This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-15-23 
entitled 'Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act: Additional 
Outreach and Notification of Tribes about Offenders Who Are Released 
from Prison Needed' which was released on November 18, 2014. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and 
Investigations, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives: 

November 2014: 

Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act: 

Additional Outreach and Notification of Tribes about Offenders Who Are 
Released from Prison Needed: 

GAO-15-23: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-15-23, a report to the Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, Committee on the 
Judiciary, House of Representatives. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

According to DOJ, tribal nations are disproportionately affected by 
violent crimes and sex offenses in particular. In 2006, Congress 
passed SORNA, which introduced new sex offender registration and 
notification standards for states, territories, and eligible tribes. 
The act made special provisions for eligible tribes to elect either to 
act as registration jurisdictions or to delegate SORNA functions to 
the states in which they are located. GAO was asked to assess the 
status of tribes' efforts to implement SORNA and the challenges they 
face doing so. 

This report addresses, among other things, (1) the extent to which 
eligible tribes have retained their authority to implement, and for 
those that did, describe their implementation status and (2) 
implementation challenges tribes that retained their authority 
reported, and steps federal agencies have taken or could take to 
address these challenges. GAO reviewed data on eligible tribes' 
implementation status; conducted a survey of tribes that retained 
their authority; and interviewed federal, state, and local officials. 

What GAO Found: 

Most eligible tribes have retained their Sex Offender Registration and 
Notification Act (SORNA) implementation authority and have either 
substantially implemented the act or are in the process of doing so. 
As of August 2014, 77 percent (164 of the 214) of eligible tribes had 
retained their implementation authority. Tribes that lacked the 
resources, among other factors, to implement SORNA either delegated 
their own authority, or the SMART Office delegated the tribe's 
authority, to a state. According to the Office of Sex Offender 
Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (SMART 
Office)—-the office SORNA established within the Department of Justice 
(DOJ) to administer and assist jurisdictions with implementing the 
law—-43 percent (71 of 164) of tribes that retained their authority to 
implement SORNA have substantially implemented the act; the SMART 
Office has not yet made a final determination on 43 percent (70 of 
164); and 13 percent (22 of 164) have not submitted complete packages. 
The SMART Office determined that 1 tribe has not yet substantially 
implemented SORNA. 

In GAO's survey of tribes that retained their authority, the four most 
frequently reported implementation challenges included inability to 
submit convicted sex offender information to federal databases, lack 
of notification from state prisons upon the release of sex offenders, 
lack of staff, and inability to cover the costs of SORNA 
implementation. Federal agencies have taken steps to address these 
challenges, but more could be done. For example, DOJ and the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs (BIA) within the Department of the Interior (Interior) 
have formed a working group to better coordinate federal efforts to 
address tribes' difficulties submitting convicted sex offender 
information to federal databases. However, some states have not 
notified tribes—-those that retained their SORNA authority, as well as 
ineligible and delegated tribes—-when sex offenders who will be or 
have been released from state prison register with the state and 
indicate that they intend to live, work or attend school on tribal 
land, as SORNA requires; and while the SMART Office has taken some 
actions, more could be done to encourage states to provide 
notification to tribes. Such notification would help tribes identify 
and monitor sex offenders who live on their lands and enforce tribal 
laws pertaining to sex offenders. The SMART Office, U.S. Marshals 
Service, and BIA provided financial assistance, equipment, and staff 
to help tribes address their resource needs. However, BIA offered 
assistance only to tribes for which BIA provides direct law 
enforcement services, which account for only 20 percent of the tribes 
that retained their SORNA implementation authority, even though BIA is 
responsible for assisting and advising all federally recognized tribes 
regarding their law enforcement and public safety needs. Taking steps 
to ascertain what, if any, resource or other needs all tribes that 
retained their authority may have could better position BIA to support 
the tribes' efforts to implement the act. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that, among other things, the SMART Office encourage 
states to notify tribes about offenders who plan to live, work, or 
attend school on tribal land upon release from prison. GAO also 
recommends that BIA reach out to all tribes that retained their 
authority to determine what, if any, assistance they would like from 
BIA. DOJ and Interior concurred. 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

Most Eligible Tribes Have Retained Their SORNA Implementation 
Authority and Have Either Substantially Implemented the Act or Are in 
the Process of Doing So: 

Federal Agencies Have Helped Tribes Address Challenges, but Some 
States Do Not Notify Tribes about Registered Offenders Who Plan to 
Live, Work, or Attend School on Tribal Land upon Release from State 
Prison: 

States Are Including Convicted Sex Offenders from Ineligible and 
Delegated Tribes, but States Are Not Consistently Notifying Tribes 
about Offenders Who Indicate That They Plan to Live, Work, or Attend 
School on Tribal Lands: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: SORNA Substantial Implementation Checklist Tool: 

Appendix III: Extent to Which Eligible Tribes Have Implemented the Sex 
Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA): 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Justice: 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Titles and Descriptions of the 14 Sections of the Sex 
Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) Substantial 
Implementation Checklist Tool and Implementation Reports: 

Table 2: Implementation Status of Eligible Tribes and Their 
Corresponding States, as of August 2014: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Eligible Tribes That Have Retained and Delegated Their 
Authority to Implement the Sex Offender Registration and Notification 
Act (SORNA), as of August 2014: 

Figure 2: Implementation Status of Tribes That Have Retained Their 
Authority to Implement the Sex Offender Registration and Notification 
Act (SORNA): 

Figure 3: Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) 
Implementation Status of States and Eligible Tribes, as of August 2014: 

Figure 4: Most Common Factors Tribes Reported to Be a Major Challenge, 
Minor Challenge, or Not a Challenge to Implementation of the Sex 
Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA): 

Abbreviations: 

AWA: Adam Walsh Act Implementation Grant Program: 

BIA: Bureau of Indian Affairs: 

BOP: Bureau of Prisons: 

CJIS: Criminal Justice Information Services Division: 

CODIS: Combined DNA Index System: 

COPS: Community Oriented Policing Services: 

CSAC: JIS Systems Agency: 

DOJ: Department of Justice: 

FBI: Federal Bureau of Investigation: 

IAFIS: Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System: 

JAG: Justice Assistance Grant: 

JMD: Justice Management Division: 

JUST: Justice Telecommunications System: 

MOA: memorandum of agreement: 

NCIC: National Crime Information Center: 

NSOR: National Sex Offender Registry: 

OJP: Office of Justice Programs: 

OJS: Office of Justice Services: 

ORI: Originating Agency Identifier: 

OTJ: Office of Tribal Justice: 

PROTECT: Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the 
Exploitation of Children Today: 

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

SORNA: Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act: 

TTSORS: Tribe and Territory Sex Offender Registry System: 

USMS: U.S. Marshals Service: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO:
441 G St. N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

November 18, 2014: 

The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Robert C. Scott: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and 
Investigations: 
Committee on the Judiciary: 
House of Representatives: 

In 2009, the United States Attorney General launched a Department of 
Justice (DOJ) initiative on public safety in tribal communities and 
identified combating violence against women and children in tribal 
communities as one of the department's priority goals. According to 
DOJ, tribal nations are disproportionately affected by violent crime, 
particularly violent crime against women. Starting in 1994, Congress 
passed several laws that required states to establish sex offender 
registries--which are systems that enable law enforcement officials to 
monitor convicted sex offenders who live in the state, and to 
establish notification systems to alert the public about these 
offenders.[Footnote 1] Since these sex offender registration and 
notification laws applied only to states and territories, there were 
public safety concerns that convicted sex offenders would move to 
tribal lands to avoid registration. To protect the public, including 
tribal nations, from sex offenders, in 2006, Congress passed the Sex 
Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) as Title I of the 
Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act (Adam Walsh Act).[Footnote 
2] SORNA sought to introduce comprehensive standards to make state and 
territory sex offender registration systems more uniform. It also 
provided certain tribes the opportunity to create sex offender 
registration and notification systems where, for most tribes, these 
systems did not previously exist. The initial statutory deadline for 
implementing SORNA was July 2009--3 years after the Adam Walsh Act was 
enacted. However, given that none of the jurisdictions had 
substantially implemented SORNA by the original deadline, the Attorney 
General exercised his authority under SORNA to authorize two 1-year 
extensions of the deadline to July 2011.[Footnote 3] 

SORNA establishes that federally recognized tribes, with the exception 
of those tribes that are subject to the criminal jurisdiction of a 
state, under a specific federal statute, are eligible to implement the 
act.[Footnote 4] SORNA grants authority to the states where ineligible 
tribes are located to implement the act on behalf of these tribes. In 
2013, we reported that 19 of 56 states and territories had 
substantially implemented SORNA.[Footnote 5] We noted that 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 between SORNA and 
state laws were among the greatest challenges to implementation. Since 
our 2013 report, the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, 
Apprehension, Registering, and Tracking (SMART Office)--the office 
responsible for administering the standards for SORNA implementation--
has determined that 1 additional state has substantially implemented 
SORNA. 

Recognizing that tribes may vary in their capacities for discharging 
the sex offender registration and notification functions, SORNA made 
special provisions for eligible tribes to elect either to act as 
registration jurisdictions or to delegate their registration and 
notification functions to the states.[Footnote 6] SORNA requires 
delegation for tribes subject to state criminal jurisdiction pursuant 
to 18 U.S.C. § 1162, tribes that do not elect to implement SORNA, and 
tribes that the Attorney General determines have not substantially 
implemented the act and are not likely to become capable of doing so 
within a reasonable amount of time.[Footnote 7] 

Considering the unique circumstances tribes face with eligibility and 
capability to implement the act, you asked us to assess the status of 
tribes' efforts to implement SORNA and the challenges they face with 
implementation. Specifically, this report addresses the following 
questions: 

* To what extent have eligible tribes retained their authority to 
implement SORNA, and for those that did, what is their implementation 
status? 

* What implementation challenges, if any, have tribes that retained 
their authority to implement SORNA reported, and what steps have 
federal agencies and others taken or could they take to address these 
challenges? 

* To what extent are states incorporating ineligible and delegated 
tribes into their state sex offender registration and notification 
systems? 

To address our first objective, we reviewed the SMART Office's data of 
eligible tribes' implementation status as of August 2014 to identify 
(1) tribes that have retained their authority to implement SORNA, (2) 
tribes that have delegated their implementation authority to a state, 
and (3) tribes whose implementation authority the SMART Office 
delegated to a state. To address the reliability of the SMART Office's 
data on tribes' implementation status, among other steps, we obtained 
written responses to our questions on how SMART Office representatives 
who use and maintain the data ensure the data's reliability. We found 
the data sufficiently reliable for the purpose of identifying tribes' 
SORNA implementation status. In addition, we surveyed the SORNA points 
of contact for each of the tribes that retained their authority to 
implement SORNA to obtain more detailed information on these tribes' 
implementation status. We received responses from 80 percent (129 of 
161) of all tribes surveyed.[Footnote 8] 

To address our second objective, we interviewed legal advisers and 
management officials from the SMART Office, the Office of Tribal 
Justice (OTJ), the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), and the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation (FBI), as well as the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
(BIA) within the Department of the Interior, to determine the 
implementation challenges tribes have reported and steps the agencies, 
the tribes, and others have taken to address these challenges. 
[Footnote 9] In addition, we interviewed FBI Criminal Justice 
Information Services Division (CJIS) management and program officials 
to determine CJIS policies and procedures for granting tribes access 
to federal criminal justice databases, which CJIS manages and are 
required for SORNA implementation. We also interviewed state and 
tribal, as well as local, law enforcement officials from 5 states--
Florida, Michigan, Nevada, New York, and Oklahoma. We selected these 5 
states because each contains territory of tribes that retained their 
authority to implement SORNA, and the states vary with regard to their 
SORNA implementation status and geographic diversity. In addition, we 
interviewed management and law enforcement officials from the two BIA 
Office of Justice Services (OJS) regional districts that are 
responsible for most of the direct service tribes that retained their 
authority to implement SORNA.[Footnote 10] We discussed with these 
officials what, if any, assistance they have provided to tribes with 
regard to SORNA implementation. Although the perspectives we obtained 
from our interviews with these state, BIA, and tribal officials are 
not generalizable, the interviews provided insights regarding the 
challenges that tribes face with implementing SORNA and actions that 
federal agencies have taken or could take to address the challenges. 

We also included questions in our survey of tribes that retained their 
authority to implement SORNA about the types and extent of challenges 
the tribes experienced with SORNA implementation; steps the tribes are 
taking to address the challenges; and the funding and other assistance 
the tribes have received or could receive from federal, state, or 
local law enforcement agencies to assist them with implementing the 
act. To determine if any additional actions could address such 
challenges, we compared our survey results against SORNA provisions as 
well as the National Guidelines for Sex Offender Registration and 
Notification (National Guidelines).[Footnote 11] 

To address our third objective, we interviewed state SORNA and sex 
offender registry officials from all 6 states where ineligible tribes 
are located as well as 8 ineligible tribes--at least 1 each from the 6 
states. We selected the tribes based on whether they submitted a 
resolution to implement SORNA in spite of their ineligibility, and the 
challenges the states in which the tribes are located reportedly faced 
with SORNA implementation.[Footnote 12] The information from these 
interviews enabled us to determine if these states include the 
ineligible tribes in their state SORNA registration and notification 
systems, as SORNA requires, as well as to identify the challenges, if 
any, the states and tribes face with having the states implement SORNA 
on the tribes' behalf. We also interviewed tribal leaders from 4 
delegated tribes that opted out or were delegated by the SMART Office, 
and solicited perspectives of sex offender registry officials in the 
15 states to which tribes' SORNA authority has been delegated. 

To supplement the information we received from our interviews as well 
as our survey of tribes that retained their authority, we interviewed 
officials from three relevant national associations: the National 
Congress of American Indians, the International Association of Chiefs 
of Police, and the National Criminal Justice Association, to obtain 
their perspectives on the challenges that tribes face with 
implementation, and the actions that the SMART Office and others have 
taken to address these challenges. We selected these associations 
because they represent the interests of tribal communities or state 
and local law enforcement agencies that assist jurisdictions, 
including tribes, with SORNA implementation. 

We conducted this performance audit from September 2013 to November 
2014 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit 
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for 
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Appendix I 
includes more details about our scope and methodology. 

Background: 

SORNA Requirements: 

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.[Footnote 
13] 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.[Footnote 14] 

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 Center (NCIC).[Footnote 15] In addition, 
these jurisdictions are to submit the sex 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). 
[Footnote 16] According to FBI officials, FBI CJIS has authorized 
state CJIS Systems Agencies (CSA) to determine which entities within 
their states, including tribes, can access these federal criminal 
databases.[Footnote 17] 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. 
[Footnote 18] 

Tribes' SORNA Eligibility: 

Under SORNA, 353 of the 566 federally recognized tribes are ineligible 
to implement the act, while 214 tribes are eligible.[Footnote 19] 
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.[Footnote 20] 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. 
[Footnote 21] Accordingly, 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.[Footnote 22] Delegation, 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. 

Federal Role in Sex Offender Registration and Notification: 

SMART Office: 

SORNA established the SMART Office within DOJ to both assist 
jurisdictions in implementing the act, such as by providing technical 
assistance and grant funds, and administer the standards for 
determining whether jurisdictions have implemented the law.[Footnote 
23] 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 appendix 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.[Footnote 24] The 
substantial implementation 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. 

United States Marshals Service: 

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. 

Bureau of Indian Affairs: 

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.[Footnote 25] To that end, BIA's Office of 
Justice Services investigates major federal crimes, including sexual 
offenses, committed on, or involving, Indian country. OJS provides 
oversight and technical assistance to tribal law enforcement programs. 

Most Eligible Tribes Have Retained Their SORNA Implementation 
Authority and Have Either Substantially Implemented the Act or Are in 
the Process of Doing So: 

Most Eligible Tribes Retained Their Implementation Authority, and 
Tribes That Lacked the Resources or Did Not Take the Necessary Steps 
toward Implementation Had Their Authority Delegated: 

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. 

Figure 1: Eligible Tribes That Have Retained and Delegated Their 
Authority to Implement the Sex Offender Registration and Notification 
Act (SORNA), as of August 2014: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

Retained authority: 164 tribes; 
Delegated authority: 50 tribes: 
* Tribe delegated its authority to a state: 24 tribes; 
* Attorney General delegated tribe's authority to a state: 26 tribes. 

