Federal Requirements for State and Military Registered Sex Offender Management

August 2, 2021 R46863

Federal Requirements for State and Military
August 2, 2021
Registered Sex Offender Management
Emily J. Hanson
The federal government plays a role in the management of individuals convicted of
Analyst in Social Policy
certain sex offenses. In a law enforcement capacity, it enforces federal laws involving

sexual abuse, online predatory offenses, and other related federal crimes. In addition,
Alan Ott
Congress has enacted legislation that encourages the development of state sex offender
Analyst in Defense and
registries, urges states to punish recalcitrant sex offenders, and provides incentives for
Intelligence Personnel
state and local law enforcement to make certain information on sex offenders publicly
Policy
available, and has taken other steps involving the registration of sex offenders and

notification of the community. The focus of this report is on federal legislation affecting
Hibbah Kaileh
sex offender policy, which largely centers on sex offender registration and notification.
Research Assistant

Al states have sex offender registration and notification laws; however, these laws vary
widely. Congress has attempted to standardize the laws through legislation, most

recently through the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), a major component of the Adam
Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act (Adam Walsh Act; P.L. 109-248) enacted in 2006. Among other things,
SORNA created a three-tier classification system that dictates registration requirements for sex offenders based
solely on the crime of conviction. As of 2020, 18 states, 4 territories, and 136 American Indian tribes had been
found to have “substantial y implemented SORNA.” SORNA stated that jurisdictions that fail to comply with its
requirements risk having their annual Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) funds reduced by
10%. Although several noncompliant states have chosen to forfeit 10% of their JAG funds, the majority of
noncompliant states have applied to have these funds real ocated and used solely to implement SORNA.
Investigating and prosecuting sex offenses and sex offender management are primarily state and local criminal
justice issues; however, the federal government plays a role in sex offender registration and notification as wel as
other sex offender management issues not discussed in this report. The federal government (1) sets minimum
requirements and baseline standards for states for sex offender registration and notification, (2) provides
assistance to states via grants and law enforcement support in tracking down noncompliant offenders, (3)
maintains a public national website that provides information on registered sex offenders, (4) maintains a national
sex offender registry for assisting law enforcement, and (5) receives and transmits information on the international
travel of sex offenders.
The Military Sex Offender Reporting Act of 2015 (MSORA) authorized the armed services to register military sex
offenders. Al armed services must now submit information regarding such offenders to a national database and
public website after a custodial sentence or conviction in any court. The act is implemented through the
Department of Defense registered sex offenders management program, which includes the Coast Guard at al
times (whether it is part of the U.S. Navy or the Department of Homeland Security).
When a military sex offender is required to register after a conviction for a sex offense, the chain of command
must provide notice of the offender’s acknowledgment of the convicted sex offender registration requirements to
the appropriate jurisdiction. Such notice is entered into a jurisdiction’s sex offender registry through the
Department of Justice SORNA Exchange Portal. After a military sex offender is released from a military
confinement facility or sentenced without confinement, the designated officials must notify the armed service’s
criminal investigation organization of such offender’s requirement for registration.
In recent years, several issues with sex offender registration and notification in the United States have been raised
by state governments, the media, and academics. Congress may decide to address a number of these issues that
fal under federal jurisdiction. Issues include noncompliance with the requirements of SORNA and the
effectiveness of the act. Other areas of interest to Congress may include registration of sex offenders convicted of
Congressional Research Service

Federal Requirements for State and Military Registered Sex Offender Management

sex offenses under federal extraterritorial jurisdiction and Department of Defense registered sex offender
management regarding military housing.
Congressional Research Service

Federal Requirements for State and Military Registered Sex Offender Management

Background
The federal government plays a role in the management of sex offenders. In a law enforcement
capacity, it enforces federal laws involving sexual abuse, online predatory offenses, and other
related federal crimes. Congress has also enacted legislation that encourages the development of
state sex offender registries, urges states to punish noncompliant sex offenders, and incentivizes
state and local law enforcement to make certain information on sex offenders available to the
public, and it has taken other steps involving the registration of sex offenders and notification of
the community.1 Federal legislation affecting sex offender policy has largely centered on sex
offender registration and notification, and therefore they are the focus of this report.
This report begins with a brief definition of sex offender and sex offender policy in the United
States, followed by a description of the federal government’s requirements for registered sex
offender (RSO) management and the available federal assistance for such management. The
report also examines the federal government’s responsibilities for RSO management in the
Department of Defense (DOD). It concludes with a discussion of select issues on which Congress
may exercise additional oversight or address through legislation.
RSO Management
Sex offender is a general term used to describe an individual who has been convicted of a crime
involving a sexual act (e.g., sexual abuse, forcible rape, sexual abuse of a child, incest,
prostitution, sexual assault, conspiracy or attempt to commit a sex offense). In the United States,
sex offender policy refers to how the federal government and tribal, local, and state governments
handle sex offenders both during and after incarceration; however, it is how jurisdictions manage
sex offenders after release from incarceration that is a primary focus of existing federal sex
offender policy. Sex offenders are subject to many different management strategies including civil
commitment, residence restrictions, registration and notification, and other policies aimed at
preventing sexual offenses. As mentioned, federal legislation on this issue has largely focused on
sex offender registration and notification.
Registration
Sex offender registration provides the public, as wel as state and federal authorities, with
publicly available information on certain convicted sex offenders before and after they have been
released into the community.2 Al states have sex offender registries, but they are not uniform in
the information they collect, how they classify offenders, or the types of offenders they require to
register (e.g., several states do not require juvenile sex offenders to register under most
circumstances). To be compliant with federal law, jurisdictions must register incarcerated sex
offenders convicted of certain sex offenses before they are released from secured custody, or
within three business days from sentencing for an offense mandating registration in the case of a
sentence that does not involve incarceration.

1 For example, federal law created new interstate requirements, including requiring each state to set up procedures for
registering offenders from out of state and requiring registered offenders to register in states in which they worked or
attended school if different from where they resided.
2 For those required to register, registration is a mandatory condition for probation and supervised release, 18 U.S.C.
§§3563(a)(8) and 3583(d), and 34 U.S.C. §20913.
Congressional Research Service

1

Federal Requirements for State and Military Registered Sex Offender Management

Notification
In this report, the term sex offender notification refers to how a jurisdiction disseminates relevant
information about certain convicted sex offenders to other agencies and the community. The
primary method of public notification is to place an offender’s name and relevant related
information on a public website. In addition to registries, some states have additional notification
practices.
Jurisdictions register offenders and notify the community according to a risk classification
system. Although federal law has attempted to standardize risk classification across the states,
there is stil considerable variation. For example, New York classifies offenders based on crime of
conviction and several other factors3 and Pennsylvania classifies offenders based on crime of
conviction alone.4 Risk classification has implications for the type of information that may be
released about an offender and the duration of registration.
Registry Data
According to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC), as of December
2020, there were approximately 945,459 registered sex offenders in the United States.5 NCMEC
obtains sex offender data through a review of the individual sex offender registries of the 50
states, the District of Columbia, and the five inhabited U.S. territories. However, due to the
variability in state laws and practices regarding sex offender registration, it may be best to
consider this statistic as an estimate rather than a precise reflection of the total number of sex
offenders subject to registration in the United States.6 These data may include duplicates across
state registries and other sources of error such as individuals who are incarcerated, have been
deported, are deceased, or have moved out of state. There is also some variability in how
information about people on the registry is collected (e.g., whether an offender’s listed race is
identified by the offender or a member of law enforcement). As a result of these variabilities,
these data are considered here only at the national level, rather than comparing across individual
states.
Federal Requirements for State RSO Management
Sex offense investigations and sex offender management are primarily state and local criminal
justice issues, but the federal government plays a significant role in sex offender registration and
notification. Aside from its role in prosecuting federal and military sex offenses, the federal
government addresses sex offender registration and notification in multiple ways. It (1) sets
requirements and baseline standards for states for sex offender registration and notification, (2)
provides assistance to states via grants and law enforcement support for tracking down
noncompliant offenders, (3) maintains a public national website that provides information on

3 New York also considers factors regarding the offender, and the risk level is based on a court’s assessment of whether
the offender is likely to repeat the same or a similar offense and the danger the offender poses to the community. For
more informat ion regarding New York’s risk level determination, see http://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/nsor/
risk_levels.htm.
4 For more information regarding Pennsylvania’s risk level determination, see https://www.soab.pa.gov/AboutSOAB/
ProcessOverview/Pages/Registration.aspx.
5 National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, Map of Registered Sex Offenders in the United States, December
8, 2020.
6 T elephone conversation between CRS and Yiota Souras, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, and Staca
Shehan, Vice President of the Analytical Services Division, NCMEC, March 3, 2021.
Congressional Research Service

2

Federal Requirements for State and Military Registered Sex Offender Management

registered sex offenders, (4) maintains a national sex offender registry for assisting law
enforcement, and (5) receives and transmits information on the international travel of sex
offenders.
Federal Legislation
Congress has attempted to standardize sex offender registration and notification laws through
legislation, principal y through the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), a
major component of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act (Adam Walsh Act; P.L.
109-248) enacted in 2006. Among other things, SORNA created a publicly available internet
gateway to the information housed in state registries, searchable by offender name and location.
Federal law stipulates the following:
An appropriate official shall, shortly before release of the sex offender from custody, or, if
the sex offender is not in custody, immediately after the sentencing of the sex offender, for
the offense giving rise to the duty to register—
(1) inform the sex offender of the duties of a sex offender under this subchapter and explain
those duties;
(2) require the sex offender to read and sign a form stating that the duty to register has been
explained and that the sex offender understands the registration requirement; and
(3) ensure that the sex offender is registered.7
It also created a three-tier classification system for sex offenders based solely on the crime of
conviction. Under federal law the tiers are defined as follows:
(2) Tier I sex offender
The term “tier I sex offender” means a sex offender other than a tier II or tier III sex
offender.
(3) Tier II sex offender
The term “tier II sex offender” means a sex offender other than a tier III sex offender whose
offense is punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year an d—
(A) is comparable to or more severe than the following offenses, when committed
against a minor, or an attempt or conspiracy to commit such an offense against a minor:
(i) sex trafficking (as described in section 1591 of title 18);
(ii) coercion and enticement (as described in section 2422(b) of title 18);
(iii) transportation with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity (as described
in section 2423(a)) [1] of title 18;
(iv) abusive sexual contact (as described in section 2244 of title 18);
(B) involves—
(i) use of a minor in a sexual performance;
(ii) solicitation of a minor to practice prostitution; or
(iii) production or distribution of child pornography; or
(C) occurs after the offender becomes a tier I sex offender.

