National Sex Offender Registry
New Hire Data Has Potential for Updating Addresses of Convicted Sex Offenders Gao ID: GAO-06-766 July 31, 2006In the 1990s, several heinous crimes put the issue of the sexual abuse of children onto the nation's policy agenda. Sexual crimes against children and adults are often perpetrated by individuals known to their victims and these crimes devastate families and communities. To safeguard children and their families, Congress enacted a series of laws between 1994 and 2003 that required sex offenders to register their addresses with law enforcement agencies. The laws also required that states, in order to be eligible to receive certain federal funds, establish sex offender registries, and the Department of Justice (DOJ) establish a national sex offender registry. The National Sex Offender Registry (NSOR) is maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) within DOJ. It is a nationwide database compiled from information in individual state sex offender registries and it currently lists over 400,000 convicted sex offenders. The system requires convicted sex offenders to register with law enforcement agencies upon release from prison and to update their address information whenever they move or change addresses. Law enforcement agencies rely on information in sex offender registries to track the location and movement of convicted sex offenders; however, GAO and others have raised concerns about the accuracy of the information contained in the registries because many offenders fail to update their address information as required. To help track the location of sex offenders, law enforcement officials have turned to other sources of information, such as state departments of motor vehicles and commercial databases. Previous GAO work suggests that the National Directory of New Hires (NDNH) has been useful for the purposes of verifying eligibility for federal benefit programs and collecting debt owed to the federal government, and is a timely source of information. The NDNH is a database maintained by the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The NDNH is a repository of approximately 1.35 billion individual employment, unemployment insurance, and wage data records from state directories of new hires, state workforce agencies, and federal agencies. It contains information for most of the nation's workforce, including both residential and employer addresses, and is updated at least quarterly. The NDNH is used primarily to assist state child support agencies in locating parents and enforcing child support orders. Currently, DOJ has access to NDNH information for cases involving the abduction of a child or for enforcing child custody determinations. A memorandum of understanding between HHS and DOJ governs the data exchange between OCSE and DOJ, and is required for all agencies that have access to NDNH data. In order to determine the feasibility of updating information in sex offender registries with information contained in the NDNH, we examined: (1) whether there is the potential to help law enforcement agencies locate convicted sex offenders by using information contained in the NDNH and approaches that could be taken for doing so, and (2) the potential advantages and limitations associated with these approaches.
While current law does not authorize DOJ to receive NDNH data to use in locating convicted sex offenders, Congress has granted other federal agencies the authority to receive NDNH data for use in verifying individuals' eligibility for federal benefits and other purposes not related to child support enforcement. Three basic approaches for accessing the NDNH database could potentially be used to help locate convicted sex offenders: individual case inquiries, computerized database matching, and a hybrid approach that would allow states to generate discrete lists of offenders for computerized database matching. The different approaches have both common and distinct advantages and limitations. Some of the benefits and costs associated with these three approaches are uncertain. For example, computerized database matching of the NDNH and the entire NSOR offers an opportunity to update sex offender addresses in much greater volume than individual case inquiries, but the cost of following up on the resulting volume of mismatches might exceed state resources for such follow-up and increase privacy risks. In this report, we are suggesting that Congress consider granting the authority to HHS to share information contained in the NDNH with the FBI for the purposes of locating convicted sex offenders who are being actively sought by law enforcement officials but whose addresses in the NSOR are incorrect, out-of-date, or missing. Further, we are suggesting that Congress consider directing HHS and the FBI to conduct a test match of the information contained in the NDNH and NSOR to determine the actual costs and benefits that may be derived from matching information in the two databases, including an assessment of the validity of the matches.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-06-766, National Sex Offender Registry: New Hire Data Has Potential for Updating Addresses of Convicted Sex Offenders
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-766
entitled 'National Sex Offender Registry: New Hires Data Has Potential
for Updating Addresses of Convicted Sex Offenders' which was released
on August 30, 2006.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
July 2006:
National Sex Offender Registry:
New Hires Data Has Potential for Updating Addresses of Convicted Sex
