Fiscal Note & Local Impact Statement
127 th General Assembly of Ohio
Revised[1]
|
BILL: |
DATE: |
|||||
|
STATUS: |
SPONSOR: |
|||||
|
LOCAL IMPACT
STATEMENT REQUIRED: |
No local
cost in As Introduced version; substitute version may generate costs
exceeding minimal in some jurisdictions |
|
||||
|
CONTENTS: |
||||||
Note: The state
fiscal year is July 1 through June 30.
For example, FY 2007 is July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007.
·
Attorney General. The bill will require the Office of the Attorney General to make
various changes to the sex offender registry and related Internet database
currently administered by the Bureau of Criminal Identification and
Investigation (BCII). For example, BCII
would be required to reclassify approximately 22,000 offenders and send them
notice of their new classification and related duties. The Attorney General will also need to send
all county sheriffs a list of the people residing in their county who have been
so notified. The Office of the Attorney
General has estimated the one-time cost to implement the altered registry and
database at approximately $475,000, with an ongoing cost of $85,000 annually
thereafter for software maintenance services.
·
Incarceration expenditures. From LSC fiscal staff's perspective, it is rather
difficult to estimate the number of offenders that might be affected by the
bill's penalty and offense-related modifications in the future, including the
imposition of a prison term.
Presumably, if offenders are:
(1) sentenced to prison that, absent the bill, would not have been sentenced
to prison, or (2) prison-bound offenders are sentenced to longer terms, then
there would be a related increase in the Department of Rehabilitation and
Correction's (DRC) annual GRF-funded incarceration costs. That said, based on preliminary discussions
with DRC personnel, it appears that the bill could generate a significant increase
in the prison system's annual incarceration costs.
·
Treatment certifications and offender release information. The bill requires DRC and the Department of Youth Services
(DYS): (1) to adopt rules pertaining to
the certification of sex offender treatment programs and maintain a list of
certified programs that is open to public inspection, and (2) to provide,
before the release of an offender or delinquent child who was in DRC or DYS
custody for committing a sexually oriented offense or child-victim oriented
offense, the Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation (BCII) a
physical description of the offender or child.
At the time of this writing, it is unclear to what extent these
provisions of the bill will create costs to these two state agencies. However, it seems likely that it would not
exceed minimal on an annual basis. For
the purposes of this fiscal analysis, minimal means an estimated expenditure
increase of less than $100,000 per year for the state.
·
Court cost revenues. It is possible that some individuals that might have
been arrested, successfully prosecuted, and sanctioned for committing certain
misdemeanor offenses would, under similar circumstances in the future
subsequent to the bill's enactment, be committing a felony offense. Such an outcome
creates the possibility that the state may gain some locally collected court cost
revenue for the Victims of Crime/Reparations Fund (Fund 402). The amount of money that Fund 402 may gain
annually is likely to be minimal at most.
For the
purposes of this fiscal analysis, minimal means an estimated revenue gain of
less than $100,000 for Fund 402 per year.
It is also important to note that collecting court costs and fines from
certain offenders can be problematic, especially in light of the fact that many
are unwilling or unable to pay.
·
Federal funding opportunities. The federal Adam Walsh Act includes several provisions outlining
federal domestic assistance grants for which various entities may apply,
including, but not limited to, states, local jurisdictions, law enforcement
agencies, and multi-jurisdictional or regional consortia. The actual monetary amounts available from
any given grant program will depend upon the annual enactment of appropriations.
