitted to the National 

Institute of Justice, (November 2012), accessed December 17, 2012, 

For instance, the findings of a metaanalysis—or statistical analysis of a collection of studies—which analyzed 

seven studies in selected states that examined the recidivism rates of 

registered sex offenders released from prison and a comparison group, 

found no clear effect on recidivism, for either sex offenses or other types 

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/240099.pdf.

29Andrew J. Harris, Christopher Lobanov-Rostovsky, and Jill S. Levenson, “Widening the 

Net: The Effects of Transitioning to the Adam Walsh Act’s Federally Mandated Sex 

Offender Classification System,” Criminal Justice and Behavior, vol. 37, no. 5 (2010).

30Elizabeth K. Drake and Steve Aos, Does Sex Offender Registration and Notification 

Reduce Crime? A Systematic Review of the Research Literature (Olympia, WA: 

Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2009). 
 

Page 25 GAO-13-211 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

of crime that sex offenders commit.

31 However, the small number of 

available studies prevents definitive conclusions. 

Given the lack of studies and data on the impact of SORNA, as part of 

our review, we obtained perspectives from representatives of various 

criminal justice components in five jurisdictions that implemented the act

about the outcomes, both positive and negative, that they have 

experienced as a result of implementation.

32 We also obtained survey 

responses from state registry officials on the effects of implementing 

SORNA. The criminal justice components we spoke with included five 

state registry agencies, eight local law enforcement agencies, six local 

probation officers, five local prosecutors, and six local public defenders.33

 

31One study found increased rates of recidivism, two found decreases in recidivism, and 

four found no statistically significant differences. The sample of studies included in this 

analysis was small, and three of these studies had small sample sizes. Recidivism refers 

to the commission of a subsequent sex offense or other crime. Challenges exist in using 

recidivism as an outcome measure, however. Specifically, jurisdictions may define 

recidivism differently or measure recidivism at different intervals, thus preventing 

comparison of recidivism rates across jurisdictions. For example, in one state we visited,

the state corrections agency defined recidivism as returning to prison within 3 years after 

release, whereas in another state we visited, the corrections agency defined recidivism as 

violating the terms of probation during a particular year. Additionally, recidivism data 

captured through the criminal justice system would omit offenses that did not result in an 

arrest or were not reported to authorities.

Some stakeholders, including officials from law enforcement agencies, 

observed positive effects as a result of SORNA, such as the improved 

ability to track the whereabouts of sex offenders and to hold sex offenders 

accountable when they fail to comply with registration requirements. In 

contrast, some stakeholders, including officials from public defender 

offices, observed negative effects, such as using limited resources to 

track sex offenders that are not likely to reoffend and preventing sex 

offenders from reintegrating into their communities. See table 3 for a 

summary of stakeholder perspectives. Because of the limited number of 

jurisdictions we visited and types of agencies that we surveyed, these 

perspectives provide some insight into the potential positive and negative

impacts of SORNA, but do not indicate the extent to which these 

perspectives are pervasive and warrant subsequent action. 

32We asked about perspectives on the positive and negative effects of SORNA in general, 

and not every stakeholder we spoke with gave an opinion on all of the themes we 

identified from these interviews throughout the report. 

33We also spoke with officials from the U.S. Marshals Service, USAOs, federal public 

defender offices, and federal probation offices in five federal districts.

Stakeholders Reported 

Both Positive and Negative 

Effects as a Result of 

Implementing SORNA
 

Page 26 GAO-13-211 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

Table 3: Selected Stakeholder Perspectives on Effects of Implementing the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

Effect Criminal justice components reporting effect

Perspectives on positive effects:

Better able to determine the whereabouts of sex offenders as 

a result of

 Increased information sharing • 7 of 12 survey respondents from implementing jurisdictions who 

responded to the question about positive effects of SORNA

• Officials from 5 of 8 local law enforcement agencies

• Officials from 3 of 6 local probation offices

 Increased frequency of registration • Officials from 4 of 8 local law enforcement agencies

 Increased collaboration • Officials from 8 of 8 local law enforcement agencies

Perspectives on negative effects:

Conviction-based tiering is not a good indicator of risk of 

reoffending

• Officials from 4 of 6 local probation offices

Increased workload • Officials from 3 of 5 state registry agencies

• Officials from all 8 local law enforcement agencies

• 6 of 11 survey respondents from implementing jurisdictions that 

responded to the question on negative effects of SORNA

• Officials from 4 of 8 local law enforcement agencies

Difficulties in sex offenders’ ability to reintegrate into the 

community

• Officials from 5 of 6 local public defender offices 

• Officials from 5 of 6 local probation offices

• Representatives from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) 

and the Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants (CURE)a

Source: GAO analysis of survey responses and interviews with select criminal justice stakeholders.

a

CURE is an organization that advocates for improvements in the criminal justice system. 