7 34 U.S.C. §20919(a).
Congressional Research Service

3

Federal Requirements for State and Military Registered Sex Offender Management

(4)Tier III sex offender
The term “tier III sex offender” means a sex offender whose offense is punishable by
imprisonment for more than 1 year and—
(A) is comparable to or more severe than the following offenses, or an attempt or
conspiracy to commit such an offense:
(i) aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse (as described in sections 2241 and
2242 of title 18); or
(ii) abusive sexual contact (as described in section 2244 of title 18) against a minor
who has not attained the age of 13 years;
(B) involves kidnapping of a minor (unless committed by a parent or guardian); or
(C) occurs after the offender becomes a tier II sex offender.8
Tier I offenders are required to register for 15 years with annual in-person verifications. Tier II
offenders are required to register for 25 years with in-person verification every six months. Tier
III offenders must register for the remainder of their life and complete an in-person verification
every three months.9
Over the last two decades, Congress has also passed a series of bil s in response to concern over
post-conviction management of sex offenders and public safety. The following legislation
highlights some of the major changes in federal sex offender registration and notification law and
policy, most of which supplement or have been folded into SORNA10:
 Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent
Registration Act (Jacob Wetterling Act): Congress passed this law as part of
the major omnibus crime bil of 1994 (Title IV of the Violent Crime Control and
Law Enforcement Act of 1994; P.L. 103-322) to encourage and establish
guidelines for states to create and maintain a sex offender registration system.
 Megan’s Law (P.L. 104-145): In 1996, Congress passed Megan’s law to induce
state and local law enforcement agencies to release relevant sex offender
information that is necessary to protect the public (i.e., to notify the public).
Congress also specified that “information collected under a State registration
program may be disclosed for any purpose permitted under the laws of the State.”
 Pam Lychner Sexual Offender Tracking and Identification Act of 1996
(Lychner Act; P.L. 104-236): This law amended the Jacob Wetterling Act to
establish within the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) a national database to
track certain sex offenders.11 It also required each sex offender who resides in a
state that has not established a “minimal y sufficient sexual offender registration
program” to register with the FBI. Further, it provided that offenders required to
register with the FBI must notify it of changes in residence; and in turn, the FBI
must verify the offender’s address. Under this law, the FBI may release relevant

8 34 U.S.C. §20911(2)-(4).
9 DOJ, OJP, SMART Office, Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act Substantial Implementation Checklist –
Revised (2020), p. 18, hereinafter “SORNA Checklist”, https://smart.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh231/files/media/
document/Substantial_Implementation_Checklist_2020.pdf.
10 Aside from addressing sex offender registration and notification, these federal laws have amen ded criminal code,
among other things, in an effort to protect the public from sex offenders.
11 T he database was established “to track the whereabouts and movement of—(1) each person who has been convicted
of a criminal offense against a victim who is a minor; (2) each person who has been convicted of a sexually violent
offense; and (3) each person who is a sexually violent predator.” (P.L. 104-236).
Congressional Research Service

4

Federal Requirements for State and Military Registered Sex Offender Management

information regarding an offender that is necessary to protect the public. The law
also required the FBI to disclose offender information to federal, state, and local
criminal justice agencies for purposes of law enforcement and community
notification.
 Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998 (P.L. 105-119) (amendments to existing
federal sex offender laws): In 1997, this appropriations act made several
changes to sex offender requirements for states, including a change to the
requirement that a state must designate a law enforcement agency to handle sex
offender registration and notification. It also directed states to participate in the
FBI’s national sex offender registry according to guidelines issued later by the
Attorney General. This law created new interstate requirements, including
requiring each state to set up procedures for registering sex offenders from out of
state and requiring registered sex offenders to register in states in which they
worked or attended school if different from where they resided. The law also
directed state courts to consider the recommendations of sex offender experts,
victims’ rights advocates, and representatives of law enforcement agencies when
considering the status of a sexual y violent predator.12 The law extended
registration requirements to sex offenders convicted in federal or military courts
and required federal and military authorities to ensure that offenders are notified
of the registration requirement.
 Protection of Children From Sexual Predators Act (P.L. 105-314): In 1998,
this law required the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance to create a Sex
Offender Management Assistance Program to assist states with the costs of
complying with registration requirements.
 Campus Sex Crimes Prevention Act: As part of the Victims of Trafficking and
Violence Protection Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-386), Congress passed the Campus
Sex Crimes Prevention Act to require any individual who is required to register
in a state to also notify each institution of higher education in that state at which
the individual works or is a student, including notification of changes in
enrollment or employment status. It also required that state procedures ensure
that information collected on the individual is (1) promptly shared with the law
enforcement agency with jurisdiction over the institution and (2) entered into the
respective state data system. It amended the Higher Education Act of 1965 to
require certain institutions of higher education13 to advise the campus community
about where sex offender registry data may be obtained.
 Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children
Today Act (PROTECT Act; P.L. 108-21): In 2003, the PROTECT Act required
states to release information concerning persons registered as sex offenders,
including the maintenance of a website containing publicly available registry

12 T he specific definition of a sexually violent predator varies across states; however, generally a sexually violent
predator is an individual who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense and has been diagnosed with some
mental abnormality or personality disorder that would make them a danger to the community. Previously, state courts
were directed to consider the opinions of experts on sex offenders but not victims’ advocates and law enforcement
when making status determinations involving sexually v iolent predators (as proscribed by the Jacob Wetterling Act;
Subtitle A of P.L. 103-322).
13 T he requirement applied to those institutions of higher education that are already required to disclose campus
security policy and campus crime statistics data under the Higher Education Act of 1965.
Congressional Research Service

5

Federal Requirements for State and Military Registered Sex Offender Management

information and instructions for correcting information al eged to be false.14 It
also required the Department of Justice (DOJ) to create a national website that
links al state websites containing registry data and authorized appropriations for
FY2004-FY2007 to assist states in complying with new requirements. Further, it
authorized the use of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS)15 funding
in assisting state and local law enforcement with sex offender registry
management and offender compliance.
 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA): In 2006, SORNA
(Title I of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act; P.L. 109-248)
absorbed and replaced many of the earlier registration and notification
components noted above and amended federal standards for sex offender
registration and notification in the states to make them more uniform and
inclusive, among other things.16 It established DOJ’s Office of Sex Offender
Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, and Tracking (SMART Office) to
administer the sex offender registration and notification standards, administer
grant programs relating to the law’s implementation,17 and assist jurisdictions and
organizations involved in sex offender registration and notification activities. Of
note, SORNA contained a provision that al owed for a 10% reduction in funding
under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program18 for
states that failed to comply with the requirements of SORNA.
 Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual Predators Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-400):
This law expanded SORNA to require sex offenders to report “internet
identifiers”19 to registries but specified that these records would remain private.
 Military Sex Offender Reporting Act (P.L. 114-22): This law was enacted as
part of the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015. It amended SORNA to
require that DOD provide DOJ with sex offender registration information for
inclusion in the national registry and the Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender
Public Website for any qualifying offense under the Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ). Such information is provided when a servicemember is
convicted, sentenced, and released from confinement (if applicable). According
to the SMART Office, “the Department of Defense continues to work on
developing a system to meet its responsibilities under these new provisions.”20
 International Megan’s Law (P.L. 114-119): In 2016, this law amended SORNA
to require that sex offenders report intended international travel and established a
criminal penalty (fine and/or up to 10 years in prison) for not reporting this

14 P.L. 108-21, §604 (a)
15 For more information about COPS, see CRS Report RL33308, Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS): In
Brief.
16 For a legal sketch of the Adam Walsh Act, see CRS Report RS22646, Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act:
A Sketch.
17 SORNA established the Sex Offender Management Assistance (SOMA) program to award grants to jurisdictions to
offset the costs of implementing SORNA.
18 For more information about the JAG Program, see CRS Report RS22416, Edward Byrne Memorial Justice
Assistance Grant (JAG) Program : In Brief (available to congressional clients upon request).
19 For purposes of the law, the term internet identifiers means email addresses and other designations used for self-
identification or routing in internet communication or posting. See 34 U.S.C. §20916a(e)(2).
20 DOJ, OJP, SMART Office, Military Convictions Under SORNA, https://smart.ojp.gov/sorna/military-convictions.
Congressional Research Service

6

Federal Requirements for State and Military Registered Sex Offender Management

information. The law also includes a statement expressing Congress’ desire for
the State Department to work to establish “reciprocal international agreements.”
Federal Program
Although al states have sex offender registries, the SMART Office conducts implementation
progress checks to determine whether states, territories, and tribes have “substantial y
implemented” the specific requirements in SORNA.21 As of May 13, 2020, 18 states, 4 territories,
and 136 American Indian tribes had been found to have substantial y implemented SORNA.22
However, this should not be taken to mean that the remaining states, territories, and tribes have
not implemented SORNA at al . Nineteen additional states and territories have met the minimum
requirements for two or more of SORNA’s five requirements.23 The SMART Office has been able
to work with tribes to construct new regulations that align with SORNA rather than amending
existing legislation as is often necessary for state governments.24 Some states have publicly
objected to the requirements of SORNA, most notably due to concerns about the requirement to
list juvenile sex offenders.
Juvenile Offender Registration
SORNA requires the registration of juveniles who were convicted (often referred to as an adjudication in juvenile
courts) of a sex offense equivalent to or more severe than aggravated sexual assault (including attempt or
conspiracy to commit qualifying offenses) who were age 14 or older at the time they committed the offense.25
Under SORNA, these juvenile offenders are classified as tier III offenders, which normal y requires lifetime
registration; however, juveniles may have their registration terminated if they keep a clean record26 for 25 years.
Many jurisdictions have objected to aspects of the juvenile registration requirement, and DOJ has released
supplementary guidelines to address some of the concerns expressed by jurisdictions, advocates, and researchers.
In 2011, DOJ published a set of guidelines that gave jurisdictions some discretion in deciding whether to publicly
post information about “sex offenders required to register on the basis of juvenile delinquency adjudications.”27
Thus, jurisdictions may decide whether or not to publicly post information about minors who are convicted of a
qualifying sex offense in a juvenile court. However, these guidelines do not al ow for discretion with minors
convicted as adults. Under the guidelines, jurisdictions that decide not to publicly list information about juvenile
sex offenders who are required to register are also not required to share registration information about these
offenders to outside organizations designated in SORNA (e.g., some schools, public housing, social services,

21 T he five requirements are immediate notification and exchange of information between jurisdictions, the inclusion of
certain sex offenses in the registry, inclusion of the required registration information, alignment with SORNA on where
registration is required, and the times at which registration is required. For the SMART Office checklist including
greater detail about the five implementat ion requirements, see SORNA Checklist.
22 DOJ, OJP, SMART Office, Substantially Implemented, https://smart.ojp.gov/sorna/substantially-implemented.
23 DOJ, OJP, SMART Office, Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) State and Territory
Im plem entation Progress Check, https://smart.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh231/files/media/document/sorna-progress-
check.pdf.
24 T elephone conversation between CRS and Scott Matson, Associate Director of the SMART Office, and Marnie
Dollinger, Senior Policy Advisor at the SMART Office, February 11, 2021.
25 DOJ, OJP, SMART Office, Juvenile Registration and Notification Requirements Under SORNA,
https://smart.ojp.gov/sorna/juvenile-offenders#substantial-implementation. Note that juveniles who are prosecuted and
convict ed as adults are subject to adult SORNA requirements.
26 As defined in 34 U.S.C. §20915(b)(1), a clean record means no convictions for any offense for which a sentence of
longer than a year may be imposed; no conviction for any sex offense; completion of a ny period of supervised release,
probation, and parole; and completion of a certified sex offender treatment program.
27 DOJ, “Supplemental Guidelines for Sex Offender Registration and Notification,” 76 Federal Register 1630, January
11, 2011 (hereinafter “Guidelines 2011”).
Congressional Research Service

7

Federal Requirements for State and Military Registered Sex Offender Management

volunteer entities).28 In 2016, DOJ published another set of guidelines detailing the circumstances in which the
SMART Office may review a state’s juvenile registration policies to determine whether it may be considered to
have substantial y implemented SORNA despite the policies not being ful y aligned with requirements.29
National Standards
As noted, several federal laws have established standards for sex offender registration in states.
Most recently, SORNA did the following:
 set tier classification of offenders30 based solely on the crime of conviction while
 making changes in the required minimum length of registration;31
 expanding the group of sex offenders and sex offenses for which registration
is required;
 expanding the amount of information offenders must provide to the registry
and the amount of offender information made available to the public; and
 requiring sex offenders to register and maintain current data in each
jurisdiction where they attend school, work, and reside;
 extended the standard registration and notification requirements to tribal
jurisdictions; and
 authorized the Attorney General to extend reporting requirements to offenders
convicted before enactment of SORNA.32
SORNA contained a provision stating jurisdictions that fail to comply with its requirements risk
having their annual JAG funds reduced by 10%. Multiple states, territories, and tribal
jurisdictions have “substantial y implemented SORNA.”33 Although several noncompliant states
have chosen to risk losing 10% of their JAG funds, the majority of noncompliant states have
applied to have these funds real ocated and used solely to implement SORNA.34