Offenders:
National Sex Offender Registry:
GAO-06-766:
Contents:
Letter:
Summary of Findings:
Conclusion:
Matters for Congressional Consideration:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Briefing Slides:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services:
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Abbreviations:
DOJ: Department of Justice:
FBI: Federal Bureau of Investigation:
FPLS: Federal Parent Locator Service:
HHS: Department of Health and Human Services:
NDNH: National Directory of New Hires:
NSOR: National Sex Offender Registry:
OCSE: Office of Child Support Enforcement:
SSA: Social Security Administration:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
July 31, 2006:
The Honorable Wally Herger:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on Human Resources:
Committee on Ways and Means:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Jim Ramstad:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on Oversight:
Committee on Ways and Means:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Mark Foley:
House of Representatives:
In the 1990s, several heinous crimes put the issue of the sexual abuse
of children onto the nation's policy agenda. Sexual crimes against
children and adults are often perpetrated by individuals known to their
victims and these crimes devastate families and communities. To
safeguard children and their families, Congress enacted a series of
laws between 1994 and 2003 that required sex offenders to register
their addresses with law enforcement agencies.[Footnote 1] The laws
also required that states, in order to be eligible to receive certain
federal funds, establish sex offender registries, and the Department of
Justice (DOJ) establish a national sex offender registry. The National
Sex Offender Registry (NSOR) is maintained by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) within DOJ. It is a nationwide database compiled
from information in individual state sex offender registries and it
currently lists over 400,000 convicted sex offenders.[Footnote 2] The
system requires convicted sex offenders to register with law
enforcement agencies upon release from prison and to update their
address information whenever they move or change addresses. Law
enforcement agencies rely on information in sex offender registries to
track the location and movement of convicted sex offenders; however,
GAO and others have raised concerns about the accuracy of the
information contained in the registries because many offenders fail to
update their address information as required.[Footnote 3]
To help track the location of sex offenders, law enforcement officials
have turned to other sources of information, such as state departments
of motor vehicles and commercial databases. Previous GAO work suggests
that the National Directory of New Hires (NDNH) has been useful for the
purposes of verifying eligibility for federal benefit programs and
collecting debt owed to the federal government, and is a timely source
of information.[Footnote 4] The NDNH is a database maintained by the
Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) within the Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS). The NDNH is a repository of
approximately 1.35 billion individual employment, unemployment
insurance, and wage data records from state directories of new hires,
state workforce agencies, and federal agencies.[Footnote 5] It contains
information for most of the nation's workforce, including both
residential and employer addresses, and is updated at least
quarterly.[Footnote 6] The NDNH is used primarily to assist state child
support agencies in locating parents and enforcing child support
orders. Currently, DOJ has access to NDNH information for cases
involving the abduction of a child or for enforcing child custody
determinations. A memorandum of understanding between HHS and DOJ
governs the data exchange between OCSE and DOJ, and is required for all
agencies that have access to NDNH data.
In order to determine the feasibility of updating information in sex
offender registries with information contained in the NDNH, we
examined: (1) whether there is the potential to help law enforcement
agencies locate convicted sex offenders by using information contained
in the NDNH and approaches that could be taken for doing so, and (2)
the potential advantages and limitations associated with these
approaches.
To determine whether NDNH data could be used to help law enforcement
agencies locate convicted sex offenders, we reviewed relevant laws,
memoranda of understanding, and agency guidance to identify legal and
other barriers that might prevent law enforcement officials from
receiving NDNH information. This information was also used to identify
approaches for using NDNH information to update sex offender
registries. Additionally, we obtained and analyzed information about
the contents of the NSOR and NDNH to determine whether the systems
share unique identifiers that would permit matching information in the
two databases. Additionally, we assessed the reliability of NDNH and
NSOR data through interviews with key officials from both HHS and the
FBI to identify the various controls used to ensure reliability of the
databases, and reviewed documents pertaining to both systems. We
determined the data to be reliable for the purposes of this report. We
also interviewed managers of four state sex offender registries--
Arizona, Florida, Massachusetts, and Ohio--to obtain information on the
accuracy of their state registries. These states were selected to
include geographic dispersion.