Source: GAO analysis of Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, 
Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking data. GAO-15-23. 

[End of figure] 

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.[Footnote 26] 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.[Footnote 27] 

SMART Office Determined That 43 Percent of Tribes That Retained Their 
Authority Have Substantially Implemented SORNA, and Nearly 43 Percent 
More Are in Process: 

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. 

Figure 2: Implementation Status of Tribes That Have Retained Their 
Authority to Implement the Sex Offender Registration and Notification 
Act (SORNA): 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

Have not submitted a complete package: 22 tribes; 
* Newly recognized tribe: 1 tribe; 
* Held in abeyance: 2 tribes; 
* Reasonable: 19 tribes; 
Have submitted a complete package: 142 tribes; 
* Determination not yet made: 70 tribes; 
* Determined to not be substantially implemented: 1 tribe; 
* Determined to be substantially implemented: 71 tribes. 

Source: GAO analysis of Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, 
Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking data. GAO-15-23. 

Note: Of the 22 tribes that have not yet submitted a complete package, 
2 tribes are being "held in abeyance" because they are in the process 
of acquiring land. The SMART Office has granted an implementation 
deadline extension to 19 other tribes that it determined can implement 
the act in a "reasonable" amount of time. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 3: Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) 
Implementation Status of States and Eligible Tribes, as of August 2014: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated U.S. map] 

State and territory implementation status: 

Not substantially implemented: 

Alabama: 
Submitted a complete package: 
Determined to be substantially implemented: 1. 

Alaska: 
Tribal implementation status: 
Not submitted a complete package for review: 1. 

American Samoa: 

Arizona: 
Tribal implementation status: 
Not submitted a complete package for review: 1; 
Submitted a complete package: 
Determination not yet made: 7; 
Determined to be substantially implemented: 8; 
Delegated tribe: 1. 

Arkansas: 

California: 
Tribal implementation status: 
Submitted a complete package: 
Determined to be substantially implemented: 3; 
Delegated tribe: 1. 

Connecticut: 
Tribal implementation status: 
Submitted a complete package: 
Determination not yet made: 1; 
Delegated tribe: 1. 

District of Columbia: 

Georgia: 

Hawaii: 

Idaho: 
Tribal implementation status: 
Submitted a complete package: 
Determination not yet made: 2; 
Determined to be substantially implemented: 2. 

Illinois: 

Indiana: 

Iowa: 
Tribal implementation status: 
Submitted a complete package: 
Determined to be substantially implemented: 1. 

Kentucky: 

Maine: 
Tribal implementation status: 
Submitted a complete package: 
Delegated tribe: 4. 

Massachusetts: 
Tribal implementation status: 
Not submitted a complete package for review: 1; 
Submitted a complete package: 
Delegated tribe: 1. 

Minnesota: 
Tribal implementation status: 
Submitted a complete package: 
Determination not yet made: 1; 
Determined to be substantially implemented: 1. 

Montana: 
Tribal implementation status: 
Not submitted a complete package for review: 1; 
Determination not yet made: 4; 
Determined to be substantially implemented: 1; 
Delegated tribe: 1. 

Nebraska: 
Tribal implementation status: 
Submitted a complete package: 
Determined to be substantially implemented: 3. 

New Hampshire: 

New Jersey: 

New Mexico: 
Tribal implementation status: 
Not submitted a complete package for review: 2; 
Submitted a complete package: 
Determination not yet made: 8; 
Determined to be substantially implemented: 6; 
Delegated tribe: 5. 

New York: 
Tribal implementation status: 
Not submitted a complete package for review: 5; 
Submitted a complete package: 
Determination not yet made: 2; 
Delegated tribe: 2. 

North Carolina: 
Tribal implementation status: 
Submitted a complete package: 
Determination not yet made: 1. 

North Dakota: 
Tribal implementation status: 
Submitted a complete package: 
Determination not yet made: 3. 

Oklahoma: 
Tribal implementation status: 
Not submitted a complete package for review: 4; 
Submitted a complete package: 
Determination not yet made: 9; 
Determined to be substantially implemented: 16; 
Delegated tribe: 9. 

Oregon: 
Tribal implementation status: 
Submitted a complete package: 
Determination not yet made: 1; 
Determined to be substantially implemented: 2. 

Puerto Rico: 

Rhode Island: 
Tribal implementation status: 
Submitted a complete package: 
Determination not yet made: 1. 

Texas: 
Tribal implementation status: 
Submitted a complete package: 
Determination not yet made: 1; 
Delegated tribe: 1. 

Utah: 
Tribal implementation status: 
Submitted a complete package: 
Determination not yet made: 1; 
Delegated tribe: 3. 

Vermont: 

Virginia: 

Washington: 
Tribal implementation status: 
Not submitted a complete package for review: 6; 
Submitted a complete package: 
Determination not yet made: 11; 
Determined to be substantially implemented: 7; 
Delegated tribe: 5. 

West Virginia: 

Substantially implemented: 

Alabama: 
Tribal implementation status: 
Submitted a complete package: 
Determined to be substantially implemented: 1. 

Colorado: 
Tribal implementation status: 
Submitted a complete package: 
Determined to be substantially implemented: 1. 

Connecticut: 
Tribal implementation status: 
Submitted a complete package: 
Determination not yet made: 1; 
Delegated tribe: 1. 

District of Columbia: 

Georgia: 

Guam: 

Kansas: 
Tribal implementation status: 
Submitted a complete package: 
Determined to be substantially implemented: 2; 
Delegated tribe: 2. 

Louisiana: 
Tribal implementation status: 
Not submitted a complete package for review: 1; 
Submitted a complete package: 
Determined to be substantially implemented: 2; 
Delegated tribe: 2. 

Maryland: 

Michigan: 
Tribal implementation status: 
Submitted a complete package: 
Determination not yet made: 3; 
Determined to be substantially implemented: 9. 

Mississippi: 
Tribal implementation status: 
Submitted a complete package: 
Determined to be substantially implemented: 1. 

Missouri: 

Nevada: 
Tribal implementation status: 
Submitted a complete package: 
Determination not yet made: 4; 
Delegated tribe: 10. 

Ohio: 

South Carolina: 
Tribal implementation status: 
Submitted a complete package: 
Delegated tribe: 1. 

South Dakota: 
Tribal implementation status: 
Not submitted a complete package for review: 1; 
Submitted a complete package: 
Determination not yet made: 6; 
Determined to be substantially implemented: 1. 

Tennessee: 

U.S. Virgin Islands: 

Wyoming: 
Tribal implementation status: 
Submitted a complete package: 
Determined to be substantially implemented: 2. 

Source: GAO analysis of Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, 
Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking data; Map Resources (map). GAO-
15-23. 

[End of figure] 

According to the SMART Office, the number of tribes that have 
submitted implementation packages for review as well as the number of 
tribes that have substantially implemented SORNA continue to increase. 

Representatives of two of the three tribal and law enforcement 
associations we interviewed in January 2014 said that the number of 
tribes that had substantially implemented SORNA--at the time, 49 
tribes--was far greater than what these representatives said that they 
expected, given the magnitude of the implementation challenges that 
tribes face, such as limitations with information sharing, a high 
staff turnover, and the lack of cooperation between tribes and local 
law enforcement. We discuss such challenges and steps to address them 
in detail later in this report. According to the tribes that have 
submitted an implementation package for review that responded to our 
survey, it took a majority of these tribes 2 years to submit a 
complete implementation package to the SMART Office for review. SMART 
Office representatives said that it takes the office, on average, 6 
months from the time it receives a tribe's package to begin reviewing 
it. This is because the office's review depends on a number of 
factors, such as the availability of SMART Office staff to review 
implementation packages. At the time of our review, SMART Office 
representatives indicated that there were three policy advisers on 
staff to review implementation packages. Additionally, the time it 
takes for the SMART Office to determine a tribe's implementation 
status depends on how quickly the tribe can address any issues the 
SMART Office identifies in its review and can be affected by factors 
such as the frequency with which a tribal council meets, and thereby 
can address the office's questions. 

Nineteen of the 22 tribes that have not submitted an implementation 
package responded to our survey and provided a variety of reasons why 
they have not done so, as well as an estimate of when they expect to 
do so. Specifically, 7 of the 19 tribes did not submit a package 
because they are in the process of amending their tribal codes, 4 
tribes indicated that they needed additional time to complete and 
submit their packages, and 3 others either currently have agreements 
or are in the process of entering into agreements with state and local 
law enforcement agencies to assist with SORNA implementation.[Footnote 
28] Fourteen of the 19 tribes plan to submit a package by the end of 
calendar year 2014, 2 tribes expect to submit a package in calendar 
year 2015 or later, and 3 tribes are uncertain about when they will 
submit a package. 

SMART Office representatives stated that the office has granted each 
of these 22 tribes additional time to submit its package. SMART Office 
representatives said that they have not set a final deadline for 
tribes to substantially implement SORNA and that the office will 
continue to work with every tribe that shows interest and is working 
on implementing the act. 

Federal Agencies Have Helped Tribes Address Challenges, but Some 
States Do Not Notify Tribes about Registered Offenders Who Plan to 
Live, Work, or Attend School on Tribal Land upon Release from State 
Prison: 

About 76 percent of tribes that retained their authority to implement 
SORNA reported experiencing at least one major or minor challenge to 
implementing the act. These tribes most frequently reported inability 
to submit convicted sex offender information to NCIC and NSOR as a 
major challenge. DOJ and BIA, as well as state and local law 
enforcement agencies, have taken actions to help address these 
challenges. However, additional steps to ensure that states notify 
tribes about registered sex offenders who plan to live, work, or 
attend school on tribal lands upon release from state prison, and to 
identify what, if any, assistance tribes may need in order to 
implement SORNA, would help further address tribes' challenges. 

Tribes Most Frequently Reported Lack of Access to NCIC, Lack of 
Notification when Convicted Sex Offenders Are Released, and 
Insufficient Staff: 

Tribal officials from 98 of the 129 tribes (76 percent) that retained 
their authority to implement SORNA and responded to our survey 
questions on challenges to implementing SORNA reported that their 
tribes experienced at least one major or minor challenge to 
implementing the act.[Footnote 29] As shown in figure 4, the major 
challenges tribes most frequently reported included inability to 
submit convicted sex offender information to NCIC or NSOR; lack of 
notification from state prisons about sex offenders who indicate that 
they plan to live, work, or attend school on tribal lands; 
insufficient staff; and inability to cover costs to implement SORNA or 
maintain the tribe's registry. 

Figure 4: Most Common Factors Tribes Reported to Be a Major Challenge, 
Minor Challenge, or Not a Challenge to Implementation of the Sex 
Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA): 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked horizontal bar graph] 

Number of tribes reporting Challenges: 

Tribe cannot submit sex offender–related information to National Crime 
Information Center (NCIC) or National Sex Offender Registry (NSOR): 
Major challenge: 27; 
Minor challenge: 12; 
Not a challenge: 0. 

State prisons do not notify tribe when they release sex offenders to 
the tribe's territory: 
Major challenge: 21; 
Minor challenge: 15; 
Not a challenge: 2. 

Tribe has insufficient staff to implement SORNA or maintain the 
tribe's registry: 
Major challenge: 21; 
Minor challenge: 15; 
Not a challenge: 0. 

Tribe has difficulty covering costs of implementing SORNA: 
Major challenge: 21; 
Minor challenge: 10; 
Not a challenge: 2. 

State or local partners do not consistently share information about 
registered sex offenders with the tribe: 
Major challenge: 18; 
Minor challenge: 14; 
Not a challenge: 1. 

Federal prisons do not notify tribe when they release sex offenders to 
the tribe's territory: 
Major challenge: 17; 
Minor challenge: 10; 
Not a challenge: 0. 

Tribe has had difficulty developing tribal code or policies: 
Major challenge: 15; 
Minor challenge: 15; 
Not a challenge: 1. 

Tribe cannot query NCIC or NSOR for sex offender–related information: 
Major challenge: 15; 
Minor challenge: 3; 
Not a challenge: 0. 

Tribe has territory in a nonimplementing state: 
Major challenge: 13; 
Minor challenge: 20; 
Not a challenge: 8. 

Federal partners do not consistently share information about
registered sex offenders with the tribe: 
Major challenge: 13; 
Minor challenge: 9; 
Not a challenge: 1. 

Tribe has not had sufficient time to implement SORNA: 
Major challenge: 7; 
Minor challenge: 5; 
Not a challenge: 1. 

Tribe has had to revise its substantial implementation package in 
response to Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, 
Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (SMART Office) changes to 
documentation: 
Major challenge: 7; 
Minor challenge: 16; 
Not a challenge: 8. 

Tribe has had to revise package in response to SMART Office changes to 
substantial implementation requirements: 
Major challenge: 6; 
Minor challenge: 25; 
Not a challenge: 10. 

Tribe disagrees with certain SORNA provisions: 
Major challenge: 4; 
Minor challenge: 9; 
Not a challenge: 0. 

Tribe has had difficulty reconciling SORNA requirements with its sex 
offender registration and notification system in existence before 
SORNA enactment: 
Major challenge: 4; 
Minor challenge: 3; 
Not a challenge: 0. 

Tribe does not think the SMART Office requirements are clear: 
Major challenge: 3; 
Minor challenge: 5; 
Not a challenge: 1. 

Tribe has territory that extends into more than one state: 
Major challenge: 1; 
Minor challenge: 6; 
Not a challenge: 7. 

Tribe has territory that extends beyond the U.S. border: 
Major challenge: 1; 
Minor challenge: 1; 
Not a challenge: 0. 

Tribe does not think that the SMART Office guidance is useful: 
Major challenge: 1; 
Minor challenge: 1; 
Not a challenge: 0. 

Source: GAO analysis of tribes' survey responses. GAO-15-23. 

Note: In our survey, we asked tribes to indicate whether each factor 
indicated in the graphic applied to their tribe, and if so, whether it 
was a major, a minor, or not a challenge to SORNA implementation. This 
graphic does not include the number of tribes that indicated whether 
or not the factor applied to them. Instead, this graphic includes only 
the number of tribes that indicated whether the factor was a major or 
a minor challenge, or not a challenge, to SORNA implementation. The 
median number of major challenges that tribes reported was 3 and the 
maximum was 12. In contrast, the median number of minor challenges 
that tribes reported was 2 and the maximum was 8. 

[End of figure] 

DOJ and BIA Have Formed a Working Group to Better Coordinate Federal 
Efforts to Address Tribes' Difficulties Submitting Convicted Sex 
Offender Information to NCIC or NSOR: 

Under SORNA, as well as DOJ's National Guidelines for SORNA 
Implementation, jurisdictions are to provide convicted sex offender 
information for inclusion in NSOR, which is part of NCIC.[Footnote 30] 
However, 39 of the 129 (about 30 percent) tribes that responded to our 
survey reported difficulties meeting this requirement as a major or 
minor challenge to SORNA implementation. 

These tribes, as well as the federal, state, and tribal sex offender 
registry and law enforcement officials we interviewed, cited reasons 
why some tribes do not submit convicted sex offender information to 
NCIC or are able to do so only with the assistance of other state and 
local law enforcement agencies.[Footnote 31] 

* Cost of NCIC access. Ten tribes that responded to our survey 
reported that they cannot cover the associated costs for NCIC access. 
According to federal, state, and tribal officials, these costs can 
include purchasing servers or NCIC terminals, the cost of the required 
high-speed Internet connection, or the fees required to obtain NCIC 
access. 

* Requirements for submitting information to NCIC. Thirteen tribes 
reported that they do not meet certain requirements for submitting 
information to NCIC. CJIS has established requirements that all law 
enforcement agencies seeking to submit information to federal criminal 
justice databases must meet in order to ensure the quality and the 
security of criminal justice data entered into these databases. For 
example, some tribes do not meet CJIS requirements because they do not 
have a criminal justice agency (police force, court, etc.) or an 
officer available 24 hours, 7 days a week to respond to any inquiries 
about persons or property included in NCIC. 