28 Guidelines 2011.
29 DOJ, “Supplemental Guidelines for Juvenile Registration Under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification
Act,” 81 Federal Register 21397, April 11, 2016.
30 T o comply with SORNA, jurisdictions do not have to use the tier labels but they must comply with the requirements
of each tier. According to the SMART Office, “SORNA requirements are met as long as sex offenders who satisfy the
SORNA criteria for placement in a particular tier are consistently subject to at least the duration of registration,
frequency of in-person appearances for verification, and extent of website disclosure that SORNA requires for that
tier.” See T he National Guidelines for Sex Offender Registration and Notification, https://www.ojp.gov/smart/pdfs/
final_sornaguidelines.pdf.
31 Section 115(a) of SORNA requires that sex offenders keep registration current for 15 years for T ier I offenders, for
25 years for T ier II offenders, and for life for T ier III offenders.
32 For a list and detailed legal analysis of SORNA requirements, see CRS Report RL33967, Adam Walsh Child
Protection and Safety Act: A Legal Analysis.
33 For a list of jurisdictions that have successfully implemented SORNA, see https://smart.ojp.gov/sorna/substantially-
implemented.
34 DOJ, OJP, SMART Office, Substantial Implementation, Reallocation of Byrne/JAG Grant Funds,
https://smart.ojp.gov/sorna/substantial-implementation. T he following states applied for reallocation in 2020: Alaska,
Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto
Rico, Rhode Island, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
Congressional Research Service

8

Federal Requirements for State and Military Registered Sex Offender Management

National Sex Offender Registry
As established under the Lychner Act, the FBI operates a national database of each individual
who has been convicted of a criminal offense against a minor, has been convicted of a sexual y
violent offense, or is a sexual y violent predator. The National Sex Offenders Registry (NSOR) is
one of 14 persons files35 in the FBI’s National Crime Information Center (NCIC). Unlike the Dru
Sjodin National Sex Offender Public Website (NSOPW), the FBI’s registry is utilized for law
enforcement purposes only. The FBI may release relevant information to federal, state, and local
law enforcement agencies, and public notification by the FBI is made only when necessary to
protect the public.
National Sex Offender Website
The National Sex Offender Public Registry was established by the Office of Justice Programs
(OJP) in 2005, and it was renamed by the Adam Walsh Act as the NSOPW.36 This website is
administered by the SMART Office and links al public registry sites in the United States to form
one national search site that anyone may use to seek information on sex offenders.37
Federal Assistance for State RSO Management
According to its mission statement, the SMART Office assists states and criminal justice
professionals with SORNA implementation and other sex offender management activities needed
to ensure public safety.38 Some of the ways that the federal government directly assists states with
sex offender management include grants and tracking violators. Federal research efforts that are
related to sex offenders include specific assessments of registry efficacy and the Sex Offender
Management Assessment and Planning Initiative (SOMAPI).39 The SOMAPI is designed to
assess the general state of sex offender management practices and share evidence-based practice
and policy.40
Grants
The federal government supports state agencies with sex offender management through grant
support. SORNA authorized grants for states—including a grant to assist with the implementation
of sex offender registration requirements under the law.41 Also, COPS grantees may use funds to
ensure sex offender registration and notification compliance.42 The SMART Office administers

35 Persons files include Supervised Release, National Sex Offender Registry, Foreign Fugitive, Immigration Violator,
Missing Person, Protection Order, Unidentified Person, Protective Interest, Gang, Known or Appropriately Suspected
T errorist, Wanted Person, Identity T heft, Violent Person, and National Instant Criminal Background Check System
(NICS) Denied T ransaction. For more information on the FBI’s National Crime Information Center, see
https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/ncic.
36 34 U.S.C. §20922.
37 For more information, see http://www.nsopw.gov/.
38 See SMART Mission at https://smart.ojp.gov/about.
39 34 U.S.C. §20928. Sex Offender Management Assistance (SOMA) program.
40 For more information, see https://smart.ojp.gov/somapi/initiative-home.
41 34 U.S.C. §10691. SORNA authorized other grants as well but this report only discusses sex offender registration
and notification policy.
42 See 34 U.S.C. §10381(b)(14). COPS grant funds may be used “to assist a State or Indian tribe in enforcing a law
throughout the State or tribal community that requires that a convicted sex offender register his or her address with a
Congressional Research Service

9

link to page 14 link to page 14 Federal Requirements for State and Military Registered Sex Offender Management

the SORNA implementation grant as part of the Adam Walsh Implementation grant program.
Although authorization for appropriations expired in 2009, appropriations have been consistently
provided—including $20 mil ion in each of FY2017-FY2021.43 In addition to grants for SORNA
implementation, these funds go toward other Adam Walsh Act purposes, including the National
Sex Offender Website.44
Enforcement
As established by SORNA, the United States Marshals Service (USMS, or U.S. Marshals) is the
primary federal agency responsible for investigating sex offender registration violations. Among
other related duties, U.S. Marshals assist state, local, tribal, and territorial governments in the
location and apprehension of sex offenders who fail to comply with federal registration
requirements. The USMS leads initiatives to “assist state, local, tribal, and territorial jurisdictions
in locating and apprehending sex offenders who fail to comply with their sex offender registration
requirements.”45 For example, in FY201946 the U.S. Marshals conducted 63,386 registration
compliance checks, arrested 11,053 sex offenders,47 made 339 arrests for Adam Walsh Act
violations (e.g., attempting to avoid registration requirements), and handled 408 sex offender
compliance and enforcement operations.
The USMS also operates the National Sex Offender Targeting Center (NSOTC), an intel igence
and operations center that supports the identification, investigation, location, apprehension, and
prosecution of noncompliant, unregistered fugitive sex offenders. The NSOTC works with the
SMART Office and the NCMEC to support law enforcement agencies in the pursuit of
unregistered and noncompliant sex offenders.48
After International Megan’s Law was enacted in 2016, USMS is also responsible for notifying
destination countries, as wel as federal, state, local, and foreign agencies, about sex offenders’
international travel plans.49 USMS monitors sex offenders’ compliance with registration and
travel reporting requirements in partnership with the Department of Homeland Security’s
(DHS’s) Angel Watch Center. Since 2016, USMS has handled more than 10,200 international
travel notifications and 480 investigative leads for possible sex offender registration violations at
the federal, state, or local levels.50

State, tribal, or local law enforcement agency and be subject to criminal prosecution for failure to comply.”
43 For more information about Adam Walsh Implementation grant program, see the FY2015 grant solicitation:
http://www.smart.gov/pdfs/SMART FY15AWA.pdf.
44 For a better understanding of how these funds are spent, see Department o f Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
Justice Departm ent Announces $17.6 Million in Awards to Support Sex Offender Registration, Intervention and
Treatm ent, September 29, 2014, http://ojp.gov/newsroom/pressreleases/2014/ojppr092914.pdf.
45 See U.S. Marshals Service, fact sheets, 2021, https://www.usmarshals.gov/duties/factsheets/sex_offender_ops.pdf
(hereinafter, “2021 fact sheet”).
46 2021 fact sheet.
47 Per the 2021 fact sheet, sex offenses include “sexual assault, failure to register/noncompliance with the national sex
offender registry and other offenses.”
48 2021 fact sheet.
49 Ibid.
50 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service

10

Federal Requirements for State and Military Registered Sex Offender Management

Prosecution
Failure to register as a sex offender, or update a registration, when required by SORNA is a
federal offense.51 DOJ may also prosecute sex offenders convicted under state law if they
knowingly fail to register or update a registration when required, they engage in foreign or
interstate travel, or they enter, leave, or reside on an Indian reservation.52 The punishment for
these offenses can include fines and up to 10 years in prison. If a sex offender is convicted of
committing a violent federal crime while in violation of the federal failure to register provision, a
custodial sentence may be up to 30 years.
Travel Notification
As mandated by SORNA, the Attorney General53 is responsible for informing relevant
jurisdictions about individuals entering the United States who are required to register as a sex
offender.54 The Supplemental Guidelines for Sex Offender Registration and Notification55
requires registered sex offenders to report their international travel 21 days before departing the
United States. Under International Megan’s Law, failure to report international travel is
punishable by a fine and/or up to 10 years in prison.
Current federal efforts to track the international whereabouts of registered sex offenders include
those of the USMS, International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) Washington-U.S.
National Central Bureau (USNCB), and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a
component of DHS. These agencies use data from state and local jurisdictions and DHS’s U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to identify registered sex offenders departing the United
States, and USNCB and ICE notify foreign officials in some instances.56 The USMS, USNCB,
and ICE may also receive notification of registered sex offenders traveling to the United States.
Research on Registry Effectiveness
A large body57 of research exists on the effects of sex offender registration58—for example, its
effects on the lives of offenders, on the recidivism rates of registered offenders, and on societal
rates of sexual violence (e.g., how registries may act as crime deterrents). Researchers have

51 18 U.S.C. §2250. For more information, see CRS Report R42691, SORNA: An Abridged Legal Analysis of 18 U.S.C.
§2250 (Failure to Register as a Sex Offender).
52 Ibid.
53 In consultation with the Secretary of State and Secretary of Homeland Security.
54 34 U.S.C. §20930.
55 Guidelines 2011.
56 According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), USNCB and ICE have notified foreign officials of
sex offenders only in som e instances. USNCB notifies its INT ERPOL counterparts, while ICE, through the Angel
Watch program, notifies its foreign law enforcement counterparts. See GAO, Registered Sex Offenders: Sharing More
Information Will Enable Federal Agencies to Improve Notifications of Sex Offenders’ International Travel, GAO-13-
200, February 14, 2013, p. 24, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-200.
57 T o illustrate, a search on Google Scholar using the phrase “Sex Offender Registration in the United States” returned
53,000 hits.
58 Much of this research should be interpreted in the context of both federal and state sex offender laws. State and local
governments can, and often do, have more stringent requirements than federal law requires. As most sex offenses are
prosecuted at the state or local levels, it can be difficult to separate the effects of these registration requirements from
those unique to federal policy.
Congressional Research Service

11

Federal Requirements for State and Military Registered Sex Offender Management

frequently questioned the efficacy of sex offender registries at preventing sex crimes59; however,
there is also evidence to suggest registries do benefit public safety60 and that criminal justice
professionals support public registration but also express concern about how the public may use
this information.61
Although there is a large body of research on sex offender registries, some observers critique its
quality and its ability to isolate the effects of registries. A causal hypothesis (i.e., a hypothesis in
which a change in an experimental variable is predicted to cause a change in a dependent
variable) can be tested using a study design in which subjects are randomly assigned to an
experimental or control condition. In an experimental condition, subjects are exposed to a given
experimental variable (e.g., sex offender registration) and an outcome (e.g., sexual reoffending) is
measured. In a control condition, no experimental variable is introduced and the same outcome is
measured. This type of study can provide evidence that a given experimental variable (e.g., sex
offender registration) had a hypothesized influence on a specific outcome (e.g., reduced sexual
reoffending). However, designing an experimental study that meets these conditions can be
chal enging, and in some cases may be inappropriate, particularly in the social sciences.
Researchers cannot randomly assign participants to many variables of interest such as race or
gender. It is also unlikely that a jurisdiction would, or even could, agree to not enforce a sanction
that exists in statute for a randomly selected sample in study. Most relevant here, researchers
would be asking states to violate sex offender registration laws and randomly assign some
convicted sex offenders to be listed on a public registry and others to not be listed to compare
outcomes between the two groups. Registration requirements also make it unlikely researchers
could compare some existing (i.e., non-random) sample of unregistered convicted adult sex
offenders to a registered group.62 As a result, social scientists may not be able to provide direct
evidence of a causal relationship between sex offender registration and a particular outcome (e.g.,
desistance from sex offending).

