Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Administrative Law Blogs -> Within the Scope

Administrative Law

: Within the Scope

Board Urges Refusal of Money and Requirements of Adam Walsh Act

By Eric L. Lipman

The California Sex Offender Management Board recently announced that acceptance of the requirements that are associated with full compliance under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 would be "costly and ill-advised." The 16-member state board oversees community management of adult sex offenders by "identifying and developing recommendations to improve policies and practices."

Urging the California State Legislature and Governor Schwarzenegger to elect not to come into compliance with the federal Act, the Board argued:

Instead of incurring the substantial - and un-reimbursed - costs associated with the Adam Walsh Act, California should absorb the comparatively small loss of federal funds that would result from not accepting the very costly and ill-advised changes to state law and policy required by the Act. Any funding cuts to the JAG / Byrne grants to local law enforcement should be offset with other funds to ensure that the vital public safety work of those programs is continued.

As the Board reasoned, in addition to "particularly problematic? policy choices made by the Act, the potential loss of $1.2 million in federal funds compared poorly with a "minimum" of $32 million in costs that would be incurred by California in order to obtain compliance with the new law.

The Board's complete statement is accessible here.

Here in Minnesota, a joint meeting of the Senate Committee on Judiciary and the House Committee on Public Safety Policy and Oversight will be held next Thursday to consider terms and requirements of the Adam Walsh Act.

Full post as published by Within the Scope on January 15, 2009 (boomark / email).