Survey results and criminal justice stakeholder perspectives indicate that 

SORNA requirements have had some positive effects on law 

enforcement’s ability to track registered sex offenders. Officials from 4 of 

12 implementing jurisdictions that responded to the question about 

positive effects of SORNA reported that a benefit of implementing the act 

was improved monitoring of registered sex offenders, and perspectives 

from officials representing state registries, law enforcement agencies, and 

probation offices also indicated that SORNA resulted in benefits 

associated with tracking sex offenders.34

 

34The other 6 survey respondents did not include information sharing as part of their 

response. We asked survey respondents about the positive and negative effects of 

SORNA and identified the most prevalent themes. Not all survey respondents commented 

on all of the themes identified throughout the report.

In particular, stakeholders 

identified increased information sharing, as well as other aspects of 

Perspectives on Positive 

Effects of SORNA
 

Page 27 GAO-13-211 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

SORNA, such as increased frequency of registration, and increased 

collaboration, as helping them to better track the whereabouts of sex 

offenders, as described below. 

Increased information sharing. Survey respondents and 

representatives from various criminal justice components said that 

SORNA has enhanced information sharing on registered sex offenders 

between criminal justice components, in part through the use of certain 

databases to exchange information. For example, DOJ developed the 

SORNA Exchange Portal—which is designed, in part, to allow 

jurisdictions to electronically exchange information about registered sex 

offenders. Almost all respondents to our survey question on use of the 

portal (44 of 50) said that their jurisdiction uses the database. Of these 

respondents, 34 of 44 found the system to be at least moderately 

useful.

35 One of the portal’s tools is the Offender Relocation Task, which 

allows jurisdictions to send notifications about registered sex offenders 

who are relocating from one jurisdiction to another. From January 2011 

through September 2012, 32 states and territories used the portal to 

create 5,422 Offender Relocation Tasks.36

Officials from local law enforcement, probation, or the state registry 

agency in 2 of the 5 jurisdictions we visited also indicated that a public 

safety benefit of SORNA was that the public has increased access to 

information on registered sex offenders. For example, one official from a 

local law enforcement agency said that SORNA has made the public 

more aware of sex offenders living in the community and has opened up 

lines of communication between the police and the public on issues 

related to sex offenses.

 

While information sharing has improved, local law enforcement, state 

registry, or probation officials in 4 of the 5 jurisdictions we visited 

identified additional challenges. For example, officials from two local law 

enforcement agencies stated that it is still difficult to obtain information 

from some states on registered sex offenders, such as difficulties in 

obtaining court documents from other jurisdictions. One of these officials 

noted that information sharing may be further improved as more states 

implement SORNA and enforce compliance more consistently. 

 

35Some survey respondents did not answer these questions.

36The SMART Office reported that six states have opted not to use the SORNA Exchange 

Portal. 
 

Page 28 GAO-13-211 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

Additionally, officials from two local law enforcement agencies stated that

sharing could improve if states applied SORNA requirements in a more 

consistent or standardized way. 

Increased frequency of registration. In all 5 jurisdictions that we visited, 

some sex offenders have to register more frequently as a result of 

SORNA. For example, in Florida, sexual predators now have to register 

four times per year instead of two. According to an official from 

Maryland’s state registry agency, approximately 8 percent more sex 

offenders in the state have lifetime registration requirements and also 

have to register four times per year instead of two. One official from a 

sheriff’s office stated that the increased frequency of registration gave law 

enforcement officials a better sense of where sex offenders were 

supposed to be to help ensure these offenders remain in compliance.

Increased collaboration. Stakeholder perspectives indicate that 

increased collaboration between criminal justice components, specifically 

the expanded role of the U.S. Marshals Service, has assisted jurisdictions 

with enforcing SORNA requirements and holding registered sex offenders 

accountable for failing to meet requirements. The act contains provisions 

that expand the role of federal law enforcement, and U.S. Marshals 

Service officials in all five of the federal districts we visited stated that they 

have assisted law enforcement agencies with verifying addresses and 

tracking noncompliant registered sex offenders. From 2006 through 2012, 

U.S. Marshals Service officials conducted 598 sex offender-specific 

compliance or enforcement operations nationwide. Three law 

enforcement officials said that as a result of address verifications and 

other operations, sex offenders are more aware that local law 

enforcement is tracking them, which could deter a registered sex offender 

from reoffending. 

