Registering Harm
A briefing book on the Adam Walsh Act

After slapping afirst-grade girl on the
bottom on the playground, a 6-year old
boy from Woodbridge, Virginia, was written
up an incident report by school officials who
called it “Sexual Touching Against
Student, Offensive,” which will remain
on his student record permanently.
Then school officials called the police.
A kindergartner in Hagerstown,
Maryland, was accused of sexual
harassment after pinching a female
classmate’s bottom. The charge will remain
on his record until he enters middle school.
A 4-year-old in Texas was given an
in-school suspension after a teacher’s
aide accused him of sexual harassment for pressing his face into her
breasts when he hugged her.
School officials later agreed to remove
sexual references but refused to expunge
the “inappropriate physical contact”
charge from the boy ’s school record.

Registering Harm
A briefing book on the Adam Walsh Act

published by

Congress passed the
Adam Walsh Act, a federal
law that requires states to
include children as young as
age 14 on registries — often for
the rest of their lives — in an
attempt to protect our children
from sexual violence.

But the Adam Walsh Act won’t
keep our children safe.
Instead, this law will consume
valuable law enforcement
resources, needlessly target children and families, and undermine
the very purpose of the juvenile
justice system. Thankfully, states
can opt out of compliance with
this law, and make smart investments in programs and policies
that will actually protect our children and our communities.

justice policy institute  3

President Bush shakes hands with
“America’s Most Wanted” host John
Walsh, as Walsh’s wife Reve Walsh,
left, looks on, Thursday, July 27,
2006, after Bush signed the Adam
Walsh Child Protection and Safety
Act in the Rose Garden at the White
House. The bill was named for John
Walsh’s 6-year-old son Adam who
was abducted and killed 25 years
ago. Standing behind Bush is Sen.
Arlen Spector, R-Pa., left, and Rep.
James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis.,
right. (AP Photo/Ron Edmonds)

The Adam Walsh Act explained
Enacted by Congress in 2006, the Adam Walsh Act (AWA) requires
that states participate in a national sex offender registry and establishes
comprehensive minimum standards for registration and community notification. The AWA explicitly requires lifetime registration of children for
certain offenses. States that choose to comply with the requirements of
the AWA risk losing a percentage of federal funding. But states will have to
pay far more to implement the Adam Walsh Act than they will receive in
federal funds. Sex offender registries have existed for decades, but before
the Adam Walsh Act, none placed such an enormous fiscal burden on state
budgets or specifically targeted children for inclusion on a national, public
registry. Among other measures, the Adam Walsh Act does the following:
k Requires the registration of children who are age 14 or older for
certain offenses
k Increases the number of offenses for which an individual must
register
k Requires people to provide more extensive registration information, including photos
k Expands the amount of information available to the public
regarding people on the registry
k Makes the registry retroactive — under certain conditions, individuals convicted of sex offenses prior to the AWA’s passage
will be required to register even though the Act was not in
effect at the time of their conviction

4  registering harm

k Requires states to criminalize a failure to register and provide a
criminal penalty for a “maximum term of imprisonment greater
than one year”
The AWA also establishes the federal Sex Offender Sentencing,
Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering and Tracking (SMART) Office
to set guidelines for registering people convicted of sex offenses,
develop software for the registry, and assist state, local and tribal governments in implementing their registries. The SMART Office also
helps states enact registry provisions that are far more restrictive than
those required by AWA. A communication from SMART makes this
clear: “jurisdictions should consider AWA minimum requirements as
a floor, not a ceiling. Jurisdictions are free to implement regulations
that are stricter than what AWA requires.”1
The Adam Walsh Act requires states to comply with these requirements by 2009. If state’s fail to do so they will lose 10 percent of their
Byrne Grant funds.
The Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement
Assistance Grant Program (Byrne Formula Grant Program) is a
federal program established by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 that
awards grants to state and local governments for “personnel, equipment, training, technical assistance, and information systems for more
widespread apprehension, prosecution, adjudication, detention, and
rehabilitation of offenders who violate such state and local laws.”2 In
the past, Byrne grants have funded questionable crime fighting tactics
like drug task forces and SWAT-style raids.
Why did Congress pass the Adam Walsh Act?
During the past two decades, policy aimed at preventing sexual violence
has been driven by sensationalized media accounts of crimes that have
a sexual component. As a result, millions of dollars of state and federal

