Convicted Sex Offenders: Factors That Could Affect the Successful Implementation of Driver's License-Related Processes to Encourage Registration and Enhance Monitoring
Published: 2008-01-30T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: To enhance public safety, all states have laws requiring convicted sex offenders to register with law enforcement authorities. Because ensuring compliance is a challenge, in part because offenders may move frequently, policy makers are considering a role for motor vehicle agencies. In response to section 636 of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (the Walsh Act) and as discussed with congressional committees, this report identifies (1) the various driver's license-related processes that states are using to encourage registration or provide additional monitoring of convicted sex offenders; (2) the level of modifications to states' information technology (IT) capabilities that would be needed, and the key cost factors involved, if a federal law were to require the screening of individuals against the respective state's sex offender registry and the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) National Sex Offender Registry before issuing a driver's license; and (3) other factors that could affect successful implementation of this type of screening program. To accomplish these objectives, GAO reviewed state statutes and surveyed motor vehicle and public safety agencies in 26 states. The 26 states reflect regional representation, among other factors. GAO also interviewed officials from various components in the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA). GAO is not making any recommendations in this report.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: As of July 2007, 22 of the nation's 50 states were using some form of driver's license-related process to encourage registration or provide additional monitoring of convicted sex offenders. For example, nine states specifically require convicted sex offenders to obtain a driver's license, an identification card, or a sex offender registration card issued through driver's license-related processes, and five of these nine states also label the respective document with an annotation that identifies the person as a sex offender. One of the 22 states--Nevada--has a process for screening every driver's license applicant against the state's sex offender registry before issuing a license. However, no state has a screening process whereby all applicants are screened against both the respective state's sex offender registry and the FBI's national registry before being issued a driver's license. To establish this type of screening process, most of the motor vehicle agencies and sex offender registries in the 26 states surveyed by GAO said that moderate to major modifications to their current IT systems would be needed, with software modifications being a key cost factor. Many of the responding state agencies indicated that before reliable cost estimates for this type of screening process could be developed, operational or functional requirements must be clearly defined. Moreover, a recurring observation by motor vehicle agency officials was that given competing demands for programming resources, the agencies were not positioned to handle additional projects during the next several years. In addition to addressing IT and cost issues, successful implementation of a driver's license screening program for sex offenders will also hinge on how well the program incorporates key design considerations. Developing an effective "one-size-fits-all" screening program could be a daunting challenge given the different processes, procedures, databases, and operational environments among the motor vehicle and law enforcement agencies across the nation. If the federal government were to require this type of screening process, several key design factors could affect the outcomes of the process. Among other considerations cited by federal, state, and AAMVA officials, particularly important are design factors aimed at minimizing the burden on states, maintaining customer service at motor vehicle agencies, and mitigating unintended consequences. Although not an exhaustive list, these design considerations could affect the results from and the costs of a nationwide screening program. Decisions on the most optimal approach to pursue--and, if applicable, how best to integrate the design considerations discussed in GAO's report--likely would necessitate collaboration among various stakeholders, including interested states, AAMVA, and the FBI, which manages the national sex offender registry. In commenting on a draft copy of this report, DOJ and AAMVA provided technical clarifications, which GAO incorporated where appropriate.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Nationwide, more than 600,000 convicted sex offenders are either  incarcerated, on probation, or residing freely in localities across the  United States, according to an estimate by the National Center for Missing  and Exploited Children. This large and growing population of convicted  sex offenders has raised public concerns in part because the victims of  sexual assaults are more likely to be children, most perpetrators live in  communities rather than in prison, and some sex offenders, particularly  those who go without treatment, are at greater risk of committing another  offense.
Beginning with Congress’ enactment of the Jacob Wetterling Crimes  Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act in 1994,  there have been national standards for sex offender registration programs  in the United States.  The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of  2006 (the Walsh Act) enacted a new comprehensive set of minimum  national standards for sex offender registration and notification, replacing  the previously applicable standards under the Wetterling Act. In addition  to defining the current national standards for state sex offender  registration programs, the Walsh Act requires that states submit  information concerning their registrants and updates thereto to the  Attorney General for inclusion in the National Sex Offender Registry  (NSOR).  Maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), NSOR  is a national database that compiles information about registered sex  offenders obtained under the various state programs and makes that  information available to law enforcement agencies on a nationwide basis.  The data used to populate NSOR are provided to the Attorney General by  officials in the 50 states, each of which operates a computerized sex  offender registry. Most states’ registries are centrally maintained by a  state criminal justice agency, such as the state police or a department of  public safety.
To be fully effective, sex offender registries need to be routinely updated  with current information on offenders’ addresses and other required  information. However, maintaining complete and accurate information can  be problematic, as sex offenders may move frequently and not comply  with self-reporting requirements. To encourage greater compliance with  sex offender registration requirements, federal and state policy makers  have considered various mechanisms, such as screening individuals  against a state’s sex offender registry database when they apply for or  renew a driver’s license.
Section 636 of the Walsh Act mandated that we study the feasibility of  using driver’s license-related processes to improve the level of compliance  with sex offender registration requirements for change of address upon  relocation and other related updates of personal information. It also  required that we determine the potential costs to states to implement a  process whereby all driver’s license applicants are prescreened against  both the respective state’s sex offender registry and the FBI’s NSOR. The  information technology (IT) system requirements necessary to implement  such a screening process are not yet defined. Thus, at the time of our  study, the states did not have enough information on what would be  required of them to provide reliable cost data. Therefore, in accordance  with the congressional mandate and as discussed with your offices, this  report addresses the following questions:  In what ways are states using driver’s license-related processes to  encourage registration or provide additional monitoring of convicted  sex offenders?  If a federal law were enacted requiring states to screen individuals  against the respective state’s sex offender registry and the FBI’s NSOR  before issuing a driver’s license, (a) what level of modifications would  states need to make to their IT capabilities to comply with such a  federal law and (b) what would be the key cost factors to implement  and maintain this screening capability?
What other factors could affect the successful design and  implementation of a process for screening individuals against a state’s  sex offender registry and the FBI’s NSOR before issuing a driver’s  license?
As further discussed with your offices, because the congressional mandate  mentioned Nevada’s screening process as an example, this report includes  information on Nevada’s approach for screening driver’s license applicants  against the state’s sex offender registry. To obtain an understanding of  Nevada’s screening process, we contacted officials at the state’s  Department of Motor Vehicles and Department of Public Safety.
To determine ways that states are using driver’s license-related processes  to encourage registration or provide additional monitoring of convicted  sex offenders, we conducted research of the statutory requirements for all  50 states, and we reviewed the Web sites of agencies responsible for either  maintaining the respective state’s sex offender registry or issuing driver’s  licenses. Also, we interviewed motor vehicle agency and sex offender  registry officials in states that we surveyed (see below).