In four of five federal districts we visited, the U.S. Marshals Service works 

with other criminal justice agencies through a regional task force to 

enforce registration requirements. For example, in one federal district, 

U.S. Marshals Service officials formed a task force, which is composed of 

members from the state registry agency, probation officers, and local law 

enforcement from four localities in the state. The task force’s functions 

include locating offenders who have warrants for their arrest for failure-toregister violations. U.S. Marshals Service’s investigations of such

violations have increased every year from 340 in 2007 to 3,061 in 2011. 

(See app. VII for additional details on U.S. Marshals Service’s failure-toregister investigations and subsequent prosecutions). 
 

Page 29 GAO-13-211 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

Stakeholders we interviewed, including officials from public defender, 

probation, law enforcement, and prosecutors’ offices, as well as survey 

respondents, identified the following negative or unintended 

consequences of implementing SORNA in the jurisdiction. 

Lack of consideration of risk of reoffending. Representatives from 

four of six local probation offices argued that SORNA’s classification 

system inappropriately implies that a sex offender poses more or less of a 

risk to public safety simply based on the offense for which the sex 

offender was convicted and does not account for the facts of each 

individual case when determining registration requirements. For example, 

a defendant may have committed a sex offense such as rape but pled to 

a lesser sex offense charge that could result in the defendant being 

assigned to a tier with less stringent registration requirements than the 

tier corresponding to the crime the person actually committed. In this 

instance, the tier is not tied to the actual behavior of the offender, and 

therefore, is not a reliable indicator of the risk the offender poses to public 

safety. 

Three of six local public defenders stated that since SORNA requirements 

are not based on a risk assessment, law enforcement resources are not 

focused on sex offenders who are most likely to reoffend. For example, 

one public defender said that a client had been convicted of a Tier I 

offense, but exhibited behavior patterns associated with increased risk of 

reoffending. However, because judges under SORNA no longer have 

discretion regarding the tier level of convicted offenders or the frequency 

or duration of registration, the sex offender remained in Tier I and does 

not face as stringent registration requirements as those in higher tiers, 

even though the person may be likely to reoffend.

Increased workload. Some stakeholders reported that their workload 

has increased since the implementation of SORNA, in part because of

responsibilities associated with the tiering of registered sex offenders and 

increased frequency of registration. Officials from two state registry 

agencies we spoke with identified the tiering or retiering of registered sex 

offenders as a reason for a workload increase.

37

 

37Retiering refers to the process of determining the tier for a registered sex offender that is 

moving into the jurisdiction to determine his or her registration term and frequency. 

For example, one state 

registry had four out of five staff members in the registry unit devote most 

of their time to tiering offenders moving to the jurisdiction from another 

Perspectives on Negative 

Effects of SORNA
 

Page 30 GAO-13-211 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

state. Such work includes receiving court documents from the original 

conviction and comparing the elements of the sex offense with the state’s 

statutes so that the agency could determine the appropriate tier for the 

registered sex offender. For one police department, the increase in the 

number of times the department had to register or update a registration 

for a sex offender was greater than the increase in the actual number of 

sex offenders. This is because the act increased the frequency of 

registration for many sex offenders from once per year to either two or 

four times per year, depending on the registered sex offender’s tier. 

Specifically, in 2008, this police department had a total of 4,785 

registrations for 2,020 registered sex offenders in the county. In 

comparison, for the first half of 2012 (as of June), the same police 

department had 5,694 registrations for 2,079 registered sex offenders. 

The number of sex offenders increased by about 3 percent, while the 

number of registrations increased by about 19 percent for this time 

period. 

To help address resource burdens, the SMART Office has offered grant 

programs and the U.S. Marshals Service has offered personnel, 

equipment, and funding support. In fiscal year 2012, agencies in 12 of the 

19 jurisdictions that have implemented SORNA received Adam Walsh Act 

Implementation Grant Funds. In most cases, the grantee was the state 

registry agency. One jurisdiction plans to use the grant funds to hire an 

additional staff person and fund overtime for officers to maintain all of the 

required information for the sex offender registry. Another jurisdiction 

plans to use some of the grant funds for overtime to work with the U.S. 

Marshals Service to pursue sex offenders who have failed to register. The 

U.S. Marshals Service helps to address workload and resource needs for 

local law enforcement by providing manpower, needed equipment, and 

funds for overtime hours in support of enforcement activities such as 

address verification operations. For example, from fiscal years 2009 to 

2012, the U.S. Marshals Service expended over $6.4 million to help state 

and local law enforcement agencies conduct 949 sex offender 

enforcement operations, including over 150,000 completed address 

verifications, which involved the participation of more than 6,300 U.S. 

Marshals Service personnel.38

 

38According to the U.S. Marshals Service, if an individual participated in more than one 

sex offender enforcement operation, that person would have been counted multiple times: 

once per operation. 

