Convicted Sex Offenders
Factors That Could Affect the Successful Implementation of Driver's License-Related Processes to Encourage Registration and Enhance Monitoring Gao ID: GAO-08-116 January 30, 2008To enhance public safety, all states have laws requiring convicted sex offenders to register with law enforcement authorities. Because ensuring compliance is a challenge, in part because offenders may move frequently, policy makers are considering a role for motor vehicle agencies. In response to section 636 of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (the Walsh Act) and as discussed with congressional committees, this report identifies (1) the various driver's license-related processes that states are using to encourage registration or provide additional monitoring of convicted sex offenders; (2) the level of modifications to states' information technology (IT) capabilities that would be needed, and the key cost factors involved, if a federal law were to require the screening of individuals against the respective state's sex offender registry and the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) National Sex Offender Registry before issuing a driver's license; and (3) other factors that could affect successful implementation of this type of screening program. To accomplish these objectives, GAO reviewed state statutes and surveyed motor vehicle and public safety agencies in 26 states. The 26 states reflect regional representation, among other factors. GAO also interviewed officials from various components in the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA). GAO is not making any recommendations in this report.
As of July 2007, 22 of the nation's 50 states were using some form of driver's license-related process to encourage registration or provide additional monitoring of convicted sex offenders. For example, nine states specifically require convicted sex offenders to obtain a driver's license, an identification card, or a sex offender registration card issued through driver's license-related processes, and five of these nine states also label the respective document with an annotation that identifies the person as a sex offender. One of the 22 states--Nevada--has a process for screening every driver's license applicant against the state's sex offender registry before issuing a license. However, no state has a screening process whereby all applicants are screened against both the respective state's sex offender registry and the FBI's national registry before being issued a driver's license. To establish this type of screening process, most of the motor vehicle agencies and sex offender registries in the 26 states surveyed by GAO said that moderate to major modifications to their current IT systems would be needed, with software modifications being a key cost factor. Many of the responding state agencies indicated that before reliable cost estimates for this type of screening process could be developed, operational or functional requirements must be clearly defined. Moreover, a recurring observation by motor vehicle agency officials was that given competing demands for programming resources, the agencies were not positioned to handle additional projects during the next several years. In addition to addressing IT and cost issues, successful implementation of a driver's license screening program for sex offenders will also hinge on how well the program incorporates key design considerations. Developing an effective "one-size-fits-all" screening program could be a daunting challenge given the different processes, procedures, databases, and operational environments among the motor vehicle and law enforcement agencies across the nation. If the federal government were to require this type of screening process, several key design factors could affect the outcomes of the process. Among other considerations cited by federal, state, and AAMVA officials, particularly important are design factors aimed at minimizing the burden on states, maintaining customer service at motor vehicle agencies, and mitigating unintended consequences. Although not an exhaustive list, these design considerations could affect the results from and the costs of a nationwide screening program. Decisions on the most optimal approach to pursue--and, if applicable, how best to integrate the design considerations discussed in GAO's report--likely would necessitate collaboration among various stakeholders, including interested states, AAMVA, and the FBI, which manages the national sex offender registry. In commenting on a draft copy of this report, DOJ and AAMVA provided technical clarifications, which GAO incorporated where appropriate.
GAO-08-116, Convicted Sex Offenders: Factors That Could Affect the Successful Implementation of Driver's License-Related Processes to Encourage Registration and Enhance Monitoring
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-116
entitled 'Convicted Sex Offenders: Factors That Could Affect the
Successful Implementation of Driver's License-Related Processes to
Encourage Registration and Enhance Monitoring' which was released on
January 30, 2008.
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.
Report to Congressional Committees:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
January 2008:
Convicted Sex Offenders:
Factors That Could Affect the Successful Implementation of Driver's
License-Related Processes to Encourage Registration and Enhance
Monitoring:
Monitoring Sex Offenders:
GAO-08-116:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-116, a report to congressional committees.
Why GAO Did This Study:
To enhance public safety, all states have laws requiring convicted sex
offenders to register with law enforcement authorities. Because
ensuring compliance is a challenge, in part because offenders may move
frequently, policy makers are considering a role for motor vehicle
agencies. In response to section 636 of the Adam Walsh Child Protection
and Safety Act of 2006 (the Walsh Act) and as discussed with
congressional committees, this report identifies (1) the various
driver‘s license-related processes that states are using to encourage
registration or provide additional monitoring of convicted sex
offenders; (2) the level of modifications to states‘ information
technology (IT) capabilities that would be needed, and the key cost
factors involved, if a federal law were to require the screening of
individuals against the respective state‘s sex offender registry and
the Federal Bureau of Investigation‘s (FBI) National Sex Offender
Registry before issuing a driver‘s license; and (3) other factors that
could affect successful implementation of this type of screening
program.
To accomplish these objectives, GAO reviewed state statutes and
surveyed motor vehicle and public safety agencies in 26 states. The 26
states reflect regional representation, among other factors. GAO also
interviewed officials from various components in the Department of
Justice (DOJ) and the American Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators (AAMVA). GAO is not making any recommendations in this
report.
What GAO Found:
As of July 2007, 22 of the nation‘s 50 states were using some form of
driver‘s license-related process to encourage registration or provide
additional monitoring of convicted sex offenders. For example, nine
states specifically require convicted sex offenders to obtain a
driver‘s license, an identification card, or a sex offender
registration card issued through driver‘s license-related processes,
and five of these nine states also label the respective document with
an annotation that identifies the person as a sex offender. One of the
22 states”Nevada”has a process for screening every driver‘s license
applicant against the state‘s sex offender registry before issuing a
license. However, no state has a screening process whereby all
applicants are screened against both the respective state‘s sex
offender registry and the FBI‘s national registry before being issued a
driver‘s license.
To establish this type of screening process, most of the motor vehicle
agencies and sex offender registries in the 26 states surveyed by GAO
said that moderate to major modifications to their current IT systems
would be needed, with software modifications being a key cost factor.
Many of the responding state agencies indicated that before reliable
cost estimates for this type of screening process could be developed,
operational or functional requirements must be clearly defined.
Moreover, a recurring observation by motor vehicle agency officials was
that given competing demands for programming resources, the agencies
were not positioned to handle additional projects during the next
several years.
In addition to addressing IT and cost issues, successful implementation
of a driver‘s license screening program for sex offenders will also
hinge on how well the program incorporates key design considerations.
Developing an effective ’one-size-fits-all“ screening program could be
a daunting challenge given the different processes, procedures,
databases, and operational environments among the motor vehicle and law
enforcement agencies across the nation. If the federal government were
to require this type of screening process, several key design factors
could affect the outcomes of the process. Among other considerations
cited by federal, state, and AAMVA officials, particularly important
are design factors aimed at minimizing the burden on states,
maintaining customer service at motor vehicle agencies, and mitigating
unintended consequences. Although not an exhaustive list, these design
considerations could affect the results from and the costs of a
nationwide screening program. Decisions on the most optimal approach to
pursue”and, if applicable, how best to integrate the design
considerations discussed in GAO‘s report”likely would necessitate
collaboration among various stakeholders, including interested states,
AAMVA, and the FBI, which manages the national sex offender registry.
In commenting on a draft copy of this report, DOJ and AAMVA provided
technical clarifications, which GAO incorporated where appropriate.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.GAO-08-116]. For more information, contact
Robert Goldenkoff at (202) 512-8777 or goldenkoffr@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
States Are Using a Variety of Driver's License-Related Processes to
Encourage Registration or Provide Additional Monitoring of Convicted
Sex Offenders:
Most States We Surveyed Report They Would Need to Modify Their
Information Technology Systems to Screen Individuals against Sex
Offender Databases before Issuing Driver's Licenses; Software
Modifications Would Be a Key Cost Factor:
Key Design Considerations Could Affect the Success of Screening
Programs Using Driver's License Processes:
Concluding Observations:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Overview of States' Processes for Encouraging Registration
or Providing Additional Monitoring of Convicted Sex Offenders:
Tables:
Table 1: States That GAO Surveyed to Obtain Perspectives on the
Screening Process Discussed in Section 636 of the Walsh Act:
Table 2: Overview of States That Have Statutory Requirements for Using
Driver's License-Related Processes for Encouraging Registration or
Providing Additional Monitoring of Convicted Sex Offenders:
Table 3: Overview of States with Agency Initiatives for Using Driver's
License-Related Processes for Encouraging Registration or Providing
Additional Monitoring of Convicted Sex Offenders:
Figures:
Figure 1: States That Have Driver's License-Related Processes to
Encourage Registration or Provide Additional Monitoring of Convicted
Sex Offenders:
Figure 2: Examples of Kansas and Louisiana Driver's Licenses and
Identification Cards Issued to Convicted Sex Offenders:
Figure 3: Overview of Nevada's Driver's License-Related Process as a
Means for Improving Compliance of Convicted Sex Offenders with
Registration Requirements:
Figure 4: Most State Agencies Reported That Moderate or Major
Modifications to Information Technology Systems Would Be Needed to
Establish the Screening Process Discussed in Section 636 of the Walsh
Act:
Figure 5: State Agencies Identified Key Cost Factors That Might Affect
Modifications to Information Technology Systems Needed to Establish the
Screening Process Discussed in Section 636 of the Walsh Act:
Abbreviations:
AAMVA: American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators:
CJIS: Criminal Justice Information Services:
DMV: department of motor vehicles:
DOJ: Department of Justice:
DPS: Department of Public Safety:
FBI: Federal Bureau of Investigation:
IT: information technology:
NSOR: National Sex Offender Registry:
SMART: Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering,
and Tracking:
SORNA: Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
January 30, 2008:
The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy:
Chairman:
The Honorable Arlen Specter:
Ranking Member:
Committee on the Judiciary:
United States Senate:
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.:
Chairman:
The Honorable Lamar Smith:
Ranking Member:
Committee on the Judiciary:
House of Representatives:
Nationwide, more than 600,000 convicted sex offenders are either
incarcerated, on probation, or residing freely in localities across the
United States, according to an estimate by the National Center for
Missing and Exploited Children. This large and growing population of
convicted sex offenders has raised public concerns in part because the
victims of sexual assaults are more likely to be children, most
perpetrators live in communities rather than in prison, and some sex
offenders, particularly those who go without treatment, are at greater
risk of committing another offense.[Footnote 1]
Beginning with Congress' enactment of the Jacob Wetterling Crimes
Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act in
1994, there have been national standards for sex offender registration
programs in the United States.[Footnote 2] The Adam Walsh Child
Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (the Walsh Act) enacted a new
comprehensive set of minimum national standards for sex offender
registration and notification, replacing the previously applicable
standards under the Wetterling Act.[Footnote 3] In addition to defining
the current national standards for state sex offender registration
programs, the Walsh Act requires that states submit information
concerning their registrants and updates thereto to the Attorney
General for inclusion in the National Sex Offender Registry (NSOR).
Maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), NSOR is a
national database that compiles information about registered sex
offenders obtained under the various state programs and makes that
information available to law enforcement agencies on a nationwide
basis. The data used to populate NSOR are provided to the Attorney
General by officials in the 50 states, each of which operates a
computerized sex offender registry.[Footnote 4] Most states' registries
are centrally maintained by a state criminal justice agency, such as
the state police or a department of public safety.
To be fully effective, sex offender registries need to be routinely
updated with current information on offenders' addresses and other
required information. However, maintaining complete and accurate
information can be problematic, as sex offenders may move frequently
and not comply with self-reporting requirements. To encourage greater
compliance with sex offender registration requirements, federal and
state policy makers have considered various mechanisms, such as
screening individuals against a state's sex offender registry database
when they apply for or renew a driver's license.[Footnote 5]
Section 636 of the Walsh Act mandated that we study the feasibility of
using driver's license-related processes to improve the level of
compliance with sex offender registration requirements for change of
address upon relocation and other related updates of personal
information. It also required that we determine the potential costs to
states to implement a process whereby all driver's license applicants
are prescreened against both the respective state's sex offender
registry and the FBI's NSOR. The information technology (IT) system
requirements necessary to implement such a screening process are not
yet defined. Thus, at the time of our study, the states did not have
enough information on what would be required of them to provide
reliable cost data. Therefore, in accordance with the congressional
mandate and as discussed with your offices, this report addresses the
following questions:
* In what ways are states using driver's license-related processes to
encourage registration or provide additional monitoring of convicted
sex offenders?
* If a federal law were enacted requiring states to screen individuals
against the respective state's sex offender registry and the FBI's NSOR
before issuing a driver's license, (a) what level of modifications
would states need to make to their IT capabilities to comply with such
a federal law and (b) what would be the key cost factors to implement
and maintain this screening capability?
* What other factors could affect the successful design and
implementation of a process for screening individuals against a state's
sex offender registry and the FBI's NSOR before issuing a driver's
license?
As further discussed with your offices, because the congressional
mandate mentioned Nevada's screening process as an example, this report
includes information on Nevada's approach for screening driver's
license applicants against the state's sex offender registry. To obtain
an understanding of Nevada's screening process, we contacted officials
at the state's Department of Motor Vehicles and Department of Public
Safety.
