GAO
February 2013

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

REGISTERED SEX
OFFENDERS
Sharing More
Information Will
Enable Federal
Agencies to Improve
Notifications of Sex
Offenders’
International Travel

GAO-13-200

February 2013

REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS

Highlights of GAO-13-200, a report to
congressional requesters

Sharing More Information Will Enable Federal
Agencies to Improve Notifications of Sex Offenders’
International Travel

Why GAO Did This Study

What GAO Found

In recent years, certain individuals who
had been convicted of a sex offense in
the United States have traveled
overseas and committed offenses
against children. GAO was asked to
review what relevant federal
agencies—including DOJ, DHS, and
the Department of State—are doing
with regard to registered sex offenders
traveling or living abroad. This report
addresses the following questions: (1)
How and to what extent does the
federal government determine whether
registered sex offenders are leaving or
returning to the United States? (2) How
and to what extent have federal
agencies notified foreign officials about
registered sex offenders traveling
internationally? GAO analyzed August
and September 2012 data from the
U.S. Marshals, USNCB, and ICE on
registered sex offenders who traveled
internationally. GAO also interviewed
relevant agency officials and surveyed
officials from all 50 states, 5 territories,
and the District of Columbia to
determine the extent to which they
identify and use information on
traveling sex offenders.

Three federal agencies—U.S. Marshals, International Criminal Police
Organization (INTERPOL) Washington – U.S. National Central Bureau (USNCB),
and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)—use information from
state, local, territorial, and tribal jurisdictions, as well as passenger data from the
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), to identify registered sex offenders
traveling outside of the United States. Similarly, these agencies may be notified
of registered sex offenders traveling to the United States through several means,
including tips from foreign officials or when CBP queries the registered sex
offender’s biographic information at a port of entry and finds that the offender has
a criminal history. However, none of these sources provides complete or
comprehensive information on registered sex offenders leaving or returning to
the United States. For example, CBP does not routinely query individuals who
leave the United States by commercial bus, private vessel, private vehicle, or by
foot, in which case CBP may not be able to determine if any of these individuals
are registered sex offenders. In addition, foreign officials do not always monitor
when a registered sex offender is returning to the United States. The Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI), working with other agencies, is developing a
process that will address some of these limitations. Specifically, the FBI will send
an automated notice to the U.S. Marshals and law enforcement officials in the
jurisdictions where the sex offender is registered that the offender is traveling, to
the extent that the offender’s biographical information is queried at the port of
entry. However, because ICE has not requested to receive the automated
notifications, ICE will not be notified of registered sex offenders who leave the
country via a land port of entry whose biographical information is queried.

What GAO Recommends
GAO recommends that ICE consider
receiving the automated notifications
and DOJ and DHS take steps to
ensure that USNCB and ICE (1) have
information on the same number of
traveling registered sex offenders and
(2) have access to the same level of
detail about each traveling registered
sex offender. USNCB within DOJ and
DHS concurred with our
recommendations.

USNCB and ICE have notified foreign officials of some registered sex offenders
leaving and returning to the country, but could increase the number and content
of these notifications. USNCB notifies its foreign INTERPOL counterparts about
registered sex offenders traveling internationally, and ICE notifies its foreign law
enforcement counterparts about traveling sex offenders who had committed an
offense against a child. USNCB provides more detailed information than ICE
because USNCB uses offenders’ self-reported travel information that some
jurisdictions collect, which may include details such as hotel information. Since
ICE uses passenger data, it does not have these details. Also, data from August
1 to September 30, 2012, showed that the two agencies had significant
differences in the number of offenders they identified in notifications. USNCB
sent notifications on 105 traveling sex offenders that ICE did not, and,
conversely, ICE sent notifications on 100 traveling sex offenders that USNCB did
not. In part this is because the two agencies rely on different information sources
and do not share information with one another. Taking steps to ensure that these
agencies have all available information on the same registered sex offenders
traveling internationally could help ensure that the agencies are providing more
comprehensive information to their foreign counterparts to help inform public
safety decisions.

View GAO-13-200. For more information,
contact Eileen R. Larence at (202) 512-6510
or larencee@gao.gov.

United States Government Accountability Office

Contents

Letter

1
Background
Federal Agencies Collect Information on Traveling Registered Sex
Offenders, but the Information Could be More Comprehensive
ICE and USNCB Notify Foreign Officials about Some Registered
Sex Offenders Traveling Abroad, but Improved Information
Sharing Could Increase the Number and Content of These
Notifications
Conclusions
Recommendations for Executive Action
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

6
10

23
29
30
30

Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

33

Appendix II

Registered Sex Offenders Traveling Internationally Who Were
Refused Entry by Foreign Countries

39

Appendix III

Comments from the Department of Homeland Security

40

Appendix IV

Comments from the Department of Justice

43

Appendix V

Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

45

Tables
Table 1: Functions of the Federal Agencies that Play a Role in
Identifying Traveling Registered Sex Offenders
Table 2: Mechanisms by Which Federal Agencies Become Aware of
Registered Sex Offenders Returning to the United States
and Their Limitations
Table 3: Extent to Which the Planned Automated Notification Is
Intended to Address Limitations to Identifying Registered
Sex Offenders Traveling Internationally

Page i

9
15
18

GAO-13-200 Registered Sex Offenders

Table 4: Type of Information Jurisdictions, NTC, and the
Automated Notification Provide or Will Provide on
Registered Sex Offenders Traveling Internationally

21

Figures
Figure 1: Primary Methods by Which the U.S. Marshals Service,
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S.
National Central Bureau Receive Information on
Registered Sex Offenders Traveling Internationally
Figure 2: Notifications Sent by U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement and U.S. National Central Bureau to Foreign
Countries on Registered Sex Offenders Traveling
Internationally, August 1, 2012 to September 31, 2012
Figure 3: Number of Registered Sex Offenders Referred by the
National Targeting Center (NTC) to the U.S. Marshals and
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and
Number Refused Entry by Foreign Destination Country,
October 1, 2011, to September 27, 2012

Page ii

13

26

39

GAO-13-200 Registered Sex Offenders

Abbreviations
APB
APIS
CA
CBP
DHS
DOD
DOJ
DS
FBI
IAFIS
ICE
INTERPOL
IWG
MPS
NCIC
NSOR
NSOTC
NTC
PNR
SMART Office
SOCA
SORNA
U.K.
USNCB

Advisory Policy Board
Advance Passenger Information System
Bureau of Consular Affairs
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Department of Homeland Security
Department of Defense
Department of Justice
Bureau of Diplomatic Security
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification
System
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
International Criminal Police Organization
International Tracking of Sex Offenders Working Group
Metropolitan Police Service
National Crime Information Center
National Sex Offender Registry
National Sex Offender Targeting Center
CBP National Targeting Center
Passenger Name Record
Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring,
Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking
Serious Organised Crime Agency
Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act of 2006
United Kingdom
INTERPOL Washington - U.S. National Central Bureau

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

Page iii

GAO-13-200 Registered Sex Offenders

United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC 20548

February 14, 2013
The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.
Chairman
The Honorable Robert C. Scott
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and
Investigations
Committee on the Judiciary
House of Representatives
The Honorable Christopher H. Smith
Chairman, Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights,
and International Organizations
Committee on Foreign Affairs
House of Representatives
In recent years, certain individuals who had previously been convicted of
a sex offense in the United States subsequently traveled overseas and
committed an offense against a child or attempted to transport a child
from overseas to commit a sex crime. For example, in 2008, an individual
with a prior U.S. sex offense conviction received a prison sentence for
engaging in illicit sexual activity with a 15-year-old girl in Ciudad Juarez,
Chihuahua, Mexico, in exchange for money and crack cocaine. Also, in
2009, an individual who had previously been convicted of a sex offense
against a minor in the United States was convicted of a child sex tourism
crime, where the individual sexually abused a minor while traveling
abroad. 1
Given the risk that some individuals previously convicted of a sex offense
may pose, in July 2006, Congress passed and the President signed the
Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act of 2006 (SORNA), which
provided a new set of sex offender registration and notification standards,
including criminal penalties for those who fail to comply with these
standards. 2 These standards require convicted sex offenders to register

1

For the purpose of this report, a child sex tourist is an individual who travels to another
country for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual activity with a child.

2

Pub. L. No. 109-248, tit. I, 120 Stat. 587, 590-611.

Page 1

GAO-13-200 Registered Sex Offenders

and keep the registration current in the state, territorial, or tribal
jurisdictions in which they live, work, and attend school, and for initial
registration purposes only, the jurisdiction in which they were convicted.
Registration generally entails convicted sex offenders appearing in
person to provide the jurisdiction with personal information, such as name
and date of birth, among other information. Jurisdictions then use this
information to track these offenders following their release into the
community in an effort to ensure public safety. Further, SORNA directs
the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the
Secretary of Homeland Security, to establish a system for informing
domestic jurisdictions about persons entering the United States who are
required to register under SORNA. 3 The act also made it a federal crime
for a sex offender to travel in foreign commerce and knowingly fail to
register or update a registration. 4 Moreover, the Department of Justice
(DOJ) promulgated guidelines governing implementation of SORNA that
have resulted in some jurisdictions’ requiring sex offenders to inform local
and state officials in the jurisdictions where they reside of their plans to
travel internationally. 5 You requested that we review what relevant federal
agencies—including DOJ, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS),
and the Department of State (State)—are doing with regard to sex
offenders who were convicted and subsequently registered in the United
States and who are traveling or living abroad. 6 Specifically, this report
addresses the following questions:
(1) How and to what extent does the federal government determine
whether registered sex offenders are leaving or returning to the United
States?
(2) How and to what extent have federal agencies notified foreign
officials about registered sex offenders traveling internationally?

3

42 U.S.C. §16928.

4

18 U.S.C. § 2250(a).

5

Supplemental Guidelines for Sex Offender Registration and Notification, 76 Fed. Reg.
1630 (Jan 11, 2011).

6

For the purpose of this report, we only included U.S. persons (i.e., U.S. citizens or lawful
permanent residents) and foreign nationals who were registered as sex offenders in the
United States at the time of their travel outside of or back to the United States. We did not
include U.S. persons or foreign nationals who are not already registered as sex offenders
in the United States, such as those who committed sex offenses abroad and may have to
register under SORNA upon their return to the United States.

