Registry datasets

Four datasets built by reading primary sources — statutes, official register pages, and the registries' own conditions of use — rather than by aggregating what other sites already say. Each entry carries a citation and a verification date, and anything we could not establish is marked as unestablished rather than filled in.

Counts on this page were taken from the source data on 2026-08-05. They are row counts of what we hold, not projections. Live record counts, which change with every ingestion run, are on the API overview and from GET /v1/stats.

What each dataset holds

RegistryRadar country registry-law atlas

The legal position on sex offender registries in 176 countries: whether a register exists, whether the public can search it, the operating body, the official name of the register, and how an ordinary person checks. 120 countries have no registry open to the public, 36 hold a register whose access is restricted by law, and 14 operate a public one. 170 of the 176 entries carry a primary-source citation; the remaining 6 are marked unverified rather than assumed either way.

Size: 176 countries
Endpoint: GET /v1/api/atlas
Coverage: Worldwide
Fields: registryStatus, registerName, operatingBody, publicAccess, howToCheck, statutoryCitation, verifiedOn, confidence, caveat

RegistryRadar US registry profiles

Per-registry detail for all 56 US registration jurisdictions — 50 states, the District of Columbia and the five territories — covering the tiering system, the statute, what the public site discloses about location, and whether juveniles are included. The location field records what the jurisdiction PUBLISHES, not what it knows: 45 publish a mappable street address, 3 a block or street, 1 a ZIP or city only, and for 7 it could not be established. 19 jurisdictions publish a registrant total about their own registry, each carried with its scope and date.

Size: 56 jurisdictions
Endpoint: GET /v1/api/jurisdictions/us
Coverage: US
Fields: registerName, operator, publicUrl, statute, tiering, addressPrecision, includesJuveniles, searchableBy, publicNotification, registrantCount, verifiedOn, confidence

RegistryRadar tribal registry coverage

The 152 federally recognised tribes acting as SORNA registration jurisdictions in their own right. 123 publish their own public search, separate from the registry of the surrounding state — so querying that state returns nothing about those lands. The remaining 29 route searches to a state registry or a notification vendor. 30 states hold at least one. This is a coverage dataset, not a directory: it exists to stop a map implying that tribal land is covered by the state registry around it.

Size: 152 tribal registries
Endpoint: GET /v1/api/jurisdictions/tribal
Coverage: US
Fields: tribe, state, ownRegistry, registerName, operator, publicUrl, searchableBy, publicNotification, verifiedOn, confidence

RegistryRadar safeguarding and vetting schemes

What a parent, employer or volunteer coordinator can actually do in each country, which for most of the world is a vetting scheme rather than a register. 174 countries are covered; 29 issue a certificate designed for child-facing roles, 23 maintain a barred list, 118 rely on an ordinary criminal record certificate, and 2 operate a police disclosure scheme. For 2 countries no scheme could be established, which is recorded as such rather than published as an absence. The field that matters most is who may request the document: in several countries the individual legally cannot request their own, and in others the employer must initiate it.

Size: 174 countries
Endpoint: GET /v1/api/safeguarding
Coverage: Worldwide
Fields: schemeName, kind, operator, whoCanRequest, requiredFor, whatItShows, howToGet, cost, source, confidence, independentlyVerified

Commercial use, jurisdiction by jurisdiction

SORNA federalises publication and requires a misuse warning. It does not define or prohibit commercial reuse, and it does not preempt state restrictions — so a national product inherits the strictest term applying to each record's source jurisdiction, and the policy has to be applied per record rather than per request. We read the governing statute or terms for all 56 US registration jurisdictions. The practical conclusion is that a national background-check product built on registry data is not something that can lawfully exist as one product.

Prohibited

We serve nothing from these jurisdictions, for any purpose.

Restricted

Permitted but limited — by declared purpose, by which fields may be republished, by a notice that must travel with the data, or by the channel a request must go through. It does not mean unrestricted where no purpose is listed.

Open

Reuse expressly permitted for any lawful purpose.

Unreviewed

The governing terms could not be retrieved. A statement about our research, not about the jurisdiction — and never read as permission.

