Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act: Additional Outreach and Notification of Tribes about Offenders Who Are Released from Prison Needed
Published: 2014-11-18T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: According to DOJ, tribal nations are disproportionately affected by violent crimes and sex offenses in particular. In 2006, Congress passed SORNA, which introduced new sex offender registration and notification standards for states, territories, and eligible tribes. The act made special provisions for eligible tribes to elect either to act as registration jurisdictions or to delegate SORNA functions to the states in which they are located. GAO was asked to assess the status of tribes' efforts to implement SORNA and the challenges they face doing so.
This report addresses, among other things, (1) the extent to which eligible tribes have retained their authority to implement, and for those that did, describe their implementation status and (2) implementation challenges tribes that retained their authority reported, and steps federal agencies have taken or could take to address these challenges. GAO reviewed data on eligible tribes' implementation status; conducted a survey of tribes that retained their authority; and interviewed federal, state, and local officials.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Most eligible tribes have retained their Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) implementation authority and have either substantially implemented the act or are in the process of doing so. As of August 2014, 77 percent (164 of the 214) of eligible tribes had retained their implementation authority. Tribes that lacked the resources, among other factors, to implement SORNA either delegated their own authority, or the SMART Office delegated the tribe's authority, to a state. According to the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (SMART Office)—the office SORNA established within the Department of Justice (DOJ) to administer and assist jurisdictions with implementing the law—43 percent (71 of 164) of tribes that retained their authority to implement SORNA have substantially implemented the act; the SMART Office has not yet made a final determination on 43 percent (70 of 164); and 13 percent (22 of 164) have not submitted complete packages. The SMART Office determined that 1 tribe has not yet substantially implemented SORNA.
In GAO's survey of tribes that retained their authority, the four most frequently reported implementation challenges included inability to submit convicted sex offender information to federal databases, lack of notification from state prisons upon the release of sex offenders, lack of staff, and inability to cover the costs of SORNA implementation. Federal agencies have taken steps to address these challenges, but more could be done. For example, DOJ and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) within the Department of the Interior (Interior) have formed a working group to better coordinate federal efforts to address tribes' difficulties submitting convicted sex offender information to federal databases. However, some states have not notified tribes—those that retained their SORNA authority, as well as ineligible and delegated tribes—when sex offenders who will be or have been released from state prison register with the state and indicate that they intend to live, work or attend school on tribal land, as SORNA requires; and while the SMART Office has taken some actions, more could be done to encourage states to provide notification to tribes. Such notification would help tribes identify and monitor sex offenders who live on their lands and enforce tribal laws pertaining to sex offenders. The SMART Office, U.S. Marshals Service, and BIA provided financial assistance, equipment, and staff to help tribes address their resource needs. However, BIA offered assistance only to tribes for which BIA provides direct law enforcement services, which account for only 20 percent of the tribes that retained their SORNA implementation authority, even though BIA is responsible for assisting and advising all federally recognized tribes regarding their law enforcement and public safety needs. Taking steps to ascertain what, if any, resource or other needs all tribes that retained their authority may have could better position BIA to support the tribes' efforts to implement the act.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that, among other things, the SMART Office encourage states to notify tribes about offenders who plan to live, work, or attend school on tribal land upon release from prison. GAO also recommends that BIA reach out to all tribes that retained their authority to determine what, if any, assistance they would like from BIA. DOJ and Interior concurred.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: In 2009, the United States Attorney General launched a Department of  Justice (DOJ) initiative on public safety in tribal communities and  identified combating violence against women and children in tribal  communities as one of the department’s priority goals. According to DOJ,  tribal nations are disproportionately affected by violent crime, particularly  violent crime against women. Starting in 1994, Congress passed several  laws that required states to establish sex offender registries—which are  systems that enable law enforcement officials to monitor convicted sex  offenders who live in the state, and to establish notification systems to  alert the public about these offenders. Since these sex offender  registration and notification laws applied only to states and territories,  there were public safety concerns that convicted sex offenders would  move to tribal lands to avoid registration. To protect the public, including  tribal nations, from sex offenders, in 2006, Congress passed the Sex  Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) as Title I of the Adam  Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act (Adam Walsh Act). SORNA  sought to introduce comprehensive standards to make state and territory  sex offender registration systems more uniform. It also provided certain  tribes the opportunity to create sex offender registration and notification  systems where, for most tribes, these systems did not previously exist.  The initial statutory deadline for implementing SORNA was July 2009—3  years after the Adam Walsh Act was enacted. However, given that none  of the jurisdictions had substantially implemented SORNA by the original  deadline, the Attorney General exercised his authority under SORNA to  authorize two 1-year extensions of the deadline to July 2011.
SORNA establishes that federally recognized tribes, with the exception of  those tribes that are subject to the criminal jurisdiction of a state, under a  specific federal statute, are eligible to implement the act.  SORNA grants  authority to the states where ineligible tribes are located to implement the  act on behalf of these tribes. In 2013, we reported that 19 of 56 states  and territories had substantially implemented SORNA.majority of nonimplemented jurisdictions reported that generating the  political will to incorporate the necessary changes to their state laws and  related policies or reconciling legal conflicts between SORNA and state  laws were among the greatest challenges to implementation. Since our  2013 report, the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring,  Apprehension, Registering, and Tracking (SMART Office)—the office  responsible for administering the standards for SORNA implementation— has determined that 1 additional state has substantially implemented  SORNA.
We noted that a  Recognizing that tribes may vary in their capacities for discharging the  sex offender registration and notification functions, SORNA made special  provisions for eligible tribes to elect either to act as registration  jurisdictions or to delegate their registration and notification functions to  the states. SORNA requires delegation for tribes subject to state criminal  jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1162, tribes that do not elect to  implement SORNA, and tribes that the Attorney General determines have  not substantially implemented the act and are not likely to become  capable of doing so within a reasonable amount of time.
Considering the unique circumstances tribes face with eligibility and  capability to implement the act, you asked us to assess the status of  tribes’ efforts to implement SORNA and the challenges they face with  implementation. Specifically, this report addresses the following  questions:
To what extent have eligible tribes retained their authority to  implement SORNA, and for those that did, what is their  implementation status?
What implementation challenges, if any, have tribes that retained their  authority to implement SORNA reported, and what steps have federal  agencies and others taken or could they take to address these  challenges?
To what extent are states incorporating ineligible and delegated tribes  into their state sex offender registration and notification systems?
To address our first objective, we reviewed the SMART Office’s data of  eligible tribes’ implementation status as of August 2014 to identify (1)  tribes that have retained their authority to implement SORNA, (2) tribes  that have delegated their implementation authority to a state, and (3)  tribes whose implementation authority the SMART Office delegated to a  state. To address the reliability of the SMART Office’s data on tribes’  implementation status, among other steps, we obtained written responses  to our questions on how SMART Office representatives who use and  maintain the data ensure the data’s reliability. We found the data  sufficiently reliable for the purpose of identifying tribes’ SORNA  implementation status. In addition, we surveyed the SORNA points of  contact for each of the tribes that retained their authority to implement  SORNA to obtain more detailed information on these tribes’  implementation status. We received responses from 80 percent (129 of  161) of all tribes surveyed.
To address our second objective, we interviewed legal advisers and  management officials from the SMART Office, the Office of Tribal Justice  (OTJ), the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), and the Federal Bureau of  Investigation (FBI), as well as the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) within the  Department of the Interior, to determine the implementation challenges  tribes have reported and steps the agencies, the tribes, and others have  taken to address these challenges.Criminal Justice Information Services Division (CJIS) management and  program officials to determine CJIS policies and procedures for granting  tribes access to federal criminal justice databases, which CJIS manages  and are required for SORNA implementation. We also interviewed state  and tribal, as well as local, law enforcement officials from 5 states—  Florida, Michigan, Nevada, New York, and Oklahoma. We selected these  5 states because each contains territory of tribes that retained their  authority to implement SORNA, and the states vary with regard to their  SORNA implementation status and geographic diversity. In addition, we  interviewed management and law enforcement officials from the two BIA  Office of Justice Services (OJS) regional districts that are responsible for  most of the direct service tribes that retained their authority to implement   In addition, we interviewed FBI  SORNA.have provided to tribes with regard to SORNA implementation. Although  the perspectives we obtained from our interviews with these state, BIA,  and tribal officials are not generalizable, the interviews provided insights  regarding the challenges that tribes face with implementing SORNA and  actions that federal agencies have taken or could take to address the  challenges.
We discussed with these officials what, if any, assistance they  We also included questions in our survey of tribes that retained their  authority to implement SORNA about the types and extent of challenges  the tribes experienced with SORNA implementation; steps the tribes are  taking to address the challenges; and the funding and other assistance  the tribes have received or could receive from federal, state, or local law  enforcement agencies to assist them with implementing the act. To  determine if any additional actions could address such challenges, we  compared our survey results against SORNA provisions as well as the  National Guidelines for Sex Offender Registration and Notification  (National Guidelines).