Page 2

GAO-13-200 Registered Sex Offenders

To address both objectives, we identified relevant legislation, regulations,
and other guidance that directs federal agencies’ efforts to identify
registered sex offenders leaving or returning to the United States. We
also obtained documentation and testimonial evidence from members of
the International Tracking of Sex Offenders Working Group (IWG), which
is composed of representatives from various agencies within DOJ, DHS,
State, and the Department of Defense (DOD) and was tasked with
developing mechanisms for identifying registered sex offenders leaving
and returning to the country. 7 We also interviewed agency officials from
three of the federal departments represented on the IWG. The agencies
within DOJ include the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring,
Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (SMART Office); Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI); United States Marshals Service (U.S.
Marshals); and International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL)
Washington - United States National Central Bureau (USNCB). The
agencies within DHS include U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The agencies
within State include the Bureau of Consular Affairs and Bureau of
Diplomatic Security.
We also interviewed and surveyed relevant state, local, and territorial
officials to determine what role, if any, they play in informing the federal
government of registered sex offenders leaving the country, and how, if at
all they become aware of registered sex offenders returning to the
country, and how they use that information to help ensure public safety.
We first conducted a screening survey of officials the SMART Office
identified as being responsible for implementing SORNA in each of the
jurisdictions—the 50 states, 5 U.S. territories, and the District of
Columbia. 8 These officials included representatives of state police
departments or attorney general offices. Subsequently, of those
jurisdictions that responded that they require sex offenders to provide
advance notice of international travel, we selected 4 jurisdictions—

7

DOD was excluded from our review because, under SORNA, the departments
responsible for dealing with registered sex offenders traveling abroad were identified as
DOJ, DHS, and State.

8

The 5 U.S. territories included in our review are American Samoa, Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. We did not
include federally recognized Indian tribes eligible under SORNA because we will analyze
tribal jurisdictions’ efforts to implement SORNA and identify registered sex offenders
leaving and returning to the United States in a separate review.

Page 3

GAO-13-200 Registered Sex Offenders

Maryland, Florida, Michigan, and Arizona—to conduct site visits and 1
jurisdiction (New Mexico) to conduct telephone interviews. 9 During the
site visits, we obtained additional information on how jurisdictions
implemented and enforced the requirement and shared information on
traveling registered sex offenders with relevant federal agencies. We
chose these jurisdictions to achieve variation in (1) the extent of
international travel from the jurisdiction; (2) percentage of the population
that is composed of sex offenders; and (3) whether the state has land and
sea ports of entry, in addition to airports, to cover the various modes by
which sex offenders could enter and leave the country. 10 During the site
visits, we met with officials from the following federal, state, and local law
enforcement agencies: U.S. Marshals, ICE, and CBP (at air, land, and
sea ports of entry); state agencies responsible for maintaining the state
sex offender registry; and local law enforcement agencies responsible for
registering and monitoring sex offenders. While the perspectives from the
officials we interviewed during site visits cannot be generalized to all
jurisdictions, they provided valuable insights about registered sex
offenders traveling internationally.
We also developed and administered a second survey of the same
officials from the 56 jurisdictions to obtain more detailed information on
the extent to which jurisdictions require registered sex offenders to
provide advance notice of international travel and inform federal agencies
of registered sex offenders leaving the country. The survey also included
questions related to jurisdictions’ perspectives on any challenges or
improvements needed regarding receiving or providing information about
sex offenders leaving or returning to the United States, in addition to other

9

During our site visit to Arizona, the Arizona agency officials responsible for sex offender
registration clarified that the State of Arizona does not require sex offenders to provide
advance notice of their international travel unless the sex offenders are planning to
permanently reside abroad. Consequently, to maintain consistency with our selection
criteria, we selected the next state jurisdiction that matched our selection criteria for site
visits—New Mexico. State officials in New Mexico did not respond to our request to meet
with them; however, we were able to conduct telephone interviews with relevant CBP and
U.S. Marshals officials in this state.

10

Ports of entry—including air, sea, and land ports of entry—are government-designated
locations where CBP inspects persons and goods to determine whether they may be
lawfully admitted or entered into the country.

Page 4

GAO-13-200 Registered Sex Offenders

issues related to the implementation of SORNA. We received responses
from 52 out of 56 jurisdictions. 11
Additionally, we obtained and analyzed data from the U.S. Marshals, ICE,
and USNCB, which are the three agencies identified as having
responsibility for taking action based on the information they obtain on
registered sex offenders leaving or returning to the country to help ensure
public safety. We obtained and analyzed data the three agencies
received from August 1 through September 30, 2012 on registered sex
offenders traveling internationally. 12 We also analyzed the data to
determine the extent to which there was any fragmentation (i.e.,
circumstances in which more than one federal agency is involved in the
same broad area of national interest) or duplication (i.e., two or more
agencies or programs are engaged in the same activities or provide the
same services to the same beneficiaries) with regard to notices sent to
foreign officials. We also assessed whether there were any benefits or
drawbacks to any fragmentation or duplication. We assessed the
reliability of the data the agencies provided by questioning knowledgeable
agency officials and reviewing the data for obvious errors and anomalies.
We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes.
Moreover, we contacted federal and foreign officials in select countries—
Australia, Canada, Mexico, the Philippines, Thailand, and the United
Kingdom—to obtain information on how they learn of registered sex
offenders traveling from the United States to those countries; how, if at
all, they use this information to help ensure public safety; and any
limitations or benefits of receiving this information. We selected Mexico,
the Philippines, and Thailand because, on the basis of data we obtained
from ICE, these are among the countries most frequented by child sex

11

We did not receive survey responses from the following jurisdictions: American Samoa,
New Hampshire, Oregon, and Washington. For further details on the web survey, see
GAO, Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act: Jurisdictions Face Challenges to
Implementing the Act, and Stakeholders Report Positive and Negative Effects,
GAO-13-211 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 7, 2013), and for the e-supplement containing the
questions and results of the web survey see GAO, Sex Offender Registration: Survey of
States and Territories on Implementation of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification
Act (GAO-13-234SP, February 2013), an E-supplement to GAO-13-211 (Washington,
D.C.: Feb. 7, 2013).
12
We chose this time period because we wanted to assess the effectiveness of a process
the U.S. Marshals instituted in August 2012 for sharing information with USNCB on
registered sex offenders traveling outside of the United States.

Page 5

GAO-13-200 Registered Sex Offenders

tourists. We selected Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom
because they are known to have national sex offender registries, similar
to those of the United States, and have expressed an interest in receiving
information from the U.S. government on sex offenders traveling there.
Appendix I provides additional detail on our objectives, scope, and
methodology.
We conducted this performance audit from January 2012 to February
2013 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to
obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for
our analysis based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence
obtained provides a reasonable basis for our analysis based on our audit
objectives.

Background
Sex Offender Registration
Requirement

The purpose of SORNA is to protect the public from sex offenders and
offenders against children by providing a comprehensive set of sex
offender registration and notification standards. These standards require
convicted sex offenders, prior to their release from imprisonment or within
3 days of their sentencing if the sentence does not involve imprisonment,
to register and keep the registration current in the jurisdictions in which
they live, work, and attend school, and for initial registration purposes
only, the jurisdiction in which they were convicted. Registration generally
entails the offender appearing in person at a local law enforcement
agency and the agency collecting information such as name, address,
Social Security number, and physical description of the offender, among
other items. The registration agency also is to document, among other
items, the text of the provision of law defining the criminal offense for
which the offender is registered; the criminal history of the offender,
including dates of all arrests and convictions; and any other information
the Attorney General requires. In addition, implementing jurisdictions are
to maintain a jurisdiction-wide sex offender registry and adopt registration
requirements that are at least as strict as those SORNA established. The
length of time that convicted sex offenders must continue to update their
registration is life, 25 years, or 15 years, depending on the seriousness of
the crimes for which they were convicted and with possible reductions for
maintaining a clean record. The frequency with which sex offenders must
update or verify their information—either quarterly, semiannually, or
annually—also depends on the seriousness of the crime. Once sex

Page 6

GAO-13-200 Registered Sex Offenders

offenders register or update their registration in their jurisdictions, under
the act, implementing jurisdictions are to provide the new information to
FBI’s National Sex Offender Registry (NSOR). NSOR is a national
database within the FBI’s National Crime Information Center (NCIC) that
federal, state, local, territorial, and tribal law enforcement officials can
access to obtain information on registered sex offenders throughout the
United States. Jurisdictions’ receipt of certain federal grant funds is
conditioned upon whether they have “substantially implemented” SORNA,
and, as we have previously reported, jurisdictions are in various stages of
implementing the act. 13

Federal Requirements for
Registered Sex Offenders
Traveling Internationally

Pursuant to the Attorney General’s authority to interpret and implement
SORNA, the SMART Office developed SORNA guidelines specifically
related to registered sex offenders traveling internationally. 14 For
example, under DOJ’s National Guidelines, each jurisdiction in which a
sex offender is registered as a resident is instructed to require the sex
offender to inform the jurisdiction if the sex offender intends to commence
residence, employment, or school attendance outside of the United
States. 15 The jurisdiction needs to then (1) notify all other jurisdictions in
which the offender is required to register through immediate electronic
forwarding of the sex offender’s registration information, and (2) notify the
U.S. Marshals—the primary federal agency responsible for investigating
sex offender registration violations under SORNA—and update the sex
offender’s registration information in the national databases pursuant to
the procedures under SORNA § 121(b)(1). Also, under DOJ’s
Supplemental Guidelines, jurisdictions are directed to have sex offenders
report international travel 21 days in advance of such travel and submit
information concerning such travel to the appropriate federal agencies
and databases. 16 Furthermore, per the SMART Office’s SORNA
Implementation Document, in order to provide the most helpful
information to U.S. Marshals and other law enforcement agencies, DOJ’s

13
For a description of requirements jurisdictions must meet in order to “substantially
implement” SORNA, and the extent to which jurisdictions have meet these requirements,
see GAO-13-211.
14

42 U.S.C. §§ 16912(b), 16914(a)(7).

15
The National Guidelines for Sex Offender Registration and Notification, 73 Fed. Reg.
38,030 (July 2, 2008).
16

See 76 Fed. Reg. at 1637.

Page 7

GAO-13-200 Registered Sex Offenders

guidelines require jurisdictions to collect passport information in addition
to other travel information, such as itinerary details, purpose of travel,
criminal records, and contact information within the destination country,
regarding a registered sex offender’s intended international travel. 17
Currently, according to officials from the SMART Office, DOJ will not
reduce grant funds for jurisdictions that have not yet implemented the
supplemental guidelines on registered sex offenders traveling
internationally, because DOJ is allowing jurisdictions additional time to
implement the supplemental guidelines as part of its assessment of
whether jurisdictions have “substantially implemented” SORNA.

Federal Agencies That Play
a Role in Identifying
Registered Sex Offenders
Traveling Internationally

Under SORNA, the responsibility for establishing a system for informing
jurisdictions about persons entering the United States who are required to
register is divided among three federal departments— DHS, DOJ, and
State—with DOJ being the lead agency. Additionally, in 2008, the SMART
Office created the IWG, which consists of multiple agencies within DOJ,
DHS, and State, to discuss issues related to identifying registered sex
offenders traveling internationally. 18 Although not required to do so under
SORNA, ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) division,
consistent with its objective to target transnational sexual exploitation of
children, developed the Angel Watch program. The purpose of this
program is to provide advance notice to foreign officials when a registered
sex offender who committed a crime against a child is traveling from the
United States to a foreign country. Table 1 describes the functions of the
federal agencies that play a role in identifying registered sex offenders
traveling internationally.

17

DOJ, SORNA Implementation Document (Washington D.C.: Mar. 27, 2012). This
document is the SMART Office’s most recent guidance related to registered sex offenders
traveling internationally. It directs jurisdictions to collect passport information from sex
offenders prior to their international travel, among other things.
18

Although SORNA requires DOJ, in consultation with DHS and State, to establish a
system to inform domestic jurisdictions about persons entering the United States who are
required to register under SORNA, the IWG adopted the expanded language provided in
DOJ’s National Guidelines for Sex Offender Registration and Notification on sex offenders
traveling internationally. The guidelines aimed to establish a mechanism to inform
jurisdictions about sex offenders leaving the country in order to effectively carry out the
SORNA requirement, since such offenders will be required to resume registration if they
later return to the United States.

Page 8

GAO-13-200 Registered Sex Offenders

Table 1: Functions of the Federal Agencies that Play a Role in Identifying Traveling Registered Sex Offenders
Federal department

Federal agency

General function

DOJ

SMART Office, Office of
Justice Programs

Provides guidance and technical assistance to jurisdictions and public and private
organizations in activities related to sex offender registration. Maintains the Dru
Sjodin National Sex Offender Public Website, which is a national online registry
portal that the public can use to access information on registered sex offenders.

U.S. Marshals

Investigates sex offender registration violations and provides operational support
to help state, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement identify, locate, and
prosecute non-compliant sex offenders. Provides assistance to jurisdictions in the
identification and location of sex offenders relocated as a result of a major
disaster.

U.S. Marshals
National Sex
Offender Targeting
Center (NSOTC)

DHS

USNCB

As the designated representative to the International Criminal Police Organization
(INTERPOL) on behalf of the Attorney General, USNCB facilitates the exchange
of information to assist law enforcement agencies in the United States and
throughout the world in detecting and deterring international crime (including sex
crimes) and terrorism through a network of 190 member countries.

CBP

Inspects travelers entering the United States at air, land, and sea ports of entry.
When travelers (U.S. persons and foreign nationals) enter the country through
ports of entry, CBP officers conduct a screening procedure referred to as a
primary inspection where officers take steps to ensure that the traveler is in
compliance with all U.S. legal requirements. CBP officers process travelers
deemed admissible at the primary inspection. Other travelers not readily deemed
admissible or requiring additional scrutiny are referred to a secondary inspection
for a more in-depth interview by a CBP officer. This inspection involves a closer
inspection of travel documents and possessions (which could include determining
whether the traveler possesses child pornography), additional questioning, and
background checks through law enforcement database systems such as NCIC or
TECS, among other things.a At the end of the secondary inspection, CBP may
release, refuse entry to, or detain the person while CBP further reviews
compliance or admissibility.

NTC

State

Functions as an interagency intelligence and operations center to assist with
identifying, investigating, locating, apprehending, and prosecuting non-compliant,
unregistered fugitive sex offenders. Assists states, tribes, and territories in
enforcing the registration requirements.

Receives travelers’ data such as name, date of birth, and travel information from
air carrier or cruise ship companies to (1) provide tactical targeting information
aimed at interdicting terrorists, criminals, and prohibited items; and (2) match
travelers and goods against known patterns of illicit activity.

ICE

Investigates sexual exploitation of children, among other responsibilities, and
operates the Angel Watch program, which identifies convicted child predators
who attempt to travel internationally to countries known as destinations for child
sex tourism.

Bureau of Consular
Affairs (CA)

Issues passports to U.S. citizens, adjudicates visas for foreign nationals, and
interprets visa laws and regulations, among others. Determines whether visa
should be issued to foreign nationals who have committed crimes of moral
turpitude, which could include certain sex offenses.

Bureau of Diplomatic
Security (DS)

Works with foreign police and security organizations to coordinate U.S. law
enforcement initiatives and investigations, among others.

Source: GAO analysis based on information provided by federal agencies.

Page 9

GAO-13-200 Registered Sex Offenders

a

TECS is CBP’s key database system for border enforcement and sharing of travelers’ information
and provides a real-time interface with NCIC.

Federal Agencies
Collect Information
on Traveling
Registered Sex
Offenders, but the
Information Could be
More Comprehensive

Three federal agencies—U.S. Marshals, USNCB, and ICE—use
information from state, local, territorial, and tribal jurisdictions, as well as
passenger data from CBP, to determine whether registered sex offenders
are traveling outside of the United States. Similarly, five federal
agencies—USNCB, ICE, U.S. Marshals, Consular Affairs, and CBP—may
be notified of registered sex offenders traveling to the United States
through several means, including tips from foreign officials or when CBP
queries the registered sex offender’s biographic information at a port of
entry and finds that the offender has a criminal history. However, none of
these sources provides complete or comprehensive information on
registered sex offenders leaving or returning to the United States. For
example, because CBP’s passenger data are based on information from
private or commercial air, commercial vessels, and voluntary reporting
from rail and commercial bus lines; and CBP does not routinely query
individuals who leave the United States by commercial bus, private
vessel, private vehicle, or by foot, it is unable to provide information on all
individuals leaving the country. In addition, foreign officials do not always
monitor when a registered sex offender is returning to the United States.
The FBI is establishing an automated notification process that is expected
to address some of these limitations. However, because ICE has not
requested to receive the automated notifications, ICE will not be notified
of registered sex offenders who leave the country via a land port of entry.

Limitations in the
Information Federal
Agencies Receive on
Registered Sex Offenders
Leaving the Country from
State and Local
Jurisdictions and CBP
Passenger Data

Officials from the U.S. Marshals and USNCB said that they use
information from state, local, territorial, and tribal jurisdictions, and
officials from the U.S. Marshals and ICE said that they use air and sea
passenger data from CBP, to determine whether registered sex offenders
are traveling internationally, but both mechanisms have limitations. 19

19

To a lesser extent, the U.S. Marshals reported using information gathered from ongoing
investigations to determine whether a registered sex offender is leaving the United States.
Depending on the case, the U.S. Marshals may receive this information from state, local,
or territorial law enforcement, or other federal agencies.

Page 10

GAO-13-200 Registered Sex Offenders

Information from Jurisdictions

The information that the U.S. Marshals and USNCB receive from
jurisdictions about registered sex offenders traveling internationally is
limited, in part because (1) some jurisdictions do not require sex
offenders to inform them of international travel and (2) those jurisdictions
that do require notice must rely on sex offenders to self-report this
information. Consistent with the Attorney General’s authority under
SORNA to require sex offenders to provide additional information for
inclusion in the jurisdiction’s registry than what the act requires, DOJ’s
Supplemental Guidelines added that registered sex offenders must
provide jurisdictions 21 days advance notice of any international travel,
and jurisdictions are to notify the U.S. Marshals of any registered sex
offenders traveling internationally. According to the U.S. Marshals, to
support these jurisdictions’ efforts to provide more complete and
consistent information, in February and March 2012, the SMART Office
asked jurisdiction registry officials, and the U.S. Marshals and USNCB
asked relevant jurisdictional law enforcement agencies, to submit a
Notification of International Travel form to the U.S. Marshals. This form
includes the traveler’s name, passport number, travel information,
criminal record, and contact information in the destination country.
However, not all jurisdictions have elected to implement the DOJ
guideline requiring registered sex offenders to provide advance notice of
international travel. Specifically, of the 50 jurisdictions that responded to
our survey question about advance notice of international travel
requirements, 28 reported that they require sex offenders to provide such
advance notice, whereas the other 22 do not, primarily because their
jurisdiction’s laws do not permit them to do so. 20 For example, 1
jurisdiction said that because its statute requires registered sex offenders
to notify the registry within 72 hours after international travel, officials are
not authorized to collect this information in advance. Moreover, some
jurisdictions have difficulty obtaining information on traveling registered
sex offenders on a consistent basis because jurisdictions must rely on
sex offenders to self-report, and jurisdictions have limited mechanisms in
place to enforce the self-reporting requirement. For example, sex offender
registry officials in 1 jurisdiction we visited said that they would not know
that a registered sex offender failed to self-report international travel

20

According to senior officials from the SMART Office, generally, jurisdictions have had to
amend their existing sex offender registration and notification laws to include the 21-day
advance notice of international travel. However, some jurisdictions are able to make an
administrative decision that will permit them to collect this information.

Page 11

GAO-13-200 Registered Sex Offenders

unless they conducted an address verification operation, which would
enable them to determine that the sex offender is traveling. Senior
officials from the SMART Office stated that they are pleased that 28
jurisdictions have already implemented the advance notice provision,
considering that the guidance for the provision was not released until
January 2011. These officials also stated that they continue to provide
technical assistance to jurisdictions seeking to implement this provision.

Information from CBP’s Review
of Passenger Data

Information on registered sex offenders traveling internationally that the
U.S. Marshals and ICE obtain from CBP’s review of passenger data also
has limitations. CBP, as part of DHS, has the mission to secure the
United States’ borders while facilitating legitimate trade and travel. To
help fulfill that mission, CBP established NTC, which, among other things,
receives and reviews air and sea passenger data to determine whether
persons entering or leaving the country via a commercial airline or
cruiseline are on the terrorist watchlist, are wanted, or have a warrant out
for their arrest. 21 NTC officials stated that in 2009, they met with the U.S.
Marshals to determine how they could support efforts under way at the
newly formed NSOTC. NTC agreed to review passenger data to
determine whether any persons leaving the country are registered sex
offenders. Since then, according to NTC officials, they have provided the
U.S. Marshals information, such as name, date of birth, destination, and
offense, on all registered sex offenders NTC identifies from passenger
data so that the U.S. Marshals can verify that the sex offender did not
violate any registration requirements. NTC officials stated that they also
use this information to identify registered sex offenders who remain in a
foreign country for an extended period of time and return to the United
States for short periods of time, because this may be an indication that
the individual is circumventing SORNA requirements by falsely reporting
their place of residency. NTC provides this information to ICE and U.S.
Marshals for possible investigation or other law enforcement action.
Figure 1 shows the primary methods by which the U.S. Marshals, ICE,

21
NTC uses passenger data collected from the Passenger Name Record (PNR) and the
Advance Passenger Information System (APIS). PNR data are collected when an
individual books a flight, for example, from a travel agency or airline. Pursuant to
regulations, APIS data are collected and sent by airlines as individuals check in for the
flight and no later than the moment the aircraft’s doors are closed and secured for the
flight (or no later than 30 minutes prior to that moment, if transmitted in batches), and by
cruise lines 60 minutes prior to the ship’s departure from the United States and, for
incoming vessels, at least 24 hours (at least 96 hours for voyages of 96 hours or more)
prior to arrival at the U.S. port of entry.

Page 12

GAO-13-200 Registered Sex Offenders

and USNCB receive information on registered sex offenders traveling
internationally.
Figure 1: Primary Methods by Which the U.S. Marshals Service, U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement and U.S. National Central Bureau Receive Information
on Registered Sex Offenders Traveling Internationally

While the information NTC provides may be helpful, it has limitations.
First, CBP collects and analyzes information on individuals leaving the
United States via private or commercial airline, commercial vessel, and
voluntary reporting from rail, but does not routinely query individuals who
leave the United States by commercial bus line, private vessel, private
vehicle, or by foot . Since travelers departing by commercial rail,
commercial bus line, private vessel, private vehicle or by foot are not
required to report travel information in advance of their travel, CBP may
be unable to provide advance targeting and analysis of these individuals.
However, a CBP officer may access information on these individuals by
querying their biographical information during special outbound
operations at port of entry. It is CBP’s policy that CBP officers query
individuals leaving the country only if there is a special operation
underway, such as an operation to verify the amount of currency taken
out of the United States. 22 According to NTC officials, CBP officers at the
land port of entry are not required to provide NTC with the results of their
queries because they are only required to pass information related to

22
Under 31 U.S.C. § 5316, an individual who transports, attempts to transport, or causes
to be transported (including by mail or other means) currency or other monetary
instruments (e.g. , traveler checks) in an aggregate amount exceeding $10,000 or its
foreign equivalent at one time from the United States to any foreign country, or into the
United States from any foreign country, must file a report with CBP.

Page 13

GAO-13-200 Registered Sex Offenders

individuals on the terrorist watchlist. Therefore, NTC is generally not able
to inform the U.S. Marshals and ICE about registered sex offenders
leaving the country through means such as land ports or on a privately
chartered boat.
Second, to determine whether a registered sex offender is on a particular
flight, NTC determines whether any of the passenger data, such as name
and date of birth, match any of the data in the FBI’s NCIC. However,
NCIC may not always have complete information to enable NTC to
determine if there is a match, in part because jurisdictions may enter
information incorrectly or not at all because certain fields are not
mandatory. In this case, NTC checks electronic public sex offender
registries—which are not always up to date—to collect missing
information, or calls relevant registry officials—which could take additional
time.

Limitations in Information
on Registered Sex
Offenders Returning to the
Country Provided by
Foreign Officials and from
Reviews of Criminal
History Records

Five federal agencies—USNCB, ICE, the U.S. Marshals, Consular Affairs,
and CBP— have several mechanisms in place to identify registered sex
offenders returning to the United States. For example, USNCB officials
stated that their foreign counterparts, to the extent that they are aware,
may notify U.S. officials of registered sex offenders returning to the United
States. In addition, U.S. Marshals officials stated that they sometimes
receive information from NTC on registered sex offenders returning to the
United States. According to NTC officials, they are able to provide this
information to the U.S. Marshals analyst stationed at NTC to the extent
that the sex offender’s entire itinerary and flight information are
available. 23 However, these mechanisms do not identify all of the
registered sex offenders returning to the United States all of the time. For
example, even though USNCB may receive information on some
returning registered sex offenders through its foreign counterparts, the
information these officials provide is based on anonymous tips or
offenders’ self-reported information. According to USNCB officials, even
though hundreds of registered sex offenders traveled outside of the
United States from August through September 2012, as we discuss later

23
In September 2010, a U.S. Marshals analyst was assigned to work at NTC on a part
time basis in order to identify potential SORNA violations, such as instances in which a
registered sex offender is in violation of his or her registration requirements through
international travel without proper notification. The U.S. Marshals analyst began working
at NTC on a full time basis starting in June 2012.

Page 14

GAO-13-200 Registered Sex Offenders

in this report, USNCB rarely received notifications of these registered sex
offenders returning to the United States. 24 Table 2 describes the
mechanisms by which federal agencies become aware of registered sex
offenders traveling back to the United States and the limitations of those
mechanisms.
Table 2: Mechanisms by Which Federal Agencies Become Aware of Registered Sex Offenders Returning to the United States
and Their Limitations
Federal agency

Mechanisms in place to identify U.S.-registered sex
offenders

Limitations to the mechanisms in place

National Targeting Center (NTC) obtains the sex
offender’s full flight itinerary, including the return trip, if
available, prior to when the sex offender leaves the
United States.
Receives an alert that the traveler has a National Crime
Information Center (NCIC) record when CBP officers
query traveler’s biographic information at air or sea
ports of entry.

Not all sex offenders may have booked
their return trip in advance.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Receives sex offender’s full flight itinerary, including the
Enforcement (ICE)
return trip, if available, from NTC prior to when the sex
offender leaves the country.

Not all sex offenders may have booked
their return trip in advance.

U.S. Marshals

Receives sex offender’s full flight itinerary, including the
return trip, if available, from NTC prior to when the sex
offender leaves the country.

Limited to those registered sex offenders
for whom NTC had returning trip
information.

U.S. National Central Bureau
(USNCB)

Notified by foreign INTERPOL counterparts.

Limited to anonymous tips or self-reported
information INTERPOL counterparts
receive.

U.S. Consular Affairs

May identify individuals with an outstanding warrant
when reviewing a U.S. citizen’s application for a
passport renewal or replacement submitted while the
person is in another country.
Notified when consular officers abroad verify criminal
records in NCIC of a foreign national who applied for a
U.S. visa.

Limited to registered sex offenders who
need to renew or replace their passports
and have outstanding warrants.
If Consular Affairs grants the visa, the
agency is not aware of when the registered
sex offender is actually traveling to the
United States.

U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP)

Source: GAO analysis based on information on traveling registered sex offenders that federal agencies provided.

24

According to USNCB officials, USNCB is only able to track registered sex offenders
returning to the United States when another INTERPOL counterpart reports that
information to USNCB. Otherwise, USNCB does not systematically track when registered
sex offenders return to the United States.

Page 15

GAO-13-200 Registered Sex Offenders

An Automated Notification
Process Currently Under
Development Is Intended
to Address Some
Challenges with
Identifying Registered Sex
Offenders Leaving and
Returning to the United
States

To help ensure that relevant federal agencies are more consistently
notified of registered sex offenders leaving or returning to the United
States, in 2008, the SMART Office established the IWG. 25 The IWG is
charged with developing an international tracking system to identify
registered sex offenders leaving and returning to the country and
immediately relay this information to appropriate domestic law
enforcement agencies for any additional action as needed, such as to
initiate an investigation. Specifically, FBI officials stated that, in
collaboration with other IWG member agencies, they are developing a
process that will send an automated notification to the U.S. Marshals’
NSOTC and registry and law enforcement officials in the jurisdictions
where the sex offender is registered: (1) when a registered sex offender
has purchased an airline or cruise ticket for international travel, (2) 1
week before the registered sex offender is scheduled to travel by
commercial air or sea transport, and (3) when a CBP officer queries that
person’s biographic information at a U.S. port of entry, such as any U.S.
airport. 26
The automated notification, if implemented as intended, will provide the
U.S. Marshals and relevant jurisdictions with information on registered
sex offenders returning to the United States whose biographic information
is queried by CBP officers at air, sea, and land ports of entry, assuming
these offenders enter the country legally and their identifying information
in NCIC, such as date of birth, is accurate and complete. In addition, FBI
officials stated that the automated notification is expected to provide
relevant jurisdictions with information on sex offenders registered in their
jurisdiction who did not self-report international travel. This will help law
enforcement officers to avoid using resources to search for sex offenders
who they thought had absconded, when the offender had actually left the
country on personal travel.

25

For more details on the federal agencies represented on the IWG, see appendix I.

26

The automated notification will be sent whenever a registered sex offender engages in
travel with a U.S. nexus; that is, entering, transiting through, or exiting a U.S. port of entry
by commercial air or sea transport. The system will send notices for registered sex
offenders exiting a U.S. port of entry by land or private boat only to the extent that CBP
queries these travelers’ biographic information. FBI officials responsible for implementing
the automated notification stated that a notification will also be triggered if a change is
made to the Offender Status Field in NCIC to indicate the offender is traveling or has
moved outside of the United States.