To determine the potential advantages and limitations associated with
different approaches to using the NDNH to update the NSOR, we
interviewed key HHS, DOJ, and selected state officials about the
potential benefits of sharing information and how this could be
accomplished. We also discussed potential obstacles to sharing data
between the two systems and any concerns they might have about privacy,
data safeguards, and other issues. Further, we obtained information
from HHS officials about the financial costs associated with receiving
and matching NSOR data with NDNH data. The list of advantages and
limitations of various approaches to using NDNH data in this report is
not exhaustive. With further review and analysis, other advantages and
limitations may become clear. We conducted our work in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards between February 2006
and July 2006.
On June 23, 2006, we briefed your staff on the results of our work
using the briefing slides we include in appendix I. The purpose of this
letter is to formally transmit the briefing slides and to officially
notify cognizant agency officials about our matters for congressional
consideration.
Summary of Findings:
While current law does not authorize DOJ to receive NDNH data to use in
locating convicted sex offenders, Congress has granted other federal
agencies the authority to receive NDNH data for use in verifying
individuals' eligibility for federal benefits and other purposes not
related to child support enforcement. Three basic approaches for
accessing the NDNH database could potentially be used to help locate
convicted sex offenders: individual case inquiries, computerized
database matching, and a hybrid approach that would allow states to
generate discrete lists of offenders for computerized database
matching. The different approaches have both common and distinct
advantages and limitations. Some of the benefits and costs associated
with these three approaches are uncertain. For example, computerized
database matching of the NDNH and the entire NSOR offers an opportunity
to update sex offender addresses in much greater volume than individual
case inquiries, but the cost of following up on the resulting volume of
mismatches might exceed state resources for such follow-up and increase
privacy risks.
In this report, we are suggesting that Congress consider granting the
authority to HHS to share information contained in the NDNH with the
FBI for the purposes of locating convicted sex offenders who are being
actively sought by law enforcement officials but whose addresses in the
NSOR are incorrect, out-of-date, or missing. Further, we are suggesting
that Congress consider directing HHS and the FBI to conduct a test
match of the information contained in the NDNH and NSOR to determine
the actual costs and benefits that may be derived from matching
information in the two databases, including an assessment of the
validity of the matches.
NDNH Data Could Be Used to Help Locate Sex Offenders, but Change in Law
Would Be Required:
The NDNH contains address information that has the potential to help
law enforcement agencies locate sex offenders on a case-by-case basis
or through computerized matching; however, a change of law would be
required to authorize its use for this purpose. In order to safeguard
the data and to ensure privacy, section 453 of the Social Security Act
restricts NDNH access to authorized persons and only for authorized
purposes. Therefore, an amendment to this law would be required to
share NDNH data with law enforcement officials. To obtain addresses for
individual convicted offenders, FBI officials could ask OCSE staff to
query the NDNH on a case-by-case basis or the FBI could be granted the
authority to access the NDNH directly. To obtain address information
for as many records as possible, FBI officials could provide the entire
NSOR database to OCSE staff who would match records between the two
systems. Alternatively, states could develop discrete lists of
convicted sex offenders for computerized database matching--a hybrid
approach. Under all three approaches, records for which the NDNH
address did not match the NSOR address would be given to the states for
follow-up to determine the convicted sex offender's actual address.
Once the state determined the convicted offenders' correct address, the
state would transmit this information to the FBI for inclusion in the
NSOR.
Approaches for Using NDNH Data Have Advantages and Limitations:
Approaches to using NDNH data for locating convicted sex offenders have
both common and distinct advantages and limitations. NDNH data is
updated at least quarterly, thus providing the potential for more
frequent updates of addresses than is currently required under NSOR,
regardless of the approach to using the NDNH data. Additionally,
regardless of the approach, for convicted sex offenders who do not
comply with registration requirements and are employed, the NDNH could
provide missing information on the sex offender's current home and
employer addresses. On the other hand, wider access to the NDNH could
jeopardize the security and confidentiality of the information it
contains. The benefits and costs associated with the various approaches
to obtaining address information from the NDNH present some
uncertainties as well. For example, obtaining information for
individual convicted sex offenders on a case-by-case basis may be less
costly than matching all of the records from the NSOR with
corresponding records from the NDNH, but the extent to which it would
contribute to the updating of sex offender registries could be small.
Also, the benefits of matching information from the two databases
cannot be determined without conducting an actual match. This is
especially true because successful matching requires an accurate social
security number (SSN) for each convicted sex offender and the FBI does
not verify the SSNs of sex offenders listed in its registry. It is
estimated that approximately 21 percent of records in the NSOR do not
have SSNs.