1  Laura L. Rogers, “Sex Offender Registry Laws: From Jacob Wetterling to Adam Walsh” (Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, SMART Office, 2007). www.ojp.usdoj.gov/smart/pdfs/so_registry_laws.pdf
2  Bureau of Justice Assistance, “Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance
Grant Program,” October 7, 2008. www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/grant/byrne.html.

justice policy institute  5

resources support registries despite the fact that there is no evidence
that public registries reduce sex crimes. What we do know, however, is
that these registries consume public safety resources, and may be funded
at the expense of alternative approaches that research suggests would
reduce sexual violence in our communities.
The Adam Walsh Act’s legislative history reveals that several
members of Congress based their support of this bill on inaccurate
data. In their efforts to protect children, lawmakers often argued that
individuals convicted of sex offenses must register because these
people are most likely to reoffend. The data tells a different story:
individuals — and especially children — convicted of sex offenses
have one of the lowest recidivism rates of any group.3
Why expanding registries won’t protect our children
Congress’ well-intentioned effort to protect our children by expanding
sex offender registries won’t work because registries fail to recognize the
complex realities of sexual offending.
A large percentage of sex offenses are committed by people known to
the victim — including family members. A U.S. Department of Justice
study shows that, among youth who were victims of sexual violence, almost half (49 percent) of youth under age six and 42 percent
of children ages six to 11 in the study were sexually assaulted by a
family member. Overall, the study concluded that 34 percent of youth
victims (0–17 years old) were sexually assaulted by a family member
and 59 percent were assaulted by acquaintances. In other words, only
7 percent of youth victims in this study were assaulted by strangers.4
Since most people who commit sex offenses are “first-time offenders,” meaning that they have never been convicted of a sex offense,
the majority of people committing sex offenses would not already be

3  One review of 25 studies concerning juvenile sex recidivism rates reveals that youth who commit
sex offenses have a 1.8 – 12.8 percent chance of re-arrest for another sex offense. Michael F. Caldwell,
“What Do We Not Know About Juvenile Sex Reoffense Risk,” Child Maltreatment 7, no. 4 (2002):
291-302.
4  Howard N. Snyder, Sexual Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law Enforcement: Victim, Incident and
Offender Characteristics (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000). www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/
abstract/saycrle.htm

6  registering harm

on the registry.5 Having a registry can therefore create a false sense of
security within families and communities, who might rely on the registry to identify people who may be a threat to their safety.
Being on a registry can hinder a person’s ability to access rehabilitative services needed to lead a productive life and engage in
appropriate, legal behavior. Registries can impede access to employment, housing and education, which have been shown to be an
integral part of the re-entry process and a necessity for young people
who are trying to turn their lives around.6
Instead of funding preventative programs, registries burden our
already over-taxed law enforcement resources and create public
safety hazards.
The Adam Walsh Act consumes resources that should be spent on
programs proven to protect our children and communities
The Adam Walsh Act7 requires states to register more people and
keep track of them for even longer periods of time, without the availability of substantial additional federal funding. All states currently
have some form of registry and community notification, but fully
implementing AWA poses significant financial and logistical challenges. As an unfunded mandate, the AWA provides little federal
funding for implementation and stands to cost states more than they
will receive in federal funding.
AWA requires states to participate in a national registry and to disseminate the registry widely throughout communities. States that
intend to comply with AWA should be prepared to finance new
software and technology costs to fully implement the registry.

