Convicted Sex Offenders: Factors That Could Affect the Successful
Implementation of Driver's License-Related Processes to Encourage
Registration and Enhance Monitoring (30-JAN-08, GAO-08-116).
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.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-08-116
ACCNO: A80269
TITLE: Convicted Sex Offenders: Factors That Could Affect the
Successful Implementation of Driver's License-Related Processes
to Encourage Registration and Enhance Monitoring
DATE: 01/30/2008
SUBJECT: Child sexual abuse
Drivers' licenses
Federal law
Federal/state relations
Identification cards
Information technology
Law enforcement
Monitoring
Noncompliance
Program evaluation
Requirements definition
Sex crimes
Software
Cost estimates
Policies and procedures
Program implementation
DOJ National Sex Offender Registry
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-08-116
* [1]Results in Brief
* [2]Background
* [3]States Are Using a Variety of Driver's License-Related Proce
* [4]Nevada's Approach Is Unique but Does Not Screen against the
* [5]Most States We Surveyed Report They Would Need to Modify The
* [6]Key Design Considerations Could Affect the Success of Screen
* [7]Operational Challenges Could Affect the Successful Implement
* [8]Key Design Considerations Could Help Mitigate Operational Ch
* [9]Minimize the Burden on States
* [10]Maintain Customer Service
* [11]Mitigate Unintended Consequences
* [12]Communicate Timely and Actionable Information on
Noncomplian
* [13]Assess the Effectiveness of the Driver's License-Related
Scr
* [14]Concluding Observations
* [15]Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
* [16]Objectives
* [17]Scope and Methodology
* [18]Ways That States Are Using Driver's License-Related Processe
* [19]Level of Modifications to States' Information Technology Cap
* [20]Other Design and Implementation Factors That Could Affect th
* [21]States with Statutory Requirements for Using Driver's Licens
* [22]States with Agency Initiatives for Using Driver's License-Re
* [23]GAO's Mission
* [24]Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
* [25]Order by Mail or Phone
* [26]To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
* [27]Congressional Relations
* [28]Public Affairs
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
GAO-08-116
Contents
Letter 1
Results in Brief 4
Background 7
States Are Using a Variety of Driver's License-Related Processes to
Encourage Registration or Provide Additional Monitoring of Convicted Sex
Offenders 10
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 18
Key Design Considerations Could Affect the Success of Screening Programs
Using Driver's License Processes 22
Concluding Observations 30
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 31
Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 33
Appendix II Overview of States' Processes for Encouraging Registration or
Providing Additional Monitoring of Convicted Sex Offenders 41
Tables
Table 1: States That GAO Surveyed to Obtain Perspectives on the Screening
Process Discussed in Section 636 of the Walsh Act 35
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 43
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 47
Figures
Figure 1: States That Have Driver's License-Related Processes to Encourage
Registration or Provide Additional Monitoring of Convicted Sex Offenders
11
Figure 2: Examples of Kansas and Louisiana Driver's Licenses and
Identification Cards Issued to Convicted Sex Offenders 13
Figure 3: Overview of Nevada's Driver's License-Related Process as a Means
for Improving Compliance of Convicted Sex Offenders with Registration
Requirements 17
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
19
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 20
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
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. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.
United States Government Accountability Office
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.^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.^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. ^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.^4
Most states' registries are centrally maintained by a state criminal
justice agency, such as the state police or a department of public safety.
^1The 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.
^2Pub. L. No. 103-322, 108 Stat. 2038 (1994).
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.^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:
^3Pub. L. No. 109-248, 120 Stat. 587 (2006).
^4The District of Columbia and U.S. territories also contribute records to
NSOR.
^5As used in this report, the term "driver's license" may include
commercial driver's license and identification card, as applicable.
o In what ways are states using driver's license-related processes
to encourage registration or provide additional monitoring of
convicted sex offenders?
o 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?
o 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).^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.^7
^6AAMVA 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.
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.^8
^7Generally, 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.
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.^9 Although not an exhaustive list, these design
considerations could affect the results from and the costs of a nationwide
screening program.
