DOJ Has Determined That 19 of 56 Jurisdictions Have Substantially Implemented SORNA; Other Jurisdictions Reported Political Will and Legal Barriers as Challenges

		DOJ Has Determined That 19 Jurisdictions Have Substantially Implemented SORNA and Another 17 Have Implemented More than Half of the Act’s Requirements

As of November 2012, 37 of 56 jurisdictions had submitted complete  implementation packages for review, and the SMART Office has  determined that 19 of those jurisdictions (16 states and 3 territories) have  substantially implemented SORNA and another 17 have not, as shown in  figure 1. Although the SMART Office determined that the remaining 17 states and  territories that submitted complete implementation packages for review  have not yet substantially implemented SORNA, the office concluded that  15 of these 17 jurisdictions have implemented at least half of the 14  sections of requirements outlined in the checklist tool. Officials from the SMART Office presented  Officials who responded to our survey identified actions their jurisdictions  were taking to address implementation challenges. Stakeholders Reported Both Positive and Negative Effects as a Result of Implementing SORNA

Given the lack of studies and data on the impact of SORNA, as part of  our review, we obtained perspectives from representatives of various  criminal justice components in five jurisdictions that implemented the act  about the outcomes, both positive and negative, that they have  experienced as a result of implementation. Officials from 4 of  12 implementing jurisdictions that responded to the question about  positive effects of SORNA reported that a benefit of implementing the act  was improved monitoring of registered sex offenders, and perspectives  from officials representing state registries, law enforcement agencies, and  probation offices also indicated that SORNA resulted in benefits   In particular, stakeholders  associated with tracking sex offenders.identified increased information sharing, as well as other aspects of  SORNA, such as increased frequency of registration, and increased  collaboration, as helping them to better track the whereabouts of sex  offenders, as described below. Survey respondents and  representatives from various criminal justice components said that  SORNA has enhanced information sharing on registered sex offenders  between criminal justice components, in part through the use of certain  databases to exchange information. For example, in one federal district,  U.S. Officials from public defender and  probation offices stated that SORNA implementation has made it more  difficult for registered sex offenders to obtain housing and employment,  which can negatively affect their ability to reintegrate into their  communities. A Comprehensive Study by NIJ on SORNA’s Effects Should Help Address Research Gaps on the Law’s Impact

The Adam Walsh Act requires NIJ, the research and evaluation agency of  DOJ, to conduct a comprehensive examination of sex offender issues,  including SORNA’s effectiveness in increasing compliance with sex  offender registration and notification requirements and the effect of sex  offender registration and notification requirements on increasing public  safety. NIJ officials stated that the money authorized in support of  this study has not been appropriated. The Deputy Director of NIJ stated  that NIJ does not proactively request funding that Congress has  authorized for specific studies, but typically waits for Congress to decide  when to appropriate the funding. Agency Comments

We provided a draft of this report to DOJ and the Administrative Office of  the United States Courts (AOUSC) for review and comment. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Our objectives for this report were to address the following questions:
To what extent has the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring,  Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (SMART Office) determined  that jurisdictions have met the requirements for substantial  implementation of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act  (SORNA), and what challenges, if any, have jurisdictions faced in  implementing the act? For jurisdictions that have substantially implemented SORNA, what  are the reported effects that the act has had on public safety, criminal  justice stakeholders, and registered sex offenders? For this report, we assessed SORNA implementation efforts for the 50  states, the 5 principal U.S. territories (American Samoa, Guam, the  Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the  U.S. Virgin Islands), and the District of Columbia. To address the first objective, we analyzed reports that the SMART Office  prepared from September 2009 through September 2012 for jurisdictions  that submitted packages on their implementation efforts to the office for  review. We selected these jurisdictions to represent a range  in the number of registered sex offenders per 100,000 residents and the  year that the jurisdiction substantially implemented the act. Appendix V: Challenges to Implementing SORNA Reported by Survey Respondents from Nonimplemented Jurisdictions