To determine ways that states are using driver's license-related
processes to encourage registration or provide additional monitoring of
convicted sex offenders, we conducted research of the statutory
requirements for all 50 states, and we reviewed the Web sites of
agencies responsible for either maintaining the respective state's sex
offender registry or issuing driver's licenses. Also, we interviewed
motor vehicle agency and sex offender registry officials in states that
we surveyed (see below).
To determine the capability of states' IT systems to screen individuals
against the respective state's sex offender registry and the FBI's NSOR
before issuing a driver's license and to determine the key cost factors
in implementing and maintaining this screening capability, we surveyed
motor vehicle agency and sex offender registry officials in 26 states
by sending them a questionnaire and following up with telephone
interviews. We selected these states to obtain regional representation
across the nation and a range in the number of sex offender registrants
(as this would affect the screening workload) as well as states with
and without a driver's license-related process for monitoring sex
offenders. Also, we made site visits to 3 of the 26 states (Delaware,
Georgia, and Maryland) where we interviewed officials of the state
motor vehicle agencies and sex offender registries. We selected these
three states because Delaware has a driver's license-related screening
process while Georgia and Maryland do not, and we wanted to obtain
additional perspectives on factors affecting the decisions to implement
or not implement a screening process. Overall, we received responses
from 38 state agencies (motor vehicle agencies and/or sex offender
registries) in 25 of the 26 states. Because these states constitute a
nonprobability sample, the responses cannot be viewed as representative
of the entire nation.
To determine what other factors could affect designing and implementing
a process to screen individuals against a state's sex offender registry
and the FBI's NSOR before issuing a driver's license, we contacted
officials at the FBI and Nevada's Department of Motor Vehicles and
Department of Public Safety. Also, in surveying the 26 other states, we
obtained perspectives from motor vehicle agency and sex offender
registry officials in these states.
In addition, to address all three objectives, we interviewed officials
from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators
(AAMVA).[Footnote 6]
We conducted this performance audit from July 2006 through December
2007 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Appendix I
presents more details about our objectives, scope, and methodology.
Results in Brief:
As of July 2007, 22 of the nation's 50 states were using some form of
driver's license-related process to encourage registration or provide
additional monitoring of convicted sex offenders. For example, nine
states specifically require convicted sex offenders to obtain a
driver's license, an identification card, or a sex offender
registration card issued through driver's license-related processes,
and five of these nine states also label the respective document with
an annotation that identifies the person as a sex offender. In seven
states, the duration of time between driver's license renewals for
convicted sex offenders is 1 year. One of the 22 states--Nevada--has a
real-time process for screening every driver's license applicant
against the state sex offender registry before issuing a license.
However, no state has the type of real-time screening process discussed
in section 636 of the Walsh Act--that is, a system whereby all
applicants are screened against both the respective state's sex
offender registry and the FBI's NSOR before being issued a driver's
license.[Footnote 7]
If a federal law were enacted requiring states to establish this type
of real-time screening system, moderate to major modifications to
states' current IT systems would be needed, with software modifications
being one of several key cost factors, according to most of the
responding motor vehicle agencies and sex offender registries in the 26
states we surveyed. For example, motor vehicle agency officials in one
state explained that software modifications would be needed in seven of
the agency's interrelated systems and that making the modifications
would be a major effort and require a project manager and both internal
resources and contractor support. Similarly, another state's motor
vehicle agency officials commented that the types of software used to
issue various types of driver's licenses and to account for the
respective fees are intertwined, with each governed by complex rules
and procedures. Also, these officials added that given competing
demands for programming resources, the agency was not positioned to
handle another project during the next several years. Further, 22 of
the responding state agencies indicated that before reliable cost
estimates can be made, the prospective screening system's operational
requirements must be clearly defined. For instance, the responses
indicated that the system's business rules should fully describe the
software functionality to be delivered, including what algorithm to use
in determining whether a driver's license applicant is matched to a
person listed in the sex offender registry and what happens when an
applicant is matched to more than one record in the sex offender
registry.[Footnote 8]
Beyond IT and cost issues, successfully implementing a driver's license-
screening program for convicted sex offenders would also depend on how
well the program incorporates key design considerations. Given the
different processes, procedures, databases, and operational
environments in the motor vehicle and law enforcement agencies across
the nation, developing an effective nationwide screening program could
be a significant challenge. To the extent the government moves forward
in this area, our interviews with federal, state, and AAMVA officials
indicated the importance of designing the screening program to (1)
minimize the burden on states, (2) maintain customer service at motor
vehicle agencies, (3) mitigate unintended consequences (e.g., causing
offenders to go "underground" and drive without a valid license), and
(4) communicate timely and actionable information on noncompliant
offenders to law enforcement personnel. For example, in minimizing the
burden on states, a consideration is whether the existing IT
infrastructure that connects all states' motor vehicle agencies and is
managed by AAMVA could be expanded or leveraged to support screening
against sex offender registries rather than creating an entirely new
infrastructure. Also, using a batch-processing mode to periodically
screen or cross-check motor vehicle agency records (driver's license
records as well as vehicle registration records) against applicable sex
offender registries may be less costly and more practical than a real-
time screening system, according to several of the states we
surveyed.[Footnote 9] Although not an exhaustive list, these design
considerations could affect the results from and the costs of a
nationwide screening program.
In commenting on a draft copy of this report, the Department of Justice
and AAMVA provided technical clarifications, which we incorporated
where appropriate.
Background:
All states, the District of Columbia, U.S. territories, and some Indian
tribes have laws and/or codes requiring convicted sex offenders to
register with local or state law enforcement authorities, the purpose
of which is to enhance public protection and provide an additional
investigative tool to law enforcement agencies.[Footnote 10] As
mentioned previously, in most states, the sex offender registry is
centrally maintained by a state criminal justice agency, such as the
state police or a department of public safety.
Between 1994 and 2003, Congress passed a series of laws requiring
states to establish sex offender registries to be eligible to receive
certain federal funds.[Footnote 11] More recently, in 2006, Congress
passed the Walsh Act to provide more consistency nationwide among the
states' sex offender registration programs and to make it more
difficult for sex offenders to evade monitoring. The Walsh Act requires
states to modify their registration systems in accordance with a
comprehensive set of minimum standards, or risk losing a percentage of
certain federal grant program funds. These minimum standards include
who must register, what information must be in the registries, how
often registrants must reappear in person to verify their registration
information and have new photographs taken, the number of years that
offenders must maintain their registration, and the penalties for
failure to register.[Footnote 12]
To be useful, sex offender registry information must be current and
complete. Under the Walsh Act, sex offenders who change their name,
residence, or employment or student status must, within 3 business
days, appear in person in at least one jurisdiction involved and
provide notice of all changes. That jurisdiction must immediately
provide updated information to all other jurisdictions in which the sex
offender is required to register.[Footnote 13] To monitor the
interstate movement of offenders, states participate in NSOR, which was
activated in 1999 as a component of the FBI's National Crime
Information Center. NSOR enables law enforcement agencies to share
information across states. For instance, law enforcement can run name
checks against NSOR to identify sex offenders who have failed to
register after moving from one state to another. NSOR is available to
law enforcement only and allows for the use of extensive personal
identifying information, including alias identifications, in queries
for potential matches. According to the FBI, to meet the needs of law
enforcement in dealing with offenders who may provide false information
upon being arrested, each NSOR record can contain up to 100 names, 10
Social Security numbers, and 10 dates of birth.
Convicted sex offenders who fail to satisfy registration requirements
are subject to state or federal prosecution. The Walsh Act requires
states to impose criminal penalties (including a maximum term of
imprisonment that is greater than 1 year) on sex offenders who fail to
comply with registration requirements. In addition, the Walsh Act makes
failure to comply with registration requirements a federal crime
(punishable by up to 10 years in prison) for sex offenders who travel
between states or Indian tribal jurisdictions, or whose registrable
offenses are for federal, D.C., Indian, or territorial crimes.[Footnote
14] Noncompliance by offenders released to community supervision
generally may also be punishable by revocation of release. Despite the
potential for prosecution or revocation of release, ensuring compliance
with registration requirements is a significant challenge. According to
the Center for Sex Offender Management, every state is grappling with
problems regarding the accuracy of their sex offender
registries.[Footnote 15]
To better ensure compliance with registration requirements, some
observers have called for more interagency collaboration--to include,
in particular, a role for motor vehicle agencies. The National Center
for Missing and Exploited Children has advocated flagging driver-
license and vehicle registration files of sex offenders as a way to
keep law enforcement updated on address changes and other personal
data.[Footnote 16] In addition, following establishment of NSOR in
1999, the FBI encouraged states to take advantage of the national
registry. For instance, in guidance distributed in 1999 to all states'
sex offender registry points of contacts, the FBI noted that, upon
issuing new driver's licenses, motor vehicle agencies could initiate a
check of NSOR and provide the results (i.e., possible hits) to an
authorized criminal justice agency for investigation to verify the
identity of the individuals and determine whether they were required to
register as sex offenders under the applicable state's laws.[Footnote
17]
Aside from the prospective screening process discussed in section 636
of the Walsh Act, the states say they are faced with extensive demands
in implementing other federal legislation, the REAL ID Act, which
creates national standards for the issuance of state driver's licenses
and identification cards.[Footnote 18] For example, the REAL ID Act
contemplates the use of five national electronic systems to facilitate
verification, but currently only one of these systems is available on a
nationwide basis.[Footnote 19]
States Are Using a Variety of Driver's License-Related Processes to
Encourage Registration or Provide Additional Monitoring of Convicted
Sex Offenders:
As of July 2007, 22 of the nation's 50 states were using some form of
driver's license-related process to encourage registration or provide
additional monitoring of convicted sex offenders. Generally, as
indicated in figure 1, these states and processes can be grouped among
five categories--(1) mandatory-identification states, (2) annual-
renewal states, (3) license-suspension states, (4) license-annotation
states, and (5) cross-validation states.
Figure 1: States That Have Driver's License-Related Processes to
Encourage Registration or Provide Additional Monitoring of Convicted
Sex Offenders:
This figure is a map showing which states have driver's license-related
processes to encourage registration or provide additional monitoring of
convicted sex offenders.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of motor vehicle agency data, Corel Corp (map).
[End of figure]
As shown in figure 1, nine states--Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Florida,
Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, and Texas--specifically
require convicted sex offenders to obtain either a driver's license, an
identification card, or a sex offender registration card issued through
driver's license-related processes. Further, five of these nine states-
-Alabama, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi--also label the
applicable driver's license, identification card, or registration card
with an annotation that identifies the person as a sex
offender.[Footnote 20] Two other states, Kansas and West Virginia, also
have an annotation requirement, although these states do not
specifically require convicted sex offenders to obtain either a
driver's license, an identification card, or a sex offender
registration card. Two of the seven "annotation" states, Kansas and
Louisiana, provided us examples of their annotated driver's licenses
and identification cards (see fig. 2).
Figure 2: Examples of Kansas and Louisiana Driver's Licenses and
Identification Cards Issued to Convicted Sex Offenders:
This figure are photocopied examples of driver's licenses and
identification cards from Kansas and Louisiana issued to sex offenders.
[See PDF for image]
Source: Sample driver's licenses and identification cards from state
motor vehicle agencies.
[End of figure]
In seven states, the duration of time between driver's license renewals
for convicted sex offenders is 1 year (in contrast to a multiyear
duration period typical for other residents). The renewal requirement
can be more frequent, for example, Mississippi law requires renewals
every 90 days for convicted sex offenders. And, under Florida law,
within 48 hours after any change of address in permanent or temporary
residence (or a change of name because of marriage or other legal
process), convicted sex offenders are required to report in person to a
driver's license office of the Florida Department of Highway Safety and
Motor Vehicles to update either a driver's license or an identification
card.
Mississippi was one of the first states in the nation to have a sex
offender registration process that broadly utilizes motor vehicle
agency or driver's license services. Since 2005, Mississippi has
required convicted sex offenders to personally appear every 90 days at
any driver's license office in the state and obtain a sex offender
registration card (similar to a driver's license) with updated
information (e.g., photograph and address), which is then forwarded to
the state's sex offender registry. According to state officials, this
process works efficiently in part because the Mississippi Highway
Patrol (which is responsible for driver services) and the Mississippi
Bureau of Investigation (which is responsible for maintaining the sex
offender registry) are under a single agency, the Mississippi
Department of Public Safety. Also, the officials noted that the
capability to use driver's license offices to register offenders was
particularly feasible, given that offices are located in 80 of the
state's 82 counties--and all offices are equipped to enter data, update
records, take photographs, and issue cards.
For additional information about the 22 states' driver's license-
related processes to encourage registration or provide additional
monitoring of convicted sex offenders, see appendix II.
Nevada's Approach Is Unique but Does Not Screen against the National
Sex Offender Registry:
Nevada is the one state that screens all applicants against a state sex
offender registry before issuing a driver's license or identification
card; however, Nevada does not screen against the FBI's NSOR. Thus,
while Nevada's screening process most closely reflects the potential
screening capability discussed in section 636 of the Walsh Act,
Nevada's screening process would not detect a sex offender who moved to
Nevada from another jurisdiction without permission and did not
register in the state (an "absconder"). Absent other cross-validation
information, the offender could possibly receive a regular driver's
license (or identification card) with a 4-year expiration term.