To address our third objective, we interviewed state SORNA and sex  offender registry officials from all 6 states where ineligible tribes are  located as well as 8 ineligible tribes—at least 1 each from the 6 states.  We selected the tribes based on whether they submitted a resolution to  implement SORNA in spite of their ineligibility, and the challenges the  states in which the tribes are located reportedly faced with SORNA  implementation. The information from these interviews enabled us to determine if these states include the ineligible tribes in their state SORNA  registration and notification systems, as SORNA requires, as well as to  identify the challenges, if any, the states and tribes face with having the  states implement SORNA on the tribes’ behalf. We also interviewed tribal  leaders from 4 delegated tribes that opted out or were delegated by the  SMART Office, and solicited perspectives of sex offender registry officials  in the 15 states to which tribes’ SORNA authority has been delegated.
To supplement the information we received from our interviews as well as  our survey of tribes that retained their authority, we interviewed officials  from three relevant national associations: the National Congress of  American Indians, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and  the National Criminal Justice Association, to obtain their perspectives on  the challenges that tribes face with implementation, and the actions that  the SMART Office and others have taken to address these challenges.  We selected these associations because they represent the interests of  tribal communities or state and local law enforcement agencies that assist  jurisdictions, including tribes, with SORNA implementation.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2013 to November  2014 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Appendix I includes more  details about our scope and methodology.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: SORNA Requirements
paragraphs: The purpose of SORNA is to protect the public from convicted sex  offenders and offenders against children by providing a comprehensive  set of sex offender registration and notification standards. These  standards require convicted sex offenders to register prior to their release  from imprisonment or within 3 days of their sentencing, if the sentence  does not involve imprisonment. Further, the standards require these  offenders to register and keep the registration current in the jurisdictions  in which they live, work, and attend school. SORNA implementing  jurisdictions are to maintain a jurisdiction-wide sex offender registry and  website and adopt registration requirements that are at least as strict as  those SORNA established. Convicted sex offenders are required to  continue to update or verify their registration information, the duration and  frequency of which depends on the seriousness of the crimes they  committed. For example, SORNA requires a lifetime registration for  convicted offenses in the most serious class such as aggravated sexual  abuse (tier III), a 25-year registration for many felony sex offenses or  sexual exploitation crimes with minors (tier II), and a 15-year registration  for convicted offenses that do not support a higher classification such as  possession of child pornography (tier I). SORNA requires in-person  appearances depending on the convicted sex offender’s tier classification  (tier I annually, tier II semiannually, and tier III quarterly) at established  registration locations to update or verify registration information.
Under the act, implementing jurisdictions are to submit basic identifier  information for each convicted sex offender, such as the offender’s name,  Social Security number, and address to the FBI’s National Sex Offender  Registry (NSOR), which is a subfile of the National Crime Information   In addition, these jurisdictions are to submit the sex  Center (NCIC). offender’s fingerprints to the Integrated Automated Fingerprint  Identification System (IAFIS), the sex offender’s palm prints to the  National Palm Print System (NPPS), and a DNA sample to the Combined  DNA Index System (CODIS).authorized state CJIS Systems Agencies (CSA) to determine which   According to FBI officials, FBI CJIS has  entities within their states, including tribes, can access these federal  criminal databases. The implementing jurisdictions are also to provide  information from the registry about the sex offender to (1) appropriate law  enforcement agencies (including probation agencies), and each school  and public housing agency, in each area in which the individual resides, is  an employee, or is a student; (2) each jurisdiction where the sex offender  resides, is an employee, or is a student; (3) each jurisdiction from or to  which a change of residence, employment, or student status occurs; and  (4) any organization, company, or individual who requests such  notification, among others.
section_title: Tribes’ SORNA Eligibility
paragraphs: Under SORNA, 353 of the 566 federally recognized tribes are ineligible to  implement the act, while 214 tribes are eligible. SORNA based tribes’  eligibility on whether the tribe is subject to the criminal jurisdiction of a  state under section 1162 of title 18, United States Code, making those tribes that are subject to such jurisdiction ineligible to implement the act.Section 1162 gives states criminal jurisdiction over offenses committed by  or against Indians in the areas of Indian country within 6 states—Alaska,  California, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, and Wisconsin.tribes are generally ineligible to implement SORNA for tribal lands located  within these states. The states are responsible for incorporating these  tribal lands in state-wide SORNA implementation efforts.
SORNA provided tribes 1 year from its July 27, 2006, enactment, to  choose—by resolution or other enactment of the tribal council or  comparable governmental body—to either retain the tribe’s SORNA  implementation authority and act as a registration jurisdiction or delegate  the tribe’s registration and notification functions to the state. however, is automatic for a tribe that did not affirmatively elect to  implement the act itself prior to July 27, 2007. SORNA authorizes tribes  that retained their implementation authority to enter into cooperative  agreements with states and decide which functions to maintain or  delegate to the state. The Attorney General can also delegate a tribe’s  SORNA registration and notification functions to a state if the Attorney  General determines that the tribe has not substantially implemented the  requirements of SORNA and is not likely to become capable of doing so  within a reasonable amount of time.
section_title: Federal Role in Sex Offender Registration and Notification
subsections: section_title: SMART Office
paragraphs: 42 U.S.C. § 16927(a). assistance and grant funds, and administer the standards for determining  whether jurisdictions have implemented the law. Eligible jurisdictions  submit a substantial implementation package that outlines their  implementation efforts for SMART Office review. The package can  include tribal laws pertaining to sex offender registration administrative  policy and procedures, and the jurisdiction’s public sex offender website,  among other things. The SMART Office developed the SORNA  Substantial Implementation Checklist tool (described in app. II) that  jurisdictions can use to prepare the package.
After reviewing the package, the SMART Office determines whether the  jurisdiction has “substantially implemented” or “not substantially  implemented” the minimum requirements of SORNA. To do so, the  SMART Office must follow the standards set forth in the (1) act; (2)  SORNA National Guidelines, issued in July 2008; and (3) Supplemental  Guidelines for Sex Offender Registration and Notification (Supplemental  Guidelines), issued in January 2011.standard does allow for some latitude, and accordingly, the National  Guidelines require the SMART Office to consider, on a case-by-case  basis, whether jurisdictions’ rules or procedures substantially implement  SORNA.
section_title: United States Marshals Service
paragraphs: Pursuant to SORNA, DOJ has designated the U.S. Marshals Service as  the lead federal agency in three key missions: to assist state, local, tribal,  and territorial authorities in the location and apprehension of  noncompliant convicted sex offenders; to investigate violations of the  criminal provisions of the act; and to identify and locate convicted sex  offenders displaced as a result of a major disaster. USMS has designated  a senior inspector in each of its 94 district offices to carry out the agency’s  SORNA responsibilities.
section_title: Bureau of Indian Affairs
paragraphs: Within the Department of the Interior (Interior), the Bureau of Indian  Affairs is responsible for supporting tribes in their efforts to ensure public  safety and administer justice within their reservations, as well as to  provide related services directly or to enter into contracts or compacts  with federally recognized tribes to administer the law enforcement  program.major federal crimes, including sexual offenses, committed on, or  involving, Indian country. OJS provides oversight and technical  assistance to tribal law enforcement programs.
section_title: Most Eligible Tribes Have Retained Their SORNA Implementation Authority and Have Either Substantially Implemented the Act or Are in the Process of Doing So
subsections: section_title: Most Eligible Tribes Retained Their Implementation Authority, and Tribes That Lacked the Resources or Did Not Take the Necessary Steps toward Implementation Had Their Authority Delegated
paragraphs: As of August 2014, 164 of the 214 (nearly 77 percent) eligible tribes had  retained their authority to implement SORNA, while the remainder did not  retain their authority because they either elected to delegate their  authority to a state (24 tribes) or the SMART Office delegated their  authority to a state (26 tribes), as shown in figure 1.
According to SMART Office representatives, the agency delegated the  SORNA implementation authority of 26 tribes primarily because the tribes  (1) chose not to delegate their authority although they did not plan to  implement the act, because they thought delegating their authority was  equivalent to relinquishing their sovereignty; (2) indicated that they lacked  the necessary resources to implement the act in a reasonable amount of  time; or (3) were nonresponsive to the SMART Office’s repeated inquiries  to gauge the tribes’ interest in implementing the act. Our interviews with  tribal council and law enforcement officials from 2 of the 24 tribes that  elected to delegate their authority to a state similarly revealed that these  tribes chose to delegate their authority because they did not have the  necessary resources to implement the act. Furthermore, officials from 1  tribe stated that implementation did not seem worth the expense for their  tribe considering the small number of tribal members, the fact that none of  the tribal members live on tribal land year-round, and the remote location  of their tribal land.
section_title: SMART Office Determined That 43 Percent of Tribes That Retained Their Authority Have Substantially Implemented SORNA, and Nearly 43 Percent More Are in Process
paragraphs: According to the SMART Office, 43 percent (71 of 164) of tribes that  retained their authority to implement SORNA have substantially  implemented the act; nearly 43 percent (70 of 164) have submitted an  implementation package, but the SMART Office has not yet made a  determination; and 13 percent (22 of 164) have not submitted a complete  package. The SMART Office has determined, to date, that 1 tribe has not  substantially implemented SORNA, as shown in figure 2 and appendix III.  For the implementation status and location of all eligible tribes, see figure  3.