Conclusion:
Keeping law enforcement agencies and the public informed of the
location of convicted sex offenders, and keeping the public--especially
children--from being the victims of convicted sex offenders is of the
utmost importance to lawmakers. National and state sex offender
registries are the primary means used by law enforcement agencies for
tracking the location of sex offenders; however, the accuracy of
registry data is largely dependent on convicted sex offenders self
reporting updated address information. While most convicted sex
offenders are registered when they are released from prison, some fail
to update their registration information on a timely basis, as required
by law.
There are several potential approaches for using NDNH data to help law
enforcement agencies locate convicted sex offenders and update
offenders' addresses in the registries; however, current law does not
authorize its use for these purposes. But, there is precedent for using
the NDNH for purposes other than child support enforcement. In addition
to a lack of legal authority to use NDNH data to help in locating
convicted sex offenders, approaches for obtaining updated address
information from the NDNH involve both common and distinct advantages
and limitations. Without a discussion among stakeholders and program
managers, and without conducting an actual test match, the benefits,
costs, and challenges of employing each of the approaches to matching
data within the two databases will remain uncertain.
Matters for Congressional Consideration:
To help law enforcement officials track the location of convicted sex
offenders using updated address information, Congress should consider:
* granting HHS the authority to share with the FBI address information
from the NDNH for convicted sex offenders who are being actively sought
by law enforcement officials, and:
* directing the FBI to work with HHS to conduct a test match of
information from the NSOR and NDNH to determine the actual benefits and
costs that may be derived from matching information in the two
databases, including an assessment of the validity of the matches.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to HHS and DOJ for review and
comment. HHS generally agreed with the contents of the report, but
expressed concerns about the privacy and security risks associated with
authorizing wider access to NDNH data. HHS noted that use of NDNH data
for the purpose of updating address information in the NSOR is
different in nature from other authorized uses and that the potential
ramifications of wrongful use of NDNH data should be considered
carefully. We believe HHS' concerns are valid and have recognized these
concerns in the report. Further, we believe that, if authorized, any
discussions regarding the use of NDNH data should include a discussion
of privacy and security considerations before conducting a test match
of information in the two databases. Both HHS and DOJ provided
technical comments, which we have incorporated where appropriate. HHS'
written comments are reproduced in appendix II.
As agreed with your staff, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
after its issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report
to the Secretaries of HHS and DOJ, relevant congressional committees
and other interested parties. We will make copies available to others
upon request. In addition, this report will be available at no charge
on GAO's Web site at www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any
questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-8403 or
ashbyc@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional
Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this
report.
Signed by:
Cornelia M. Ashby:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Briefing Slides:
National Sex Offender Registry:
New Hires Data Has Potential for Updating Addresses of Convicted Sex
Offenders:
Introduction:
Currently, there are over 400,000 convicted offenders listed in the
National Sex Offender Registry (NSOR).
Concerns have been raised about the accuracy of data in the registry.
* The national registry depends on data in individual state registries.
* Individual state registries, in turn, depend on convicted sex
offenders to update their address information at least annually and
many offenders fail to meet this requirement.
State officials have turned to other sources of information, such as
state departments of motor vehicles and commercial databases, to help
them locate convicted sex offenders.
Previous GAO work suggests that the National Directory of New Hires
(NDNH) has been useful for data verification purposes and can be a
timely source of information. The NDNH is a database that includes:
approximately 1.35 billion individual records furnished by 54 states
and territories, and federal agencies;[Footnote 7]:
wage information that is submitted on a quarterly basis, new hire
information that is obtained from income tax withholding forms (W-4s)
and submitted to the NDH within 30 days of hire, and unemployment
insurance data that is submitted monthly.[Footnote 8]
Objectives:
In order to determine the feasibility of updating information in sex
offender registries with information contained in the NDNH, we
examined:
whether there is potential to help law enforcement agencies locate
convicted sex offenders by using information contained in the National
Directory of New Hires, and approaches that could be taken for doing
so, and:
the potential advantages and limitations associated with these
approaches.
