The Sex Offender Registry Board Did Not Always Conduct Address Verification Data Matching or Update the Sex Offender Registry Information System.

Our audit found that SORB had taken measures to improve its address verification data matching process.

Overview

In our prior audit (No. 2016-1408-3S) of SORB, we found that SORB did not ensure that it had current addresses for sex offenders considered in violation. Although SORB had entered into interdepartmental service agreements with the Department of Transitional Assistance (DTA) and the Department of Revenue to conduct address verification data matching, it did not perform these verifications. In addition, SORB had not entered into any other interdepartmental service agreements with executive branch agencies to verify sex offenders’ addresses.

In our current audit, we found that SORB had taken measures to improve its address verification data matching process. Specifically, SORB entered into new interdepartmental service agreements with three other state agencies—the Department of Children and Families, the Division of Occupational Licensure, and the Department of Housing and Community Development—to share address data. However, SORB still did not ensure that it had current addresses for all sex offenders considered in violation.

Although SORB conducted monthly address verification data matching with the Department of Children and Families, it did not conduct address verification data matching with the Department of Occupational Licensure and the Department of Housing and Community Development during our audit period. Further, SORB management stated that they had only conducted address verification data matching with the Department of Revenue three times during our entire two-year audit period.

Finally, although SORB conducted weekly address verification data matching with DTA, we found that SORB did not always update SORIS2 to reflect any updated sex offender address information it obtained from these verifications. Specifically, we selected and reviewed a sample of 24 of the 104 weekly address verification data matches that occurred between SORB and DTA during the audit period. These address verification data matches included data for 602 sex offenders. We found that SORB did not update SORIS2 with updated address information provided by DTA for 138 of the 678 residential address changes⁶ during the audit period. SORB did not update address information in SORIS2 for 130 sex offenders.

By not ensuring that it has the current addresses of sex offenders considered in violation, SORB is not able to communicate information about sex offenders’ whereabouts, their offenses, and their classifications to local law enforcement agencies and the general public. This could create a risk to public safety.

Authoritative Guidance

According to Section 1.26(5) of Title 803 of the Code of Massachusetts Regulations, “[SORB] is required to keep the [sex offender] registry up-to-date and accurate.”

Section 178F of Chapter 6 of the General Laws also requires SORB to obtain sex offenders’ addresses from executive branch agencies, such as the Department of Revenue and DTA, “when there is reason to believe a sex offender required to register has not so registered.”

Reasons for Noncompliance

SORB did not give a reason why it does not use all of its interdepartmental service agreements to conduct address verification data matching. SORB management stated that they cannot update SORIS2 with a sex offender’s updated address that SORB receives from DTA until the police complete an investigation to verify the accuracy of the address.

Recommendations

1. SORB should use all the interdepartmental service agreements it has with executive branch agencies to conduct address verification data matching to obtain accurate addresses for sex offenders considered in violation.
2. SORB should update SORIS2 to reflect all updated address information it receives as part of its address verification data matching with executive branch agencies.

Auditee’s Response

Section 178F of Chapter 6 of the General Laws which OSA cites as authoritative guidance states that SORB shall examine information on file with the commissioner of revenue or any other entity within the executive branch when there is reason to believe a sex offender has not so registered or where the address of such sex offender cannot be verified through other means. SORB maintains that it does examine information available to it. SORB pursues an investigation based on information received from other agencies. Once these addresses are verified, the offender is brought into compliance and the Registry is updated with verified information. A generalized statement that SORB did not perform these verifications is inaccurate. SORB depends on many agencies to investigate offenders in violation and offenders who may be out of compliance and overdue for registering. SORB regularly pulls data from [multiple federal and state agencies]. [Several of these agencies’] reports contain new and historical data. SORB staff shares new information with law enforcement partners at least monthly.

Additionally, SORB relies on law enforcement agencies in the Commonwealth to locate offenders in violation and verify addresses for offenders on the Registry. Police and other law enforcement agencies continually verify addresses of sex offenders in their cities and towns. The local, state, and federal authorities have access to SORIS2 and utilize the electronic system to place sex offenders in violation, or comment on the validity of an address of a sex offender. Our law enforcement partners regularly conduct these audits to protect the citizens in their communities. In 2017, SORB began an Address Verification Program (AVP) where offenders in violation are identified, investigated, and brought into compliance by local law enforcement partners. This program was in effect during the audit period though the AVP was put on hold in 2020 due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. This program restarted in the Spring of 2021 and continues today.