^8Business 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.
^9A 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.
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.^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.^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.^12
^10Prior 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.
^11Jacob 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).
^12The 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.
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.^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.^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.^15
^13Pub. L. No. 109-248, 120 Stat. 587, 594 (2006).
^14Pub. L. No. 109-248, 120 Stat. 587, 594, 602 (2006).
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.^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.^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.^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.^19
^15Established 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.
^16National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, A Model State
Sex-Offender Policy (2003).
^17Letter (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.
^18On 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).
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.
^19Generally, 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.
Figure 1: States That Have Driver's License-Related Processes to Encourage
Registration or Provide Additional Monitoring of Convicted Sex Offenders
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.^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).
^20As 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.
Figure 2: Examples of Kansas and Louisiana Driver's Licenses and
Identification Cards Issued to Convicted Sex Offenders
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.^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.^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):
o 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.
o 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).
o 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.
^21The 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.
^22For 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.
Figure 3: Overview of Nevada's Driver's License-Related Process as a Means
for Improving Compliance of Convicted Sex Offenders with Registration
Requirements
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).
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.^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.^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).
^23In 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).
^24As 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.
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
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.
aOne of the four states that provided a single response did not complete
the questionnaire section that is the basis for figure 4.
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
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.
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.^25 Thus, they reported that the interface
capability would have to be established and would be another key cost
factor.
^25In 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.
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.^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,^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.
^26See, e.g., GAO, Financial Management Systems: Additional Efforts Needed
to Address Key Causes of Modernization Failures, [29]GAO-06-184
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 15, 2006). Also, see Steve McConnell, Code
Complete, Second Edition (Redmond, Wash.: Microsoft Press, 2004).
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.^28
^27Pub. L. No. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748 (1999).
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).
^28Also, 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.
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. S 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."^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.
^29Pub. L. No. 109-248, 120 Stat. 587, 594 (2006).
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.^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.^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.
^30In 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.
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.
^31See, for example, GAO, Internal Control: Standards for Internal Control
in the Federal Government, [30]GAO/AIMD-00-21 .3.1 (Washington, D.C.: Nov.
1, 1999).
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:
o 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.
o 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 [31]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
[32][email protected] . 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.
Robert N. Goldenkoff
Acting Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues
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:
o 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.^1 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.
o 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:^2
^1Nevada 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.
o In what ways are states using driver's license-related processes
to encourage registration or provide additional monitoring of
convicted sex offenders?
o 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?
o 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.
^2As used in this report, the term "driver's license" may include
commercial driver's license and identification card, as applicable.
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
Criteria
for
selecting
states to
survey
Sex
offender
population:
Number of Does the state
offenders have a driver's
and license-related
population process for
size monitoring sex
States Geographic category offenders?^d
Number surveyed region^a Number^b Category^c Yes No
1 Alabama South 7,480 Medium X
2 Alaska West 4,279 Medium X
3 Arizona West 13,449 Large X
4 California West 66,038 Large X
5 Colorado West 9,594 Medium X
6 Connecticut East 4,219 Medium X
7 Delaware East 3,086 Medium X
8 Florida South 37,897 Large X
9 Georgia South 12,424 Large X
10 Illinois Midwest 22,124 Large X
11 Kansas Midwest 4,373 Medium X
12 Kentucky South 5,740 Medium X
13 Louisiana South 7,068 Medium X
14 Maryland East 4,366 Medium X
15 Michigan Midwest 38,936 Large X
16 Mississippi South 3,896 Medium X
17 New East 2,079 Small X
Hampshire
18 New York East 23,000 Large X
19 North West 1,520 Small X
Dakota
20 Rhode East 1,300 Small X
Island
21 South West 2,140 Small X
Dakota
22 Tennessee South 9,113 Medium X
23 Texas South 45,128 Large X
24 Utah West 6,826 Medium X
25 Washington West 18,959 Large X
26 Wyoming West 980 Small X
Source: FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services Division and
GAO-derived information.
^aThe number of selected states by region are west (9), south (8), east
(6), and midwest (3).