* State statutes or policies. Twelve tribes reported that state 
statutes or policies prevent them from submitting to NCIC through the 
states' criminal justice information systems. According to FBI 
officials, CJIS Systems Agencies determine which entities within their 
states, including tribes, can access these federal criminal databases 
through state systems. However, some states, such as New York, have 
statutes or policies prohibiting CSAs from granting tribal law 
enforcement entities access to their state switches and, therefore, to 
NCIC through such switches.[Footnote 32] 

According to DOJ officials, the public safety benefit of including 
convicted sex offender information in NSOR is that if a law 
enforcement officer comes into contact with an individual, such as 
through a traffic stop or an arrest, the officer can query NCIC and 
learn that the individual is a convicted sex offender and potentially 
determine if the offender is in compliance with registration 
requirements. The officer can also enforce any requirements that the 
officer's jurisdiction may have with regard to convicted sex 
offenders. For example, according to tribal officials, some tribal 
jurisdictions banish convicted sex offenders from their lands or 
prohibit offenders from living or working within proximity to schools 
or day care centers. 

Federal and state, as well as local, law enforcement agencies have 
undertaken efforts to help address such barriers, although the efforts 
have some limitations, as discussed below. 

Memorandums of agreement (MOA). Federal, state, and local law 
enforcement agencies have entered into memorandums of agreement with 
tribes, whereby these law enforcement agencies generally agree to 
enter convicted sex offender information into NSOR on behalf of the 
tribes. For example, 28 of 129 (about 22 percent) tribes that 
responded to our survey reported that county or local law enforcement 
enters information in NSOR for their tribe, while another 7 tribes 
indicated that BIA enters this information for them. However, the DOJ 
and BIA officials and representatives from the National Criminal 
Justice Association and the National Congress of American Indians that 
we interviewed noted that not all tribes have good relationships with 
state or local law enforcement agencies, and that these agencies may 
not be willing to assist the tribes. In addition, according to DOJ, 
tribal, and local law enforcement officials, when another law 
enforcement agency enters information into NSOR on behalf of a tribe, 
the information is often not associated with the tribe because state 
or local law enforcement agencies frequently use their own Originating 
Agency Identifier number (ORI), as opposed to the tribe's number, in 
NSOR.[Footnote 33] As a result, the convicted sex offender appears in 
NSOR as having registered with the entity that submitted the 
information as opposed to the tribe. 

Representatives we interviewed from the SMART Office and CJIS, as well 
as local and tribal law enforcement, stated that these data entry 
practices can also lead to imprecise data in NSOR. For example, at our 
request, CJIS identified 22 tribes as having a total of 247 registered 
sex offenders in NSOR. However, 120 of 129 tribes that responded to 
our survey reported that they had a total of 2,167 registered sex 
offenders on their lands. According to CJIS officials, this 
discrepancy should not pose a public safety threat because an officer 
querying an individual in NCIC will know immediately if the individual 
is a convicted sex offender. Further, CJIS and USMS officials said 
that the FBI and USMS generally do not use NSOR as their primary 
source for informing decisions, such as funding or resource allocation 
for sex offender related operations. 

Collaboration to remove state barriers to tribes' NCIC access. The 
SMART Office has collaborated with state and tribal officials in three 
states to successfully address state policies preventing tribes in 
these states from submitting information to NSOR through the state 
criminal justice database. SMART Office representatives told us that 
until recently, tribes in Arizona and Washington were unable to submit 
convicted sex offender information to NSOR because of various state 
statutes or policies. SMART Office representatives reportedly worked 
closely with state and tribal officials to provide alternative 
conduits that will allow tribes to submit convicted sex offender 
information directly to NSOR. SMART Office representatives also 
reported that they have tried to persuade officials in at least 2 
other states to implement similar solutions, but without success. 

Justice Telecommunications System (JUST). DOJ, with the assistance of 
the Office of Tribal Justice and the Justice Management Division 
(JMD), established JUST in 2010 as a pilot project to provide tribes 
that meet FBI requirements with NCIC access. OTJ representatives said 
that DOJ provided $1 million for the pilot under the Community 
Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office and has used approximately 
$250,000 to provide 21 tribes with NCIC access--6 of which are 
eligible to implement SORNA.[Footnote 34] According to OTJ, all tribes 
that have requested NCIC access through JUST thus far have received 
access. OTJ representatives said that the JUST funding covers tribes' 
costs for access fees as well as other licensing and transaction fees; 
however, tribes will have to pay these fees on their own once the 
remaining $750,000 for JUST runs out. According to OTJ and JMD 
representatives, for JUST to become a viable and long-term solution 
for tribes' lack of NCIC access, DOJ will need to identify and secure 
a more sustainable source of funding. Identifying sustainable sources 
of funding, according to these officials, is one of the goals of the 
Tribal Public Safety Working Group, discussed below. 

Tribal Public Safety Working Group. DOJ officials reported that, in 
addition to the efforts described above, DOJ and BIA established the 
Tribal Public Safety Working Group in 2014; it consists of 
representatives from BIA, OTJ, JMD, CJIS, the Office on Violence 
Against Women, Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA), the SMART 
Office, and other Office of Justice Programs (OJP) component agencies 
to identify which tribes lack access to federal databases and to work 
on the appropriate solution based on the unique circumstances of each 
tribe.[Footnote 35] According to OTJ officials, the working group held 
its kickoff meeting on May 12, 2014, and has established both short-
term and long-term goals. In the short term, OTJ representatives said 
that by using information from outreach efforts and other existing 
sources, the working group plans to determine the extent to which each 
tribe has or wants access to all federal criminal databases, and the 
unique solution based on the circumstances of each tribe. OTJ 
representatives reported that the working group's long-term goals 
include identifying sustainable funding sources; identifying best 
practices for addressing specific barriers; evaluating potential 
systematic solutions, such as establishing a federal CSA for tribes; 
and reviewing federal rules and regulations to identify those that 
should be revised to remove any regulatory barriers to tribes' access 
to federal criminal databases. 

The Tribal Public Safety Working Group's plans and initial activities 
are in line with addressing the types of barriers to NCIC access that 
tribes identified. However, given that the Tribal Public Safety 
Working Group is in its early planning phase, it is too early to 
evaluate how its efforts will help provide tribes with access to NCIC. 

Additional SMART Oversight of, and Outreach to, States Could Help 
Ensure That Relevant Tribal Jurisdictions Are Notified about 
Registered Sex Offenders Who Have Indicated That They Will Be Moving 
to Tribal Land upon Release from State Prisons: 

Of the 129 tribes that responded to our survey, 41 (approximately 32 
percent) reported that their state prisons had not notified them when 
the prisons released a sex offender to the tribes' lands.[Footnote 36] 
In addition, about half of these 41 tribes reported that lack of 
notification when offenders are released from state prisons was a 
major challenge to SORNA implementation, with some consequences. 
Tribal officials that we interviewed and that responded to our survey 
reported instances of offenders on tribal lands that may not be 
monitored or registered as required because they had not been notified 
of the offenders' release from prison.[Footnote 37] For example, one 
tribal law enforcement official told us that he learned of a convicted 
sex offender with an extensive criminal record who was released from 
prison and lived on the tribe's land from anonymous letters the 
official received. He said that because his tribe received no 
notification from state prison officials about this sex offender, the 
sex offender had lived on the tribe's territory unmonitored for over a 
year. 

A consequence of not being notified about registered sex offenders who 
plan to live, work, or attend school on tribal land upon release from 
state prisons that tribal officials highlighted was that they may not 
be able to enforce their own laws governing the extent to which 
convicted sex offenders can live, work, or attend school in their 
communities. For example, a state tribal liaison officer told us that 
9 of the 29 tribes in his state have laws that ban all sex offenders 
or restrict the types of sex offenders allowed to live on the tribes' 
lands. Similarly, officials from 2 tribes we interviewed said that 
their tribes either did not allow convicted sex offenders to live on 
the tribes' lands or had more stringent laws than states regarding the 
proximity of a convicted sex offender's residence to a school. Absent 
notification from states about registered sex offenders who plan to 
live, work, or attend school on tribal lands upon release from state 
prison, tribal authorities would not be aware of the presence of 
convicted sex offenders on their lands and therefore would be unable 
to enforce tribal law. 

Under SORNA, initial registration of a convicted sex offender is to 
take place prior to the offender being released from prison, and the 
registration jurisdiction must immediately forward the offender's 
registration information to any other jurisdiction in which the sex 
offender is required to register.[Footnote 38] However, according to 
the SMART Office, in many states, the state prison is not a SORNA 
registering entity and therefore does not register the sex offender or 
notify other relevant registration jurisdictions prior to the 
offender's release. In these instances, the sex offender's initial 
registration may not take place until after the offender is released 
from prison and through a state registering entity, such as a county 
sheriff's office. In instances when a sex offender informs a state 
registering entity--whether that be the state prison, a county 
sheriff's office, or another agency--that he or she plans to live, 
work, or attend school on tribal land, under SORNA, notification must 
be sent to tribes that retained their SORNA implementation authority. 
[Footnote 39] 

Reasons Why Some States Do Not Notify Tribes: 

State prison and registry officials who responded to our requests for 
information provided two reasons why their states do not notify tribes 
when a registered offender indicates that he or she will be living, 
working, or attending school on the tribe's land upon release from 
prison. In some cases, resolving these barriers may be difficult, but 
in other cases, there are promising practices that could help states 
to address barriers to notifying tribes. First, 10 of the 20 states 
that responded to our inquiry said that they do not have laws or 
policies that require that tribes be notified.[Footnote 40] Of the 41 
tribes that reported that state prisons had not notified them, 22 are 
located in these states. In the absence of state laws or policies 
regarding notification to tribes, states may leave it up to the 
discretion of local law enforcement agencies, which may conduct the 
initial registration of the sex offender, to decide whether they will 
notify tribes. However, as discussed earlier, several federal, state, 
and tribal officials we interviewed acknowledged that not all tribes 
have cordial relationships with their local law enforcement 
organizations. As a result, this method of notification may not be 
effective for all tribes. 

Second, it can be difficult for state prisons, in particular, to 
determine if the address that the offender has identified as that 
person's residence is located on tribal lands. According to state, 
local, and tribal officials we interviewed, unlike other 
jurisdictions, such as cities or counties, tribal lands are not always 
clearly identifiable by a ZIP code or even a city name. However, the 
Federal Bureau of Prisons manages this challenge by asking the 
offender whether the address is located on tribal lands as part of the 
prison release procedures. In regard to federal notification 
requirements, officials from the Bureau of Prisons said that they have 
removed law-enforcement-sensitive information from their 
notifications. As of May 2014, they can now send prisoner release 
notifications to both tribal law enforcement and tribal sex offender 
registry officials to ensure that all tribes are notified when a sex 
offender is released from federal prison, as required by federal law. 
[Footnote 41] 

Ensuring Substantially Implemented States Are Notifying Tribes: 

Of the 30 states that have tribes that retained their authority within 
their borders, the SMART Office has determined that 10 have 
substantially implemented SORNA. This means that these states should 
be notifying tribes; however, 2 of the 10 states are not. In addition, 
9 of the 41 tribes located within 6 of the substantially implemented 
states reported that state prisons had not notified them. Because the 
SMART Office is responsible for determining the extent to which states 
are implementing SORNA, it is in a position to verify whether these 
states are complying with this notification requirement. The SMART 
Office requires a state to demonstrate how it plans to notify tribes 
that retained their authority as part of its implementation review. 
[Footnote 42] However, the SMART Office granted substantial 
implementation to 7 states that did not demonstrate how they planned 
to notify tribes that retained their authority within their borders. 
SMART Office representatives stated that they granted substantial 
implementation to these states because, at the time of their review, 
all or some of the tribes within these states' borders had not yet 
implemented SORNA. Therefore, these states were unable to provide the 
SMART Office with plans for how they would notify these tribes until 
the tribes implemented SORNA themselves. 

Also, according to SMART Office representatives, under the flexibility 
built into SORNA, the SMART Office may determine that a state has 
substantially implemented the law if lack of notification to tribes 
was the only area of noncompliance. This is because even though the 
tribe may not be aware of a convicted sex offender living on its land, 
it is likely that state or local law enforcement officials have 
registered and are aware of the sex offender, and can take steps to 
monitor the offender.[Footnote 43] However, the SMART Office still 
expects substantially implemented states to notify tribes following 
registration of a sex offender who plans to live, work, or attend 
school on tribal land. 

The SMART Office has opportunities to continue to work with 
substantially implemented states to ensure that they meet this 
notification requirement. According to SMART Office representatives, 
the office conducts annual compliance reviews to evaluate the extent 
to which substantially implemented jurisdictions remain in continued 
compliance. The office issued its substantial implementation assurance 
guidance that details the types of information that a SMART Office 
evaluator is to request when conducting these annual reviews, such as 
whether the state has signed any new MOAs with tribes. However, the 
guidance does not require that the evaluator request information on 
whether and how the state, or a designated agency within the state, 
notifies tribes following registration of a convicted sex offender who 
will be, or has recently been, released from state prison and 
indicates that he or she plans to live, work, or attend school on 
tribal land. By amending its substantial implementation assurance 
guidance, the SMART Office could better ensure that substantially 
implemented states are in compliance with SORNA requirements to notify 
tribes that retained their authority, thereby enabling these tribes to 
enforce their own laws pertaining to convicted sex offenders. 

Encouraging Nonimplementing States to Notify Tribes: 

The SMART Office is also in a position to encourage states that have 
not yet substantially implemented SORNA to make efforts to implement 
certain provisions of the law, such as the requirement to notify 
tribes. This is particularly important considering that we found that 
7 of 12 nonimplementing states that have tribes that retained their 
SORNA authority and that responded to our inquiry do not notify 
tribes. Furthermore, 22 of the 41 tribes that reported state prisons 
had not notified them are located within these 7 states. The SMART 
Office has provided guidance and conducted outreach to encourage 
tribes, once they take responsibility for registering convicted sex 
offenders, to coordinate with their respective states to ensure that 
the tribes are notified about sex offenders who plan to live, work, or 
attend school on their lands upon release from state prison. According 
to SMART Office representatives, the agency has issued a policies and 
procedures manual that calls for tribes to, among other things, 
establish procedures that ensure that the tribe receives notification 
about a sex offender who is released from a state, county, or local 
jail, and has indicated that he or she will be living, working, or 
attending school on tribal land. SMART Office representatives also 
reported that they have widely encouraged tribes, as a best practice, 
to contact relevant state, county, and local officials to ensure that 
these officials are aware that the tribe is a registering jurisdiction 
and the officials have the tribe's current information on who should 
receive notifications. SMART Office representatives reported 
conducting some outreach to states as part of the substantial review 
process, but acknowledged that more could be done to encourage states 
to provide notification to tribes. SMART Office representatives said 
that, prior to our review, they were not aware of tribes' concerns 
that states were not notifying tribes about sex offenders who were 
released from prison and planned to live, work, or attend school on 
tribal lands. Therefore, these representatives did not think it was 
necessary at the time to provide any additional guidance to the states. 

Nevertheless, given our survey results, it may be beneficial for the 
SMART Office to expand upon its existing outreach efforts to encourage 
states to develop mechanisms to notify tribes that retained their 
SORNA implementation authority. SMART Office representatives told us 
that they often reach out to law enforcement and sex offender registry 
officials located in both implementing and nonimplementing states and 
that officials from these states attend various SORNA training events 
and conferences that the SMART Office sponsors. The representatives 
agreed that they could use these existing outreach efforts to educate 
states on the importance of, and best practices for, notifying tribes 
about sex offenders who have indicated that they plan to live, work, 
or attend school on tribal lands upon release from state prison. In 
doing so, the SMART Office will help ensure that implementing, as well 
as nonimplementing, states have the information they need to 
effectively notify tribes, and that tribes have the information they 
need to identify and monitor convicted sex offenders who live, work, 
or attend school on their lands, and to enforce their laws governing 
the extent to which convicted sex offenders can live, work, or attend 
school in their communities. 