Page 16

GAO-13-200 Registered Sex Offenders

According to FBI officials, the FBI vetted the automated notification
proposal through its Advisory Policy Board; the FBI Director approved the
proposal in June 2012; and FBI officials estimate that they will be able to
implement the automated notification as early as March 2013. 27 FBI
officials responsible for implementing the automated notification said that
they are currently working with CBP to include additional information from
CBP’s systems in the automated notifications, such as the specific ports
of entry and the mode of transportation offenders are using. The FBI will
not delay implementation of the automated notification to incorporate the
additional information from CBP; instead, the FBI will incorporate this
information into the automated notifications at a later date, if necessary.
While the automated notification will address some of the limitations
discussed previously, it will not address all of them. For example,
according to FBI officials, the automated notification will provide notice to
the U.S. Marshals and jurisdictions of all registered sex offenders leaving
or returning to the United States for whom CBP officers query their
biographic information at a port of entry. Consequently, the automated
notification will not provide notice of a registered sex offender who plans
to leave the country via a land port of entry because CBP generally does
not query information for these travelers. CBP officials explained that
CBP officers may query biographic information for individuals leaving the
United States through a land port of entry—such as in the case of a
special operation to verify the amount of currency taken out of the
country—but generally do not do so because of regulatory, policy, and
infrastructure limitations in monitoring individuals leaving the United
States. 28 Table 3 discusses the extent to which the planned automated
notification is intended to address the federal government’s current
limitations in identifying registered sex offenders traveling internationally.

27

The Advisory Policy Board (APB) is comprised of representatives from federal agencies
that participate in the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division programs and
tribal and local law enforcement and criminal justice agencies, and it establishes
guidelines for systems maintained by FBI’s Criminal Justice Information System. APB
working groups provide input on systems proposals and recommendations to the FBI
Director for implementation.
28

According to FBI officials responsible for implementing the automated notification, they
have had preliminary discussions with Canadian Police Information Center officials as to
whether every person that enters Canada through the U.S.-Canada land border will be
queried in NCIC.

Page 17

GAO-13-200 Registered Sex Offenders

Table 3: Extent to Which the Planned Automated Notification Is Intended to Address Limitations to Identifying Registered Sex
Offenders Traveling Internationally
Limitations to identifying registered sex offenders
traveling internationally

Automated notification
intended to address
limitation?

Efforts to address limitations not addressed
by the automated notification

Registered sex offenders leaving the United States
Some jurisdictions do not collect information on
registered sex offenders’ international travel, and,
therefore, are not able to notify relevant federal
agencies.

Yes

Jurisdictions that do collect information on registered
sex offenders’ international travel may not receive
complete information because they rely on sex
offenders to self report or on community members to
provide tips about the sex offenders’ travel.

Yes

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) does
No
not have a mechanism to routinely query travelers
leaving the United States by land ports or private boat in
order to determine whether they are registered sex
offenders.

The Department of Justice’s Sex Offender
Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending,
Registering, and Tracking Office (SMART Office)
provides technical assistance to jurisdictions
seeking to implement the requirement that
registered sex offenders provide 21-day advance
notice of international travel, including travel by
land ports or private boats.

No

The automated notification will also rely on NCIC
data, and, therefore, may have similar
limitations. The International Tracking of Sex
Offenders Working Group (IWG) continues to
encourage registry officials to enter in a timely
and complete manner all of the mandatory and
optional information that NCIC will accept.

NTC relies on National Crime Information Center
(NCIC) data to determine if any traveler leaving the
country via a commercial or private airplane or a
commercial ship is a registered sex offender; however,
some NCIC data may be incorrect or incomplete, thus
making it difficult for NTC to determine if there is a
match.
Registered sex offenders returning to the United
States
The. U.S. National Central Bureau (USNCB) relies on
self-reported information offenders provide to foreign
law enforcement about returning to the United States.

Yes

CBP generally does not notify relevant federal or
Yes
jurisdiction officials of registered sex offenders returning
to the United States unless the offender is wanted or
has a warrant.
Source: GAO analysis based on information on traveling registered sex offenders that federal agencies provided.

The fact that the automated notification will not address all limitations will
likely remain for the foreseeable future because they are inherent to wellestablished processes for entering and exiting the country. For example,
according to senior CBP officials responsible for field operations,
conducting inspections that would enable them to collect information on

Page 18

GAO-13-200 Registered Sex Offenders

all travelers exiting the country via a land port of entry would require
policy, regulatory, procedural, and major infrastructure changes. 29
The automated notification, when operational, is also intended to help
ensure jurisdictions are more consistently notified of registered sex
offenders returning to the United States, which may enable them to take
public safety measures they deem appropriate. Of the 56 sex offender
registry officials who responded to our survey questions about the extent
to which federal agencies provided notice of registered sex offenders
returning to the United States, 17 reported that they received notice of
registered sex offenders returning to the United States from at least one
federal agency. 30 Federal officials we interviewed identified several
reasons why they do not consistently provide this information to sex
offender registry officials in the jurisdictions. For example, CBP officers at
3 of the 10 ports of entry stated that it would not be feasible to notify
jurisdiction officials of all the registered sex offenders they identified
because of the number of travelers returning through their ports of entry. 31
Also, according to USNCB officials, they generally do not notify
jurisdiction officials of returning registered sex offenders unless the
foreign country provides USNCB with this information. Further, U.S.
Marshals officials stated that they share information on returning
registered sex offenders with state and local law enforcement agencies if
the planned return date of a sex offender leaving the country is known.

29

We have previously reported in GAO, Overstay Enforcement: Additional Mechanisms
for Collecting, Assessing, and Sharing Data Could Strengthen DHS’s Efforts but Would
Have Costs, GAO-11-411 (Washington, D.C.: April 15, 2011) that DHS is required to
collect information for certain foreign nationals leaving the country but concluded that it
could not do so at land ports of entry without incurring a major impact on land facilities.
30
Of the 17 jurisdictions that reported receiving information on registered sex offenders
entering the United States from a federal agency, 10 reported receiving information from
the U.S. Marshals and USNCB, respectively; 8 reported receiving it from ICE; and 2
reported receiving it from CBP and State, respectively. Some of the responses reflect
jurisdictions receiving information from more than one federal agency.
31

Of the 3 ports of entry, CBP officers from 1 port of entry also stated that it would be
feasible to notify jurisdictions of those registered sex offenders identified at secondary
inspection. Of the remaining 7 ports of entry, 3 stated that it would feasible to notify
jurisdictions of registered sex offenders returning to the United States, if these offenders
are identified at the secondary inspection, and 4 ports of entry did not discuss the
feasibility of notifying jurisdictions.

Page 19

GAO-13-200 Registered Sex Offenders

Jurisdictions could possibly use information on registered sex offenders
traveling to their jurisdictions from abroad to help them identify the current
location of these offenders. For example, officials from one local law
enforcement agency we visited stated that receiving such notifications
would help officers verify whether the offenders have returned from
foreign travel when officers conduct address verifications. In addition, this
information would help jurisdictions fulfill their requirements under
SORNA to protect the public from sex offenders. Once the automated
notification system is operational, jurisdictions that have registered the
sex offender and entered a record into NCIC will be notified that an
offender has returned to the United States. Having this information will
allow these jurisdictions to implement public safety measures more
consistently.

ICE Has Not Made Plans to
Receive Information from
the Automated
Notification, a Fact That
May Preclude It from
Obtaining Information on
Some Traveling Sex
Offenders

To help ensure that they obtain as complete information as possible
regarding registered sex offenders traveling internationally, the U.S.
Marshals and ICE will continue to request information from jurisdictions or
NTC even after the automated notification is operational. Currently, the
U.S. Marshals and ICE do not consistently receive information on
registered sex offenders entering or leaving the country via a land port of
entry because NTC does not have this information and jurisdictions
receive this information only to the extent that sex offenders self-report it.
The automated notification will fill this information gap, in part, by sending
notices about registered sex offenders entering and leaving the country
via a land port of entry, to the extent that CBP queries the biographical
information of the offender, in addition to providing notices about
registered sex offenders traveling internationally via commercial air and
sea transport. Although the automated notification will provide information
on a greater number of traveling registered sex offenders than the
number that jurisdictions and NTC provide, as shown in table 4, NTC
provides more details on a specific traveler than the automated
notification. Further, jurisdictions that collect offenders’ self reported data
may also be able to provide more details. Therefore, according to U.S.
Marshals officials, they find it beneficial to continue to receive information
from each of these two sources.

Page 20

GAO-13-200 Registered Sex Offenders

Table 4: Type of Information Jurisdictions, NTC, and the Automated Notification
Provide or Will Provide on Registered Sex Offenders Traveling Internationally
Jurisdictionsb

NTC

Automated
notificationc

Name

●

●

●

Date of birth

●

●

●

Passport number

●

●

○d

FBI numbera

●

●

○d

Photograph

●

●

Criminal history

●

●

Whether Victim is a Minor

●

●

○d

Port of entry through which the offender will
leave or enter the country

●

●

●

Full flight itinerary (for round-trip flights, if
available)

●

●

Whether the flight is inbound or outbound

●

●

Names of travel companions

●

●

Where the offender will stay while in country
(e.g., hotel information)

●

Type of information provided

Source: GAO analysis based on information provided by federal agencies.
a

The FBI number is a unique identification number assigned to each individual who has a record in
the FBI’s Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS), a nationwide database of
fingerprint and criminal history records of individuals who have been arrested.
b

A jurisdiction may not always provide all types of information.

c

Additional information from NCIC will be provided to the extent it is available.

d

This information may be provided to the extent it is available in NCIC.

According to an ICE section chief responsible for the Angel Watch
program, ICE has not requested to receive the automated notifications
because it prefers to rely on information NTC provides, which meets
ICE’s specific needs. In particular, an NTC analyst, after identifying a
registered sex offender with plans to travel internationally via commercial
air or sea transport, conducts further analysis to determine whether the
offender committed a crime against a child. This ICE chief stated that ICE
does not want information on all types of registered sex offenders, which
is what the automated notification would provide, but only on those who
have committed crimes against children, in accordance with ICE’s
mission to investigate the sexual exploitation of children. However, by not
requesting to receive the automated notification, ICE will not have

Page 21

GAO-13-200 Registered Sex Offenders

information on registered sex offenders who committed offenses against
children, left the country via a land port of entry, and had their
biographical information queried at the port. 32 According to the FBI, in
order to receive the automated notification, ICE would have to submit a
request to FBI’s Advisory Policy Board; and given that the board meets
twice a year, it could take approximately 1 year or more for the board to
approve an agency’s request to receive alerts from the system. The FBI
also explained that the automated notification will not be able to
distinguish between traveling registered sex offenders who committed
offenses against children and those who committed offenses against
adults because the notifications are derived from NCIC data, and the age
of the victim is not a required field in this system. 33 Therefore, if ICE were
to receive the automated notification, ICE would have to determine on its
own whether the offenders leaving the country through a land port of
entry committed an offense against a child. However, according to NTC
officials, about 90 percent of the registered sex offenders they identified in
fiscal year 2012 who planned to travel internationally via commercial air
or sea transport had committed offenses against children. We have
previously reported that collaborating agencies can look for opportunities
to address resource needs by leveraging each others’ resources, which
could include receiving the automated notification, and obtaining
additional benefits that would not be available if they were working
separately. 34 By electing not to receive the automated notifications, ICE
will not receive information on registered sex offenders traveling to
Canada or Mexico via a land port of entry whose biographical information
is queried. This is of particular concern considering that, according to ICE,
Mexico is one of the countries to which registered sex offenders travel
most frequently. If ICE were to receive alerts from the automated
notification, we recognize that some effort would be required to determine
whether sex offenders leaving the country through a land port of entry
committed an offense against a child. However, the level of effort

32

The number of sex offenders who left the country via a land port of entry whose
biographical information was queried at the port is unknown because CBP does not
routinely track this information.
33
According to the FBI officials, the requirement for mandatory or optional fields in NCIC is
dictated by legislation and the user community through the Criminal Justice Information
Services Advisory Process; and thus, it may not be feasible to change the fields in NCIC.
34

GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain
Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005).

