Registered Sex Offenders: Sharing More Information Will Enable Federal Agencies to Improve Notifications of Sex Offenders' International Travel
Released: 2013-02-14T00:00:00


Highlights: section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: In recent years, certain individuals who had been convicted of a sex offense in the United States have traveled overseas and committed offenses against children. GAO was asked to review what relevant federal agencies—including DOJ, DHS, and the Department of State—are doing with regard to registered sex offenders traveling or living abroad. This report addresses the following questions: (1) How and to what extent does the federal government determine whether registered sex offenders are leaving or returning to the United States? (2) How and to what extent have federal agencies notified foreign officials about registered sex offenders traveling internationally? GAO analyzed August and September 2012 data from the U.S. Marshals, USNCB, and ICE on registered sex offenders who traveled internationally. GAO also interviewed relevant agency officials and surveyed officials from all 50 states, 5 territories, and the District of Columbia to determine the extent to which they identify and use information on traveling sex offenders.

section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Three federal agencies--U.S. Marshals, International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) Washington - U.S. National Central Bureau (USNCB), and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)--use information from state, local, territorial, and tribal jurisdictions, as well as passenger data from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), to identify registered sex offenders traveling outside of the United States. Similarly, these agencies may be notified of registered sex offenders traveling to the United States through several means, including tips from foreign officials or when CBP queries the registered sex offender's biographic information at a port of entry and finds that the offender has a criminal history. However, none of these sources provides complete or comprehensive information on registered sex offenders leaving or returning to the United States. For example, CBP does not routinely query individuals who leave the United States by commercial bus, private vessel, private vehicle, or by foot, in which case CBP may not be able to determine if any of these individuals are registered sex offenders. In addition, foreign officials do not always monitor when a registered sex offender is returning to the United States. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), working with other agencies, is developing a process that will address some of these limitations. Specifically, the FBI will send an automated notice to the U.S. Marshals and law enforcement officials in the jurisdictions where the sex offender is registered that the offender is traveling, to the extent that the offender's biographical information is queried at the port of entry. However, because ICE has not requested to receive the automated notifications, ICE will not be notified of registered sex offenders who leave the country via a land port of entry whose biographical information is queried.

USNCB and ICE have notified foreign officials of some registered sex offenders leaving and returning to the country, but could increase the number and content of these notifications. USNCB notifies its foreign INTERPOL counterparts about registered sex offenders traveling internationally, and ICE notifies its foreign law enforcement counterparts about traveling sex offenders who had committed an offense against a child. USNCB provides more detailed information than ICE because USNCB uses offenders' self-reported travel information that some jurisdictions collect, which may include details such as hotel information. Since ICE uses passenger data, it does not have these details. Also, data from August 1 to September 30, 2012, showed that the two agencies had significant differences in the number of offenders they identified in notifications. USNCB sent notifications on 105 traveling sex offenders that ICE did not, and, conversely, ICE sent notifications on 100 traveling sex offenders that USNCB did not. In part this is because the two agencies rely on different information sources and do not share information with one another. Taking steps to ensure that these agencies have all available information on the same registered sex offenders traveling internationally could help ensure that the agencies are providing more comprehensive information to their foreign counterparts to help inform public safety decisions.

section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that ICE consider receiving the automated notifications and DOJ and DHS take steps to ensure that USNCB and ICE (1) have information on the same number of traveling registered sex offenders and (2) have access to the same level of detail about each traveling registered sex offender. USNCB within DOJ and DHS concurred with our recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: In recent years, certain individuals who had previously been convicted of  a sex offense in the United States subsequently traveled overseas and  committed an offense against a child or attempted to transport a child  from overseas to commit a sex crime. For example, in 2008, an individual  with a prior U.S. sex offense conviction received a prison sentence for  engaging in illicit sexual activity with a 15-year-old girl in Ciudad Juarez,  Chihuahua, Mexico, in exchange for money and crack cocaine. Also, in  2009, an individual who had previously been convicted of a sex offense  against a minor in the United States was convicted of a child sex tourism  crime, where the individual sexually abused a minor while traveling  abroad.

Given the risk that some individuals previously convicted of a sex offense  may pose, in July 2006, Congress passed and the President signed the  Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act of 2006 (SORNA), which  provided a new set of sex offender registration and notification standards,  including criminal penalties for those who fail to comply with these  standards. These standards require convicted sex offenders to register and keep the registration current in the state, territorial, or tribal  jurisdictions in which they live, work, and attend school, and for initial  registration purposes only, the jurisdiction in which they were convicted.  Registration generally entails convicted sex offenders appearing in  person to provide the jurisdiction with personal information, such as name  and date of birth, among other information. Jurisdictions then use this  information to track these offenders following their release into the  community in an effort to ensure public safety. Further, SORNA directs  the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the  Secretary of Homeland Security, to establish a system for informing  domestic jurisdictions about persons entering the United States who are  required to register under SORNA. The act also made it a federal crime  for a sex offender to travel in foreign commerce and knowingly fail to  register or update a registration. Moreover, the Department of Justice  (DOJ) promulgated guidelines governing implementation of SORNA that  have resulted in some jurisdictions’ requiring sex offenders to inform local  and state officials in the jurisdictions where they reside of their plans to  travel internationally. You requested that we review what relevant federal  agencies—including DOJ, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS),  and the Department of State (State)—are doing with regard to sex  offenders who were convicted and subsequently registered in the United  States and who are traveling or living abroad. Specifically, this report  addresses the following questions:  (1) How and to what extent does the federal government determine  whether registered sex offenders are leaving or returning to the United  States?  (2) How and to what extent have federal agencies notified foreign  officials about registered sex offenders traveling internationally?

To address both objectives, we identified relevant legislation, regulations,  and other guidance that directs federal agencies’ efforts to identify  registered sex offenders leaving or returning to the United States. We  also obtained documentation and testimonial evidence from members of  the International Tracking of Sex Offenders Working Group (IWG), which  is composed of representatives from various agencies within DOJ, DHS,  State, and the Department of Defense (DOD) and was tasked with  developing mechanisms for identifying registered sex offenders leaving  and returning to the country. We also interviewed agency officials from  three of the federal departments represented on the IWG. The agencies  within DOJ include the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring,  Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (SMART Office); Federal  Bureau of Investigation (FBI); United States Marshals Service (U.S.  Marshals); and International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL)  Washington - United States National Central Bureau (USNCB). The  agencies within DHS include U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)  and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The agencies  within State include the Bureau of Consular Affairs and Bureau of  Diplomatic Security.

The 5 U.S. territories included in our review are American Samoa, Commonwealth of the  Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. We did not  include federally recognized Indian tribes eligible under SORNA because we will analyze  tribal jurisdictions’ efforts to implement SORNA and identify registered sex offenders  leaving and returning to the United States in a separate review.

