Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act: Jurisdictions Face Challenges to Implementing the Act, and Stakeholders Report Positive and Negative Effects
Published: 2013-02-07T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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. 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. 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).sought to introduce comprehensive standards to make state and territory   SORNA  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. 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. 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.
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:
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?
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  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. Not all survey respondents provided  answers to all survey questions. 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 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.
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 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. 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.
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  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Appendix I  includes more details about our scope and methodology.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: Evolution of Sex Offender Registration and Notification Legislation
paragraphs: 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).  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  programs.public dissemination of information from states’ sex offender registries  and in 2003 to require states to maintain websites containing registry  information.
section_title: SORNA Requirements
paragraphs: 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 information- sharing 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.
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. 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.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.
section_title: Federal Role in Sex Offender Registration and Notification
paragraphs: 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. When making a substantial implementation  determination, the office is required to follow the standards set forth (1) in  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. 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.
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.
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,  which, similar to the checklist tool, is organized into 14 sections.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.
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   The national website is the Office of Justice Programs’  not to the public. (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.
NCIC is an information system that provides law enforcement agencies with around-the- clock access to federal, state, and local crime data, including criminal record histories and  wanted and missing person records. 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.
section_title: DOJ Has Determined That 19 of 56 Jurisdictions Have Substantially Implemented SORNA; Other Jurisdictions Reported Political Will and Legal Barriers as Challenges
subsections: section_title: DOJ Has Determined That 19 Jurisdictions Have Substantially Implemented SORNA and Another 17 Have Implemented More than Half of the Act’s Requirements
paragraphs: 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.
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  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.)
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  later in this report. 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.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.
section_title: Jurisdictions Reported Several Challenges in Implementing SORNA
paragraphs: 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. 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.
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  submitted packages.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.
Officials from the SMART Office presented  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.
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  aid jurisdictions’ efforts to reconcile SORNA and state laws.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.
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. 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. For example, jurisdictions could have  used this funding to meet costs associated with applying the requirements  retroactively.
In 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. 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).
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.
section_title: Stakeholders Reported Improvements in Jurisdictions’ Ability to Share Information and Monitor Offenders but Had Mixed Views on Effects on Resources and Sex Offenders
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Few Studies on the Effects of SORNA
paragraphs: 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. 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  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. 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. 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.
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. For instance, the findings of a meta-analysis—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  of crime that sex offenders commit.available studies prevents definitive conclusions.
section_title: Stakeholders Reported Both Positive and Negative Effects as a Result of Implementing SORNA
paragraphs: 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. 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.  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.
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   In particular, stakeholders  associated with tracking sex offenders.identified increased information sharing, as well as other aspects of  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. 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.
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.
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-to- register 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-to- register investigations and subsequent prosecutions).
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. 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  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.
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. 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.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.
In addition, a senior official from one state’s public  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  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. 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.
section_title: A Comprehensive Study by NIJ on SORNA’s Effects Should Help Address Research Gaps on the Law’s Impact
paragraphs: 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. 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. 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. 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  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.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: 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,  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. Not all  survey respondents provided answers to all survey questions.
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.
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  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. 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 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-to- register 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 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  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: SORNA Substantial Implementation Checklist Tool
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Appendix III: Deviations Allowed by the SMART Office in Jurisdictions That Have Substantially Implemented SORNA
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: Appendix IV: SORNA Requirements Met by Nonimplemented Jurisdictions That Submitted Complete Implementation Packages for SMART Office Review
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Appendix V: Challenges to Implementing SORNA Reported by Survey Respondents from Nonimplemented Jurisdictions
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Appendix VI: Department of Justice Written Guidance Addressing Challenges with Substantially Implementing SORNA
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Appendix VII: U. S. Marshals Service Investigations and U.S. Attorneys’ Offices Prosecutions of SORNA Violations
paragraphs: 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.
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.defendants were referred by the U.S. Marshals Service to the USAOs for  prosecution.
section_title: Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: 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.