59 See, for example, J.J. Prescott and Jonah E. Rockoff, “Do Sex Offender Registration and Notification Laws Affect
Criminal Behavior?,” The Journal of Law and Econom ics, vol. 54, no. 1 (February 2011); and Jeff A. Bouffard and
LaQuana N. Askew, “ T ime-Series Analyses of the Impact of Sex Offender Registration and Notification Law
Implementation and Subsequent Modifications on Rates of Sexual Offenses,” Crim e & Delinquency, vol. 65, no. 11
(October 2019).
60 See, for example, J.J. Prescott and Jonah E. Rockoff, “Do Sex Offender Registration and Notification Laws Affect
Criminal Behavior?,” The Journal of Law and Econom ics, vol. 54, no. 1 (February 2011); and David M. Bierie, “ T he
utility of sex offender registration: a research note,” Journal of Sexual Aggression, vol. 22, no. 2 (May 2016).
61 See, for example, Elizabeth Ehrhardt Mustaine, Richard T ewksbury, David Patrick Connor and Brian K. Payne,
“Criminal Justice Officials’ Views of Sex Offenders, Sex Offender Registration, Community Notification, and
Residency Restrictions,” Justice System Journal, vol. 36, no. 1 (January 2015); and Andrew J. Harris, Jill S. Levenson,
Christopher Lobanov-Rostovsky, and Scott M. Walfield, “ Law enforcement perspectives on sex offender registration
and notificat ion: Effectiveness, challenges, and policy priorities,” Crim inal Justice Policy Review, vol. 29, no. 4 (May
2018).
62 An interesting exception exists among juveniles adjudicated of committing a sex offense, as some states do not
register juveniles and the federal government gave states latitude concerning publically registering juveniles. As a
result, researchers have been able to design studies that compare registered versus unregistered juvenile sex offenders.
For example, one study compared a sample of 106 registered and 66 unregistered juvenile sex offenders and results
indicated that at an average follow-up of about four years, unregistered juveniles showed a similar likelihood to
reoffend compared to registered youth. (Michael F. Caldwell and Casey Dickinson, “ Sex offender registration and
recidivism risk in juvenile sexual offenders,” Behavioral Sciences & the Law, vol. 27, no. 6 (November 2009)). See
also, Elizabeth J. Letourneau et al., “ Effects of juvenile sex offender registration on adolescent well-being: An
empirical examination,” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, vol. 24, no. 1 (February 2018).
Congressional Research Service

12

Federal Requirements for State and Military Registered Sex Offender Management

Federal Requirements for DOD RSO Management
Sex offenses typical y are subject to the criminal law of a state, district, territory, or tribal land
entity. The term jurisdiction in SORNA includes such entities, but it does not include military
justice jurisdiction.63 The military justice system is a federal legal regime that is not associated
with a geographical area.64 UCMJ offenses are status-based and apply to certain individuals
regardless of where they are committed.65 The common reasons given for having a separate
justice system for the military include the need for good order, speedy trials, unit discipline, and
worldwide duty.66
After the enactment of the Jacob Wetterling Act in 1994, DOD began advising servicemembers to
register as sex offenders when required by state law.67 Although individual states started to
require sex offender registration in 1994, the federal criminal justice system, including the
military justice system, did not.68 In 2006, SORNA incorporated UCMJ offenses into its
definition of a criminal offense.69 Recognition of UCMJ sex offenses meant that military sex
offenders were now required by federal law to comply with sex offender registration laws. Such
recognition only standardized the meaning of the term criminal offense amongst the states;
SORNA did not require registration of sex offenders prosecuted within the federal criminal
justice system.70
Inclusion of UCMJ offenses in SORNA did however create a responsibility for the armed services
to ensure that military sex offenders registered in a jurisdiction.71 Additional y, a month after the
enactment of SORNA, a military justice appel ate court established a requirement for defense
attorneys to advise their clients of any state registration obligations triggered by a court-martial
conviction for a sex offense.72 The court noted that failure to inform a servicemember of sex
offense registration requirements could be grounds for an ineffective counsel claim by a
servicemember-client against a defense attorney.
Even though the new legislation and jurisprudential rules of 2006 meant the armed services had
various advisement requirements associated with registration and notification in a jurisdiction, the
absence of a national database for military justice system authorities to register sex offenders
remained a limitation. The DOD Inspector General (DODIG) noted this limitation in a 2014
report that found DOD’s lack of agency over the military sex offender registration process to be a

63 34 U.S.C. §20911(10).
64 10 U.S.C. §805 (UCMJ Art. 5), “ T his chapter applies in all places.” T he term extraterritorial jurisdiction is defined
as a court’s ability to exercise power beyond its territorial limits (Black’s Law Dictionary 1018 (11th ed. 2019)).
65 10 U.S.C. §802 (UCMJ Art. 2); for more information, see CRS Report R46503, Military Courts-Martial Under the
Military Justice Act of 2016.
66 Joseph A. Bishop, Jr., The Case for Military Justice, Fall 1973, 62 Military Law Review 215, 216-220 (1973).
67 P.L. 103-322; and DOD, Instruction 1325.7, Administration of Military Correctional Facilities and Clemency and
Parole Authority, December 17, 1999, §6.18.5 (expired issuance). See current issuance at https://www.esd.whs.mil/
Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/132507p.pdf?ver=2019-02-19-075650-100.
68 Department of the Army, Pamphlet 27-50-435, The Army Lawyer, Sex Offender Registration Laws and the Uniform
Code of Military Justice: A Prim er, August 2009, §1.
69 34 U.S.C §20911(6).
70 DOD, Instruction 5525.20, Registered Sex Offender (RSO) Management in DoD, November 14, 2016 (hereinafter,
“DODI 5525.20”), §1.2.
71 Ibid., §1.2.
72 United States v. Miller, 63 M.J. 452 (C.A.A.F. 2006).
Congressional Research Service

13

link to page 29 link to page 19 Federal Requirements for State and Military Registered Sex Offender Management

possible reason for military sex offender noncompliance with notification registry requirements.73
The DODIG also identified the armed services’ disparate RSO management policies as a potential
contributing factor to compliance shortcomings (See the “Inspector General Evaluations”
section).
Congress responded to the DODIG report with the Military Sex Offender Reporting Act of 2015
(MSORA), which authorized the armed services to register military sex offenders as part of a
national database.74 Al armed services must now submit information regarding such offenders to
the NSOR and NSOPW after a qualifying sex offense conviction that does not result in
incarceration of the offender or at the conclusion of a custodial sentence.75 MSORA is
implemented through DOD’s RSO management program, which includes the Coast Guard at al
times (whether it is part of DHS or the U.S. Navy).76
Armed Services Personnel
Individuals convicted of certain sex offenses have been prohibited from entering military service
since 2013.77 The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (USD(P&R)) is
required to establish and maintain RSO policy in DOD.78 The USD(P&R) must also maintain
statistics on the total number of active duty servicemembers in each armed service required to
register as sex offenders.79 The DODIG is responsible for al DOD criminal investigation and
military law enforcement program guidance, evaluation, and monitoring, to include ensuring that
each military criminal investigation organization (MCIO) complies with DOD RSO management
requirements (See Table 1 for a listing of MCIOs).80 Also, the Under Secretary of Defense for
Intel igence and Security (USD(I&S)) is responsible for DOD security, general y, among other
matters.81 The secretaries concerned must develop policy or procedures for RSO matters within
the armed services that are consistent with MSORA and DOD RSO policy.82
Table 1. Military Criminal Investigation Organizations
Department
Law Enforcement Agency
Designation
Location
Army
Criminal Investigation Command
CID
Quantico, VA
Navy
Naval Criminal Investigative Service
NCIS
Quantico, VA

73 DOD Inspector General, Report No. DODIG-2014-103, Evaluation of DoD Compliance with the Sex Offender
Registration and Notification Act, August 29, 2014 (see “ Evaluation Findings”).
74 P.L. 114-22, §502; 34 U.S.C. §20931.
75 DODI 5525.20, §3.2.
76 P.L. 115-232, §544; 10 U.S.C. §131 Note, Oversight of Registered Sex Offender Management Program ; DODI
5525.20, §1.1.
77 10 U.S.C. §657 (see also 10 U.S.C. §504 note); DOD, Instruction 1304.26, Qualification Standards for Enlistment,
Appointm ent, and Induction, March 23, 2015, Encl. 3, §2.h(3). See also CRS In Focus IF11147, Defense Prim er: Active
Duty Enlisted Recruiting.
78 10 U.S.C. §131 Note, Oversight of Registered Sex Offender Management Program , (a); DODI 5525.20, §2.1.
79 10 U.S.C. §131 Note, Oversight of Registered Sex Offender Management Program , (b)(3).
80 DODI 5525.20, §2.2.
81 DOD, Directive 5143.01, Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security (USD(I&S)), October 24, 2014,
§3.
82 DODI 5525.20, §2.3.
Congressional Research Service

14

link to page 20 link to page 32 link to page 34 link to page 36 Federal Requirements for State and Military Registered Sex Offender Management

Department
Law Enforcement Agency
Designation
Location
Air Force
Air Force Office of Special Investigations
AFOSI
Quantico, VA
Homeland Security
Coast Guard Investigative Service
CGIS
Washington, DC
Source: Army, Regulation 195-2, Criminal Investigation Activities, July 21, 2020; Navy, Instruction 5430.107a, Mission
and Functions of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, June 19, 2019; Air Force, Instruction 71-101, Criminal
Investigations Program, July 1, 2019; Coast Guard, Instruction 5520.5F, Coast Guard Investigative Service Roles and
Responsibilities, November 30, 2011.
Notes: NCIS is a Department of the Navy entity that serves as the MCIO of the U.S. Navy (USN) and U.S.
Marine Corps (USMC). Law enforcement organizations in the USN and USMC are the USN Master at Arms,
USMC Police, and USMC Criminal Investigation Division. AFSOI is a Department of the Air Force entity that
serves as the MCIO of the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Space Force. Al armed services are part of a military
department, except the U.S. Coast Guard, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security.
Covered Offense
Military sex offenders are servicemembers convicted either of a covered offense (selected UCMJ
offenses are listed in Table 2) or a civilian offense that requires sex offender registration.83 There
were 23 covered offenses in the UCMJ until 2007; this number increased to 58 by 2012 (See
Appendix A, Appendix B, and Appendix C). Any servicemember convicted by a special or a
general court-martial of a covered offense must register in the jurisdiction in which the individual
resides, works, and attends school within the three days immediately after release from
confinement or sentencing (if not confined).84 This registration requirement and three-day
timeline also applies to servicemembers convicted in domestic or foreign civilian courts of an
offense that is equivalent or analogous to a covered offense. The USD(P&R) is required to
compile data on servicemembers convicted of a covered offense, including data on their sex
offender registration status.85 Military sex offenders who do not comply with notification
registration requirements are subject to prosecution under the UCMJ for failure to obey orders or
regulations.86
Table 2. Selected UCMJ Offenses Requiring Sex Offender Processing
Article
Offense
120
Rape and Sexual Assault General y
120b
Rape and Sexual Assault of a Child
120c
Other Sexual Misconduct
133
Conduct Unbecoming an Officer, Othera
134b
Prostitution
134
Assault with Intent to Commit Sodomy
134
Kidnapping of A Minor (By a Person Not Parent)
134
Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline

83 34 U.S.C. §20911, (1)-(5). For more information, see CRS Report R44944, Military Sexual Assault: A Framework
for Congressional Oversight.
84 10 U.S.C. §816 (Art. 16); and DOD, Instruction 1325.07, Administration of Military Correctional Facilities and
Clem ency and Parole Authority, March 11, 2013 (hereinafter, “ DODI 1325.07”), p. 79.
85 10 U.S.C. §131 Note, Oversight of Registered Sex Offender Management Program , (b)(2).
86 10 U.S.C. §892 (Art. 92).
Congressional Research Service

15

link to page 32 link to page 20 link to page 21 Federal Requirements for State and Military Registered Sex Offender Management

Article
Offense
134
Possession of Child Pornography
134
Possession of Child Pornography, with Intent to Distribute
134
Distribution of Child Pornography
134
Production of Child Pornography
Source: DOD, Instruction 1325.07, Administration of Military Correctional Facilities and Clemency and Parole Authority,
March 11, 2013, pp. 84-86.
Notes: See Appendix A for a detailed listing of the covered offenses that derive from the principal UCMJ
offenses in Table 2 requiring sex offender processing. The covered offenses requiring a special victim counsel
pursuant to 10 U.S.C. §1044e are Article 120, Article 120b, and Article 120c.
a. Article 133 (10 U.S.C. §933), the general offense of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman includes
the specific offense of committing or attempting to commit a crime involving moral turpitude (United States,
Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM), part 4, §90, 2019 edition).
b. Article 134 (10 U.S.C. §934) makes punishable acts in three categories of offenses not specifical y covered in
any other article of the UCMJ. They are offenses that involve (1) disorders and neglects to the prejudice of
good order and discipline in the Armed Forces; (2) conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the Armed
Forces; and (3) noncapital crimes or offenses that violate federal civilian law (MCM, part 4, §91, 2019
edition).
Administrative Separation
A separation is an administrative action that can lead to a discharge from an armed service.87 The most severe
adverse action that can be taken against a servicemember administratively is a discharge with a service
characterization of under other than honorable conditions (OTH).88 Such characterization is possible when the reason
for separation is based on an act, omission, or behavior that is a significant departure from the conduct expected
of servicemembers.89 A convening authority may initiate a separation proceeding against a servicemember for
sexual assault or a sexual offense defined under the DOD Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR)
Program.90 Such proceedings likely would be for misconduct or separation in lieu of a court martial (ILO).91 If a
separation authority initiates proceedings against a servicemember for misconduct, the separation board has the
option to recommend that the respondent be retained in service.92 A separation decision is discretionary and part
of an administrative due process, so it is possible that a separation authority could accept a board’s

87 A separation may be voluntary (servicemember-initiated) or involuntary (service-initiated) and it includes a
discharge, release from active duty, release from custody and control of the armed services, or change in active or
reserve status. A discharge is complete severance from all military status gained through enlistment or induction
(DOD, Instruction 1332.14, Enlisted Adm inistrative Separations, April 12, 2019, Glossary).
88 DOD, Instruction 1332.14, Enlisted Administrative Separations, April 12, 2019 (hereinafter, “DODI 1332.14”), Encl.
4, §1. See also Coast Guard, COMDTINST M1000.4, Military Separations, August 2018.
89 DODI 1332.14, Encl. 4, §3.
90 DODI 1332.14, Encl. 4; A convening authority is a commanding officer who is authorized to act as a separation
authority (See footnote 92) (DODI 1332.14, Glossary). For the purpose of administrative separation, the term sexual
assault has the meaning given for it in the DOD Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program and the
term sexual offense means rape, sexual assault, forcible sodomy, or an attempt to commit one or more of these offenses
(DOD Instruction 6495.02, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program Procedures, March 28, 2013, as
amended).T he SAPR definition of sexual assault is intentional sexual contact characterized by the use of force, threats,
intimidation, or abuse of authority or when the victim does not or cannot consent, which includes a broad category of
sexual offenses consisting of the following specific UCMJ offenses: rape, sexual assault, aggravated sexual contact,
abusive sexual contact, forcible sodomy (forced oral or anal sex), or attempts to commit these offenses.
91 DODI 1332.14, Encl. 3, §§10, 11. See also Army, Directive 2013-21 (Initiating Separation Proceedings and
Prohibiting Overseas Assignm ent for Soldiers Convicted of Sex Offenses) , November 7, 2013.
92 DODI 1332.14, Encl. 5. A separation authority is an official authorized to take final action with respect to a
specified type of separation. A respondent is an enlisted servicemember who has been notified that action is being
taken to separate him or her from some type of military service (DODI 1332.14, Glossary).
Congressional Research Service

16

link to page 22 link to page 32 Federal Requirements for State and Military Registered Sex Offender Management

recommendation to retain a respondent, even if sexual assault or a sexual offense was the basis for such
proceedings.93 Under certain circumstances, an enlisted servicemember may request an ILO separation.94 Such
charges must include an offense with a possible punishment of punitive discharge, which includes al covered
offenses.95 Characterization of service for an ILO separation normal y wil be OTH, but characterization as general
(under honorable conditions) is an option.96 Separation for a SAPR Program-defined sexual assault or sexual offense
is an administrative procedure, not a criminal trial. If such separation is not predicated on a covered offense
conviction, the underlying conduct is not a reportable sex offense.
Custodial Sentence
Congress’s concern in the late nineteenth century over the anachronistic practices in military
stockades and the dangerous conditions in civilian prisons housing military inmates led to
legislation that authorized the building of military prisons.97 The principal reasons given for such
prisons were the maltreatment of military prisoners in state penitentiaries and the potential cost-
savings of fees paid to states for housing them.98 Servicemembers who receive a custodial
sentence as punishment by a court-martial typical y are incarcerated in a military confinement
facility (MCF).99 A listing of selected MCFs is displayed in Table 3.
The USD(P&R) has oversight responsibility for confinement and corrections in DOD.100 The
secretaries concerned are authorized to establish and operate confinement facilities for military
offenders.101 The armed services administer the corrections programs for such offenders.102 The
Secretary of Homeland Security has not established MCFs; the Coast Guard primarily relies on
the Navy’s corrections program.103 An armed service’s MCF may include military offenders from
any service.104
Table 3. Select Military Correctional Facilities
Level
Name
Location
I
U.S. Marine Corps Correctional Facility
Camp Lejeune, NC
I
U.S. Air Force Confinement Facility
Keesler Air Force Base, MS
I
U.S. Air Force Confinement Facility
Lackland Air Force Base, TX

93 DODI 1332.14, Encl. 4.
94 DODI 1332.14, Encl. 3, §11.
95 United States, Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM), 2019 edition, Appendix 12 (See also Appendix A of this CRS
report).
96 DODI 1332.14, Encl. 3, §11.
97 Lawrence J. Morris, Our Mission, No Future: The Case For Closing the United States Army Disciplinary Barracks,
Fall 1996 Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy, 77 -82 (1996).
98 H. Shindler, History of the United States Military Prison (Kansas: T he Army Service Schools Press, 1911).
99 10 U.S.C. §858 (Art. 58); DODI 1325.07, Encl. 2, §2; Glossary.
100 DOD, Directive 1325.04 Confinement of Military Prisoners and Administration of Military Correctional Programs
and Facilities, August 17, 2001 (hereinafter, “DODD 1325.04”), §5.1.
101 10 U.S.C. §951.
102 Army, Regulation 190-47, The Army Corrections System , June 16, 2006; Navy, Secretary Instruction 1640.9D,
Departm ent of the Navy Corrections Program , May 15, 2019; Air Force, Instruction 31-105, Air Force Corrections
System , April 12, 2017.
103 Coast Guard, Instruction Manual M1600.2, Discipline and Conduct, October 22, 2020, pp. 1-24 – 1-26.
104 DODD 1325.04, §4.7.
Congressional Research Service

17

link to page 23 link to page 24 Federal Requirements for State and Military Registered Sex Offender Management

Level
Name
Location
II
U.S. Navy Consolidated Brig
Charleston, SC
II
U.S. Navy Consolidated Brig
Chesapeake, VA
II
U.S. Army Midwest Joint Regional Correctional Facility
Fort Leavenworth, KS
II
U.S. Navy Correctional Facility
Miramar, CA
III
U.S. Army Disciplinary Barracks
Fort Leavenworth, KS
Source: DOD Inspector General, Report No. DODIG-2014-103, Evaluation of DoD Compliance with the Sex
Offender Registration and Notification Act, August 29, 2014, p. 53.
Notes: Level I facilities are minimum-security facilities capable of providing pre-trial and post-trial confinement
for prisoners classified as minimum risk; Level II facilities are medium-security facilities capable of providing pre-
trial and post-trial confinement (up to five years) for medium-risk prisoners; Level III facilities are maximum-
security facilities designed for high-risk, long-term (including life), and death sentence prisoners, and are capable
of providing post-trial confinement exceeding that of Level II facilities (DOD, Instruction 1325.07, Administration of
Military Correctional Facilities and Clemency and Parole Authority, March 11, 2013, §4).
The MCF military sex offender population at the beginning of 2021 is displayed in Table 4. The
percentage of military sex offenders noted in Table 5 compared to the offender population in
MCFs that did not commit sex offenses suggests that 65% of the MCF population are military sex
offenders. Around 52% of the MCF sex offender population is from the Army, which as an armed
service is approximately 35% of the FY2021 total active duty end-strength.105 In contrast, DOJ
reported that the percentage of prisoners sentenced for rape or sexual assault under the
jurisdiction of state correctional authorities in 2019 was 13%.106
Table 4. MCF Military Sex Offender Population
By DOD Annual Correctional Report Sex Of ense Categories
Offenses
USA
USN
USMC
USAF
USCG
Total
Rape with Adult
49
5
13
19
0
86
Rape with Child
82
18
18
19
0
137
Sexual Assault with Adult
73
10
18
21
1
123
Sexual Assault with Child
34
19
15
24
1
93
Sexual Misconduct with Adult
30
3
1
7
0
41
Sexual Misconduct with Child
97
22
20
41
2
182
Other Sexual Offenses
32
18
13
31
3
97
Total
397
95
98
162
7
759
Percentage
52.3%
12.5%
12.9%
21.3%
0.9%
100%
Source: U.S. Army; U.S. Navy; U.S. Marine Corps; U.S. Air Force; DD Form 2720, Annual Correctional Report,
DD-P&R(A)2067, January 1, 2021, §13.b.
Notes: DOD correctional report sex offense categories consist of registerable sex offenses. Military sex
offenders transferred to Bureau of Prisons federal facilities are not included in the data. USA=Army, USN=Navy,
USMC=Marine Corps, USAF=Air Force (including Space Force), USCG=U.S. Coast Guard.