According to the SMART Office, the number of tribes that have submitted  implementation packages for review as well as the number of tribes that  have substantially implemented SORNA continue to increase.
Representatives of two of the three tribal and law enforcement  associations we interviewed in January 2014 said that the number of  tribes that had substantially implemented SORNA—at the time, 49  tribes—was far greater than what these representatives said that they  expected, given the magnitude of the implementation challenges that  tribes face, such as limitations with information sharing, a high staff  turnover, and the lack of cooperation between tribes and local law  enforcement. We discuss such challenges and steps to address them in  detail later in this report. According to the tribes that have submitted an  implementation package for review that responded to our survey, it took a  majority of these tribes 2 years to submit a complete implementation  package to the SMART Office for review. SMART Office representatives  said that it takes the office, on average, 6 months from the time it receives  a tribe’s package to begin reviewing it. This is because the office’s review  depends on a number of factors, such as the availability of SMART Office  staff to review implementation packages. At the time of our review,  SMART Office representatives indicated that there were three policy  advisers on staff to review implementation packages. Additionally, the  time it takes for the SMART Office to determine a tribe’s implementation  status depends on how quickly the tribe can address any issues the  SMART Office identifies in its review and can be affected by factors such  as the frequency with which a tribal council meets, and thereby can  address the office’s questions.
Nineteen of the 22 tribes that have not submitted an implementation  package responded to our survey and provided a variety of reasons why  they have not done so, as well as an estimate of when they expect to do  so. Specifically, 7 of the 19 tribes did not submit a package because they  are in the process of amending their tribal codes, 4 tribes indicated that  they needed additional time to complete and submit their packages, and 3  others either currently have agreements or are in the process of entering  into agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies to assist  with SORNA implementation. Fourteen of the 19 tribes plan to submit a  package by the end of calendar year 2014, 2 tribes expect to submit a  package in calendar year 2015 or later, and 3 tribes are uncertain about  when they will submit a package.
SMART Office representatives stated that the office has granted each of  these 22 tribes additional time to submit its package. SMART Office  representatives said that they have not set a final deadline for tribes to  substantially implement SORNA and that the office will continue to work  with every tribe that shows interest and is working on implementing the  act.
section_title: Federal Agencies Have Helped Tribes Address Challenges, but Some States Do Not Notify Tribes about Registered Offenders Who Plan to Live, Work, or Attend School on Tribal Land upon Release from State Prison
paragraphs: About 76 percent of tribes that retained their authority to implement  SORNA reported experiencing at least one major or minor challenge to  implementing the act. These tribes most frequently reported inability to  submit convicted sex offender information to NCIC and NSOR as a major  challenge. DOJ and BIA, as well as state and local law enforcement  agencies, have taken actions to help address these challenges. However,  additional steps to ensure that states notify tribes about registered sex  offenders who plan to live, work, or attend school on tribal lands upon  release from state prison, and to identify what, if any, assistance tribes  may need in order to implement SORNA, would help further address  tribes’ challenges.
subsections: section_title: Tribes Most Frequently Reported Lack of Access to NCIC, Lack of Notification when Convicted Sex Offenders Are Released, and Insufficient Staff
paragraphs: Tribal officials from 98 of the 129 tribes (76 percent) that retained their  authority to implement SORNA and responded to our survey questions on  challenges to implementing SORNA reported that their tribes experienced   As shown  at least one major or minor challenge to implementing the act.in figure 4, the major challenges tribes most frequently reported included  inability to submit convicted sex offender information to NCIC or NSOR;  lack of notification from state prisons about sex offenders who indicate  that they plan to live, work, or attend school on tribal lands; insufficient  staff; and inability to cover costs to implement SORNA or maintain the  tribe’s registry.
section_title: DOJ and BIA Have Formed a Working Group to Better Coordinate Federal Efforts to Address Tribes’ Difficulties Submitting Convicted Sex Offender Information to NCIC or NSOR
paragraphs: Under SORNA, as well as DOJ’s National Guidelines for SORNA  Implementation, jurisdictions are to provide convicted sex offender  information for inclusion in NSOR, which is part of NCIC. However, 39  of the 129 (about 30 percent) tribes that responded to our survey reported  difficulties meeting this requirement as a major or minor challenge to  SORNA implementation.
These tribes, as well as the federal, state, and tribal sex offender registry  and law enforcement officials we interviewed, cited reasons why some  tribes do not submit convicted sex offender information to NCIC or are  able to do so only with the assistance of other state and local law  enforcement agencies.
Cost of NCIC access. Ten tribes that responded to our survey  reported that they cannot cover the associated costs for NCIC access.  According to federal, state, and tribal officials, these costs can include  purchasing servers or NCIC terminals, the cost of the required high- speed Internet connection, or the fees required to obtain NCIC  access.
Requirements for submitting information to NCIC. Thirteen tribes  reported that they do not meet certain requirements for submitting  information to NCIC. CJIS has established requirements that all law  enforcement agencies seeking to submit information to federal  criminal justice databases must meet in order to ensure the quality  and the security of criminal justice data entered into these databases.  For example, some tribes do not meet CJIS requirements because  they do not have a criminal justice agency (police force, court, etc.) or  an officer available 24 hours, 7 days a week to respond to any  inquiries about persons or property included in NCIC.
State statutes or policies. Twelve tribes reported that state statutes or  policies prevent them from submitting to NCIC through the states’  criminal justice information systems. According to FBI officials, CJIS  Systems Agencies determine which entities within their states,  including tribes, can access these federal criminal databases through  state systems. However, some states, such as New York, have  statutes or policies prohibiting CSAs from granting tribal law  enforcement entities access to their state switches and, therefore, to  NCIC through such switches.
According to DOJ officials, the public safety benefit of including convicted  sex offender information in NSOR is that if a law enforcement officer  comes into contact with an individual, such as through a traffic stop or an  arrest, the officer can query NCIC and learn that the individual is a  convicted sex offender and potentially determine if the offender is in  compliance with registration requirements. The officer can also enforce  any requirements that the officer’s jurisdiction may have with regard to  convicted sex offenders. For example, according to tribal officials, some  tribal jurisdictions banish convicted sex offenders from their lands or  prohibit offenders from living or working within proximity to schools or day  care centers.
Federal and state, as well as local, law enforcement agencies have  undertaken efforts to help address such barriers, although the efforts  have some limitations, as discussed below.
Memorandums of agreement (MOA). Federal, state, and local law  enforcement agencies have entered into memorandums of agreement  with tribes, whereby these law enforcement agencies generally agree to  enter convicted sex offender information into NSOR on behalf of the  tribes. For example, 28 of 129 (about 22 percent) tribes that responded to  our survey reported that county or local law enforcement enters  information in NSOR for their tribe, while another 7 tribes indicated that  BIA enters this information for them. However, the DOJ and BIA officials  and representatives from the National Criminal Justice Association and  the National Congress of American Indians that we interviewed noted that  not all tribes have good relationships with state or local law enforcement  agencies, and that these agencies may not be willing to assist the tribes.  In addition, according to DOJ, tribal, and local law enforcement officials,  when another law enforcement agency enters information into NSOR on  behalf of a tribe, the information is often not associated with the tribe  because state or local law enforcement agencies frequently use their own  Originating Agency Identifier number (ORI), as opposed to the tribe’s  number, in NSOR. As a result, the convicted sex offender appears in  NSOR as having registered with the entity that submitted the information  as opposed to the tribe.
Representatives we interviewed from the SMART Office and CJIS, as  well as local and tribal law enforcement, stated that these data entry  practices can also lead to imprecise data in NSOR. For example, at our  request, CJIS identified 22 tribes as having a total of 247 registered sex  offenders in NSOR. However, 120 of 129 tribes that responded to our  survey reported that they had a total of 2,167 registered sex offenders on  their lands. According to CJIS officials, this discrepancy should not pose a  public safety threat because an officer querying an individual in NCIC will  know immediately if the individual is a convicted sex offender. Further,  CJIS and USMS officials said that the FBI and USMS generally do not  use NSOR as their primary source for informing decisions, such as  funding or resource allocation for sex offender related operations.
Collaboration to remove state barriers to tribes’ NCIC access. The  SMART Office has collaborated with state and tribal officials in three  states to successfully address state policies preventing tribes in these  states from submitting information to NSOR through the state criminal  justice database. SMART Office representatives told us that until recently,  tribes in Arizona and Washington were unable to submit convicted sex  offender information to NSOR because of various state statutes or  policies. SMART Office representatives reportedly worked closely with  state and tribal officials to provide alternative conduits that will allow tribes  to submit convicted sex offender information directly to NSOR. SMART  Office representatives also reported that they have tried to persuade  officials in at least 2 other states to implement similar solutions, but  without success.