Nevada's screening process is based on state law enacted in 2005--
Nevada Senate Bill 341, Chapter 507 of Statutes of Nevada 2005.
Pursuant to this law, beginning July 1, 2006, the Department of Motor
Vehicles may not issue or renew a driver's license to a convicted sex
offender until the Department of Motor Vehicles has received
information from the Department of Public Safety's central repository
or other satisfactory evidence indicating that the convicted sex
offender is in compliance with registration requirements. Under the
process subsequently developed and used to implement the requirements
of this statute, all individuals applying for an initial driver's
license, requesting a driver's license renewal, or requesting other
services (e.g., a duplicate license or an update of information) from
the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles are screened against the
state's sex offender registry. To initiate the screening process, the
Department of Motor Vehicles electronically transmits a query to the
Department of Public Safety's central repository, which conducts a
search against the state's sex offender registry records.[Footnote 21]
The data elements used in the screening or matching process to
determine if the applicant is a sex offender are the applicant's last
name, first name, date of birth, and Social Security number--and, if
applicable, a previously issued operator license number (driver's
license number), including the state of issuance.[Footnote 22]
Using these data elements, the Department of Public Safety conducts the
search and provides a single-digit response (0, 1, or 2) to the
Department of Motor Vehicles--normally within 15 seconds, according to
state officials. The applicable single-digit responses and related
actions are as follows (see fig. 3):
* 0: No definitive match to a single record in the sex offender
registry. The Department of Motor Vehicles follows its normal
procedures and issues the individual a 4-year license.
* 1: Positive match to a record in the sex offender registry, and the
person is in compliance with registration requirements. The Department
of Motor Vehicles issues the individual a 1-year license (versus the
standard 4-year license).
* 2: Positive match to a record in the sex offender registry, and the
person is not in compliance with registration requirements. A driver's
license is not issued. Rather, the Department of Motor Vehicles gives
the noncompliant offender a standardized, 1-page printout of
instructions that outlines how to resolve the matter.
Nevada's automated process does not require customer-service employees
at the Department of Motor Vehicles to review or interpret responses to
the query. For example, when an applicant is identified as a compliant
sex offender, the system software automatically adjusts the driver's
license expiration date to 1 year. On the other hand, when the system
identifies an individual as a noncompliant sex offender, it produces
the standardized printout of instructions rather than a driver's
license.
Figure 3: Overview of Nevada's Driver's License-Related Process as a
Means for Improving Compliance of Convicted Sex Offenders with
Registration Requirements:
This figure is a flowchart showing an overview of Nevada's driver's
license-related process as a means for improving compliance of
convicted sex offenders with registration requirements.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of information provided by Nevada Department of
Motor Vehicles and Department of Public Safety.
Note: The term "driver's license" includes commercial driver's license
and identification card, as applicable; and, the screening process
covers most transactions or services conducted by the Department of
Motor Vehicles (e.g., issuing an initial license, renewing a license,
issuing a duplicate license, and updating of information).
[End of figure]
In Nevada, convicted sex offenders must appear in person at a
Department of Motor Vehicles office to conduct all driver's license-
related services. Offenders are not permitted to obtain or renew a
license by mail or Internet, nor by use of interactive computers
(kiosks) available at licensing locations. To ensure that convicted sex
offenders do not circumvent the in-person requirement, all mail,
Internet, and kiosk transactions are screened against the state's sex
offender registry. If a positive match results, the individual is
informed that the transaction must be conducted in person at a
Department of Motor Vehicles location, irrespective of whether the
individual is or is not in compliance with registration requirements.
Most States We Surveyed Report They Would Need to Modify Their
Information Technology Systems to Screen Individuals against Sex
Offender Databases before Issuing Driver's Licenses; Software
Modifications Would Be a Key Cost Factor:
In our survey of 26 states, most of the responding motor vehicle
agencies and sex offender registries reported that (1) moderate or
major modifications to their current IT systems would be needed to
screen driver's license applicants against the respective state's sex
offender registry and the FBI's NSOR before issuing a license and (2)
the most significant cost factor would be software
modifications.[Footnote 23] Also, the agencies generally indicated that
reliable cost estimates for establishing the prospective screening
system discussed in section 636 of the Walsh Act cannot be calculated
until the system's operational requirements or business rules are
clearly defined.[Footnote 24]
As figure 4 shows, 30 of 38 state agencies (in the 25 states that
responded to our survey) reported that moderate or major modifications
to their current IT systems would be needed to establish the type of
real-time screening process discussed in section 636 of the Walsh Act.
Moreover, most of the responding state agencies identified development
of software, telecommunications, and business rules as key factors that
could affect the overall costs of the modifications--and that each of
these factors could have a moderate or major impact on the overall
costs (see fig. 5).
Figure 4: Most State Agencies Reported That Moderate or Major
Modifications to Information Technology Systems Would Be Needed to
Establish the Screening Process Discussed in Section 636 of the Walsh
Act:
This figure is a bar graph showing that most state agencies reported
that moderate or major modifications to information technology would be
needed to establish the screening process discussed on section 636 of
the Walsh Act.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of state agency survey responses.
Note: The 25 states that responded to our survey provided a total of 41
responses, which consisted of responses from 20 motor vehicle agencies
and 17 sex offender registry agencies, plus responses from 4 states
that each presented the combined views of the respective state's
agencies. However, as noted in appendix I, some of the 41 respondents
did not complete every part of the questionnaire. Thus, the data
presented in figure 4 cover 38 respondents.
[A] One of the four states that provided a single response did not
complete the questionnaire section that is the basis for figure 4.
[End of figure]
Figure 5: State Agencies Identified Key Cost Factors That Might Affect
Modifications to Information Technology Systems Needed to Establish the
Screening Process Discussed in Section 636 of the Walsh Act:
This figure is a bar graph showing state agencies identified key cost
factors that might affect modifications to information technology
systems needed to establish the screening process discussed in section
636 of the Walsh Act.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of state agency survey responses.
Note: The 25 states that responded to our survey provided a total of 41
responses, which consisted of responses from 20 motor vehicle agencies
and 17 sex offender registry agencies, plus responses from 4 states
that each presented the combined views of the respective state's
agencies. However, as noted in appendix I, some of the 41 respondents
did not complete every part of the questionnaire. Thus, the data
presented in figure 5 cover 39 respondents.
[End of figure]
Generally, 33 of the responding agencies indicated that software
modifications would be the most significant cost factor. For example,
in responding to our survey, officials from a West Coast state's motor
vehicle agency emphasized that major software modifications--i.e.,
replacing or upgrading information system programming--would be needed
to establish the capability to screen driver's license applicants
against the state's sex offender registry and the FBI's NSOR. The
officials explained that software modifications to support logic
changes in calculations of expiration dates (e.g., 1-year versus 5-
year)--as well as calculations of the applicable fees to collect--would
be needed in seven automated systems, which are interrelated. For
example, according to the officials, two of the interrelated systems
are (1) the automated system that supports driver's license and
identification card issuance, revenue processing, and workload
reporting and (2) the data warehouse where activity to driver records
is stored and used for analysis and statistical reporting.
Thus, because numerous automated systems would be affected, the state
officials reiterated that establishing the proposed screening process
would be a major effort, requiring a project manager and both internal
resources and contractor support. Moreover, given competing demands,
the officials expressed concerns about taking on another major project.
For instance, the officials noted that the agency was in the process of
implementing various other IT projects, in addition to efforts related
to implementing REAL ID Act requirements.
Similarly, officials from another state's motor vehicle agency
responded that the proposed screening process would necessitate major
software modifications to the agency's automated systems. The officials
explained that the software used to issue licenses and the software
used to account for fees collected are intertwined, and each is
governed by complex rules and procedures that are not easily changed
without affecting the entire program. Among other complexities, the
officials noted that the state issues various types of driver's
licenses (e.g., private licenses, commercial and non-commercial
licenses, conditional licenses, ignition interlock licenses, etc.) and
that the fees vary by type of license. Further, the state officials
commented that--given competing demands for programming resources, most
notably demands generated by the REAL ID Act--the agency would be in no
position for several more years to even begin making the needed
software modifications associated with the prospective screening
system.
To support the prospective screening process discussed in section 636
of the Walsh Act, state motor vehicle agencies said they would need an
electronic telecommunication interface not only with the respective
state's sex offender registry agency, but also with the FBI's NSOR. In
23 of the 26 states we surveyed, separate organizational entities are
responsible for issuing driver's licenses and maintaining the
respective state's sex offender registry--and, these states reported
that no electronic telecommunication interface currently exists to
facilitate the real-time exchange of data.[Footnote 25] Thus, they
reported that the interface capability would have to be established and
would be another key cost factor.
As figure 5 further indicates, the state agencies also reported that
another key cost factor is the prospective screening system's business
rules, which should specify operational and functional requirements.
Further, the states indicated that reliable cost estimates for
establishing the prospective screening system discussed in section 636
of the Walsh Act cannot be calculated until the system's business rules
are clearly defined. For example, regarding the prospective screening
system, states said that business rules should fully describe the
software functionality to be delivered, including what algorithm to use
in determining whether a driver's license applicant is a person listed
in the sex offender registry and what happens when an applicant is
matched to more than one record in the sex offender registry. We have
found in past work that establishing well-defined business rules is
critically important in being able to make reliable cost estimates for
any IT system or project. Decisions made on business rules can have far-
reaching impacts on all aspects of project delivery, including costs.
Among other considerations, requirements should fully describe the
software functionality to be delivered. Studies by GAO and others have
shown that problems associated with requirements definition are key
factors in software projects that do not meet their cost, schedule, and
performance goals.[Footnote 26]
Key Design Considerations Could Affect the Success of Screening
Programs Using Driver's License Processes:
Beyond the IT and cost issues discussed in the previous section,
successful implementation of a driver's license screening program for
sex offenders will also hinge on how well the program incorporates key
design considerations. Developing an effective nationwide screening
program could be a daunting challenge given the different processes,
procedures, databases, and operational environments in the motor
vehicle and law enforcement agencies across the nation.
Operational Challenges Could Affect the Successful Implementation of
the Screening Program:
In addition to the various IT issues noted earlier, our conversations
with federal, state, and AAMVA officials identified key operational
challenges that could affect the successful implementation of the type
of screening program discussed in the Walsh Act. For example, a
recurring observation by the motor vehicle agency officials we
contacted is that their offices are already overburdened. Some states
are still addressing earlier federal mandates such as the requirements
of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999,[Footnote 27]
while, as noted earlier in this report, implementing the requirements
of the REAL ID Act is also proving difficult for states. At the same
time, state legislatures are tasking motor vehicle agencies with new
responsibilities that generate demands on programming and other
resources, according to the state agencies we surveyed. Consequently, a
key concern expressed by state and AAMVA officials is that a sex
offender screening process could become an unfunded mandate and be
difficult, if not impossible, for states to execute on their own
because their budgets are already strained.
Moreover, the efficient operation of the screening process could be
problematic given the different entities that would need to be
integrated. For example, according to AAMVA, some state motor vehicle
agencies are independent, while others are under a state's Department
of Revenue, Department of Public Safety, or Department of
Transportation. Likewise, in some jurisdictions, state-issued
identification cards, which could be used to track those individuals
who lack driver's licenses, are issued by non-motor vehicle agencies.
Consequently, these different entities would need to coordinate with
one another and share information for the screening process to function
effectively. Individual motor vehicle offices within a particular state
can differ as well, depending, for example, on whether they are located
in urban or more remote locales. This in turn could affect the number
of staff or physical space available to carry out the screening
program.
Some populations could present unique screening challenges. For
example, according to AAMVA, in urban locations such as Manhattan, a
number of residents do not have driver's licenses and would need to
obtain identification cards in order to be included in the screening
process. Further, according to the director of the Department of
Justice's Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending,
Registering, and Tracking (SMART) Office, Indian tribes differ as to
how they handle driver's licenses. Some tribes issue their own driver's
licenses, whereas other tribes rely on applicable state agencies.
Another challenge noted by the director is that records of Indian
tribal court convictions of sex offenders may not be readily accessible
for screening because such records generally are not contained in
either state or national sex offender registries.[Footnote 28]
State and AAMVA officials also underscored the importance of not
adversely affecting the main mission of the motor vehicle agencies.
Although they saw value in having the motor vehicle agencies support
efforts to track and monitor sex offenders, and acknowledged that the
public would feel safer knowing that states were taking these
additional steps to ensure sex offenders were complying with state
registration requirements, the officials were also concerned that
taking on this role could divert resources from the agencies' core
business functions and impair customer service.
A final challenge we heard was that state motor vehicle agencies
usually do not have access to sex offender registry or criminal history
records because they are not considered to be law enforcement entities.
As a result, legislative or administrative action at the state level
would be needed to authorize that access.
At the federal level, FBI Criminal Justice Information Services
Division officials explained that non-law-enforcement agencies (such as
state motor vehicle agencies) traditionally have not been authorized by
statute to access federal databases that contain criminal history
records, such as the National Crime Information Center and NSOR.
However, according to the Department of Justice's Office of Legal
Policy, the Attorney General now has the authority under the Walsh Act
to make determinations regarding access to NSOR. Still, the Office of
Legal Policy commented that the department generally does not act
unilaterally. Rather, the preference is to use the FBI Criminal Justice
Information Services Division's advisory process, which includes
obtaining input from the user community (federal, state, and local law
enforcement).