5  Lawrence Greenfield, Sex Offenses and Offenders: An Analysis of Data on Rape and Sexual Assault
(Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1997). www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/soo.pdf, Table 5.
6  Robert G. Zevitz, and M.A. Farkas, “Sex Offender Community Notification. Managing High-Risk
Criminals or Exacting Further Vengeance?” Behavioral Sciences and the Law18 (2000): 375–391; Justice
Policy Institute, Housing and Public Safety (Washington, D.C.: Justice Policy Institute, 2007); Justice
Policy Institute, Education and Public Safety (Washington, D.C.: Justice Policy Institute, 2007); Justice
Policy Institute, Employment, Wages and Public Safety (Washington, D.C.: Justice Policy Institute, 2007)
7  Title I of the Adam Walsh Act, the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), specifically addresses the sex offense registry.

justice policy institute  7

Additionally, the onerous registration requirements will require significant law enforcement related expenditures — including training,
additional personnel and court related costs.
Several states have calculated the tremendous fiscal impact of the AWA on
state budgets. Virginia estimated that expanding the list of registry-eligible offenses will likely increase the number of state prison beds needed for
people who violate the registry provisions.8 Increasing the frequency with
which the state police and probation officers must verify registration information may also result in the additional detection of violations. In addition,
increasing penalties for first-time registry violations for people who are not
defined as “sexually violent” could increase state bed requirements. Based
on these facts, Virginia estimates an additional cost of $351,376 to the state.
In order to comply with the Adam Walsh Act, states should plan to
budget for the following expenses annually:
k New personnel to register more people more often, collect
information, make updates, etc.
k Software, including installation, maintenance, and technical
support
k Additional jail and prison space for people who fail to register
k Court and administrative costs related to reclassification due to
the retroactivity clause of the AWA
k Law enforcement costs related to tracking down people who
fail to register
k Legislative costs related to adopting and crafting state law
The Adam Walsh Act needlessly targets children and families
In the push to target people that may actually pose a significant
danger to the public, youth convicted of sex offenses have been
swept up in legislation that publicly brands them as sexual predators.
Research has shown, however, that juvenile sexual offending is very
different from adult sexual offending, and that youth are not committing the majority of sex offenses.

8  Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission, Fiscal Impact Statement for Proposed Legislation, Senate Bill
No. 590—ID# 08-0244806 (Richmond, VA: Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission, 2008).

8  registering harm

Homecoming King, Football Star,
Honor Student, Sex Offender?
On New Year’s Eve 2003 in Douglasville, Georgia, Genarlow Wilson, 17,
and five friends engaged in consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old girl at a
party. The whole thing was video-taped. Wilson was convicted and sentenced to 10 years in prison for felony aggravated child molestation, plus
lifetime registration as a sex offender. According to jurors, the tape clearly
showed that the 15-year-old girl involved in the oral sex episode had consented, but Georgia law at the time made any oral sex with a partner under
16 a felony, regardless of consent.
According to Marie Manigault, the jury forewoman in Wilson’s case, “He
didn’t do a single thing that was physically aggressive toward either of the
girls, and he wasn’t vocally intimidating. This whole thing was a bunch of
kids who decided they wanted to try A, B, C and D and it got totally out of
control. It was a night of stupidity and not one of them had any idea that
what they were doing was illegal. There should never have been a charge of
aggravated child molestation in the first place.”1
Wilson refused to plead guilty for the offense, because he did not want to be
labeled a sex offender and forced to be on the registry. In his words, “I wouldn’t be
able to stay with my mother because I have a little sister. You know, when you’re
a sex offender you can’t be around kids. Basically, I can’t even have kids myself,
you know, so what is the point of life?”2
There was a multitude of public outcry related to the case which led to
the passage 2006 of a “Romeo and Juliet” law, which made most consensual oral sex between minors a misdemeanor, rather than a felony. But the
law didn’t help Wilson, since it included language that specifically barred its
application to those who had already been convicted. If this law was made
retroactive, more than 1,100 young people’s cases could be reopened.3
On October 26, 2007, Wilson was released from prison at age 21 after
serving two years, after the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that his 10-year
sentence for having consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old girl was “cruel
and unusual punishment.”4 He is now a student on full scholarship at
Morehouse College.  