Officials from 29 of the 33 nonimplemented jurisdictions that responded to  our survey questions on challenges to implementing SORNA reported  that their jurisdictions faced challenges.
Why GAO Did This Study

Studies estimate that about 1 in every 5 girls and 1 in every 7 to 10 boys are sexually abused. In 2006, Congress passed SORNA, which introduced new sex offender registration standards for all 50 states, 5 U.S. territories (American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands), the District of Columbia, and certain Indian tribes. SORNA established the SMART Office to determine if these jurisdictions have "substantially implemented" the law, and to assist them in doing so. The deadline to implement SORNA was July 2009; given that none of the jurisdictions met this deadline, DOJ authorized two 1-year extensions. This report addresses: (1) To what extent has the SMART Office determined that jurisdictions have substantially implemented SORNA, and what challenges, if any, have jurisdictions faced? (2) For jurisdictions that have substantially implemented SORNA, what are the reported effects that the act has had on public safety, criminal justice stakeholders, and registered sex offenders?
GAO analyzed SMART Office implementation status reports from September 2009 through September 2012. To identify any challenges, GAO surveyed officials in the 50 states, 5 U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia; GAO received responses from 93 percent (52 of 56) of them. The survey results can be viewed at GAO-13-234SP . GAO visited or interviewed criminal justice officials in five jurisdictions that have substantially implemented SORNA, chosen to represent a range in the number of registered sex offenders per 100,000 residents. Their perspectives are not generalizable, but provided insights.

What GAO Found

The Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (SMART Office) within the Department of Justice (DOJ) has determined that 19 of the 37 jurisdictions that have submitted packages for review have substantially implemented the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). Although the SMART Office has determined that 17 of the jurisdictions that submitted packages have not yet substantially implemented SORNA, the office concluded that 15 of these 17 jurisdictions have implemented at least half of the SORNA requirements; the office has not yet made a determination for 1 jurisdiction that submitted a package. A majority of nonimplemented jurisdictions reported that generating the political will to incorporate the necessary changes to their state laws and related policies or reconciling legal conflicts are among the greatest challenges to implementation. For example, officials from 27 nonimplemented jurisdictions reported reconciling conflicts between SORNA and state laws--such as which offenses should require registration--as a challenge to implementing SORNA. Officials from 5 of 18 jurisdictions that responded to a survey question asking how DOJ could help address these challenges reported that the SMART Office could provide greater flexibilities; however, SMART Office officials said they have offered as many flexibilities as possible and further changes would take legislative action.
A few studies have been conducted on the effects of certain SORNA requirements on jurisdictions and registered sex offenders, but GAO did not find any that evaluated the effects on public safety following SORNA implementation; stakeholders reported both positive and negative effects as a result of implementing the law. Officials from 4 of 12 implementing jurisdictions who responded to the survey reported that one benefit was improved monitoring of registered sex offenders. Stakeholders also reported that SORNA resulted in enhanced information sharing on registered sex offenders between criminal justice components, in part through the use of certain databases that enable jurisdictions to share information with one another. Stakeholders and survey respondents also identified negative or unintended consequences of implementing SORNA. For example, officials from three of five state agencies and all eight of the local law enforcement agencies GAO interviewed stated that their workload has increased, in part because of the increased frequency at which sex offenders must update their registration information as a result of the act. Officials from a majority of the public defender and probation offices also said that SORNA implementation has made it more difficult for registered sex offenders to obtain housing and employment, which can negatively affect their ability to reintegrate into their communities. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) is statutorily required to study SORNA's effectiveness in increasing compliance with requirements and the effect of these requirements on increasing public safety. As of December 2012, DOJ had not requested the funding to conduct this study and the funding had not been appropriated. NIJ officials stated that NIJ does not proactively request funding for specific studies, but waits for Congress to decide when to appropriate the funding. Neither DOJ nor the Administrative Office of the United States Courts provided written comments on this report.