Justice Telecommunications System (JUST). DOJ, with the assistance of  the Office of Tribal Justice and the Justice Management Division (JMD),  established JUST in 2010 as a pilot project to provide tribes that meet FBI  requirements with NCIC access. OTJ representatives said that DOJ  provided $1 million for the pilot under the Community Oriented Policing  Services (COPS) Office and has used approximately $250,000 to provide  21 tribes with NCIC access—6 of which are eligible to implement  SORNA. According to OTJ, all tribes that have requested NCIC access  through JUST thus far have received access. OTJ representatives said  that the JUST funding covers tribes’ costs for access fees as well as other  licensing and transaction fees; however, tribes will have to pay these fees  on their own once the remaining $750,000 for JUST runs out. According  to OTJ and JMD representatives, for JUST to become a viable and long- term solution for tribes’ lack of NCIC access, DOJ will need to identify and  secure a more sustainable source of funding. Identifying sustainable  sources of funding, according to these officials, is one of the goals of the  Tribal Public Safety Working Group, discussed below.
The Office on Violence Against Women, a component of DOJ, is responsible for  providing federal leadership in developing the national capacity to reduce violence against  women and administer justice for and strengthen services to victims of domestic violence,  dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. The Office of Justice Programs, within DOJ,  provides leadership to federal, state, local, and tribal, justice systems, by disseminating  state-of-the art knowledge and practices on crime-fighting strategies across America, and  providing grants for the implementation of these strategies.
May 12, 2014, and has established both short-term and long-term goals.  In the short term, OTJ representatives said that by using information from  outreach efforts and other existing sources, the working group plans to  determine the extent to which each tribe has or wants access to all  federal criminal databases, and the unique solution based on the  circumstances of each tribe. OTJ representatives reported that the  working group’s long-term goals include identifying sustainable funding  sources; identifying best practices for addressing specific barriers;  evaluating potential systematic solutions, such as establishing a federal  CSA for tribes; and reviewing federal rules and regulations to identify  those that should be revised to remove any regulatory barriers to tribes’  access to federal criminal databases.
The Tribal Public Safety Working Group’s plans and initial activities are in  line with addressing the types of barriers to NCIC access that tribes  identified. However, given that the Tribal Public Safety Working Group is  in its early planning phase, it is too early to evaluate how its efforts will  help provide tribes with access to NCIC.
section_title: Additional SMART Oversight of, and Outreach to, States Could Help Ensure That Relevant Tribal Jurisdictions Are Notified about Registered Sex Offenders Who Have Indicated That They Will Be Moving to Tribal Land upon Release from State Prisons
paragraphs: Of the 129 tribes that responded to our survey, 41 (approximately 32  percent) reported that their state prisons had not notified them when the  prisons released a sex offender to the tribes’ lands. In addition, about  half of these 41 tribes reported that lack of notification when offenders are  released from state prisons was a major challenge to SORNA  implementation, with some consequences. Tribal officials that we  interviewed and that responded to our survey reported instances of  offenders on tribal lands that may not be monitored or registered as  required because they had not been notified of the offenders’ release  from prison.he learned of a convicted sex offender with an extensive criminal record  who was released from prison and lived on the tribe’s land from  anonymous letters the official received. He said that because his tribe  received no notification from state prison officials about this sex offender,  the sex offender had lived on the tribe’s territory unmonitored for over a  year.
For example, one tribal law enforcement official told us that  A consequence of not being notified about registered sex offenders who  plan to live, work, or attend school on tribal land upon release from state  prisons that tribal officials highlighted was that they may not be able to  enforce their own laws governing the extent to which convicted sex  offenders can live, work, or attend school in their communities. For  example, a state tribal liaison officer told us that 9 of the 29 tribes in his  state have laws that ban all sex offenders or restrict the types of sex  offenders allowed to live on the tribes’ lands. Similarly, officials from 2  tribes we interviewed said that their tribes either did not allow convicted  sex offenders to live on the tribes’ lands or had more stringent laws than  states regarding the proximity of a convicted sex offender’s residence to a  school. Absent notification from states about registered sex offenders  who plan to live, work, or attend school on tribal lands upon release from  state prison, tribal authorities would not be aware of the presence of  convicted sex offenders on their lands and therefore would be unable to  enforce tribal law.
Under SORNA, initial registration of a convicted sex offender is to take  place prior to the offender being released from prison, and the registration  jurisdiction must immediately forward the offender’s registration  information to any other jurisdiction in which the sex offender is required  to register. However, according to the SMART Office, in many states,  the state prison is not a SORNA registering entity and therefore does not  register the sex offender or notify other relevant registration jurisdictions  prior to the offender’s release. In these instances, the sex offender’s initial  registration may not take place until after the offender is released from  prison and through a state registering entity, such as a county sheriff’s  office. In instances when a sex offender informs a state registering  entity—whether that be the state prison, a county sheriff’s office, or  another agency—that he or she plans to live, work, or attend school on  tribal land, under SORNA, notification must be sent to tribes that retained  their SORNA implementation authority.
subsections: section_title: Reasons Why Some States Do Not Notify Tribes
paragraphs: State prison and registry officials who responded to our requests for  information provided two reasons why their states do not notify tribes  when a registered offender indicates that he or she will be living, working,  or attending school on the tribe’s land upon release from prison. In some  cases, resolving these barriers may be difficult, but in other cases, there  are promising practices that could help states to address barriers to  notifying tribes. First, 10 of the 20 states that responded to our inquiry  said that they do not have laws or policies that require that tribes be  notified.them, 22 are located in these states. In the absence of state laws or  policies regarding notification to tribes, states may leave it up to the  discretion of local law enforcement agencies, which may conduct the  initial registration of the sex offender, to decide whether they will notify  tribes. However, as discussed earlier, several federal, state, and tribal  officials we interviewed acknowledged that not all tribes have cordial  relationships with their local law enforcement organizations. As a result,  this method of notification may not be effective for all tribes.
Of the 41 tribes that reported that state prisons had not notified  Second, it can be difficult for state prisons, in particular, to determine if  the address that the offender has identified as that person’s residence is  located on tribal lands. According to state, local, and tribal officials we  interviewed, unlike other jurisdictions, such as cities or counties, tribal  lands are not always clearly identifiable by a ZIP code or even a city  name. However, the Federal Bureau of Prisons manages this challenge  by asking the offender whether the address is located on tribal lands as  part of the prison release procedures. In regard to federal notification  requirements, officials from the Bureau of Prisons said that they have  removed law-enforcement-sensitive information from their notifications.  As of May 2014, they can now send prisoner release notifications to both  tribal law enforcement and tribal sex offender registry officials to ensure  that all tribes are notified when a sex offender is released from federal  prison, as required by federal law.
section_title: Ensuring Substantially Implemented States Are Notifying Tribes
paragraphs: To assist jurisdictions to develop, organize, and submit their substantial implementation  package materials, the SMART Office developed the SORNA Substantial Implementation  Checklist tool. To complete the checklist, states must identify the specific statute or  regulation that is to fulfill each SORNA requirement, including forwarding sex offender  information to other relevant SORNA jurisdictions. The SMART Office also requires that  states that have a tribe or tribes eligible to implement SORNA located within their  boundaries provide MOAs or other information-sharing agreements to facilitate notification  of sex offender release. For states that have substantially implemented SORNA, the  SMART Office uses this information as the basis for an additional section titled “Tribal  Considerations” in these states’ Substantial Implementation Review reports.
Office with plans for how they would notify these tribes until the tribes  implemented SORNA themselves.
Also, according to SMART Office representatives, under the flexibility built  into SORNA, the SMART Office may determine that a state has  substantially implemented the law if lack of notification to tribes was the  only area of noncompliance. This is because even though the tribe may  not be aware of a convicted sex offender living on its land, it is likely that  state or local law enforcement officials have registered and are aware of  the sex offender, and can take steps to monitor the offender. However,  the SMART Office still expects substantially implemented states to notify  tribes following registration of a sex offender who plans to live, work, or  attend school on tribal land.