1  Michael Lindenberger, “Should a Teen Sex Offender Go Free?” Time, February 20, 2007, www.time.com/
time/nation/article/0,8599,1591688,00.html.
2  CNN, “Genarlow Wilson: Plea deal would have left me without a home,” CNN News, October 19, 2007,
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/law/10/29/wilson.released/
3  Michael Lindenberger, “Should a Teen Sex Offender Go Free?” Time, February 20, 2007, www.time.com/
time/nation/article/0,8599,1591688,00.html
4  CNN, October 19, 2007

“SORNA as applied to youth is
There have been numerous
stories publicized in the media of contrary to the core purposes,
functions, and objectives of
youth as young as age six being
our
nation’s juvenile justice
labeled a sex offender for behavsystems
in that it strips away
iors such as hugging or kissing
9
other youth. Slapping children
the confidentiality and the
with a “sexual predator” label
overall rehabilitative emphawill not increase public safety,
sis that forms the basis
but will instead alienate youth
of effective intervention
and disconnect them from comand treatment for youthful
munities, education, and jobs
offenders.”
— and therefore actually increase
— Association for the Treatment
the chances that a youth will
of Sexual Abusers
Comments on Proposed Guidelines to Interpret
engage in delinquent acts. While
and Implement the Sex Offender Registration
the Adam Walsh Act does not
and Notification Act (SORNA), (Beaverton, OR:
Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers,
mandate registration for consen2007) www.atsa.com/pdfs/SORNA.pdf
sual sex acts or for minor offenses
that have a sexualized component,
expanding registries could result
in life time consequences for the behaviors described below:
k After slapping a first-grade girl on the bottom on the playground,
a 6-year-old boy from Woodbridge, Virginia, was written up an
incident report by school officials who called it “Sexual Touching
Against Student, Offensive,” which will remain on his student
record permanently. Then school officials called the police.10
k A kindergartner in Hagerstown, Maryland, was accused of
sexual harassment after pinching a female classmate’s bottom.11
The charge will remain on his record until he enters middle
school.
k A 4-year-old in Texas was given an in-school suspension after
a teacher’s aide accused him of sexual harassment for pressing

his face into her breasts when he hugged her. School officials
later agreed to remove sexual references but refused to expunge
the “inappropriate physical contact” charge from the boy’s
school record.12
In most states, intercourse with a child under the age of 14, 15, or 16
is considered sexual assault regardless of consent. But, according to
the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, a survey of 9,000 youth
between the ages of 12 and 16, slightly more than three-quarters of
youth in the survey reported having had sexual intercourse. Of those
youth, more than 80 percent reported having had sex by age 15.13
Adolescent sexuality is a complicated issue — if it is widely criminalized our juvenile prisons will overflow with teenagers.
The Adam Walsh Act undermines rehabilitation
The AWA requires public registration for youth who are
“[Notification] laws are
adjudicated in juvenile court of
likely to increase the already
sex offenses, thus undermining
common
public mispercepa system which is designed to
tion
that
child
sexual abuse is
protect youth from the lifelong
mostly
a
‘stranger’
problem.
penalties carried by the adult
When
this
occurs,
parental
criminal justice system. The
attention is focused toward
Adam Walsh Act requires some
youth to be placed on a public
the nonfamilial offender and
registry under the same condiaway from the familial envitions and timelines as adults,
ronment where the majority of
including possible lifetime regsexual abuse occurs.”
istry. This mandate contradicts
— William Edwards and
everything we know about youth
Christopher Hensley,
“Contextualizing Sex Offender Management
development and undermines
Legislation and Policy: Evaluating the Problem of
the very purpose of a juvenile
Latent Consequences in Community Notification
Laws,” International Journal of Offender Therapy
justice system.
and Comparative Criminology 45, no.1 (2001):
83-101. Page 92