105 P.L. 116-283, §401 (total active duty end-strength authorized for FY2021).
106 DOJ, OJP, Prisoners in 2019, Table 13, October 2020, p. 20, at https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/p19.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

18

link to page 24 link to page 25 Federal Requirements for State and Military Registered Sex Offender Management

Table 5. MCF Military Offender Population
By Rank of Sex Of enders and Other Of enders
Rank
Sex Offenders
Percentage
Other Offenders
Percentage
Total
Officer
44
75.9%
14
24.1%
58
Enlisted
715
63.7%
407
36.3%
1,122
Total
759
64.3%
421
35.7%
1,180
Source: U.S. Army; U.S. Navy; U.S. Marine Corps; U.S. Air Force; DD Form 2720, Annual Correctional Report,
DD-P&R(A)2067, January 1, 2021, §§8.b, 13.b.
Notes: Data does not include military offenders transferred to Bureau of Prisons facilities.
The armed services may transfer a military offender housed in an MCF to a federal Bureau of
Prisons (BOP) facility as a military inmate.107 The Army serves as DOD’s executive agent for
such transfers. BOP is required to accept and maintain up to 500 military inmates.108 Military
inmates in BOP facilities are subject to the same treatment and discipline as other BOP inmates.
The Annual Correctional Report issued by each armed service with a corrections program does
not contain information for BOP military inmates.109 The military sex offender population among
military inmates in BOP facilities as of May 20, 2021, is displayed in Table 6.
Table 6. BOP Military Inmate Sex Offender Population
By Service and BOP Sex Of ense Category
Offenses
USA
USN
USAF
Total
Percentage
Rape
53
10
8
71
61.2%
Sodomy
19
4
6
29
25.0%
Carnal Knowledge
8
4
2
14
12.1%
Prostitution & Pandering
1
0
0
1
0.9%
Other Sex Offenses
1
0
0
1
0.9%
Total
82
18
16
116
100%
Percentage
70.7%
15.5%
13.8%
100%

Source: BOP, Office of Research & Evaluation, Military Inmates Convicted of Sexual Offenses in Federal Custody - By
Branch, May 20, 2021.
Notes: BOP sex offense categories consist of registerable sex offenses. USA=Army, USN=Navy, USAF=Air
Force (including Space Force).
The percentage of military inmate sex offenders in BOP facilities noted in Table 7 compared to
other military inmates in such facilities suggests that 47% of its military inmate population are
military sex offenders. Around 70% of the military inmate sex offenders in BOP facilities are
from the Army. The combined totals for MCF military offenders and BOP military inmates, and

107 DODI 1325.07, Encl. 2, §15. T he term military inmate refers to all military inmates received from the U.S. Army
pursuant to the 1994 memorandum of agreement between the Army and BOP regarding the transfer of military
prisoners to BOP facilities (BOP, Program Statem ent 5110.16, Adm inistration of Sentence for Military Inm ates,
September 13, 2011, §1.c).
108 DOD and DOJ, Memorandum of Agreement Between Department of the Army and the Federal Bureau of Prisons,
Transfer of Military Prisoners to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, May 27, 1994, §4.a.
109 BOP, Program Statement 5110.16, Administration of Sentence for Military Inmates, September 13, 2011, §1.
Congressional Research Service

19

link to page 25 Federal Requirements for State and Military Registered Sex Offender Management

the combined total for MCF military sex offenders and military inmate sex offenders, are noted in
Table 8.
Table 7. BOP Military Inmate Population
By Service of Sex Of enders and Other Of enders
Service
Sex Offenders
Percentage
Other Offenders
Percentage
Total
USA
82
49.4%
84
50.6%
166
USN
18
34.6%
34
65.4%
52
USAF
16
55.2%
13
44.8%
29
Total
116
47.0%
131
53.0%
247
Source: BOP, Office of Research & Evaluation, Military Inmates Convicted of Sexual Offenses in Federal Custody - By
Branch, May 20, 2021.
Notes: USA=Army, USN=Navy, USAF=Air Force (including Space Force).
Table 8. Combined MCF Military Offender and BOP Military Inmate Population
By Service of Sex Of enders and Other Of enders
Service
Sex Offenders
Percentage
Other Offenders
Percentage
Total
USA
479
66.3%
244
33.7%
723
USN
113
54.3%
95
45.7%
208
USMC
98
42.1%
135
57.9%
233
USAF
178
69.5%
78
30.5%
256
USCG
7
100.0%
0
0.0%
7
Total
875
61.3%
552
38.7%
1427
Source: U.S. Army; U.S. Navy; U.S. Marine Corps; U.S. Air Force; DD Form 2720, Annual Correctional Report,
DD-P&R(A)2067, January 1, 2021, §§8.b, 13.b.; BOP, Office of Research & Evaluation, Military Inmates Convicted of
Sexual Offenses in Federal Custody - By Branch, May 20, 2021.
Notes: USA=Army, USN=Navy, USMC=Marine Corps, USAF=Air Force (including Space Force), USCG=U.S.
Coast Guard.
Registration, Notification, and Tracking
MSORA requires DOD to provide DOJ specified information regarding individuals who upon
being convicted or sentenced for a covered offense are required under SORNA to register as a sex
offender.110 The armed services document such information with a single DOD form that is used
for the notifications required immediately after conviction or confinement.111
Post-Conviction
When a military sex offender is required to register after a conviction for a sex offense, the
commander concerned must provide the applicable jurisdiction with the offender’s

110 34 U.S.C §20931; DODI 5525.20, §1.2.
111 DOD, DD Form 2791, Notice of Release/Acknowledgement of Convicted Sex Offender Registration Requirements,
March 2013 (hereinafter, “ DD Form 2791, March 2013”).
Congressional Research Service

20

Federal Requirements for State and Military Registered Sex Offender Management

acknowledgement of his or her sex offender registration requirements and document such
offender’s expected place of residence.112 The commander must also give such acknowledgement
and residence information to the service MCIO and the USMS NSOTC. Final y, the armed
service must enter the offender’s acknowledgement and residence information into the
appropriate jurisdiction’s notification registry through DOJ’s SORNA Exchange Portal.113
Post-Sentence
After a military sex offender is released from an MCF facility, officials must provide notice of the
release and such offender’s requirement for registration to the service MCIO. The MCIO is then
required to add the offender’s name to the NCIC NSOR file. This information remains in the
NSOR file until the MCIO is notified by appropriate authorities of the offender’s registration in a
jurisdiction.
Affiliated Personnel
A DOD-affiliated RSO is an individual with a nexus to DOD who is identified in the NCIC
NSOR file as an RSO.114 Although not categorized further by DOD, there are five possible
groups, among others, of which most DOD-affiliated RSOs could be a member:
 military retirees,
 servicemember dependents,115
 veterans authorized access to military instal ations,
 DOD civilian employees or government contractors, and
 military sex offenders not punitively discharged or administratively separated.
RSO policy in DOD is meant to enhance community safety on domestic and overseas military
instal ations by managing RSOs that have an affiliation with DOD.116 Such policy states that it
identifies affiliated RSOs for the purpose of criminal justice administration, screening current or
prospective employees or volunteers, and protection of the public, particularly children on DOD
instal ations.117
Managing RSOs does not include searching, detaining, or arresting individuals because of their
RSO status.118 Such status cannot be the basis for action by command, security, or human
resource officials. Any action taken against an RSO requires a lawful investigation followed by
an authorized adjudicative process that permits adverse measures.

112 DODI 5525.20, §3.2; DD Form 2791, March 2013.
113 DODI 5525.20, §3.2.
114 Ibid., §G.2.
115 See 37 U.S.C. §401(a) for the definition the term dependent.
116 DODI 5525.20, §1.2.
117 Ibid., §3.1.
118 Ibid., §3.1.
Congressional Research Service

21

Federal Requirements for State and Military Registered Sex Offender Management

Identification, Reporting, and Monitoring
The primary method for identifying DOD-affiliated RSOs is through NCIC NSOR file queries.119
DOD law enforcement agencies must report NSOR file matches to instal ation law enforcement
officials, who are to provide the commanders concerned with publicly releasable criminal history
information for DOD-affiliated RSOs. For members of the National Guard, DOD is to report such
matches to the National Guard Bureau (NGB) provost marshal.120 The NGB is required to make
the appropriate notifications to state officials. If DOD receives sex offender information for a
foreign court conviction of a DOD affiliate living or working in the United States, DOD law
enforcement agencies are to report this information to the U.S. National Crime Bureau within the
International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL).121
DOD relies on a process for monitoring RSOs that it describes as the Identity Matching Engine
for Security and Analysis (IMESA).122 The principal database for personal y identifiable
information (PII) used by DOD to query the NCIC NSOR file is the Defense Enrollment
Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS).123 This system contains PII for active, reserve, or retired
servicemembers and their dependents. DEERS also includes such information for DOD civilians,
sponsored foreign military personnel, and other DOD-designated personnel, such as the Military
Health System patient population.124
International Travel
Al DOD-affiliated RSOs planning to travel abroad must inform appropriate officials of their
plans at least 21 days in advance of the departure.125 Such information must also disclose whether
the RSO intends to reside, work, or attend school outside the United States. If DOD has
knowledge of any DOD-affiliated RSO’s plans for unofficial international travel, or to move
overseas, it is required to share this information with the USMS and the appropriate notification
registry office.126 The armed services also have the option of restricting official travel overseas by
military sex offenders.127
Military Installations
The military departments are required to monitor RSOs on DOD instal ations, particularly DOD-
affiliated RSOs who live on an instal ation or work in a DOD facility.128 Such monitoring occurs
through the commanders concerned and DOD instal ation law enforcement.129 RSO monitoring

119 Ibid., §3.1.
120 Ibid., §3.2.
121 Ibid., §3.2.
122 Ibid., §3.1.
123 Ibid., §3.1.
124 Ibid., §3.1.
125 Ibid., §3.5.
126 Ibid., §3.5.
127 See Army, Directive 2013-21 (Initiating Separation Proceedings and Prohibiting Overseas Assignment for Soldiers
Convicted of Sex Offenses), November 7, 2013; Navy, Operations Instruction 1752.3, Policy for Sex Offender
Tracking, Assignm ent and Access Restrictions within the Navy, May 27, 2009.
128 DODI 5525.20, §1.2.
129 For background information on installations, see CRS In Focus IF11263, Defense Primer: Military Installations
Managem ent.
Congressional Research Service

22

Federal Requirements for State and Military Registered Sex Offender Management

includes enforcement of any restrictions associated with an individual’s sex offense conviction.
When notified of a DOD-affiliated RSO’s presence, instal ation law enforcement officials are to
coordinate with the relevant notification registry office to determine if the RSO is subject to any
restrictions. DOD officials must then establish whether that jurisdiction’s law enforcement
agencies intend to monitor the DOD-affiliated RSO for compliance. If such agencies are unable
or unwil ing to monitor the RSO, DOD instal ation law enforcement are to monitor the individual
in coordination with the jurisdiction.130 DOD policy requires instal ations to have an adequate
number of law enforcement officers special y trained in RSO monitoring.131
Housing Restrictions
DOD-affiliated RSO management is a DOD-wide program applicable to facilities, individuals,
and instal ations within the armed services.132 RSO management policy for DOD-controlled
housing is to provide “DoD housing consistent with Federal and State laws to impose registered
sex offender residency restrictions.”133 Such policy presumably incorporates SORNA, MSORA,
and relevant state law, but it does not appear to restrict RSOs further or otherwise preclude an
RSO from living in DOD-controlled housing. Among the armed services, the Navy, Marine
Corps, and Coast Guard have a policy expressly prohibiting an RSO from occupying housing
under such services’ control.134 These three maritime services also have an RSO disclosure
requirement in their housing application processes that is meant to ensure compliance with such
prohibitions.135 Although the Army and Air Force appear to permit RSO occupancy of housing
under their control, they do have disclosure requirements for RSO occupants, like the maritime
services.136
RSO Occupancy Data
DOD is required to maintain statistics on the total number of active duty servicemembers required
to register as sex offenders, but the total number of DOD-affiliated RSOs living in DOD-
controlled housing “is not data that is normal y reported by DoD instal ations.”137 If it did collect
such data, DOD would categorize it as controlled unclassified information (CUI).138 Such