Scope and Methodology:
To determine whether there is potential to help law enforcement
agencies locate sex offenders by using information contained in the
NDNH and approaches that could be taken for doing so, we:
analyzed information about the content of the NSOR and the NDNH to
determine whether the systems shared unique identifiers that would
permit matching of information;
assessed the reliability of NSOR and NDNH data by conducting interviews
with key officials from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and HHS
regarding controls used to ensure reliability of the databases, and
reviewed documents pertaining to both systems; and:
interviewed managers of state sex offender registries in four states-
Arizona, Florida, Massachusetts, and Ohio-to obtain information on the
accuracy of their state registries and how they might use new hires
data to update their registries.
To analyze the advantages and limitations of the various approaches,
we:
interviewed key FBI and HHS officials about the potential benefits of,
and any barriers to, sharing information between the two systems and
any concerns they might have about privacy, data safeguards, and other
issues;
reviewed relevant laws, memoranda of understanding, and HHS documents
to identify legal and other barriers that might prevent law enforcement
officials from accessing NDNH information; and:
obtained information from HHS officials about the financial costs
associated with accessing NDNH data or conducting computerized matches
using NSOR and NDNH data.
Summary of Findings:
Key findings:
(1) Current law precludes using National Directory of New Hires data to
locate sex offenders; however, if the law were changed, the database
would have potential for doing so using three basic approaches.
(2) The different approaches have both common and distinct advantages
and limitations; however, the potential costs and benefits associated
with the approaches are uncertain.
Background:
To safeguard children and their families, Congress passed three major
laws related to sex offenders between 1994 and 1996.
(1) Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent
Offender Registration Act, Pub. L. No. 103-322 (1994):
required individuals convicted of crimes against a minor or sexually
violent offenses, and sexually violent predators to register their
current addresses with a state agency that maintains a sex offender
registration program;
established a 10-year minimum length of registration;
required state agencies to verify addresses annually for convicted sex
offenders and every 90 days for sexually violent predators. Typically
addresses are verified by mailing a non-forwardable verification form
to the last reported address of the convicted sex offender;
required states to establish sex offender registration programs to be
eligible for certain federal funds; and:
allowed, but did not require, information in sex offender registries to
be released to the public.
(2) Megan's Law, Pub. L. No. 104-145 (1996):
mandated public release of certain sex offender registry information
necessary to protect communities from convicted sex offenders.
(3) Pam Lychner Sexual Offender Tracking and Identification Act of
1996, Pub. L. No. 104-236 (1996):
directed DOJ to establish a national database of registered sex
offenders at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI); and;
extended the required length of registration to the life of the
offender for sexually violent predators, offenders with more than one
conviction, and offenders convicted of aggravated offenses.
(4) Campus Sex Crimes Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 106-386 (2000).
required convicted sex offenders to provide notice of higher education
at which the offender is employed or is a student.
(5) PROTECT Act, Pub. L. No. 108-21 (2003).
required registration of child pornographers in the NSOR.
required states to establish websites with information concerning
convicted sex offenders; and;
required DOJ to create a national website that links state websites.
The NDNH is a central repository of employment, unemployment insurance,
and wage data from state directories of new hires, state employment
security agencies, and federal agencies.
The NDNH contains Social Security numbers, residential and employer
addresses, and employment information for most of the nation's
workforce, and is updated on at least a quarterly basis.
The NDNH is part of the Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS), a
national location system operated by the Office of Child Support
Enforcement (OCSE) within the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS).
The primary purpose of the FPLS is to assist state child support
agencies in establishing child support obligations and enforcing orders
for child support, custody, and visitation.
Currently, DOJ has access to the FPLS for cases involving the abduction
of a child or child custody determinations.[Footnote 9]
A memorandum of understanding between HHS and DOJ governs the data
exchange between OCSE and the DOJ and is required for all agencies that
have access to NDNH data.
Background cont. Process for Obtaining and Updating Information in the
NSOR and NDNH:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO and Art Explosion.
[End of figure]
Current Law Does Not Authorize Use of NDNH for Locating Sex Offenders:
When the NDNH was established in 1996, data could originally be used
for:
* establishing paternity;
* establishing, setting the amount of, or modifying child support
obligations; and
* enforcing child support obligations.
In the last several years, Congress has permitted some expanded use of
NDNH data for other purposes including:
* debt collection from individuals who defaulted on student loans;
* income verification for individuals participating in certain housing
programs; and:
* eligibility verification for state workforce agencies' Unemployment
Insurance programs.