Key Design Considerations Could Help Mitigate Operational Challenges:
The numerous challenges to implementing the sex offender screening
program discussed in the Walsh Act highlight the importance of a sound
design that can function effectively in the different operating
environments found in the public safety agencies, motor vehicle
agencies, and other offices across the nation that would be involved in
the screening process. In particular, based on our interviews with
federal, state, and AAMVA officials, to the extent the government moves
forward with a sex offender screening program that employs driver's
license processes, it will be important that the screening program be
designed to (1) minimize the burden on states, (2) maintain customer
service, (3) mitigate unintended consequences, and (4) communicate
timely and actionable information on noncompliant offenders to law
enforcement personnel. Also, another important design consideration, as
indicated by our prior work on internal controls, is to provide a basis
for assessing the effectiveness of the screening program. These design
considerations could affect the successful implementation of the
screening program and its costs.
Minimize the Burden on States:
State and AAMVA officials described various ways they believed would
reduce the implementation and operational challenges that could result
if the screening process discussed in the Walsh Act were executed
nationwide. Their suggestions centered on exploring potential
efficiencies that could be gained from leveraging existing IT
infrastructure, batch processing agency records, and coordinating the
implementation of a sex offender screening program with implementation
of the REAL ID Act, to the extent feasible. Each is discussed in
greater detail below.
Leverage Existing IT Infrastructure: In response to our survey, nine
states indicated that using driver's license processes to encourage
convicted sex offenders to comply with registration requirements might
be achieved more efficiently by expanding or leveraging IT systems used
for existing administrative functions rather than by developing a new
telecommunication system from the ground up to link motor vehicle
offices, state law enforcement agencies, and the FBI's NSOR. In
particular, AAMVA and state officials noted that AAMVA operates a
secure, private data services network that already links the motor
vehicle agencies of all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Although U.S. territories and Indian tribes are not part of this system
and would need to be connected (thus incurring additional costs), and
additional resources would be required to operate the system, AAMVA
officials said the system possibly could form the needed conduit
between state and federal agencies at a lower cost.
Batch Process Agency Records: According to officials in three of the
states we contacted, batch processing motor vehicle agency records
against sex offender registries is a potentially less costly
alternative to the real-time screening process currently performed in
Nevada and discussed in the Adam Walsh Act. With batch processing,
driver's license applications from multiple individuals would be
bundled together into batches, and the screening process would be
executed during the evening or other less-busy times. With a real-time
screening process, each driver's license applicant is matched against
the sex offender registry in the course of over-the-counter
transactions.
Officials in one of the three states noted that batch processing could
have several advantages, such as significantly simplifying IT
requirements, reducing development and ongoing costs, and relieving
motor vehicle agency employees from any direct confrontations with sex
offenders. Officials from the FBI's Criminal Justice Information
Services Division echoed this point, noting that batch processing could
facilitate a more efficient allocation of resources because it does not
require immediate attention by staff. In comparison, real-time
screening requires staff to research each query, potentially
interrupting their performance of other tasks.
Coordination with Implementation of the REAL ID Act, to the Extent
Feasible: As noted earlier in this report, motor vehicle agency
officials frequently mentioned that their systems were already
overburdened, and it will be difficult for them to take on new demands.
In particular, states noted how implementing the REAL ID Act will be
both expensive and technically challenging. For example, compliance
with the REAL ID Act's standards would require states to (1) maintain a
motor vehicle database that contains, among other information, all data
fields printed on the license or identification card and (2) provide
electronic access to all other states to information contained in the
motor vehicle database.
Although the intent of the REAL ID Act and the sex offender screening
process discussed in the Walsh Act are different, states we surveyed
reported that they would need to modify their IT systems to implement
both. Should the government move forward with the sex offender
screening process, officials from both the Department of Justice and
AAMVA noted the importance of identifying areas where the modifications
needed to implement the screening process overlap with those needed to
comply with the REAL ID Act so that both efforts could be integrated
and, thereby, avoid requiring states to upgrade their IT systems a
second time.
Maintain Customer Service:
Officials we contacted in 15 states, as well as AAMVA officials, were
concerned that using driver's license-related processes to monitor sex
offenders could divert resources from motor vehicle agencies' core
business functions. Further, several of these states, as well as AAMVA
officials, noted that this could in turn result in longer lines and
increased workloads for staff. Additionally, offenders may be unruly or
violent, a situation that could jeopardize the safety of staff and
customers. Law enforcement personnel might be needed on site, a
requirement that could be problematic for motor vehicle offices that
are small or are located in remote locations. Agency staff might need
special training because they would be assuming a law enforcement
function. Also, providing explanations to noncompliant offenders may
require more physical space for privacy than currently available in
over-the-counter settings, which could take away space needed for other
purposes.
During our study of Nevada's screening approach, agency officials told
us that maintaining the traditional operations of the state's motor
vehicle agency was both an important concern and significant challenge.
For example, the Driver's Program Manager at the Nevada Department of
Motor Vehicles noted that the department was opposed to any system that
would have required its customer-service staff to function as enforcers
of the law when interacting with convicted sex offenders, and the
screening approach was designed accordingly. For example, under
Nevada's approach, customer-service employees in the state's motor
vehicle agency do not review or interpret the results of searches
against the state's sex offender registry. Rather, Nevada's system
automatically adjusts the driver's license expiration date to 1 year
for a compliant sex offender or, for a potentially noncompliant
offender, automatically prints a set of instructions of additional
actions to take, rather than issue a driver's license.
Mitigate Unintended Consequences:
Despite the potential benefits of driver's license-related processes
for monitoring sex offenders, many of the state and AAMVA officials we
contacted identified several unintended consequences that might result
if not given adequate attention. For instance, they said that sex
offenders could go "underground" and drive without a valid license,
because they might view a 1-year license--which contrasts to the
multiyear license typically issued to the general public--as being the
equivalent of a "scarlet letter" as the holders would be identifiable
to the public as sex offenders. Additionally, Nevada law enforcement
officials noted that the state's new screening process could actually
reduce compliance because it imposes additional registration costs on
convicted sex offenders. According to these officials, compliant
offenders need to pay the license renewal fee ($21.25 for a driver's
license or $86.25 for a commercial driver's license) annually, rather
than every 4 years as is the case with the general public.
Finally, while states such as Alabama and Arizona and six others
require convicted sex offenders to obtain and have in their possession
a driver's license or an identification card, other states, including
Nevada, lack this requirement. Thus, in this latter group of states, an
offender could simply choose not to apply for either document and,
thus, not be subject to the screening process.
Currently, federal law does not specifically require convicted sex
offenders to obtain and have in their possession either a driver's
license or an identification card. However, under section 114 of the
Walsh Act (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 16914), the jurisdiction in which a
sex offender registers is to ensure that the state's registry includes
"a photocopy of a valid driver's license or identification card issued
to the sex offender by a jurisdiction."[Footnote 29] This statutory
provision, according to the Department of Justice, is not a mandate for
all states to change their laws to require that every convicted sex
offender have either a driver's license or an identification card.
Rather, the Department of Justice said that if a convicted sex offender
has been issued a driver's license or an identification card by any
jurisdiction, a photocopy of it shall be included in the applicable
registry.
At the same time, Department of Justice and FBI officials as well as
state law enforcement officials noted that the use of names, dates of
birth, and other non-biometric identifying information to screen
driver's license applicants against sex offender registry records would
undoubtedly result in some false-positive identifications--that is,
mistakenly identifying some individuals as being convicted sex
offenders. Consequently, procedures would be needed to address
incorrect matches. The federal officials said that motor vehicle
agencies cannot be expected to prevent or resolve such mistakes,
especially if the agencies are provided only a coded, single-digit
response to each search query against the FBI's NSOR. Rather, the
federal officials commented that the prospective screening process, if
implemented, must involve a law enforcement agency in each state--that
is, an agency with sufficient investigative capacity to confirm
identities and verify compliance with registration requirements.
The importance of some type of mechanism to review potentially
incorrect matches was underscored by the results of a 2006 FBI audit,
which found widespread problems with the quality of records that states
submitted to NSOR.[Footnote 30] Further, according to FBI officials,
the NSOR database does not record whether a convicted sex offender is
in compliance with the respective state's registration requirements.
Moreover, compliance status can be difficult to determine because
states use different definitions or terminology.
Because of these data limitations, the FBI stresses that NSOR is an
information file only and does not provide a stand-alone basis for
taking official action. As a result, it will be important to determine
how to best minimize mistaken identifications and which agency--the
motor vehicle office, law enforcement, the courts, or other entity--
should manage an appeals process when such "false positives" occur.
Communicate Timely and Actionable Information on Noncompliant Offenders
to Law Enforcement:
Another design consideration is how to maximize the screening program's
usefulness to law enforcement agencies when noncompliant offenders are
identified. This is important because local law enforcement personnel
generally have the primary responsibility for monitoring offenders and
investigating possible failures to comply with registration
requirements.
In one state, for example, local law enforcement officials told us that
immediate notification once a noncompliant offender is identified could
help to ensure efficient use of limited resources and enhance
compliance with registration requirements. In another state, however,
officials noted that knowing an offender's whereabouts and having the
personnel to take action are two separate and distinct issues. The
officials pointed out that many law enforcement agencies are already
understaffed and would not be able to respond to "hits" without
additional resources. In short, simply identifying noncompliant sex
offenders will not necessarily result in their arrest or prosecution.
Assess the Effectiveness of the Driver's License-Related Screening
Program:
Regardless of the screening approach chosen, our prior work on federal
internal controls suggests that it will be important to be able to
assess its effectiveness. Indeed, performance measures and indicators
are critical for evaluating and controlling operations, and managers
need operational data to determine if a specific program is achieving
intended results.[Footnote 31] That said, the screening program's
influence on compliance could be difficult to measure because the
screening program is but one of various factors that can affect sex
offenders' behavior. Another factor, for example, is the extent to
which convicted sex offenders are subject to specialized supervision in
communities and the adequacy of such supervision. Indeed, directly
attributing any change in compliance rates solely to a state's driver's
license-related process is not possible without controlling for these
other factors. Further, to ensure reliable data, key terms such as
"compliance" and the methodology for calculating compliance rates would
need to be articulated as well.
Concluding Observations:
Driver's license-related screening processes could, in concept, help
improve the level of compliance with state sex offender registration
requirements as well as enhance monitoring. For example, if properly
designed, such screening processes could help prevent sex offenders in
one state from evading detection simply by moving to another state.
However, whether the most feasible approach would be a real-time
process similar to that discussed in the Adam Walsh Act or some other
method such as batch processing, remains an open question. Indeed, no
state currently has operational experience with the type of real-time
screening process discussed in the Walsh Act--a process whereby all
driver's license applicants would be screened against the respective
state's sex offender registry and the FBI's NSOR before issuance of a
license.
Moreover, our study found that designing and implementing such a
screening process would require states to modify their IT systems and
make other changes--changes that could be costly and divert resources
from other priorities. Further, the screening process could have
efficiency and other operational implications for motor vehicle offices
at a time when they are facing other demands with finite resources.
Beyond basic design considerations, the results of our work highlight
the many questions that surround the most cost-effective way of
screening sex offenders using driver's license processes. As AAMVA and
state officials have pointed out, before moving forward, business rules
or functional requirements would need to be defined, initial and long-
term costs would need to be more precisely estimated, and various
operational challenges would need resolution. To help shed more light
on these issues, and inform decisions on how best to proceed, it will
be important to have better data. Decisions on the most optimal
approach to pursue--and, if applicable, how best to integrate the
design considerations discussed in this report--likely would
necessitate collaboration among various stakeholders, including
interested states and AAMVA as well as relevant Department of Justice
components--particularly the FBI, which manages NSOR, and the SMART
Office, which is responsible for administering the standards for the
sex offender registration and notification program set forth in the
Walsh Act.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report for comment to the Department of
Justice. Also, we provided a draft of this report to the Nevada
Department of Motor Vehicles, the Nevada Department of Public Safety,
and AAMVA to review for accuracy and clarity. In its written response,
the Department of Justice provided technical comments only, which we
incorporated in this report where appropriate.
In its written response, the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles stated
that it had reviewed the draft for accuracy and clarity and had no
comments. The Nevada Department of Public Safety orally informed us
that it had no comments.
In its written response, AAMVA expressed appreciation that the draft
report identified the IT and related costs of adding sex offender
registration queries to state motor vehicle agency and AAMVA
operations. However, AAMVA emphasized that the following points should
be recognized if Congress were to decide to move forward with this type
of screening process:
* A comprehensive study should first be conducted--with a report
detailing, scoping out, and finalizing the requirements to build the
system and the associated costs. In this regard, states and AAMVA will
require funding, and these investments are necessary in advance of
operating the system.
* Consideration should be given to leveraging or using, as a conduit,
an existing system--namely, AAMVA's secure, private network (AAMVAnet),
which connects the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Costs would
be incurred to connect U.S. territories and Indian tribes, given that
these entities currently are not part of AAMVAnet. Also, additional
resources would be required to operate the system.