Additional BIA Outreach to Tribes to Identify the Help They Need and 
That BIA Can Provide Could Assist Tribes with SORNA Implementation: 

Insufficient staff and difficulty covering the costs of SORNA 
implementation were each cited by 21 of 129 (16 percent) tribes as 
major challenges. Several tribal and federal officials, as well as 
subject matter experts that we interviewed, also reported that 
insufficient staff and the costs of SORNA implementation were major 
challenges that tribes faced when implementing SORNA. For example, BIA 
and SMART Office representatives and representatives from the National 
Congress of American Indians told us that because the majority of 
tribes did not have sex offender registries prior to SORNA, many 
tribes have not had the necessary resources for conducting sex 
offender registration, such as office space, staff, and equipment, and 
therefore would have had to incur significant costs to acquire these 
resources. In addition, the sex offender registry official from a 
tribe that has substantially implemented SORNA reported that his tribe 
spent approximately $173,000 over a period of 2 years to fund his 
salary, purchase the information technology infrastructure required to 
set up the tribe's sex offender registry, and acquire a fingerprint 
scanner. In addition, according to BIA officials and subject matter 
experts staff turnover can result in large lapses in some tribes' 
SORNA implementation programs, when staff often leave their positions 
without providing documentation of past efforts toward implementing 
the law, requiring incoming staff to start the tribe's implementation 
efforts anew. For example, according to representatives from the 
National Criminal Justice Association, 1 tribe has experienced up to 
six turnovers for its SORNA coordinator position. 

DOJ and BIA reported the following as ways in which their agencies 
have provided tribes with financial assistance, equipment, and staff 
to help address challenges related to limited resources: 

* The SMART Office provided $23.69 million in Adam Walsh Act 
Implementation Grant Program (AWA) funds to 125 tribes from fiscal 
years 2008 to 2013 and $1.92 million in Edward Byrne Justice Memorial 
Discretionary Grants Program funds to 17 tribes in fiscal year 2008 to 
assist with SORNA implementation.[Footnote 44] 

* The SMART Office also has provided tribes with training and 
technical assistance related to SORNA implementation as well as 
numerous tools, including a customizable web-based tool--the Tribe and 
Territory Sex Offender Registry System (TTSORS)--for tribes to use to 
set up their sex offender registries and public websites. 

* USMS has provided manpower and equipment to assist tribes with 
conducting operations to ensure convicted sex offenders are complying 
with their sex offender registration requirements.[Footnote 45] 

* BIA OJS assisted 19 tribes with SORNA implementation tasks, such as 
providing input on the tribes' draft sex offender codes, assisting 
tribes with installing or configuring the tribes' registry systems 
(i.e., TTSORS), and assisting tribes with identifying and implementing 
alternative means of submitting information to federal criminal 
databases. 

In our survey, 7 tribes reported receiving assistance from BIA, 33 
from USMS, and 69 from the SMART Office and almost all of the tribes 
that reported they received assistance from these three agencies 
characterized the agencies' assistance as very useful or moderately 
useful. In addition, tribal leaders we interviewed reported that Byrne 
and AWA grants have assisted tribes with offsetting the cost of SORNA 
implementation. Tribal officials responsible for implementing SORNA 
for 5 tribes reported that their tribes received AWA grant funds and 
had used the funds to cover various implementation expenses including 
hiring additional staff, purchasing necessary equipment, and covering 
fees to query or submit information on convicted sex offenders to 
federal criminal databases (20 of the 26 tribes that reported 
challenges with covering SORNA implementation costs and insufficient 
staff had received AWA grant funds). 

A number of tribes that responded to our survey reported that they 
would like additional assistance from each of the three federal 
agencies. Specifically, 40 tribes reported that they would like 
additional assistance from the SMART Office, 30 tribes reported that 
they would like additional assistance from BIA, and 22 tribes reported 
that they would like additional assistance from USMS. However, most of 
the tribes that reported wanting additional assistance from SMART and 
USMS had already received assistance from these two agencies, and 
found the assistance to be useful. On the other hand, most of the 
tribes that reported wanting additional assistance from BIA reported 
that they had not received any prior assistance from BIA and raised 
concerns about this. Specifically, 26 tribes that responded to our 
survey indicated that either BIA did not offer assistance to them at 
all (14 tribes), they were unsure of the assistance BIA could offer (6 
tribes), or that BIA did not provide the assistance they requested (6 
tribes). Tribes did not report that the SMART Office or USMS had not 
offered them assistance or had refused their request for assistance. 

Unlike the SMART Office and USMS, BIA does not have an explicit role 
for SORNA implementation. However, BIA is statutorily responsible for 
enforcing federal law and, with the consent of the tribe, tribal law 
in Indian country.[Footnote 46] Further, the agency is responsible for 
developing and providing training and technical assistance to tribal 
law enforcement, and for consulting with tribal leaders to develop 
regulatory policies and other actions that affect public safety in 
Indian country--responsibilities that are related to tribes' 
implementation of SORNA.[Footnote 47] Moreover, BIA serves as the law 
enforcement agency for the 40 direct service tribes, 33 of which have 
retained their authority to implement SORNA.[Footnote 48] 

According to BIA OJS officials, BIA OJS districts have reached out to 
select tribes that retained their SORNA implementation authority. 
However, these officials acknowledged that BIA OJS has not made a 
concerted effort to offer assistance to all tribes that retained their 
authority because, according to a senior BIA OJS official, BIA's 
initial outreach was limited only to tribes that were on a list the 
agency had received from the SMART Office of tribes that had elected 
to implement SORNA at the time, and therefore did not include all 
tribes that subsequently retained their authority to implement. 
[Footnote 49] As of July 2013, BIA reported that it had contacted each 
of the 33 direct service tribes that retained their SORNA 
implementation authority to determine the tribes' implementation 
status and what, if any, assistance the tribes would like to have from 
BIA. BIA OJS reported that the agency provided some form of assistance 
to 19 of the 33 tribes that the agency contacted. Specifically, BIA 
OJS reported that it had provided office space to 2 tribes, purchased 
a fingerprint scanner for another tribe, and assigned officers to 5 
tribes to implement or perform some or all aspects of the tribes' sex 
offender registry and notification systems, and provided technical 
assistance to the remaining 14 tribes. BIA OJS's officials stated that 
some tribes refused OJS's offer and others did not respond at all to 
the offer.[Footnote 50] 

Subsequently, BIA OJS officials reported that the agency conducted 
another round of outreach to tribes in preparation for a meeting with 
GAO, in August 2014. However, BIA reached out to only the 33 direct 
service tribes that had retained their authority but had not yet 
implemented SORNA and did not contact the remaining 131 tribes that 
have retained their authority to implement SORNA--71 of which have not 
yet implemented the law. Furthermore, BIA OJS officials reported that 
they asked each of the 33 tribes where the tribes were in the 
implementation process, what challenges they are currently facing, and 
what if any, assistance BIA had previously offered the tribes, but did 
not ask what additional help these tribes would like to receive from 
BIA OJS. 

SMART Office representatives said that in addition to tribes' lack of 
access to NCIC, lack of BIA assistance is the second most frequently 
reported SORNA implementation challenge that tribes have communicated 
to the SMART Office. A BIA OJS senior official stated that the agency 
could better support tribes that choose to retain their SORNA 
implementation authority, and attributed the agency's challenges in 
providing this assistance to several factors. First, according to the 
senior BIA official, tribes experience high staff turnover and 
incoming staff are often unaware of assistance that BIA may have 
offered in the past. Therefore, the BIA OJS senior official stated, it 
is important for BIA to reach out to tribes more than once. Second, 
the BIA senior official also said that not all BIA field officers have 
received training on SORNA or how to assist tribes with SORNA 
implementation. BIA officials said that the agency is working on 
providing training to its officers so that they have the base 
knowledge on assisting tribes with SORNA implementation. This 
training, BIA officials added, will be open to all tribal police 
chiefs and mandatory for BIA police chiefs. 

Third, because BIA conducted outreach to 33 and not all 164 tribes 
that retained their authority to implement SORNA, BIA may not be aware 
of the needs of the tribes it has not contacted. BIA officials 
acknowledged that they could expand their outreach to include all 
tribes that retained their authority to implement SORNA, including 
tribes for which the agency does not provide direct services. Taking 
steps to ascertain what, if any, resource or other needs all tribes 
that have not implemented SORNA may have could better support the 
tribes' efforts to substantially implement the act, and thereby better 
ensure monitoring of convicted sex offenders on tribal lands. 

States Are Including Convicted Sex Offenders from Ineligible and 
Delegated Tribes, but States Are Not Consistently Notifying Tribes 
about Offenders Who Indicate That They Plan to Live, Work, or Attend 
School on Tribal Lands: 

Those states with tribes that are not implementing SORNA--that is, 
tribes that are not eligible to implement SORNA and tribes whose 
implementation authority was delegated to a state--reported that the 
states are including convicted sex offenders on these tribes' lands in 
the states' own sex offender registration and notification systems. 
However, states are not consistently notifying these tribes about 
registered sex offenders who plan to live, work, or attend school on 
tribal lands upon release from state prison--similar to the problem we 
discussed earlier that tribes that retained their implementation 
authority experienced. As a result, some ineligible and delegated 
tribes are unaware of convicted sex offenders on their lands, in which 
case they are not able to take actions they deem appropriate to ensure 
public safety, such as banning certain sex offenders from living on 
their land. 

States Are Including Convicted Sex Offenders from Ineligible and 
Delegated Tribes in State Registries and Generally Reported No 
Challenges in Doing So: 

Under SORNA, states are responsible for registering convicted sex 
offenders who live, work, or attend school on the territory of tribes 
that have not retained SORNA implementation authority, which are 
ineligible tribes subject to state criminal jurisdiction under 18 
U.S.C. § 1162, as well as tribes whose SORNA functions have been 
delegated to a state.[Footnote 51] We found that states have 
incorporated ineligible and delegated tribes into state sex offender 
registries, as required. 

With respect to ineligible tribes, we interviewed sex offender 
registry and SORNA officials in the 6 states where these tribes are 
located, and they told us that they include convicted sex offenders 
who live, work, or attend school on tribal lands in the state sex 
offender registry and had mostly experienced no challenges in doing 
so. Tribal officials from 7 of 8 ineligible tribes we interviewed 
confirmed that the states had incorporated convicted sex offenders who 
live on their lands into the state sex offender registry. An official 
from the remaining ineligible tribe was not aware of any efforts by 
the state to include sex offenders who live, work, or attend school on 
the tribe's land into the state's sex offender registration system. 

Officials from 5 of the 6 states where we conducted interviews also 
reported that their states had experienced no challenges with 
incorporating convicted sex offenders from ineligible tribes into the 
state sex offender registry. These state officials reported that for 
registration purposes, convicted sex offenders on tribal land are 
required to report to the tribe, a nearby county or city to register. 
Officials from 3 of the 5 states added that they treat tribes like any 
other local jurisdiction. Sex offender registry officials we 
interviewed from the sixth state said that many tribes in their state 
are located in remote areas, and this poses a challenge for convicted 
sex offenders located on tribal lands to travel to the nearest county 
to register. The remote location of these tribes also makes it 
difficult for county law enforcement to monitor convicted sex 
offenders to ensure that they are complying with the terms of their 
registration. According to tribal and sex offender registry officials 
from this state, the state has tried to address the location challenge 
by giving offenders who live in remote areas the choice to register in 
person, by mail or fax and having the tribal community complete forms 
to verify the addresses of tribal members who are registered sex 
offenders. 

With respect to delegated tribes, SORNA and sex offender registry 
officials from 10 of the 12 states with these tribes that provided 
written responses to our questions reported that the states 
incorporate or expect to incorporate convicted sex offenders from 
delegated tribes into their state sex offender registry, as required. 
[Footnote 52] However, officials from 5 of the 12 states reported 
difficulties doing so. These included contacting but not receiving a 
response from tribes and resolving differing requirements between 
state laws and SORNA regarding registration of sex offenders and 
community notification. Nevertheless, we found that states were able 
to overcome these challenges and register and monitor offenders, as 
required. 

States Are Not Consistently Notifying Ineligible and Delegated Tribes 
about Registered Sex Offenders Who Plan to Live, Work, or Attend 
School on Tribal Land upon Release from Prison: 

We reported earlier in this report that some states are not notifying 
tribes that retained their SORNA implementation authority following 
registration of a sex offender who plans to live, work, or attend 
school on tribal land upon release from state prison. Similarly, sex 
offender registry officials we interviewed from 3 of the 6 states 
where ineligible tribes are located told us that they do not notify 
ineligible tribes, and officials from 7 of the 12 states with 
delegated tribes that responded to our inquiry reported that they also 
do not notify tribes. Officials from the remaining 3 states where 
ineligible tribes are located were unsure or did not state whether 
they notified ineligible tribes while officials from the remaining 5 
states with delegated tribes said that they provide tribes with this 
information. 

The specific SORNA provision that requires such notification to 
ineligible and delegated tribes is section 121(b)(2). It states that 
immediately after a convicted sex offender registers or updates a 
registration, an appropriate official in the registration 
jurisdiction--in this instance, the state--shall provide the 
information in the registry (other than information exempted from 
disclosure by the Attorney General) about that offender to all 
appropriate law enforcement agencies, as well as schools, and public 
housing agencies, in each area where the offender resides, works, or 
attends school.[Footnote 53] Therefore, states should notify all 
ineligible and delegated tribes that have a law enforcement agency, a 
school, or a public housing agency when a convicted sex offender 
registers with the state and plans to live, work, or attend school on 
tribal land. Of the 50 delegated tribes, 22 have a police department, 
at least 10 have schools, and 38 have public housing.[Footnote 54] 
Similarly, of the 353 ineligible tribes, 17 have their own police 
department, at least 165 have schools, and 323 have public housing. 
Yet, states are not consistently notifying these tribes about sex 
offenders who were released from state prison and registered or 
updated a registration with the state indicating that they will be 
living, working, or attending school on tribal lands, as SORNA 
requires. Without such notification, tribes may be unaware, as noted 
earlier in this report, of the presence of convicted sex offenders on 
their lands and may be unable to enforce tribal law and ordinances 
related to sex offenders. 

States are not providing notification to ineligible and delegated 
tribes that have police departments for a couple of reasons. First, 1 
state has determined that tribal law enforcement agencies do not meet 
the state's definition of a law enforcement agency, in which case the 
state would not provide this notice. Second, in the absence of state 
laws or policies to notify tribes, some states let the counties decide 
on their own whether or not to notify tribal law enforcement, but as 
we reported earlier in this report, this could be a concern if the 
tribal and county law enforcement officials do not have a good working 
relationship. 

With respect to the requirement that states notify schools and public 
housing agencies, the National Guidelines indicate that it is 
potentially challenging for states to proactively notify schools and 
public housing agencies because of problems such as identifying 
comprehensive lists of recipients and maintaining up-to-date contact 
information for each school and public housing agency. For example, 
Oklahoma has approximately 1,800 public schools. SMART officials 
stated that California and Alaska, which have the vast majority of 
ineligible tribes, might find it particularly challenging. Therefore, 
the National Guidelines allow states to satisfy the requirement to 
immediately notify schools and public housing agencies, as well as 
other community and social service organizations, by posting 
information on the state's sex offender public website within 3 days 
of the offender's registration or update, provided that the website 
includes an automatic notification function whereby requesters may 
receive e-mails when new information pertaining to a ZIP code or 
geographic radius area is available.[Footnote 55] However, this poses 
challenges. First, tribes can only search by name, ZIP code, county, 
city or geographic radius, and as we discussed previously, it would be 
difficult for the tribe to know whether a convicted sex offender who 
lives within the same ZIP code as the tribe actually lives on tribal 
land. Second, some states have opted not to include all convicted sex 
offenders on their public websites, as SORNA allows. For example, 
jurisdictions can exclude information about tier I offenders whose 
victims were not minors.[Footnote 56] 

Also, with regard to tribes, an alternative to directly notifying the 
school or public housing agency located on tribal land could be that 
the state notify the tribal council or another entity that the tribe 
deems appropriate. Given the relatively small number of tribes in most 
states, the number of tribes is likely to be much lower than the 
number of public housing agencies and schools, making it easier to 
obtain contact information on tribes and notify them of released 
offenders. For example, Nevada has 673 public schools, but only 11 
delegated tribes, and is the state with the greatest number of 
delegated tribes. States with ineligible tribes, however, may have a 
larger number of tribes and find it more difficult to contact each 
tribe. For example, Alaska and California in particular could find it 
difficult considering that 226 and 108 ineligible tribes have 
territory in these states, respectively. 

According to the SMART Office, it has taken steps to inform both 
implementing and nonimplementing states about tribes whose authority 
has been delegated to the state, and has provided states with points 
of contact for these tribes. However, the SMART Office has not 
explicitly advised states, as part of these efforts, to notify 
delegated tribes about registered sex offenders who intend to live, 
work, or attend school on tribal land upon release from state prison. 
Given that the SMART Office conducts annual compliance reviews of 
implementing states and conducts ongoing outreach to implementing as 
well as nonimplementing states on a range of SORNA issues, the office 
is well positioned to provide explicit guidance to states regarding 
the necessary steps to implement SORNA's notification requirement for 
ineligible and delegated tribes. Also, through its outreach and 
compliance reviews, the SMART Office has the opportunity to consult 
with states on steps they can take to overcome some of the barriers 
that make it difficult for states to provide these notifications. Such 
efforts on behalf of the SMART Office would enable ineligible and 
delegated tribes to take actions they deem necessary to ensure public 
safety when a convicted sex offender is released from state prison and 
has registered or updated a registration indicating that he or she 
will be living, working, or attending school on their lands. 

Conclusions: 

SORNA sought to enhance public safety, in part, by requiring eligible 
tribes to develop their own sex offender registration and notification 
systems to help address concerns about convicted sex offenders 
avoiding registration by moving to tribal lands. Considering that many 
tribes did not have their own sex offender registration systems prior 
to SORNA, tribes faced a number of challenges in implementing the act, 
such as lack of access to federal criminal justice databases and 
difficulty covering implementation costs. Several agencies provided 
assistance to help tribes address these challenges, but according to 
tribes that responded to our survey, additional assistance and 
communication, particularly from BIA, would be beneficial. Also, as 
part of the SMART Office's annual compliance review of implementing 
states, and ongoing outreach with implementing and nonimplementing 
states, determining whether states are notifying tribes that retained 
their authority about convicted sex offenders who initially register 
or update a registration indicating that they will be living, working, 
or attending school on tribal land upon release from state prison 
could help ensure that tribes are aware of and can monitor convicted 
sex offenders in their communities. Further, taking additional actions 
to ensure that states notify all tribes, including ineligible and 
delegated tribes, would better position tribes to enforce their own 
laws and policies regarding sex offenders who live, work, or attend 
school on their land. Further, these actions would enhance DOJ's 
initiative to increase public safety in tribal communities by 
providing the federal support these communities need to overcome the 
unique law enforcement challenges they face, which, as noted by the 
Attorney General in his 2009 launching of the initiative, had resulted 
in unacceptable rates of violence against women and children in tribal 
communities. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To help ensure that tribes that retained their SORNA implementation 
authority, as well as ineligible and delegated tribes, are notified 
when convicted sex offenders who intend to live, work, or attend 
school on tribal land initially register or update a registration, we 
recommend that the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of 
Justice Programs direct the SMART Office to take the following two 
actions: 

* Amend its substantial implementation assurance guidance to require 
its evaluators to determine whether substantially implemented states 
are notifying tribes that retained their authority to implement SORNA, 
as well as ineligible and delegated tribes, as required, and use this 
information in the office's ongoing outreach to the states. 

* Encourage implementing as well as nonimplementing states, as part of 
the office's ongoing outreach to these states, to develop policies and 
procedures to notify tribes that retained their authority to implement 
SORNA, as well as ineligible and delegated tribes, about convicted sex 
offenders who registered or updated a registration with the state--
either prior or subsequent to their release from state prison--and 
indicated that they will be living, working, or attending school on 
tribal lands. As part of this outreach and to help states overcome any 
barriers to notifying tribes, educate state officials on best 
practices for overcoming barriers to notifying tribes that the SMART 
Office has identified. 

To help determine what additional assistance tribes may need to help 
them toward SORNA implementation, we recommend that the Director of 
the Bureau of Indian Affairs direct each Office of Justice Services 
district office to contact the tribes within its district that have 
retained their implementation authority to determine if the tribes 
would like BIA to assist them with SORNA implementation efforts. For 
tribes that would like assistance from BIA, where possible, BIA should 
provide this assistance or refer the tribe to other resources. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to Interior and DOJ for review and 
comment. We received written comments from DOI via e-mail and from DOJ 
in a formal letter, which is reproduced in full in appendix IV. DOI 
and DOJ agreed with our recommendations in their comments. We also 
received technical comments from DOJ, which are incorporated 
throughout our report as appropriate. 

In comments that DOI provided via e-mail on October 21, 2014, the 
department agreed with our recommendation that BIA direct each OJS 
district office to contact the tribes within its district that have 
retained their implementation authority, to determine if the tribes 
would like BIA to assist them with SORNA implementation efforts. DOI 
noted that the department plans to send correspondence to each of 
these tribes to determine if the tribes need BIA assistance with SORNA 
implementation and will provide the necessary assistance to these 
tribes, considering the department's authority, access, and resources. 
Further, DOI stated that it will reach out to states and other 
entities outside of OJS's control that may be posing challenges to 
tribes' ability to comply with SORNA. We believe that these are 
beneficial steps that, once fully implemented, would address our 
recommendation and help address resource or other needs that have made 
it difficult for some tribes to substantially implement the act. 

In addition to taking actions to address our recommendation, DOI also 
identified additional efforts that BIA OJS has under way to help 
ensure tribes are able to implement SORNA. For example, BIA OJS has 
renewed its relationship with the SMART Office so as to receive 
internal policy and procedure updates, as well as training 
opportunities for OJS employees on SORNA. 

DOJ agreed with our recommendation that the SMART Office amend its 
substantial implementation assurance guidance to require its 
evaluators to determine whether substantially implemented states are 
notifying tribes that retained their authority to implement SORNA, as 
well as ineligible and delegated tribes. The department also noted in 
its response that the SMART Office will continue to propose 
individualized solutions for jurisdictions with legislation or public 
policy practices that inhibit or prohibit working with tribal law 
enforcement. 

DOJ also agreed with our recommendation to encourage implementing as 
well as nonimplementing states to develop policies and procedures to 
notify all tribes about sex offenders who would be living, working, or 
attending school on tribal lands, either prior or subsequent to their 
release from state prison. In its letter, DOJ noted that the SMART 
Office will request in future substantial implementation reviews that 
states provide information on how state incarceration facilities 
notify tribes when sex offenders are released and have indicated that 
they will be living, working, or attending school on tribal land. 
Accordingly, the SMART office will use the information solicited from 
these reviews in its ongoing outreach to implementing as well as 
nonimplementing states to help improve their communication with 
tribes. DOJ stated that to the extent possible, the department will 
encourage the sharing of sex offender information through the SORNA 
Exchange Portal--the tool that facilitates the exchange of information 
about sex offenders moving to other SORNA jurisdictions--as well as 
through extensive outreach and education to states on how they can use 
public notification to share information with ineligible and delegated 
tribes that do not have access to this portal. We believe that, once 
implemented, these actions would address our recommendations and 
enhance tribes' ability to receive the notification they need in order 
to enforce their laws pertaining to sex offenders. 

Although DOJ agreed with our recommendations, the department expressed 
concerns that our report is not responsive to the primary challenge 
that tribes that responded to our survey identified--that is, an 
inability to submit sex offender information to federal criminal 
databases. However, we noted in this report that at the time of our 
review, DOJ and BIA had established a Tribal Public Safety Working 
Group to identify which tribes lack access to federal databases and to 
work on the appropriate solution based on the unique circumstances of 
each tribe. We believe that it is too soon to evaluate the 
effectiveness of the working group's current efforts, given that the 
group is in its early planning phase. 

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 
committees, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Interior, and other 
interested parties. This report is also available at no charge on 
GAO's website at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions, please contact me at (202) 
512-8777 or larencee@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 
page of this report. Staff acknowledgments are provided in appendix IV. 

Signed by: 

Eileen R. Larence: 
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Our objectives for this report were to address the following questions: 

* To what extent have eligible tribes retained their authority to 
implement the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 
and for those that did, what is their implementation status? 

* What implementation challenges, if any, have tribes that retained 
their authority to implement SORNA reported, and what steps have 
federal agencies and others taken or could take to address these 
challenges? 

* To what extent are states incorporating ineligible and delegated 
tribes into their state sex offender registration and notification 
systems? 

To address our first two objectives, we surveyed tribal officials whom 
the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehension, 
Registering, and Tracking (SMART Office) identified as being 
responsible for implementing the act in the 164 tribes that retained 
their authority to implement SORNA.[Footnote 57] These officials 
included tribal chiefs as well as representatives of tribal police 
departments and court systems. We used the survey to identify the 
implementation status of tribes that retained their authority to 
implement SORNA; the challenges they face with implementation; and the 
steps that tribes, as well as state, local, and federal government 
entities, are taking or could take to address implementation 
challenges. Additionally, we used the survey to obtain the tribal 
officials' perspectives on the SMART Office's guidance and the 
criteria it used to determine whether or not a jurisdiction has 
substantially implemented SORNA. We collaborated closely with a GAO 
social science survey specialist and conducted an expert review as 
well as pretests with 4 tribes that retained their authority to 
implement SORNA; doing so helped us to develop and refine our survey 
questions, clarify any ambiguous portions of the survey, and identify 
any potentially biased questions. We launched our web-based survey on 
April 1, 2014, and closed out the survey on June 30, 2014. Login 
information for the web-based survey was e-mailed to all participants, 
and we sent three follow-up e-mail messages to all nonrespondents and 
contacted the remaining nonrespondents by telephone. We received 
responses from 80 percent (129 of 161) of all tribes surveyed. Not all 
survey respondents provided answers to all survey questions.[Footnote 
58] Because the survey was conducted with all tribes that retained 
their authority to implement SORNA, there are no sampling errors. 
However, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey may 
introduce nonsampling errors. For example, differences in how a 
particular question is interpreted, the sources of information 
available to respondents, or the types of people who do not respond 
can introduce unwanted variability into the survey results. We 
included steps in both the data collection and data analysis stages to 
minimize such nonsampling errors. We also made multiple contact 
attempts with nonrespondents during the survey by e-mail and 
telephone. Since this was a web-based survey, respondents entered 
their answers directly into the electronic questionnaire, eliminating 
the need to key data into a database, minimizing error. We examined 
the survey results and performed computer analyses to identify 
inconsistencies and other indications of error. A second independent 
analyst checked the accuracy of all computer analyses. 

To address our first objective, we also reviewed the SMART Office's 
data on eligible tribes' implementation status to identify (1) tribes 
that have retained their authority to implement SORNA, (2) tribes that 
have delegated their implementation authority to a state, and (3) 
tribes whose implementation authority was delegated to a state by the 
SMART Office. To assess the reliability of the SMART Office's data on 
tribes' implementation status, we (1) obtained written responses to 
our questions on how SMART Office representatives who use and maintain 
the data ensure the data's reliability; (2) checked the data for 
missing information, and obvious errors; and (3) compared the data 
regarding tribes' responses against our survey questions regarding 
their implementation status and, where applicable, interviewed SMART 
Office officials to determine the reason(s) for and resolve any 
differences. We found the data to be sufficiently reliable for the 
purpose of identifying tribes' SORNA implementation status. We also 
used our survey to determine how long it took tribes to prepare and 
submit a complete implementation package for SMART Office review, the 
reasons why some tribes have not submitted a complete package, and 
when the latter anticipate submitting a complete package. 

To address our second objective, we interviewed Department of Justice 
(DOJ) headquarters officials from the SMART Office, Office of Tribal 
Justice (OTJ), U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), and the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation (FBI), as well as Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 
officials within the Department of the Interior, to determine the 
implementation challenges tribes have reported and steps the agencies, 
the tribes, and others have taken to address the challenges. In 
addition, we interviewed FBI Criminal Justice Information Services 
Division (CJIS) officials to determine CJIS policies and procedures 
for granting tribes access to federal criminal justice databases, 
which are required for SORNA implementation. We also interviewed 
state, tribal, as well as local law enforcement officials from 5 
states--Florida, Michigan, Nevada, New York, and Oklahoma. We selected 
these 5 states because each contains territory of tribes that retained 
their authority to implement SORNA and because the states vary with 
regard to their SORNA implementation status and geographic diversity. 
In each of the 5 states, we interviewed CJIS System Agency (CSA) 
officials, the designated state SORNA contact, or state sex offender 
registry officials to obtain information about state laws, policies, 
and procedures for granting tribes access to federal criminal justice 
databases. We also interviewed tribal leaders from 9 eligible tribes 
in these 5 states--5 of these tribes retained their authority to 
implement SORNA. We selected the 9 tribes based on factors such as the 
tribes' implementation status, whether the tribes are direct service 
tribes, and whether the tribes have agreements for SORNA 
implementation with any local law enforcement agencies, as well as the 
challenges that the SMART Office and others reported that these tribes 
face with implementation.[Footnote 59] In addition to the 5 states, we 
contacted officials in 20 states to determine whether these states 
require their state departments of corrections or registries to notify 
tribes that have retained their authorities to implement SORNA upon 
releasing a sex offender who plans to live, work or attend school on 
tribal lands. Officials from 15 of the 20 states responded to our 
request. These 15 states plus the 5 we visited included states 
identified by tribes that responded to our survey as those that do not 
notify tribes upon releasing sex offenders who plan to live, work, or 
attend school on tribal lands, as well as states that have 
substantially implemented SORNA and also have tribes that have 
retained their authority to implement SORNA. Finally, we interviewed 
officials from four local law enforcement agencies in proximity to the 
selected tribes and with whom the tribes had an agreement for SORNA 
implementation, as well as officials from the two BIA Office of 
Justice Services (OJS) regional districts with the most direct service 
tribes that are implementing SORNA to determine what, if any, 
assistance they have provided the tribes with SORNA implementation. 
Although the perspectives we obtained from our interviews with these 
state, BIA, and tribal officials are not generalizable, they provided 
insights regarding the challenges that tribes face with implementing 
SORNA and actions that have or could be taken to address the 
challenges. 

We also included questions in our survey of tribes that retained their 
authority to implement SORNA about the types and extent of challenges 
the tribes experienced with SORNA implementation; steps the tribes are 
taking to address the challenges; and the funding and other assistance 
the tribes have received or could receive from the SMART Office, USMS, 
BIA, and state or local law enforcement agencies to assist them with 
implementing the act. In addition, we obtained information from our 
survey that enabled us to identify tribes that have the required 
access to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) and the 
National Sex Offender Registry (NSOR), and the reasons why some tribes 
do not have this access.[Footnote 60] To determine if any improvements 
are needed to address any of the challenges tribes identified with 
SORNA implementation, we compared our survey results against SORNA 
provisions as well as the National Guidelines for Sex Offender 
Registration and Notification. 

To address our third objective, we interviewed state SORNA and sex 
offender registry officials from all 6 states where ineligible tribes 
are located as well as 8 ineligible tribes--at least 1 each from these 
6 states. The information from these interviews enabled us to 
determine if these states include the ineligible tribes in their state 
SORNA registration and notification systems, as SORNA requires, as 
well as to identify the challenges, if any, the states and tribes face 
with having the states implement SORNA on the tribes' behalf. We 
selected the tribes based on their SORNA implementation status, 
whether they submitted a resolution to implement SORNA in spite of 
their ineligibility, and the challenges the tribes reportedly faced 
with SORNA implementation.[Footnote 61] We also interviewed tribal 
leaders from 4 tribes that opted out of SORNA and delegated their 
registration and notification functions to the state, and solicited 
responses to written questions from sex offender registry officials in 
the 15 states to which tribes' authority have been delegated, to 
determine how states are incorporating delegated tribes into their 
state sex offender registration and notification systems, as SORNA 
requires. 

To supplement the information we received from our interviews as well 
as our survey of tribes that retained their SORNA authority, we 
interviewed officials from three relevant national associations: the 
National Congress of American Indians, the International Association 
of Chiefs of Police, and the National Criminal Justice Association, to 
obtain their perspectives on SORNA eligibility criteria, the SMART 
Office's delegation criteria and process, the challenges that tribes 
face with implementation, and the actions that the SMART Office and 
others have taken to address these challenges. We selected these 
associations because they represent the interests of tribal 
communities or state and local law enforcement agencies that assist 
jurisdictions, including tribes, with SORNA implementation. 