Maryland, Florida, Michigan, and Arizona—to conduct site visits and 1  jurisdiction (New Mexico) to conduct telephone interviews.  During the  site visits, we obtained additional information on how jurisdictions  implemented and enforced the requirement and shared information on  traveling registered sex offenders with relevant federal agencies. We  chose these jurisdictions to achieve variation in (1) the extent of  international travel from the jurisdiction; (2) percentage of the population  that is composed of sex offenders; and (3) whether the state has land and  sea ports of entry, in addition to airports, to cover the various modes by  which sex offenders could enter and leave the country. During the site  visits, we met with officials from the following federal, state, and local law  enforcement agencies: U.S. Marshals, ICE, and CBP (at air, land, and  sea ports of entry); state agencies responsible for maintaining the state  sex offender registry; and local law enforcement agencies responsible for  registering and monitoring sex offenders. While the perspectives from the  officials we interviewed during site visits cannot be generalized to all  jurisdictions, they provided valuable insights about registered sex  offenders traveling internationally.

We also developed and administered a second survey of the same  officials from the 56 jurisdictions to obtain more detailed information on  the extent to which jurisdictions require registered sex offenders to  provide advance notice of international travel and inform federal agencies  of registered sex offenders leaving the country. The survey also included  questions related to jurisdictions’ perspectives on any challenges or  improvements needed regarding receiving or providing information about  sex offenders leaving or returning to the United States, in addition to other  issues related to the implementation of SORNA. We received responses  from 52 out of 56 jurisdictions.

Additionally, we obtained and analyzed data from the U.S. Marshals, ICE,  and USNCB, which are the three agencies identified as having  responsibility for taking action based on the information they obtain on  registered sex offenders leaving or returning to the country to help ensure  public safety. We obtained and analyzed data the three agencies  received from August 1 through September 30, 2012 on registered sex  offenders traveling internationally. determine the extent to which there was any fragmentation (i.e.,  circumstances in which more than one federal agency is involved in the  same broad area of national interest) or duplication (i.e., two or more  agencies or programs are engaged in the same activities or provide the  same services to the same beneficiaries) with regard to notices sent to  foreign officials. We also assessed whether there were any benefits or  drawbacks to any fragmentation or duplication. We assessed the  reliability of the data the agencies provided by questioning knowledgeable  agency officials and reviewing the data for obvious errors and anomalies.  We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes.

We chose this time period because we wanted to assess the effectiveness of a process  the U.S. Marshals instituted in August 2012 for sharing information with USNCB on  registered sex offenders traveling outside of the United States. tourists. We selected Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom  because they are known to have national sex offender registries, similar  to those of the United States, and have expressed an interest in receiving  information from the U.S. government on sex offenders traveling there.  Appendix I provides additional detail on our objectives, scope, and  methodology.

We conducted this performance audit from January 2012 to February  2013 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our analysis based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence  obtained provides a reasonable basis for our analysis based on our audit  objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: Sex Offender Registration Requirement
paragraphs: The purpose of SORNA is to protect the public from sex offenders and  offenders against children by providing a comprehensive set of sex  offender registration and notification standards. These standards require  convicted sex offenders, prior to their release from imprisonment or within  3 days of their sentencing if the sentence does not involve imprisonment,  to register and keep the registration current in the jurisdictions in which  they live, work, and attend school, and for initial registration purposes  only, the jurisdiction in which they were convicted. Registration generally  entails the offender appearing in person at a local law enforcement  agency and the agency collecting information such as name, address,  Social Security number, and physical description of the offender, among  other items. The registration agency also is to document, among other  items, the text of the provision of law defining the criminal offense for  which the offender is registered; the criminal history of the offender,  including dates of all arrests and convictions; and any other information  the Attorney General requires. In addition, implementing jurisdictions are  to maintain a jurisdiction-wide sex offender registry and adopt registration  requirements that are at least as strict as those SORNA established. The  length of time that convicted sex offenders must continue to update their  registration is life, 25 years, or 15 years, depending on the seriousness of  the crimes for which they were convicted and with possible reductions for  maintaining a clean record. The frequency with which sex offenders must  update or verify their information—either quarterly, semiannually, or  annually—also depends on the seriousness of the crime. Once sex  offenders register or update their registration in their jurisdictions, under  the act, implementing jurisdictions are to provide the new information to  FBI’s National Sex Offender Registry (NSOR). NSOR is a national  database within the FBI’s National Crime Information Center (NCIC) that  federal, state, local, territorial, and tribal law enforcement officials can  access to obtain information on registered sex offenders throughout the  United States. Jurisdictions’ receipt of certain federal grant funds is  conditioned upon whether they have “substantially implemented” SORNA,  and, as we have previously reported, jurisdictions are in various stages of  implementing the act.

section_title: Federal Requirements for Registered Sex Offenders Traveling Internationally
paragraphs: Pursuant to the Attorney General’s authority to interpret and implement  SORNA, the SMART Office developed SORNA guidelines specifically  related to registered sex offenders traveling internationally. For  example, under DOJ’s National Guidelines, each jurisdiction in which a  sex offender is registered as a resident is instructed to require the sex  offender to inform the jurisdiction if the sex offender intends to commence  residence, employment, or school attendance outside of the United  States. The jurisdiction needs to then (1) notify all other jurisdictions in  which the offender is required to register through immediate electronic  forwarding of the sex offender’s registration information, and (2) notify the  U.S. Marshals—the primary federal agency responsible for investigating  sex offender registration violations under SORNA—and update the sex  offender’s registration information in the national databases pursuant to  the procedures under SORNA § 121(b)(1). Also, under DOJ’s  Supplemental Guidelines, jurisdictions are directed to have sex offenders  report international travel 21 days in advance of such travel and submit  information concerning such travel to the appropriate federal agencies  and databases. Furthermore, per the SMART Office’s SORNA  Implementation Document, in order to provide the most helpful  information to U.S. Marshals and other law enforcement agencies, DOJ’s  guidelines require jurisdictions to collect passport information in addition  to other travel information, such as itinerary details, purpose of travel,  criminal records, and contact information within the destination country,  regarding a registered sex offender’s intended international travel.  Currently, according to officials from the SMART Office, DOJ will not  reduce grant funds for jurisdictions that have not yet implemented the  supplemental guidelines on registered sex offenders traveling  internationally, because DOJ is allowing jurisdictions additional time to  implement the supplemental guidelines as part of its assessment of  whether jurisdictions have “substantially implemented” SORNA.

section_title: Federal Agencies That Play a Role in Identifying Registered Sex Offenders Traveling Internationally
paragraphs: Under SORNA, the responsibility for establishing a system for informing  jurisdictions about persons entering the United States who are required to  register is divided among three federal departments— DHS, DOJ, and  State—with DOJ being the lead agency. Additionally, in 2008, the SMART  Office created the IWG, which consists of multiple agencies within DOJ,  DHS, and State, to discuss issues related to identifying registered sex  offenders traveling internationally.SORNA, ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) division,  consistent with its objective to target transnational sexual exploitation of  children, developed the Angel Watch program. The purpose of this  program is to provide advance notice to foreign officials when a registered  sex offender who committed a crime against a child is traveling from the  United States to a foreign country. Table 1 describes the functions of the  federal agencies that play a role in identifying registered sex offenders  traveling internationally.