130 DODI 5525.20, §3.3.
131 Ibid., §3.3.
132 10 U.S.C. §131 Note, Oversight of Registered Sex Offender Management Program ; DODI 5525.20, §1.1.
133 DODM 4165.63-M, Encl. 2, §5.f.
134 Navy, Installation Command Instruction 1752.1, Policy for Sex Offender Tracking, Assignment, and Installation
Access Restrictions, February 7, 2011 (hereinafter, “ CNICINST 1752.1”); Marine Corps, Policy Letter, Registered Sex
Offenders Prohibited Occupancy and Access to Marine Corps Governm ent-Owned, Leased, or Privatized Fam ily
Housing, December 31, 2008 (hereinafter, “ USMC Policy, Registered Sex Offenders Prohibited Occupancy and
Access”); Coast Guard, ALCOAST COMDT NOT ICE ACN 013/21 (SSIC 11101), Sex Offender Policy
Acknowledgem ent and Disclosure Form , 041441Z FEB 21 (hereinafter, “ COMDT NOT ICE ACN 013/21”), §3.
135 Navy, Form CNIC 11103/1, Sex Offender Policy Acknowledgement & Disclosure, February 2011 (also used by
Marine Corps); DHS, Coast Guard, Form 5370A, Sex Offender Policy Acknowledgem ent and Disclosure, February
2021.
136 Army, Regulation 420-1, Army Facilities Management, February 12, 2008, §3-16; Air Force, Instruction 32-6000,
Housing Managem ent, March 18, 2020, §2-12; Air Force, Form 4422, Sex Offender Disclosure and Acknowledgem ent,
July 2010.
137 10 U.S.C. §131 Note, Oversight of Registered Sex Offender Management Program , (b)(3); email to CRS from
DOD, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (OASD) for Legislative Affairs (LA), May 17, 2021.
138 Email to CRS from DOD, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (OASD) for Legislative Affairs (LA), May
17, 2021 (“ this data ... would be CUI”).
Congressional Research Service

23

Federal Requirements for State and Military Registered Sex Offender Management

information typical y is not released to the public. CUI is information the executive branch
creates or possesses that a law, regulation, or federal policy requires or permits an agency to
handle using safeguarding or dissemination controls.139
Inspector General Evaluations
In 2014, the DODIG issued an evaluation of DOD’s compliance with SORNA and the efficacy of
its programs for monitoring DOD-affiliated RSOs.140 In 2020, the DODIG issued an evaluation of
DOD law enforcement agencies’ compliance with various FBI criminal history and information
reporting programs.141 One of the programs evaluated in the most recent report was the RSO
management program established by MSORA, particularly its reporting requirements.
SORNA Compliance
The DODIG evaluation published in 2014 determined that DOD was compliant with its policies
for SORNA reporting, however such policies were issued before MSORA was enacted. Under the
earlier policies, designated officials were supposed to ensure that a military sex offender knew
and understood what his or her notification registration requirements were in a relevant
jurisdiction. Although compliance was found, the evaluation noted that the various notification
registration management processes among the military services needed improvement to achieve
greater efficacy.142 The evaluation also determined that DOD did not have the policies needed to
account for RSOs with access to DOD instal ations or identify DOD affiliates who committed sex
offenses while overseas.143
MSORA Compliance
The DODIG evaluation published in 2020 examined DOD military sex offender reporting
requirements under MSORA, among other matters. Of the 912 offenders in the evaluation, it
identified 86 subjects that the armed services in DOD were required track and register.144
According to the evaluation, the armed services properly reported 78 of the 86 subjects. Although
the armed services responsible for the unreported subjects were not able to account for their
noncompliance, the evaluation determined that the remaining eight subjects registered in the
relevant jurisdiction if they were required to do so.145
Select Issues for Congress
Congress may decide to address a number of issues currently associated with sex offender
registration and notification in the United States. These issues include states’ noncompliance with

139 32 C.F.R. §2002.4(h).
140 DOD Inspector General, Report No. DODIG-2014-103, Evaluation of DoD Compliance with the Sex Offender
Registration and Notification Act, August 29, 2014 (hereinafter, “ Report No. DODIG-2014-103”).
141 DOD Inspector General, Report No. DODIG- 2020-064, Evaluation of DoD Law Enforcement Organization
Subm issions of Crim inal History Inform ation to the Federal Bureau of Investigation , February 21, 2020 (hereinafter,
“Report No. DODIG- 2020-064”).
142 Report No. DODIG-2014-103 (see Findings A and B).
143 Ibid. (see Findings C and D).
144 Report No. DODIG- 2020-064, p. 86.
145 Ibid., p. 96.
Congressional Research Service

24

link to page 16 Federal Requirements for State and Military Registered Sex Offender Management

requirements of SORNA, the effectiveness of SORNA, RSO access to DOD instal ations or
housing, and RSO management of sex offenders under extraterritorial jurisdictions.
Noncompliance with SORNA
As mentioned previously, the majority of states have not fully complied with the requirements of
SORNA. A recent report from the Library of Congress’s Federal Research Division (FRD)
included an analysis of 2018 state implementation reviews from the SMART Office.146 FRD
created a taxonomy to represent the frequency with which certain obstacles to full
implementation were identified by noncompliant states. For example, major obstacles, or those
affecting 50% or more of the noncompliant states, were “Offenses That Must Be Included in the
Registry, Keeping the Registration Current, Verification/Appearance Requirements, and Public
Registry Website Requirements.”147 The FRD report also cited a 2009 survey conducted by
SEARCH, the National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, in which 12 of the 47
surveyed states highlighted the cost of implementation as a concern.148 As mentioned previously,
several states have opted to forego 10% of their JAG funds due to unwil ingness to comply with
SORNA, while others instead apply each year for real ocation of the funding penalty to use on
implementation.149 Congress may wish to address states’ noncompliance by removing or changing
certain requirements or no longer al owing states to apply for real ocation of the funding penalty.
Effectiveness of SORNA
In considering states’ noncompliance and objections to SORNA, Congress may consider the
utility of standardizing registration and notification across the states and the effectiveness of
SORNA policy. Some researchers have also questioned other aspects of SORNA, including the
utility of the classification scheme, the cost, and its overal effect on crime rates and recidivism. 150
Research has indicated that criminal justice professionals typical y support the existence of public
registries, but they also express concerns about the quality of the data and how the public may
understand and use it.151 GAO identified mixed results from implementing jurisdictions: it found
that jurisdictions reported both positive and negative effects of SORNA implementation. Some
stakeholders reported enhanced information sharing on registered sex offenders, while others
reported that implementation increased workloads and caused difficulties for registered offenders
in their attempts to reintegrate into the community.152

146 Library of Congress, Federal Research Division, Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act: Implementation
Challenges for States—Summary and Assessment of Research, October 2020 (hereinafter, “ FRD”).
147 FRD, p. 27. See chart on that page for list of significant, moderate, and minor obstacles as well.
148 FRD, pp. 14-15.
149 DOJ, OJP, SMART Office, Substantial Implementation, Reallocation of Byrne/JAG Grant Funds,
https://smart.ojp.gov/sorna/substantial-implementation.
150 See the “ Research on Registry Effectiveness” section.
151 See, for example, Elizabeth Ehrhardt Mustaine, Richard T ewksbury, David Patrick Connor, and Brian K. Payne,
“Criminal Justice Officials’ Views of Sex Offenders, Sex Offender Registration, Community Notification, and
Residency Restrictions,” Justice System Journal, vol. 36, no. 1 (January 2015); and Andrew J. Harris, Jill S. Levenson,
Christopher Lobanov-Rostovsky, and Scott M. Walfield, “ Law enforcement perspectives on sex offender registration
and notification: Effectiveness, challenges, and policy priorities,” Crim inal Justice Policy Review, vol. 29, no. 4 (May
2018).
152 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION ACT:
Jurisdictions Face Challenges to Im plem enting the Act, and Stakeholders Report Positive and Neg ative Effects, GAO-
13-211, February 2013, http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/652032.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

25

Federal Requirements for State and Military Registered Sex Offender Management

Congress may address these issues through changes to SORNA. For example, Congress may opt
to remove the penalty for noncompliance with SORNA, leave it as is, or increase it. Alternatively,
Congress may decide that standardization of registration and notification systems among the
states is not necessary to public safety. Before making this decision, lawmakers may wish to
require a scientific evaluation of how SORNA implementation has impacted public safety.
Congress might also address any of the issues cited in this report through reauthorization of the
Adam Walsh Act. Authorization for appropriations under this act expired in 2009. Should
Congress wish to reauthorize certain programs under the Adam Walsh Act and/or amend it (and
SORNA), it may elect to do so through reauthorizing the act or via other legislative means.
DOD-Affiliated RSOs
RSOs cannot enter the armed services, but it is possible for an RSO who joined a service before
2013, or a servicemember who becomes an RSO, to remain in the armed services.153 It is not clear
why the risk associated with RSOs attempting to enter the military since 2013 is greater than any
risk associated with RSOs already in the military. There is an apparent incongruence between the
certain presumption that al RSOs are unsuitable to enlist and the rebuttable presumption that
some RSOs are suitable to continue serving.
DOD-Controlled Housing
There are possible inconsistencies among the armed services for prohibiting RSO occupancy of
DOD-controlled housing.154 DOD policy acknowledges that RSOs are al owed on DOD
instal ations and it does not prohibit RSOs from living in DOD-controlled housing.155 Each armed
service has the discretion to establish an RSO prohibition for housing under its control.156

153 10 U.S.C. §657.
154 42 U.S.C. §13663.
155 DODI 5525.20; DODM 4165.63-M, Encl. 2, §5.f.
156 CNICINST 1752.1; Marine Corps, USMC Policy, Registered Sex Offenders Prohibited Occupancy and Access;
COMDT NOT ICE ACN 013/21, §3.
Congressional Research Service

26

Federal Requirements for State and Military Registered Sex Offender Management

Appendix A. Covered Offenses: 2012 to Present
Table A-1. Registerable UCMJ Sex Offenses On or After June 28, 2012
Article
Offense
120(a)
Rape, using unlawful force
120(a)
Rape
120(a)
Rape, using force causing or likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm to any person
120(a)
Rape, threatening that other person unconscious
120(a)
Rape, first rending that person unconscious
Rape, administering to that other person by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or con sent
120(a)
of that person, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance and thereby substantial y impairing the ability of
that other person to appraise or control conduct
120(b)
Sexual Assault
120(c)
Aggravated Sexual Contact
120(c)
Abusive Sexual Contact
120(c)
Aggravated Sexual Contact, using lawful force
Aggravated Sexual Contact, using force causing or likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm to any
120(c)
person
Aggravated Sexual Contact, threatening or placing that person in fear that any person wil be subject to
120(c)
death, grievous bodily harm, or kidnapping
120(c)
Aggravated Sexual Contact, first rendering that other person unconscious
Aggravated Sexual Contact, administering to that other person by force or threat of force, or without the
120(c)
knowledge or consent of that person, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance and thereby
substantial y impairing the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct
120(d)
Abusive Sexual Contact, threatening or placing that other person in fear
Abusive Sexual Contact, making a fraudulent representation that the sexual contact serves a professional
120(d)
purpose
Abusive Sexual Contact, inducing a belief by any artifice, pretense, or concealment that the person is
120(d)
another person
Abusive Sexual Contact, by committing sexual contact upon another person when the person knows or
120(d)
reasonably should know that the other person is asleep, unconscious, or otherwise unaware that the sexual
contact is occurring
Abusive Sexual Contact, by committing sexual contact upon another person when the other person is
120(d)
incapable of consenting to the sexual contact due to impairment by any drug, intoxicant, other similar
substance, and that condition is known or reasonably should be known by the other person
Abusive sexual contact, by committing sexual contact upon another person when the other person is
120(d)
incapable of consenting to the sexual contact due to impairment [b]y a mental disease or defect or physical
disability and that condition is known or reasonably should be known by the person
120b(a)
Rape of a Child (Under 12 years of age)
120b(a)
Rape of a Child (Has attained the age of 12)
120b(a)
Rape of a Child, at least 12 years of age, by threatening or placing that child in fear
120b(a)
Rape of a Child, at least 12 years of age, by rendering that child unconscious
Rape of a Child, at least 12 years of age, by administering to that child a drug, intoxicant, or other similar
120(a)
substance
Congressional Research Service