To determine the capability of states’ IT systems to screen individuals  against the respective state’s sex offender registry and the FBI’s NSOR  before issuing a driver’s license and to determine the key cost factors in  implementing and maintaining this screening capability, we surveyed  motor vehicle agency and sex offender registry officials in 26 states by  sending them a questionnaire and following up with telephone interviews.  We selected these states to obtain regional representation across the  nation and a range in the number of sex offender registrants (as this would  affect the screening workload) as well as states with and without a driver’s  license-related process for monitoring sex offenders. Also, we made site  visits to 3 of the 26 states (Delaware, Georgia, and Maryland) where we  interviewed officials of the state motor vehicle agencies and sex offender  registries. We selected these three states because Delaware has a driver’s  license-related screening process while Georgia and Maryland do not, and  we wanted to obtain additional perspectives on factors affecting the  decisions to implement or not implement a screening process.  Overall, we  received responses from 38 state agencies (motor vehicle agencies and/or  sex offender registries) in 25 of the 26 states. Because these states  constitute a nonprobability sample, the responses cannot be viewed as  representative of the entire nation.
To determine what other factors could affect designing and implementing  a process to screen individuals against a state’s sex offender registry and  the FBI’s NSOR before issuing a driver’s license, we contacted officials at  the FBI and Nevada’s Department of Motor Vehicles and Department of  Public Safety. Also, in surveying the 26 other states, we obtained  perspectives from motor vehicle agency and sex offender registry officials  in these states.
In addition, to address all three objectives, we interviewed officials from  the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA).
We conducted this performance audit from July 2006 through December  2007 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 presents more  details about our objectives, scope, and methodology.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: All states, the District of Columbia, U.S. territories, and some Indian tribes  have laws and/or codes requiring convicted sex offenders to register with  local or state law enforcement authorities, the purpose of which is to  enhance public protection and provide an additional investigative tool to  law enforcement agencies. As mentioned previously, in most states, the  sex offender registry is centrally maintained by a state criminal justice  agency, such as the state police or a department of public safety.
Between 1994 and 2003, Congress passed a series of laws requiring states  to establish sex offender registries to be eligible to receive certain federal  funds. More recently, in 2006, Congress passed the Walsh Act to provide  more consistency nationwide among the states’ sex offender registration  programs and to make it more difficult for sex offenders to evade  monitoring. The Walsh Act requires states to modify their registration  systems in accordance with a comprehensive set of minimum standards,  or risk losing a percentage of certain federal grant program funds. These  minimum standards include who must register, what information must be  in the registries, how often registrants must reappear in person to verify  their registration information and have new photographs taken, the  number of years that offenders must maintain their registration, and the  penalties for failure to register.
To be useful, sex offender registry information must be current and  complete. Under the Walsh Act, sex offenders who change their name,  residence, or employment or student status must, within 3 business days,  appear in person in at least one jurisdiction involved and provide notice of  all changes. That jurisdiction must immediately provide updated  information to all other jurisdictions in which the sex offender is required  to register. To monitor the interstate movement of offenders, states  participate in NSOR, which was activated in 1999 as a component of the  FBI’s National Crime Information Center. NSOR enables law enforcement  agencies to share information across states. For instance, law enforcement  can run name checks against NSOR to identify sex offenders who have  failed to register after moving from one state to another. NSOR is available  to law enforcement only and allows for the use of extensive personal  identifying information, including alias identifications, in queries for  potential matches. According to the FBI, to meet the needs of law  enforcement in dealing with offenders who may provide false information  upon being arrested, each NSOR record can contain up to 100 names, 10  Social Security numbers, and 10 dates of birth.
Convicted sex offenders who fail to satisfy registration requirements are  subject to state or federal prosecution. The Walsh Act requires states to  impose criminal penalties (including a maximum term of imprisonment  that is greater than 1 year) on sex offenders who fail to comply with  registration requirements. In addition, the Walsh Act makes failure to  comply with registration requirements a federal crime (punishable by up  to 10 years in prison) for sex offenders who travel between states or  Indian tribal jurisdictions, or whose registrable offenses are for federal,  D.C., Indian, or territorial crimes. Noncompliance by offenders released  to community supervision generally may also be punishable by revocation  of release. Despite the potential for prosecution or revocation of release,  ensuring compliance with registration requirements is a significant  challenge. According to the Center for Sex Offender Management, every  state is grappling with problems regarding the accuracy of their sex  offender registries.
To better ensure compliance with registration requirements, some  observers have called for more interagency collaboration—to include, in  particular, a role for motor vehicle agencies. The National Center for  Missing and Exploited Children has advocated flagging driver-license and  vehicle registration files of sex offenders as a way to keep law  enforcement updated on address changes and other personal data. In  addition, following establishment of NSOR in 1999, the FBI encouraged  states to take advantage of the national registry. For instance, in guidance  distributed in 1999 to all states’ sex offender registry points of contacts,  the FBI noted that, upon issuing new driver’s licenses, motor vehicle  agencies could initiate a check of NSOR and provide the results (i.e.,  possible hits) to an authorized criminal justice agency for investigation to  verify the identity of the individuals and determine whether they were  required to register as sex offenders under the applicable state’s laws.
Aside from the prospective screening process discussed in section 636 of  the Walsh Act, the states say they are faced with extensive demands in  implementing other federal legislation, the REAL ID Act, which creates  national standards for the issuance of state driver’s licenses and  identification cards. For example, the REAL ID Act contemplates the use  of five national electronic systems to facilitate verification, but currently  only one of these systems is available on a nationwide basis.
section_title: States Are Using a Variety of Driver’s License-Related Processes to Encourage Registration or Provide Additional Monitoring of Convicted Sex Offenders
paragraphs: As of July 2007, 22 of the nation’s 50 states were using some form of  driver’s license-related process to encourage registration or provide  additional monitoring of convicted sex offenders. Generally, as indicated  in figure 1, these states and processes can be grouped among five  categories—(1) mandatory-identification states, (2) annual-renewal states,  (3) license-suspension states, (4) license-annotation states, and (5) cross- validation states.
As shown in figure 1, nine states—Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Florida,  Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, and Texas—specifically require  convicted sex offenders to obtain either a driver’s license, an identification  card, or a sex offender registration card issued through driver’s license- related processes. Further, five of these nine states—Alabama, Delaware,  Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi—also label the applicable driver’s  license, identification card, or registration card with an annotation that  identifies the person as a sex offender. Two other states, Kansas and  West Virginia, also have an annotation requirement, although these states  do not specifically require convicted sex offenders to obtain either a  driver’s license, an identification card, or a sex offender registration card.  Two of the seven “annotation” states, Kansas and Louisiana, provided us  examples of their annotated driver’s licenses and identification cards (see  fig. 2).
In seven states, the duration of time between driver’s license renewals for  convicted sex offenders is 1 year (in contrast to a multiyear duration  period typical for other residents). The renewal requirement can be more  frequent, for example, Mississippi law requires renewals every 90 days for  convicted sex offenders. And, under Florida law, within 48 hours after any  change of address in permanent or temporary residence (or a change of  name because of marriage or other legal process), convicted sex offenders  are required to report in person to a driver’s license office of the Florida  Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to update either a  driver’s license or an identification card.