Further, AAMVA provided various technical comments, which we
incorporated in this report where appropriate.
We are providing copies of this report to interested congressional
committees, the Attorney General, and other interested parties. We will
also make copies available to others on request. In addition, this
report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report or wish to
discuss the matter further, please contact me at (202) 512-8777 or
goldenkoffr@gao.gov. Contact points for our offices of Congressional
Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this
report. Other key contributors to this report were Carla D. Brown,
Willie Commons, Christine Davis, Michele Fejfar, Sally P. Gilley,
Jeremy L. Hudgeons, Rebecca Kuhlmann Taylor, Marvin G. McGill, Linda S.
Miller, James R. Russell, and Shana B. Wallace.
Signed by:
Robert N. Goldenkoff:
Acting Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Objectives:
Section 636 of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006
(the Walsh Act)--Public Law Number 109-248, enacted July 27, 2006--
mandated that we conduct two studies regarding the use of driver's
license-related processes to encourage registration and provide
additional monitoring of convicted sex offenders:
* One mandated study was to focus on the approach recently implemented
in the State of Nevada. Under Nevada law effective July 1, 2006, before
a driver's license is issued to a convicted sex offender, the
individual must be in compliance with offender registration
requirements.[Footnote 32] A consideration in implementing the new
statutory provision in Nevada was the need to develop an electronic
interface capability between the Department of Motor Vehicles and the
Department of Public Safety, two principal but separate state agencies,
in order to screen all applicants for a driver's license.
* The other mandated study (a "national" study) was to survey a
majority of the states to assess their relative systems capabilities
and the potential costs to implement a driver's license-related process
that would screen each applicant against the respective state's sex
offender registry before issuing a driver's license, as Nevada does, as
well as against the national sex offender registry (NSOR), which is
maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
Section 636 of the Walsh Act specified that we complete the Nevada
study no later than February 1, 2007, and the national study no later
than January 24, 2007, which is "180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act." To meet these mandated dates, we offered to
provide a briefing in January 2007--summarizing the preliminary results
to date of our ongoing studies--to the offices of the Chairmen and the
Ranking Members of the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary.
Accordingly, during that month, we briefed interested congressional
staff.
Going forward, as agreed with the offices of the Chairmen and the
Ranking Members of the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary,
rather than issuing two separate final reports--i.e., a Nevada report
and a national report--we incorporated information regarding Nevada's
driver's license-screening approach into our survey of the majority of
states. In sum, in accordance with the congressional mandate and as
discussed with the offices of the Chairmen and the Ranking Members of
the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary, this report addresses
the following key questions:[Footnote 33]
* In what ways are states using driver's license-related processes to
encourage registration or provide additional monitoring of convicted
sex offenders?
* If a federal law were enacted requiring states to screen individuals
against the respective state's sex offender registry and the FBI's NSOR
before issuing a driver's license, (a) what level of modifications
would states need to make to their information technology (IT)
capabilities to comply with such a federal law and (b) what would be
the key cost factors to implement and maintain this screening
capability?
* What other factors could affect the successful design and
implementation of a process for screening individuals against a state's
sex offender registry and the FBI's NSOR before issuing a driver's
license?
Scope and Methodology:
In addressing these questions, we obtained perspectives regarding
Nevada's driver's license-related process to encourage registration and
provide additional monitoring of convicted sex offenders. We reviewed
the legislative history of Chapter 507 of Statutes of Nevada 2005, and
we discussed the statutory provisions with staff of the Nevada
Legislative Counsel Bureau, the agency that provides research, fiscal
information, and other services for the state legislature. Also, at the
Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles and the Nevada Department of Public
Safety, we obtained and analyzed pertinent documentation such as the
state's IT system specifications regarding implementation of the law,
and we interviewed responsible officials. Further, to obtain additional
information regarding significant challenges or lessons learned in
implementing Chapter 507 of Statutes of Nevada 2005, we contacted
several local law enforcement agencies. Specifically, we contacted the
district attorney's office and the major city police department in
Clark County and Washoe County. We chose these locations because they
are the state's two most populous counties. Clark County includes the
City of Las Vegas and is the most populous of Nevada's 17 counties,
with 1.8 million residents and 70 percent of the state's population,
and Washoe County includes Reno, which is the state's second largest
city. Also, in conjunction with our site visit to the Nevada Department
of Motor Vehicles and the Nevada Department of Public Safety in the
state capital (Carson City), we contacted the Carson City Sheriff's
Department.
We also surveyed 26 other states to obtain additional perspectives on
the screening process discussed in section 636 of the Walsh Act.
Specifically, we contacted motor vehicle agency and sex offender
registry officials in 26 states, a nonprobability sample, selected to
reflect regional representation across the nation and a range in the
number of sex offender registrants (e.g., small, medium, and large), as
well as states with and without some type of driver's license-related
process for monitoring sex offenders (see table 1). Information
obtained from the states we surveyed cannot be generalized to all
states.
Table 1: States That GAO Surveyed to Obtain Perspectives on the
Screening Process Discussed in Section 636 of the Walsh Act:
Number: 1;
States surveyed: Alabama;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Geographic region[A]: South;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Sex offender population:
Number of offenders and population size category: Number[B]: 7,480;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Sex offender population:
Number of offenders and population size category: Category[C]: Medium;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Does the state have a driver's
license-related process for monitoring sex offenders?[D]: Yes: X;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Does the state have a driver's
license-related process for monitoring sex offenders?[D]: No: [Empty].
Number: 2;
States surveyed: Alaska;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Geographic region[A]: West;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Sex offender population:
Number of offenders and population size category: Number[B]: 4,279;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Sex offender population:
Number of offenders and population size category: Category[C]: Medium;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Does the state have a driver's
license-related process for monitoring sex offenders?[D]: Yes: [Empty];
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Does the state have a driver's
license-related process for monitoring sex offenders?[D]: No: X.
Number: 3;
States surveyed: Arizona;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Geographic region[A]: West;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Sex offender population:
Number of offenders and population size category: Number[B]: 13,449;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Sex offender population:
Number of offenders and population size category: Category[C]: Large;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Does the state have a driver's
license-related process for monitoring sex offenders?[D]: Yes: X;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Does the state have a driver's
license-related process for monitoring sex offenders?[D]: No: [Empty].
Number: 4;
States surveyed: California;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Geographic region[A]: West;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Sex offender population:
Number of offenders and population size category: Number[B]: 66,038;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Sex offender population:
Number of offenders and population size category: Category[C]: Large;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Does the state have a driver's
license-related process for monitoring sex offenders?[D]: Yes: X;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Does the state have a driver's
license-related process for monitoring sex offenders?[D]: No: [Empty].
Number: 5;
States surveyed: Colorado;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Geographic region[A]: West;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Sex offender population:
Number of offenders and population size category: Number[B]: 9,594;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Sex offender population:
Number of offenders and population size category: Category[C]: Medium;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Does the state have a driver's
license-related process for monitoring sex offenders?[D]: Yes: X;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Does the state have a driver's
license-related process for monitoring sex offenders?[D]: No: [Empty].
Number: 6;
States surveyed: Connecticut;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Geographic region[A]: East;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Sex offender population:
Number of offenders and population size category: Number[B]: 4,219;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Sex offender population:
Number of offenders and population size category: Category[C]: Medium;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Does the state have a driver's
license-related process for monitoring sex offenders?[D]: Yes: [Empty];
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Does the state have a driver's
license-related process for monitoring sex offenders?[D]: No: X.
Number: 7;
States surveyed: Delaware;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Geographic region[A]: East;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Sex offender population:
Number of offenders and population size category: Number[B]: 3,086;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Sex offender population:
Number of offenders and population size category: Category[C]: Medium;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Does the state have a driver's
license-related process for monitoring sex offenders?[D]: Yes: X;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Does the state have a driver's
license-related process for monitoring sex offenders?[D]: No: [Empty].
Number: 8;
States surveyed: Florida;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Geographic region[A]: South;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Sex offender population:
Number of offenders and population size category: Number[B]: 37,897;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Sex offender population:
Number of offenders and population size category: Category[C]: Large;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Does the state have a driver's
license-related process for monitoring sex offenders?[D]: Yes: X;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Does the state have a driver's
license-related process for monitoring sex offenders?[D]: No: [Empty].
Number: 9;
States surveyed: Georgia;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Geographic region[A]: South;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Sex offender population:
Number of offenders and population size category: Number[B]: 12,424;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Sex offender population:
Number of offenders and population size category: Category[C]: Large;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Does the state have a driver's
license-related process for monitoring sex offenders?[D]: Yes: [Empty];
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Does the state have a driver's
license-related process for monitoring sex offenders?[D]: No: X.
Number: 10;
States surveyed: Illinois;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Geographic region[A]: Midwest;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Sex offender population:
Number of offenders and population size category: Number[B]: 22,124;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Sex offender population:
Number of offenders and population size category: Category[C]: Large;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Does the state have a driver's
license-related process for monitoring sex offenders?[D]: Yes: X;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Does the state have a driver's
license-related process for monitoring sex offenders?[D]: No: [Empty].
Number: 11;
States surveyed: Kansas;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Geographic region[A]: Midwest;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Sex offender population:
Number of offenders and population size category: Number[B]: 4,373;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Sex offender population:
Number of offenders and population size category: Category[C]: Medium;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Does the state have a driver's
license-related process for monitoring sex offenders?[D]: Yes: X;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Does the state have a driver's
license-related process for monitoring sex offenders?[D]: No: [Empty].
Number: 12;
States surveyed: Kentucky;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Geographic region[A]: South;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Sex offender population:
Number of offenders and population size category: Number[B]: 5,740;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Sex offender population:
Number of offenders and population size category: Category[C]: Medium;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Does the state have a driver's
license-related process for monitoring sex offenders?[D]: Yes: [Empty];
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Does the state have a driver's
license-related process for monitoring sex offenders?[D]: No: X.
Number: 13;
States surveyed: Louisiana;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Geographic region[A]: South;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Sex offender population:
Number of offenders and population size category: Number[B]: 7,068;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Sex offender population:
Number of offenders and population size category: Category[C]: Medium;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Does the state have a driver's
license-related process for monitoring sex offenders?[D]: Yes: X;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Does the state have a driver's
license-related process for monitoring sex offenders?[D]: No: [Empty].
Number: 14;
States surveyed: Maryland;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Geographic region[A]: East;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Sex offender population:
Number of offenders and population size category: Number[B]: 4,366;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Sex offender population:
Number of offenders and population size category: Category[C]: Medium;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Does the state have a driver's
license-related process for monitoring sex offenders?[D]: Yes: [Empty];
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Does the state have a driver's
license-related process for monitoring sex offenders?[D]: No: X.
Number: 15;
States surveyed: Michigan;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Geographic region[A]: Midwest;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Sex offender population:
Number of offenders and population size category: Number[B]: 38,936;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Sex offender population:
Number of offenders and population size category: Category[C]: Large;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Does the state have a driver's
license-related process for monitoring sex offenders?[D]: Yes: X;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Does the state have a driver's
license-related process for monitoring sex offenders?[D]: No: [Empty].
Number: 16;
States surveyed: Mississippi;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Geographic region[A]: South;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Sex offender population:
Number of offenders and population size category: Number[B]: 3,896;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Sex offender population:
Number of offenders and population size category: Category[C]: Medium;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Does the state have a driver's
license-related process for monitoring sex offenders?[D]: Yes: X;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Does the state have a driver's
license-related process for monitoring sex offenders?[D]: No: [Empty].
Number: 17;
States surveyed: New Hampshire;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Geographic region[A]: East;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Sex offender population:
Number of offenders and population size category: Number[B]: 2,079;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Sex offender population:
Number of offenders and population size category: Category[C]: Small;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Does the state have a driver's
license-related process for monitoring sex offenders?[D]: Yes: X;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Does the state have a driver's
license-related process for monitoring sex offenders?[D]: No: [Empty].
Number: 18;
States surveyed: New York;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Geographic region[A]: East;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Sex offender population:
Number of offenders and population size category: Number[B]: 23,000;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Sex offender population:
Number of offenders and population size category: Category[C]: Large;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Does the state have a driver's
license-related process for monitoring sex offenders?[D]: Yes: [Empty];
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Does the state have a driver's
license-related process for monitoring sex offenders?[D]: No: X.
Number: 19;
States surveyed: North Dakota;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Geographic region[A]: West;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Sex offender population:
Number of offenders and population size category: Number[B]: 1,520;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Sex offender population:
Number of offenders and population size category: Category[C]: Small;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Does the state have a driver's
license-related process for monitoring sex offenders?[D]: Yes: [Empty];
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Does the state have a driver's
license-related process for monitoring sex offenders?[D]: No: X.
Number: 20;
States surveyed: Rhode Island;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Geographic region[A]: East;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Sex offender population:
Number of offenders and population size category: Number[B]: 1,300;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Sex offender population:
Number of offenders and population size category: Category[C]: Small;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Does the state have a driver's
license-related process for monitoring sex offenders?[D]: Yes: [Empty];
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Does the state have a driver's
license-related process for monitoring sex offenders?[D]: No: X.