9  Brigid Schulte, “For Little Children, Grown-Up Labels as Sexual Harassers,” Washington Post, April 3,
2008.
10  Brigid Schulte, April 3, 2008.
11  Yvonne Bynoe, “Is That 4-Year-Old Really a Sex Offender?,” The Washington Post, October
21, 2007. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/19/AR2007101901544.
html?referrer=emailarticle

10  registering harm

12  Yvonne Bynoe, October 21, 2007.
13  Michael F. Caldwell, “What We Do Not Know About Juvenile Sexual Reoffense Risk,” Child Maltreatment7, no. 4 (November 2002): 291-302.

justice policy institute  11

“Sex offender registries
are popular, and it’s easy
to see why. People don’t
want to see their loved
ones become victims. It
stands to reason we can
better protect ourselves
and our children if we
know where predators
live. But there’s a danger
that registries can make
us feel safer without necessarily making us more
safe.”

Placement on a registry can be
extremely detrimental to a young person’s development, making it difficult
to progress through school. Youth who
are labeled “sex offenders” often experience rejection from peer groups and
adults and are therefore more likely to
associate with delinquent or troubled
peers and are less likely to be attached
to social institutions such as schools
and churches.14 Youth without connections to these important institutions
are far more likely to engage in illegal
behaviors.

—Editorial, Birmingham News

There is no evidence that registries
and notification systems for people
convicted of sex offenses are effective ways of improving public safety
or deterring future sex offenses. For youth, registries and notification
systems are particularly damaging to developing brains,15 increase the
risk of suicide, alienate a youth from school and community, and raise
barriers to successful participation in society.16 Additionally, home
and school addresses and personal information of youth on public
registries are displayed for everyone to see, including those who may
wish to prey on youth.
Editorial, “To Find a Sex Offender,”
Birmingham News, June 6, 2007.

services than they would if they were treated as adults.17 The registry
undermines rehabilitation by labeling a young person a “sex offender,”
thereby stigmatizing the youth and closing available doors for treatment and involvement in the community.
The Adam Walsh Act compromises public safety
Reliance on registries creates the illusion that parents can protect
their children from sexual violence simply by checking an online
database. A survey of mental health professionals found that 70
percent of those surveyed felt that “a
listing of sex offenders on the web
“Experts say the data
would create a false sense of secudisaster is attributable
rity for parents who might feel that
to an unwieldy and everthey can protect their children simply
growing
sex offender
by checking a web site.”18 Despite
registry, one driven more
registry requirements and stiff penalby state politics in recent
ties for not registering, registries are
years
than by scientific
often inaccurate and out of date.19 The
evidence. Legislators are
result is misdirected apprehension
calling on local police
and the alienation of people who live
departments
to track more
at an address listed on the database,
sex offenders — many of
but who have never been convicted of
them
low-risk — than ever
any crime.

before, without including
the money necessary to
do so.”

The juvenile justice system was founded on the premise that youth are
different from adults and need to be held accountable in appropriate
ways. Juvenile court judges are well-equipped to assess the culpability
and rehabilitative potential of young people. Youth involved in the juvenile justice system typically receive more treatment and rehabilitative

A study by Richard G. Zevitz, Ph.D.
at Marquette University found “negligible support for sex offender
community notification having any
kind of measurably deterrent effect
on sex offender recidivism patterns. If
anything, these findings call into question the utility of this practice and the

14  Franklin E. Zimring and others, “Sexual Delinquency in Racine: Does Early Sex Offending Predict
Later Sex Offending in Youth and Young Adulthood?” Criminology and Public Policy 6, no.3 (2007):
507-534.
15  Franklin E. Zimring and others, 2007
16  Sarah Tofte, No Easy Answers (New York: Human Rights Watch, 2007) www.hrw.org