Mississippi was one of the first states in the nation to have a sex offender  registration process that broadly utilizes motor vehicle agency or driver’s  license services. Since 2005, Mississippi has required convicted sex  offenders to personally appear every 90 days at any driver’s license office  in the state and obtain a sex offender registration card (similar to a  driver’s license) with updated information (e.g., photograph and address),  which is then forwarded to the state’s sex offender registry. According to  state officials, this process works efficiently in part because the  Mississippi Highway Patrol (which is responsible for driver services) and  the Mississippi Bureau of Investigation (which is responsible for  maintaining the sex offender registry) are under a single agency, the  Mississippi Department of Public Safety. Also, the officials noted that the  capability to use driver’s license offices to register offenders was  particularly feasible, given that offices are located in 80 of the state’s 82  counties—and all offices are equipped to enter data, update records, take  photographs, and issue cards.
For additional information about the 22 states’ driver’s license-related  processes to encourage registration or provide additional monitoring of  convicted sex offenders, see appendix II.
subsections: section_title: Nevada’s Approach Is Unique but Does Not Screen against the National Sex Offender Registry
paragraphs: Nevada is the one state that screens all applicants against a state sex  offender registry before issuing a driver’s license or identification card;  however, Nevada does not screen against the FBI’s NSOR. Thus, while  Nevada’s screening process most closely reflects the potential screening  capability discussed in section 636 of the Walsh Act, Nevada’s screening  process would not detect a sex offender who moved to Nevada from  another jurisdiction without permission and did not register in the state  (an “absconder”). Absent other cross-validation information, the offender  could possibly receive a regular driver’s license (or identification card)  with a 4-year expiration term.
Nevada’s screening process is based on state law enacted in 2005—Nevada  Senate Bill 341, Chapter 507 of Statutes of Nevada 2005. Pursuant to this  law, beginning July 1, 2006, the Department of Motor Vehicles may not  issue or renew a driver’s license to a convicted sex offender until the  Department of Motor Vehicles has received information from the  Department of Public Safety’s central repository or other satisfactory  evidence indicating that the convicted sex offender is in compliance with  registration requirements. Under the process subsequently developed and  used to implement the requirements of this statute, all individuals applying  for an initial driver’s license, requesting a driver’s license renewal, or  requesting other services (e.g., a duplicate license or an update of  information) from the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles are screened  against the state’s sex offender registry. To initiate the screening process,  the Department of Motor Vehicles electronically transmits a query to the  Department of Public Safety’s central repository, which conducts a search  against the state’s sex offender registry records. The data elements used  in the screening or matching process to determine if the applicant is a sex  offender are the applicant’s last name, first name, date of birth, and Social  Security number—and, if applicable, a previously issued operator license  number (driver’s license number), including the state of issuance.
Using these data elements, the Department of Public Safety conducts the  search and provides a single-digit response (0, 1, or 2) to the Department  of Motor Vehicles—normally within 15 seconds, according to state  officials. The applicable single-digit responses and related actions are as  follows (see fig. 3):    0: No definitive match to a single record in the sex offender registry.
The Department of Motor Vehicles follows its normal procedures and  issues the individual a 4-year license.    1: Positive match to a record in the sex offender registry, and the  person is in compliance with registration requirements. The  Department of Motor Vehicles issues the individual a 1-year license  (versus the standard 4-year license).    2: Positive match to a record in the sex offender registry, and the  person is not in compliance with registration requirements. A driver’s  license is not issued. Rather, the Department of Motor Vehicles gives  the noncompliant offender a standardized, 1-page printout of  instructions that outlines how to resolve the matter.
Nevada’s automated process does not require customer-service employees  at the Department of Motor Vehicles to review or interpret responses to  the query. For example, when an applicant is identified as a compliant sex  offender, the system software automatically adjusts the driver’s license  expiration date to 1 year. On the other hand, when the system identifies an  individual as a noncompliant sex offender, it produces the standardized  printout of instructions rather than a driver’s license.
In Nevada, convicted sex offenders must appear in person at a Department  of Motor Vehicles office to conduct all driver’s license-related services.  Offenders are not permitted to obtain or renew a license by mail or  Internet, nor by use of interactive computers (kiosks) available at  licensing locations. To ensure that convicted sex offenders do not  circumvent the in-person requirement, all mail, Internet, and kiosk  transactions are screened against the state’s sex offender registry. If a  positive match results, the individual is informed that the transaction must  be conducted in person at a Department of Motor Vehicles location,  irrespective of whether the individual is or is not in compliance with  registration requirements.
section_title: Most States We Surveyed Report They Would Need to Modify Their Information Technology Systems to Screen Individuals against Sex Offender Databases before Issuing Driver’s Licenses; Software Modifications Would Be a Key Cost Factor
paragraphs: In our survey of 26 states, most of the responding motor vehicle agencies  and sex offender registries reported that (1) moderate or major  modifications to their current IT systems would be needed to screen  driver’s license applicants against the respective state’s sex offender  registry and the FBI’s NSOR before issuing a license and (2) the most  significant cost factor would be software modifications. Also, the  agencies generally indicated that reliable cost estimates for establishing  the prospective screening system discussed in section 636 of the Walsh  Act cannot be calculated until the system’s operational requirements or  business rules are clearly defined.
As figure 4 shows, 30 of 38 state agencies (in the 25 states that responded  to our survey) reported that moderate or major modifications to their  current IT systems would be needed to establish the type of real-time  screening process discussed in section 636 of the Walsh Act. Moreover,  most of the responding state agencies identified development of software,  telecommunications, and business rules as key factors that could affect  the overall costs of the modifications—and that each of these factors  could have a moderate or major impact on the overall costs (see fig. 5).
Generally, 33 of the responding agencies indicated that software  modifications would be the most significant cost factor. For example, in  responding to our survey, officials from a West Coast state’s motor vehicle  agency emphasized that major software modifications—i.e., replacing or  upgrading information system programming—would be needed to  establish the capability to screen driver’s license applicants against the  state’s sex offender registry and the FBI’s NSOR. The officials explained  that software modifications to support logic changes in calculations of  expiration dates (e.g., 1-year versus 5-year)—as well as calculations of the  applicable fees to collect—would be needed in seven automated systems,  which are interrelated. For example, according to the officials, two of the  interrelated systems are (1) the automated system that supports driver’s  license and identification card issuance, revenue processing, and  workload reporting and (2) the data warehouse where activity to driver  records is stored and used for analysis and statistical reporting.
Thus, because numerous automated systems would be affected, the state  officials reiterated that establishing the proposed screening process would  be a major effort, requiring a project manager and both internal resources  and contractor support. Moreover, given competing demands, the officials  expressed concerns about taking on another major project. For instance,  the officials noted that the agency was in the process of implementing  various other IT projects, in addition to efforts related to implementing  REAL ID Act requirements.
Similarly, officials from another state’s motor vehicle agency responded  that the proposed screening process would necessitate major software  modifications to the agency’s automated systems. The officials explained  that the software used to issue licenses and the software used to account  for fees collected are intertwined, and each is governed by complex rules  and procedures that are not easily changed without affecting the entire  program. Among other complexities, the officials noted that the state  issues various types of driver’s licenses (e.g., private licenses, commercial  and non-commercial licenses, conditional licenses, ignition interlock  licenses, etc.) and that the fees vary by type of license. Further, the state  officials commented that—given competing demands for programming  resources, most notably demands generated by the REAL ID Act—the  agency would be in no position for several more years to even begin  making the needed software modifications associated with the prospective  screening system.
To support the prospective screening process discussed in section 636 of  the Walsh Act, state motor vehicle agencies said they would need an  electronic telecommunication interface not only with the respective state’s  sex offender registry agency, but also with the FBI’s NSOR. In 23 of the 26  states we surveyed, separate organizational entities are responsible for  issuing driver’s licenses and maintaining the respective state’s sex  offender registry—and, these states reported that no electronic  telecommunication interface currently exists to facilitate the real-time  exchange of data. Thus, they reported that the interface capability would  have to be established and would be another key cost factor.
As figure 5 further indicates, the state agencies also reported that another  key cost factor is the prospective screening system’s business rules, which  should specify operational and functional requirements. Further, the states  indicated that reliable cost estimates for establishing the prospective  screening system discussed in section 636 of the Walsh Act cannot be  calculated until the system’s business rules are clearly defined. For  example, regarding the prospective screening system, states said that  business rules should fully describe the software functionality to be  delivered, including what algorithm to use in determining whether a  driver’s license applicant is a person listed in the sex offender registry and  what happens when an applicant is matched to more than one record in  the sex offender registry. We have found in past work that establishing  well-defined business rules is critically important in being able to make  reliable cost estimates for any IT system or project. Decisions made on  business rules can have far-reaching impacts on all aspects of project  delivery, including costs. Among other considerations, requirements  should fully describe the software functionality to be delivered. Studies by  GAO and others have shown that problems associated with requirements  definition are key factors in software projects that do not meet their cost,  schedule, and performance goals.
section_title: Key Design Considerations Could Affect the Success of Screening Programs Using Driver’s License Processes
paragraphs: Beyond the IT and cost issues discussed in the previous section,  successful implementation of a driver’s license screening program for sex  offenders will also hinge on how well the program incorporates key design  considerations. Developing an effective nationwide screening program  could be a daunting challenge given the different processes, procedures,  databases, and operational environments in the motor vehicle and law  enforcement agencies across the nation.
subsections: section_title: Operational Challenges Could Affect the Successful Implementation of the Screening Program
paragraphs: In addition to the various IT issues noted earlier, our conversations with  federal, state, and AAMVA officials identified key operational challenges  that could affect the successful implementation of the type of screening  program discussed in the Walsh Act. For example, a recurring observation  by the motor vehicle agency officials we contacted is that their offices are  already overburdened. Some states are still addressing earlier federal  mandates such as the requirements of the Motor Carrier Safety  Improvement Act of 1999, while, as noted earlier in this report,  implementing the requirements of the REAL ID Act is also proving difficult  for states. At the same time, state legislatures are tasking motor vehicle  agencies with new responsibilities that generate demands on programming  and other resources, according to the state agencies we surveyed.  Consequently, a key concern expressed by state and AAMVA officials is  that a sex offender screening process could become an unfunded mandate  and be difficult, if not impossible, for states to execute on their own  because their budgets are already strained.
Moreover, the efficient operation of the screening process could be  problematic given the different entities that would need to be integrated.  For example, according to AAMVA, some state motor vehicle agencies are  independent, while others are under a state’s Department of Revenue,  Department of Public Safety, or Department of Transportation. Likewise,  in some jurisdictions, state-issued identification cards, which could be  used to track those individuals who lack driver’s licenses, are issued by  non-motor vehicle agencies. Consequently, these different entities would  need to coordinate with one another and share information for the  screening process to function effectively. Individual motor vehicle offices  within a particular state can differ as well, depending, for example, on  whether they are located in urban or more remote locales. This in turn  could affect the number of staff or physical space available to carry out  the screening program.
Some populations could present unique screening challenges. For  example, according to AAMVA, in urban locations such as Manhattan, a  number of residents do not have driver’s licenses and would need to  obtain identification cards in order to be included in the screening  process. Further, according to the director of the Department of Justice’s  Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and  Tracking (SMART) Office, Indian tribes differ as to how they handle  driver’s licenses. Some tribes issue their own driver’s licenses, whereas  other tribes rely on applicable state agencies. Another challenge noted by  the director is that records of Indian tribal court convictions of sex  offenders may not be readily accessible for screening because such  records generally are not contained in either state or national sex offender  registries.
State and AAMVA officials also underscored the importance of not  adversely affecting the main mission of the motor vehicle agencies.  Although they saw value in having the motor vehicle agencies support  efforts to track and monitor sex offenders, and acknowledged that the  public would feel safer knowing that states were taking these additional  steps to ensure sex offenders were complying with state registration  requirements, the officials were also concerned that taking on this role  could divert resources from the agencies’ core business functions and  impair customer service.
A final challenge we heard was that state motor vehicle agencies usually  do not have access to sex offender registry or criminal history records  because they are not considered to be law enforcement entities. As a  result, legislative or administrative action at the state level would be  needed to authorize that access.
At the federal level, FBI Criminal Justice Information Services Division  officials explained that non-law-enforcement agencies (such as state  motor vehicle agencies) traditionally have not been authorized by statute  to access federal databases that contain criminal history records, such as  the National Crime Information Center and NSOR. However, according to  the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Policy, the Attorney General  now has the authority under the Walsh Act to make determinations  regarding access to NSOR. Still, the Office of Legal Policy commented that  the department generally does not act unilaterally. Rather, the preference  is to use the FBI Criminal Justice Information Services Division’s advisory  process, which includes obtaining input from the user community (federal,  state, and local law enforcement).
section_title: Key Design Considerations Could Help Mitigate Operational Challenges
paragraphs: The numerous challenges to implementing the sex offender screening  program discussed in the Walsh Act highlight the importance of a sound  design that can function effectively in the different operating  environments found in the public safety agencies, motor vehicle agencies,  and other offices across the nation that would be involved in the screening  process. In particular, based on our interviews with federal, state, and  AAMVA officials, to the extent the government moves forward with a sex  offender screening program that employs driver’s license processes, it will  be important that the screening program be designed to (1) minimize the  burden on states, (2) maintain customer service, (3) mitigate unintended  consequences, and (4) communicate timely and actionable information on  noncompliant offenders to law enforcement personnel. Also, another  important design consideration, as indicated by our prior work on internal  controls, is to provide a basis for assessing the effectiveness of the  screening program. These design considerations could affect the  successful implementation of the screening program and its costs.
subsections: section_title: Minimize the Burden on States
paragraphs: State and AAMVA officials described various ways they believed would  reduce the implementation and operational challenges that could result if  the screening process discussed in the Walsh Act were executed  nationwide. Their suggestions centered on exploring potential efficiencies  that could be gained from leveraging existing IT infrastructure, batch  processing agency records, and coordinating the implementation of a sex  offender screening program with implementation of the REAL ID Act, to  the extent feasible. Each is discussed in greater detail below.