Number: 21;
States surveyed: South Dakota;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Geographic region[A]: West;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Sex offender population:
Number of offenders and population size category: Number[B]: 2,140;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Sex offender population:
Number of offenders and population size category: Category[C]: Small;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Does the state have a driver's
license-related process for monitoring sex offenders?[D]: Yes: [Empty];
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Does the state have a driver's
license-related process for monitoring sex offenders?[D]: No: X.
Number: 22;
States surveyed: Tennessee;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Geographic region[A]: South;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Sex offender population:
Number of offenders and population size category: Number[B]: 9,113;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Sex offender population:
Number of offenders and population size category: Category[C]: Medium;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Does the state have a driver's
license-related process for monitoring sex offenders?[D]: Yes: [Empty];
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Does the state have a driver's
license-related process for monitoring sex offenders?[D]: No: X.
Number: 23;
States surveyed: Texas;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Geographic region[A]: South;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Sex offender population:
Number of offenders and population size category: Number[B]: 45,128;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Sex offender population:
Number of offenders and population size category: Category[C]: Large;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Does the state have a driver's
license-related process for monitoring sex offenders?[D]: Yes: X;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Does the state have a driver's
license-related process for monitoring sex offenders?[D]: No: [Empty].
Number: 24;
States surveyed: Utah;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Geographic region[A]: West;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Sex offender population:
Number of offenders and population size category: Number[B]: 6,826;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Sex offender population:
Number of offenders and population size category: Category[C]: Medium;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Does the state have a driver's
license-related process for monitoring sex offenders?[D]: Yes: X;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Does the state have a driver's
license-related process for monitoring sex offenders?[D]: No: [Empty].
Number: 25;
States surveyed: Washington;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Geographic region[A]: West;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Sex offender population:
Number of offenders and population size category: Number[B]: 18,959;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Sex offender population:
Number of offenders and population size category: Category[C]: Large;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Does the state have a driver's
license-related process for monitoring sex offenders?[D]: Yes: [Empty];
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Does the state have a driver's
license-related process for monitoring sex offenders?[D]: No: X.
Number: 26;
States surveyed: Wyoming;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Geographic region[A]: West;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Sex offender population:
Number of offenders and population size category: Number[B]: 980;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Sex offender population:
Number of offenders and population size category: Category[C]: Small;
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Does the state have a driver's
license-related process for monitoring sex offenders?[D]: Yes: [Empty];
Criteria for selecting states to survey: Does the state have a driver's
license-related process for monitoring sex offenders?[D]: No: X.
Source: FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services Division and GAO-
derived information.
[A] The number of selected states by region are west (9), south (8),
east (6), and midwest (3).
[B] The sex offender population figures are those reported by the FBI's
NSOR database (as of April 2007).
[C] We categorized the sex offender population sizes as small (less
than 3,000 registered offenders), medium (3,000 to 10,000 registered
offenders), or large (more than 10,000 registered sex offenders).
[D] See appendix II for a discussion of how we identified states that
have driver's license-related processes for monitoring sex offenders.
[End of table]
More details about the scope and methodology of our work in addressing
each of the three key questions are presented in the following
sections, respectively.
Ways That States Are Using Driver's License-Related Processes to
Encourage Registration or Provide Additional Monitoring of Convicted
Sex Offenders:
To identify states that have statutory requirements for using driver's
license-related processes to encourage registration or provide
additional monitoring of convicted sex offenders, we reviewed states
statutes through the end of July 2007. Thus, this report does not
reflect any state statutory provisions enacted after July 2007. Also,
in identifying states that have driver's license-related processes for
monitoring convicted sex offenders, we did not include any state whose
motor vehicle agency's only role was notification, such as use of a
driver's license application form that contains a statement informing
convicted sex offenders of the duty to register. In addition, because
we did not confirm our statutory research by interviewing state
officials, our interpretation of the statutory requirements does not
include any information on how states may be implementing these
requirements.
In addition to identifying states that have statutory requirements for
using driver's license-related processes for monitoring convicted sex
offenders, we also identified some states that have agency-initiated
processes by reviewing the Web sites of agencies responsible for either
maintaining the respective state's sex offender registry or issuing
driver's licenses. Further, we reviewed documentation obtained from and
interviewed officials at the American Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators (AAMVA) and the National Conference of State
Legislatures.[Footnote 34] These identifications may not be exhaustive
because we did not contact motor vehicle and law enforcement agencies
in all 50 states to specifically inquire about the availability or use
of agency-initiated processes. Rather, our identification of the agency-
initiated processes was an ancillary result of the work we conducted to
identify states that have statutory requirements for using driver's
license-related processes and to otherwise address the objectives of
our mandated study.
Level of Modifications to States' Information Technology Capabilities
and Key Cost Factors Regarding Prospective Federal Law:
To determine what level of modifications would be needed to states' IT
capabilities to comply with a prospective federal law that would
require screening individuals against the respective state's sex
offender registry and the FBI's NSOR before issuing a driver's license
and to determine the key cost factors in implementing and maintaining
this screening capability, we conducted a survey of a majority (26) of
the states, which involved contacting motor vehicle agency and sex
offender registry officials in each of the states (see table 1). In
surveying the 26 states, we developed, pretested, and implemented a
telephone questionnaire to collect information. To help ensure
substantive discussions, we distributed the questionnaire to applicable
state officials in advance of our meetings with them. Most of these
meetings were conducted by telephone conference, although we made in-
person visits to Nevada and three other states (Delaware, Georgia, and
Maryland). We selected these three states because Delaware has a
driver's license-related screening process while Georgia and Maryland
do not. We also wanted to obtain additional perspectives on factors
affecting the state's decisions to implement or not implement a
screening process.
The questionnaire asked motor vehicle agency and sex offender registry
officials for their perspectives on the level of modifications to IT
systems--minimum, moderate, or major--that would be needed to establish
the screening process discussed in section 636 of the Walsh
Act.[Footnote 35] Also, the questionnaire solicited information
regarding the various cost factors that might affect the modification
and the relative impact that each factor might have on the overall cost
of the modification. We received responses to the questionnaire from
motor vehicle agencies and/or sex offender registries in 25 of the 26
states. In total, the 25 states provided 41 responses, which consisted
of responses from 20 motor vehicle agencies and 17 sex offender
registry agencies, plus responses from 4 states that each presented the
combined views of the respective state's motor vehicle and sex offender
registry agencies. Some of the 41 respondents did not answer every item
in the questionnaire, so not all reported responses are based on 41
agencies' information. For example, the data presented in figure 4 were
based on answers from 38 respondents, and the data in figure 5 from 39
respondents.
Further, as an additional source for obtaining perspectives on IT
capabilities and costs regarding the screening process discussed in
section 636 of the Walsh Act, we interviewed officials from the
Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs. Also, we contacted
AAMVA to explore options for expanding or leveraging existing IT
capabilities to screen sex offender registries before issuing driver's
licenses.
Other Design and Implementation Factors That Could Affect the Results
from Any Sex Offender Screening Program Using Driver's License
Processes:
To determine what other factors, in addition to IT capabilities and
costs, could affect the successful design and implementation of a
process for screening individuals against a state's sex offender
registry and the FBI's NSOR before issuing a driver's license, we
relied largely on the information we obtained during our review of
Nevada's driver's license screening process and from our contacts with
motor vehicle agency and sex offender registry officials in the 26
survey states (see table 1). For instance, in contacting motor vehicle
agencies, we obtained perspectives regarding the potential effects of
the proposed screening process on the traditional operations of the
agencies--as well as the implications of other demands, particularly
the requirements of the REAL ID Act, which creates national standards
for the issuance of state driver's licenses and identification
cards.[Footnote 36]
Also, we contacted the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services
(CJIS) Division, which is responsible for managing NSOR and other
component files of the National Crime Information Center. In contacting
the CJIS Division, we interviewed program managers and reviewed
documentation regarding the capacity or capability of the National
Crime Information Center and NSOR to handle the volume of searches that
could be anticipated if a federal law were enacted, the potential for
and implications of false negatives or false positives stemming from
name-based searches, and other relevant issues or concerns. Regarding
the quality and completeness of NSOR records, we reviewed the results
of the most recent audits conducted by the FBI's CJIS Audit Unit. These
audits--conducted in a two-part cycle that ended in April 2005 and
September 2006, respectively--covered records submitted by 49 states,
the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin
Islands.[Footnote 37]
Moreover, from the FBI's CJIS Division, we obtained views regarding
periodic batch processing of motor vehicle agency records against sex
offender registries as a possible alternative to the real-time
screening of driver's license applicants.[Footnote 38] We followed up
with applicable states to discuss the potential advantages and
disadvantages of such batch processing versus real-time processing.
Further, to obtain additional law enforcement perspectives on the
screening process discussed in section 636 of the Walsh Act, we
contacted the U.S. Marshals Service. Among other responsibilities,
under section 142 of the Walsh Act, the Attorney General is required to
use the resources of federal law enforcement, including the U.S.
Marshals Service, to assist jurisdictions in locating and apprehending
sex offenders who violate sex offender registration requirements.
We conducted this performance audit from July 2006 through December
2007 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Overview of States' Processes for Encouraging Registration
or Providing Additional Monitoring of Convicted Sex Offenders:
This appendix presents an overview of driver's license-related
processes that states use for encouraging registration or providing
additional monitoring of convicted sex offenders. Such processes may be
based on statutory requirements or on agency initiatives, as indicated
in the following respective sections.
States with Statutory Requirements for Using Driver's License-Related
Processes for Encouraging Registration or Providing Additional
Monitoring of Convicted Sex Offenders:
To identify states that have statutory requirements for using driver's
license-related processes for encouraging registration or providing
additional monitoring of convicted sex offenders, we reviewed states
statutes through the end of July 2007. Table 2 presents the results of
our research. As shown, we identified a total of 20 relevant state
statutes as of July 2007. Given the degree of legislative interest in
monitoring sex offenders, as indicated by the relatively recent
effective dates of many of the state statutes, table 2 should be
considered a snapshot of state information as of July 2007, with
changes likely to occur in the future. In addition, because we did not
confirm our statutory research by interviewing state officials, table 2
reflects our interpretation of the statutory requirements we identified
and does not include any information on how states may be implementing
these requirements.
As table 2 indicates, the 20 states reflect various types of driver's
license-related processes for encouraging registration or providing
additional monitoring of convicted sex offenders.[Footnote 39]
Generally, these processes can be grouped within the following five
categories:
* Mandatory-Identification States: Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Florida,
Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, and Texas require convicted
sex offenders to obtain identification in the form of a driver's
license, an identification card, or a sex offender registration card
issued through driver's license-related processes. Of these states,
Alabama, Arizona, Indiana, and Louisiana explicitly require convicted
sex offenders to carry their identification.
* Annual-renewal States: In Arizona, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana,
Oklahoma, Texas, and Utah, the driver's licenses or identification
cards of convicted sex offenders expire annually and are subject to
annual renewal.[Footnote 40] Of these states, Arizona, Louisiana, and
Texas mandate that sex offenders obtain a driver's license or an
identification card, making the annual renewal process mandatory. In
the remaining states, annual renewal is contingent upon the sex
offender's decision to maintain a valid driver's license or
identification card, though penalties would apply for driving with an
invalid license.
* License-Suspension States: In Illinois, Massachusetts, Mississippi,
Nevada, and North Carolina, the motor vehicle agency must suspend,
cancel, or refuse to issue or renew the driver's license or
identification card of a sex offender who is not in compliance with
registration requirements.[Footnote 41]
* License-Annotation States: Alabama, Delaware, Florida, Kansas,
Louisiana, Mississippi, and West Virginia label the applicable driver's
license, identification card, or registration card with an annotation
that identifies the holder as a sex offender.[Footnote 42]
* Cross-Validation States: State law enforcement entities in Arizona,
Colorado, Florida, New Hampshire, and Virginia use motor vehicle agency
records to help ensure the accuracy or currency of addresses in the
respective state's sex offender registry.
Table 2: Overview of States That Have Statutory Requirements for Using
Driver's License-Related Processes for Encouraging Registration or
Providing Additional Monitoring of Convicted Sex Offenders:
State: Alabama;
Summary of statutory requirements for using driver's license-related
processes: In Alabama, every adult criminal sex offender who is a
resident of Alabama shall obtain and always have in his or her
possession either a valid driver's license or an identification card
issued by the Alabama Department of Public Safety. If any criminal sex
offender is indigent or ineligible to be issued a driver's license or
identification card, the Department of Public Safety will provide some
other form of identification or documentation that, if kept in the
offender's possession, will satisfy the requirement. Any criminal sex
offender who knowingly violates this provision is guilty of a class C
felony. Whenever the Department of Public Safety issues or renews a
driver's license or identification card to an adult criminal sex
offender, the license or card will have a designation that enables law
enforcement to identify the holder as a criminal sex offender. Ala.
Code § 15-20-26.2 (Effective date: September 1, 2006).