section_title: Federal Agencies Collect Information on Traveling Registered Sex Offenders, but the Information Could be More Comprehensive
paragraphs: Three federal agencies—U.S. Marshals, USNCB, and ICE—use  information from state, local, territorial, and tribal jurisdictions, as well as  passenger data from CBP, to determine whether registered sex offenders  are traveling outside of the United States. Similarly, five federal  agencies—USNCB, ICE, U.S. Marshals, Consular Affairs, and CBP—may  be notified of registered sex offenders traveling to the United States  through several means, including tips from foreign officials or when CBP  queries the registered sex offender’s biographic information at a port of  entry and finds that the offender has a criminal history. However, none of  these sources provides complete or comprehensive information on  registered sex offenders leaving or returning to the United States. For  example, because CBP’s passenger data are based on information from  private or commercial air, commercial vessels, and voluntary reporting  from rail and commercial bus lines; and CBP does not routinely query  individuals who leave the United States by commercial bus, private  vessel, private vehicle, or by foot, it is unable to provide information on all  individuals leaving the country. In addition, foreign officials do not always  monitor when a registered sex offender is returning to the United States.  The FBI is establishing an automated notification process that is expected  to address some of these limitations. However, because ICE has not  requested to receive the automated notifications, ICE will not be notified  of registered sex offenders who leave the country via a land port of entry.
subsections: section_title: Limitations in the Information Federal Agencies Receive on Registered Sex Offenders Leaving the Country from State and Local Jurisdictions and CBP Passenger Data
paragraphs: Officials from the U.S. Marshals and USNCB said that they use  information from state, local, territorial, and tribal jurisdictions, and  officials from the U.S. Marshals and ICE said that they use air and sea  passenger data from CBP, to determine whether registered sex offenders  are traveling internationally, but both mechanisms have limitations.

The information that the U.S. Marshals and USNCB receive from  jurisdictions about registered sex offenders traveling internationally is  limited, in part because (1) some jurisdictions do not require sex  offenders to inform them of international travel and (2) those jurisdictions  that do require notice must rely on sex offenders to self-report this  information. Consistent with the Attorney General’s authority under  SORNA to require sex offenders to provide additional information for  inclusion in the jurisdiction’s registry than what the act requires, DOJ’s  Supplemental Guidelines added that registered sex offenders must  provide jurisdictions 21 days advance notice of any international travel,  and jurisdictions are to notify the U.S. Marshals of any registered sex  offenders traveling internationally. According to the U.S. Marshals, to  support these jurisdictions’ efforts to provide more complete and  consistent information, in February and March 2012, the SMART Office  asked jurisdiction registry officials, and the U.S. Marshals and USNCB  asked relevant jurisdictional law enforcement agencies, to submit a  Notification of International Travel form to the U.S. Marshals. This form  includes the traveler’s name, passport number, travel information,  criminal record, and contact information in the destination country.

However, not all jurisdictions have elected to implement the DOJ  guideline requiring registered sex offenders to provide advance notice of  international travel. Specifically, of the 50 jurisdictions that responded to  our survey question about advance notice of international travel  requirements, 28 reported that they require sex offenders to provide such  advance notice, whereas the other 22 do not, primarily because their  jurisdiction’s laws do not permit them to do so. For example, 1  jurisdiction said that because its statute requires registered sex offenders  to notify the registry within 72 hours after international travel, officials are  not authorized to collect this information in advance. Moreover, some  jurisdictions have difficulty obtaining information on traveling registered  sex offenders on a consistent basis because jurisdictions must rely on  sex offenders to self-report, and jurisdictions have limited mechanisms in  place to enforce the self-reporting requirement. For example, sex offender  registry officials in 1 jurisdiction we visited said that they would not know  that a registered sex offender failed to self-report international travel  unless they conducted an address verification operation, which would  enable them to determine that the sex offender is traveling. Senior  officials from the SMART Office stated that they are pleased that 28  jurisdictions have already implemented the advance notice provision,  considering that the guidance for the provision was not released until  January 2011. These officials also stated that they continue to provide  technical assistance to jurisdictions seeking to implement this provision.

Information on registered sex offenders traveling internationally that the  U.S. Marshals and ICE obtain from CBP’s review of passenger data also  has limitations. CBP, as part of DHS, has the mission to secure the  United States’ borders while facilitating legitimate trade and travel. To  help fulfill that mission, CBP established NTC, which, among other things,  receives and reviews air and sea passenger data to determine whether  persons entering or leaving the country via a commercial airline or  cruiseline are on the terrorist watchlist, are wanted, or have a warrant out  for their arrest. NTC officials stated that in 2009, they met with the U.S.  Marshals to determine how they could support efforts under way at the  newly formed NSOTC. NTC agreed to review passenger data to  determine whether any persons leaving the country are registered sex  offenders. Since then, according to NTC officials, they have provided the  U.S. Marshals information, such as name, date of birth, destination, and  offense, on all registered sex offenders NTC identifies from passenger  data so that the U.S. Marshals can verify that the sex offender did not  violate any registration requirements. NTC officials stated that they also  use this information to identify registered sex offenders who remain in a  foreign country for an extended period of time and return to the United  States for short periods of time, because this may be an indication that  the individual is circumventing SORNA requirements by falsely reporting  their place of residency. NTC provides this information to ICE and U.S.  Marshals for possible investigation or other law enforcement action.  Figure 1 shows the primary methods by which the U.S. Marshals, ICE,  and USNCB receive information on registered sex offenders traveling  internationally.

While the information NTC provides may be helpful, it has limitations.  First, CBP collects and analyzes information on individuals leaving the  United States via private or commercial airline, commercial vessel, and  voluntary reporting from rail, but does not routinely query individuals who  leave the United States by commercial bus line, private vessel, private  vehicle, or by foot . Since travelers departing by commercial rail,  commercial bus line, private vessel, private vehicle or by foot are not  required to report travel information in advance of their travel, CBP may  be unable to provide advance targeting and analysis of these individuals.   However, a CBP officer may access information on these individuals by  querying their biographical information during special outbound  operations at port of entry. It is CBP’s policy that CBP officers query  individuals leaving the country only if there is a special operation  underway, such as an operation to verify the amount of currency taken  out of the United States. According to NTC officials, CBP officers at the  land port of entry are not required to provide NTC with the results of their  queries because they are only required to pass information related to  individuals on the terrorist watchlist. Therefore, NTC is generally not able  to inform the U.S. Marshals and ICE about registered sex offenders  leaving the country through means such as land ports or on a privately  chartered boat.

Second, to determine whether a registered sex offender is on a particular  flight, NTC determines whether any of the passenger data, such as name  and date of birth, match any of the data in the FBI’s NCIC. However,  NCIC may not always have complete information to enable NTC to  determine if there is a match, in part because jurisdictions may enter  information incorrectly or not at all because certain fields are not  mandatory. In this case, NTC checks electronic public sex offender  registries—which are not always up to date—to collect missing  information, or calls relevant registry officials—which could take additional  time.

section_title: Limitations in Information on Registered Sex Offenders Returning to the Country Provided by Foreign Officials and from Reviews of Criminal History Records
paragraphs: Five federal agencies—USNCB, ICE, the U.S. Marshals, Consular Affairs,  and CBP— have several mechanisms in place to identify registered sex  offenders returning to the United States. For example, USNCB officials  stated that their foreign counterparts, to the extent that they are aware,  may notify U.S. officials of registered sex offenders returning to the United  States. In addition, U.S. Marshals officials stated that they sometimes  receive information from NTC on registered sex offenders returning to the  United States. According to NTC officials, they are able to provide this  information to the U.S. Marshals analyst stationed at NTC to the extent  that the sex offender’s entire itinerary and flight information are  available. However, these mechanisms do not identify all of the  registered sex offenders returning to the United States all of the time. For  example, even though USNCB may receive information on some  returning registered sex offenders through its foreign counterparts, the  information these officials provide is based on anonymous tips or  offenders’ self-reported information. According to USNCB officials, even  though hundreds of registered sex offenders traveled outside of the  United States from August through September 2012, as we discuss later  in this report, USNCB rarely received notifications of these registered sex  offenders returning to the United States. Table 2 describes the  mechanisms by which federal agencies become aware of registered sex  offenders traveling back to the United States and the limitations of those  mechanisms.