Potential Approaches for Helping Law Enforcement Locate Sex Offenders:
There are three basic approaches to using the NDNH for address
information:
indirect or direct law enforcement access for individual cases;
national computerized database matching; and:
a hybrid approach that would allow states to generate discreet lists of
convicted sex offenders for computerized database matching.
For each approach, state officials would investigate address
discrepancies and report confirmed information to the NSOR.
Approach 1: Indirect and Direct Case Inquiries:
Indirect - FBI would make inquiries through HHS's OCSE to access the
NDNH for the purposes of locating convicted sex offenders on a case-by-
case basis. FBI might make inquiries through OCSE on behalf of local
law enforcement, either for a specific offender or to pursue an
investigation in a particular region.
Direct - FBI would have direct access to the NDNH. FBI might query the
NDNH directly, either for a specific offender or to pursue an
investigation in a particular region.
Approach 2: Computerized Database Matching:
National level:
Address data in the NSOR could be compared with address information in
the NDNH by conducting computerized matches of the two databases.
Approach 3: Hybrid Approach:
States could generate discreet lists of convicted sex offenders they
want to locate and the FBI would submit names for matching on behalf of
the states, for example:
those who have not complied with address verification requirements, or:
convicted sex offenders whose crimes predate creation of the state sex
offender registry.
All Approaches Share Some Advantages and Limitations:
Advantages:
access to both residential and employer addresses,
a means for law enforcement agencies to locate convicted sex offenders
who have failed to register or update their addresses, and:
allows states to identify non-compliant convicted sex offenders
regardless of where they live in the United States.
Limitations:
approximately 21 percent of records in the NSOR do not have Social
Security Numbers;[Footnote 10]
additional state resources for address verification may be needed;
national and state new hires databases do not include independent
contractors, service personnel, and some self-employed individuals;
and:
wider access to the NDNH could jeopardize the security and
confidentiality of the information it contains.
Approach 1: Indirect Access for Individual Case Inquiries Advantages
and Limitations:
(FBI sends individual inquiries to OCSE):
Advantages:
there is a pre-existing memorandum of understanding that allows DOJ to
query OCSE for information from its Federal Parent Locator Service
database, which includes NDNH data as well as data from other sources;
this procedure may be less costly and resource intensive than a
computerized matching approach; and:
OCSE would retain sole control of NDNH data.
Limitations:
records would be updated individually; and:
there is little way to predict the volume of inquiries or the effort
required to respond to them.
Approach 1: Direct Access for Individual Case Inquiries Advantages and
Limitations:
(FBI would have direct access to the NDNH):
Advantages:
may be faster and less dependent on OCSE staff resources than indirect
access.
Limitations:
presents a more substantial change to current method used to share NDNH
data with other federal agencies, and:
there is little way to predict the volume of inquiries, the effort
required to respond to them, and the expenses associated with
developing a direct access infrastructure.
Approach 2: National Computerized Database Matching Advantages:
Advantages:
opportunity to update convicted sex offender addresses in much greater
volume and frequency;[Footnote 11]
could provide updated addresses for convicted sex offenders for whom
states have not had the time or resources necessary to verify
addresses;
may afford the opportunity to correct social security numbers in the
sex offender registries; and;
precedent exists for conducting computer matches with the NDNH:
* Department of Housing and Urban Development database to verify income
for housing assistance,
* Department of Education database to collect student loan debt,
* Social Security Administration to establish eligibility for
Supplemental Security Income, and:
* Department of Labor to establish eligibility for Unemployment
Insurance.
Approach 2: National Computerized Database Matching Limitations:
Limitations:
start-up and on-going costs are uncertain;
some convicted sex offenders may have registered with inaccurate,
falsified, or stolen social security numbers; and:
resource needs could exceed what states have available for follow-up
investigations.
Approach 3: Hybrid Approach Advantages and Limitations:
Advantages:
less costly than matching entire databases, and:
allows states to be pro-active, concentrating resources where needed.
Limitations:
all states might not develop discreet lists to share with the FBI.
Potential Costs of Data Matching Are Uncertain:
Starting Point:
Federal law requires that a state or federal agency must reimburse OCSE
for the costs associated with receiving NDNH data.