We conducted this performance audit from September 2013 to November 
2014 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit 
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for 
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: SORNA Substantial Implementation Checklist Tool: 

The Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, 
Registering, and Tracking (SMART Office) has developed the Sex 
Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) Substantial 
Implementation Checklist tool to be used by jurisdictions in 
developing, organizing, and submitting a substantial implementation 
package for review. While not intended to be a definitive guide to 
SORNA's full implementation requirements, the SORNA checklist is 
organized into 14 sections covering the major requirements of the law, 
as shown in table 1. 

Table 1: Titles and Descriptions of the 14 Sections of the Sex 
Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) Substantial 
Implementation Checklist Tool and Implementation Reports: 

Section: I. Immediate Transfer of Information; 
Basic tenets of covered requirements: 
* Initial and updated registration information must be immediately 
sent to other jurisdictions where an offender has to register, to 
relevant federal law enforcement authorities, and to the 
jurisdiction's public sex offender website. 

Section: II. Offenses That Must Be Included in the Registry; 
Basic tenets of covered requirements: 
* Certain federal, military, and foreign offenses must be included in 
a jurisdiction's registration scheme, as well as certain sex offenses 
for which juveniles were adjudicated as delinquent; 
* A jurisdiction must capture certain sex offenses, both offenses from 
its jurisdiction and from other SORNA registration jurisdictions, in 
its registration scheme. 

Section: III. Tiering of Offenses; 
Basic tenets of covered requirements: 
* Offenses must be classified based on the nature of the offense of 
conviction, established through a baseline three-tier classification 
system. 

Section: IV. Required Registration Information; 
Basic tenets of covered requirements: 
* A jurisdiction must collect certain pieces of information from and 
for each offender that it registers and keep that registration 
information in a digitized form in its registry. 

Section: V. Where Registration Is Required; 
Basic tenets of covered requirements: 
* A jurisdiction must register an offender if the jurisdiction is the 
one in which the offender is convicted or incarcerated. In addition, 
SORNA requires that the jurisdiction register offenders who reside, 
work, or attend school in the jurisdiction. 

Section: VI. Initial Registration: Timing and Notice; 
Basic tenets of covered requirements: 
* When an offender is incarcerated within the jurisdiction, 
registration must occur before release from imprisonment; 
* When an offender is sentenced within the jurisdiction, but not 
incarcerated, registration must occur within 3 business days of 
sentencing; 
* When an offender has been convicted, sentenced, or incarcerated in 
another jurisdiction (including federal or military court), 
registration must occur within 3 business days of the offender 
establishing residence, employment, or school attendance within the 
jurisdiction; 
* During initial registration, the offender must be informed of his or 
her registration duties and acknowledge in writing that he or she 
understands those duties. 

Section: VII. Initial Registration: Retroactive Classes of Offenders; 
Basic tenets of covered requirements: 
* A jurisdiction must have a procedure in place to recapture three 
categories of sex offenders: 
- those currently incarcerated or under supervision; 
- those already registered or subject to a preexisting registration 
requirement, and; 
- those who reenter the jurisdiction's criminal justice system because 
of a conviction for some other felony (whether or not it is a sex 
offense). 

Section: VIII. Keeping the Registration Current; 
Basic tenets of covered requirements: 
* A registered sex offender must appear in person to update certain 
changes to required registration information, and must immediately 
provide changes to other pieces of registration information; 
* When an offender intends to travel outside the United States, that 
person must notify the residence jurisdiction at least 21 days in 
advance; 
* When a jurisdiction receives notice of an offender's intent to 
relocate or travel to another country, that jurisdiction must 
immediately notify any other jurisdiction where the person is required 
to register, notify the U.S. Marshals, and update the National Sex 
Offender Registry within the National Crime Information Center. 

Section: IX. Verification/Appearance Requirements; 
Basic tenets of covered requirements: 
* Offenders must register for a duration of time and make in-person 
appearances at the registering agency based on the tier of the offense 
of conviction. 

Section: X. Registry Website Requirements; 
Basic tenets of covered requirements: 
* A jurisdiction must maintain a public sex offender registry website 
and publish certain registration information on that website, such as 
the offender's name, address information, the sex offense for which 
the offender is registered, and a current photograph; 
* Certain information must not be displayed on a jurisdiction's public 
registry website, such as the offender's Social Security number or the 
identity of the victim. 

Section: XI. Community Notification; 
Basic tenets of covered requirements: 
* A jurisdiction must disseminate certain initial and updated 
registration information to (1) particular agencies within the 
jurisdiction and (2) the community. 

Section: XII. Failure to Register as a Sex Offender: State Penalty; 
Basic tenets of covered requirements: 
* Each jurisdiction, other than a federally recognized Indian tribe, 
must provide a criminal penalty that includes a maximum term of 
imprisonment that is greater than 1 year for the failure of a sex 
offender to comply with its registration requirements. 

Section: XIII. When Sex Offender Fails to Appear for Registration; 
Basic tenets of covered requirements: 
* When a jurisdiction is notified that a sex offender intends to 
reside, be employed, or attend school in its jurisdiction, and that 
offender fails to appear for registration as required, the 
jurisdiction receiving that notice must inform the originating 
jurisdiction (the jurisdiction that provided the initial notification) 
that the sex offender failed to appear for registration. 

Section: XIV. When a Jurisdiction Has Information that a Sex Offender 
May Have Absconded; 
Basic tenets of covered requirements: 
* When a jurisdiction has information that a sex offender may have 
absconded, the jurisdiction must take certain actions to investigate 
the absconder and notify various law enforcement agencies. 

Source: Department of Justice: Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, 
Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (SMART Office) | 
GAO-15-23. 

Note: If a state has a tribe or tribes located within its boundaries 
that have elected to implement SORNA, the SMART Office also requests 
that these states provide additional information, such as an 
explanation of the working relationship with the relevant SORNA 
tribe(s), when submitting a substantial implementation package for 
review. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Extent to Which Eligible Tribes Have Implemented the Sex 
Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA): 

According to the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, 
Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (SMART Office), the 214 tribes 
that are eligible to implement SORNA are located in 33 states; of 
these states, 11 have substantially implemented SORNA. As of August 
2014, the SMART Office has determined that 164 tribes have retained 
their authority to implement SORNA, while the remainder did not retain 
their authority because they either elected to delegate their 
authority to a state (24 tribes) or the SMART Office delegated their 
authority to a state (26 tribes). Of the tribes that have retained 
their authority to implement the act, 71 tribes have substantially 
implemented SORNA; 70 tribes have submitted a complete package, but 
the SMART Office has not yet made a determination; 22 tribes have not 
submitted a complete package; and 1 tribe has not substantially 
implemented the act. 

Table 2: Implementation Status of Eligible Tribes and Their 
Corresponding States, as of August 2014: 

State: Alabama; Substantially implemented; 
Number of tribes: 1; 
Tribe: Poarch Band of Creeks; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

State: Alaska; Not substantially implemented; 
Number of tribes: 1; 
Tribe: Metlakatla Indian Community; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

State: Arizona; Not substantially implemented; 
Number of tribes: 21; 

Tribe: Ak-Chin Indian Community Council; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Submitted a complete package, 
determination not yet made. 

Tribe: Cocopah Tribal Council; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Submitted a complete package, 
determination not yet made. 

Tribe: *Colorado River Indian Tribes; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: ~*Fort Mojave Indian Tribe; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: Gila River Indian Community; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: Havasupai Tribe; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Submitted a complete package, 
determination not yet made. 

Tribe: Hopi Tribe; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: Hualapai Indian Tribe; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Submitted a complete package, 
determination not yet made. 

Tribe: ~ Navajo Nation; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Submitted a complete package, 
determination not yet made. 

Tribe: Pascua Yaqui Tribe; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: *Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation; 
Implementation authority: 
SORNA implementation status: Delegated (SMART); 
SORNA implementation status: n/a. 

Tribe: Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: San Carlos Apache Tribe; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: San Juan Southern Paiute tribe of Arizona; 
Implementation authority: Delegated Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, 
Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (SMART Office); 
SORNA implementation status: n/a. 

Tribe: Tohono O'odham Nation; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: Tonto Apache Tribe; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: White Mountain Apache Tribe; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Yavapai-Apache Nation; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

State: Colorado; Substantially implemented. 
Number of tribes: 2; 

Tribe: Southern Ute Indian Tribe; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: ~ Ute Mountain Ute Tribe; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

State: Connecticut; Not substantially implemented; 
Number of tribes: 2; 

Tribe: Mashantucket Pequot Indian Tribe; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Mohegan Indian Tribe of Connecticut; 
Implementation authority: Delegated (Tribe); 
SORNA implementation status: 

State: Florida; Substantially implemented. 
Number of tribes: 2; 

Tribe: Miccosukee Indian Tribe; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Seminole Tribe of Florida; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

State: Idaho; Not substantially implemented; 
Number of tribes: 5; 

Tribe: Coeur D'Alene Tribe; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: 

Tribe: Kootenai Tribe of Idaho; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: Nez Perce Tribe; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: ~ Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

State: Iowa; Not substantially implemented; 
Number of tribes: 1; 
Tribe: Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

State: Kansas; 
Number of tribes: 4; 

Tribe: *Iowa Tribe of Kansas & Nebraska; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas; 
Implementation authority: Delegated (Tribe); 
SORNA implementation status: n/a. 

Tribe: Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: *Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska; 
Implementation authority: Delegated (SMART); 
SORNA implementation status: 

State: Louisiana; Substantially implemented. 
Number of tribes: 4; 

Tribe: Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; 
Implementation authority: Delegated (Tribe); 
SORNA implementation status: n/a. 

Tribe: Jena Band of Choctaw Indians; 
Implementation authority: Delegated (Tribe); 
SORNA implementation status: n/a. 

Tribe: Tunica-Biloxi Tribe; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

State: Maine; Not substantially implemented; 
Number of tribes: 4; 

Tribe: Aroostook Band of Micmacs; 
Implementation authority: Delegated (SMART); 
SORNA implementation status: n/a. 

Tribe: Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians; 
Implementation authority: Delegated (Tribe); 
SORNA implementation status: n/a. 

Tribe: Passamaquoddy Tribe; 
Implementation authority: Delegated (SMART); 
SORNA implementation status: n/a. 

Tribe: Penobscot Indian Nation; 
Implementation authority: Delegated (SMART); 
SORNA implementation status: n/a. 

State: Massachusetts; Not substantially implemented; 
Number of tribes: 2; 

Tribe: Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe; 
Implementation authority: Delegated (Tribe); 
SORNA implementation status: n/a. 

Tribe: Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head/Aquinnah; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

State: Michigan; Substantially implemented. 
Number of tribes: 12; 
SORNA implementation status: 

Tribe: Bay Mills Indian Community; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: Hannahville Indian Community; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: Keweenaw Bay Indian Community; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Little River Band of Ottawa Indians; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of 
Michigan; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: 

Tribe: Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Michigan; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

State: Minnesota; Not substantially implemented; 
Number of tribes: 2; 

Tribe: Minnesota Chippewa Tribe Bois Forte Band; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians of Minnesota; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: 

State: Mississippi; Substantially implemented. 
Number of tribes: 1; 

Tribe: Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

State: Montana; Not substantially implemented; 
Number of tribes: 7; 

Tribe: Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian 
Reservation; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation of Montana; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's Reservation; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead 
Reservation; 
Implementation authority: Delegated (Tribe); 
SORNA implementation status: n/a. 

Tribe: Crow Tribe of Montana; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Fort Belknap Indian Community of the Fort Belknap Reservation 
of Montana; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Northern Cheyenne Tribe; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

State: Nebraska; Not substantially implemented; 
Number of tribes: 3; 

Tribe: Omaha Tribe of Nebraska; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: Santee Sioux Nation; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

State: Nevada; Substantially implemented. 
Number of tribes: 19; 

Tribe: ~Confederated Tribes of Goshute Reservation; 
Implementation authority: Delegated (SMART); 
SORNA implementation status: n/a. 

Tribe: Duckwater Shoshone Tribe; 
Implementation authority: Delegated (Tribe); 
SORNA implementation status: n/a. 

Tribe: Ely Shoshone Tribe of Nevada; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: *Fort McDermitt Paiute & Shoshone Tribes of the Fort McDermitt 
Indian Reservation; 
Implementation authority: Delegated (SMART); 
SORNA implementation status: n/a. 

Tribe: ~ *Fort Mojave Indian Tribe; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: Las Vegas Tribe of the Paiute Indians of the Las Vegas Colony; 
Implementation authority: Delegated (SMART); 
SORNA implementation status: n/a. 

Tribe: Lovelock Paiute Tribe of the Lovelock Indian Colony; 
Implementation authority: Delegated (SMART); 
SORNA implementation status: n/a. 

Tribe: Moapa Band of Paiute Indians of the Moapa River Indian 
reservation; 
Implementation authority: Delegated (SMART); 
SORNA implementation status: n/a. 

Tribe: Paiute-Shoshone Tribe of the Fallon Reservation and Colony; 
Implementation authority: Delegated (SMART); 
SORNA implementation status: n/a. 

Tribe: Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Reno-Sparks Indian Colony; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: ~Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: Summit Lake Paiute Tribe; 
Implementation authority: Delegated (SMART); 
SORNA implementation status: n/a. 

Tribe: Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Walker River Paiute Tribe; 
Implementation authority: Delegated (Tribe); 
SORNA implementation status: n/a. 

Tribe: *Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: Winnemucca Indian Colony of Nevada; 
Implementation authority: Delegated (SMART); 
SORNA implementation status: n/a. 

Tribe: Yerington Paiute Tribe; 
Implementation authority: Delegated (SMART); 
SORNA implementation status: n/a. 

Tribe: Yomba Shoshone Tribe; 
Implementation authority: Delegated (SMART); 
SORNA implementation status: n/a. 

State: New Mexico; Not substantially implemented; 
Number of tribes: 23; 

Tribe: Jicarilla Apache Nation; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: Kewa Pueblo (Pueblo of Santo Domingo); 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Mescalero Apache Tribe; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: Ohkay Owingeh; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: Pueblo of Acoma; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: Pueblo of Cochiti; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Pueblo of Isleta; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: Pueblo of Jemez; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Pueblo of Laguna; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Pueblo of Nambe; 
Implementation authority: Delegated (Tribe); 
SORNA implementation status: n/a. 

Tribe: Pueblo of Picuris; 
Implementation authority: Delegated (SMART); 
SORNA implementation status: n/a. 

Tribe: Pueblo of Pojoaque; 
Implementation authority: Delegated (Tribe); 
SORNA implementation status: n/a. 

Tribe: Pueblo of San Felipe; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Pueblo of San Ildefonso; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Pueblo of Sandia; 
Implementation authority: Delegated (Tribe); 
SORNA implementation status: n/a. 

Tribe: Pueblo of Santa Ana; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: Pueblo of Santa Clara; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Pueblo of Taos; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Pueblo of Tesuque; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Pueblo of Zia; 
Implementation authority: Delegated (SMART); 
SORNA implementation status: n/a. 

Tribe: ~ Navajo Nation; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: ~ Ute Mountain Ute Tribe; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation (Pueblo Zuni); 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: 

State: New York; Not substantially implemented; 
Number of tribes: 8; 

Tribe: Cayuga Nation; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Held in abeyance. 

Tribe: Oneida Nation of New York; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Onondaga Nation; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Seneca Nation of Indians; 
Implementation authority: Delegated (Tribe); 
SORNA implementation status: n/a. 

Tribe: Shinnecock Indian Nation; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Tonawanda Band of Seneca; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Tuscarora Nation; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

State: North Carolina; Not substantially implemented; 
Number of tribes: 1; 
Tribe: Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

State: North Dakota; Not substantially implemented; 
Number of tribes: 4; 

Tribe: Spirit Lake Tribe; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: ~ Standing Rock Sioux Tribe; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: Three Affiliated Tribes; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

State: Oklahoma; Not substantially implemented; 
Number of tribes: 38. 

Tribe: Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town; 
Implementation authority: Delegated (SMART); 
SORNA implementation status: n/a. 