Leverage Existing IT Infrastructure: In response to our survey, nine  states indicated that using driver’s license processes to encourage  convicted sex offenders to comply with registration requirements might be  achieved more efficiently by expanding or leveraging IT systems used for  existing administrative functions rather than by developing a new  telecommunication system from the ground up to link motor vehicle  offices, state law enforcement agencies, and the FBI’s NSOR. In particular,  AAMVA and state officials noted that AAMVA operates a secure, private  data services network that already links the motor vehicle agencies of all  50 states and the District of Columbia. Although U.S. territories and Indian  tribes are not part of this system and would need to be connected (thus  incurring additional costs), and additional resources would be required to  operate the system, AAMVA officials said the system possibly could form  the needed conduit between state and federal agencies at a lower cost.
Batch Process Agency Records: According to officials in three of the  states we contacted, batch processing motor vehicle agency records  against sex offender registries is a potentially less costly alternative to the  real-time screening process currently performed in Nevada and discussed  in the Adam Walsh Act. With batch processing, driver’s license  applications from multiple individuals would be bundled together into  batches, and the screening process would be executed during the evening  or other less-busy times. With a real-time screening process, each driver’s  license applicant is matched against the sex offender registry in the course  of over-the-counter transactions.
Officials in one of the three states noted that batch processing could have  several advantages, such as significantly simplifying IT requirements,  reducing development and ongoing costs, and relieving motor vehicle  agency employees from any direct confrontations with sex offenders.  Officials from the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division  echoed this point, noting that batch processing could facilitate a more  efficient allocation of resources because it does not require immediate  attention by staff. In comparison, real-time screening requires staff to  research each query, potentially interrupting their performance of other  tasks.
Coordination with Implementation of the REAL ID Act, to the  Extent Feasible: As noted earlier in this report, motor vehicle agency  officials frequently mentioned that their systems were already  overburdened, and it will be difficult for them to take on new demands. In  particular, states noted how implementing the REAL ID Act will be both  expensive and technically challenging. For example, compliance with the  REAL ID Act’s standards would require states to (1) maintain a motor  vehicle database that contains, among other information, all data fields  printed on the license or identification card and (2) provide electronic  access to all other states to information contained in the motor vehicle  database.
Although the intent of the REAL ID Act and the sex offender screening  process discussed in the Walsh Act are different, states we surveyed  reported that they would need to modify their IT systems to implement  both. Should the government move forward with the sex offender  screening process, officials from both the Department of Justice and  AAMVA noted the importance of identifying areas where the modifications  needed to implement the screening process overlap with those needed to  comply with the REAL ID Act so that both efforts could be integrated and,  thereby, avoid requiring states to upgrade their IT systems a second time.
section_title: Maintain Customer Service
paragraphs: Officials we contacted in 15 states, as well as AAMVA officials, were  concerned that using driver’s license-related processes to monitor sex  offenders could divert resources from motor vehicle agencies’ core  business functions. Further, several of these states, as well as AAMVA  officials, noted that this could in turn result in longer lines and increased  workloads for staff. Additionally, offenders may be unruly or violent, a  situation that could jeopardize the safety of staff and customers. Law  enforcement personnel might be needed on site, a requirement that could  be problematic for motor vehicle offices that are small or are located in  remote locations. Agency staff might need special training because they  would be assuming a law enforcement function. Also, providing  explanations to noncompliant offenders may require more physical space  for privacy than currently available in over-the-counter settings, which  could take away space needed for other purposes.
During our study of Nevada’s screening approach, agency officials told us  that maintaining the traditional operations of the state’s motor vehicle  agency was both an important concern and significant challenge. For  example, the Driver’s Program Manager at the Nevada Department of  Motor Vehicles noted that the department was opposed to any system that  would have required its customer-service staff to function as enforcers of  the law when interacting with convicted sex offenders, and the screening  approach was designed accordingly. For example, under Nevada’s  approach, customer-service employees in the state’s motor vehicle agency  do not review or interpret the results of searches against the state’s sex  offender registry. Rather, Nevada’s system automatically adjusts the  driver’s license expiration date to 1 year for a compliant sex offender or,  for a potentially noncompliant offender, automatically prints a set of  instructions of additional actions to take, rather than issue a driver’s  license.
section_title: Mitigate Unintended Consequences
paragraphs: Despite the potential benefits of driver’s license-related processes for  monitoring sex offenders, many of the state and AAMVA officials we  contacted identified several unintended consequences that might result if  not given adequate attention. For instance, they said that sex offenders  could go “underground” and drive without a valid license, because they  might view a 1-year license—which contrasts to the multiyear license  typically issued to the general public—as being the equivalent of a “scarlet  letter” as the holders would be identifiable to the public as sex offenders.  Additionally, Nevada law enforcement officials noted that the state’s new  screening process could actually reduce compliance because it imposes  additional registration costs on convicted sex offenders. According to  these officials, compliant offenders need to pay the license renewal fee  ($21.25 for a driver’s license or $86.25 for a commercial driver’s license)  annually, rather than every 4 years as is the case with the general public.
Finally, while states such as Alabama and Arizona and six others require  convicted sex offenders to obtain and have in their possession a driver’s  license or an identification card, other states, including Nevada, lack this  requirement. Thus, in this latter group of states, an offender could simply  choose not to apply for either document and, thus, not be subject to the  screening process.
Currently, federal law does not specifically require convicted sex  offenders to obtain and have in their possession either a driver’s license or  an identification card. However, under section 114 of the Walsh Act  (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 16914), the jurisdiction in which a sex offender  registers is to ensure that the state’s registry includes “a photocopy of a  valid driver’s license or identification card issued to the sex offender by a  jurisdiction.” This statutory provision, according to the Department of  Justice, is not a mandate for all states to change their laws to require that  every convicted sex offender have either a driver’s license or an  identification card. Rather, the Department of Justice said that if a  convicted sex offender has been issued a driver’s license or an  identification card by any jurisdiction, a photocopy of it shall be included  in the applicable registry.
At the same time, Department of Justice and FBI officials as well as state  law enforcement officials noted that the use of names, dates of birth, and  other non-biometric identifying information to screen driver’s license  applicants against sex offender registry records would undoubtedly result  in some false-positive identifications—that is, mistakenly identifying some  individuals as being convicted sex offenders. Consequently, procedures  would be needed to address incorrect matches. The federal officials said  that motor vehicle agencies cannot be expected to prevent or resolve such  mistakes, especially if the agencies are provided only a coded, single-digit  response to each search query against the FBI’s NSOR. Rather, the federal  officials commented that the prospective screening process, if  implemented, must involve a law enforcement agency in each state—that  is, an agency with sufficient investigative capacity to confirm identities  and verify compliance with registration requirements.
