Now let’s look at some other aspects of this report in detail.
1. SORNA is sufficiently funded.
The funding of SORNA is a sticking point for many states. In fact the AWA does not set out any funding within its frame work. In essence it blackmails states into implementation or loss of Byrne grant funding. While the Smart office has given small funding assistance, the bulk of the costs are left to the states. SORNA and the registry, including community notification is costing the American public an estimated $4,680,000,000.00 per year. This is based on figures out of Florida that put the cost at $6,000.00 per year per registrant. That is $98,000,000.00 average per state, if each state had the same number of offenders; and they do not.
2. Jurisdictions get federal grants for a reason.
“Such statements ignore a key provision of SORNA: Byrne Grant money “may be reallocated to a jurisdiction from which they were withheld to be used solely for the purpose of implementing” SORNA. In other words, jurisdictions may still receive Byrne grants as long as the jurisdiction uses that money only for SORNA implementation. Thus, statements that jurisdictions would be deprived of such funding are incorrect”
However if that jurisdiction decides not to implement SORNA then it will lose 10% of its Byrne funding. So this statement is only correct if the jurisdiction implements SORNA, otherwise this statement is false.
3. SORNA is flexible.
“First, SORNA allows jurisdictions to modify the tier system as long as their modified system meets the minimum standards set by SORNA.”
This statement proves that SORNA is not flexible. It shows that SORNA is the floor and states can only set the ceiling, however if a state feels that lifetime registration is counterproductive and wants to include a provision for being removed from the registry, that state would not be SORNA compliant. As for the ex-post