The Board itself has no lawful power to arrest or detain a sex offender. Pursuant to [Section 178D of Chapter 6 of the General Laws], SORB shall maintain and update the Registry with accurate sex offender information. Thus, SORB may only update an offender’s address if it receives a registration form that is signed by the offender under the pains and penalties of perjury pursuant to [Sections 178E, 178F, 178F1/2 of Chapter 6 of the General Laws]. Further, updating the database with a non-verified address does not advance public safety and would frustrate the ability to prosecute future failure to register cases since the offender did not provide the address we added from data matching.

Regarding OSA’s finding specific to SORB’s weekly address verification data matching with DTA and its finding that SORB did not update SORIS2 with updated address information for 138 of the 678 residential address changes during the audit period, SORB states that it did verify and update addresses for 38 of those address changes. The remainder of the 100 addresses that were not updated were entries for offenders who were later found at different addresses indicating the data received was ultimately not accurate.

With regards to the audit team’s recommendations in Detailed Audit Finding 2, SORB responds as follows:

1. SORB will continue to utilize established [interdepartmental service agreements] with various executive branch agencies to ensure that it regularly obtains sex offender address information for offenders who are considered in violation.
2. SORB, in conjunction with its law enforcement partners, will continue to pursue investigations into offenders considered in violation when new address information is received from its address verification data matching with executive branch agencies.

Auditor’s Reply

Section 1.26(5) of Title 803 of the Code of Massachusetts Regulations states, “[SORB] is required to keep the [sex offender] registry up-to-date and accurate.” Both this regulation and the above-cited section of the General Laws require SORB to update SORIS2 to include the most up-to-date address SORB has, which it can obtain through address verification data matching with executive branch agencies. We did not make a generalized statement that SORB was not performing address verification data matching. To the contrary, we acknowledge that SORB performed some address verification data matching with executive branch agencies, but SORB did not perform these verifications with all of the agencies it had access to through interdepartmental service agreements during the audit period.

We have not argued that SORB is responsible for locating sex offenders considered in violation or that SORB has the power to arrest or detain a sex offender. These assertions by SORB distract from the actual findings of our audit. The above finding is that SORB has the responsibility to perform address verification data matching with executive branch agencies to ensure that SORIS2 has updated addresses to assist law enforcement in locating offenders considered in violation. While law enforcement may have the ability to enter updated address information in SORIS2, the ultimate responsibility to ensure that the SORIS2 registry is up-to-date and accurate lies with SORB, according to Section 1.26(5) of Title 803 of the Code of Massachusetts Regulations, and thus, SORB should not solely rely on law enforcement agencies for this. SORB should verify the results it receives through address verification data matching before entering it in SORIS2, which should be updated with this information once it has been verified. This was not always the case during the audit period.

During the end of our audit fieldwork, while examining records in SORIS2, we saw that SORB was actively updating the address information for some of the sex offenders included in our finding. If the 38 addresses for sex offenders that SORB claims it verified and updated are represented by those changes, we credit SORB for updating SORIS2 with the verified addresses. By SORB claiming that the 100 sex offenders were ultimately found at other locations, SORB is acknowledging that it did not update SORIS2 with address information for these sex offenders. Because SORB did not always update SORIS2 with address verification data it received from data matching with DTA, SORB cannot determine with accuracy that those addresses were incorrect at the time they were provided to SORB. Therefore, SORB is unable to claim that the remaining 100 addresses were “ultimately not accurate.” Law enforcement officials may have been able to locate sex offenders considered in violation more promptly if SORB had updated SORIS2 with verified addresses.

We believe SORB could address the issues raised in this finding if it enacts the changes proposed in its response to our recommendations. We strongly encourage these matters be addressed immediately.

6.    During the audit period, SORB received multiple residential address changes for some of the 602 sex offenders.

Date published:	October 25, 2023