Withheld by declared purpose

Every commercial purpose is blocked in more jurisdictions than the prohibited set alone, because several jurisdictions are served for safety and research but withheld for screening. This is the table to read before assuming a screening product can be sold nationally.

For each declared purpose, the number of US registration jurisdictions whose records RegistryRadar withholds, and which ones.
Declared purpose	Withheld in	Jurisdictions
Child and community safety	7 of 56	ID, ME, MS, NV, RI, WI, WV
Employment screening	13 of 56	CA, ID, KS, ME, MS, NV, PA, RI, SD, VA, VT, WI, WV
Tenant screening	14 of 56	CA, ID, KS, ME, MS, NJ, NV, PA, RI, SD, VA, VT, WI, WV
Insurance, credit and lending	13 of 56	CA, ID, ME, MS, NJ, NV, PA, RI, SD, VA, VT, WI, WV
Journalism and research	8 of 56	ID, ME, MS, NV, PA, RI, WI, WV
Platform trust and safety	7 of 56	ID, ME, MS, NV, RI, WI, WV

Every jurisdiction, with its citation

Sourcing confidence describes how well established the reading is, not how severe the restriction is. Medium and low generally mean the statute was readable but the registry's own click-through terms were not — several sit behind a vendor bot-wall — so a contractual restriction we have not seen may sit on top of what is recorded here. This is a research record, not legal advice.