Page 22

GAO-13-200 Registered Sex Offenders

required, and whether or not the benefits of the effort would outweigh the
cost, cannot be determined at this time.

ICE and USNCB
Notify Foreign
Officials about Some
Registered Sex
Offenders Traveling
Abroad, but Improved
Information Sharing
Could Increase the
Number and Content
of These Notifications

USNCB and ICE inform foreign officials when registered sex offenders
are traveling to their countries to enable these officials to take actions that
they deem appropriate to ensure public safety. USNCB and ICE notify
their own unique counterparts in foreign countries about traveling sex
offenders for similar purposes, such as enabling them to make decisions
as to whether they will admit sex offenders into their country. In addition
USNCB and ICE notify these counterparts for different purposes. For
example, ICE counterparts may monitor the whereabouts of sex offenders
while they are in the foreign country. USNCB and ICE base such
notifications on different information sources; USNCB uses information it
receives from the U.S. Marshals and jurisdictions, and ICE uses
information it receives from NTC’s passenger data reviews as part of
ICE’s Angel Watch program. 35 However, the U.S. Marshals do not
consistently share information with USNCB on traveling sex offenders,
and USNCB and ICE do not share the information they receive on
traveling sex offenders with each other. As a result, USNCB and ICE
were not able to notify their foreign counterparts about a large number of
registered sex offenders traveling internationally from August to
September 2012, and some of the notifications were not as
comprehensive as possible.

USNCB and ICE Notify
Their Respective Foreign
Counterparts of Registered
Sex Offenders Traveling
Internationally for Similar
as well as Unique Purposes

USNCB notifies its INTERPOL counterparts in other countries about
registered sex offenders traveling internationally. Similarly, ICE, through
its Angel Watch program, notifies its foreign law enforcement
counterparts about sex offenders traveling internationally who had
committed an offense against a child. According to USNCB and ICE
officials, USNCB and ICE send these notices to different agencies within
the foreign countries, but for similar purposes—to enable foreign officials
to decide whether they want to admit the registered sex offender into their
country or take other public safety measures they deem appropriate. For
example, with regard to the United Kingdom, USNCB notifies its

35

U.S. Marshals officials explained that a U.S. Marshals analyst detailed to NTC manually
fills out the Notification of International Travel form for each traveling registered sex
offender identified by NTC’s passenger data reviews, and sends these forms to the U.S.
Marshals investigator detailed to USNCB.

Page 23

GAO-13-200 Registered Sex Offenders

INTERPOL counterpart—the United Kingdom National Central Bureau—
which is hosted by the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA), a law
enforcement body that fights organized crime. SOCA officials then make
decisions about how to use this information. They could share it with
agencies such as the United Kingdom (U.K.) Border Agency, which is
responsible for refusing entry to persons who do not qualify, or the U.K.
Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), which interviews registered sex
offenders to establish exactly what their plans are while in the United
Kingdom and where they will be staying upon entry or if admitted. On the
other hand, according to ICE officials, ICE notifies the sex offender unit
within the U.K. Metropolitan Police Service as well as the U.K. Border
Agency directly through its attachés posted abroad about registered sex
offenders traveling to the United Kingdom who committed an offense
against a child. Of the six countries included in our review, three generally
do not admit registered sex offenders, and in one country, even though it
generally admits registered sex offenders, foreign law enforcement
officials monitor the activity of the sex offender while in country. For
example, ICE Angel Watch program officials reported that in 2012, an ICE
attaché notified foreign officials in advance that a registered sex offender
was traveling from the United States to their country; and as a result, the
foreign officials denied entry to the registered sex offender. Appendix II
provides information on registered sex offenders traveling internationally
who were refused entry by foreign countries.
USNCB and ICE identified reasons why it is advantageous that they both
notify foreign officials of sex offenders traveling internationally. USNCB
officials explained that they have been trying to encourage their
INTERPOL counterparts to inform them about individuals convicted of sex
offenses in their countries who are traveling to the United States.
Therefore, it is important for USNCB to provide such notifications if it
expects its counterparts to reciprocate. ICE officials explained that it is
important for their ICE attachés to inform their foreign law enforcement
counterparts about traveling registered sex offenders to assist the
counterparts with tracking offenders visiting that country, such as by
developing a shared spreadsheet designed to help the country establish
its own sex offender registry, and to monitor sex offenders’ activities while
in that country.

Page 24

GAO-13-200 Registered Sex Offenders

Federal Agencies Do Not
Share All Available
Information They Have on
Traveling Registered Sex
Offenders with One
Another, thus Limiting the
Number and Content of
Notifications Sent to
Foreign Officials

USNCB provides more comprehensive information on sex offenders’
travel plans to its INTERPOL counterparts than ICE provides to its foreign
law enforcement counterparts, and the additional information that USNCB
has could help support ICE’s mission. USNCB bases its notifications on
information that it receives from jurisdictions that require registered sex
offenders to provide advance notice of international travel, whereas ICE
bases its notifications on information it receives from NTC’s analysis of
commercial air and sea passenger data. As previously discussed,
jurisdictions that require advance notice may collect more information on
each sex offender’s travel plans—such as hotel information—than NTC
does.
In addition, neither USNCB nor ICE has provided its foreign counterpart
with as many notices of traveling registered sex offenders as it potentially
could. Specifically, as shown in figure 2, from August 1 through
September 30, 2012, USNCB notified its counterparts of 105 offenders
that ICE did not provide to its counterparts. Further, 82 of these 105
notifications (78 percent) were for registered sex offenders who had
committed offenses against children. Similarly, ICE notified its
counterparts of 100 offenders that USNCB did not provide to its
counterparts.

Page 25

GAO-13-200 Registered Sex Offenders

Figure 2: Notifications Sent by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and
U.S. National Central Bureau to Foreign Countries on Registered Sex Offenders
Traveling Internationally, August 1, 2012 to September 31, 2012

There are several reasons why USNCB and ICE generally do not have
information to share on the same sex offenders traveling internationally.
First, USNCB generally does not receive information on traveling sex
offenders from NTC, whereas ICE does. This is in part because the U.S.
Marshals has not passed on all of the information it has obtained from
NTC on registered sex offenders to USNCB. We have previously reported
that collaborating agencies should consider if participants have full
knowledge of the relevant resources in their agency. 36 Consistent with
this guidance, in March 2012, the U.S. Marshals assigned one of its
investigators to be co-located with USNCB officials in order to provide
USNCB with information on sex offenders for whom USNCB would send

36

GAO, Managing for Results: Key Consideration for Implementing Interagency
Collaborative Mechanisms, GAO-12-1022 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2012).

Page 26

GAO-13-200 Registered Sex Offenders

green notices to its foreign INTERPOL counterparts. 37 U.S. Marshals
officials then realized that they had additional information on traveling
registered sex offenders that could be of interest to USNCB, and starting
in August 2012, the U.S. Marshals investigator was to begin providing
USNCB information on traveling registered sex offenders that the U.S.
Marshals receives from NTC. 38 However, we found that from August
through September 2012, the U.S. Marshals only provided USNCB with
information on 39 of the 169 traveling sex offenders of whom the U.S.
Marshals was aware based on information from NTC. 39
According to U.S. Marshals officials, the U.S. Marshals analyst posted at
NTC may not be informing USNCB about all registered sex offenders
traveling internationally that NTC has identified because the analyst’s
primary purpose is to identify and pursue potential SORNA violations—
instances in which a registered sex offender is in violation of registration
requirements by traveling internationally without providing advance
notice. As a result, by the time the analyst finishes looking into potential
SORNA violations, some of the registered sex offenders that NTC
identified may have already completed their international travel; the U.S.
Marshals investigator posted at USNCB would not notify USNCB about
these offenders because the opportunity would have passed for USNCB
to provide advance notice to its foreign counterparts about these
offenders.
Officials further explained that it takes time to complete the Notification of
International Travel form for each traveling sex offender that NTC
identifies, which may also prevent the investigator from notifying USNCB
prior to the sex offender initiating travel. U.S. Marshals officials also

37
A green notice is one of INTERPOL’s system color-coded notices that provide warnings
about subjects who may travel internationally and present a possible threat to public
safety or to commit a criminal offense based on previous criminal convictions or history.
38

In particular, the U.S. Marshals analyst posted at NTC is to complete the Notification of
International Travel form for registered sex offenders identified by NTC as traveling
internationally and send the form to the U.S. Marshals investigator posted at USNCB.
39
During this same time period, the U.S. Marshals provided USNCB with information that it
had received from jurisdictions on an additional 56 traveling sex offenders, and
information that it had received from other sources on an additional 4 traveling sex
offenders. However, we were not able to assess the extent to which U.S. Marshals
provided USNCB with the information it obtained from jurisdictions and other sources
because we were not able to obtain the necessary data prior to when this report was to be
issued.