^bThe sex offender population figures are those reported by the FBI's NSOR
database (as of April 2007).
^cWe 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).
^dSee appendix II for a discussion of how we identified states that have
driver's license-related processes for monitoring sex offenders.
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.^3 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.
^3As 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.
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.^4 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.
^4In 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.
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.^5
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.^6
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.^7 We followed up with applicable states to
discuss the potential advantages and disadvantages of such batch
processing versus real-time processing.
^5On 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).
^6According to the FBI, records from the one remaining state had been
submitted but were not available in time to be included in the audit.
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.
^7A 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.
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.^1 Generally, these
processes can be grouped within the following five categories:
o 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.
o 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.^2 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.
o 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.^3
o 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.^4
o 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.
^1We 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.
^2We 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. SS
63-1-47, 45-35-7.
^3We 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. SS
521.101(h)(i), 521.348.
^4We 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 S 32-12-17.7.
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
Summary of statutory requirements for using driver's
State license-related processes
Alabama 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 S 15-20-26.2
(Effective date: September 1, 2006).
Arizona 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. SS 13-3821(J),
13-3824 (Effective Date: May 1, 1996).
Colorado 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. S 16-22-110 (3)(a) (Effective date: July 1,
2002).
Delaware 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, S 2718(e) (Effective
date: April 20, 1998).
Florida 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. SS
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 SS 1,2) (WEST).
Illinois 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).
Indiana 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. S 11-8-8-15 (Effective date:
July 1, 2006).
Kansas 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. SS 8-1325a,
8-243(d), 8-247(a)(1)(D), (d) (Effective date: July 1,
2006).
Louisiana 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. SS 32:412(I), 40:1321(J) (Effective date:
June 29, 2006).
Massachusetts 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, S 22(j) (Effective date: July 1, 2003).
Michigan 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 S 28.725a(8) (Effective date: January 1,
2006).
Mississippi 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. SS 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).
Nevada 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. SS 483.283, 483.380, 483.875
(Effective date: July 1, 2006). 2005 Nev. Laws. Ch. 507.
New Hampshire 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. S 651-B:2 (Effective date: January 1, 2007).
North Carolina 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. SS 20-9(i), 20-37.7(b1) (Effective date: December 1,
2006).
Oklahoma 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, SS 6- 105.3, 6-115
(Effective date: July 1, 2006).
Texas 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. SS
521.101(h)(i), 521.103, 521.272; 521.348, 522.033
(Effective date: September 1, 2000).
Utah 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. SS
53-3-205(8)(h), 53-3-216(3), (6)(b), 53-3-807(4), (8)(b),
(9) (Effective date: July 1, 2006).
Virginia 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. SS 46.2-323(E), 46.2-330(F),
46.2-345(L) (Effective date: January 1, 2007).
West Virginia 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. S 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.
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
Summary of agency initiatives for using driver's
State license-related processes
California 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.
Florida 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.
Pennsylvania 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.
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.^5
^5North 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.
(440544)
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 ( [33]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
[34]www.gao.gov and select "E-mail 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,
DC 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: [35]www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: [36][email protected]
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
Congressional Relations
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [37][email protected] , (202) 512-4400
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, DC 20548
Public Affairs
Chuck Young, Managing Director, [38][email protected] , (202) 512-4800 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington,
DC 20548
To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on [39]GAO-08-116 .
For more information, contact Robert Goldenkoff at (202) 512-8777 or
[email protected].
Highlights of [40]GAO-08-116 , a report to congressional committees
January 2008
CONVICTED SEX OFFENDERS
Factors That Could Affect the Successful Implementation of Driver's
License-Related Processes to Encourage Registration and Enhance Monitoring
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.
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.
References
Visible links
29. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-184
30. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1
31. http://www.gao.gov/
32. mailto:[email protected]
33. http://www.gao.gov/
34. http://www.gao.gov/
35. http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
36. mailto:[email protected]
37. mailto:[email protected]
38. mailto:[email protected]
39. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-116
40. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-116
*** End of document. ***