Tribe: Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; 
Implementation authority: Delegated (SMART); 
SORNA implementation status: n/a. 

Tribe: Caddo Nation of Oklahoma; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Cherokee Nation; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Chickasaw Nation; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma; 
Implementation authority: Delegated (Tribe); 
SORNA implementation status: n/a. 

Tribe: Citizen Potawatomi Nation; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: Comanche Nation; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: Delaware Nation; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Delaware Tribe of Indians; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Newly recognized tribes. 

Tribe: Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; 
Implementation authority: Delegated (SMART); 
SORNA implementation status: n/a. 

Tribe: Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: Kaw Nation; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: Kialegee Tribal Town; 
Implementation authority: Delegated (SMART); 
SORNA implementation status: n/a. 

Tribe: Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Miami Tribe of Oklahoma; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: Muscogee (Creek) Nation; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: Osage Nation; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Ponca Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; 
Implementation authority: Delegated (Tribe); 
SORNA implementation status: n/a. 

Tribe: Quapaw Tribe of Indians; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Sac and Fox Nation; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Seminole Nation of Oklahoma; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: Shawnee Tribe; 
Implementation authority: Delegated (SMART); 
SORNA implementation status: n/a. 

Tribe: Thlopthlocco Tribal Town; 
Implementation authority: Delegated (Tribe); 
SORNA implementation status: n/a. 

Tribe: Tonkawa Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: Wichita and Affiliated Tribes; 
Implementation authority: Delegated (SMART); 
SORNA implementation status: n/a. 

Tribe: Wyandotte Nation; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

State: Oregon; Not substantially implemented; 
Number of tribes: 3; 

Tribe: Burns Paiute Tribe; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

State: Rhode Island; Not substantially implemented; 
Number of tribes: 1; 
Tribe: Narragansett Indian Tribe; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

State: South Carolina; Substantially implemented. 
Number of tribes: 1; 
Tribe: Catawba Indian Nation; 
Implementation authority: Delegated (SMART); 
SORNA implementation status: N/A. 

State: South Dakota; Substantially implemented. 
Number of tribes: 9; 

Tribe: Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the Lower Brule Reservation; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Oglala Sioux Tribe; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: 

Tribe: Rosebud Sioux Tribe; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: 

Tribe: Sisseton - Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: State : ~ Standing Rock Sioux Tribe; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

State: Texas; Not substantially implemented; 
Number of tribes: 2; 

Tribe: Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Ysleta del Sur Pueblo of Texas; 
Implementation authority: Delegated (Tribe); 
SORNA implementation status: n/a. 

State: Utah; Not substantially implemented; 
Number of tribes: 7; 

Tribe: ~ Confederated Tribes of Goshute Reservation; 
Implementation authority: Delegated (SMART); 
SORNA implementation status: n/a. 

Tribe: ~ Navajo Nation; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Northwestern Band of Shoshone Nation; 
Implementation authority: Delegated (Tribe); 
SORNA implementation status: n/a. 

Tribe: Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah; 
Implementation authority: Delegated (SMART); 
SORNA implementation status: n/a. 

Tribe: Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians; 
Implementation authority: Delegated (Tribe); 
SORNA implementation status: n/a. 

Tribe: Ute Indian Tribe; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: ~ Ute Mountain Ute Tribe; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

State: Washington; Not substantially implemented; 
Number of tribes: 29; 

Tribe: Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Cowlitz Indian Tribe; 
Implementation authority: Delegated (Tribe); 
SORNA implementation status: n/a. 

Tribe: Hoh Indian Tribe; 
Implementation authority: Delegated (Tribe); 
SORNA implementation status: n/a. 

Tribe: Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe; 
Implementation authority: Delegated (Tribe); 
SORNA implementation status: n/a. 

Tribe: Kalispel Tribe of Indians; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: Lummi Tribe of the Lummi Reservation; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: 

Tribe: Makah Indian Tribe of the Makah Indian Reservation; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Muckleshoot Indian Tribe; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Nisqually Indian Tribe; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Nooksack Indian Tribe; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Puyallup Tribe of the Puyallup Reservation; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Quileute Tribe; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Quinault Indian Nation; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: Samish Indian Nation; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Held in abeyance. 

Tribe: Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Skokomish Indian Tribe; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: Snoqualmie Indian Tribe; 
Implementation authority: Delegated (Tribe); 
SORNA implementation status: n/a. 

Tribe: Spokane Tribe of the Spokane Reservation; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

Tribe: Squaxin Island Tribe; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians of Washington; 
Implementation authority: Delegated (Tribe); 
SORNA implementation status: n/a. 

Tribe: Suquamish Indian Tribe of the Port Madison Reservation; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Swinomish Indian Tribal Community; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Tulalip Tribes of Washington; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Not submitted a complete package for 
review. 

Tribe: Upper Skagit Indian Tribe; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

State: Wisconsin; Not substantially implemented; 
Number of tribes: 1; 
Tribe: Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented; 

State: Wyoming; Substantially implemented; 
Number of tribes: 2; 

Tribe: Arapaho Tribe of the Wind River Reservation; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented;. 

Tribe: Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation; 
Implementation authority: Retained authority; 
SORNA implementation status: Substantially implemented. 

[End of table] 

Source: GAO analysis of SMART Office data. GAO-15-23. 

Legend: 

n/a = not applicable. 

* Tribe = the tribe has territory in another state, but is ineligible 
to implement SORNA in that state. 

~ Tribe = the tribe has territory in multiple states and is eligible 
to implement SORNA in each of those states. Thus, the tribe is 
represented under multiple states. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Justice: 

U.S. Department of Justice: 
Office of Justice Programs: 
Washington, D.C. 20531: 

October 29, 2014: 

Ms. Eileen Larence: 
Director: 
Homeland Security and Justice Issues: 
Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms. Larence: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) report entitled, "Sex Offender 
Registration and Notification Act (SORNA): Additional Outreach and 
Notification of Tribes when Offenders are Released from Prison Needed" 
(GAO-15-23). The Office of Justice Programs (OJP) appreciates the 
GAO's work in planning and conducting this review and issuing the 
draft report. 

The Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, 
Registering, and Tracking Office (SMART Office) has worked extensively 
with the tribes to meet the minimum requirements of SORNA that were 
set out by Congress, despite the challenges identified in the GAO 
report. We remain committed to supporting the efforts of all SORNA 
jurisdictions, and to the extent possible by law, non-SORNA 
jurisdictions such as ineligible and delegated tribes, in order to 
expand the comprehensive seamless web of sex offender registration and 
notification systems necessary to enhance public safety envisioned by 
SORNA. 

On the first page of the draft report, GAO describes its survey and 
the four most frequently reported implementation challenges, 
including: 1) inability to submit convicted sex offender information 
to federal databases; 2) lack of notification from state prisons upon 
the release of sex offenders; 3) lack of staff; and 4) inability to 
cover the costs of SORNA implementation. We are concerned that the 
report title, "SORNA: Additional Outreach and Notification of Tribes 
when Offenders are Released from Prison Needed," does not convey the 
breadth of the challenges expressed in the report, the information GAO 
gathered from the survey of the tribal jurisdictions, nor the entirety 
of GAO's recommendations. Further, the draft report is not responsive 
to the significance of the primary challenge identified by the tribes 
surveyed by GAO - the inability to submit sex offender information to 
federal databases, and it does not reflect all of the successes that 
tribes have had in implementing SORNA and protecting their communities 
and building sex offender registry systems from the ground up. 

The draft GAO report contains two Recommendations for Executive 
Action, one of which contains two actions directed to the Department's 
Office of Justice Programs (OJP). For ease of review, the 
recommendations are restated in bold text below and are followed by 
OJP's response. 

To help ensure that tribes that retained their SORNA implementation 
authority, as well as ineligible and delegated tribes, are notified 
when convicted sex offenders who intend to live, work, or attend 
school on tribal land initially register or update a registration, we
recommend that the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of 
Justice Programs direct the SMART Office to take the following two 
actions: 

1. Amend its substantial implementation assurance guidance to require 
its evaluators to determine whether substantially implemented states 
are notifying tribes that retained their authority to implement SORNA, 
as well as ineligible and delegated tribes, as required, and use this 
information in the office's ongoing outreach to the states. 

In response to the Recommendation for Executive Action, the SMART 
Office will expand the information requested in the implementation 
assurance process to note whether tribal law enforcement agencies are 
included in notification to law enforcement. As discussed with GAO 
during the audit, the SMART Office staff continuously makes 
adjustments to the implementation assurance process as more tribes and 
states substantially implement SORNA, and/or states attempt to meet 
the needs of the tribes located within their borders. In addition, the 
SMART Office will continue to propose individualized solutions for 
jurisdictions with legislation or public policy practices that 
inhibit, or prohibit, working with tribal law enforcement. 

During the early stages of implementation, many tribes were not able 
to be notified of sex offenders' movements because their registration 
and notification systems were still in development. As noted in the 
report, the states that have substantially implemented SORNA were not 
penalized initially if notification to certain tribes was not yet
occurring. However, the SMART Office has always required, and will 
continue to require, that all substantially implemented jurisdictions 
use the SORNA Exchange Portal. 

Pursuant to the SORNA mandate, the primary responsibility for 
implementing SORNA in the territory of ineligible and delegated tribes 
falls to the states in which the tribe(s) are located. As such, 
ineligible and delegated tribes will not receive the notifications that
SORNA-implementing jurisdictions receive because they do not have 
access to the SORNA Exchange Portal, which is the tool that 
facilitates the sharing of information about sex offenders relocating 
to other SORNA jurisdictions. Nonetheless, it is incumbent upon states 
to include ineligible and delegated tribes in their community 
notification efforts required by SORNA. However, the SMART Office, 
through its outreach to states, will encourage states to include 
ineligible and delegated tribes in community notification efforts. 

2. Encourage implementing as well as non-implementing states, as part 
of the office's ongoing outreach to these states, to develop policies 
and procedures to notify tribes that retained their authority to 
implement SORNA, as well as ineligible and delegated tribes, about 
convicted sex offenders who registered or updated a registration with 
the state-either prior or subsequent to their release from state 
prison-and indicated that they will be living, working, or attending 
school on tribal lands. As part of this outreach and to help states 
overcome any barriers to notifying tribes, educate state officials on 
best practices for overcoming barriers to notifying tribes that the 
SMART Office has identified. 

In response to the Recommendation for Executive Action, the SMART 
Office will request in future SORNA substantial implementation reviews 
that states provide information about how tribes within the states are 
being notified by state incarceration facilities when a sex offender 
is released and has indicated that she/he will be living, working, or 
attending school on tribal land. The SMART Office will also request this
information in future SORNA substantial implementation assurance 
reviews. 

The SMART Office will use the information obtained during the 
implementation reviews to further its longstanding efforts to assist 
both implementing and non-implementing states to improve communication 
with tribes, as well as continue working with tribes to improve their 
communication with states. In addition, the SMART Office will continue
to include information in its outreach to both state and tribal 
jurisdictions about how better to facilitate and enhance communication 
and overcome the barriers to notifying tribes. 

With regard to encouraging states to develop policies and procedures 
on notification of offenders being released from incarceration 
facilities, as discussed with GAO during the audit, state 
incarceration facilities develop their own policies about which 
jurisdictions receive notice and how that notice is given, and are not 
required to meet the expectations of the Department of Justice. 
However, to the extent that the law allows, the SMART Office 
encourages the exchange of information by jurisdictions via the SORNA
Exchange Portal and through extensive outreach and education about how 
to use public notification. 

If you have any questions regarding this response, you or your staff 
may contact Jeffery A. Haley, Acting Director, Office of Audit, 
Assessment, and Management, at (202) 616-2936. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Karol V. Mason: 
Assistant Attorney General: 

cc: 

Stuart F. Delery: 
Acting Associate Attorney General: 

Mary Lou Leary: 
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General: 
Office of Justice Programs: 

Maureen A. Henneberg: 
Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Operations and Management:
Office of Justice Programs: 

Dawn Doran: 
Deputy Director: 
Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending,
Registering, and Tracking: 
Office of Justice Programs: 

Leigh Benda: 
Chief Financial Officer: 
Office of Justice Programs: 

Rafael A. Madan: 
General Counsel: 
Office of Justice Programs: 

Jeffery A. Haley: 
Acting Director: 
Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management: 
Office of Justice Programs: 

Richard P. Theis: 
Director, Audit Liaison Group: 
Internal Review and Evaluation Office: 
Justice Management Division: 

OJP Executive Secretariat: 
Control Title IT20141010083304: 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Eileen R. Larence, (202) 512-8777 or larencee@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Kristy Love, Assistant 
Director, and Edith Sohna, Analyst-in-Charge, managed this engagement. 
Orlando Copeland, Michael Lenington, Alicia Loucks, and Leah Marshall 
made significant contributions to the report. Frances Cook, Katherine 
Davis, Michele Fejfar, Eric Hauswirth, Kirsten Lauber, Sasan J. Najmi, 
and Jerome Sandau also provided valuable assistance. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] The Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent 
Offender Registration Act (Wetterling Act), Pub. L. No. 103-322, tit. 
XVII, subtit. A, 108 Stat. 1796, 2038-42 (1994), provided a national 
baseline for sex offender registration programs. This affected matters 
such as defining the offenses that require registration and the 
duration of registration periods, requiring periodic verification of 
the registered address, continued registration of sex offenders when 
they move from one state to another (if the new state had a 
registration requirement), and community notification. In the years 
subsequent to the enactment of the Wetterling Act, Congress passed a 
series of amendments to this federal legislation, which in part 
reflected and promoted trends and developments in individual states' 
registration programs. Key legislative amendments were enacted by 
Megan's Law, Pub. L. No. 104-145, 110 Stat. 1345 (1996); the Pam 
Lychner Sexual Offender Tracking and Identification Act of 1996, Pub. 
L. No. 104-236, 110 Stat. 3093; the Jacob Wetterling Improvements Act, 
Pub. L. No. 105-119, § 115, 111 Stat. 2440, 2461-67 (1997); Protection 
of Children from Sexual Predators Act, of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-314, 
112 Stat. 2974; the Campus Sex Crimes Prevention Act, Pub. L. No. 106- 
386, § 1601, 114 Stat. 1464, 1537-38 (2000); and the Prosecutorial 
Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today 
(PROTECT) Act, Pub. L. No. 108-21, 117 Stat. 650 (2003). 

[2] Pub. L. No. 109-248, tit. I, 120 Stat. 587, 590-607 (2006). 

[3] See 42 U.S.C. § 16924(b). 

[4] 42 U.S.C. § 16927(a)(1), (a)(2)(A). Federally recognized tribes 
are eligible to receive federal funding and services. Under 42 U.S.C. 
§ 16927(a)(2)(A), tribes that are subject to the criminal jurisdiction 
of a state under 18 U.S.C. § 1162 are not eligible to implement the 
act. Tribes subject to state criminal jurisdiction under section 1162 
are located in 6 states: California, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, 
Wisconsin, and Alaska. In addition, the Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of 
Texas is also subject to state criminal jurisdiction pursuant to 
section 1162 and is therefore ineligible to implement SORNA. See 25 
U.S.C. § 1300b-15. 

[5] GAO, Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act: Jurisdictions 
Face Challenges to Implementing the Act, and Stakeholders Report 
Positive and Negative Effects, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-211] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 7, 
2013). 

[6] Pursuant to section 127 of SORNA, designated federally recognized 
Indian tribes were entitled to elect to become SORNA registration and 
notification jurisdictions or to delegate the responsibility to the 
jurisdiction or jurisdictions within which the territory of the tribe 
is located. See 42 U.S.C. § 16927(a)(1). 

[7] 42 U.S.C. § 16927(a)(2). 

[8] At the time of our survey, 166 tribes had retained their authority 
to implement SORNA. We did not survey 5 of the 166 because, according 
to the SMART Office, these tribes are either newly recognized tribes 
and have not elected whether or not they want to implement SORNA, or 
are still in the process of acquiring land. These tribes include the 
Cayuga Nation, the Delaware Tribe of Indians, the Samish Indian 
Nation, and the Shinnecock Indian Nation. We also did not survey the 
Onondaga Indian Nation because tribal officials told us that at the 
time of our survey they were in the process of delegating their SORNA 
authority to the state and had not taken any actions to implement the 
act. For more details of our survey results see GAO, Sex Offender 
Registration and Notification Act: Survey of Federally Recognized 
Tribes on Implementation of the Act ([hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-30SP], November 2014), an E-
supplement to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-23], 
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 18, 2014). 