 
 

Page 31 GAO-13-211 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

Four of five district or state attorneys’ offices and five of six local public 

defenders offices we spoke with indicated that workload had increased as 

a result of the implementation of SORNA, in part because the concern 

about registration requirements has made it more difficult to reach plea 

agreements in sex offense cases. For example, one senior prosecutor 

stated that sex offense cases are going to trial more often because 

people being prosecuted for a sex offense want to avoid registration 

requirements. 

Effect on registered sex offenders. Officials from public defender and 

probation offices stated that SORNA implementation has made it more 

difficult for registered sex offenders to obtain housing and employment, 

which can negatively affect their ability to reintegrate into their 

communities.39 While sex offenders were subject to public registration 

requirements prior to the enactment of SORNA, the act expanded the 

information required on the registry in some jurisdictions. For example, 

SORNA requires that sex offenders register their address of residence, 

employment, and school, and some jurisdictions that implemented the law 

did not previously collect all of this information. One public defender said 

that some landlords do not want to rent housing to registered sex 

offenders because the address of the property would be on the registry. 

In one state, the agency in charge of the juvenile justice system reported 

concerns that juvenile registered sex offenders may have difficulties in 

finding a foster home because of the requirement to register the address 

of residence.40

Public defenders also observed that the complexity of registration 

requirements results in situations where registered sex offenders are 

prone to technical violations, and, therefore, subject to failure-to-register 

In addition, a senior official from one state’s public 

defender’s office observed that since SORNA was implemented in the 

jurisdiction, the requirement to publish the employer’s address resulted in 

several instances of registered sex offenders losing their jobs. 

 

39This could be of particular concern considering that a report from the Association for the 

Treatment of Sexual Abusers indicates that factors that may be associated with lower 

rates of recidivism for sex offenders include social bonds to the community and stable 

housing and jobs. See Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, A Reasoned 

Approach: Reshaping Sex Offender Policy to Prevent Child Sex Abuse, (Beaverton, OR, 

2011). 40This agency is currently working with another state agency to provide an alternative 

address so that foster parents can avoid having their home address on the sex offender 

registry. 
 

Page 32 GAO-13-211 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

penalties. For example, a public defender in one jurisdiction stated that 

registered sex offenders are required to appear in person to verify their 

registration “on or before” a certain date; however, sex offenders must 

also update their registration anytime there is a change in their 

information. Therefore, if a registered sex offender had to update that 

person’s registration in between normally required verification times 

because of a change, such as a new address, that person may not realize 

that an in-person appearance is still required on the designated 

verification date. This could result in a failure-to-register violation, which in 

this particular jurisdiction now has a higher mandatory minimum sentence 

since the implementation of SORNA.41 One CURE member who is 

required to register as a sex offender in a state that has implemented 

SORNA noted that it is difficult to keep track of all of the registration 

requirements because they often change, but the people required to 

register are not always informed of these changes. 

The Adam Walsh Act requires NIJ, the research and evaluation agency of 

DOJ, to conduct a comprehensive examination of sex offender issues, 

including SORNA’s effectiveness in increasing compliance with sex 

offender registration and notification requirements and the effect of sex 

offender registration and notification requirements on increasing public 

safety.42 NIJ was to report its results by July 2011. However, as of 

November 2012, NIJ had not conducted a study in support of this 

requirement.43 NIJ officials stated that the money authorized in support of 

this study has not been appropriated. The Deputy Director of NIJ stated 

that NIJ does not proactively request funding that Congress has 

authorized for specific studies, but typically waits for Congress to decide 

when to appropriate the funding.44

 

41SORNA requires jurisdictions to provide a criminal penalty that includes a maximum 

term of imprisonment of greater than 1 year for failing to comply with SORNA 

requirements. The federal penalty for failure to register is imprisonment for up to 10 years.

If NIJ determines that it does not have 

the resources to conduct a study on its own, which is the case for the 

SORNA study, NIJ will competitively award funding to another entity to 

conduct the study. NIJ officials added that they do not prepare a 

42Pub. L. No. 109-248, § 634, 120 Stat. 587, 643-44 (2006). 

43NIJ has funded three studies in support of other reporting requirements in section 637 of

the Adam Walsh Act, one of which was a multistate review comparing the SORNA tiering 

scheme with risk assessment tools.

44According to DOJ officials, as of December 2012, the department has not requested that 

Congress appropriate funding to conduct this study. 