Thus, as of this writing, until these authorized moneys have actually been
appropriated, and the application period ensues, it is rather problematic to
predict the grants, and related annual monetary amounts, that the state of Ohio
and its political subdivisions could be awarded. On May 17, 2007, the U.S. Attorney General announced that $25
million would be made available to assist communities in implementing the
proposed federal guidelines.
|
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT |
FY 2007 |
FY 2008 |
FUTURE YEARS |
|
|
Counties |
||||
|
Revenues |
(1) Potential gain in
court costs and fines, (2) potential gain in federal Adam Walsh Act grants,
magnitude and timing uncertain |
(1) Potential gain in
court costs and fines, (2) potential gain in federal Adam Walsh Act grants,
magnitude and timing uncertain |
(1) Potential gain in
court costs and fines, (2) potential gain in federal Adam Walsh Act grants,
magnitude and timing uncertain |
|
|
Expenditures |
Potential increase in
criminal and juvenile justice system operating expenses, likely to exceed
minimal in some jurisdictions |
Potential increase in
criminal and juvenile justice system operating expenses, likely to exceed
minimal in some jurisdictions |
Potential increase in
criminal and juvenile justice system operating expenses, likely to exceed
minimal in some jurisdictions |
|
|
Municipalities |
||||
|
Revenues |
Potential loss in court
costs and fines |
Potential loss in court
costs and fines |
Potential loss in court
costs and fines |
|
|
Expenditures |
Potential decrease in
criminal justice system operating expenses |
Potential decrease in
criminal justice system operating expenses |
Potential decrease in
criminal justice system operating expenses |
|
Note: For most local governments, the fiscal year is the calendar year. The school district fiscal year is July 1 through June 30.
·
County sheriffs.
The bill's SORN Law changes may create one-time and ongoing costs to
certain county sheriffs that are in excess of minimal. For the purposes of this fiscal analysis, an
expenditure increase in excess of minimal means an estimated cost of more than
$5,000 for any affected county entity.
·
Criminal caseloads generally. From the perspective of local criminal justice systems, the
practical effect of the bill's penalty enhancements is likely to be
twofold. First, some offenders who would
have been convicted of a misdemeanor violation and sanctioned locally will,
under similar circumstances in the future subsequent to the bill's enactment,
be convicted of a felony offense and likely sentenced to prison. Second, some offenders who would have been
convicted of a felony offense and sentenced to a term in prison will, under
similar circumstances in the future subsequent to the bill's enactment, be
convicted of a more serious felony offense and sentenced to a longer prison
term.
·
County and municipal criminal justice systems. As a result of the bill's penalty expansion and enhancement
provisions, it is possible that local criminal justice systems could be
affected in one of two ways: (1) some
cases could be moved or elevated from the misdemeanor jurisdiction of a
municipal or county court to the felony jurisdiction of a court of common
pleas, and (2) with the enhanced felony penalties, some cases could take longer
to adjudicate. The practical effect could
be to simultaneously: (1) increase
county criminal justice system expenditures related to investigating,
prosecuting, adjudicating, and defending (if the offender is indigent) certain
offenders, while decreasing analogous municipal criminal justice system
expenditures, and (2) generate additional court cost and fine revenues for
counties, while causing a loss in analogous municipal court cost and fine
revenues. As of this writing, LSC
fiscal staff does not have the charging and disposition data that would be
necessary to assess the potential magnitude of the bill's criminal offense
provisions on any affected local criminal justice system.
·
Federal funding opportunities. The federal Adam Walsh Act includes several provisions outlining
federal domestic assistance grants for which various entities may apply,
including, but not limited to, local jurisdictions, law enforcement agencies,
and multi-jurisdictional or regional consortia. The actual monetary amounts available from any given grant
program will depend upon the annual enactment of appropriations. Thus, as of
this writing, until these authorized moneys have actually been appropriated,
and the application period ensues, it is rather problematic to predict the
grants, and related annual monetary amounts, that any of the state's political subdivisions
will, or could, be awarded.
|
|
Overview
The bill makes comprehensive
changes to Ohio's sex offense laws, including the Sex Offender Registration and
Notification (SORN) Law.[2] One of the purposes of the bill is to modify
Ohio's laws in accordance with various provisions of the federal Adam Walsh
Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Adam
Walsh Act), enacted in July 2006.
For background purposes, a brief summary of the Adam
Walsh Act is as follows:
The stated purpose of the Adam Walsh Child
Protection and Safety Act of 2006 is to protect the public, in particular
children, from violent sex offenders via a more comprehensive, nationalized
system for registration of sex offenders.