To help ensure that relevant federal agencies are more consistently  notified of registered sex offenders leaving or returning to the United  States, in 2008, the SMART Office established the IWG. The IWG is  charged with developing an international tracking system to identify  registered sex offenders leaving and returning to the country and  immediately relay this information to appropriate domestic law  enforcement agencies for any additional action as needed, such as to  initiate an investigation. Specifically, FBI officials stated that, in  collaboration with other IWG member agencies, they are developing a  process that will send an automated notification to the U.S. Marshals’  NSOTC and registry and law enforcement officials in the jurisdictions  where the sex offender is registered: (1) when a registered sex offender  has purchased an airline or cruise ticket for international travel, (2) 1  week before the registered sex offender is scheduled to travel by  commercial air or sea transport, and (3) when a CBP officer queries that  person’s biographic information at a U.S. port of entry, such as any U.S.  airport.

The automated notification, if implemented as intended, will provide the  U.S. Marshals and relevant jurisdictions with information on registered  sex offenders returning to the United States whose biographic information  is queried by CBP officers at air, sea, and land ports of entry, assuming  these offenders enter the country legally and their identifying information  in NCIC, such as date of birth, is accurate and complete. In addition, FBI  officials stated that the automated notification is expected to provide  relevant jurisdictions with information on sex offenders registered in their  jurisdiction who did not self-report international travel. This will help law  enforcement officers to avoid using resources to search for sex offenders  who they thought had absconded, when the offender had actually left the  country on personal travel.

According to FBI officials, the FBI vetted the automated notification  proposal through its Advisory Policy Board; the FBI Director approved the  proposal in June 2012; and FBI officials estimate that they will be able to  implement the automated notification as early as March 2013. FBI  officials responsible for implementing the automated notification said that  they are currently working with CBP to include additional information from  CBP’s systems in the automated notifications, such as the specific ports  of entry and the mode of transportation offenders are using. The FBI will  not delay implementation of the automated notification to incorporate the  additional information from CBP; instead, the FBI will incorporate this  information into the automated notifications at a later date, if necessary.

While the automated notification will address some of the limitations  discussed previously, it will not address all of them. For example,  according to FBI officials, the automated notification will provide notice to  the U.S. Marshals and jurisdictions of all registered sex offenders leaving  or returning to the United States for whom CBP officers query their  biographic information at a port of entry. Consequently, the automated  notification will not provide notice of a registered sex offender who plans  to leave the country via a land port of entry because CBP generally does  not query information for these travelers. CBP officials explained that  CBP officers may query biographic information for individuals leaving the  United States through a land port of entry—such as in the case of a  special operation to verify the amount of currency taken out of the  country—but generally do not do so because of regulatory, policy, and  infrastructure limitations in monitoring individuals leaving the United  States. notification is intended to address the federal government’s current  limitations in identifying registered sex offenders traveling internationally.

According to FBI officials responsible for implementing the automated notification, they  have had preliminary discussions with Canadian Police Information Center officials as to  whether every person that enters Canada through the U.S.-Canada land border will be  queried in NCIC.

Of the 17 jurisdictions that reported receiving information on registered sex offenders  entering the United States from a federal agency, 10 reported receiving information from  the U.S. Marshals and USNCB, respectively; 8 reported receiving it from ICE; and 2  reported receiving it from CBP and State, respectively. Some of the responses reflect  jurisdictions receiving information from more than one federal agency.

Jurisdictions could possibly use information on registered sex offenders  traveling to their jurisdictions from abroad to help them identify the current  location of these offenders. For example, officials from one local law  enforcement agency we visited stated that receiving such notifications  would help officers verify whether the offenders have returned from  foreign travel when officers conduct address verifications. In addition, this  information would help jurisdictions fulfill their requirements under  SORNA to protect the public from sex offenders. Once the automated  notification system is operational, jurisdictions that have registered the  sex offender and entered a record into NCIC will be notified that an  offender has returned to the United States. Having this information will  allow these jurisdictions to implement public safety measures more  consistently.

section_title: ICE Has Not Made Plans to Receive Information from the Automated Notification, a Fact That May Preclude It from Obtaining Information on Some Traveling Sex Offenders
paragraphs: To help ensure that they obtain as complete information as possible  regarding registered sex offenders traveling internationally, the U.S.  Marshals and ICE will continue to request information from jurisdictions or  NTC even after the automated notification is operational. Currently, the  U.S. Marshals and ICE do not consistently receive information on  registered sex offenders entering or leaving the country via a land port of  entry because NTC does not have this information and jurisdictions  receive this information only to the extent that sex offenders self-report it.  The automated notification will fill this information gap, in part, by sending  notices about registered sex offenders entering and leaving the country  via a land port of entry, to the extent that CBP queries the biographical  information of the offender, in addition to providing notices about  registered sex offenders traveling internationally via commercial air and  sea transport. Although the automated notification will provide information  on a greater number of traveling registered sex offenders than the  number that jurisdictions and NTC provide, as shown in table 4, NTC  provides more details on a specific traveler than the automated  notification. Further, jurisdictions that collect offenders’ self reported data  may also be able to provide more details. Therefore, according to U.S.  Marshals officials, they find it beneficial to continue to receive information  from each of these two sources.

According to an ICE section chief responsible for the Angel Watch  program, ICE has not requested to receive the automated notifications  because it prefers to rely on information NTC provides, which meets  ICE’s specific needs. In particular, an NTC analyst, after identifying a  registered sex offender with plans to travel internationally via commercial  air or sea transport, conducts further analysis to determine whether the  offender committed a crime against a child. This ICE chief stated that ICE  does not want information on all types of registered sex offenders, which  is what the automated notification would provide, but only on those who  have committed crimes against children, in accordance with ICE’s  mission to investigate the sexual exploitation of children. However, by not  requesting to receive the automated notification, ICE will not have  information on registered sex offenders who committed offenses against  children, left the country via a land port of entry, and had their  biographical information queried at the port. According to the FBI, in  order to receive the automated notification, ICE would have to submit a  request to FBI’s Advisory Policy Board; and given that the board meets  twice a year, it could take approximately 1 year or more for the board to  approve an agency’s request to receive alerts from the system. The FBI  also explained that the automated notification will not be able to  distinguish between traveling registered sex offenders who committed  offenses against children and those who committed offenses against  adults because the notifications are derived from NCIC data, and the age  of the victim is not a required field in this system. Therefore, if ICE were  to receive the automated notification, ICE would have to determine on its  own whether the offenders leaving the country through a land port of  entry committed an offense against a child. However, according to NTC  officials, about 90 percent of the registered sex offenders they identified in  fiscal year 2012 who planned to travel internationally via commercial air  or sea transport had committed offenses against children. We have  previously reported that collaborating agencies can look for opportunities  to address resource needs by leveraging each others’ resources, which  could include receiving the automated notification, and obtaining  additional benefits that would not be available if they were working  separately. By electing not to receive the automated notifications, ICE  will not receive information on registered sex offenders traveling to  Canada or Mexico via a land port of entry whose biographical information  is queried. This is of particular concern considering that, according to ICE,  Mexico is one of the countries to which registered sex offenders travel  most frequently. If ICE were to receive alerts from the automated  notification, we recognize that some effort would be required to determine  whether sex offenders leaving the country through a land port of entry  committed an offense against a child. However, the level of effort  required, and whether or not the benefits of the effort would outweigh the  cost, cannot be determined at this time.

section_title: ICE and USNCB Notify Foreign Officials about Some Registered Sex Offenders Traveling Abroad, but Improved Information Sharing Could Increase the Number and Content of These Notifications
paragraphs: USNCB and ICE inform foreign officials when registered sex offenders  are traveling to their countries to enable these officials to take actions that  they deem appropriate to ensure public safety. USNCB and ICE notify  their own unique counterparts in foreign countries about traveling sex  offenders for similar purposes, such as enabling them to make decisions  as to whether they will admit sex offenders into their country. In addition  USNCB and ICE notify these counterparts for different purposes. For  example, ICE counterparts may monitor the whereabouts of sex offenders  while they are in the foreign country. USNCB and ICE base such  notifications on different information sources; USNCB uses information it  receives from the U.S. Marshals and jurisdictions, and ICE uses  information it receives from NTC’s passenger data reviews as part of  ICE’s Angel Watch program. However, the U.S. Marshals do not  consistently share information with USNCB on traveling sex offenders,  and USNCB and ICE do not share the information they receive on  traveling sex offenders with each other. As a result, USNCB and ICE  were not able to notify their foreign counterparts about a large number of  registered sex offenders traveling internationally from August to  September 2012, and some of the notifications were not as  comprehensive as possible.
subsections: section_title: USNCB and ICE Notify Their Respective Foreign Counterparts of Registered Sex Offenders Traveling Internationally for Similar as well as Unique Purposes
paragraphs: USNCB notifies its INTERPOL counterparts in other countries about  registered sex offenders traveling internationally. Similarly, ICE, through  its Angel Watch program, notifies its foreign law enforcement  counterparts about sex offenders traveling internationally who had  committed an offense against a child. According to USNCB and ICE  officials, USNCB and ICE send these notices to different agencies within  the foreign countries, but for similar purposes—to enable foreign officials  to decide whether they want to admit the registered sex offender into their  country or take other public safety measures they deem appropriate. For  example, with regard to the United Kingdom, USNCB notifies its  INTERPOL counterpart—the United Kingdom National Central Bureau— which is hosted by the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA), a law  enforcement body that fights organized crime. SOCA officials then make  decisions about how to use this information. They could share it with  agencies such as the United Kingdom (U.K.) Border Agency, which is  responsible for refusing entry to persons who do not qualify, or the U.K.  Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), which interviews registered sex  offenders to establish exactly what their plans are while in the United  Kingdom and where they will be staying upon entry or if admitted. On the  other hand, according to ICE officials, ICE notifies the sex offender unit  within the U.K. Metropolitan Police Service as well as the U.K. Border  Agency directly through its attachés posted abroad about registered sex  offenders traveling to the United Kingdom who committed an offense  against a child. Of the six countries included in our review, three generally  do not admit registered sex offenders, and in one country, even though it  generally admits registered sex offenders, foreign law enforcement  officials monitor the activity of the sex offender while in country. For  example, ICE Angel Watch program officials reported that in 2012, an ICE  attaché notified foreign officials in advance that a registered sex offender  was traveling from the United States to their country; and as a result, the  foreign officials denied entry to the registered sex offender. Appendix II  provides information on registered sex offenders traveling internationally  who were refused entry by foreign countries.

USNCB and ICE identified reasons why it is advantageous that they both  notify foreign officials of sex offenders traveling internationally. USNCB  officials explained that they have been trying to encourage their  INTERPOL counterparts to inform them about individuals convicted of sex  offenses in their countries who are traveling to the United States.  Therefore, it is important for USNCB to provide such notifications if it  expects its counterparts to reciprocate. ICE officials explained that it is  important for their ICE attachés to inform their foreign law enforcement  counterparts about traveling registered sex offenders to assist the  counterparts with tracking offenders visiting that country, such as by  developing a shared spreadsheet designed to help the country establish  its own sex offender registry, and to monitor sex offenders’ activities while  in that country.

section_title: Federal Agencies Do Not Share All Available Information They Have on Traveling Registered Sex Offenders with One Another, thus Limiting the Number and Content of Notifications Sent to Foreign Officials
paragraphs: USNCB provides more comprehensive information on sex offenders’  travel plans to its INTERPOL counterparts than ICE provides to its foreign  law enforcement counterparts, and the additional information that USNCB  has could help support ICE’s mission. USNCB bases its notifications on  information that it receives from jurisdictions that require registered sex  offenders to provide advance notice of international travel, whereas ICE  bases its notifications on information it receives from NTC’s analysis of  commercial air and sea passenger data. As previously discussed,  jurisdictions that require advance notice may collect more information on  each sex offender’s travel plans—such as hotel information—than NTC  does.

In addition, neither USNCB nor ICE has provided its foreign counterpart  with as many notices of traveling registered sex offenders as it potentially  could. Specifically, as shown in figure 2, from August 1 through  September 30, 2012, USNCB notified its counterparts of 105 offenders  that ICE did not provide to its counterparts. Further, 82 of these 105  notifications (78 percent) were for registered sex offenders who had  committed offenses against children. Similarly, ICE notified its  counterparts of 100 offenders that USNCB did not provide to its  counterparts.

There are several reasons why USNCB and ICE generally do not have  information to share on the same sex offenders traveling internationally.  First, USNCB generally does not receive information on traveling sex  offenders from NTC, whereas ICE does. This is in part because the U.S.  Marshals has not passed on all of the information it has obtained from  NTC on registered sex offenders to USNCB. We have previously reported  that collaborating agencies should consider if participants have full  knowledge of the relevant resources in their agency.this guidance, in March 2012, the U.S. Marshals assigned one of its  investigators to be co-located with USNCB officials in order to provide  USNCB with information on sex offenders for whom USNCB would send   Consistent with  green notices to its foreign INTERPOL counterparts. U.S. Marshals  officials then realized that they had additional information on traveling  registered sex offenders that could be of interest to USNCB, and starting  in August 2012, the U.S. Marshals investigator was to begin providing  USNCB information on traveling registered sex offenders that the U.S.  Marshals receives from NTC. However, we found that from August  through September 2012, the U.S. Marshals only provided USNCB with  information on 39 of the 169 traveling sex offenders of whom the U.S.  Marshals was aware based on information from NTC.

According to U.S. Marshals officials, the U.S. Marshals analyst posted at  NTC may not be informing USNCB about all registered sex offenders  traveling internationally that NTC has identified because the analyst’s  primary purpose is to identify and pursue potential SORNA violations— instances in which a registered sex offender is in violation of registration  requirements by traveling internationally without providing advance  notice. As a result, by the time the analyst finishes looking into potential  SORNA violations, some of the registered sex offenders that NTC  identified may have already completed their international travel; the U.S.  Marshals investigator posted at USNCB would not notify USNCB about  these offenders because the opportunity would have passed for USNCB  to provide advance notice to its foreign counterparts about these  offenders.

Officials further explained that it takes time to complete the Notification of  International Travel form for each traveling sex offender that NTC  identifies, which may also prevent the investigator from notifying USNCB  prior to the sex offender initiating travel. U.S. Marshals officials also  stated that they would generally not provide USNCB with information on  registered sex offenders whose international travel is less than 3 days.  However, USNCB officials stated that they send notifications to their  counterparts on all traveling registered sex offenders, regardless of travel  duration or ability to provide advance notice.

U.S. Marshals officials explained that they did not receive any additional  resources to help bridge the gap between the information that NTC and  USNCB obtain on registered sex offenders traveling internationally, but  volunteered to help remedy this issue with limited existing resources.  While the U.S. Marshals’ intentions are commendable, USNCB still does  not have access to information on most of the registered sex offenders  traveling internationally that NTC identifies, thus precluding USNCB from  notifying its foreign counterparts about these individuals and enabling  them to make informed public safety decisions.

A second reason why USNCB and ICE do not have information on the  same traveling sex offenders could be that USNCB receives information  on registered sex offenders traveling internationally from jurisdictions,  whereas ICE does not. Third, according to a senior ICE official, ICE may  have received information on additional traveling sex offenders, but did  not send notifications via Angel Watch because of constrained manpower  or insufficient information on the child exploitation conviction, among  other things.

According to USNCB officials, they copy several other federal agencies  on their notifications to foreign officials, including FBI’s Innocent Images  National Initiative and the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic  Security (DS) which may choose to take further action.officials stated that they share information on registered sex offenders  traveling internationally with their regional security officers, who may  inform other U.S. government and foreign law enforcement officials in- country, as they deem appropriate. However, USNCB officials reported  that they do not coordinate their notifications with ICE, in part because  their understanding was that ICE was interested in registered sex  offenders traveling internationally only if the offender was the subject of   For example, DS  an ICE investigation; USNCB officials stated that they were not aware  that ICE’s primary interest in obtaining information on these offenders  was to notify their foreign law enforcement counterparts.

We have previously reported that collaborating agencies can look for  opportunities to address resource needs by leveraging each others’  resources and obtaining additional benefits that would not be available if  they were working separately. According to senior ICE officials  responsible for the Angel Watch program, the additional information  USNCB collects and provides to its counterparts could also help support  ICE’s efforts. In particular, these officials stated that the relevant ICE  attaché could share the additional information with that person’s foreign  counterpart to support efforts to deny entry or monitor activity of  registered sex offenders. USNCB officials stated that it would be feasible  to include Angel Watch program officials on the notifications USNCB  sends to foreign counterparts.

Taking steps to ensure that USNCB and ICE have information on the  same registered sex offenders traveling internationally—which could  entail, for example, the two agencies copying one another on notifications  to their foreign counterparts, or USNCB receiving information directly from  NTC—could help ensure that USNCB and ICE are providing more  comprehensive information on traveling registered sex offenders to their  foreign counterparts to help inform public safety decisions.

section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Cases in which individuals who had previously been convicted of a sex  offense in the United States subsequently traveled overseas to commit an  offense against a child underscore the importance of sex offender  registration and notification standards to help ensure public safety in the  United States and abroad. Some of the limitations federal agencies have  faced with regard to identifying registered sex offenders leaving and  returning to the United States are expected to be addressed by the  automated notification the FBI is currently developing. However, ICE has  not requested to receive the automated notification, which may preclude it  from identifying entire categories of sex offenders, such as those entering  and returning to the United States via a land port of entry whose  biographical information is queried. USNCB, U.S. Marshals, and ICE  have taken steps to coordinate their efforts to identify registered sex  offenders traveling internationally, such as participating in the IWG and  collocating staff. However, despite these efforts, these agencies still do  not have access to all of the information on traveling registered sex  offenders that they could potentially receive. Sharing additional  information could help ensure that these agencies are providing more  comprehensive information on traveling registered sex offenders to their  foreign counterparts to help inform public safety decisions.

section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: Given ICE’s objective to target the transnational sexual exploitation of  children, after the automated notification becomes operational, the  Director of ICE should direct ICE Homeland Security Investigations   officials to coordinate with FBI Criminal Justice Information Services  officials to collect and analyze information that will enable ICE to  determine if the benefits of receiving the automated notifications   outweigh the costs. The type of information ICE may consider collecting  as part of this analysis could include the number of notifications  generated for sex offenders leaving the country via a land port of entry.

To ensure that USNCB and ICE are providing more comprehensive  information to their respective foreign counterparts regarding registered  sex offenders traveling internationally, we recommend that the Attorney  General and the Secretary of Homeland Security take steps to help  ensure that USNCB and ICE have information on the same number of  registered sex offenders as well as the same level of detail on registered  sex offenders traveling internationally. Such steps could include USNCB  and ICE copying each other on their notifications to their foreign  counterparts or USNCB receiving information directly from NTC.

section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to DHS, DOJ,  and State. We received written comments from DHS and USNCB, within  DOJ, which are reproduced in full in appendices III and IV, respectively.  DHS generally agreed with our recommendations in its comments, and  USNCB agreed with our recommendations with additional observations.  State did not provide written comments on the draft report. We also  received technical comments from DHS and DOJ, which were  incorporated throughout our report as appropriate.

In its written comments, USNCB agreed with our recommendation that  the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security take steps  to help ensure that USNCB and ICE have the same information on  registered sex offenders traveling internationally. USNCB noted that it has  already begun the process of establishing points of contact with the  appropriate ICE personnel so that USNCB can include ICE in its  dissemination of sex offender notifications. USNCB also identified  additional actions which were beyond the scope of our review, such as  the need for technical improvements to streamline data sharing and  foreign notification processes. In addition, USNCB stated that there needs  to be an impetus for all states to substantially implement the guidelines  set forth by the SMART Office on traveling registered sex offenders.  During the course of our review, officials from the SMART Office stated  that they have taken some actions, such as conducting workshops and  providing technical assistance, to encourage jurisdictions to implement  the requirement for registered sex offenders to report international travel  21 days in advance of such travel.

DHS agreed with our recommendations that ICE should assess whether  receiving the automated notifications would benefit their mission to target  transnational sexual exploitation and that DOJ and DHS should take  steps to ensure that USNCB and ICE have the same information on  traveling registered sex offenders. However, in its letter, DHS questioned  whether the automated notifications would be of use to the Angel Watch  program because the timing of some of the notifications would not enable  ICE to notify foreign officials in advance that a sex offender is traveling to  their country, in which case the foreign officials could choose not to admit  the offender. Nevertheless, in addition to admissibility decisions, foreign  law enforcement officials with whom we spoke stated that they use the  information they receive from ICE for multiple purposes, including  determining how frequently the sex offender travels to that country, where  the offender stays while in country, and where to direct their resources to  monitor sex offenders.

DHS also raised concerns that given the hundreds of thousands of  individuals leaving the United States via the southwest border on a daily  basis, handling notifications on sex offenders leaving the country through  this border may be untenable. However, it is uncertain how many of these  individuals are sex offenders and how many of them will be queried by  CBP when exiting the country. Therefore, it will be important for ICE to  implement our recommendation so that once the automated notification  process is underway, ICE can obtain the necessary information to  determine if the number of notifications of sex offenders exiting the  country through a land port of entry is manageable.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security,  the Secretary of State, and other interested parties. This report is also  available at no charge on GAO’s web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions, please contact me at (202) 512- 6510 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 V.

section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: Since 2006, Congress has passed legislation and the Department of  Justice (DOJ) has promulgated regulations to help ensure that federal,  state, local, territorial, and tribal officials are aware of when registered sex  offenders travel internationally. To determine the extent to which these  officials have procedures in place to implement these requirements, we  addressed the following questions:  (1) How and to what extent does the federal government determine  whether registered sex offenders are leaving or returning to the United  States?  (2) How and to what extent have federal agencies notified foreign  officials about registered sex offenders traveling internationally?

To address both objectives, we identified legislation, regulations, and  other guidance that directs federal agencies’ efforts to identify registered  sex offenders leaving or returning to the United States. Section 128 of the  Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act of 2006 (SORNA), directs  the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the  Secretary of Homeland Security, to establish a system for informing  domestic jurisdictions about persons entering the United States who are  required to register under SORNA (referred to as registered sex  offenders). Further, SORNA makes it a federal crime for a sex offender  required to register under SORNA to travel to foreign countries and  knowingly fail to register or update a registration in the United States.  Additionally, under DOJ guidance, jurisdictions are required to have  registered sex offenders report international travel 21 days in advance  and to submit information concerning such travel—such as expected  itinerary, departure and return dates, and means and purpose of travel— to the appropriate federal agencies.

In order to assess how federal agencies obtain information on registered  sex offenders leaving and returning to the United States, we obtained  documentation from and interviewed members of the International  Tracking of Sex Offenders Working Group (IWG), which is composed of  representatives from various components within DOJ, the Department of  Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of State (State), and the  Department of Defense (DOD). The IWG was tasked with developing  mechanisms to comply with statutory and regulatory requirements for  identifying registered sex offenders leaving and returning to the United  States. We reviewed the IWG’s proposals for such mechanisms, which  were documented in a white paper prepared by the IWG in December  2010.  We then interviewed officials from three of the federal  departments represented on the IWG to obtain information on the  mechanisms by which they identify registered sex offenders leaving and  returning to the country, any limitations of these mechanisms, and what  steps could be taken to address these limitations. Those agencies are the  following:

Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending,  Registering, and Tracking (SMART Office)

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

United States Marshals Service (U.S. Marshals)

International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL)  Washington – U.S. National Central Bureau (USNCB)

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

Bureau of Consular Affairs (CA)

Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS)

We excluded DOD from our review because under SORNA, the  departments responsible for dealing with registered sex offenders  traveling abroad were identified as DOJ, DHS, and State.

We also interviewed and surveyed relevant state, local, and territorial  officials to determine what role, if any, they play in informing the federal  government of registered sex offenders leaving the country, and how, if at  all they become aware of registered sex offenders returning to the  country, and how they use that information to help ensure public safety.  We first conducted a screening survey of officials from all 56  jurisdictions—the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the 5 territories,  excluding tribal territories, that are eligible to implement SORNA. We  contacted jurisdiction officials identified by the SMART Office as being  responsible for implementing SORNA in the jurisdictions to determine  whether they require registered sex offenders to provide advance notice  of international travel and whether they share information with relevant  federal agencies on registered sex offenders leaving or returning to the  country. These officials included representatives of state police  departments or attorney general offices. We pretested the survey with 2  jurisdictions, distributed the survey by e-mail, and received responses  from all 56 jurisdictions. Subsequently, of those jurisdictions that  responded that they require sex offenders to provide advance notice of  international travel, we selected 4 jurisdictions—Maryland, Florida,  Michigan, and Arizona—to conduct site visits and 1 jurisdiction (New  Mexico) to conduct interviews. During the site visits we obtained  additional information on how they implemented and enforced the  requirement and shared information with relevant federal agencies. We  chose these jurisdictions based on (1) variation in the extent of  international travel from the jurisdiction; (2) percentage of the population  that is composed of sex offenders; and (3) whether the state has land and  sea ports of entry, in addition to airports, to cover the various modes by  which sex offenders could enter and leave the country. During the site  visits, we met with officials from the following federal, state, and local law  enforcement agencies: U.S. Marshals, ICE, and CBP (at air, land, and  sea ports of entry), state agencies responsible for maintaining the state  sex offender registry, and local law enforcement agencies responsible for  registering and monitoring sex offenders. During the site visits, we  determined what actions were taken by state jurisdictions after the federal  government informed them of sex offenders returning to their jurisdiction,  particularly if the jurisdiction was not aware that the individual had left the  country. Furthermore, we gathered information from jurisdictions on any  actions that can be taken to improve their efforts to identify registered sex  offenders leaving or returning to the United States. While the perspectives  from the officials we interviewed during site visits cannot be generalized  to all jurisdictions, they provided valuable insights about registered sex  offenders traveling internationally.

We also developed and administered a second survey of the same  officials from the 56 jurisdictions to obtain more detailed information on  the extent to which jurisdictions implement the 21-day advance notice  requirement and inform federal agencies of registered sex offenders  leaving the country. The survey also included questions related to  jurisdictions’ perspectives on any challenges or improvements needed  regarding receiving or providing information about sex offenders leaving  or returning to the United States, in addition to other issues related to the  implementation of SORNA. To develop this survey, we designed draft  questionnaires in close collaboration with a GAO social science survey  specialist and conducted pretests with 4 jurisdictions to help further refine  our questions, develop new questions, clarify any ambiguous portions of  the survey, and identify any potentially biased questions. Log-in  information for the web-based survey was e-mailed to all participants, and  we sent two follow-up e-mail messages to all nonrespondents and  contacted the remaining nonrespondents by telephone. We received  responses from 52 out of 56 jurisdictions.

