SMART FY 15 Support for Adam Walsh Act Implementation Grant Program | Apply Online

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1) What is the SMART FY 15 Support for Adam Walsh Act (AWA) Implementation Grant Program?

It is a discretionary U.S. Department of Justice grant administered by the SMART Office (Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking). The program is designed to help eligible jurisdictions develop, improve, and sustain their ability to meet the requirements of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA).

2) What is the main goal of this grant program?

The core purpose is to move jurisdictions closer to substantial SORNA implementation or, for jurisdictions already deemed substantially implementing SORNA, to strengthen ongoing compliance and improve the quality and effectiveness of sex offender registration and notification systems.

3) What is SORNA, in simple terms?

SORNA is a federal law that requires every state, the District of Columbia, U.S. territories, and participating federally recognized tribes to operate a sex offender registry. It also requires individuals who qualify as sex offenders under the law to register and keep their registration current in each jurisdiction where they live, work, or attend school.

4) What kinds of SORNA-related activities does the program support?

The solicitation emphasizes practical implementation and compliance activities, including maintaining registries with required data elements, meeting required registration timeframes and durations, conducting in-person identity verification, participating in the National Sex Offender Public Website (NSOPW), and using the SORNA Exchange Portal to support information sharing.

5) Who is eligible to apply for this funding?

Eligible applicants include state governments, federally recognized tribal governments, the District of Columbia, and principal U.S. territories (full eligibility details were referenced in the solicitation).

6) How much funding was available under this opportunity?

The estimated total funding amount was $13,000,000.

7) How many awards were expected to be made?

The solicitation anticipated roughly 70 awards.

8) What was the award size range for individual grants?

Individual awards ranged from a minimum of $10,000 to a maximum of $400,000.

9) Was there a cost sharing or match requirement?

No. The solicitation stated there was no cost sharing or matching requirement.

10) What types of projects are encouraged or allowed?

The opportunity allows a wide range of project types, emphasizing infrastructure, coordination, data quality, and operational effectiveness. Examples mentioned include improvements to systems and equipment for collecting and managing biometric and identity data (such as fingerprints, including palm prints, and DNA-related processes where applicable), modernization of records management (including digitization and system upgrades), interagency coordination work, staff training, and enhancements to operational tactics such as address verification, absconder investigations, cross-jurisdictional collaboration, and community education or prevention efforts connected to registration and notification.

11) What is expected from jurisdictions that have not yet substantially implemented SORNA?

Applicants that are not yet substantially implementing SORNA are expected to clearly explain how proposed activities will close specific gaps and advance the jurisdiction toward implementation.

12) What is a SORNA implementation working group, and when is it required?

For jurisdictions that have not yet substantially implemented SORNA, the application is expected to describe a SORNA implementation working group, identify its members, and define roles and responsibilities tied to implementation tasks.

13) Are working group updates required after an award is made?

Yes, for jurisdictions that are not yet substantially implementing SORNA. If funded, they are expected to include updates about working group meetings and progress in quarterly progress reports.

14) Do substantially implementing jurisdictions have to follow the same working group reporting requirement?

No. The solicitation stated that the working-group reporting expectation does not apply to jurisdictions already found to be substantially implementing SORNA. Those applicants instead should show how the project will maintain compliance over time or enhance the existing registration and notification program.

15) Does the program support technology and data modernization work?

Yes. Examples include upgrading systems so required SORNA information can be captured, stored, and transmitted efficiently, and improving information-sharing infrastructure across law enforcement and criminal justice agencies.

16) Does the program support biometric collection and identity verification improvements?

Yes. The solicitation highlights improving systems and equipment related to biometric and identity data used in registration and enforcement, including fingerprints (including palm prints) and DNA-related processes where applicable, along with in-person identity verification requirements.

17) Are training and staff development activities eligible?

Yes. The solicitation encourages creating or expanding training for staff who handle registration, notification, monitoring, or management functions.

18) Does the opportunity encourage interagency and cross-jurisdiction collaboration?

Yes. It encourages improving information sharing within a jurisdiction and between jurisdiction-level and local-level partners, as well as strengthening cross-jurisdictional collaboration and inter-jurisdictional cooperation.

19) How does the solicitation address tribal applicants?

Tribal applicants are encouraged to apply either as individual tribes or through consortia (multiple tribes that have elected to implement SORNA joining together to share resources and capacity).

20) What kinds of shared approaches are contemplated for tribal consortia?

The solicitation explicitly contemplates shared equipment (such as digital fingerprint tools), shared staff or registry office space, shared technology, shared public-facing web tools, and joint enforcement or compliance activities.

21) What documentation is expected for a tribal consortium application?

The SMART Office expects written documentation demonstrating collaboration, such as interagency agreements, memoranda of understanding (MOUs), or letters of cooperation from each participating tribe.

22) Can tribes that are already substantially implementing SORNA apply?

Yes. Tribes already found to have substantially implemented SORNA may pursue funding to build sustainment strategies and strengthen program stability, including community education on sex offender issues and structured collaboration with intra-tribal partners.

23) What examples of intra-tribal partners are mentioned for sustainment strategies?

Examples listed include victim service agencies, courts, probation, and schools.

24) Are tribes encouraged to strengthen information sharing with other jurisdictions?

Yes. Substantially implementing tribes may apply to strengthen inter-jurisdictional cooperation, including improvements to information-sharing infrastructure.

25) How does the solicitation address state, territory, and District of Columbia implementation realities?

The solicitation recognizes that registry and notification functions are often carried out through political subdivisions and local units of government. Prior state grantees that delegated responsibilities to local agencies are encouraged to build local support into project designs.

26) Can states propose projects that involve tribes within their borders?

Yes. States may propose projects to strengthen collaboration with Tribal SORNA Jurisdictions within their borders, including information sharing improvements.

27) What are P.L. 280 contexts, and how are they referenced in the solicitation?

The solicitation notes that states may propose projects that support local or state entities (including P.L. 280 tribes) in improving registration and notification functions related to tribal nations that are delegated to the state for purposes of substantial SORNA implementation. States that include P.L. 280 tribes are encouraged to design projects that directly address implementation as it relates to those tribes.

28) If a state proposes collaboration with tribes, what supporting materials are required?

Collaborative proposals must include supporting documentation (for example, MOUs or letters of cooperation) from each partner jurisdiction.

29) Does the solicitation mention national systems like NCIC/NSOR?

Yes. It cites enabling tribal access to enter or share information with national systems like NCIC/NSOR as an example of an information-sharing improvement in state-tribal collaboration proposals.

30) What is the CFDA number for this grant opportunity?

The CFDA number listed in the solicitation was 16.750.

31) What funding category does this opportunity fall under?

The funding activity category was law, justice, and legal services.

32) When was this opportunity posted and when was the application due?

The opportunity was posted on January 29, 2015, and the application deadline was April 16, 2015.

33) Is there any requirement related to Byrne/JAG reallocation funding tied to SORNA?

Yes. States and territories eligible for Byrne/JAG reallocation funding tied to SORNA must explain how the proposed AWA Implementation Grant project complements that reallocation-funded work and must avoid duplicating activities so the jurisdiction is not effectively paid twice for the same tasks.

34) What is the program trying to improve in day-to-day operations?

The solicitation frames this program as helping jurisdictions build practical capability behind SORNA compliance, including stronger data collection and management, more reliable verification and enforcement processes, stronger interagency workflows, improved training and standardization, and better cross-border collaboration (including state-tribal partnerships where central to implementation).

35) Who was listed as the point of contact in the solicitation?

The point of contact listed was Faith Baker, Associate Director, at the time of the announcement.