The act states that the [U.S.] attorney
general will issue guidelines and regulations in interpretation and
implementation of the legislation.
The act calls for state conformity to various
aspects of sex offender registration, including information that must be
collected, duration of registration requirement for classifications of
offenders, verification of registry information, access to and sharing of
information, and penalties for failure to register as required. The act states
that failure of a jurisdiction to comply with the federal requirements within
three years of the implementation of the act will result in a 10 percent
reduction to Byrne law enforcement assistance grants.
A number of new grant programs are authorized
to assist states in improving sex offender registration and related
requirements of the act.[3]
Notable provisions of the bill
For the purposes of this fiscal analysis, the bill
most notably:
·
Makes
various changes to the SORN Law, generally relative to an offender's
registration responsibilities.
·
Defines
new terms related to the SORN Law, including Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III
offenders.
·
Requires
county sheriffs to provide community notification of the registration of an
offender or delinquent child under the SORN Law to certain organizations in
which contact with minors or other vulnerable individuals might occur or any
organization, company, or individual who requests notification.
·
Modifies
various court procedures related to the adjudication of sex offenders including
juvenile sex offenders.
·
Requires the Attorney General to include in the State Registry of
Sex Offenders and Child-victim Offenders (hereinafter referred to as the
"sex offender database") any notice of an order issued under the bill
that terminates an offender's or delinquent child's duty to comply with the
SORN Law as well as other descriptive information stipulated by the bill.
·
Expands the scope of, and makes changes to, the sex offender
database.
·
Requires
the Attorney General to establish and operate a system for the immediate
electronic notice of appropriate officials in other states regarding certain
information related to offenders.
·
Requires
the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (DRC) and the Department of
Youth Services (DYS) to adopt rules pertaining to the certification of sex
offender treatment programs and maintain a list of certified programs that is
open to public inspection.
·
Requires
DRC and DYS, before the release of an offender or delinquent child who was in
DRC or DYS custody for committing a sexually oriented offense or child-victim
oriented offense, to provide to the Bureau of Criminal Identification and
Investigation (BCII) a physical description of the offender or child.
·
Prohibits
a person from engaging in menacing by stalking, abduction, unlawful restraint,
or criminal child enticement with a sexual motivation (expands the definition
of these existing offenses).
·
Enhances
the penalties of several offenses, including but not limited to, sex offenses
or offenses against minors.
This analysis of the bill's state and local fiscal effects
is organized under the following three categories: (I) SORN changes, (II) Criminal offense changes, and (III)
Federal funding opportunities.
(I) SORN changes
Local fiscal effects
Estimating the
local fiscal effects of the bill's SORN Law changes, primarily for county
sheriffs and courts of common pleas, is rather problematic. Many of the procedures provided for under
current law remain the same. However,
the bill: (1) creates some new
registration and notification duties, and (2) modifies existing procedures to
such an extent that the net fiscal effects could be quite significant for some
local jurisdictions. Given the rather
wide scope of the bill's SORN Law changes, LSC fiscal staff has attempted to
identify those points or provisions that are likely to create costs. Where possible, the cost associated with
these points is briefly discussed. For
purposes of this fiscal analysis, the following illustration explains LSC
fiscal staff's use of the term "minimal cost."
Definition of Term "Minimal Cost" Minimal cost means that the bill is
estimated to result in an aggregate (statewide) annual cost of $100,000 or
less for all affected counties, municipalities, school districts, and
townships provided that: ·
For small governments:
the estimated annual cost is no more than $1,000 for any affected
village or township with a population less than 5,000. ·
For larger governments: the
estimated annual cost is no more than $5,000 for any affected county, city,
or township with a population 5,000 or more.
New duty: registration at time of sentencing or
disposition. The bill
requires that a law enforcement officer be present at the sentencing hearing or
dispositional hearing to immediately transport the subject offender or
delinquent child to the sheriff of the county in which the offender or child is
convicted, pleads guilty, or is adjudicated a delinquent child. This will be a new duty for local law
enforcement agencies and will likely create additional costs exceeding minimal
for some jurisdictions, in terms of travel and overtime expenses. Presumably this would affect all local law
enforcement agencies across the state.
