SORNA Implementation Guidance | SMART Watch Newsletter, Winter 2010

SORNA Implementation Guidance

Since the last issue of SMART Watch, significant progress has been made in SORNA implementation. In fall 2009, the SMART Office found that three jurisdictions (two tribes and one state) have substantially implemented SORNA. Despite this progress, however, much work remains to be done in a short amount of time. The original deadline for jurisdictions to substantially implement SORNA was July 27, 2009. All jurisdictions requested—and received—a 1-year extension to July 26, 2010, and may request an additional 1-year extension, bringing the final implementation deadline to July 26, 2011.

This article provides tips and resources to help your jurisdiction move toward substantial implementation, focusing on issues relating to information sharing and the complex area of tribal-state communications. The article includes the following sections:

Public Sex Offender Registry Website Interface With NSOPW
Information Sharing Within the State and With Other Jurisdictions
Foreign Relocation Procedures
State/Tribal Interface
SMART Help

Substantial Implementation Framework

Many jurisdictions have asked the SMART Office to clarify how we conduct a substantial implementation review. Because every jurisdiction's laws and policies differ, we must work within the framework of SORNA's final guidelines provided by the Attorney General, and we offer the following guidance to help your jurisdiction institute SORNA-compliant laws, policies, and procedures.

The guidelines state that jurisdictions' programs cannot be approved if they substitute some approach to sex offender registration and notification that does not incorporate SORNA's baseline requirements. In addition, the guidelines state that implementation programs cannot be approved if they dispense wholesale with categorical requirements set forth in SORNA.

On the other hand, the guidelines do provide that we may approve a jurisdiction's implementation efforts that do not exactly follow all specifications of SORNA or the guidelines. The guidelines require us to consider, on a case-by-case basis, whether jurisdictions' departure from a SORNA requirement will or will not substantially disserve the objectives of the requirement.

After assessing whether a jurisdiction has sufficiently addressed each SORNA requirement, we examine the jurisdiction's implementation program as a whole to determine if it promotes the overall objectives of SORNA.

Our best advice? Jurisdictions should reach out to us as early as possible when developing their SORNA implementation program and discuss with us specific issues that may arise. We will be as flexible as possible within the framework established by the Act and the guidelines, and we look forward to advising each jurisdiction in efforts to achieve substantial implementation.

As more jurisdictions implement SORNA, we will provide additional context for the substantial implementation framework.

Public Sex Offender Registry Website Interface With NSOPW

SORNA requires that every jurisdiction's public sex offender registry website fully participate in the National Sex Offender Public Website (NSOPW). As NSOPW's capacity expands to include additional methods of searching and displaying information (to include geographic radius searches), jurisdictions will need to ensure that all of the necessary registration information is being forwarded to NSOPW, preferably by way of a web service. If a tribe is using the Tribe and Territory Sex Offender Registry System, this interface is automatic. (See Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender Public Website for more information.)

Information Sharing Within the State and With Other Jurisdictions

Information sharing is a core component of SORNA. It is critical to effective investigation, enforcement, and notification. As we review jurisdictions' submissions, we will ask how information is shared within the jurisdiction (from local registry offices to jurisdiction-wide registration officials) and how the jurisdiction plans to exchange information with all of the SORNA registration jurisdictions. It is also important for states to establish information sharing systems with the implementing tribes in their state. We have developed software tools to assist states, territories, and tribes.

Foreign Relocation Procedures

SORNA mandates that the U.S. Department of Justice, in conjunction with the U.S. Departments of Homeland Security and State, develop a system for tracking sex offenders as they enter and depart the United States. Part of the system's tapestry is the SORNA final guidelines requirement that jurisdictions follow certain procedures when registered sex offenders notify them of their intent to relocate to a foreign country. In our review of implementation packages, we will ensure that these procedures are followed.

State/Tribal Interface

Tribes may find it beneficial to enter into memoranda of understanding (MOU) or cooperative agreements with states or county/municipal governments to handle aspects of the registration process or for all registration and notification functions. These types of agreements must be formal and have legal authority. If such MOUs are in place, state and tribal implementation submissions to the SMART Office must include copies of any such agreements and paperwork. In addition, if state law or policy allows for tribes to submit fingerprints, palm prints, and DNA to national databases through state systems, states and tribes should work together to ensure that a formalized process is in place for these submissions. For states that are responsible for sex offender registration and notification on tribal lands, we will be reviewing those states' efforts to include the tribes in their registration and notification systems. For more information on SORNA in Indian Country, please see our article SORNA Implementation Issues in Indian Country in this issue of SMART Watch.

Ohio: Timeline of SMART's Review

Ohio first submitted its substantial implementation package to us in June 2008. In January 2009, after ongoing discussion and clarification sessions with Ohio, we determined that the state had not substantially implemented SORNA and issued a final report to the Ohio Attorney General's Office. From January 2009 to September 2009, Ohio worked on the issues that had been raised in this report, many of which the state addressed and resolved via administrative actions. In September 2009, we determined that Ohio had substantially implemented SORNA.

The Ohio Attorney General's Office estimates Ohio's SORNA implementation costs to be approximately $400,000.

SMART Help

As always, we recommend that jurisdictions contact SMART Office staff for assistance in developing SORNA substantial implementation packages for review. All states, territories, and tribes have an assigned SMART Office policy advisor. If you have questions about SORNA, the final guidelines, or SMART's role, please do not hesitate to contact us.

SMART Office
Office of Justice Programs
U.S. Department of Justice
810 7th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20531
202–514–4689
202–616–2906 (fax)
[email protected]