27

Federal Requirements for State and Military Registered Sex Offender Management

120b(b)
Sexual Assault of a Child
120b(c)
Sexual Abuse of a Child, committing a lewd act with sexual contact
120(b)
Sexual Assault, threatening or placing that other person in fear
120(b)
Sexual Assault, making a fraudulent representation that the sexual act serves a professional purpose
120(b)
Sexual Assault, including a belief by an artifice, pretense, or concealment that the person is another person
Sexual Assault, by committing a sexual act upon another person when the person knows or reasonably
120(b)
should know that the sexual act is occurring
Sexual Assault, by committing a sexual act upon another person when the other person is incapable of
120(b)
consenting to the sexual act due to impairment by any drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance, and that
condition is known or reasonably should be known by the person
Sexual Assault, by committing a sexual act upon another person when the other person is incapable of
120(b)
consenting to the sexual act due to impairment by a mental disease or defect, or physical disability, and that
condition is known or reasonably should be known by the person
120b(c)
Sexual Abuse of a Child, committing lewd act by intentional y exposing one’s genitalia, anus, buttocks, or
female areola or nipple
120b(c)
Sexual Abuse of a Child, committing lewd act by communicating indecent language
120b(c)
Sexual Abuse of a Child, committing lewd act with indecent contact
Indecent Viewing, Visual Recording, or Broadcasting knowingly and wrongful y viewing the private area of
120c(a)
another person, without that other person’s consent and under circumstances in which that other person
has a reasonable expectation of privacy
Indecent Viewing, Visual Recording, or Broadcasting – knowingly photographing, videotaping, filming, or
120c(a)
recording by any means the private area of another person, without other person’s consent and under
circumstances in which that other person has a reasonable expectation of privacy
Indecent Viewing, Visual Recording, or Broadcasting – knowingly broadcasting or distributing any such
120c(a)
recordings that the person knew or reasonably should have known were made without that other person’s
consent and under circumstances in which that other person has a reasonable ex pectation of privacy
120c(b)
Forcible Pandering
120c(c)
Indecent Exposure
133
Conduct Unbecoming an Officer, Other
134
Prostitution
134
Assault with Intent to Commit Sodomy
134
Kidnapping of a Minor (by a person not parent)
134
Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline (involving any conduct listed in this table)
134
Possession of Child Pornography
134
Possession of Child Pornography, with intent to distribute
134
Distribution of Child Pornography
134
Production of Child Pornography
80
Attempt (to commit any of the foregoing)
81
Conspiracy (to commit any of the foregoing)
82
Solicitation (to commit any of the foregoing)
Source: DOD, Instruction 1325.07, Administration of Military Correctional Facilities and Clemency and Parole Authority,
March 11, 2013, Appendix 4 to Enclosure 2, Table 6, pp. 84-86.
Congressional Research Service

28

Federal Requirements for State and Military Registered Sex Offender Management

Appendix B. Covered Offenses: 2007 to 2012
Table B-1. Registerable UCMJ Sex Offenses on or After October 1, 2007, and
Before June 28, 2012
Article
Offense
120(a)(1)
Rape. Using Force
120(a)(2)
Rape. Causing Grievous Bodily Harm
120(a)(3)
Rape. Threatening Death, Grievous Bodily Harm, Kidnapping
120(a)(4)
Rape. Rendering Unconscious
120(a)(5)
Rape. Administering Drug, Intoxicant, Or Similar Substance
120(b)(1)
Rape Of Child. 12 to 16 Years Old
120(b)(2)
Rape Of Child. Under 12 Years Old
120(b)(2)
Rape Of Child. Using Force
120(b)(2)
Rape Of Child. Causing Grievous Bodily Harm
120(b)(2)
Rape Of Child. Threatening Death, Grievous Bodily Harm, Kidnapping
120(b)(2)
Rape Of Child. 12 - Under 16 Years Old. Administering Drug, Intoxicant, Or Similar
Substance. Rending Another Person Unconscious
120(b)(2)
Rape of a Child Administering Drug, Intoxicant, or Similar Substance
Aggravated Sexual Assault. Threatening Or Placing in Fear (Other than Of Death, Grievous
120(c)(1)(A)
Bodily Harm, Kidnapping)
120(c)(1)(B)
Aggravated Sexual Assault. Causing Bodily Harm
Aggravated Sexual Assault. When Victim is Substantial y Incapacitated/Unable to Appraise
120(c)(2)
Act, or Decline Participation, Or Communicate Unwil ingness
120(c)
Aggravated Sexual Assault when Victim is Substantial y Incapable to Communicate
Unwil ingness
120(d)
Aggravated Sexual Assault of a Child. 12 - Under 16 Years Old
120(e)
Aggravated Sexual Contact by Administering a Drug, Intoxicant, or Other Similar Substance
120(e)
Aggravated Sexual Contact.
120(e)
Aggravated Sexual Contact. with a Child 12 to 16 Years Old Causing Grievous Bodily Harm
120(e)
Aggravated Sexual Contact with a Child Under 12 Years Old
120(e)
Aggravated Sexual Contact. Using Force
120(e)
Aggravated Sexual Contact. Using or Displaying a Dangerous Weapon
Aggravated Sexual Contact Using Physical Violence, Strength, Power, or Restraint to any
120(e)
Person
120(e)
Aggravated Sexual Contact by Causing Grievous Bodily Harm
120(e)
Aggravated Sexual Contact by Using Threats or Placing in Fear
120(e)
Aggravated Sexual Contact by Rendering Another Unconscious
120(f)
Aggravated Sexual Contact with a Child 12 to 16 Years Old Using Force
Aggravated Sexual Contact with a Child 12 to 16 Years Old Using or Displaying a Dangerous
120(f)
Weapon
Congressional Research Service

29

Federal Requirements for State and Military Registered Sex Offender Management

Aggravated Sexual Contact with a Child 12 to 16 Years Old by Suggestion or Possession of a
120(f)
Dangerous Weapon or Object
120(f)
Aggravated Sexual Contact with a Child 12 to 16 Years Old Using Violence, Strength, Power,
or Restraint to any Person
Aggravated Sexual Contact with a Child 12 to 16 Years Old by Causing Grievous Bodily
120(f)
Harm
Aggravated Sexual Contact with a Child 12 to 16 Years Old by Using Threats or Placing in
120(f)
Fear
Aggravated Sexual Contact with a Child 12 to 16 Years Old by Rendering Another
120(f)
Unconscious
Aggravated Sexual Contact with a Child 12 to 16 Years Old by Administering a Drug,
120(f)
Intoxicant, or Other Similar Substance
120(g)
Abusive Sexual Contact by Using Threats or Placing in Fear
120(g)
Abusive Sexual Conduct Causing Bodily Harm
120(g)
Abusive Sexual Conduct when Victim is Substantial y Incapacitated/Unable to Appraise Act,
Decline Participation, or Communicate Unwil ingness
120(g)
Abusive Sexual Contact with a Child 12 to Under 16 Years Old
120(h)
Indecent Liberty with a Child
120(i)
Indecent Acts
120(j)
Forcible Pandering
120(k)
Wrongful Sexual Contact
120(l)
Indecent Exposure
125
Forcible Sodomy
125
Sodomy of a Minor 12 to 16 Years Old
125
Sodomy of a Minor Under 12 Years Old
125
Sodomy, Other Cases
133
Conduct Unbecoming an Officer that describes conduct Otherwise Listed in this Table
134
Prostitution Involving a Minor
134
Assault with Intent to Commit Rape
134
Assault with Intent to Commit Sodomy
134
Kidnapping of a Minor (by a person not parent)
134
Pornography Involving a Minor
Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline (involving any conduct otherwise listed in
134
this table)
80
Attempt (to commit any of the foregoing)
81
Conspiracy (to commit any of the foregoing)
82
Solicitation (to commit any of the foregoing)
Source: DOD, Instruction 1325.07, Administration of Military Correctional Facilities and Clemency and Parole Authority,
March 11, 2013, Appendix 4 to Enclosure 2, Table 5, pp. 82-83.
Congressional Research Service

30

Federal Requirements for State and Military Registered Sex Offender Management

Appendix C. Covered Offenses: 2007 and Earlier
Table C-1. Registrable UCMJ Sex Offenses Before October 1, 2007
Article
Offense
120
Rape
120
Carnal Knowledge
125
Forcible Sodomy
125
Sodomy of a Minor
133
Conduct Unbecoming an Officer (involving any sexual y violent offense or a criminal offense of a
sexual nature against a Minor or kidnapping of a Minor)
134
Prostitution Involving a Minor
134
Pornography Involving a Minor
134
Indecent Assault
134
Assault with Intent to Commit Rape
134
Assault with Intent to Commit Sodomy
134
Indecent Act with a Minor
134
Indecent Language to a Minor
134
Indecent or Lewd Acts with Another
134
Possession of Child Pornography with Intent to Distribute
134
Distribution of Child Pornography
134
Production of Child Pornography
134
Kidnapping of a Minor (by a person not parent)
134
Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline (involving any sexual y violent offense or a
criminal offense of a sexual nature against a Minor or kidnapping of a Minor)
Assimilative Crime Conviction (of a sexual y violent offense or a criminal offense of a sexual nature
134
against a Minor)
134
Assimilative Crime Conviction of Kidnapping of a Minor
80
Attempt (to commit any of the foregoing)
81
Conspiracy (to commit any of the foregoing)
82
Solicitation (to commit any of the foregoing)
Source: DOD, Instruction 1325.07, Administration of Military Correctional Facilities and Clemency and Parole Authority,
March 11, 2013, Appendix 4 to Enclosure 2, Table 4, pp. 80-81.
Congressional Research Service

31

Federal Requirements for State and Military Registered Sex Offender Management

Appendix D. Acronyms Used in This Report
JAG
Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant
BOP
Bureau of Prisons
CBP
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
COPS
Community Oriented Policing Services
DEERS
Defense Enrol ment Eligibility Reporting System
DHS
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
DOD
U.S. Department of Defense
DOJ
U.S. Department of Justice
DODIG
DOD Inspector General
FBI
Federal Bureau of Investigation
FRD
Federal Research Division
HUD
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
ICE
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
IMESA
Identity Matching Engine for Security and Analysis
INTERPOL
International Criminal Police Organization
MEJ
Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
MCF
Military confinement facility
MCIO
Military criminal investigative organization
MEJ
Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
MSORA
Military Sex Offender Reporting Act
NCMEC
National Center for Missing & Exploited Children
NCIC
National Crime Information Center
NGB
National Guard Bureau
NSOPW
National Sex Offender Public Website
NSOTC
National Sex Offender Targeting Center
OJP
Office of Justice Programs
OTH
Other than honorable conditions
PII
personal y identifiable information
PROTECT
Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today
RSO
Registered sex offender
SMART
Sex Offender, Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, and Tracking
SMTJ
Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction of the United States
SOMAPI
Sex Offender Management Assessment and Planning Initiative
SORNA
Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act
UCMJ
Uniform Code of Military Justice
USA
U.S. Army
Congressional Research Service

32

Federal Requirements for State and Military Registered Sex Offender Management

USAF
U.S. Air Force (Space Force)
USCG
U.S. Coast Guard
USD(I&S)
Under Secretary of Defense for Intel igence and Security
USD(P&R)
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness
USMC
U.S. Marine Corps
USMS
U.S. Marshals Service
USN
U.S. Navy
USNCB
Washington-U.S. National Central Bureau

Author Information

Emily J. Hanson
Hibbah Kaileh
Analyst in Social Policy
Research Assistant

Alan Ott

Analyst in Defense and Intelligence Personnel
Policy

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should n ot be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R46863 · VERSION 1 · NEW
33

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Aug. 2, 2021

HTML · PDF

Metadata

Topic areas

Domestic Social Policy

Report Type: CRS Report

Source: CRSReports.Congress.gov

Raw Metadata: JSON