Registration procedures and content of registration form. The bill modifies SORN Law registration procedures. These changes will largely conform to the
provisions in the Adam Walsh Act, including the implementation of the new
three-tier classification system. The
bill also makes several changes to the registration form used by county
sheriffs. A few of the new pieces of
information that the form is to include are the offender's social security
number, type of confinement if applicable, license plate number, driver's
license number, DNA specimen, and the name of the sex offense requiring the
registration. This provision of the
bill will likely create some one-time costs for county sheriffs in order to
print new forms and adjust their current administrative procedures. In addition, there could also be some
ongoing costs associated with collecting this new information. The net effect of these costs would likely
create costs exceeding minimal in most jurisdictions.
Address verification
procedures. The bill
modifies the address verification procedures, including the required frequency,
in order to conform to the new Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III offender
classification system. It seems likely
that county sheriffs will experience some one-time administrative costs in
order to implement these new procedures.
However, at the time of this writing, it is unclear if this provision
will create ongoing costs for county sheriffs.
Community notification. The bill requires county sheriffs to provide
community notification of the registration of an offender or delinquent child
under the SORN Law to certain organizations in which contact with minors or
other vulnerable individuals might occur or any organization, company, or
individual who requests notification.
As with prior bills that have widened the scope of notification requirements,
county sheriffs are certain to experience costs exceeding minimal in order to
comply with these new notification requirements.
Court procedures. The bill makes several changes to
court procedures generally affecting the manner in which certain offenders are
classified as sex offenders. At the
time of this writing, it is unclear to what extent, if any, courts could
experience an increase in operating costs in order to implement these
modifications.
State fiscal effects
Office of the
Attorney General. The bill requires the Office
of the Attorney General: (1) to
implement several aspects of the Adam Walsh Act related to the SORN Law,
including modifying the sex offender database, (2) to include in the
sex offender database any notice of an order issued under the bill that
terminates an offender's or delinquent child's duty to comply with the SORN Law
as well as other descriptive information stipulated by the bill, and (3) to establish and operate a
system for the immediate electronic notice of appropriate officials in other
states regarding certain information related to offenders.
According to testimony by Attorney
General Dann before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Criminal Justice, the
Office would be required to: (1) reclassify all 16,000 currently registered
offenders and send them notice of their new classification and related duties,
and (2) send all county sheriffs a list of the people residing in their
county who have been so notified. The
Attorney General also stated that the related costs would be
"substantial."
Since that time, the Office of the
Attorney General has finished a more thorough examination of the bill's fiscal
implications and released further information.
The estimated number of offenders that will need to be reclassified has
been revised upward to approximately 22,000, including 5,000 currently
incarcerated offenders. The Office of
the Attorney General has also identified specific one-time implementation
costs, noted in the table immediately below, that will be incurred in order to
perform the related reclassification and notification tasks.
|
Attorney General Estimated One-time Implementation
Costs |
|
|
Task |
Cost |
|
(1) Reclassification |
$172,125 |
|
· Reclassify
22,000 offenders under the new, three-tier system |
|
|
· Hire 8 to
9 paralegals or legal interns, 40 hrs/week for 6 mos.; average
salary/benefits: $20,250 each |
|
|
(2) Offender Notification |
$52,020 |
|
· Notify
all registered offenders of their reclassification and rights to appeal |
|
|
(3) Equipment Upgrades |
$250,000 |
|
· Collect
and distribute new information via the modified SORN registry and e-SORN web
site |
|
|
Total Estimated One-time Costs |
$474,145 |
In addition to these one-time
implementation costs, there is also an expectation that existing software
contracts will experience a related ongoing cost increase. Preliminary discussions with the current
SORN registry and e-SORN software provider seem to indicate that the annual
cost of existing maintenance agreements will increase by $85,000.