A Comprehensive Study by 

NIJ on SORNA’s Effects 

Should Help Address 

Research Gaps on the 

Law’s Impact
 

Page 33 GAO-13-211 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

solicitation for a congressionally mandated study until they receive 

funding for the study. However, NIJ may conduct some preliminary work 

in the area that is the subject of the study to help ensure that the 

solicitation has enough information so that the applicants understand 

what is being asked of them. For example, regarding the SORNA study, 

NIJ and SMART Office officials stated that they have discussed the status 

of SORNA implementation and potential associated costs. 

NIJ officials acknowledged that given the variability in how jurisdictions 

have implemented SORNA, researchers may face challenges associated 

with identifying outcome measures for SORNA; determining how best to 

measure SORNA’s impact on public safety, such as whether recidivism is 

appropriately measured; and ensuring that consistent data are available 

to measure these outcomes. NIJ expects that the entity that will ultimately 

be awarded funding to conduct the study would address these challenges 

when planning and designing the evaluation. A carefully planned, 

comprehensive study on the effects of SORNA implementation on public 

safety will help determine whether the requirements of the legislation are 

achieving their intended effects, or need any revisions, and address 

research gaps in this area.

We provided a draft of this report to DOJ and the Administrative Office of 

the United States Courts (AOUSC) for review and comment. Neither DOJ 

nor AOUSC provided written comments on the draft report, but both

provided technical comments, which we incorporated throughout the 

report as appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees, the Attorney General, the Director of the Administrative 

Office of the United States Courts, and other interested parties. This 

report is also available at no charge on GAO’s website at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

Agency Comments
 

Page 34 GAO-13-211 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

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 VIII. 

Eileen R. Larence

Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 35 GAO-13-211 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

Our objectives for this report were to address the following questions:

• To what extent has the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, 

Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (SMART Office) determined 

that jurisdictions have met the requirements for substantial 

implementation of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act 

(SORNA), and what challenges, if any, have jurisdictions faced in 

implementing the act? 

• For jurisdictions that have substantially implemented SORNA, what 

are the reported effects that the act has had on public safety, criminal 

justice stakeholders, and registered sex offenders?

For this report, we assessed SORNA implementation efforts for the 50 

states, the 5 principal U.S. territories (American Samoa, Guam, the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the 

U.S. Virgin Islands), and the District of Columbia. We did not include 

federally recognized Indian tribes eligible under the act’s provisions as 

part of this review because of the unique challenges tribes face in 

implementing SORNA compared with the states, territories, and the 

District of Columbia. For example, most tribes did not have a sex offender 

registry in place prior to SORNA. We plan to analyze implementation 

efforts for eligible tribal jurisdictions in a separate review and issue the

results no later than early 2014. 

To address the first objective, we analyzed reports that the SMART Office 

prepared from September 2009 through September 2012 for jurisdictions 

that submitted packages on their implementation efforts to the office for 

review. For those jurisdictions that the office subsequently determined to 

have substantially implemented SORNA, we identified areas where the 

office has allowed for flexibility in meeting the act’s requirements. For the 

remaining jurisdictions that the office determined had not substantially 

implemented SORNA, we identified which requirements the office 

determined these jurisdictions had met and which they had not met. We 

then analyzed this information to identify any patterns across these 

requirements. 

To identify the types and prevalence of any challenges jurisdictions have 

faced in implementing SORNA, we surveyed jurisdiction officials the 

SMART Office identified as being responsible for implementing the act in 

the 50 states, 5 U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia. These 

officials included representatives of state police departments or attorney 

general offices. For jurisdictions that have not substantially implemented 

SORNA, we used the survey to determine to what extent jurisdiction 

officials are actively working to do so and to identify what actions, if any, 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 36 GAO-13-211 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

they are taking or that the federal government could take to address 

implementation challenges. Additionally, we used the survey to obtain 

jurisdiction officials’ perspectives on the SMART Office’s guidance and 

the criteria it used to determine whether or not a jurisdiction has

substantially implemented SORNA. To develop this survey, we designed 

draft questionnaires in close collaboration with a GAO social science 

survey specialist and conducted pretests with 4 jurisdictions to help 

further refine our questions, develop new questions, clarify any 

ambiguous portions of the survey, and identify any potentially biased 

questions. We launched our web-based survey on July 16, 2012, and 

received all responses by October 22, 2012. Login information for the 

web-based survey was e-mailed to all participants, and we sent two 

follow-up e-mail messages to all nonrespondents and contacted the 

remaining nonrespondents by telephone. We received responses from 93 

percent (52 of 56) of all jurisdictions surveyed, including 100 percent (19 

of 19) of jurisdictions that have been determined by the SMART Office to 

have substantially implemented SORNA and 89 percent (33 of 37) of 

jurisdictions that have not substantially implemented SORNA.1 Not all 

survey respondents provided answers to all survey questions.2

Because the survey was conducted with all jurisdictions, 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. 

 

 

1

We did not receive survey responses from the following jurisdictions: American Samoa, 

New Hampshire, Oregon, and Washington.

2

An electronic supplement to this report—GAO-13-234SP (February 2013)—provides 

survey results. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 37 GAO-13-211 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

We also analyzed Department of Justice (DOJ) reports to Congress on 

the status of SORNA implementation nationwide and related guidance 

documents and implementation tools the SMART Office prepared in 

support of jurisdictions’ efforts. These included the National Guidelines 

and Supplemental Guidelines for Sex Offender Registration and 

Notification. Furthermore, we interviewed officials from the office to 

identify and describe the types of assistance provided to jurisdictions in 

support of implementation and to solicit their perspectives on the issues 

and challenges jurisdictions in our survey identified. 

To address the second objective, we conducted site visits or interviewed 

officials from a nonprobability sample of 5 jurisdictions that the SMART 

Office determined to have substantially implemented SORNA—the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Florida, Louisiana, 

Maryland, and Ohio. We selected these jurisdictions to represent a range 

in the number of registered sex offenders per 100,000 residents and the 

year that the jurisdiction substantially implemented the act. In each 

jurisdiction, we interviewed officials representing components of the 

criminal justice system who are involved in implementing or enforcing 

SORNA requirements. Specifically, at the federal level, we interviewed 

officials from Federal Probation and Pretrial Services, Federal Public 

Defenders Offices, U.S. Attorneys’ Offices (USAO), and the U.S. 

Marshals Service. At the state and local levels, we interviewed officials 

responsible for implementing the act, which included five state registry 

agencies, eight local law enforcement agencies, six local adult and 

juvenile probation and parole officers, five local prosecutors, and six local 

public defenders. While these officials’ perspectives on the effects of 

SORNA cannot be generalized to all substantially implemented 

jurisdictions, they provided insights into the effects of the act’s

implementation. 

To supplement information obtained during the site visits, we included 

questions in our nationwide survey of jurisdiction officials about the types 

and prevalence of effects observed or expected from implementing 

SORNA and whether they were positive or negative. We also interviewed 

or contacted representatives of relevant national associations and 

organizations—selected based on factors such as whether they testified 

before Congress on the effects of SORNA—to obtain their perspectives 

on the effects of SORNA implementation in various areas. Specifically, 

we interviewed or contacted the American Civil Liberties Union, 

Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, Citizens United for 

Rehabilitation of Errants, National Center for Missing and Exploited 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 38 GAO-13-211 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

Children, National Crime Victims Law Institute, National Criminal Justice 

Association, and the National Sheriffs’ Association. 

We also sought to identify studies on the effect of SORNA requirements 

in jurisdictions that have implemented the law. Specifically, we conducted 

searches of various databases, such as CQ Alert, Nexis News Alert, 

Proquest, PolicyFile, Academic OneFile, FirstSearch Databases, and 

reviewed related GAO reports. We also corresponded with recognized 

experts on sex offender registration and notification policies to identify 

relevant research. From these sources, we identified five studies that 

assessed certain aspects of SORNA requirements. We also identified an 

analysis that evaluated the results of seven studies in selected states on 

the effect of sex offender registration and notification, in general, on 

recidivism among sex offenders.

3

We also analyzed documents, such as a U.S. Marshals Service training 

manual, and data related to federal enforcement of the SORNA 

requirements. Specifically, we analyzed trends in federal investigations 

and prosecutions of failure-to-register violations from fiscal years 2007 to 

2011. We assessed the reliability of these data by interviewing staff 

responsible for the data and reviewing relevant documentation. We 

determined that these data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of 

this report. To the extent relevant data were available from the locations 

where we conducted our site visits, such as the number of failure-toregister violations or information contained in individual jurisdictions’ sex 

offender registries, we used these data in this report primarily for 

contextual purposes and not as an indicator of public safety outcomes. 

We initially reviewed the findings of 

these studies, and a GAO social scientist reviewed the evaluation 

methodology against generally accepted social science standards and 

confirmed that the studies’ methods were reasonable for our purposes 

and our reported summary analyses of the research findings were 

accurate. 

We conducted this performance audit from January 2012 through 

February 2013 in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the 

 

3

Recidivism is the act of relapsing into a problem or criminal behavior during or after 

receiving sanctions, or while undergoing an intervention because of a previous behavior or 

crime. In criminal justice settings, recidivism is often measured by criminal acts that result 

in rearrest, reconviction, or return to prison.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 39 GAO-13-211 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

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 II: SORNA Substantial 

Implementation Checklist Tool

Page 40 GAO-13-211 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

The SMART Office has developed the 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 4.

Table 4: Titles and Descriptions of the 14 Sections of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act 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 registration duties and 

acknowledge in writing that he 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: 

• those currently incarcerated or under supervision, 

• those already registered or subject to a preexisting registration requirement, and

• those who reenter the jurisdiction’s criminal justice system because of a conviction for 

some other felony crime (whether or not it is a sex offense). 

Appendix II: SORNA Substantial 

Implementation Checklist Tool
Appendix II: SORNA Substantial 

Implementation Checklist Tool

Page 41 GAO-13-211 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 SMART Office. 

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: Deviations Allowed by the 

SMART Office in Jurisdictions That Have 

Substantially Implemented SORNA

Page 42 GAO-13-211 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

Nearly all (18 of 19, or 95 percent) of the substantially implemented 

jurisdictions deviate in some way from the 14 sections of SORNA 

requirements outlined in the SORNA Implementation Checklist tool, as 

shown in figure 3. 

Figure 3: Number of Sections of Requirements in Which Substantially Implemented 

Jurisdictions Have Allowable Deviations

The number of jurisdictions with allowable deviations also varied across 

the 14 sections of SORNA requirements, with the highest number of 

deviations being allowed in the information that is required at registration 

(14 of 19 jurisdictions), the classification or tiering of offenses (13), 

application of the requirements retroactively (11), and the offenses that

must be included in a jurisdiction’s sex offender registry (10), as shown in 

figure 4. 

Appendix III: Deviations Allowed by the 

SMART Office in Jurisdictions That Have 

Substantially Implemented SORNA
Appendix III: Deviations Allowed by the 

SMART Office in Jurisdictions That Have 

Substantially Implemented SORNA

Page 43 GAO-13-211 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

Figure 4: Number of Substantially Implemented Jurisdictions with Allowable 

Deviations, by Section of Requirements
Appendix IV: SORNA Requirements Met by 

Nonimplemented Jurisdictions That Submitted 

Complete Implementation Packages for 

SMART Office Review

Page 44 GAO-13-211 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

The SMART Office determined that, for the 17 states and territories that 

submitted complete implementation packages for review and were 

determined to have not yet substantially implemented SORNA, 15 of 

these jurisdictions have implemented at least half of the 14 sections of 

requirements outlined in the SORNA Implementation Checklist tool, as 

shown in figure 5. 

Figure 5: Number of Sections of Requirements Met by Nonimplemented Jurisdictions That Submitted Complete 

Implementation Packages for Review, as of December 2012

Note: A checkmark means that a jurisdiction meets or substantially meets the purpose of the 

requirements in a section. An X does not necessarily mean that a jurisdiction has taken no steps to 

implement a SORNA requirement. It could also mean that a jurisdiction has taken steps to address 

the SORNA section but that the steps taken still substantially disserve the purpose of the 

requirement. In other instances, an X may mean that, on the basis of a review of the materials 

provided by a jurisdiction, the SMART Office does not have enough information to determine whether 

a jurisdiction meets, does not meet, or does not substantially disserve, the purpose of the 

requirements in a section.

Appendix IV: SORNA Requirements Met by 

Nonimplemented Jurisdictions That Submitted

Complete Implementation Packages for SMART 

Office Review 
Appendix V: Challenges to Implementing 

SORNA Reported by Survey Respondents from 

Nonimplemented Jurisdictions

Page 45 GAO-13-211 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

Officials from 29 of the 33 nonimplemented jurisdictions that responded to 

our survey questions on challenges to implementing SORNA reported 

that their jurisdictions faced challenges. Officials from each of the 29 

jurisdictions reported 3 to 13 challenges to their jurisdiction’s efforts to 

substantially implement SORNA. Figure 6 displays the challenges these 

jurisdictions reported.

Appendix V: Challenges to Implementing 

SORNA Reported by Survey Respondents 

from Nonimplemented Jurisdictions 
Appendix V: Challenges to Implementing 

SORNA Reported by Survey Respondents from 

Nonimplemented Jurisdictions

Page 46 GAO-13-211 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

Figure 6: Number of Survey Respondents from NonImplemented Jurisdictions That Reported Experiencing Major and Minor 

Challenges in Efforts to Substantially Implement the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act
Appendix VI: Department of Justice Written 

Guidance Addressing Challenges with 

Substantially Implementing SORNA

Page 47 GAO-13-211 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

DOJ has taken steps to address challenges jurisdictions faced in their 

efforts to substantially implement SORNA, including providing written 

guidance. Specifically, DOJ released National Guidelines in July 2008 

and Supplemental Guidelines in January 2011, which were intended to 

help address challenges with applying the act’s requirements 

retroactively, implementing a conviction-based tiering structure, and 

implementing the juvenile requirements, among other things. Table 5 

discusses these efforts. 