OCSE bases its fees for database matches on:
* an overall access fee that is uniformly distributed among all data
users,
* frequency of matches, and:
* the direct costs for performing each match.
A national computerized match, conducted quarterly with approximately
350,000 records in 2006 would have cost between approximately $1
million to $1.5 million.[Footnote 12]:
Uncertain:
Volume of records, approach, and frequency of matches not yet
determined.
Conclusions:
There is potential for improving the ability of law enforcement to
locate convicted sex offenders although current law precludes use of
the NDNH for this purpose.
Use of the NDNH for tracking convicted sex offenders can be undertaken
through a variety of approaches.
Each approach carries common and distinct advantages and limitations;
however, the potential costs and benefits are uncertain.
In order to determine the costs and benefits of data matching, testing
and discussion among program managers and stakeholders should occur.
Matters for Congressional Consideration:
To help law enforcement track the location of convicted sex offenders
and to update address information contained in the National Sex
Offender Registry, Congress should consider:
granting HHS the authority to share with FBI information from the NDNH
for purposes of locating convicted sex offenders who are being actively
sought by law enforcement officials, and:
directing the FBI to work with HHS to conduct a test match of
information from the NSOR and NDNH to determine the actual costs and
benefits that may be derived from matching information in the two
databases, including an assessment of the validity of the matches.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services:
Department Of Health & Human Services:
Office of Inspector General:
Jul 19 2006:
Ms. Cornelia M. Ashby:
Director, Education, Workforce, And Income Security Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Ashby:
Enclosed are the Department's comments on the U.S. Government
Accountability Office's (GAO) draft report entitled, "National Sex
Offender Registry: New Hires Data Has Potential for Updating Addresses
of Convicted Sex Offenders" (GAO-06-766), before its publication. These
comments represent the tentative position of the Department and are
subject to reevaluation when the final version of this report is
received.
The Department provided several technical comments directly to your
staff.
The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on this draft
report before its publication.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Daniel R. Levinson:
Inspector General:
Enclosure:
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) is transmitting the Department's
response to this draft report in our capacity as the Department's
designated focal point and coordinator for U.S. Government
Accountability Office reports. OIG has not conducted an independent
assessment of these comments and therefore expresses no opinion on
them.
Comments Of The Department Of Health And Human Services On The U.S.
Government Accountability Office's Draft Report Entitled. "National Sex
Offender Registry: New Hires Data Has Potential For Updating Addresses
Of Convicted Sex Offenders" (GAO-06-766):
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) appreciates the
opportunity to comment on the U.S. Government Accountability Office's
(GAO) draft report.
General Comments:
The draft report touches on the privacy and security risks associated
with the proposed disclosure of the National Directory of New Hires
(NDNH) data. These risks should be analyzed in greater depth.
In addition, the report should be clear about the purposes for which
NDNH data are proposed to be used. While the bulk of the report focuses
on the need to update the addresses maintained on the State Sex
Offender Registries, and thus, the National Sex Offender Registry
(NSOR), Page 22, Slide 15, indicates that one very broadly stated
purpose for receiving NDNH data may be "to pursue an investigation in a
particular region."
Moreover, the proposed use of NDNH data for law enforcement purposes of
updating addresses of sex offenders maintained on the NSOR is different
in nature from the primary child support purposes served by the NDNH.
This is the case to a greater degree than other authorized purposes for
which NDNH data may be requested and used, including those eligibility
verification and debt collection purposes addressed in the prior GAO
reports (i.e., "DISABILITY INSURANCE: SSA Should Strengthen Its Efforts
to Detect and Prevent Overpayments" (GAO-04-929) and "BENEFIT AND LOAN
PROGRAM: Improved Data Sharing Could Enhance Program Integrity", GAO/
HEHS-00-119 as cited in footnote 4 of the report). Most of these
currently authorized purposes for receiving NDNH data have a nexus to
enhancing the self-sufficiency of individuals in need.
The proposed use of NDNH data would move the use of NDNH into law
enforcement, an entirely new direction, and might tend to increase the
risk of privacy and confidentiality breaches. The potential
ramifications of wrongful use of NDNH data, as well as inaccurate or
outdated addresses, should be considered carefully.