Departments of
Rehabilitation and Correction (DRC) and Youth Services (DYS). The bill requires DRC and DYS: (1) to adopt rules pertaining to the
certification of sex offender treatment programs and maintain a list of
certified programs that is open to public inspection, and (2) before the release
of an offender or delinquent child who was in DRC or DYS custody for committing
a sexually oriented offense or child-victim oriented offense, to provide to the
Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation (BCII) a physical
description of the offender or child.
At the time of this writing, it is unclear to what extent these
provisions of the bill will create costs to these two state agencies. However, it seems likely that it would not
exceed minimal on an annual basis. For
the purposes of this fiscal analysis, minimal means an estimated expenditure
increase of less than $100,000 per year for the state.
Since the bill's introduction, the
Department of Youth Services has indicated that, as a result of the bill's
reclassification of juvenile sex offenders, it may become more difficult to
find appropriate residential placements for certain adjudicated delinquents,
the practical effect of which is likely to be increased lengths of stay in
state and local juvenile correctional facilities. The cost associated with such an outcome is uncertain.
(II) Criminal offense changes
The bill expands and modifies several existing criminal offenses. The expanded offenses involve the existing
offenses of menacing by stalking, abduction, unlawful restraint, or criminal child
enticement. The bill amends these offenses to include engaging
in the act for a sexual motivation.
The table below illustrates the current penalty structure of these
offenses (unchanged by the bill).
The bill also expands the offense of gross sexual imposition by
prohibiting a person from intentionally touching the genitalia of another, when
the touching is not through clothing, the other person is less than twelve
years old, and the touching is done with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass,
degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person. Violation of this prohibition is a felony of
the third degree.
|
Existing Penalty
Structure of Criminal Offenses Expanded by the Bill |
||
|
Prohibition |
Current Law
Penalty |
|
|
Menacing
by Stalking* |
Generally a misdemeanor of the first degree (M1);
felony of the fourth or fifth degree (F4/F5) if certain specified
circumstances apply |
M1: Maximum
of 6 months jail/$1,000 fine |
|
F5: Maximum
6 to 12 months prison/$2,500 fine |
||
|
F4: Maximum
6 to 18 months prision/$5,000 fine |
||
|
Abduction* |
Felony of the third degree (F3) |
F3: Maximum
1 to 5 years |
|
Unlawful
Restraint* |
Misdemeanor of the third degree (M3) |
M3: Maximum
60 days jail/$500 fine |
|
Criminal
Child Enticement* |
Generally a misdemeanor of the first degree (M1);
felony of the fifth degree (F5) if the offender was previously convicted of
criminal child enticement or any of a list of other specified offenses |
M1: Maximum
of 6 months jail/$1,000 fine |
|
F5: Maximum
6 to 12 months prison/$2,500 fine |
||
|
*The bill adds the offense of engaging in any of these
acts for a sexual motivation. |
||
The bill also enhances the penalties of several existing offenses,
which are illustrated in the table below.
|
Proposed Penalty Enhancements |
||
|
Prohibition |
Current Law
Penalty |
Bill's Penalty Enhancement
|
|
Kidnapping when the victim is under 13 and offender
is convicted of or pleads guilty to a sexual motivation specification |
Generally F1; F2 if the victim is released in a
safe place unharmed |
F1 (Mandatory indefinite prison term of 15 years to
life imprisonment or 10 years to life if victim is released in a safe place
unharmed) |
|
Murder when the victim is under 13 and sexual
motivation specification and sexually violent predator specification |
Generally imprisoned for an indefinite tern of 15
years to life (life without parole if SVP specification) |
In cases where life without parole was not given,
mandatory indefinite prison term of 30 years to life imprisonment |
|
Murder when offender is under 18 and aggravating
specification not proven but victim is under 13 and sexual motivation
specification and sexually violent predator specification included |
Generally imprisoned for life with parole
eligibility after 20 years |
Mandatory indefinite prison term of 30 years to
life imprisonment |
|
Aggravated murder and sexual motivation
specification and sexually violent predator specification included |
Generally imprisoned for life with parole
eligibility after 20, 25, or 30 years |
In cases where life without parole was not given,
mandatory indefinite prison term of 30 years to life imprisonment when the
victim is less than 13 |
* F1 and F2 refer to felonies of the first and second
degree, respectively.