State: Arizona;
Summary of statutory requirements for using driver's license-related
processes: Arizona supplements its sex offender registration
requirements by requiring sex offenders, at their initial registration
and every year thereafter, to obtain and carry a new driver's license
or a nonoperating identification license from the Department of
Transportation's Motor Vehicle Division. The license is valid for one
year from the date of issuance, and the offender must submit proof of
address and place of residence to obtain it. The Motor Vehicle
Division, in turn, must annually update the offender's address and
photograph, provide any address updates to the Arizona Department of
Public Safety (which maintains the state's sex offender registry) and
make a copy of the offender's photograph available to the Department of
Public Safety or to any law enforcement agency. An offender who fails
to comply with Arizona's license requirement is guilty of a class 6
felony that carries, in addition to any other penalties, a mandatory
$250 assessment. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 13- 3821(J), 13-3824
(Effective Date: May 1, 1996).
State: Colorado;
Summary of statutory requirements for using driver's license-related
processes: The Colorado Bureau of Investigation, which maintains the
state's sex offender registry, is required to maintain one or more
interactive database systems to provide, at a minimum, cross validation
of a registrant's known names and addresses with information maintained
by the department of revenue concerning driver's licenses and
identification cards. The bureau must report any discrepancies to each
local law enforcement agency that has jurisdiction over the location of
the person's last-known residences. Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 16-22-110
(3)(a) (Effective date: July 1, 2002).
State: Delaware;
Summary of statutory requirements for using driver's license-related
processes: Convicted felony sex offenders who are required to register
in Delaware must surrender their driver's license to the sentencing
court and receive a temporary driver's license. The sentencing court
directs the convicted sex offender to report to the Department of
Transportation's Division of Motor Vehicles and obtain a replacement
driver's license, with a code restriction indicating that the person is
a sex offender. Del. Code Ann. Tit. 21, § 2718(e) (Effective date:
April 20, 1998).
State: Florida;
Summary of statutory requirements for using driver's license-related
processes: In Florida, within 48 hours of initially registering with
state or local law enforcement, convicted sexual predators and sexual
offenders must report in person to the driver's license office of the
Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to present proof of
registration, to be photographed, and to secure or renew a valid
Florida driver's license or identification card. Similarly, at the time
or renewal, or within 48 hours after any change of address in permanent
or temporary residence or any change of name because of marriage or
other legal process, these individuals must report in person to be
photographed and to update and maintain a valid Florida driver's
license or identification card. The Department of Highway Safety and
Motor Vehicles must forward the person's photograph and any updated
Information to the Department of Law Enforcement, which maintains
Florida's sex offender registry. An offender's failure to comply with
any of these license provisions is a third degree felony. Fla. Stat.
Ann. §§ 775.21(6)(f), (6)(g),(10)(a), 943.0435(3), (4), ( 9)(a)
(Effective date: July 1, 2000).
In addition to the above requirements, Florida imposed new license
requirements on sexual predators and sexual offenders under a statute
enacted June 20, 2007. Effective August 1, 2007, all driver's licenses
or identification cards issued to sexual predators and sexual offenders
must have certain markings on the front that designate the person as a
sexual predator or sexual offender. Effective February 1, 2008, sexual
predators and sexual offenders who possess a driver's license or
identification card without the required marking on it are guilty of a
third degree felony. See 2007 Fla. Sess. Law Serv. Ch. 2007-207
(C.S.S.B. 988 §§ 1,2) (WEST).
State: Illinois;
Summary of statutory requirements for using driver's license-related
processes: In Illinois, convicted sex offenders must renew their
driver's license annually. The Secretary of State is authorized to
cancel any license or permit upon determining that the holder has been
convicted of a sex offense as defined in the Sex Offender Registration
Act. The driver's license shall remain cancelled until the driver
registers as a sex offender as required by the Sex Offender
Registration Act and provides proof of registration and current address
to the Secretary. If the convicted sex offender drives without a
license and the license was taken away because of nonregistration as an
offender, the person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor. 625 Ill. Comp.
Stat. Ann. 5/6-101(b-5), 5/6-201(a)(9), 730 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/5-5-
3(o) (Effective date: January 1, 2007).
State: Indiana;
Summary of statutory requirements for using driver's license-related
processes: In Indiana, sex offenders who are residents of Indiana must
obtain and keep in their possession a valid Indiana driver's license or
identification card. Sex offenders who are required to register in
Indiana but who are not residents must obtain and keep a valid driver's
license or identification card issued by the state where they reside. A
person who knowingly or intentionally violates this requirement to
possess identification commits a class A misdemeanor. Under certain
circumstances, such as if the person is a sexually violent predator,
the offense is a class D felony. Ind. Code Ann. § 11- 8-8-15 (Effective
date: July 1, 2006).
State: Kansas;
Summary of statutory requirements for using driver's license-related
processes: In Kansas, the Department of Revenue's Division of Vehicles
is to issue readily distinguishable driver's licenses or identification
cards to persons required to register as sex offenders. Licenses and
identification cards issued to sex offenders expire every year on the
offender's birthday and are to be renewed annually. Kan. Stat. Ann. §§
8-1325a, 8-243(d), 8-247(a)(1)(D), (d) (Effective date: July 1, 2006).
State: Louisiana;
Summary of statutory requirements for using driver's license-related
processes: In Louisiana, any person who is required to register as a
sex offender with the Bureau of Criminal Identification and Information
must obtain a special identification card issued by the Department of
Public Safety and Corrections, which contains the words "sex offender"
in orange, capitalized letters. The card is valid for 1 year from the
date of issuance, and the sex offender must personally appear at a
motor vehicle field office to renew it annually, but only after re-
registering as a sex offender as confirmed by the bureau. The sex
offender must carry a valid special identification card at all times or
face up to a $500 fine and/or 6 months in jail. If the sex offender
obtains a driver's license, the license is subject to essentially the
same coding and renewal requirements that apply to the mandatory
special identification card. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 32:412(I),
40:1321(J) (Effective date: June 29, 2006).
State: Massachusetts;
Summary of statutory requirements for using driver's license-related
processes: In Massachusetts, if the sex offender registry board
notifies the Registrar of Motor Vehicles that a sex offender has failed
to comply with registration requirements, the registrar must suspend,
or refuse to issue or renew, the sex offender's driver's license or
vehicle registration until receiving notice or proof that the sex
offender is in compliance. Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 90, § 22(j)
(Effective date: July 1, 2003).
State: Michigan;
Summary of statutory requirements for using driver's license-related
processes: In Michigan, an individual who must register as a sex
offender is required to maintain a valid operator's or chauffeur's
license or an official state personal identification card with the
individual's current address. Mich. Comp. Laws § 28.725a(8) (Effective
date: January 1, 2006).
State: Mississippi;
Summary of statutory requirements for using driver's license-related
processes: Sex offenders who are temporary or permanent residents of
Mississippi must personally appear at a Department of Public Safety
driver's license station to obtain a sex offender registration card
within 10 days after they register with the required judicial or law
enforcement entity. This registration card must designate the person as
a sex offender, as must the person's driver's license or state
identification card if one is issued or renewed. The sex offender
registration card must be renewed in person at a driver's license
station every 90 days, or earlier if the sex offender's name, address,
employment or school changes. At each re- registration visit, the sex
offender must submit current information and a photograph. If a sex
offender violates any of these registration provisions, the Department
of Public Safety is to notify the local sheriff's office and suspend
the offender's driver's license; the punishment is up to a $5,000 fine
or 5 years in prison or both. Miss. Code Ann. §§ 45-33-27, 45-33-29, 45-
33-31, 45-33-33, 45-35-3(2), 63-1- 35(3) (Effective date: July 1,
2007).
State: Nevada;
Summary of statutory requirements for using driver's license-related
processes: In Nevada, the Department of Motor Vehicles must check with
the Central Repository for Nevada Records of Criminal History before
issuing or renewing a driver's license or identification card to a
person who must register for a sex offense or a crime against a child.
If the department receives information from the central repository or
other satisfactory evidence that the sex offender has complied with
registration requirements, the department issues a 1-year license or
card (versus the standard 4-year license or card); otherwise, a
noncompliant offender is given instructions to contact the central
repository for resolution. Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 483.283, 483.380, 483.875
(Effective date: July 1, 2006). 2005 Nev. Laws. Ch. 507.
State: New Hampshire;
Summary of statutory requirements for using driver's license-related
processes: In New Hampshire, public registry information, including the
qualifying offenses committed by a sex offender or an offender against
children, must be available to law enforcement through the offender's
criminal record and motor vehicle record. If an offender's obligation
to register terminates for any reason, the Department of Safety shall
notify the Division of Motor Vehicles of the change and the offender's
motor vehicle record shall no longer reflect that the person is
required to register as a sexual offender or offender against children.
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 651-B:2 (Effective date: January 1, 2007).
State: North Carolina;
Summary of statutory requirements for using driver's license-related
processes: In North Carolina, the Division of Motor Vehicles is
required to search the National Sex Offender Public Registry before
issuing a driver's license or a special identification card to any
applicant who has resided in North Carolina for less than 12 months. If
the division finds that the applicant is currently registered as a sex
offender in another state, the division shall not issue a driver's
license or a special identification card until the person submits proof
of registration in North Carolina. If the applicant does not appear on
the National Sex Offender Public Registry or if the division is unable
to access all states' information contained in the registry, the
division may nevertheless issue a driver's license or special
identification card based on the person's affidavit to the effect that
he or she has no duty to register because he or she is not on the
National Sex Offender Public Registry. If the person does appear in the
National Sex Offender Public Registry after access is restored, the
division shall immediately revoke the driver's license or special
identification card and shall promptly notify the sheriff of the county
where the person resides. N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. §§ 20-9(i), 20-37.7(b1)
(Effective date: December 1, 2006).
State: Oklahoma;
Summary of statutory requirements for using driver's license-related
processes: In Oklahoma, a driver's license or identification card
obtained by person who must register as a sex offender is valid for 1
year from the month of issuance but may be renewed yearly during the
time the person is registered as an offender. Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 47,
§§ 6-105.3, 6-115 (Effective date: July 1, 2006).
State: Texas;
Summary of statutory requirements for using driver's license-related
processes: In Texas, a person who is required to register as a sex
offender must apply in person with the Department of Public Safety for
a new or renewed driver's license, personal identification certificate,
or commercial driver's license within 30 days after the person is
released from custody or after the department sends written notice of
the requirement to obtain the license or identification certificate.
The initial license or identification certificate issued to a sex
offender expires on his or her second birthday occurring after the
application. Thereafter, the license or identification certificate
expires annually and must be renewed in person at the Department of
Public Safety, which is to maintain records of the person's duty to
register as a sex offender. Failure to renew the license or
identification certificate in person will result in its revocation.
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 42.016, 62.060; Tex. Transp. Code Ann.
§§ 521.101(h)(i), 521.103, 521.272; 521.348, 522.033 (Effective date:
September 1, 2000).
State: Utah;
Summary of statutory requirements for using driver's license-related
processes: In Utah, for persons required to register as sex offenders,
the driver's license or identification card will expire on the person's
next birth date beginning on July 1, 2006. The person required to
register as a sex offender must surrender the license or card to the
Department of Public Safety's Division of Motor Vehicles on or before
that birth date. The person may then apply for a driver's license or
identification card that expires annually on the offender's next birth
date, as opposed to the standard 5-year driver's license or
identification card. A sex offender who knowingly fails to surrender a
driver's license or identification card in accordance with these
requirements is guilty of a class A misdemeanor. Utah Code Ann. §§ 53-
3-205(8)(h), 53-3-216(3), (6)(b), 53-3-807(4), (8)(b), (9) (Effective
date: July 1, 2006).
State: Virginia;
Summary of statutory requirements for using driver's license-related
processes: At the time of issuance of a driver's license, temporary
driver's permit, learner's permit, motorcycle learner's permit, or
special identification card, and at the time of the renewal of a
driver's license, the Department of Motor Vehicles is to electronically
transmit application information to the Department of State Police for
comparison with information contained in the Virginia Criminal
Information Network and the FBI's National Crime Information Center's
Convicted Sexual Offender Registry File. Whenever it appears from the
records of the State Police that a person has failed to comply with the
duty to register or reregister, the State Police shall promptly
investigate and, if there is probable cause to believe a violation has
occurred, obtain a warrant or assist in obtaining an indictment in the
appropriate Virginia city or county. Va. Code Ann. §§ 46.2-323(E), 46.2-
330(F), 46.2-345(L) (Effective date: January 1, 2007).
State: West Virginia;
Summary of statutory requirements for using driver's license-related
processes: West Virginia requires a code to be placed on any driver's
license or nondriver identification card issued to a person who must
register as a sexually violent predator. If a sexually violent predator
possesses a driver's license or nondriver identification card without
the required code, he must surrender it for cancellation and may obtain
a new one that is properly coded to denote that the person is a
sexually violent predator. A sexually violent predator who possess an
uncoded driver's license or nondriver identification card may be fined
up to $500 and/or jailed up to 1 year. W. Va. Code Ann. § 17B-2-3(b)-
(e) (Effective date: October 1, 2006).
Source: GAO summary based on review of state statutes.
Note: For each of the states shown in table 2, the "effective date"
represents when the state started to use the statutory driver's license-
related process, as opposed to the effective date of any amendments to
the enabling statute.