The SMART Office has opportunities to continue to work with  substantially implemented states to ensure that they meet this notification  requirement. According to SMART Office representatives, the office  conducts annual compliance reviews to evaluate the extent to which  substantially implemented jurisdictions remain in continued compliance.  The office issued its substantial implementation assurance guidance that  details the types of information that a SMART Office evaluator is to  request when conducting these annual reviews, such as whether the  state has signed any new MOAs with tribes. However, the guidance does  not require that the evaluator request information on whether and how the  state, or a designated agency within the state, notifies tribes following  registration of a convicted sex offender who will be, or has recently been,  released from state prison and indicates that he or she plans to live, work,  or attend school on tribal land. By amending its substantial  implementation assurance guidance, the SMART Office could better  ensure that substantially implemented states are in compliance with  SORNA requirements to notify tribes that retained their authority, thereby  enabling these tribes to enforce their own laws pertaining to convicted sex  offenders.
section_title: Encouraging Nonimplementing States to Notify Tribes
paragraphs: The SMART Office is also in a position to encourage states that have not  yet substantially implemented SORNA to make efforts to implement  certain provisions of the law, such as the requirement to notify tribes. This  is particularly important considering that we found that 7 of 12  nonimplementing states that have tribes that retained their SORNA  authority and that responded to our inquiry do not notify tribes.  Furthermore, 22 of the 41 tribes that reported state prisons had not  notified them are located within these 7 states. The SMART Office has  provided guidance and conducted outreach to encourage tribes, once  they take responsibility for registering convicted sex offenders, to  coordinate with their respective states to ensure that the tribes are  notified about sex offenders who plan to live, work, or attend school on  their lands upon release from state prison. According to SMART Office  representatives, the agency has issued a policies and procedures manual  that calls for tribes to, among other things, establish procedures that  ensure that the tribe receives notification about a sex offender who is  released from a state, county, or local jail, and has indicated that he or  she will be living, working, or attending school on tribal land. SMART  Office representatives also reported that they have widely encouraged  tribes, as a best practice, to contact relevant state, county, and local  officials to ensure that these officials are aware that the tribe is a  registering jurisdiction and the officials have the tribe’s current information  on who should receive notifications. SMART Office representatives  reported conducting some outreach to states as part of the substantial  review process, but acknowledged that more could be done to encourage  states to provide notification to tribes. SMART Office representatives said  that, prior to our review, they were not aware of tribes’ concerns that  states were not notifying tribes about sex offenders who were released  from prison and planned to live, work, or attend school on tribal lands.  Therefore, these representatives did not think it was necessary at the  time to provide any additional guidance to the states.
Nevertheless, given our survey results, it may be beneficial for the  SMART Office to expand upon its existing outreach efforts to encourage  states to develop mechanisms to notify tribes that retained their SORNA  implementation authority. SMART Office representatives told us that they  often reach out to law enforcement and sex offender registry officials  located in both implementing and nonimplementing states and that  officials from these states attend various SORNA training events and  conferences that the SMART Office sponsors. The representatives  agreed that they could use these existing outreach efforts to educate  states on the importance of, and best practices for, notifying tribes about  sex offenders who have indicated that they plan to live, work, or attend  school on tribal lands upon release from state prison. In doing so, the  SMART Office will help ensure that implementing, as well as  nonimplementing, states have the information they need to effectively  notify tribes, and that tribes have the information they need to identify and  monitor convicted sex offenders who live, work, or attend school on their  lands, and to enforce their laws governing the extent to which convicted  sex offenders can live, work, or attend school in their communities.
section_title: Additional BIA Outreach to Tribes to Identify the Help They Need and That BIA Can Provide Could Assist Tribes with SORNA Implementation
paragraphs: Insufficient staff and difficulty covering the costs of SORNA  implementation were each cited by 21 of 129 (16 percent) tribes as major  challenges. Several tribal and federal officials, as well as subject matter  experts that we interviewed, also reported that insufficient staff and the  costs of SORNA implementation were major challenges that tribes faced  when implementing SORNA. For example, BIA and SMART Office  representatives and representatives from the National Congress of  American Indians told us that because the majority of tribes did not have  sex offender registries prior to SORNA, many tribes have not had the  necessary resources for conducting sex offender registration, such as  office space, staff, and equipment, and therefore would have had to incur  significant costs to acquire these resources. In addition, the sex offender  registry official from a tribe that has substantially implemented SORNA  reported that his tribe spent approximately $173,000 over a period of 2  years to fund his salary, purchase the information technology  infrastructure required to set up the tribe’s sex offender registry, and  acquire a fingerprint scanner. In addition, according to BIA officials and  subject matter experts staff turnover can result in large lapses in some  tribes’ SORNA implementation programs, when staff often leave their  positions without providing documentation of past efforts toward  implementing the law, requiring incoming staff to start the tribe’s  implementation efforts anew. For example, according to representatives  from the National Criminal Justice Association, 1 tribe has experienced up  to six turnovers for its SORNA coordinator position.
DOJ and BIA reported the following as ways in which their agencies have  provided tribes with financial assistance, equipment, and staff to help  address challenges related to limited resources:
The SMART Office provided $23.69 million in Adam Walsh Act  Implementation Grant Program (AWA) funds to 125 tribes from fiscal  years 2008 to 2013 and $1.92 million in Edward Byrne Justice  Memorial Discretionary Grants Program funds to 17 tribes in fiscal  year 2008 to assist with SORNA implementation.
The SMART Office also has provided tribes with training and technical  assistance related to SORNA implementation as well as numerous  tools, including a customizable web-based tool—the Tribe and  Territory Sex Offender Registry System (TTSORS)—for tribes to use  to set up their sex offender registries and public websites.
USMS has provided manpower and equipment to assist tribes with  conducting operations to ensure convicted sex offenders are  complying with their sex offender registration requirements.
BIA OJS assisted 19 tribes with SORNA implementation tasks, such  as providing input on the tribes’ draft sex offender codes, assisting  tribes with installing or configuring the tribes’ registry systems (i.e.,  TTSORS), and assisting tribes with identifying and implementing  alternative means of submitting information to federal criminal  databases.
In our survey, 7 tribes reported receiving assistance from BIA, 33 from  USMS, and 69 from the SMART Office and almost all of the tribes that  reported they received assistance from these three agencies  characterized the agencies’ assistance as very useful or moderately  useful. In addition, tribal leaders we interviewed reported that Byrne and  AWA grants have assisted tribes with offsetting the cost of SORNA  implementation. Tribal officials responsible for implementing SORNA for 5  tribes reported that their tribes received AWA grant funds and had used  the funds to cover various implementation expenses including hiring  additional staff, purchasing necessary equipment, and covering fees to  query or submit information on convicted sex offenders to federal criminal  databases (20 of the 26 tribes that reported challenges with covering  SORNA implementation costs and insufficient staff had received AWA  grant funds).
A number of tribes that responded to our survey reported that they would  like additional assistance from each of the three federal agencies.  Specifically, 40 tribes reported that they would like additional assistance  from the SMART Office, 30 tribes reported that they would like additional  assistance from BIA, and 22 tribes reported that they would like additional  assistance from USMS. However, most of the tribes that reported wanting  additional assistance from SMART and USMS had already received  assistance from these two agencies, and found the assistance to be  useful. On the other hand, most of the tribes that reported wanting  additional assistance from BIA reported that they had not received any  prior assistance from BIA and raised concerns about this. Specifically, 26  tribes that responded to our survey indicated that either BIA did not offer  assistance to them at all (14 tribes), they were unsure of the assistance  BIA could offer (6 tribes), or that BIA did not provide the assistance they  requested (6 tribes). Tribes did not report that the SMART Office or  USMS had not offered them assistance or had refused their request for  assistance.
Unlike the SMART Office and USMS, BIA does not have an explicit role  for SORNA implementation. However, BIA is statutorily responsible for  enforcing federal law and, with the consent of the tribe, tribal law in Indian  country. Further, the agency is responsible for developing and providing  training and technical assistance to tribal law enforcement, and for  consulting with tribal leaders to develop regulatory policies and other  actions that affect public safety in Indian country— responsibilities that  are related to tribes’ implementation of SORNA. Moreover, BIA serves  as the law enforcement agency for the 40 direct service tribes, 33 of  which have retained their authority to implement SORNA.
According to BIA OJS officials, BIA OJS districts have reached out to  select tribes that retained their SORNA implementation authority.
However, these officials acknowledged that BIA OJS has not made a  concerted effort to offer assistance to all tribes that retained their authority  because, according to a senior BIA OJS official, BIA’s initial outreach was  limited only to tribes that were on a list the agency had received from the  SMART Office of tribes that had elected to implement SORNA at the time,  and therefore did not include all tribes that subsequently retained their  authority to implement. As of July 2013, BIA reported that it had  contacted each of the 33 direct service tribes that retained their SORNA  implementation authority to determine the tribes’ implementation status  and what, if any, assistance the tribes would like to have from BIA. BIA  OJS reported that the agency provided some form of assistance to 19 of  the 33 tribes that the agency contacted. Specifically, BIA OJS reported  that it had provided office space to 2 tribes, purchased a fingerprint  scanner for another tribe, and assigned officers to 5 tribes to implement  or perform some or all aspects of the tribes’ sex offender registry and  notification systems, and provided technical assistance to the remaining  14 tribes. BIA OJS’s officials stated that some tribes refused OJS’s offer  and others did not respond at all to the offer.
