The purpose of SORNA is to protect the public from convicted sex offenders and offenders against children by providing a comprehensive set of sex offender registration and notification standards. These standards require convicted sex offenders to register prior to their release from imprisonment or within 3 days of their sentencing, if the sentence does not involve imprisonment. Further, the standards require these offenders to register and keep the registration current in the jurisdictions in which they live, work, and attend school. SORNA implementing jurisdictions are to maintain a jurisdiction-wide sex offender registry and website and adopt registration requirements that are at least as strict as those SORNA established. Convicted sex offenders are required to continue to update or verify their registration information, the duration and frequency of which depends on the seriousness of the crimes they committed. For example, SORNA requires a lifetime registration for convicted offenses in the most serious class such as aggravated sexual abuse (tier III), a 25-year registration for many felony sex offenses or sexual exploitation crimes with minors (tier II), and a 15-year registration for convicted offenses that do not support a higher classification such as possession of child pornography (tier I). SORNA requires in-person appearances depending on the convicted sex offender’s tier classification (tier I annually, tier II semiannually, and tier III quarterly) at established registration locations to update or verify registration information. Under the act, implementing jurisdictions are to submit basic identifier information for each convicted sex offender, such as the offender’s name, Social Security number, and address to the FBI’s National Sex Offender Registry (NSOR), which is a subfile of the National Crime Information In addition, these jurisdictions are to submit the sex Center (NCIC). offender’s fingerprints to the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS), the sex offender’s palm prints to the National Palm Print System (NPPS), and a DNA sample to the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS).authorized state CJIS Systems Agencies (CSA) to determine which According to FBI officials, FBI CJIS has entities within their states, including tribes, can access these federal criminal databases. The implementing jurisdictions are also to provide information from the registry about the sex offender to (1) appropriate law enforcement agencies (including probation agencies), and each school and public housing agency, in each area in which the individual resides, is an employee, or is a student; (2) each jurisdiction where the sex offender resides, is an employee, or is a student; (3) each jurisdiction from or to which a change of residence, employment, or student status occurs; and (4) any organization, company, or individual who requests such notification, among others. Under SORNA, 353 of the 566 federally recognized tribes are ineligible to implement the act, while 214 tribes are eligible. SORNA based tribes’ eligibility on whether the tribe is subject to the criminal jurisdiction of a state under section 1162 of title 18, United States Code, making those tribes that are subject to such jurisdiction ineligible to implement the act.Section 1162 gives states criminal jurisdiction over offenses committed by or against Indians in the areas of Indian country within 6 states—Alaska, California, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, and Wisconsin.tribes are generally ineligible to implement SORNA for tribal lands located within these states. The states are responsible for incorporating these tribal lands in state-wide SORNA implementation efforts. SORNA provided tribes 1 year from its July 27, 2006, enactment, to choose—by resolution or other enactment of the tribal council or comparable governmental body—to either retain the tribe’s SORNA implementation authority and act as a registration jurisdiction or delegate the tribe’s registration and notification functions to the state. however, is automatic for a tribe that did not affirmatively elect to implement the act itself prior to July 27, 2007. SORNA authorizes tribes that retained their implementation authority to enter into cooperative agreements with states and decide which functions to maintain or delegate to the state. The Attorney General can also delegate a tribe’s SORNA registration and notification functions to a state if the Attorney General determines that the tribe has not substantially implemented the requirements of SORNA and is not likely to become capable of doing so within a reasonable amount of time. 42 U.S.C. § 16927(a). assistance and grant funds, and administer the standards for determining whether jurisdictions have implemented the law. Eligible jurisdictions submit a substantial implementation package that outlines their implementation efforts for SMART Office review. The package can include tribal laws pertaining to sex offender registration administrative policy and procedures, and the jurisdiction’s public sex offender website, among other things. The SMART Office developed the SORNA Substantial Implementation Checklist tool (described in app. II) that