17  MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice, Issue
Brief 5: The Changing Borders of Juvenile Justice: Transfer of Adolescents to the Adult Criminal Court, www.
adjj.org/downloads/3582issue_brief_5.pdf August 2008.
18  Alvin Malesky and Jeanmarie Keim, “Mental Health Professionals’ Perspectives on Sex Offender
Registry Web Sites,” Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 13, no. 1(2001):53-63.
19  Richard Tewksbury and Matthew B. Lees, “Perceptions of Punishment: How Registered Sex Offenders View Registries,” Crime & Delinquency 53 (2007): 380-407, page 384.

12  registering harm

—Dallas Morning News

Emily Ramshaw, “Sex Offender Label
Makes No Distinction: For Many Men,
Registry Has Lasting and Devastating
Effects,” Dallas Morning News, October
2, 2006 cited on National Association
of Criminal Defense Lawyers webpage:
www.nacdl.org/sl_docs.nsf/freeform/
sex_offender011?OpenDocument

justice policy institute  13

danger of creating a false sense of security in the communities where
notification occurs.”20
The AWA requires local law enforcement agencies and corrections
departments to shoulder the burden of registration and notification
laws, with little federal funding or technical assistance. Spending so
much time tracking down people for failing to register and making
sure that information in the registry is accurate overburdens law
enforcement and can take away precious time and resources from
more effective crime-fighting strategies like educating communities
about effective ways to prevent sexual violence.
k In Texas, the number of registrable crimes has grown from four
to 20 since the enactment of the first registration laws in 1991,
with approximately 100 new people added to the registry each
week.21
k In 2003, San Jose, California spent $600,000 to dedicate seven
staff people to monitoring 2,700 people who are required to
register.22
k In Michigan, as of August 2004, two full-time employees
managed information and records for people convicted of sex
offenses, but according to a state audit, the state’s sex offender
registries still contain inaccurate and incomplete information
that may give the public a false sense of security. 23

Recommendations

20  Richard G. Zevitz, “Sex Offender Community Notification: Its Role in Recidivism and Offender
Reintegration,” Criminal Justice Studies 19, no. 2(2006): pp. 193–208, Page 205
21  Emily Ramshaw, “Sex Offender Label Makes No Distinction: For Many Men, Registry Has Lasting
and Devastating Effects,” Dallas Morning News, October 2, 2006 cited on National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers webpage: www.nacdl.org/sl_docs.nsf/freeform/sex_offender011?OpenDocument
22  Hector Castro, “Sex Offender Registry Failing,” Seattle Post-Intelligencer, January 8, 2003. http://
seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/103212_register08.shtml
23  David Eggert, “Audit: Michigan sex offender registries contain inaccurate data,” Associated Press,
July 9, 2005. www.detnews.com/2005/metro/0507/09/-241894.htm

14  registering harm

justice policy institute  15

Recommendations
Given the questionable public safety consequences of the Adam
Walsh Act and the strain it will place on law enforcement resources,
states should refuse to put children on public registries. Because of
the tremendous costs of compliance with the AWA — which are born
entirely by the state — most states can forgo compliance and actually
save taxpayer dollars. Instead of expanding registries for our children,
states should invest in proactive strategies to reduce sexual violence
in our communities like those suggested below:
k Research shows that the majority of children who experience
sexual violence are abused by family members or other people
known to them and their parents. States should fund comprehensive training for teachers, social workers, coaches, and the
faith based community so that they can better recognize the
signs of sexual abuse in children.
k Provide parenting classes that help parents learn about topics
like internet safety, how to identify suspicious behavior and
how to teach children to protect themselves.
k Fund a comprehensive continuum of interventions for children
and families that are at-risk and/or in crisis that include mental
health services, youth development programming, vocational
and educational programs.
States that are considering whether to comply with the Adam Walsh
Act should take the following actions:
k Calculate the amount your state is currently receiving in Byrne
grants and compare that amount to the cost of compliance with
the Adam Walsh Act. In your compliance projection, be sure to
include the cost of new technology, staff to monitor the expanded
registry, additional court costs, and any other related costs.
k Evaluate whether including children as young as 14 on public
registries comports with your state’s juvenile justice system.
Will publicly identifying these children and their families
undermine your state system? Will such a registry foreclose
therapeutic and rehabilitative options for that child?