Subsequently, BIA OJS officials reported that the agency conducted  another round of outreach to tribes in preparation for a meeting with GAO,  in August 2014. However, BIA reached out to only the 33 direct service  tribes that had retained their authority but had not yet implemented  SORNA and did not contact the remaining 131 tribes that have retained  their authority to implement SORNA—71 of which have not yet  implemented the law. Furthermore, BIA OJS officials reported that they  asked each of the 33 tribes where the tribes were in the implementation  process, what challenges they are currently facing, and what if any,  assistance BIA had previously offered the tribes, but did not ask what  additional help these tribes would like to receive from BIA OJS.
SMART Office representatives said that in addition to tribes’ lack of  access to NCIC, lack of BIA assistance is the second most frequently  reported SORNA implementation challenge that tribes have  communicated to the SMART Office. A BIA OJS senior official stated that  the agency could better support tribes that choose to retain their SORNA  implementation authority, and attributed the agency’s challenges in  providing this assistance to several factors. First, according to the senior  BIA official, tribes experience high staff turnover and incoming staff are  often unaware of assistance that BIA may have offered in the past.  Therefore, the BIA OJS senior official stated, it is important for BIA to  reach out to tribes more than once. Second, the BIA senior official also  said that not all BIA field officers have received training on SORNA or  how to assist tribes with SORNA implementation. BIA officials said that  the agency is working on providing training to its officers so that they have  the base knowledge on assisting tribes with SORNA implementation. This  training, BIA officials added, will be open to all tribal police chiefs and  mandatory for BIA police chiefs.
Third, because BIA conducted outreach to 33 and not all 164 tribes that  retained their authority to implement SORNA, BIA may not be aware of  the needs of the tribes it has not contacted. BIA officials acknowledged  that they could expand their outreach to include all tribes that retained  their authority to implement SORNA, including tribes for which the agency  does not provide direct services. Taking steps to ascertain what, if any,  resource or other needs all tribes that have not implemented SORNA may  have could better support the tribes’ efforts to substantially implement the  act, and thereby better ensure monitoring of convicted sex offenders on  tribal lands.
section_title: States Are Including Convicted Sex Offenders from Ineligible and Delegated Tribes, but States Are Not Consistently Notifying Tribes about Offenders Who Indicate That They Plan to Live, Work, or Attend School on Tribal Lands
paragraphs: Those states with tribes that are not implementing SORNA—that is, tribes  that are not eligible to implement SORNA and tribes whose  implementation authority was delegated to a state—reported that the  states are including convicted sex offenders on these tribes’ lands in the  states’ own sex offender registration and notification systems. However,  states are not consistently notifying these tribes about registered sex  offenders who plan to live, work, or attend school on tribal lands upon  release from state prison—similar to the problem we discussed earlier  that tribes that retained their implementation authority experienced. As a  result, some ineligible and delegated tribes are unaware of convicted sex  offenders on their lands, in which case they are not able to take actions  they deem appropriate to ensure public safety, such as banning certain  sex offenders from living on their land.
subsections: section_title: States Are Including Convicted Sex Offenders from Ineligible and Delegated Tribes in State Registries and Generally Reported No Challenges in Doing So
paragraphs: Under SORNA, states are responsible for registering convicted sex  offenders who live, work, or attend school on the territory of tribes that  have not retained SORNA implementation authority, which are ineligible  tribes subject to state criminal jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 1162, as well  as tribes whose SORNA functions have been delegated to a state. We  found that states have incorporated ineligible and delegated tribes into  state sex offender registries, as required.
With respect to ineligible tribes, we interviewed sex offender registry and  SORNA officials in the 6 states where these tribes are located, and they  told us that they include convicted sex offenders who live, work, or attend  school on tribal lands in the state sex offender registry and had mostly  experienced no challenges in doing so. Tribal officials from 7 of 8  ineligible tribes we interviewed confirmed that the states had incorporated  convicted sex offenders who live on their lands into the state sex offender  registry. An official from the remaining ineligible tribe was not aware of  any efforts by the state to include sex offenders who live, work, or attend  school on the tribe’s land into the state’s sex offender registration system.
Officials from 5 of the 6 states where we conducted interviews also  reported that their states had experienced no challenges with  incorporating convicted sex offenders from ineligible tribes into the state  sex offender registry. These state officials reported that for registration  purposes, convicted sex offenders on tribal land are required to report to  the tribe, a nearby county or city to register. Officials from 3 of the 5  states added that they treat tribes like any other local jurisdiction. Sex  offender registry officials we interviewed from the sixth state said that  many tribes in their state are located in remote areas, and this poses a  challenge for convicted sex offenders located on tribal lands to travel to  the nearest county to register. The remote location of these tribes also  makes it difficult for county law enforcement to monitor convicted sex  offenders to ensure that they are complying with the terms of their  registration. According to tribal and sex offender registry officials from this  state, the state has tried to address the location challenge by giving  offenders who live in remote areas the choice to register in person, by  mail or fax and having the tribal community complete forms to verify the  addresses of tribal members who are registered sex offenders.
With respect to delegated tribes, SORNA and sex offender registry  officials from 10 of the 12 states with these tribes that provided written  responses to our questions reported that the states incorporate or expect  to incorporate convicted sex offenders from delegated tribes into their   However, officials from 5 of the  state sex offender registry, as required.12 states reported difficulties doing so. These included contacting but not  receiving a response from tribes and resolving differing requirements  between state laws and SORNA regarding registration of sex offenders  and community notification. Nevertheless, we found that states were able  to overcome these challenges and register and monitor offenders, as  required.
section_title: States Are Not Consistently Notifying Ineligible and Delegated Tribes about Registered Sex Offenders Who Plan to Live, Work, or Attend School on Tribal Land upon Release from Prison
paragraphs: We reported earlier in this report that some states are not notifying tribes  that retained their SORNA implementation authority following registration  of a sex offender who plans to live, work, or attend school on tribal land  upon release from state prison. Similarly, sex offender registry officials we  interviewed from 3 of the 6 states where ineligible tribes are located told  us that they do not notify ineligible tribes, and officials from 7 of the 12  states with delegated tribes that responded to our inquiry reported that  they also do not notify tribes. Officials from the remaining 3 states where  ineligible tribes are located were unsure or did not state whether they  notified ineligible tribes while officials from the remaining 5 states with  delegated tribes said that they provide tribes with this information.
The specific SORNA provision that requires such notification to ineligible  and delegated tribes is section 121(b)(2). It states that immediately after a  convicted sex offender registers or updates a registration, an appropriate  official in the registration jurisdiction—in this instance, the state—shall  provide the information in the registry (other than information exempted  from disclosure by the Attorney General) about that offender to all  appropriate law enforcement agencies, as well as schools, and public  housing agencies, in each area where the offender resides, works, or  attends school. Therefore, states should notify all ineligible and  delegated tribes that have a law enforcement agency, a school, or a  public housing agency when a convicted sex offender registers with the  state and plans to live, work, or attend school on tribal land. Of the 50  delegated tribes, 22 have a police department, at least 10 have schools,   Similarly, of the 353 ineligible tribes, 17  and 38 have public housing.have their own police department, at least 165 have schools, and 323  have public housing. Yet, states are not consistently notifying these tribes  about sex offenders who were released from state prison and registered  or updated a registration with the state indicating that they will be living,  working, or attending school on tribal lands, as SORNA requires. Without  such notification, tribes may be unaware, as noted earlier in this report, of  the presence of convicted sex offenders on their lands and may be  unable to enforce tribal law and ordinances related to sex offenders.
States are not providing notification to ineligible and delegated tribes that  have police departments for a couple of reasons. First, 1 state has  determined that tribal law enforcement agencies do not meet the state’s  definition of a law enforcement agency, in which case the state would not  provide this notice. Second, in the absence of state laws or policies to  notify tribes, some states let the counties decide on their own whether or  not to notify tribal law enforcement, but as we reported earlier in this  report, this could be a concern if the tribal and county law enforcement  officials do not have a good working relationship.
With respect to the requirement that states notify schools and public  housing agencies, the National Guidelines indicate that it is potentially  challenging for states to proactively notify schools and public housing  agencies because of problems such as identifying comprehensive lists of  recipients and maintaining up-to-date contact information for each school  and public housing agency. For example, Oklahoma has approximately  1,800 public schools. SMART officials stated that California and Alaska,  which have the vast majority of ineligible tribes, might find it particularly  challenging. Therefore, the National Guidelines allow states to satisfy the  requirement to immediately notify schools and public housing agencies,  as well as other community and social service organizations, by posting  information on the state’s sex offender public website within 3 days of the  offender’s registration or update, provided that the website includes an  automatic notification function whereby requesters may receive e-mails  when new information pertaining to a ZIP code or geographic radius area  is available. However, this poses challenges. First, tribes can only  search by name, ZIP code, county, city or geographic radius, and as we  discussed previously, it would be difficult for the tribe to know whether a  convicted sex offender who lives within the same ZIP code as the tribe  actually lives on tribal land. Second, some states have opted not to  include all convicted sex offenders on their public websites, as SORNA  allows. For example, jurisdictions can exclude information about tier I  offenders whose victims were not minors.