[End of table]
States with Agency Initiatives for Using Driver's License-Related
Processes for Encouraging Registration or Providing Additional
Monitoring of Convicted Sex Offenders:
Generally, as discussed in appendix I, our identification of states
that have agency-initiated processes for using driver's license-related
processes for encouraging registration or providing additional
monitoring of convicted sex offenders was an ancillary result of the
work we conducted to (1) identify states that have statutory
requirements for such processes and (2) otherwise address the
objectives of our mandated study. Thus, the listing in table 3 is not
intended to be exhaustive because we did not contact motor vehicle and
law enforcement agencies in all 50 states to specifically inquire about
the availability or use of agency-initiated processes. One of the three
states listed in table 3--Florida--is also included in table 2. We
found that Florida supplements its statutory cross-validation
procedures with additional agency-initiated cross-validation
procedures, as discussed in table 3. Further, table 3 identifies two
additional states that have non-statutory, agency-initiated processes:
California and Pennsylvania are "cross-validation" states.
Table 3: Overview of States with Agency Initiatives for Using Driver's
License-Related Processes for Encouraging Registration or Providing
Additional Monitoring of Convicted Sex Offenders:
State: California;
Summary of agency initiatives for using driver's license-related
processes: The California Department of Justice's Violent Crime
Information Network database is the state's central repository for sex
offender registration information. From this database, the Department
of Justice provides identifying information (e.g., name and date of
birth) to the Department of Motor Vehicles for use in setting a flag on
applicable driver's license files. The flag- setting process enables
the Department of Motor Vehicles to subsequently notify the Department
of Justice when a new address or other type of update occurs against a
flagged record. The electronic interface technology between the two
departments does not provide for real-time exchanges of information.
However, information updates are shared daily by electronic batch
processing--a capability that the state established in 2001.
State: Florida;
Summary of agency initiatives for using driver's license-related
processes: The Florida Department of Law Enforcement uses batch
processing to periodically match records obtained from the Florida
Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles against criminal
history records. Specifically, according to state officials, records of
new and updated licenses are run against the Florida Crime Information
Center's files. Also, the officials reported that, as an investigative
tool, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement periodically runs a
list of all Florida licenses against the FBI's national sex offender
registry to identify any offenders who may have moved from another
state to Florida and have failed to register.
State: Pennsylvania;
Summary of agency initiatives for using driver's license-related
processes: In Pennsylvania, the Department of Transportation (Driver
and Vehicle Services) notifies the State Police (manager of the state's
sex offender registry) when an offender changes his or her address with
the department. According to the State Police, this notification
procedure was established in 2005.
Source: GAO summary based on a review of agency Web sites and
information provided by agency officials.
[End of table]
In one sense, Nevada's screening process (see fig. 3) can be
categorized as an agency-initiated process. That is, Nevada's statute
does not specifically require prescreening, but prescreening against
the state's sex offender registry is the method Nevada has adopted to
implement the statutory prohibition on issuing driver's licenses or
identification cards to sex offenders who are not in compliance with
registration requirements. In terms of the implementation information
we developed, it appears that Nevada is unique in being the only state
that uses its motor vehicle agency to prescreen all applicants against
a sex offender registry before issuing a driver's license or
identification card.[Footnote 43]
Footnotes:
[1] The center was established in 1984 as a private, nonprofit
organization to provide services nationwide for families and
professionals in the prevention of abducted, endangered, and sexually
exploited children. The center receives funding from the Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, a component of the
Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs.
[2] Pub. L. No. 103-322, 108 Stat. 2038 (1994).
[3] Pub. L. No. 109-248, 120 Stat. 587 (2006).
[4] The District of Columbia and U.S. territories also contribute
records to NSOR.
[5] As used in this report, the term "driver's license" may include
commercial driver's license and identification card, as applicable.
[6] AAMVA is a tax-exempt, nonprofit organization that represents the
state and provincial officials in the United States and Canada who
administer and enforce motor vehicle laws. The association strives to
develop model programs in motor vehicle administration, police traffic
services, and highway safety.
[7] Generally, a "real-time" system is designed to respond to an event
within a predetermined time. For example, in screening an individual
against sex offender registries before issuing a driver's license, the
system would provide for a query and response during the time that the
individual is at the motor vehicle agency and applying for the license
to be issued over-the-counter by customer-service staff.
[8] Business rules are used to define the requirements that system
developers and programmers use to design, develop, and acquire an
information system. An "algorithm" is a prescribed set of well-defined,
unambiguous rules or processes for the solution of a problem in a
finite number of steps.
[9] A batch-processing mode is one where programs and data are
collected together in a batch before processing starts. Batch jobs can
be placed in a queue and subsequently executed during the evening or
other less-busy times. The opposite of batch processing is real-time
processing, sometimes referred to as transaction processing or
interactive processing. As mentioned previously, a real-time system is
designed to respond to an event within a predetermined time.
[10] Prior to the enactment of the Walsh Act, jurisdictions to which
the national standards applied included the states, the District of
Columbia, and the U.S. territories. Section 127 of the Walsh Act adds
provisions concerning Indian tribal jurisdictions, which generally
afford Indian tribes an election between functioning as registration
jurisdictions or delegating those functions to the states in which the
tribes are located.
[11] Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent
Offender Registration Act, Pub. L. No. 103-322, 108 Stat. 2038 (1994);
Megan's Law, Pub. L. No. 104-145, 110 Stat. 1345 (1996); Pam Lychner
Sexual Offender Tracking and Identification Act of 1996, Pub. L. No.
104-236, 110 Stat. 3093 (1996); Campus Sex Crimes Protection Act, Pub.
L. No. 106-386, 114 Stat. 1537 (2000); and PROTECT Act, Pub. L. No. 108-
21, 117 Stat. 650 (2003).
[12] The new requirements are specified in the Sex Offender
Registration and Notification Act (sometimes referred to as "SORNA"),
which is title I of the Walsh Act. In May 2007, the Department of
Justice issued proposed guidelines for implementing the new
requirements, which are applicable to all 50 states, the District of
Columbia, the principal U.S. territories, and federally recognized
Indian tribes.
[13] Pub. L. No. 109-248, 120 Stat. 587, 594 (2006).
[14] Pub. L. No. 109-248, 120 Stat. 587, 594, 602 (2006).
[15] Established in June 1997, the Center for Sex Offender Management's
goal is to enhance public safety by preventing further victimization
through improving the management of adult and juvenile sex offenders
who are in the community. The Center for Sex Offender Management is
sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of
Justice, in collaboration with the National Institute of Corrections,
State Justice Institute, and the American Probation and Parole
Association.
[16] National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, A Model State
Sex-Offender Policy (2003).
[17] Letter (dated Jan. 8, 1999) from the FBI's Criminal Justice
Information Services Division to all control terminal officers and sex
offender registry points of contact.
[18] On May 11, 2005, Congress passed the REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub. L.
No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 302, as part of the Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami
Relief, 2005 (Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231). The REAL ID Act
creates national standards for the issuance of state driver's licenses
and identification cards. States are to implement the national
standards created by the REAL ID Act by May 11, 2008; however, the Act
gives the Secretary of Homeland Security authority to extend this
deadline if the state provides adequate justification for
noncompliance. Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 302, 312, 315 (2005).
[19] Generally, to verify the validity of applicants' identification
documents, states must be able to contact (1) all issuers of birth
certificates and other name records, (2) every other state motor
vehicle administration, (3) the Social Security Administration, (4)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and (5) the U.S. Department
of State.
[20] As mentioned previously, under a model policy developed by the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, a driver's license
would not be annotated on the face of the license to identify an
individual as a registered sex offender, but the driver's license and
vehicle registration records/files of convicted sex offenders would be
flagged as a means of keeping law enforcement updated on address
changes and other personal data.
[21] The Records Bureau in the Department of Public Safety's Records
and Technology Division houses the central repository as well as the
state's sex offender registry program. The central repository collects,
maintains, and arranges all records of criminal history submitted to
it, as well as exchanges or shares criminal history information with
various entities. The "central repository" is the term typically used
to reference both the criminal history repository and the sex offender
registry.
[22] For jurisdictions' publicly accessible Internet sites with sex
offender information, the jurisdiction shall exempt the Social Security
number of the sex offender from disclosure, per section 118(b)(2) of
the Walsh Act.
[23] In determining the extent of system modifications, generally
accepted definitions for minimal, moderate, and major categorizations
do not exist. Therefore, we asked states to consider the choice of
modification level based on factors such as level of effort and
implementation time schedules (see app. I).
[24] As mentioned earlier in this report, business rules are used to
define the requirements that system developers and programmers use to
design, develop, and acquire an information system.
[25] In each of the other three states, these functions are
organizationally aligned within one agency. For example, as mentioned
previously, the Mississippi Highway Patrol (which is responsible for
driver services) and the Mississippi Bureau of Investigation (which is
responsible for maintaining the sex offender registry) are under a
single agency, the Mississippi Department of Public Safety.
[26] See, e.g., GAO, Financial Management Systems: Additional Efforts
Needed to Address Key Causes of Modernization Failures, GAO-06-184
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 15, 2006). Also, see Steve McConnell, Code
Complete, Second Edition (Redmond, Wash.: Microsoft Press, 2004).
[27] Pub. L. No. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748 (1999).
[28] Also, the director noted that Indian tribal courts have limited
sentencing authority regarding felony prosecutions. Specifically, under
the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, in exercising the powers of self-
government, an Indian tribe shall not impose for conviction of any one
offense any penalty or punishment greater than imprisonment for a term
of 1 year and a fine of $5,000, or both.
[29] Pub. L. No. 109-248, 120 Stat. 587, 594 (2006).
[30] In September 2006, the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services
Division Audit Unit completed its first audit (a pilot audit) of the
quality of records submitted to NSOR. The audit covered records
submitted by 49 states.
[31] See, for example, GAO, Internal Control: Standards for Internal
Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington,
D.C.: Nov. 1, 1999).
[32] Nevada Senate Bill 341, Chapter 507 of Statutes of Nevada 2005.
The law specifies that the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles shall
not issue or renew a driver's license, a commercial driver's license,
or an identification card to a sex offender or an offender convicted of
a crime against a child if the offender is out of compliance with the
state's sex offender registration requirements. Also, under the new
law, a driver's license, commercial driver's license, or identification
card issued to a convicted sex offender expires on the first
anniversary date of the offender's birthday.
[33] As used in this report, the term "driver's license" may include
commercial driver's license and identification card, as applicable.
[34] As noted earlier, AAMVA is a tax-exempt, nonprofit organization
that represents the state and provincial officials in the United States
and Canada who administer and enforce motor vehicle laws. The
association strives to develop model programs in motor vehicle
administration, police traffic services, and highway safety. The
National Conference of State Legislatures is a bipartisan organization
that serves legislators and staffs in 50 states, commonwealths, and
territories. The organization is an advocate for state governments
before the Congress and federal agencies and also provides research and
technical assistance to its members.
[35] In categorizing the extent of systems modifications, there are no
specific or broadly accepted definitions of "minimal," moderate," or
"major." However, as explained in the instructions that accompanied our
questionnaire, various factors generally can be considered, such as
level of effort, implementation time schedules, etc. Regarding level of
effort, for example, the instructions stated that a modification that
replaces or substantially replaces an existing system could be
considered "major." Regarding implementation time schedules, the
instructions noted that a modification could be considered (a)
"minimal" if the time is 6 months or less, (b) "moderate" if more than
6 months but not more than 12 months, and (c) "major" if more than 12
months but not more than 24 months.
[36] On May 11, 2005, Congress passed the REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub. L.
No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 302, as part of the Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami
Relief Act of 2005 (Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231).
[37] According to the FBI, records from the one remaining state had
been submitted but were not available in time to be included in the
audit.
[38] A batch-processing mode is one where programs and data are
collected together in a batch before processing starts. Batch jobs can
be placed in a queue and subsequently executed during the evening or
other less-busy times. The opposite of batch processing is real-time
processing, sometimes referred to as transaction processing or
interactive processing.
[39] We did not include in table 2 any state whose motor vehicle
agency's only role was notification, such as use of a driver's license
application form that contains a statement informing convicted sex
offenders of the duty to register.
[40] We did not include Mississippi in this list because, while
Mississippi requires sex offenders to renew their sex offender
registration cards every 90 days at a driver's license office, the
state has no comparable accelerated or annual-renewal requirement for
driver's licenses or identification cards issued to sex offenders;
these documents are subject to the standard 4-year expiration in
Mississippi. Miss. Code Ann. §§ 63-1-47, 45-35-7.
[41] We did not include Texas on this list because, unlike the other
states, Texas does not base suspension on the sex offender's failure to
register but on the sex offender's failure to renew a driver's license
or personal identification certificate in person. Tex. Transp. Code
Ann. §§ 521.101(h)(i), 521.348.
[42] We did not include South Dakota on this list because, unlike the
other states, South Dakota's statute authorizes but does not require a
visible or readily distinguishable annotation of "sex offender" on
applicable driver's licenses. Specifically, South Dakota's statute
permits the use of bar codes on driver's licenses to enable the
electronic retrieval of certain information such as Social Security
numbers. If bar codes are used, the Secretary of the Department of
Public Safety may encrypt information in the bar code identifying the
licensee as a sex offender who is required to register. S.D. Codified
Laws § 32-12-17.7.
[43] North Carolina's statute requires prescreening of all applicants
who have resided in North Carolina for less than 12 months against the
National Sex Offender Public Registry.
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 Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [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:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 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, D.C. 20548:
