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

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