Also, with regard to tribes, an alternative to directly notifying the school or  public housing agency located on tribal land could be that the state notify  the tribal council or another entity that the tribe deems appropriate. Given  the relatively small number of tribes in most states, the number of tribes is  likely to be much lower than the number of public housing agencies and  schools, making it easier to obtain contact information on tribes and notify  them of released offenders. For example, Nevada has 673 public schools,  but only 11 delegated tribes, and is the state with the greatest number of  delegated tribes. States with ineligible tribes, however, may have a larger  number of tribes and find it more difficult to contact each tribe. For  example, Alaska and California in particular could find it difficult  considering that 226 and 108 ineligible tribes have territory in these  states, respectively.
According to the SMART Office, it has taken steps to inform both  implementing and nonimplementing states about tribes whose authority  has been delegated to the state, and has provided states with points of  contact for these tribes. However, the SMART Office has not explicitly  advised states, as part of these efforts, to notify delegated tribes about  registered sex offenders who intend to live, work, or attend school on  tribal land upon release from state prison. Given that the SMART Office  conducts annual compliance reviews of implementing states and  conducts ongoing outreach to implementing as well as nonimplementing  states on a range of SORNA issues, the office is well positioned to  provide explicit guidance to states regarding the necessary steps to  implement SORNA’s notification requirement for ineligible and delegated  tribes. Also, through its outreach and compliance reviews, the SMART  Office has the opportunity to consult with states on steps they can take to  overcome some of the barriers that make it difficult for states to provide  these notifications. Such efforts on behalf of the SMART Office would  enable ineligible and delegated tribes to take actions they deem  necessary to ensure public safety when a convicted sex offender is  released from state prison and has registered or updated a registration  indicating that he or she will be living, working, or attending school on  their lands.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: SORNA sought to enhance public safety, in part, by requiring eligible  tribes to develop their own sex offender registration and notification  systems to help address concerns about convicted sex offenders avoiding  registration by moving to tribal lands. Considering that many tribes did not  have their own sex offender registration systems prior to SORNA, tribes  faced a number of challenges in implementing the act, such as lack of  access to federal criminal justice databases and difficulty covering  implementation costs. Several agencies provided assistance to help  tribes address these challenges, but according to tribes that responded to  our survey, additional assistance and communication, particularly from  BIA, would be beneficial. Also, as part of the SMART Office’s annual  compliance review of implementing states, and ongoing outreach with  implementing and nonimplementing states, determining whether states  are notifying tribes that retained their authority about convicted sex  offenders who initially register or update a registration indicating that they  will be living, working, or attending school on tribal land upon release from  state prison could help ensure that tribes are aware of and can monitor  convicted sex offenders in their communities. Further, taking additional  actions to ensure that states notify all tribes, including ineligible and  delegated tribes, would better position tribes to enforce their own laws  and policies regarding sex offenders who live, work, or attend school on  their land. Further, these actions would enhance DOJ’s initiative to  increase public safety in tribal communities by providing the federal  support these communities need to overcome the unique law  enforcement challenges they face, which, as noted by the Attorney  General in his 2009 launching of the initiative, had resulted in  unacceptable rates of violence against women and children in tribal  communities.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To help ensure that tribes that retained their SORNA implementation  authority, as well as ineligible and delegated tribes, are notified when  convicted sex offenders who intend to live, work, or attend school on tribal  land initially register or update a registration, we recommend that the  Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs direct the  SMART Office to take the following two actions:
Amend its substantial implementation assurance guidance to require  its evaluators to determine whether substantially implemented states  are notifying tribes that retained their authority to implement SORNA,  as well as ineligible and delegated tribes, as required, and use this  information in the office’s ongoing outreach to the states.
Encourage implementing as well as nonimplementing states, as part  of the office’s ongoing outreach to these states, to develop policies  and procedures to notify tribes that retained their authority to  implement SORNA, as well as ineligible and delegated tribes, about  convicted sex offenders who registered or updated a registration with  the state—either prior or subsequent to their release from state  prison—and indicated that they will be living, working, or attending  school on tribal lands. As part of this outreach and to help states  overcome any barriers to notifying tribes, educate state officials on  best practices for overcoming barriers to notifying tribes that the  SMART Office has identified.
To help determine what additional assistance tribes may need to help  them toward SORNA implementation, we recommend that the Director of  the Bureau of Indian Affairs direct each Office of Justice Services district  office to contact the tribes within its district that have retained their  implementation authority to determine if the tribes would like BIA to assist  them with SORNA implementation efforts. For tribes that would like  assistance from BIA, where possible, BIA should provide this assistance  or refer the tribe to other resources.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to Interior and DOJ for review and  comment. We received written comments from DOI via e-mail and from  DOJ in a formal letter, which is reproduced in full in appendix IV. DOI and  DOJ agreed with our recommendations in their comments. We also  received technical comments from DOJ, which are incorporated  throughout our report as appropriate.
In comments that DOI provided via e-mail on October 21, 2014, the  department agreed with our recommendation that BIA direct each OJS  district office to contact the tribes within its district that have retained their  implementation authority, to determine if the tribes would like BIA to assist  them with SORNA implementation efforts. DOI noted that the department  plans to send correspondence to each of these tribes to determine if the  tribes need BIA assistance with SORNA implementation and will provide  the necessary assistance to these tribes, considering the department’s  authority, access, and resources. Further, DOI stated that it will reach out  to states and other entities outside of OJS’s control that may be posing  challenges to tribes’ ability to comply with SORNA. We believe that these  are beneficial steps that, once fully implemented, would address our  recommendation and help address resource or other needs that have  made it difficult for some tribes to substantially implement the act.
In addition to taking actions to address our recommendation, DOI also  identified additional efforts that BIA OJS has under way to help ensure  tribes are able to implement SORNA. For example, BIA OJS has renewed  its relationship with the SMART Office so as to receive internal policy and  procedure updates, as well as training opportunities for OJS employees  on SORNA.
DOJ agreed with our recommendation that the SMART Office amend its  substantial implementation assurance guidance to require its evaluators  to determine whether substantially implemented states are notifying tribes  that retained their authority to implement SORNA, as well as ineligible  and delegated tribes. The department also noted in its response that the  SMART Office will continue to propose individualized solutions for  jurisdictions with legislation or public policy practices that inhibit or  prohibit working with tribal law enforcement.
DOJ also agreed with our recommendation to encourage implementing as  well as nonimplementing states to develop policies and procedures to  notify all tribes about sex offenders who would be living, working, or  attending school on tribal lands, either prior or subsequent to their release  from state prison. In its letter, DOJ noted that the SMART Office will  request in future substantial implementation reviews that states provide  information on how state incarceration facilities notify tribes when sex  offenders are released and have indicated that they will be living, working,  or attending school on tribal land. Accordingly, the SMART office will use  the information solicited from these reviews in its ongoing outreach to  implementing as well as nonimplementing states to help improve their  communication with tribes. DOJ stated that to the extent possible, the  department will encourage the sharing of sex offender information  through the SORNA Exchange Portal—the tool that facilitates the  exchange of information about sex offenders moving to other SORNA  jurisdictions—as well as through extensive outreach and education to  states on how they can use public notification to share information with  ineligible and delegated tribes that do not have access to this portal. We  believe that, once implemented, these actions would address our  recommendations and enhance tribes’ ability to receive the notification  they need in order to enforce their laws pertaining to sex offenders.
Although DOJ agreed with our recommendations, the department  expressed concerns that our report is not responsive to the primary  challenge that tribes that responded to our survey identified—that is, an  inability to submit sex offender information to federal criminal databases.  However, we noted in this report that at the time of our review, DOJ and  BIA had established a Tribal Public Safety Working Group to identify  which tribes lack access to federal databases and to work on the  appropriate solution based on the unique circumstances of each tribe. We  believe that it is too soon to evaluate the effectiveness of the working  group’s current efforts, given that the group is in its early planning phase.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Interior, and other  interested parties. This report is also available at no charge on GAO’s  website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions, please contact me at (202) 512- 8777 or larencee@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. Staff acknowledgments are provided in appendix IV.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: Our objectives for this report were to address the following questions:
To what extent have eligible tribes retained their authority to  implement the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act  (SORNA), and for those that did, what is their implementation status?
What implementation challenges, if any, have tribes that retained their  authority to implement SORNA reported, and what steps have federal  agencies and others taken or could take to address these challenges?
To what extent are states incorporating ineligible and delegated tribes  into their state sex offender registration and notification systems?