From the perspective of the state and local criminal justice systems,
the practical effect of the bill's penalty enhancements is likely to be
twofold. First, some offenders who
would have been convicted of a misdemeanor violation and sanctioned locally
will, under similar circumstances in the future subsequent to the bill's enactment,
be convicted of a felony offense and likely sentenced to prison. Second, some offenders who would have been
convicted of a felony offense and sentenced to a term in prison will, under
similar circumstances in the future subsequent to the bill's enactment, be
convicted of a more serious felony offense and sentenced to a longer prison
term.
Local fiscal effects
Criminal justice systems
expenditures. As a result
of the bill's penalty expansion and enhancement provisions, it is possible that
local criminal justice systems could be affected in one of two ways: (1) some cases could be moved or elevated
from the misdemeanor jurisdiction of a municipal or county court to the felony
jurisdiction of a court of common pleas, and (2) with the enhanced felony penalties,
some cases could take longer to adjudicate.
From the fiscal perspective
of local governments, elevating some cases could simultaneously: (1) increase county criminal justice system
expenditures related to investigating, prosecuting, adjudicating, and defending
(if the offender is indigent) certain offenders, while decreasing analogous
municipal criminal justice system expenditures, and (2) generate
additional court cost and fine revenues for counties, while causing a loss in
analogous municipal court cost and fine revenues.
It is also possible that the
threat of a prison term or a longer prison term may affect individual criminal
cases by speeding some through the bargaining process (potentially saving
expenditures). Other cases may slow down,
by increasing an offender's desire to pursue a criminal trial to avoid having
to face the prison term or reducing the potential length of stay (potentially
increasing expenditures).
As of this writing, LSC
fiscal staff does not have the charging and disposition data that would be
necessary to assess the potential magnitude of the bill's criminal offense
provisions on any affected local criminal justice system.
State fiscal effects
Incarceration expenditures. As a result of the bill's penalty expansion and enhancement provisions,
it is possible that some individuals that might otherwise not have been
arrested, successfully prosecuted, and sanctioned for committing certain felony
or misdemeanor offenses in the future will be arrested, successfully
prosecuted, and sanctioned for committing those offenses. It is also possible that the sanctions
imposed by the sentencing court would include longer prison terms than
currently allowed for under existing law.
Presumably, if offenders are:
(1) sentenced to prison that, absent the bill, would not have been
sentenced to prison, or (2) prison-bound offenders are sentenced to longer
terms, then there is a related increase in the Department of Rehabilitation and
Correction's (DRC) annual GRF-funded incarceration costs. From LSC fiscal staff's perspective, it is
rather difficult to estimate the number of offenders that might be affected in
the above-noted manner in the future.
However, based on preliminary discussions with DRC personnel, it appears
that the bill could generate a significant increase in the prison system's
annual incarceration costs.
Court cost revenues. As noted, it is possible that some individuals that might have been
arrested, successfully prosecuted, and sanctioned for committing certain
misdemeanor offenses would, under similar circumstances in the future
subsequent to the bill's enactment, be committing a felony offense. Such an outcome
creates the possibility that the state may gain some locally collected court cost
revenue for the Victims of Crime/Reparations Fund (Fund 402). This is because the state court cost imposed
on an offender and deposited to the credit of Fund 402 is slightly higher for a
felony than it is for a misdemeanor:
$30 versus $9. The amount of
money that Fund 402 may gain annually is likely to be minimal at most. For the purposes of this fiscal analysis, minimal
means an estimated revenue gain of less than $100,000 for Fund 402 per
year. It is also important to note that
collecting court costs and fines from certain offenders can be problematic,
especially in light of the fact that many are unwilling or unable to pay.
(III) Federal funding opportunities
The Adam Walsh Act includes
several provisions outlining federal domestic assistance grants for which
various entities may apply, including, but not limited to, states, Indian
tribal governments, local jurisdictions, law enforcement agencies, national
nonprofit organizations, and multi-jurisdictional or regional consortia. The attached spreadsheet selectively summarizes
the grant programs authorized by the Adam Walsh Act, including the specified
annual monetary amounts, if any. The
actual monetary amounts available from any given grant program will depend upon
the annual enactment of appropriations.