Additionally, during our interviews with the IWG agencies, we asked  whether any of these agencies use the information they obtain on  registered sex offenders leaving and returning to the country to help  ensure public safety. For the three agencies identified as having  responsibility for taking action based this information—U.S. Marshals,  ICE, and USNCB, we obtained and analyzed data on the number of  registered sex offenders they received from August 1 through September  30, 2012 of registered sex offenders traveling internationally. We chose  this time period because we wanted to assess the effectiveness of a  process the U.S. Marshals instituted in August 2012 for sharing  information with USNCB on registered sex offenders traveling outside of  the United States. We then asked USNCB and ICE to provide us with the  notifications they sent to foreign officials about the registered sex  offenders who traveled outside of the United States for the same time  period. We also analyzed the data to determine the extent to which there  was any fragmentation (i.e. circumstances in which more than one federal  agency is involved in the same broad area of national interest) or  duplication (i.e. two or more agencies or programs are engaged in the  same activities or provide the same services to the same beneficiaries)  with regard to the notices. Specifically, we analyzed and compared the  data provided by U.S. Marshals, ICE and USNCB to determine the extent  to which the information these agencies had on sex offenders who  planned to travel outside of the country was similar or different. We also  assessed the similarities and differences in the notifications sent by  USNCB and ICE to their foreign counterparts. We assessed the reliability  of the data the agencies provided by questioning knowledgeable agency  officials and reviewing the data for obvious errors and anomalies. We  determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes.

Furthermore, we contacted federal and foreign officials in select countries  to obtain information on how they learn of registered sex offenders  traveling from the United States to the countries in which they are located;  how, if at all, they use this information to help ensure public safety; and  any limitations or benefits of receiving this information. The countries we  selected are Australia, Canada, Mexico, the Philippines, Thailand, and  the United Kingdom. We selected Mexico, the Philippines, and Thailand  because, on the basis of data we obtained from ICE, these are among the  countries most frequented by child sex tourists—that is, individuals who  travel to another country for the purpose of engaging in inappropriate  sexual activity with a child. We selected Australia, Canada, and the  United Kingdom because they are known to have national sex offender  registries, similar to those of the United States, and have expressed an  interest in receiving information from the U.S. government on sex  offenders traveling to their countries. For each of these countries, we  reached out to the ICE attachés stationed in country as well as a  representative from the country’s national law enforcement agency. The  perspectives of these officials are not representative, but provide valuable  insights.

We conducted this performance audit from January 2012 to February  2013 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our analysis based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence  obtained provides a reasonable basis for our analysis based on our audit  objectives.

section_title: Appendix II: Registered Sex Offenders Traveling Internationally Who Were Refused Entry by Foreign Countries
paragraphs: CBP’s National Targeting Center (NTC) reviews air and sea passenger  data to identify registered sex offenders who plan to travel internationally.  NTC shares this information with the U.S. Marshals and ICE. The U.S.  Marshals then refers these travelers to USNCB, and USNCB sends  notifications to its counterparts via INTERPOL to foreign countries so that  these countries can take action they deem appropriate to help ensure  public safety, such as refusing entry. Figure 3 shows, according to NTC,  how many registered sex offenders NTC identified and referred to  USNCB (through the U.S. Marshals) who were ultimately refused entry by  the foreign country during fiscal year 2012.

section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security

section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Justice

section_title: Appendix V: Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact

section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Kristy Brown, Assistant Director;  Su Jin Yon, Analyst-in-Charge; and Alicia Loucks made significant  contributions to the report. Other key contributors were Susan Baker,  Gary Bianchi, Frances Cook, Anthony DeFrank, Heather Dunahoo,  Michele Fejfar, Eric Hauswirth, Richard Eiserman, Lara Miklozek, Linda  Miller, Anthony Moran, Sheena Smith, Julie Spetz, and John Vocino.


Question-summary annotations: questions: question: How are registered sex offenders tracked abroad?
answer: Three federal agencies--U.S. Marshals, International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) Washington - U.S. National Central Bureau (USNCB), and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)--use information from state, local, territorial, and tribal jurisdictions, as well as passenger data from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), to identify registered sex offenders traveling outside of the United States.
child_questions: question: How are these people tracked when they enter the US?
answer: Similarly, these agencies may be notified of registered sex offenders traveling to the United States through several means, including tips from foreign officials or when CBP queries the registered sex offender's biographic information at a port of entry and finds that the offender has a criminal history.
child_questions: question: To what extent is data collected on these border crossings?
answer: However, none of these sources provides complete or comprehensive information on registered sex offenders leaving or returning to the United States.

question: How might CBP fail to notice sex offenders crossing borders?
answer: For example, CBP does not routinely query individuals who leave the United States by commercial bus, private vessel, private vehicle, or by foot, in which case CBP may not be able to determine if any of these individuals are registered sex offenders. In addition, foreign officials do not always monitor when a registered sex offender is returning to the United States.
child_questions: question: How might this shortcoming in tracking be addressed?
answer: The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), working with other agencies, is developing a process that will address some of these limitations. Specifically, the FBI will send an automated notice to the U.S. Marshals and law enforcement officials in the jurisdictions where the sex offender is registered that the offender is traveling, to the extent that the offender's biographical information is queried at the port of entry.
child_questions: question: How is this proposed program limited?
answer: However, because ICE has not requested to receive the automated notifications, ICE will not be notified of registered sex offenders who leave the country via a land port of entry whose biographical information is queried.

questions: question: How can ICE and USNCB better track sex offenders overseas?
answer: USNCB and ICE have notified foreign officials of some registered sex offenders leaving and returning to the country, but could increase the number and content of these notifications.

question: How do ICE's and USNCB's processes for notifying foreign authorities differ?
answer: USNCB notifies its foreign INTERPOL counterparts about registered sex offenders traveling internationally, and ICE notifies its foreign law enforcement counterparts about traveling sex offenders who had committed an offense against a child. USNCB provides more detailed information than ICE because USNCB uses offenders' self-reported travel information that some jurisdictions collect, which may include details such as hotel information.
child_questions: question: Why is ICE's data less detailed?
answer: Since ICE uses passenger data, it does not have these details.

question: How do the agencies differ in the notifications which they send?
answer: Also, data from August 1 to September 30, 2012, showed that the two agencies had significant differences in the number of offenders they identified in notifications. USNCB sent notifications on 105 traveling sex offenders that ICE did not, and, conversely, ICE sent notifications on 100 traveling sex offenders that USNCB did not.
child_questions: question: Why is there a lack of overlap between the agencies?
answer: In part this is because the two agencies rely on different information sources and do not share information with one another.

question: How might the notification process be improved?
answer: Taking steps to ensure that these agencies have all available information on the same registered sex offenders traveling internationally could help ensure that the agencies are providing more comprehensive information to their foreign counterparts to help inform public safety decisions.

questions: question: Why is tracking sex offenders overseas important?
answer: In recent years, certain individuals who had been convicted of a sex offense in the United States have traveled overseas and committed offenses against children.

question: What is the focus of this report with regard to sex offenders?
answer: GAO was asked to review what relevant federal agencies—including DOJ, DHS, and the Department of State—are doing with regard to registered sex offenders traveling or living abroad.
child_questions: question: How does this report attempt to investigate this?
answer: This report addresses the following questions: (1) How and to what extent does the federal government determine whether registered sex offenders are leaving or returning to the United States? (2) How and to what extent have federal agencies notified foreign officials about registered sex offenders traveling internationally?

question: How did GAO source their data?
answer: GAO analyzed August and September 2012 data from the U.S. Marshals, USNCB, and ICE on registered sex offenders who traveled internationally.
child_questions: question: How did GAO augment the raw data with other sources?
answer: GAO also interviewed relevant agency officials and surveyed officials from all 50 states, 5 territories, and the District of Columbia to determine the extent to which they identify and use information on traveling sex offenders.