16  registering harm

States that have decided to comply with the Adam Walsh Act should
take the following actions:
k Ensure that your state legislature can appropriate significant
funding to ensure compliance with the AWA.
k Ensure that placing children on a public registry does not
violate your state constitution, especially with regard to a
child’s right to treatment, privacy, rehabilitation, and due
process.
k Ensure that no child under the age of 13 is placed on a public
registry, for any reason.
k Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 16911(8), ensure that no child over the age
of 14 is placed on the registry, unless one of the following circumstances exists:
§ The child has been adjudicated of a crime similar or more
serious than the federal crime of aggravated sexual assault.
This crime, which is punishable by life in prison, is defined
by the use of force or threat to cause another to engage in a
sexual act and/or impairing the ability of another to cause
him or her to engage in a sexual act. 18 U.S.C. § 224.
§ The child’s victim is younger than 12 years old.
k Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 16911(5)(c), ensure that no individual is
placed on the registry for consensual sexual contact, as long as
the victim is at least 13 years old and the offender is no more
than four years older than the victim.
k Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 17915, ensure that your state has developed procedures for children placed on the registry to petition
for removal 25 years after the date of their adjudication.
k Ensure that your state is prepared to meet its legal obligations
to provide for the educational, mental health, and rehabilitative
needs of children who are publicly labeled as sex offenders.

justice policy institute  17

APPENDIX
In every state, the first-year cost of implementing the Adam Walsh Act
outweighs the cost of losing 10 percent of the state’s Byrne grant money.
The Justice Policy Institute calculated estimates of the potential costs of coming
into compliance with Title I of the Adam Walsh Act based on the fiscal impact
drafted by one state. States that complete individual, comprehensive analyses
based on their unique statutory and law enforcement characteristics may arrive at
different figures. Regardless of individual state differences in statutes, technology,
and law enforcement resources, the added staff and technology needed to come
into full compliance with the AWA is sure to exceed the Byrne funds that would be
lost by not complying.
In the Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission’s Fiscal Impact Statement for
Proposed Legislation, Senate Bill No. 590 – ID# 08-0244808, the state found that
implementing a registry and notification system that would be in compliance with
the Adam Walsh Act would cost $12,497,267 in the first year of implementation.
To arrive at the fiscal analysis based on Virginia’s cost estimate, JPI used the
following methodology:
1. Determined the predicted number of people who will reside in Virginia in 2009
by multiplying the number of people in Virginia in 2007 by 1 percent, which is
an estimate of the average growth of the population of the United States.
2. Divided Virginia’s estimated total cost ($12,497,267) by the predicted number
of people living in Virginia in 2009 to get the cost per person of compliance
with the Adam Walsh Act in Virginia. The cost per person is $1.59.
3. Determined the predicted number of people in each state in 2009 by multiplying the number of people in the state by the projected average increase of
1 percent.
4. Multiplied the predicted number of people in each state in 2009 by $1.59 (the
cost per person of coming into compliance with AWA in Virginia).
To arrive at 2009 state allocations for the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant, JPI used the allocations allotted for Byrne grants for 2006. In May
2008 the Senate had unanimously voted to authorize the Byrne grant program
at fiscal year 2006 levels until 2012.
Although these numbers are estimates, Virginia would have overestimated the
cost of coming into compliance with the Adam Walsh Act by a factor of 31 to
break even with the Byrne funds that could potentially be lost by non-compliance.