Posture, primary-source citation, purposes withheld and sourcing confidence for each of the 56 US registration jurisdictions.
Jurisdiction	Posture	Citation	Withheld for	Sourcing
Alabama	Restricted	Ala. Code § 15-20A-8 (Registration information - Public registry website)	—	medium
Alaska	Restricted	AS 18.65.087 (Central Registry of Sex Offenders), esp. subsection (b)	—	medium
American Samoa	Restricted	https://www.nsopw.gov/conditions/jurisdictionconditions?id=AMERICANSAMOA	—	medium
Arizona	Restricted	A.R.S. § 13-3827 (internet sex offender website); A.R.S. § 39-121.03 (public records — commercial purpose)	—	high
Arkansas	Restricted	Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-913 (Sex Offender Registration Act of 1997 — disclosure of information)	—	medium
California	Restricted	Cal. Penal Code § 290.46(j); see also § 290.46(h)-(i)	Employment screening, Tenant screening, Insurance, credit and lending	high
Colorado	Restricted	C.R.S. § 16-22-112 (Release of information); C.R.S. § 16-22-109(4) (registration forms confidential); C.R.S. § 16-22-110(6)(g) (juvenile records)	—	high
Connecticut	Restricted	Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-258(a)(1) (availability of registration information); § 54-258a (warning against wrongful use); § 54-255 (restriction on dissemination for certain offenders)	—	medium
Delaware	Restricted	11 Del. C. §§ 4120, 4121, 4123	—	medium
District of Columbia	Open	D.C. Code § 22-4011(a); § 22-4017; Sex Offender Registration Act of 1999	—	medium
Florida	Open	Fla. Stat. §§ 943.043, 943.0435; Fla. Stat. § 775.21(10)(d) (misuse); Ch. 119, Fla. Stat. (Public Records Law)	—	high
Georgia	Restricted	O.C.G.A. § 42-1-12(o) (treatment and disclosure of registry information); § 42-1-12(i)	—	medium
Guam	Restricted	9 G.C.A. § 89.03 et seq. (Guam Sex Offender Registry); cited in terms only as "Guam Law"	—	high
Hawaii	Restricted	Haw. Rev. Stat. § 846E-3 (public access to covered offender registration information)	—	medium
Idaho	Prohibited	Idaho Code § 18-8323(6) (public access — use limited to protection of the public); § 18-8326 (penalties for misuse); Idaho Code § 74-120 (no commercial purpose)	Child and community safety, Employment screening, Tenant screening, Insurance, credit and lending, Journalism and research, Platform trust and safety	high
Illinois	Restricted	730 ILCS 152/115 (sex offender database); 730 ILCS 152/120 (community notification; public inspection); 730 ILCS 152/130 (immunity)	—	medium
Indiana	Restricted	Ind. Code 11-8-8 (Zachary's Law); county sheriff registry websites under Ind. Code 36-2-13-5.5	—	medium
Iowa	Restricted	Iowa Code § 692A.121 (Availability of records), esp. § 692A.121(14)	—	high
Kansas	Restricted	K.S.A. 22-4909 (Kansas Offender Registration Act; information subject to open records act); Kansas Open Records Act, K.S.A. 45-220(c) and 45-230	Employment screening, Tenant screening	high
Kentucky	Restricted	KRS 17.580 (Duty of Department of Kentucky State Police to maintain and update Web site ...), esp. KRS 17.580(3) and (4)(b)	—	high
Louisiana	Restricted	La. R.S. 15:542 et seq. (State Sex Offender and Child Predator Registry); public access at La. R.S. 15:542.1.5	—	high
Maine	Prohibited	34-A M.R.S. § 11221(9-A), (11), (13) (Act of 1999) and 34-A M.R.S. § 11281(9), (10), (12) (Act of 2013)	Child and community safety, Employment screening, Tenant screening, Insurance, credit and lending, Journalism and research, Platform trust and safety	high
Maryland	Restricted	Md. Code, Crim. Proc. §§ 11-701 to 11-721 (Maryland Sex Offender Registry)	—	medium
Massachusetts	Restricted	Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 6, § 178N (Misuse of information; penalties); internet database at § 178D; purpose-limited requests at §§ 178I and 178J	—	high
Michigan	Restricted	MCL 28.730 (Sex Offenders Registration Act, 1994 PA 295, § 10); public internet website at MCL 28.728(2)	—	high
Minnesota	Restricted	Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subd. 7 (Use of data); public notification and internet posting at Minn. Stat. § 244.052, subd. 4 and 4b	—	high
Mississippi	Prohibited	Miss. Code Ann. § 45-33-21 et seq. (Mississippi Sex Offenders Registration Law)	Child and community safety, Employment screening, Tenant screening, Insurance, credit and lending, Journalism and research, Platform trust and safety	high
Missouri	Restricted	Mo. Rev. Stat. § 589.417 (records not public except internet-published information); website contents at § 589.411	—	high
Montana	Restricted	Mont. Code Ann. § 46-23-508 (Dissemination of information); Mont. Code Ann. § 44-5-303 (dissemination of confidential criminal justice information); registry disclaimer at app.doj.mt.gov/apps/svow/tos.aspx	—	medium
Nebraska	Restricted	Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-4013 (access to public notification information); Sex Offender Registration Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-4001 to 29-4014	—	high
Nevada	Prohibited	NRS 179B.270 (prohibited uses); NRS 179B.250 (contents of website); NRS 179B.280, 179B.285, 179B.290 (misuse — civil liability and criminal penalties)	Child and community safety, Employment screening, Tenant screening, Insurance, credit and lending, Journalism and research, Platform trust and safety	high
New Hampshire	Restricted	N.H. RSA 651-B:7 (Availability of Information to the Public and Law Enforcement)	—	medium