Table 5: Department of Justice Written Guidance to Jurisdictions That Addressed Their Specific Challenges in Substantially 

Implementing the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

Challenge Department of Justice guidance

Applying the requirements retroactively May be limited to sex offenders who remain in the criminal justice system as prisoners, 

supervisees, or registrants, or reenter the system through subsequent convictions.

May credit sex offenders who have a pre-SORNA conviction with the time elapsed since 

release. For example, for a sex offender who was to register as a sex offender for 25 

years, in a jurisdiction that implemented SORNA in 2013, if he or she was released in 

1994 (19 years ago), then, starting in 2013, he or she would only have to register for an 

additional 6 years.

May phase in SORNA registration for offenders convicted of a sex offense prior to 

SORNA. 

May rely on conventional methods and standards in searching criminal records for details 

of a pre-SORNA sex offense necessary for registration. 

May further limit requirement to sex offenders who reenter the system through a 

subsequent criminal conviction that is a non-sex felony offense.

Implementing a conviction-based tiering 

structure 

May utilize assessments based on risk of recidivism as a basis for prescribing registration 

requirements that exceed the minimum registration period required by SORNA.

May implement a risk-based—as opposed to conviction-based-—tiering structure if the 

jurisdiction's highest court rules that its constitution does not permit SORNA’s registration 

or notification measures, unless the sex offender satisfies a level of risk that SORNA does 

not provide for.

Implementing juvenile requirements May be limited to juveniles at least 14 years old at the time of the offense who are 

adjudicated delinquent for committing offenses under laws that cover engaging in a sexual 

act with another by (1) force or the threat of serious violence or (2) rendering unconscious 

or involuntarily drugging the victim.

May implement alternative procedures if the jurisdiction's highest court rules that the 

jurisdiction’s constitution does not permit registration or notification requirements for 

juvenile delinquents.

May reduce the juvenile's registration period from life to 25 years if certain "clean record" 

conditions are satisfied, such as absence of an additional sex offense conviction and 

successful completion of any periods of supervised release, among other things.

May exempt from public websites and community notifications information concerning sex 

offenders required to register on the basis of juvenile delinquency adjudications.

Source: GAO analysis of DOJ’s National Guidelines and Supplemental Guidelines.

Appendix VI: Department of Justice Written 

Guidance Addressing Challenges with 

Substantially Implementing SORNA
Appendix VII: U. S. Marshals Service 

Investigations and U.S. Attorneys’ Offices 

Prosecutions of SORNA Violations

Page 48 GAO-13-211 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

As shown in figure 7, data obtained from the U.S. Marshals Service

indicate that the number of SORNA-related investigations increased 

every year from fiscal year 2007 through fiscal year 2011. 

Figure 7: Total Number of Closed U.S. Marshals Service Investigations, Fiscal Years

2007-2011

As shown in figure 8, the number of people federally prosecuted in closed 

failure-to-register cases by USAOs in all federal districts increased every 

year from fiscal year 2007 through fiscal year 2011.1

 

1

Pursuant to § 2250 of title 18 of the U.S. Code, someone required to register under 

SORNA who either (1) travels in interstate or foreign commerce (or enters, leaves, or 

resides in Indian country) and knowingly fails to register or update a registration as 

required by SORNA or (2) falls under the SORNA definition of “sex offender” as a result of 

a conviction under federal law (including the Uniform Code of Military Justice), the law of 

the District of Columbia, Indian tribal law, or the law of any territory or possession of the 

United States, and knowingly fails to register or update a registration as required by 

SORNA can be fined under title 18 or imprisoned for up to 10 years, or both. 

A majority of the 

defendants were referred by the U.S. Marshals Service to the USAOs for 

prosecution. 

Appendix VII: U. S. Marshals Service 

Investigations and U.S. Attorneys’ Offices 

Prosecutions of SORNA Violations
Appendix VII: U. S. Marshals Service 

Investigations and U.S. Attorneys’ Offices 

Prosecutions of SORNA Violations

Page 49 GAO-13-211 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

Figure 8: Total Number of Defendants in Closed Failure-to-Register Cases Prosecuted by U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, Fiscal Years

2007-2011
Eileen R. Larence, (202) 512-8777 or larencee@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Kristy Brown, Assistant Director,

and Hugh Paquette, Analyst-in-Charge, managed this engagement. Alicia 

Loucks and Amrita Sen made significant contributions to the report. 

Susan Baker, Frances Cook, Michele Fejfar, Eric Hauswirth, and Lara 

Miklozek also provided valuable assistance.

Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Acknowledgments 

(441048)
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.