Page 27

GAO-13-200 Registered Sex Offenders

stated that they would generally not provide USNCB with information on
registered sex offenders whose international travel is less than 3 days.
However, USNCB officials stated that they send notifications to their
counterparts on all traveling registered sex offenders, regardless of travel
duration or ability to provide advance notice.
U.S. Marshals officials explained that they did not receive any additional
resources to help bridge the gap between the information that NTC and
USNCB obtain on registered sex offenders traveling internationally, but
volunteered to help remedy this issue with limited existing resources.
While the U.S. Marshals’ intentions are commendable, USNCB still does
not have access to information on most of the registered sex offenders
traveling internationally that NTC identifies, thus precluding USNCB from
notifying its foreign counterparts about these individuals and enabling
them to make informed public safety decisions.
A second reason why USNCB and ICE do not have information on the
same traveling sex offenders could be that USNCB receives information
on registered sex offenders traveling internationally from jurisdictions,
whereas ICE does not. Third, according to a senior ICE official, ICE may
have received information on additional traveling sex offenders, but did
not send notifications via Angel Watch because of constrained manpower
or insufficient information on the child exploitation conviction, among
other things.
According to USNCB officials, they copy several other federal agencies
on their notifications to foreign officials, including FBI’s Innocent Images
National Initiative and the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic
Security (DS) which may choose to take further action. 40 For example, DS
officials stated that they share information on registered sex offenders
traveling internationally with their regional security officers, who may
inform other U.S. government and foreign law enforcement officials incountry, as they deem appropriate. However, USNCB officials reported
that they do not coordinate their notifications with ICE, in part because
their understanding was that ICE was interested in registered sex
offenders traveling internationally only if the offender was the subject of

40

FBI’s Innocent Images National Initiative was developed in 1995 because of the
increase in the number of investigations that involved sex offenders using computers to
share pornographic images of minors. The initiative teams FBI agents and local police in
task forces to conduct undercover investigations of suspected offenders.

Page 28

GAO-13-200 Registered Sex Offenders

an ICE investigation; USNCB officials stated that they were not aware
that ICE’s primary interest in obtaining information on these offenders
was to notify their foreign law enforcement counterparts.
We have previously reported that collaborating agencies can look for
opportunities to address resource needs by leveraging each others’
resources and obtaining additional benefits that would not be available if
they were working separately. 41 According to senior ICE officials
responsible for the Angel Watch program, the additional information
USNCB collects and provides to its counterparts could also help support
ICE’s efforts. In particular, these officials stated that the relevant ICE
attaché could share the additional information with that person’s foreign
counterpart to support efforts to deny entry or monitor activity of
registered sex offenders. USNCB officials stated that it would be feasible
to include Angel Watch program officials on the notifications USNCB
sends to foreign counterparts.
Taking steps to ensure that USNCB and ICE have information on the
same registered sex offenders traveling internationally—which could
entail, for example, the two agencies copying one another on notifications
to their foreign counterparts, or USNCB receiving information directly from
NTC—could help ensure that USNCB and ICE are providing more
comprehensive information on traveling registered sex offenders to their
foreign counterparts to help inform public safety decisions.

Conclusions

Cases in which individuals who had previously been convicted of a sex
offense in the United States subsequently traveled overseas to commit an
offense against a child underscore the importance of sex offender
registration and notification standards to help ensure public safety in the
United States and abroad. Some of the limitations federal agencies have
faced with regard to identifying registered sex offenders leaving and
returning to the United States are expected to be addressed by the
automated notification the FBI is currently developing. However, ICE has
not requested to receive the automated notification, which may preclude it
from identifying entire categories of sex offenders, such as those entering
and returning to the United States via a land port of entry whose
biographical information is queried. USNCB, U.S. Marshals, and ICE

41

GAO-06-15.

Page 29

GAO-13-200 Registered Sex Offenders

have taken steps to coordinate their efforts to identify registered sex
offenders traveling internationally, such as participating in the IWG and
collocating staff. However, despite these efforts, these agencies still do
not have access to all of the information on traveling registered sex
offenders that they could potentially receive. Sharing additional
information could help ensure that these agencies are providing more
comprehensive information on traveling registered sex offenders to their
foreign counterparts to help inform public safety decisions.

Recommendations for
Executive Action

Given ICE’s objective to target the transnational sexual exploitation of
children, after the automated notification becomes operational, the
Director of ICE should direct ICE Homeland Security Investigations
officials to coordinate with FBI Criminal Justice Information Services
officials to collect and analyze information that will enable ICE to
determine if the benefits of receiving the automated notifications
outweigh the costs. The type of information ICE may consider collecting
as part of this analysis could include the number of notifications
generated for sex offenders leaving the country via a land port of entry.
To ensure that USNCB and ICE are providing more comprehensive
information to their respective foreign counterparts regarding registered
sex offenders traveling internationally, we recommend that the Attorney
General and the Secretary of Homeland Security take steps to help
ensure that USNCB and ICE have information on the same number of
registered sex offenders as well as the same level of detail on registered
sex offenders traveling internationally. Such steps could include USNCB
and ICE copying each other on their notifications to their foreign
counterparts or USNCB receiving information directly from NTC.

Agency Comments
and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to DHS, DOJ,
and State. We received written comments from DHS and USNCB, within
DOJ, which are reproduced in full in appendices III and IV, respectively.
DHS generally agreed with our recommendations in its comments, and
USNCB agreed with our recommendations with additional observations.
State did not provide written comments on the draft report. We also
received technical comments from DHS and DOJ, which were
incorporated throughout our report as appropriate.
In its written comments, USNCB agreed with our recommendation that
the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security take steps
to help ensure that USNCB and ICE have the same information on

Page 30

GAO-13-200 Registered Sex Offenders

registered sex offenders traveling internationally. USNCB noted that it has
already begun the process of establishing points of contact with the
appropriate ICE personnel so that USNCB can include ICE in its
dissemination of sex offender notifications. USNCB also identified
additional actions which were beyond the scope of our review, such as
the need for technical improvements to streamline data sharing and
foreign notification processes. In addition, USNCB stated that there needs
to be an impetus for all states to substantially implement the guidelines
set forth by the SMART Office on traveling registered sex offenders.
During the course of our review, officials from the SMART Office stated
that they have taken some actions, such as conducting workshops and
providing technical assistance, to encourage jurisdictions to implement
the requirement for registered sex offenders to report international travel
21 days in advance of such travel.
DHS agreed with our recommendations that ICE should assess whether
receiving the automated notifications would benefit their mission to target
transnational sexual exploitation and that DOJ and DHS should take
steps to ensure that USNCB and ICE have the same information on
traveling registered sex offenders. However, in its letter, DHS questioned
whether the automated notifications would be of use to the Angel Watch
program because the timing of some of the notifications would not enable
ICE to notify foreign officials in advance that a sex offender is traveling to
their country, in which case the foreign officials could choose not to admit
the offender. Nevertheless, in addition to admissibility decisions, foreign
law enforcement officials with whom we spoke stated that they use the
information they receive from ICE for multiple purposes, including
determining how frequently the sex offender travels to that country, where
the offender stays while in country, and where to direct their resources to
monitor sex offenders.
DHS also raised concerns that given the hundreds of thousands of
individuals leaving the United States via the southwest border on a daily
basis, handling notifications on sex offenders leaving the country through
this border may be untenable. However, it is uncertain how many of these
individuals are sex offenders and how many of them will be queried by
CBP when exiting the country. Therefore, it will be important for ICE to
implement our recommendation so that once the automated notification
process is underway, ICE can obtain the necessary information to
determine if the number of notifications of sex offenders exiting the
country through a land port of entry is manageable.

Page 31

GAO-13-200 Registered Sex Offenders

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security,
the Secretary of State, and other interested parties. This report is also
available at no charge on GAO’s web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions, please contact me at (202) 5126510 or larencee@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page
of this report. Staff acknowledgments are provided in appendix V.

Eileen R. Larence
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues

Page 32

GAO-13-200 Registered Sex Offenders

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology

Since 2006, Congress has passed legislation and the Department of
Justice (DOJ) has promulgated regulations to help ensure that federal,
state, local, territorial, and tribal officials are aware of when registered sex
offenders travel internationally. To determine the extent to which these
officials have procedures in place to implement these requirements, we
addressed the following questions:
(1) How and to what extent does the federal government determine
whether registered sex offenders are leaving or returning to the United
States?
(2) How and to what extent have federal agencies notified foreign
officials about registered sex offenders traveling internationally?
To address both objectives, we identified legislation, regulations, and
other guidance that directs federal agencies’ efforts to identify registered
sex offenders leaving or returning to the United States. Section 128 of the
Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act of 2006 (SORNA), directs
the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the
Secretary of Homeland Security, to establish a system for informing
domestic jurisdictions about persons entering the United States who are
required to register under SORNA (referred to as registered sex
offenders). 1 Further, SORNA makes it a federal crime for a sex offender
required to register under SORNA to travel to foreign countries and
knowingly fail to register or update a registration in the United States.
Additionally, under DOJ guidance, jurisdictions are required to have
registered sex offenders report international travel 21 days in advance
and to submit information concerning such travel—such as expected
itinerary, departure and return dates, and means and purpose of travel—
to the appropriate federal agencies.
In order to assess how federal agencies obtain information on registered
sex offenders leaving and returning to the United States, we obtained
documentation from and interviewed members of the International
Tracking of Sex Offenders Working Group (IWG), which is composed of

1

For this report, jurisdictions refer to U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and the 5 U.S.
territories. For the purpose of this report, we only included U.S. persons (i.e., U.S. citizens
or lawful permanent residents) and foreign nationals who were registered as sex offenders
in the United States at the time of their travel outside of or back to the United States. We
did not include U.S. persons or foreign nationals who are not already registered as sex
offenders in the United States, such as those who committed sex offenses abroad and
may have to register under SORNA upon their return to the United States.

Page 33

GAO-13-200 Registered Sex Offenders

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology

representatives from various components within DOJ, the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of State (State), and the
Department of Defense (DOD). The IWG was tasked with developing
mechanisms to comply with statutory and regulatory requirements for
identifying registered sex offenders leaving and returning to the United
States. We reviewed the IWG’s proposals for such mechanisms, which
were documented in a white paper prepared by the IWG in December
2010. 2 We then interviewed officials from three of the federal
departments represented on the IWG to obtain information on the
mechanisms by which they identify registered sex offenders leaving and
returning to the country, any limitations of these mechanisms, and what
steps could be taken to address these limitations. Those agencies are the
following:
•

Department of Justice
•
•
•
•

•

Department of Homeland Security
•
•

•

Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending,
Registering, and Tracking (SMART Office)
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
United States Marshals Service (U.S. Marshals)
International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL)
Washington – U.S. National Central Bureau (USNCB)
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

Department of State
•
•

Bureau of Consular Affairs (CA)
Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS)

We excluded DOD from our review because under SORNA, the
departments responsible for dealing with registered sex offenders
traveling abroad were identified as DOJ, DHS, and State.
We also interviewed and surveyed relevant state, local, and territorial
officials to determine what role, if any, they play in informing the federal

2

IWG, International Tracking of Sex Offenders Working Group White Paper: An Interim
Report of the Collaborative Effort to Develop a System for Tracking Registered Sex
Offenders as They Depart and Enter the United States, as Required by 42 U.S.C. §16928
(Washington, D.C.: December 2010).