jurisdictions can use to prepare the package. After reviewing the package, the SMART Office determines whether the jurisdiction has “substantially implemented” or “not substantially implemented” the minimum requirements of SORNA. To do so, the SMART Office must follow the standards set forth in the (1) act; (2) SORNA National Guidelines, issued in July 2008; and (3) Supplemental Guidelines for Sex Offender Registration and Notification (Supplemental Guidelines), issued in January 2011.standard does allow for some latitude, and accordingly, the National Guidelines require the SMART Office to consider, on a case-by-case basis, whether jurisdictions’ rules or procedures substantially implement SORNA. Pursuant to SORNA, DOJ has designated the U.S. Marshals Service as the lead federal agency in three key missions: to assist state, local, tribal, and territorial authorities in the location and apprehension of noncompliant convicted sex offenders; to investigate violations of the criminal provisions of the act; and to identify and locate convicted sex offenders displaced as a result of a major disaster. USMS has designated a senior inspector in each of its 94 district offices to carry out the agency’s SORNA responsibilities. Within the Department of the Interior (Interior), the Bureau of Indian Affairs is responsible for supporting tribes in their efforts to ensure public safety and administer justice within their reservations, as well as to provide related services directly or to enter into contracts or compacts with federally recognized tribes to administer the law enforcement program.major federal crimes, including sexual offenses, committed on, or involving, Indian country. OJS provides oversight and technical assistance to tribal law enforcement programs. As of August 2014, 164 of the 214 (nearly 77 percent) eligible tribes had retained their authority to implement SORNA, while the remainder did not retain their authority because they either elected to delegate their authority to a state (24 tribes) or the SMART Office delegated their authority to a state (26 tribes), as shown in figure 1. According to SMART Office representatives, the agency delegated the SORNA implementation authority of 26 tribes primarily because the tribes (1) chose not to delegate their authority although they did not plan to implement the act, because they thought delegating their authority was equivalent to relinquishing their sovereignty; (2) indicated that they lacked the necessary resources to implement the act in a reasonable amount of time; or (3) were nonresponsive to the SMART Office’s repeated inquiries to gauge the tribes’ interest in implementing the act. Our interviews with tribal council and law enforcement officials from 2 of the 24 tribes that elected to delegate their authority to a state similarly revealed that these tribes chose to delegate their authority because they did not have the necessary resources to implement the act. Furthermore, officials from 1 tribe stated that implementation did not seem worth the expense for their tribe considering the small number of tribal members, the fact that none of the tribal members live on tribal land year-round, and the remote location of their tribal land. According to the SMART Office, 43 percent (71 of 164) of tribes that retained their authority to implement SORNA have substantially implemented the act; nearly 43 percent (70 of 164) have submitted an implementation package, but the SMART Office has not yet made a determination; and 13 percent (22 of 164) have not submitted a complete package. The SMART Office has determined, to date, that 1 tribe has not substantially implemented SORNA, as shown in figure 2 and appendix III. For the implementation status and location of all eligible tribes, see figure 3. According to the SMART Office, the number of tribes that have submitted implementation packages for review as well as the number of tribes that have substantially implemented SORNA continue to increase. Representatives of two of the three tribal and law enforcement associations we interviewed in January 2014 said that the number of tribes that had substantially implemented SORNA—at the time, 49 tribes—was far greater than what these representatives said that they expected, given the magnitude of the implementation challenges that tribes face, such as limitations with information sharing, a high staff turnover, and the lack of cooperation between tribes and local law enforcement. We discuss such challenges and steps to address them in detail later in this report. According to the tribes that have submitted an implementation package for review that responded to our survey, it took a majority of these tribes 2 years to submit a complete implementation package to the SMART Office for review. SMART Office representatives said that it takes the office, on average, 6 months from the time it receives a tribe’s package to begin reviewing it. This is because the office’s review depends on a number of factors, such as the availability of SMART Office staff to review implementation packages. At the time of our review, SMART Office representatives indicated that there were three policy advisers on staff to review implementation packages.