StacksVerified U.S. regulatory reference

34 U.S.C. § 20981

Verified against govinfo.gov as of June 20, 2026View official text on govinfo.gov ↗
  1. (a)
    1. (1)
      1. (A)The Attorney General is authorized to award grants (referred to as “Jessica Lunsford and Sarah Lunde Grants”) to States, local governments, and Indian tribal governments to assist in—
        1. (i)carrying out programs to outfit sex offenders with electronic monitoring units; and
        2. (ii)the employment of law enforcement officials necessary to carry out such programs.
      2. (B)The Attorney General shall award grants under this section for a period not to exceed 3 years.
      3. (C)The electronic monitoring units used in the pilot program shall at a minimum—
        1. (i)provide a tracking device for each offender that contains a central processing unit with global positioning system; and
        2. (ii)permit continuous monitoring of offenders 24 hours a day.
    2. (2)
      1. (A)Each State, local government, or Indian tribal government desiring a grant under this section shall submit an application to the Attorney General at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such information as the Attorney General may reasonably require.
      2. (B)Each application submitted pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall—
        1. (i)describe the activities for which assistance under this section is sought; and
        2. (ii)provide such additional assurances as the Attorney General determines to be essential to ensure compliance with the requirements of this section.
  2. (b)In making grants under this section, the Attorney General shall ensure that different approaches to monitoring are funded to allow an assessment of effectiveness.
  3. (c)
    1. (1)There are authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2007 through 2009 to carry out this section.
    2. (2)Not later than September 1, 2010, the Attorney General shall report to Congress—
      1. (A)assessing the effectiveness and value of this section;
      2. (B)comparing the cost effectiveness of the electronic monitoring to reduce sex offenses compared to other alternatives; and
      3. (C)making recommendations for continuing funding and the appropriate levels for such funding.