Page 34

GAO-13-200 Registered Sex Offenders

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology

government of registered sex offenders leaving the country, and how, if at
all they become aware of registered sex offenders returning to the
country, and how they use that information to help ensure public safety.
We first conducted a screening survey of officials from all 56
jurisdictions—the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the 5 territories,
excluding tribal territories, that are eligible to implement SORNA. 3 We
contacted jurisdiction officials identified by the SMART Office as being
responsible for implementing SORNA in the jurisdictions to determine
whether they require registered sex offenders to provide advance notice
of international travel and whether they share information with relevant
federal agencies on registered sex offenders leaving or returning to the
country. These officials included representatives of state police
departments or attorney general offices. We pretested the survey with 2
jurisdictions, distributed the survey by e-mail, and received responses
from all 56 jurisdictions. Subsequently, of those jurisdictions that
responded that they require sex offenders to provide advance notice of
international travel, we selected 4 jurisdictions—Maryland, Florida,
Michigan, and Arizona—to conduct site visits and 1 jurisdiction (New
Mexico) to conduct interviews. 4 During the site visits we obtained
additional information on how they implemented and enforced the
requirement and shared information with relevant federal agencies. We
chose these jurisdictions based on (1) variation in the extent of
international travel from the jurisdiction; (2) percentage of the population
that is composed of sex offenders; and (3) whether the state has land and
sea ports of entry, in addition to airports, to cover the various modes by
which sex offenders could enter and leave the country. 5 During the site

3

For this report, the 5 territories include: American Samoa, Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. We did not
include federally-recognized Indian tribes eligible under SORNA because we will analyze
tribal jurisdictions’ efforts to implement SORNA and identify registered sex offenders
leaving and returning to the United States in a separate review.

4

During our site visit to Arizona, the Arizona agency officials responsible for sex offender
registration clarified that the State of Arizona does not require sex offenders to provide
advance notice of their international travel unless the sex offenders are planning to
permanently reside abroad. Consequently, to maintain consistency with our selection
criteria, we selected the next state jurisdiction that matched our selection criteria for site
visits—New Mexico. State officials in New Mexico did not respond to our request to meet
with them; however, we were able to conduct telephone interviews with relevant CBP and
U.S. Marshals officials in this state.

5

Ports of entry—such as air, sea, or land ports of entry—are government-designated
locations where CBP inspects persons and goods to determine whether they may be
lawfully admitted or entered into the country.

Page 35

GAO-13-200 Registered Sex Offenders

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology

visits, we met with officials from the following federal, state, and local law
enforcement agencies: U.S. Marshals, ICE, and CBP (at air, land, and
sea ports of entry), state agencies responsible for maintaining the state
sex offender registry, and local law enforcement agencies responsible for
registering and monitoring sex offenders. During the site visits, we
determined what actions were taken by state jurisdictions after the federal
government informed them of sex offenders returning to their jurisdiction,
particularly if the jurisdiction was not aware that the individual had left the
country. Furthermore, we gathered information from jurisdictions on any
actions that can be taken to improve their efforts to identify registered sex
offenders leaving or returning to the United States. While the perspectives
from the officials we interviewed during site visits cannot be generalized
to all jurisdictions, they provided valuable insights about registered sex
offenders traveling internationally.
We also developed and administered a second survey of the same
officials from the 56 jurisdictions to obtain more detailed information on
the extent to which jurisdictions implement the 21-day advance notice
requirement and inform federal agencies of registered sex offenders
leaving the country. The survey also included questions related to
jurisdictions’ perspectives on any challenges or improvements needed
regarding receiving or providing information about sex offenders leaving
or returning to the United States, in addition to other issues related to the
implementation of SORNA. To develop this survey, we designed draft
questionnaires in close collaboration with a GAO social science survey
specialist and conducted pretests with 4 jurisdictions to help further refine
our questions, develop new questions, clarify any ambiguous portions of
the survey, and identify any potentially biased questions. Log-in
information for the web-based survey was e-mailed to all participants, and
we sent two follow-up e-mail messages to all nonrespondents and
contacted the remaining nonrespondents by telephone. We received
responses from 52 out of 56 jurisdictions. 6
Additionally, during our interviews with the IWG agencies, we asked
whether any of these agencies use the information they obtain on
registered sex offenders leaving and returning to the country to help

6

We did not receive survey responses from the following jurisdictions: American Samoa,
New Hampshire, Oregon, and Washington. For further details on the web survey,
GAO-13-211 and for the e-supplement containing the questions and results of the web
survey see GAO-13-234SP.

Page 36

GAO-13-200 Registered Sex Offenders

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology

ensure public safety. For the three agencies identified as having
responsibility for taking action based this information—U.S. Marshals,
ICE, and USNCB, we obtained and analyzed data on the number of
registered sex offenders they received from August 1 through September
30, 2012 of registered sex offenders traveling internationally. We chose
this time period because we wanted to assess the effectiveness of a
process the U.S. Marshals instituted in August 2012 for sharing
information with USNCB on registered sex offenders traveling outside of
the United States. We then asked USNCB and ICE to provide us with the
notifications they sent to foreign officials about the registered sex
offenders who traveled outside of the United States for the same time
period. We also analyzed the data to determine the extent to which there
was any fragmentation (i.e. circumstances in which more than one federal
agency is involved in the same broad area of national interest) or
duplication (i.e. two or more agencies or programs are engaged in the
same activities or provide the same services to the same beneficiaries)
with regard to the notices. Specifically, we analyzed and compared the
data provided by U.S. Marshals, ICE and USNCB to determine the extent
to which the information these agencies had on sex offenders who
planned to travel outside of the country was similar or different. We also
assessed the similarities and differences in the notifications sent by
USNCB and ICE to their foreign counterparts. We assessed the reliability
of the data the agencies provided by questioning knowledgeable agency
officials and reviewing the data for obvious errors and anomalies. We
determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes.
Furthermore, we contacted federal and foreign officials in select countries
to obtain information on how they learn of registered sex offenders
traveling from the United States to the countries in which they are located;
how, if at all, they use this information to help ensure public safety; and
any limitations or benefits of receiving this information. The countries we
selected are Australia, Canada, Mexico, the Philippines, Thailand, and
the United Kingdom. We selected Mexico, the Philippines, and Thailand
because, on the basis of data we obtained from ICE, these are among the
countries most frequented by child sex tourists—that is, individuals who
travel to another country for the purpose of engaging in inappropriate
sexual activity with a child. We selected Australia, Canada, and the
United Kingdom because they are known to have national sex offender
registries, similar to those of the United States, and have expressed an
interest in receiving information from the U.S. government on sex
offenders traveling to their countries. For each of these countries, we
reached out to the ICE attachés stationed in country as well as a
representative from the country’s national law enforcement agency. The

Page 37

GAO-13-200 Registered Sex Offenders

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology

perspectives of these officials are not representative, but provide valuable
insights.
We conducted this performance audit from January 2012 to February
2013 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to
obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for
our analysis based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence
obtained provides a reasonable basis for our analysis based on our audit
objectives.

Page 38

GAO-13-200 Registered Sex Offenders

Appendix II: Registered Sex Offenders
Traveling Internationally Who Were Refused
Entry by Foreign Countries
Appendix II: Registered Sex Offenders
Traveling Internationally Who Were Refused
Entry by Foreign Countries

CBP’s National Targeting Center (NTC) reviews air and sea passenger
data to identify registered sex offenders who plan to travel internationally.
NTC shares this information with the U.S. Marshals and ICE. The U.S.
Marshals then refers these travelers to USNCB, and USNCB sends
notifications to its counterparts via INTERPOL to foreign countries so that
these countries can take action they deem appropriate to help ensure
public safety, such as refusing entry. Figure 3 shows, according to NTC,
how many registered sex offenders NTC identified and referred to
USNCB (through the U.S. Marshals) who were ultimately refused entry by
the foreign country during fiscal year 2012.
Figure 3: Number of Registered Sex Offenders Referred by the National Targeting Center (NTC) to the U.S. Marshals and U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and Number Refused Entry by Foreign Destination Country, October 1, 2011, to
September 27, 2012

Page 39

GAO-13-200 Registered Sex Offenders

Appendix III: Comments from the
Department of Homeland Security
Appendix III: Comments from the Department
of Homeland Security

Page 40

GAO-13-200 Registered Sex Offenders

Appendix III: Comments from the Department
of Homeland Security

Page 41

GAO-13-200 Registered Sex Offenders

Appendix III: Comments from the Department
of Homeland Security

Page 42

GAO-13-200 Registered Sex Offenders

Appendix IV: Comments from the
Department of Justice
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department
of Justice

Page 43

GAO-13-200 Registered Sex Offenders

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department
of Justice

Page 44

GAO-13-200 Registered Sex Offenders

Appendix V: Contact and Staff
Acknowledgments
Appendix V: Contact and Staff
Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

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

Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Kristy Brown, Assistant Director;
Su Jin Yon, Analyst-in-Charge; and Alicia Loucks made significant
contributions to the report. Other key contributors were Susan Baker,
Gary Bianchi, Frances Cook, Anthony DeFrank, Heather Dunahoo,
Michele Fejfar, Eric Hauswirth, Richard Eiserman, Lara Miklozek, Linda
Miller, Anthony Moran, Sheena Smith, Julie Spetz, and John Vocino.

(441049)

Page 45

GAO-13-200 Registered Sex Offenders

GAO’s Mission

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

Obtaining Copies of
GAO Reports and
Testimony

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

Order by Phone

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website,
http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm.
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

To Report Fraud,
Waste, and Abuse in
Federal Programs

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

Congressional
Relations

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 5124400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room
7125, Washington, DC 20548

Public Affairs

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

Please Print on Recycled Paper.