[9] USMS is responsible for locating and apprehending noncompliant 
convicted sex offenders, while the FBI is responsible for operating 
the National Sex Offender Registry, the database for registering 
convicted sex offenders. 

[10] The Bureau of Indian Affairs provides direct services, such as 
law enforcement services, to certain tribes, commonly referred to as 
direct service tribes, that do not operate certain programs 
themselves. See 25 U.S.C. §§ 450f, 2802(c)(1). 

[11] 73 Fed. Reg. 38,030 (July 2, 2008). DOJ issued these guidelines 
in support of jurisdictions' efforts to implement the act. The 
guidelines outline measures jurisdictions must implement in order for 
the agency to determine that they have "substantially implemented" 
SORNA. 

[12] SORNA required eligible tribes wishing to implement the act to 
submit a resolution within a year of the act's enactment, electing to 
implement the law themselves as opposed to delegating their authority 
to implement to a state. 42 U.S.C. § 16927(a)(1)(A), (a)(2)(B). 

[13] Under SORNA, a convicted sex offender must be informed of his or 
her registration obligations, initial registration shall take place 
prior to the offender being released from prison, and registration 
information is to be immediately forwarded to any other jurisdiction 
in which the sex offender is required to register. 42 U.S.C. §§ 
16911(10)(H), 16913(b)(1), 16917(a), 16921(b). Sex offenders who are 
not sentenced to a term of imprisonment are to register not later than 
3 business days after being sentenced. 42 U.S.C. § 16913(b)(2). 

[14] For the standards described in this paragraph, see 42 U.S.C. §§ 
16911-16913, 16915-16916, 16918. 

[15] NCIC is a computerized index of criminal justice information 
(i.e., fugitives, stolen properties, and missing persons) that is 
available to authorized federal, state, local, territorial, and tribal 
law enforcement and other criminal justice agencies 24 hours a day, 
throughout the year. NSOR is a national database within NCIC that 
authorized federal, state, local, territorial, and tribal law 
enforcement officials can use to access information on registered sex 
offenders throughout the United States. 

[16] IAFIS is a national automated fingerprint identification and 
criminal history system maintained by the FBI that provides automated 
fingerprint search capabilities, electronic image storage, and 
electronic exchange of fingerprints. CODIS, also maintained by the 
FBI, is a multilevel database where DNA profiles can be stored and 
searched. The FBI's National Palm Print System is a centralized 
repository for palm print data that law enforcement can access 
nationwide to solve crimes. 

[17] A CSA is the agency responsible for the administration and usage 
of the CJIS Division Programs for a state. 

[18] 42 U.S.C. § 16921(b). SORNA defines jurisdiction as any of the 50 
states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, 
the Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and federally 
recognized tribes implementing SORNA under 42 U.S.C. § 16927. See 42 
U.S.C. § 16911(10). 

[19] The sum total of eligible tribes (214) and ineligible tribes 
(353) is 1 tribe greater than the total number of federally recognized 
tribes (566) because the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, for SORNA purposes, 
was split into two eligibility categories. One component of the tribe--
the Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake)--became eligible because the state 
retroceded jurisdiction to this band only, while other components of 
the tribe remained ineligible. 

[20] See 42 U.S.C. § 16927(a)(2)(A). 

[21] 18 U.S.C. § 1162(a). Section 1162, however, does not give the 
state criminal jurisdiction over the Red Lake Reservation of 
Minnesota, the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, and the Metlakatla 
Indian Community of the Annette Islands Reservation in Alaska. In 
addition to these three statutory exceptions, the Secretary of the 
Interior is authorized to accept retrocession of jurisdiction by a 
state. See 25 U.S.C. § 1323(a). For example, Wisconsin retroceded 
state jurisdiction over the Menominee Reservation pursuant to the 
Menominee Restoration Act, Pub. L. No. 93-197, 87 Stat. 770 (1973) 
(codified at 25 U.S.C. §§ 903-903f); Menominee Indian Reservation in 
Wisconsin; Acceptance of Offer to Retrocede Jurisdiction, 41 Fed. Reg. 
8516 (Feb. 27, 1976); State v. Webster, 338 N.W.2d 474, 476-77 (Wis. 
1983). Accordingly, the tribes located on these reservations, as well 
as tribes subject to retrocession of state criminal jurisdiction, are 
eligible to implement SORNA. The Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas 
is also subject to state criminal jurisdiction in accordance with 
section 1162, and is therefore ineligible to implement SORNA. See 25 
U.S.C. § 1300b-15. 

[22] 42 U.S.C. § 16927(a). 

[23] 42 U.S.C. § 16945. 

[24] See 76 Fed. Reg. 1630, 1636-39 (Jan. 11, 2011). 

[25] Under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act 
of 1975, as amended, federally recognized tribes can enter into self-
determination contracts and self-governance compacts with the federal 
government to take over administration of certain federal programs 
previously administered on their behalf. Pub. L. No. 93-638, 88 Stat. 
2203 (codified as amended at 25 U.S.C. §§ 450-458ddd-2). Self-
determination contracts allow tribes to assume responsibility for 
managing the program's day-to-day operations, with BIA providing 
technical oversight to ensure that the tribe meets contract terms, as 
opposed to BIA administering the program on their behalf. Self-
governance compacts transfer to tribes the administration of the 
program and provide the tribes with some flexibility in program 
administration. For both self-determination contracts and self-
governance compacts, the Secretary of the Interior negotiates and 
enters into written annual funding agreements with the governing body 
of the tribe, which specifies the Interior program that the tribe will 
administer, the tribe's and Interior's obligations, and the funds 
being transferred to the tribe. 

[26] We selected 2 tribes from the states we had already selected for 
our review. We did not interview the remaining 22 tribes. 

[27] SORNA requires law enforcement officials to continually monitor 
registered sex offenders to ensure that offenders comply with the 
terms of their registration. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 16916, 16922. Where 
offenders are located in areas considered as remote, this may pose 
access challenges for monitoring officials. 

[28] Additional reasons why tribes did not submit a package included 
staff turnover (2 tribes), lack of cooperation from federal or state 
partners (2 tribes), and prioritizing other law enforcement issues (1 
tribe). 

[29] Our survey presented a list of 19 factors that could pose a 
challenge to tribes' implementation of SORNA. For each factor, we 
asked tribes to check whether the factor applied to them, and if so, 
if it posed a major challenge, a minor challenge, or no challenge to 
SORNA implementation. We also provided tribes the opportunity to 
identify other challenges in an open comment box. 

[30] 42 U.S.C. §§ 16919, 16921(b)(1) 

[31] Of the tribes that responded to our survey, 58 reported that they 
are able to submit sex offender information to NSOR, but only with the 
assistance of another federal, state, or local law enforcement agency. 
They are not able to submit this information on their own. 

[32] See, e.g., N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 1.20(34) (McKinney 2014) 
(tribal law enforcement officers are not specifically listed as 
persons considered "police officers" under New York law). State 
switches enable access to federal and state databases. 

[33] FBI CJIS assigns an Originating Agency Identification number to 
each agency that it has granted access to federal criminal databases 
so as to easily link the information to a particular agency. 

[34] The COPS Office is a DOJ component agency that seeks to advance 
the practice of community policing in state, local, and tribal law 
enforcement agencies. COPS does its work principally by sharing 
information and making grants to police departments around the United 
States. 

[35] The Office on Violence Against Women, a component of DOJ, is 
responsible for providing federal leadership in developing the 
national capacity to reduce violence against women and administer 
justice for and strengthen services to victims of domestic violence, 
dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. The Office of Justice 
Programs, within DOJ, provides leadership to federal, state, local, 
and tribal, justice systems, by disseminating state-of-the art 
knowledge and practices on crime-fighting strategies across America, 
and providing grants for the implementation of these strategies. 

[36] Three of the 41 tribes that indicated that lack of notification 
from state prisons was a factor that applied to them did not identify 
whether the lack of notification was a major challenge, a minor 
challenge, or not a challenge. 

[37] We interviewed sex offender registry and SORNA officials in 10 
states where tribes that have retained their authority are located, 
and the officials told us that they include convicted sex offenders 
who live, work, or attend school on tribal lands in the state sex 
offender registry. 

[38] 42 U.S.C. §§ 16911(10)(H), 16913(b), 16917(a), 16921(b). Sex 
offenders who are not sentenced to a term of imprisonment are to 
register not later than 3 business days after being sentenced. 42 
U.S.C. §16913(b)(2). In addition, the SMART Office has interpreted the 
requirement to forward sex offenders' registration information 
"immediately" to mean within 3 business days. See 73 Fed. Reg. 38,030, 
38,044, 38,060. 

[39] See 42 U.S.C. §§ 16913, 16921. Under SORNA, for ineligible and 
delegated tribes, such notification would go to the jurisdiction 
carrying out the tribes' SORNA functions. We will discuss the 
notification requirements pertaining to these tribes later in this 
report. Regarding tribes that retained SORNA implementation authority 
as well as ineligible, and delegated tribes, notification would also 
go to the law enforcement agencies, schools, and public housing 
agencies located on the tribes' land. 42 U.S.C. § 16921(b)(2). 

[40] Even though notification to tribes is a SORNA requirement, as we 
reported in February 2013, some states have had to amend existing 
state laws or enact new laws in order to implement certain SORNA 
provisions. See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-211]. 
We contacted officials in 25 states to determine whether these states 
require their state departments of corrections or appropriate 
registration officials to notify tribes that have retained their 
authority to implement SORNA, prior to releasing a sex offender who 
plans to live, work, or attend school on tribal lands. These 25 states 
included (1) states where tribes that responded to our survey 
identified as having not been notified about registered sex offenders 
who indicated that they would be living, working, or attending school 
on tribal lands upon release from prison; (2) states that have 
substantially implemented SORNA and also have tribes that have 
retained their authority to implement SORNA within their borders; and 
(3) states whose officials we contacted previously to conduct other 
audit work. Officials from 20 of the 25 states responded to our 
requests for information. 

[41] Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4042, notice shall be provided to state, 
tribal, and local jurisdictions where one who is required to register 
under SORNA, is released from prison or sentenced to probation. 
Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) officials reported that the agency 
implemented a new policy in May 2014 to ensure the agency complies 
with the statutory requirements regarding notification of sex 
offenders' release. According to BOP officials, the new policy 
requires that federal correctional facilities are to mail and fax or e-
mail copies of the Prisoner Release Notification form (BP-A0710) to 
the chief law enforcement officer and sex offender registration 
official(s) of the tribe when releasing a prisoner convicted of a sex 
offense. Federal correctional facilities are also to provide this 
information to the SORNA contact in the state where the tribe has 
territory, local law enforcement officials who are in proximity to the 
tribe, as well as federal probation officials in the state. 

[42] To assist jurisdictions to develop, organize, and submit their 
substantial implementation package materials, the SMART Office 
developed the SORNA Substantial Implementation Checklist tool. To 
complete the checklist, states must identify the specific statute or 
regulation that is to fulfill each SORNA requirement, including 
forwarding sex offender information to other relevant SORNA 
jurisdictions. The SMART Office also requires that states that have a 
tribe or tribes eligible to implement SORNA located within their 
boundaries provide MOAs or other information-sharing agreements to 
facilitate notification of sex offender release. For states that have 
substantially implemented SORNA, the SMART Office uses this 
information as the basis for an additional section titled "Tribal 
Considerations" in these states' Substantial Implementation Review 
reports. 

[43] Tribes may have MOAs with local law enforcement officials who 
authorize these officials to carry out certain law enforcement 
functions on tribal lands. 

[44] The Byrne Justice Memorial Discretionary Grants Program is a key 
provider of federal criminal justice funding to state and local 
jurisdictions. Established to streamline justice funding and grant 
administration, the Byrne JAG Program allows states, tribes, and local 
governments to support a broad range of activities to prevent and 
control crime based on their own local needs and conditions. See 42 
U.S.C. §§ 3750-3758. The Adam Walsh Act Implementation Grant Program 
assists jurisdictions eligible to implement SORNA with developing or 
enhancing programs designed to implement the law. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 
16925(c), 16945(c)(2). 

[45] Federal, state, tribal, and local law enforcement agencies 
conduct compliance operations to ensure sex offenders within a certain 
area reside at their registered address or are otherwise compliant 
with sex offender registration laws. 

[46] 25 U.S.C. § 2802(c)(1). 

[47] 25 U.S.C. § 2802(c)(9), (12). 

[48] Tribes with self-governance compacts operate their tribal law 
enforcement agencies themselves, tribes with self-determination 
contracts perform criminal investigation and police services under BIA 
oversight, and direct service tribes receive all law enforcement 
services directly from BIA. In some cases, the tribe provides 
uniformed police services and BIA continues to provide criminal 
investigation services. According to BIA, SORNA-related functions, 
such as arresting sex offenders who fail to comply with registration 
requirements, are the responsibility of uniformed police rather than 
criminal investigators. 

[49] The BIA OJS senior official did not recall when the SMART Office 
provided BIA with the initial list of tribes that had retained their 
SORNA implementation authority. 

[50] The types of additional assistance these tribes indicated they 
would like from BIA include funding, equipment, or the manpower to 
perform at least some aspects of their sex offender registry programs. 

[51] 42 U.S.C. § 16927; 73 Fed. Reg. at 38,039. 

[52] According to GAO's analysis of data from the SMART Office, there 
are 15 states with delegated tribes; however, officials from only 13 
states responded to our inquiry, including 1 official who incorrectly 
reported that the state had not been delegated authority for any tribe 
and had no delegated tribes. Therefore, we received valid responses 
from only 12 states. 

[53] 42 U.S.C. § 16921(b). The SORNA National Guidelines interpret 
"immediately" as within 3 business days. See 73 Fed. Reg. at 38,060. 

[54] We obtained data from the Department of Education specifically 
regarding only public schools located on tribal lands, therefore, 
there may be additional tribes that have private schools on their 
lands; however, we did not obtain this information. 

[55] See 73 Fed. Reg. at 38,061. 

[56] 42 U.S.C. §§ 16911(1)-(3), 16918(c)(1). 

[57] At the time of our survey, 166 tribes had retained their 
authority to implement SORNA. We did not survey 4 of the 166 because, 
according to the SMART Office, these tribes are either newly 
recognized tribes that have not elected whether or not to implement 
SORNA, or are still in the process of acquiring land. These tribes 
include the Cayuga Nation, the Delaware Tribe of Indians, the Samish 
Indian Nation, and the Shinnecock Indian Nation. We did not also 
survey the Onondaga Indian Nation because tribal officials told us at 
the time of our survey that they were in the process of delegating 
their SORNA authority to the state and had not taken any actions to 
implement the act. 

[58] An electronic supplement to this report provides the survey 
results. See GAO, Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act,: 
Survey of Federally Recognized Tribes on Implementation of the Act 
([hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-30SP], November 2014), 
an E-supplement to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-23], 
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 16, 2014). 

[59] The Bureau of Indian Affairs provides direct services, such as 
law enforcement services, to certain tribes, commonly referred to as 
direct service tribes, that do not operate certain programs 
themselves. 25 U.S.C. §§ 450f, 2802(c)(1). 

[60] NCIC is a computerized index of criminal justice information 
(i.e., criminal record history information, fugitives, stolen 
properties, and missing persons) that is available to authorized 
federal, state, and local law enforcement and other criminal justice 
agencies 24 hours a day, throughout the year. NSOR is a national 
database within the FBI's NCIC that authorized federal, state, local, 
territorial, and tribal law enforcement officials can use to gain 
access to information on registered sex offenders throughout the 
United States. 

[61] SORNA required eligible tribes wishing to implement the act to 
submit a resolution within a year of the act's enactment, electing to 
implement the law themselves as opposed to delegating their authority 
to implement to a state. 42 U.S.C. § 16927(a). 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the 
performance and accountability of the federal government for the 
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates 
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, 
and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, 
and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is 
reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and 
reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select 
"E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO's actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO's 
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

Congressional Relations: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

[End of document]