To address our first two objectives, we surveyed tribal officials whom the  Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehension,  Registering, and Tracking (SMART Office) identified as being responsible  for implementing the act in the 164 tribes that retained their authority to  implement SORNA.representatives of tribal police departments and court systems. We used  the survey to identify the implementation status of tribes that retained  their authority to implement SORNA; the challenges they face with  implementation; and the steps that tribes, as well as state, local, and  federal government entities, are taking or could take to address  implementation challenges. Additionally, we used the survey to obtain the  tribal officials’ perspectives on the SMART Office’s guidance and the  criteria it used to determine whether or not a jurisdiction has substantially  implemented SORNA. We collaborated closely with a GAO social science  survey specialist and conducted an expert review as well as pretests with  4 tribes that retained their authority to implement SORNA; doing so  helped us to develop and refine our survey questions, clarify any  ambiguous portions of the survey, and identify any potentially biased  questions. We launched our web-based survey on April 1, 2014, and  closed out the survey on June 30, 2014. Login information for the web-  These officials included tribal chiefs as well as  based survey was e-mailed to all participants, and we sent three follow-up  e-mail messages to all nonrespondents and contacted the remaining  nonrespondents by telephone. We received responses from 80 percent  (129 of 161) of all tribes surveyed. Not all survey respondents provided  answers to all survey questions. Because the survey was conducted with  all tribes that retained their authority to implement SORNA, there are no  sampling errors. However, the practical difficulties of conducting any  survey may introduce nonsampling errors. For example, differences in  how a particular question is interpreted, the sources of information  available to respondents, or the types of people who do not respond can  introduce unwanted variability into the survey results. We included steps  in both the data collection and data analysis stages to minimize such  nonsampling errors. We also made multiple contact attempts with  nonrespondents during the survey by e-mail and telephone. Since this  was a web-based survey, respondents entered their answers directly into  the electronic questionnaire, eliminating the need to key data into a  database, minimizing error. We examined the survey results and  performed computer analyses to identify inconsistencies and other  indications of error. A second independent analyst checked the accuracy  of all computer analyses.
To address our first objective, we also reviewed the SMART Office’s data  on eligible tribes’ implementation status to identify (1) tribes that have  retained their authority to implement SORNA, (2) tribes that have  delegated their implementation authority to a state, and (3) tribes whose  implementation authority was delegated to a state by the SMART Office.  To assess the reliability of the SMART Office’s data on tribes’  implementation status, we (1) obtained written responses to our questions  on how SMART Office representatives who use and maintain the data  ensure the data’s reliability; (2) checked the data for missing information,  and obvious errors; and (3) compared the data regarding tribes’  responses against our survey questions regarding their implementation  status and, where applicable, interviewed SMART Office officials to  determine the reason(s) for and resolve any differences. We found the  data to be sufficiently reliable for the purpose of identifying tribes’ SORNA  implementation status. We also used our survey to determine how long it  took tribes to prepare and submit a complete implementation package for  SMART Office review, the reasons why some tribes have not submitted a  complete package, and when the latter anticipate submitting a complete  package.
To address our second objective, we interviewed Department of Justice  (DOJ) headquarters officials from the SMART Office, Office of Tribal  Justice (OTJ), U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), and the Federal Bureau of  Investigation (FBI), as well as Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) officials  within the Department of the Interior, to determine the implementation  challenges tribes have reported and steps the agencies, the tribes, and  others have taken to address the challenges. In addition, we interviewed  FBI Criminal Justice Information Services Division (CJIS) officials to  determine CJIS policies and procedures for granting tribes access to  federal criminal justice databases, which are required for SORNA  implementation. We also interviewed state, tribal, as well as local law  enforcement officials from 5 states—Florida, Michigan, Nevada, New  York, and Oklahoma. We selected these 5 states because each contains  territory of tribes that retained their authority to implement SORNA and  because the states vary with regard to their SORNA implementation  status and geographic diversity. In each of the 5 states, we interviewed  CJIS System Agency (CSA) officials, the designated state SORNA  contact, or state sex offender registry officials to obtain information about  state laws, policies, and procedures for granting tribes access to federal  criminal justice databases. We also interviewed tribal leaders from 9  eligible tribes in these 5 states—5 of these tribes retained their authority  to implement SORNA. We selected the 9 tribes based on factors such as  the tribes’ implementation status, whether the tribes are direct service  tribes, and whether the tribes have agreements for SORNA  implementation with any local law enforcement agencies, as well as the  challenges that the SMART Office and others reported that these tribes  face with implementation. In addition to the 5 states, we contacted  officials in 20 states to determine whether these states require their state  departments of corrections or registries to notify tribes that have retained  their authorities to implement SORNA upon releasing a sex offender who  plans to live, work or attend school on tribal lands. Officials from 15 of the  20 states responded to our request. These 15 states plus the 5 we visited  included states identified by tribes that responded to our survey as those  that do not notify tribes upon releasing sex offenders who plan to live,  work, or attend school on tribal lands, as well as states that have  substantially implemented SORNA and also have tribes that have  retained their authority to implement SORNA. Finally, we interviewed  officials from four local law enforcement agencies in proximity to the  selected tribes and with whom the tribes had an agreement for SORNA  implementation, as well as officials from the two BIA Office of Justice  Services (OJS) regional districts with the most direct service tribes that  are implementing SORNA to determine what, if any, assistance they have  provided the tribes with SORNA implementation. Although the  perspectives we obtained from our interviews with these state, BIA, and  tribal officials are not generalizable, they provided insights regarding the  challenges that tribes face with implementing SORNA and actions that  have or could be taken to address the challenges.
We also included questions in our survey of tribes that retained their  authority to implement SORNA about the types and extent of challenges  the tribes experienced with SORNA implementation; steps the tribes are  taking to address the challenges; and the funding and other assistance  the tribes have received or could receive from the SMART Office, USMS,  BIA, and state or local law enforcement agencies to assist them with  implementing the act. In addition, we obtained information from our  survey that enabled us to identify tribes that have the required access to  the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) and the National Sex  Offender Registry (NSOR), and the reasons why some tribes do not have   To determine if any improvements are needed to address  this access.any of the challenges tribes identified with SORNA implementation, we  compared our survey results against SORNA provisions as well as the  National Guidelines for Sex Offender Registration and Notification.
To address our third objective, we interviewed state SORNA and sex  offender registry officials from all 6 states where ineligible tribes are  located as well as 8 ineligible tribes—at least 1 each from these 6 states.
The information from these interviews enabled us to determine if these  states include the ineligible tribes in their state SORNA registration and  notification systems, as SORNA requires, as well as to identify the  challenges, if any, the states and tribes face with having the states  implement SORNA on the tribes’ behalf. We selected the tribes based on  their SORNA implementation status, whether they submitted a resolution  to implement SORNA in spite of their ineligibility, and the challenges the  tribes reportedly faced with SORNA implementation. We also  interviewed tribal leaders from 4 tribes that opted out of SORNA and  delegated their registration and notification functions to the state, and  solicited responses to written questions from sex offender registry officials  in the 15 states to which tribes’ authority have been delegated, to  determine how states are incorporating delegated tribes into their state  sex offender registration and notification systems, as SORNA requires.
To supplement the information we received from our interviews as well as  our survey of tribes that retained their SORNA authority, we interviewed  officials from three relevant national associations: the National Congress  of American Indians, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and  the National Criminal Justice Association, to obtain their perspectives on  SORNA eligibility criteria, the SMART Office’s delegation criteria and  process, the challenges that tribes face with implementation, and the  actions that the SMART Office and others have taken to address these  challenges. We selected these associations because they represent the  interests of tribal communities or state and local law enforcement  agencies that assist jurisdictions, including tribes, with SORNA  implementation.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2013 to November  2014 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: SORNA Substantial Implementation Checklist Tool
paragraphs: The Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending,  Registering, and Tracking (SMART Office) has developed the Sex  Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) Substantial  Implementation Checklist tool to be used by jurisdictions in developing,  organizing, and submitting a substantial implementation package for  review. While not intended to be a definitive guide to SORNA’s full  implementation requirements, the SORNA checklist is organized into 14  sections covering the major requirements of the law, as shown in table 1.
section_title: Appendix III: Extent to Which Eligible Tribes Have Implemented the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA)
paragraphs: Appendix III: Extent to Which Eligible Tribes  Have Implemented the Sex Offender  Registration and Notification Act (SORNA)
According to the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring,  Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (SMART Office), the 214 tribes  that are eligible to implement SORNA are located in 33 states; of these  states, 11 have substantially implemented SORNA. As of August 2014,  the SMART Office has determined that 164 tribes have retained their  authority to implement SORNA, while the remainder did not retain their  authority because they either elected to delegate their authority to a state  (24 tribes) or the SMART Office delegated their authority to a state (26  tribes). Of the tribes that have retained their authority to implement the  act, 71 tribes have substantially implemented SORNA; 70 tribes have  submitted a complete package, but the SMART Office has not yet made a  determination; 22 tribes have not submitted a complete package; and 1  tribe has not substantially implemented the act.
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Justice
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Kristy Love, Assistant Director,  and Edith Sohna, Analyst-in-Charge, managed this engagement. Orlando  Copeland, Michael Lenington, Alicia Loucks, and Leah Marshall made  significant contributions to the report. Frances Cook, Katherine Davis,  Michele Fejfar, Eric Hauswirth, Kirsten Lauber, Sasan J. Najmi, and  Jerome Sandau also provided valuable assistance.