The report also contains potentially contradictory information about
who may receive NDNH information directly, with most of the report
focused on the Federal Bureau of Investigation; yet other portions of
the report suggest that local law enforcement personnel may access the
data. Limitations on the number of potential authorized users will
enhance ACF's Office of Child Support Enforcement's (GCSE) ability to
verify a user's authorization to request NDNH data and ensure
compliance with security measures and safeguarding requirements. Thus,
if legislation authorizes use of the NDNH for the proposed purpose,
GCSE prefers that the legislation specify with particularity who may
submit such reports (i.e., the Office of the Attorney General).
Specification of the clear purposes for which NDNH data is proposed to
be used and clarification of the individuals who would have access to
NDNH data, in turn, will enhance the likelihood of tailoring an
appropriate approach to receiving NDNH data, along with commensurate
security and safeguarding measures.
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Cornelia M. Ashby (202) 512-7215 or ashbyc@gao.gov:
Acknowledgments:
David Lehrer (Assistant Director), Ramona L. Burton (Analyst-in-
Charge), Ellen Soltow (Senior Analyst), Sue Bernstein, Terry
Richardson, and Daniel Schwimer also made significant contributions to
this report.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Immigration Benefits: Circumstances Under Which a Petitioner's Sex
Offenses May Be Disclosed to a Beneficiary. GAO-06-735. Washington,
D.C.: June 2006.
Long-Term Care Facilities: Information on Residents Who Are Registered
Sex Offenders or Are Paroled for Other Crimes. GAO-06-326. Washington,
D.C.: March 2006.
Disability Insurance: SSA Should Strengthen Its Efforts to Detect and
Prevent Overpayments. GAO-04-929. Washington, D.C.: September 2004.
Unemployment Insurance: Increased Focus on Program Integrity Could
Reduce Billions in Overpayments. GAO-02-697. Washington, D.C.: July
2002.
Benefit and Loan Programs: Improved Data Sharing Could Enhance Program
Integrity. GAO-00-119. Washington, D.C.: September 2000.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent
Offender Registration Act, Pub. L. No. 103-322 (1994); Megan's Law,
Pub. L. No. 104-145 (1996); Pam Lychner Sexual Offender Tracking and
Identification Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-236 (1996); Campus Sex
Crimes Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 106-386 (2000); and PROTECT Act,
Pub. L. No. 108-21 (2003).
[2] In addition to individuals convicted of sex offenses, sex offender
registries include individuals convicted of the non-sexual offenses of
non-parental kidnapping of a minor and false imprisonment of a minor.
State sex offender registries can contain information that is not
contained in the national registry.
[3] GAO, Long Term Care Facilities: Information on Residents Who Are
Registered Sex Offenders or Are Paroled for Other Crimes, GAO-06-326
(Washington, D.C.: March 2006). This report addresses concerns about
the comprehensiveness of the NSOR, finding that a significant
percentage of convicted sex offenders are not included in the NSOR
because they are noncompliant with registration requirements or because
of difficulties some states have had submitting their full state
registries to the NSOR. We recommended that the FBI assess the
completeness of the NSOR and evaluate options to make it a more
comprehensive database.
[4] See GAO, Disability Insurance: SSA Should Strengthen Its Efforts to
Detect and Prevent Overpayments, GAO-04-929 (Washington, D.C.:
September 2004); and Benefit and Loan Programs: Improved Data Sharing
Could Enhance Program Integrity, GAO/HEHS-00-119 (Washington, D.C.:
September 2000).
[5] By design, the NDNH can contain multiple records for some
individuals.
[6] The three data components of the NDNH provide either an employee or
employer address, or both addresses.
[7] By design, the NDNH can contain multiple records for some
individuals.
[8] The three data components of the NDNH provide either an employee or
employer address, or both addresses.
[9] Requests to locate missing children are submitted to HHS by the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children as an agent for the
DOJ.
[10] An accurate Social Security Number would be required in both
databases for a successful match. These data are as of January 27,
2006.
[11] NDNH data are reported quarterly by employers in contrast to NSOR
data, which are reported by convicted sex offenders and verified only
annually with more frequent verification for those considered sexual
predators.
[12] This estimate was based on the number of convicted sex offenders
whose records include at least one social security number.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