The importance of some type of mechanism to review potentially incorrect  matches was underscored by the results of a 2006 FBI audit, which found  widespread problems with the quality of records that states submitted to  NSOR. Further, according to FBI officials, the NSOR database does not  record whether a convicted sex offender is in compliance with the  respective state’s registration requirements. Moreover, compliance status  can be difficult to determine because states use different definitions or  terminology.
Because of these data limitations, the FBI stresses that NSOR is an  information file only and does not provide a stand-alone basis for taking  official action. As a result, it will be important to determine how to best  minimize mistaken identifications and which agency—the motor vehicle  office, law enforcement, the courts, or other entity—should manage an  appeals process when such “false positives” occur.
section_title: Communicate Timely and Actionable Information on Noncompliant Offenders to Law Enforcement
paragraphs: Another design consideration is how to maximize the screening program’s  usefulness to law enforcement agencies when noncompliant offenders are  identified. This is important because local law enforcement personnel  generally have the primary responsibility for monitoring offenders and  investigating possible failures to comply with registration requirements.
In one state, for example, local law enforcement officials told us that  immediate notification once a noncompliant offender is identified could  help to ensure efficient use of limited resources and enhance compliance  with registration requirements. In another state, however, officials noted  that knowing an offender’s whereabouts and having the personnel to take  action are two separate and distinct issues. The officials pointed out that  many law enforcement agencies are already understaffed and would not  be able to respond to “hits” without additional resources. In short, simply  identifying noncompliant sex offenders will not necessarily result in their  arrest or prosecution.
section_title: Assess the Effectiveness of the Driver’s License-Related Screening Program
paragraphs: Regardless of the screening approach chosen, our prior work on federal  internal controls suggests that it will be important to be able to assess its  effectiveness. Indeed, performance measures and indicators are critical for  evaluating and controlling operations, and managers need operational data  to determine if a specific program is achieving intended results. That  said, the screening program’s influence on compliance could be difficult to  measure because the screening program is but one of various factors that  can affect sex offenders’ behavior. Another factor, for example, is the  extent to which convicted sex offenders are subject to specialized  supervision in communities and the adequacy of such supervision. Indeed,  directly attributing any change in compliance rates solely to a state’s  driver’s license-related process is not possible without controlling for  these other factors. Further, to ensure reliable data, key terms such as  “compliance” and the methodology for calculating compliance rates would  need to be articulated as well.
section_title: Concluding Observations
paragraphs: Driver’s license-related screening processes could, in concept, help  improve the level of compliance with state sex offender registration  requirements as well as enhance monitoring.  For example, if properly  designed, such screening processes could help prevent sex offenders in  one state from evading detection simply by moving to another state.   However, whether the most feasible approach would be a real-time  process similar to that discussed in the Adam Walsh Act or some other  method such as batch processing, remains an open question.  Indeed, no  state currently has operational experience with the type of real-time  screening process discussed in the Walsh Act—a process whereby all  driver’s license applicants would be screened against the respective state’s  sex offender registry and the FBI’s NSOR before issuance of a license.
Moreover, our study found that designing and implementing such a  screening process would require states to modify their IT systems and  make other changes—changes that could be costly and divert resources  from other priorities.  Further, the screening process could have efficiency  and other operational implications for motor vehicle offices at a time  when they are facing other demands with finite resources.
Beyond basic design considerations, the results of our work highlight the  many questions that surround the most cost-effective way of screening sex  offenders using driver’s license processes.  As AAMVA and state officials  have pointed out, before moving forward, business rules or functional  requirements would need to be defined, initial and long-term costs would  need to be more precisely estimated, and various operational challenges  would need resolution.  To help shed more light on these issues, and  inform decisions on how best to proceed, it will be important to have  better data. Decisions on the most optimal approach to pursue—and, if  applicable, how best to integrate the design considerations discussed in  this report—likely would necessitate collaboration among various  stakeholders, including interested states and AAMVA as well as relevant  Department of Justice components—particularly the FBI, which manages  NSOR, and the SMART Office, which is responsible for administering the  standards for the sex offender registration and notification program set  forth in the Walsh Act.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report for comment to the Department of  Justice. Also, we provided a draft of this report to the Nevada Department  of Motor Vehicles, the Nevada Department of Public Safety, and AAMVA to  review for accuracy and clarity. In its written response, the Department of  Justice provided technical comments only, which we incorporated in this  report where appropriate.
In its written response, the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles stated  that it had reviewed the draft for accuracy and clarity and had no  comments. The Nevada Department of Public Safety orally informed us  that it had no comments.
In its written response, AAMVA expressed appreciation that the draft  report identified the IT and related costs of adding sex offender  registration queries to state motor vehicle agency and AAMVA operations.  However, AAMVA emphasized that the following points should be  recognized if Congress were to decide to move forward with this type of  screening process:
A comprehensive study should first be conducted—with a report  detailing, scoping out, and finalizing the requirements to build the  system and the associated costs. In this regard, states and AAMVA will  require funding, and these investments are necessary in advance of  operating the system.
Consideration should be given to leveraging or using, as a conduit, an  existing system—namely, AAMVA’s secure, private network  (AAMVAnet), which connects the 50 states and the District of  Columbia. Costs would be incurred to connect U.S. territories and  Indian tribes, given that these entities currently are not part of  AAMVAnet. Also, additional resources would be required to operate  the system.
Further, AAMVA provided various technical comments, which we  incorporated in this report where appropriate.
We are providing copies of this report to interested congressional  committees, the Attorney General, and other interested parties. We will  also make copies available to others on request. In addition, this report  will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report or wish to discuss  the matter further, please contact me at (202) 512-8777 or  goldenkoffr@gao.gov. Contact points for our offices of Congressional  Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report.  Other key contributors to this report were Carla D. Brown, Willie  Commons, Christine Davis, Michele Fejfar, Sally P. Gilley, Jeremy L.  Hudgeons, Rebecca Kuhlmann Taylor, Marvin G. McGill, Linda S. Miller,  James R. Russell, and Shana B. Wallace.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
subsections: section_title: Objectives
paragraphs: Section 636 of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006  (the Walsh Act)—Public Law Number 109-248, enacted July 27, 2006— mandated that we conduct two studies regarding the use of driver’s  license-related processes to encourage registration and provide additional  monitoring of convicted sex offenders:    One mandated study was to focus on the approach recently  implemented in the State of Nevada. Under Nevada law effective July 1,  2006, before a driver’s license is issued to a convicted sex offender, the  individual must be in compliance with offender registration  requirements. A consideration in implementing the new statutory  provision in Nevada was the need to develop an electronic interface  capability between the Department of Motor Vehicles and the  Department of Public Safety, two principal but separate state agencies,  in order to screen all applicants for a driver’s license.