New Jersey	Restricted	N.J.S.A. 2C:7-19 (prohibited uses of registry information); Megan's Law internet registry, N.J.S.A. 2C:7-12 to 2C:7-19	Tenant screening, Insurance, credit and lending	high
New Mexico	Restricted	34 U.S.C. § 20922 (Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender Public Website)	—	high
New York	Restricted	N.Y. Correction Law § 168-q (Subdirectory; internet posting); Sex Offender Registration Act, N.Y. Correction Law art. 6-C	—	high
North Carolina	Restricted	N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208.10 (Registration information is public record); § 14-208.15 (statewide registry is public record); § 14-208.5 (Purpose); § 14-208.15A (release of online identifiers)	—	high
North Dakota	Open	N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-15(14) (public disclosure of registration information); § 12.1-32-15(15) (immunity)	—	high
Northern Mariana Islands	Restricted	https://www.nsopw.gov/conditions/jurisdictionconditions?id=CNMI	—	high
Ohio	Open	Ohio Rev. Code § 2950.13(A)(11) (internet sex offender and child-victim offender database); § 2950.081(A)-(B) (public inspection of sheriff-held records); § 149.43 (Ohio Public Records Act)	—	medium
Oklahoma	Restricted	Sex Offenders Registration Act, 57 Okla. Stat. § 584 (registration file; public inspection at § 584(I); Internet-entity data releases at § 584(J); immunity at § 584(Q))	—	high
Oregon	Open	ORS 163A.215 (Release of sex offender information according to classification); ORS 163A.220 (Internet website); ORS 163A.100 (classification)	—	high
Pennsylvania	Restricted	42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9799.28 and 9799.63 (site established pursuant to these sections); site Terms and Conditions	Employment screening, Tenant screening, Insurance, credit and lending, Journalism and research	high
Puerto Rico	Restricted	Sexual Offenders Registry Law, Law No. 266, September 9th, 2004 (P.R.)	—	medium
Rhode Island	Prohibited	R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-37.1-11 (Release of information); § 11-37.1-12(b)(4)(ii)(C)	Child and community safety, Employment screening, Tenant screening, Insurance, credit and lending, Journalism and research, Platform trust and safety	medium
South Carolina	Restricted	S.C. Code Ann. §§ 23-3-490, 23-3-510, 23-3-520, 23-3-555(C); SLED registry Conditions of Use	—	high
South Dakota	Restricted	SDCL 22-24B-10 (public registration information); registry disclaimer / terms and conditions	Employment screening, Tenant screening, Insurance, credit and lending	high
Tennessee	Restricted	34 U.S.C. § 20929 (SORNA tribal registry provisions); individual tribal codes vary	—	high
Texas	Open	Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 62.005 (public information)	—	high
US Virgin Islands	Restricted	https://www.nsopw.gov/conditions/jurisdictionconditions?id=USVI	—	medium
Utah	Restricted	Utah Code § 53-29-404(5) (mandated website disclaimer); § 53-29-404(1)-(3) (site contents)	—	high
Vermont	Restricted	13 V.S.A. § 5411a(h) (mandated website notice); § 5411(b), (f) (release of registry information)	Employment screening, Tenant screening, Insurance, credit and lending	high
Virginia	Restricted	Va. Code § 9.1-918 (Misuse of registry or supplement information; penalty); dissemination at § 9.1-913	Employment screening, Tenant screening, Insurance, credit and lending	high
Washington	Restricted	RCW 4.24.550 (Sex offenders and kidnapping offenders — Release of information to public — Website), in particular subsections (1), (2) and (9)	—	medium
West Virginia	Prohibited	W. Va. Code § 15-12-5(b) and (c) (Distribution and disclosure of information)	Child and community safety, Employment screening, Tenant screening, Insurance, credit and lending, Journalism and research, Platform trust and safety	high
Wisconsin	Prohibited	Wis. Stat. §§ 301.45, 301.46 (statute imposes no public-use restriction); registry site Conditions of Use and Agreement Terms	Child and community safety, Employment screening, Tenant screening, Insurance, credit and lending, Journalism and research, Platform trust and safety	high
Wyoming	Unreviewed	Wyo. Stat. §§ 7-19-303(b), (c)(iii), (g) and (k)	—	low

Two poles worth stating together

California authorises use of its registry information for exactly one purpose — to protect a person at risk — and expressly prohibits use for employment, housing, credit, insurance, education and benefits, with a civil penalty running to the user. A disclaimer does not cure that: the statute prohibits the use, not the absence of a warning. Texas publishes its registry as data that may be used by anyone for any purpose, and expressly contemplates secondary dissemination. The variance between those two is the single most important fact for anyone designing a product on this data.

Separately, and regardless of what any state's terms permit: using registry data for decisions about employment, tenancy, credit or insurance likely makes the user a consumer report user under the FCRA. The FTC has enforced on this exact data.

Reading the datasets programmatically

Each dataset is an endpoint. GET /v1/api/policyreturns the table above alongside your own key's declared purpose and whether each jurisdiction serves it — published as an endpoint rather than as a clause because getting this wrong is your liability as well as ours.

Endpoint reference Full documentation →Machine-readable summary →