Thus, as of this writing, until these authorized moneys have actually
been appropriated, and the application period ensues, it is rather problematic
to predict the grants, and related annual monetary amounts, that the state of
Ohio and its political subdivisions will, or could, be awarded.
If states are considered to
be in substantial compliance with the Adam Walsh Act guidelines[4]
by a specific date, monetary bonuses may be available. In addition, penalties may be assessed if
states opt to not implement the guidelines.
According to NCSL,
"states have three years, or until July 2009, to implement the
requirements for sex offender registries, and one year from the creation of the
software named in Sec. 123 [and] states that fail to comply will lose 10% of
funds allocated for that fiscal year under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968."[5] Generally speaking, the funds that are
alluded to in the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 are known
as the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance
Program. As the annual magnitude of
future awards is uncertain, it is rather difficult to predict how much federal
grant funding the state stands to lose if implementation of this specific
provision is not in place by the specified deadline.
The monetary bonuses are related
to the implementation of Title I, Section 126, which establishes the Sex
Offender Management Assistance (SOMA) Grant Program. Under Section 126, the U.S. Attorney General may award a grant to a
jurisdiction to offset the costs of implementing the Sex Offender Management
Assistance Program. The chief executive of a jurisdiction
desiring a grant under this section is required to submit to the U.S. Attorney
General an application annually in such form and containing such information as
the U.S. Attorney General may require.
The potential magnitude of these annual awards is uncertain. The Act further states that eligible
jurisdictions could be awarded bonus payments for prompt compliance. Prompt
compliance is defined by a jurisdiction that, as determined by the U.S.
Attorney General, has substantially implemented this title not later than two
years after the date of the enactment of the Act. There are two levels outlined for these bonus payments as
follows:
Level I. Ten (10) percent of the total received by the jurisdiction under
the SOMA program for the preceding fiscal year, if that implementation is not
later than one year after the date of enactment of the Act.
Level II. Five (5) percent of such total, if not later than two years after
that date.
On
May 17, 2007, the U.S. Attorney General announced that $25 million would be
made available to assist communities in implementing the proposed federal
guidelines. This is the only monetary
award known to LSC fiscal staff that has been made available for this purpose
by the federal government thus far.
According to the press release announcing the availability of these
funds, the purpose of the moneys is to assist "jurisdictions in monitoring
and managing sex offenders and ensuring sex offenders' compliance with . . .
[the] proposed Guidelines." The
funds may be used for "programs that will improve sex offender registries
with new software, develop or enhance address verification capacity, improve juvenile
sex offender treatment programs, or provide tribal assistance." Presumably, the Office of the Attorney
General will apply for these funds, and if an award is made, utilize the moneys
to offset a portion, if not all, of the costs associated with modifying the
SORN registry and e-SORN web site.
Attachment: Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act
of 2006 Authorized Federal Grants Programs
LSC fiscal staff: Jamie L. Doskocil, Senior Budget Analyst
[1] Revised to reflect updated fiscal information received from the Office of the Attorney General.
[2] The Sex Offender Registration and Notification (SORN) Law imposes a series of duties and restrictions upon a person who is convicted of or pleads guilty to a "sexually oriented offense" that is not a "registration-exempt sexually oriented offense" or to a "child-victim oriented offense." Among the duties and restrictions is the requirement that a person who is convicted of or pleads guilty to any such offense register a residence address and a school, institution of higher education, or work address, provide notice of a change of address and register the new address, and periodically verify the registered address. There is also a restriction against residing within 1,000 feet of any school premises.
[3] Quoted from the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL).
[4] The guidelines for the Adam Walsh Act were released on May 17, 2007.
[5] National Conference of State Legislatures, NCSL Summary HR 4472 Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, January 26, 2007 <http://www.ncsl.org/standcomm/sclaw/walshact.htm>.