The other mandated study (a “national” study) was to survey a majority  of the states to assess their relative systems capabilities and the  potential costs to implement a driver’s license-related process that  would screen each applicant against the respective state’s sex offender  registry before issuing a driver’s license, as Nevada does, as well as  against the national sex offender registry (NSOR), which is maintained  by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
Section 636 of the Walsh Act specified that we complete the Nevada study  no later than February 1, 2007, and the national study no later than  January 24, 2007, which is “180 days after the date of the enactment of this  Act.” To meet these mandated dates, we offered to provide a briefing in  January 2007—summarizing the preliminary results to date of our ongoing  studies—to the offices of the Chairmen and the Ranking Members of the  House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary. Accordingly, during that  month, we briefed interested congressional staff.
Going forward, as agreed with the offices of the Chairmen and the Ranking  Members of the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary, rather  than issuing two separate final reports—i.e., a Nevada report and a  national report—we incorporated information regarding Nevada’s driver’s  license-screening approach into our survey of the majority of states. In  sum, in accordance with the congressional mandate and as discussed with  the offices of the Chairmen and the Ranking Members of the House and  Senate Committees on the Judiciary, this report addresses the following  key questions:In what ways are states using driver’s license-related processes to  encourage registration or provide additional monitoring of convicted  sex offenders?
If a federal law were enacted requiring states to screen individuals  against the respective state’s sex offender registry and the FBI’s NSOR  before issuing a driver’s license, (a) what level of modifications would  states need to make to their information technology (IT) capabilities to  comply with such a federal law and (b) what would be the key cost  factors to implement and maintain this screening capability?
What other factors could affect the successful design and  implementation of a process for screening individuals against a state’s  sex offender registry and the FBI’s NSOR before issuing a driver’s  license?
section_title: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: In addressing these questions, we obtained perspectives regarding  Nevada’s driver’s license-related process to encourage registration and  provide additional monitoring of convicted sex offenders. We reviewed the  legislative history of Chapter 507 of Statutes of Nevada 2005, and we  discussed the statutory provisions with staff of the Nevada Legislative  Counsel Bureau, the agency that provides research, fiscal information, and  other services for the state legislature. Also, at the Nevada Department of  Motor Vehicles and the Nevada Department of Public Safety, we obtained  and analyzed pertinent documentation such as the state’s IT system  specifications regarding implementation of the law, and we interviewed  responsible officials. Further, to obtain additional information regarding  significant challenges or lessons learned in implementing Chapter 507 of  Statutes of Nevada 2005, we contacted several local law enforcement  agencies. Specifically, we contacted the district attorney’s office and the  major city police department in Clark County and Washoe County. We  chose these locations because they are the state’s two most populous  counties. Clark County includes the City of Las Vegas and is the most  populous of Nevada’s 17 counties, with 1.8 million residents and 70  percent of the state’s population, and Washoe County includes Reno,  which is the state’s second largest city. Also, in conjunction with our site  visit to the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles and the Nevada  Department of Public Safety in the state capital (Carson City), we  contacted the Carson City Sheriff’s Department.
We also surveyed 26 other states to obtain additional perspectives on the  screening process discussed in section 636 of the Walsh Act. Specifically,  we contacted motor vehicle agency and sex offender registry officials in 26  states, a nonprobability sample, selected to reflect regional representation  across the nation and a range in the number of sex offender registrants  (e.g., small, medium, and large), as well as states with and without some  type of driver’s license-related process for monitoring sex offenders (see  table 1). Information obtained from the states we surveyed cannot be  generalized to all states.
More details about the scope and methodology of our work in addressing  each of the three key questions are presented in the following sections,  respectively.
subsections: section_title: Ways That States Are Using Driver’s License- Related Processes to Encourage Registration or Provide Additional Monitoring of Convicted Sex Offenders
paragraphs: To identify states that have statutory requirements for using driver’s  license-related processes to encourage registration or provide additional  monitoring of convicted sex offenders, we reviewed states statutes  through the end of July 2007. Thus, this report does not reflect any state  statutory provisions enacted after July 2007. Also, in identifying states that  have driver’s license-related processes for monitoring convicted sex  offenders, we did not include any state whose motor vehicle agency’s only  role was notification, such as use of a driver’s license application form that  contains a statement informing convicted sex offenders of the duty to  register. In addition, because we did not confirm our statutory research by  interviewing state officials, our interpretation of the statutory  requirements does not include any information on how states may be  implementing these requirements.
In addition to identifying states that have statutory requirements for using  driver’s license-related processes for monitoring convicted sex offenders,  we also identified some states that have agency-initiated processes by  reviewing the Web sites of agencies responsible for either maintaining the  respective state’s sex offender registry or issuing driver’s licenses. Further,  we reviewed documentation obtained from and interviewed officials at the  American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) and the  National Conference of State Legislatures. These identifications may not  be exhaustive because we did not contact motor vehicle and law  enforcement agencies in all 50 states to specifically inquire about the  availability or use of agency-initiated processes. Rather, our identification  of the agency-initiated processes was an ancillary result of the work we  conducted to identify states that have statutory requirements for using  driver’s license-related processes and to otherwise address the objectives  of our mandated study.
section_title: Level of Modifications to States’ Information Technology Capabilities and Key Cost Factors Regarding Prospective Federal Law
paragraphs: To determine what level of modifications would be needed to states’ IT  capabilities to comply with a prospective federal law that would require  screening individuals against the respective state’s sex offender registry  and the FBI’s NSOR before issuing a driver’s license and to determine the  key cost factors in implementing and maintaining this screening capability,  we conducted a survey of a majority (26) of the states, which involved  contacting motor vehicle agency and sex offender registry officials in each  of the states (see table 1). In surveying the 26 states, we developed,  pretested, and implemented a telephone questionnaire to collect  information. To help ensure substantive discussions, we distributed the  questionnaire to applicable state officials in advance of our meetings with  them. Most of these meetings were conducted by telephone conference,  although we made in-person visits to Nevada and three other states  (Delaware, Georgia, and Maryland). We selected these three states  because Delaware has a driver’s license-related screening process while  Georgia and Maryland do not.  We also wanted to obtain additional  perspectives on factors affecting the state’s decisions to implement or not  implement a screening process.
The questionnaire asked motor vehicle agency and sex offender registry  officials for their perspectives on the level of modifications to IT  systems—minimum, moderate, or major—that would be needed to  establish the screening process discussed in section 636 of the Walsh Act.  Also, the questionnaire solicited information regarding the various cost  factors that might affect the modification and the relative impact that each  factor might have on the overall cost of the modification. We received  responses to the questionnaire from motor vehicle agencies and/or sex  offender registries in 25 of the 26 states. In total, the 25 states provided 41  responses, which consisted of responses from 20 motor vehicle agencies  and 17 sex offender registry agencies, plus responses from 4 states that  each presented the combined views of the respective state’s motor vehicle  and sex offender registry agencies. Some of the 41 respondents did not  answer every item in the questionnaire, so not all reported responses are  based on 41 agencies’ information. For example, the data presented in  figure 4 were based on answers from 38 respondents, and the data in  figure 5 from 39 respondents.