18  registering harm

ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
NORTH
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING

AWA Implementation
Estimate for 2009

Byrne Money
Received in 2006

10 Percent of
Byrne Money

$7,506,185
$1,108,573
$10,281,201
$4,597,925
$59,287,816
$7,885,178
$5,680,602
$1,402,612
$954,186
$29,602,768
$15,481,193
$2,081,603
$2,431,969
$20,846,306
$10,291,799
$4,846,488
$4,502,553
$6,879,497
$6,963,401
$2,136,456
$9,112,724
$10,461,238
$16,336,082
$8,430,328
$4,734,150
$9,534,548
$1,553,611
$2,878,281
$4,160,944
$2,134,219
$14,088,206
$3,195,121
$31,300,125
$14,696,622
$1,037,592
$18,598,869
$5,867,138
$6,078,218
$20,165,479
$1,715,760
$7,149,123
$1,291,426
$9,985,946
$38,771,924
$4,290,617
$1,007,649
$12,497,267
$10,491,519
$2,939,046
$9,085,630
$848,009

$3,178,628
$565,971
$3,653,881
$2,180,442
$21,876,819
$2,725,489
$2,189,001
$1,248,534
$1,804,991
$12,402,693
$5,594,288
$933,732
$1,170,003
$8,501,000
$3,696,033
$1,881,623
$2,035,999
$2,702,451
$3,514,704
$1,172,583
$4,320,568
$4,353,201
$6,793,169
$3,061,831
$2,065,269
$4,182,382
$1,076,424
$1,288,957
$1,808,095
$1,192,435
$5,160,709
$1,879,901
$11,279,841
$5,460,983
$554,556
$6,223,825
$2,790,472
$2,251,312
$7,640,322
$967,292
$3,610,292
$513,858
$4,817,782
$14,045,713
$1,557,034
$630,419
$3,943,036
$3,538,816
$1,679,108
$2,982,833
$584,036

$317,863
$56,597
$365,388
$218,044
$2,187,682
$272,549
$218,900
$124,853
$180,499
$1,240,269
$559,429
$93,373
$117,000
$850,100
$369,603
$188,162
$203,600
$270,245
$351,470
$117,258
$432,057
$435,320
$679,317
$306,183
$206,527
$418,238
$107,642
$128,896
$180,810
$119,244
$516,071
$187,990
$1,127,984
$546,098
$55,456
$622,383
$279,047
$225,131
$764,032
$96,729
$361,029
$51,386
$481,778
$1,404,571
$155,703
$63,042
$394,304
$353,882
$167,911
$298,283
$58,404

The Justice Policy Institute is dedicated to ending society’s reliance
on incarceration and promoting effective solutions to social problems.
This Briefing Book was produced, designed, and distributed by the
Southern Poverty Law Center.
For additional information, please contact Sheila Bedi, executive
director at the Justice Policy Institute, at sbedi@justicepolicy.org
or Nicole Pittman, juvenile justice policy analyst attorney at the
Defender Association of Philadelphia, at npittman@philadefender.org.

20  registering harm

On New Year’s Eve 2003 in Douglasville,
Georgia, Genarlow Wilson, 17, and
five friends engaged in consensual oral
sex with a 15-year-old girl at a party. The
whole thing was video-taped. Wilson was
convicted and sentenced to 10
years in prison for felony aggravated
child molestation, plus lifetime
registration as a sex offender.
According to jurors, the tape clearly
showed that the 15-year-old girl involved
in the oral sex episode had consented,
but Georgia law at the time made
any oral sex with a partner under 16 a
felony, regardless of consent.
According to Marie Manigault, the jury
forewoman in Wilson’s case, “He didn’t
do a single thing that was physically aggressive toward either of the girls, and he
wasn’t vocally intimidating. This whole
thing was a bunch of kids who decided
they wanted to try A, B, C and D and it got

1003 K Street, NW • Suite 500
Washington, DC 20001
202-558-7974
www.justicepolicy.org
info@justicepolicy.org