Sex Offender Registry Board (SORB)

This is a Massachusetts State Auditor performance audit of the Sex Offender Registry Board covering July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016, with some review extended through August 31, 2016 because of a court ruling.

“I am pleased to provide this performance audit of the Sex Offender Registry Board.”

The audit checked whether SORB handled legal and operational changes properly, shared sex offender information with law enforcement, and identified offenders who may not have been following registration rules.

“This performance audit was initiated to determine whether SORB (1) effectively managed the procedural and operational changes regarding the classification and the remanding of convicted sex offenders for evidentiary hearings required by SJC; (2) promptly transmitted sex offender information to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and police departments in the communities where sex offenders intended to work, live, or attend institutions of higher education; and (3) identified sex offenders who might be in violation of their responsibility to register with SORB or whose addresses could not be verified.”

SORB’s work affects public safety because classification determines what information about sex offenders can be shared with the public and police.

“SORB’s classification of a sex offender determines whether and how the offender’s information may be released to the public.”

For ordinary residents, the issue is whether information about certain sex offenders in their communities is available when the law says it should be.

“Without a formal classification, information about these offenders, such as their names, home and work addresses, photographs (if available), registration statuses, and offenses, is not publicly available to help ensure the safety of the general public, including children.”

The auditor concluded that SORB needed stronger procedures to classify offenders on time and to keep address information current.

“SORB did not obtain current addresses for 1,769 sex offenders who were in violation of registration requirements.”

The report recommends that SORB create written procedures, work more closely with correctional facilities, and set up secure data-sharing with other state agencies to improve address tracking.

“SORB should establish written policies and procedures to ensure that it regularly obtains sex offender address information from various executive-branch agencies and updates this information in its database.”

The report is significant because delays and missing address information could limit what police and the public know about offenders who may pose a risk.

“This could affect public safety decisions to protect children and the general public.”

A classification is the risk level assigned to a sex offender: level 1 means low risk, level 2 means moderate risk, and level 3 means high risk.

“The classification levels are level 1 for low risk, level 2 for moderate risk, and level 3 for high risk.”