Further, as an additional source for obtaining perspectives on IT  capabilities and costs regarding the screening process discussed in section  636 of the Walsh Act, we interviewed officials from the Department of  Justice’s Office of Justice Programs. Also, we contacted AAMVA to  explore options for expanding or leveraging existing IT capabilities to  screen sex offender registries before issuing driver’s licenses.
section_title: Other Design and Implementation Factors That Could Affect the Results from Any Sex Offender Screening Program Using Driver’s License Processes
paragraphs: To determine what other factors, in addition to IT capabilities and costs,  could affect the successful design and implementation of a process for  screening individuals against a state’s sex offender registry and the FBI’s  NSOR before issuing a driver’s license, we relied largely on the  information we obtained during our review of Nevada’s driver’s license  screening process and from our contacts with motor vehicle agency and  sex offender registry officials in the 26 survey states (see table 1). For  instance, in contacting motor vehicle agencies, we obtained perspectives  regarding the potential effects of the proposed screening process on the  traditional operations of the agencies—as well as the implications of other  demands, particularly the requirements of the REAL ID Act, which creates  national standards for the issuance of state driver’s licenses and  identification cards.
Also, we contacted the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS)  Division, which is responsible for managing NSOR and other component  files of the National Crime Information Center. In contacting the CJIS  Division, we interviewed program managers and reviewed documentation  regarding the capacity or capability of the National Crime Information  Center and NSOR to handle the volume of searches that could be  anticipated if a federal law were enacted, the potential for and  implications of false negatives or false positives stemming from name- based searches, and other relevant issues or concerns. Regarding the  quality and completeness of NSOR records, we reviewed the results of the  most recent audits conducted by the FBI’s CJIS Audit Unit. These audits— conducted in a two-part cycle that ended in April 2005 and September  2006, respectively—covered records submitted by 49 states, the District of  Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Moreover, from the FBI’s CJIS Division, we obtained views regarding  periodic batch processing of motor vehicle agency records against sex  offender registries as a possible alternative to the real-time screening of  driver’s license applicants. We followed up with applicable states to  discuss the potential advantages and disadvantages of such batch  processing versus real-time processing.
Further, to obtain additional law enforcement perspectives on the  screening process discussed in section 636 of the Walsh Act, we contacted  the U.S. Marshals Service. Among other responsibilities, under section 142  of the Walsh Act, the Attorney General is required to use the resources of  federal law enforcement, including the U.S. Marshals Service, to assist  jurisdictions in locating and apprehending sex offenders who violate sex  offender registration requirements.
We conducted this performance audit from July 2006 through December  2007 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: Overview of States’ Processes for Encouraging Registration or Providing Additional Monitoring of Convicted Sex Offenders
paragraphs: This appendix presents an overview of driver’s license-related processes  that states use for encouraging registration or providing additional  monitoring of convicted sex offenders. Such processes may be based on  statutory requirements or on agency initiatives, as indicated in the  following respective sections.
subsections: section_title: States with Statutory Requirements for Using Driver’s License-Related Processes for Encouraging Registration or Providing Additional Monitoring of Convicted Sex Offenders
paragraphs: To identify states that have statutory requirements for using driver’s  license-related processes for encouraging registration or providing  additional monitoring of convicted sex offenders, we reviewed states  statutes through the end of July 2007. Table 2 presents the results of our  research. As shown, we identified a total of 20 relevant state statutes as of  July 2007. Given the degree of legislative interest in monitoring sex  offenders, as indicated by the relatively recent effective dates of many of  the state statutes, table 2 should be considered a snapshot of state  information as of July 2007, with changes likely to occur in the future. In  addition, because we did not confirm our statutory research by  interviewing state officials, table 2 reflects our interpretation of the  statutory requirements we identified and does not include any information  on how states may be implementing these requirements.
As table 2 indicates, the 20 states reflect various types of driver’s license- related processes for encouraging registration or providing additional  monitoring of convicted sex offenders. Generally, these processes can be  grouped within the following five categories:    Mandatory-Identification States: Alabama, Arizona, Delaware,  Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, and Texas require  convicted sex offenders to obtain identification in the form of a driver’s  license, an identification card, or a sex offender registration card  issued through driver’s license-related processes. Of these states,  Alabama, Arizona, Indiana, and Louisiana explicitly require convicted  sex offenders to carry their identification.
Annual-renewal States: In Arizona, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana,  Oklahoma, Texas, and Utah, the driver’s licenses or identification cards  of convicted sex offenders expire annually and are subject to annual  renewal. Of these states, Arizona, Louisiana, and Texas mandate that  sex offenders obtain a driver’s license or an identification card, making  the annual renewal process mandatory. In the remaining states, annual  renewal is contingent upon the sex offender’s decision to maintain a  valid driver’s license or identification card, though penalties would  apply for driving with an invalid license.
License-Suspension States: In Illinois, Massachusetts, Mississippi,  Nevada, and North Carolina, the motor vehicle agency must suspend,  cancel, or refuse to issue or renew the driver’s license or identification  card of a sex offender who is not in compliance with registration  requirements.
License-Annotation States: Alabama, Delaware, Florida, Kansas,  Louisiana, Mississippi, and West Virginia label the applicable driver’s  license, identification card, or registration card with an annotation that  identifies the holder as a sex offender.
Cross-Validation States: State law enforcement entities in Arizona,  Colorado, Florida, New Hampshire, and Virginia use motor vehicle  agency records to help ensure the accuracy or currency of addresses in  the respective state’s sex offender registry.
section_title: States with Agency Initiatives for Using Driver’s License- Related Processes for Encouraging Registration or Providing Additional Monitoring of Convicted Sex Offenders
paragraphs: Generally, as discussed in appendix I, our identification of states that have  agency-initiated processes for using driver’s license-related processes for  encouraging registration or providing additional monitoring of convicted  sex offenders was an ancillary result of the work we conducted to (1)  identify states that have statutory requirements for such processes and (2)  otherwise address the objectives of our mandated study. Thus, the listing  in table 3 is not intended to be exhaustive because we did not contact  motor vehicle and law enforcement agencies in all 50 states to specifically  inquire about the availability or use of agency-initiated processes. One of  the three states listed in table 3—Florida—is also included in table 2. We  found that Florida supplements its statutory cross-validation procedures  with additional agency-initiated cross-validation procedures, as discussed  in table 3. Further, table 3 identifies two additional states that have non- statutory, agency-initiated processes: California and Pennsylvania are  “cross-validation” states.
In one sense, Nevada’s screening process (see fig. 3) can be categorized as  an agency-initiated process. That is, Nevada’s statute does not specifically  require prescreening, but prescreening against the state’s sex offender  registry is the method Nevada has adopted to implement the statutory  prohibition on issuing driver’s licenses or identification cards to sex  offenders who are not in compliance with registration requirements. In  terms of the implementation information we developed, it appears that  Nevada is unique in being the only state that uses its motor vehicle agency  to prescreen all applicants against a sex offender registry before issuing a  driver’s license or identification card.