United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

Report to Congressional Requesters

July 2006

NATIONAL SEX
OFFENDER
REGISTRY
New Hires Data Has
Potential for Updating
Addresses of
Convicted Sex
Offenders

GAO-06-766

Contents

Letter

1
Summary of Findings
Conclusion
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

4
5
6
6

Appendix I

Briefing Slides

8

Appendix II

Comments from the Department of Health and
Human Services

35

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

38

Appendix III

Related GAO Products

39

Abbreviations
DOJ
FBI
FPLS
HHS
NDNH
NSOR
OCSE
SSA

Department of Justice
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Federal Parent Locator Service
Department of Health and Human Services
National Directory of New Hires
National Sex Offender Registry
Office of Child Support Enforcement
Social Security Administration

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. However, 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.

Page i

GAO-06-766 National Sex Offender Registry

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.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.2 The

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.

Page 1

GAO-06-766 National Sex Offender Registry

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.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.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.5 It contains information for most of the nation’s workforce,
including both residential and employer addresses, and is updated at least
quarterly.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

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.

Page 2

GAO-06-766 National Sex Offender Registry

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.

Page 3

GAO-06-766 National Sex Offender Registry

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

Page 4

GAO-06-766 National Sex Offender Registry

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

Page 5

GAO-06-766 National Sex Offender Registry

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:
•

•

Agency Comments
and Our Evaluation

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.

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

Page 6

GAO-06-766 National Sex Offender Registry

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.

Cornelia M. Ashby
Director, Education, Workforce,
and Income Security Issues

Page 7

GAO-06-766 National Sex Offender Registry

Appendix I: Briefing Slides

Appendix I: Briefing Slides

National Sex Offender Registry

New Hires Data Has Potential for Updating
Addresses of Convicted Sex Offenders

Page 8

GAO-06-766 National Sex Offender Registry

Appendix I: Briefing Slides

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 whenever they move or change addresses 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.

(2)

Page 9

GAO-06-766 National Sex Offender Registry

Appendix I: Briefing Slides

Introduction cont.

Previous GAO work suggests that the National Directory of New Hires (NDNH) has
been useful for 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 that includes:
•

approximately 1.35 billion individual records furnished by 54 states and
territories, and federal agencies;1 and

•

wage information that is submitted on at least a quarterly basis, new hire
information that is obtained from income tax withholding forms (W-4s) and
submitted to the NDNH within 30 days of hire, and unemployment insurance
data that is submitted monthly.2

1By

design, the NDNH can contain multiple records for some individuals.
three data components of the NDNH provide either an employee or employer address, or both addresses.

2The

(3)

Page 10

GAO-06-766 National Sex Offender Registry

Appendix I: Briefing Slides

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 NDNH, and approaches
that could be taken for doing so, and

•

the potential advantages and limitations associated with these approaches.

(4)

Page 11

GAO-06-766 National Sex Offender Registry

Appendix I: Briefing Slides

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 share 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 NDNH data to update their
registries.

(5)

Page 12

GAO-06-766 National Sex Offender Registry

Appendix I: Briefing Slides

Scope and Methodology cont.

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 receiving 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.

(6)

Page 13

GAO-06-766 National Sex Offender Registry

Appendix I: Briefing Slides

Summary of Findings:

Key findings:
(1) Current law does not authorize the use of NDNH 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.

(7)

Page 14

GAO-06-766 National Sex Offender Registry

Appendix I: Briefing Slides

Background

To safeguard children and their families, Congress passed several laws related to sex offenders
between 1994 and 2003.
(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 nonforwardable 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.

(8)

Page 15

GAO-06-766 National Sex Offender Registry

Appendix I: Briefing Slides

Background cont.

(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 to institutions 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.

(9)

Page 16

GAO-06-766 National Sex Offender Registry

Appendix I: Briefing Slides

Background cont.

•

The NDNH is a central repository of employment, unemployment insurance, and
wage data from state directories of new hires, state workforce 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.

(10)

Page 17

GAO-06-766 National Sex Offender Registry

Appendix I: Briefing Slides

Background cont.

•

Currently, DOJ has access to the FPLS for cases involving the abduction of a child or
child custody determinations.3

•

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.

3Requests

to locate missing children are submitted to HHS by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children as an agent for DOJ.

(11)

Page 18

GAO-06-766 National Sex Offender Registry

Appendix I: Briefing Slides

Background cont.—Process for Obtaining and
Updating Information in the NSOR and NDNH

Source: GAO and Art Explosion.

(12)

Page 19

GAO-06-766 National Sex Offender Registry

Appendix I: Briefing Slides

Current Law Does Not Authorize Use of NDNH for
Locating Sex Offenders

•

When the NDNH was established in 1996, data could primarily 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.

(13)

Page 20

GAO-06-766 National Sex Offender Registry

Appendix I: Briefing Slides

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.

(14)

Page 21

GAO-06-766 National Sex Offender Registry

Appendix I: Briefing Slides

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.

(15)

Page 22

GAO-06-766 National Sex Offender Registry

Appendix I: Briefing Slides

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.

(16)

Page 23

GAO-06-766 National Sex Offender Registry

Appendix I: Briefing Slides

Approach 3: Hybrid Approach

States could generate discreet lists of convicted sex offenders they want to locate and
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.

(17)

Page 24

GAO-06-766 National Sex Offender Registry

Appendix I: Briefing Slides

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.

(18)

Page 25

GAO-06-766 National Sex Offender Registry

Appendix I: Briefing Slides

All Approaches Share Some Advantages and
Limitations cont.
Limitations
•

approximately 21 percent of records in the NSOR do not have social security
numbers;4

•

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.

4An

accurate social security number would be required in both databases for a successful match. These data are as of January 27, 2006.

(19)

Page 26

GAO-06-766 National Sex Offender Registry

Appendix I: Briefing Slides

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 FPLS 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.

(20)

Page 27

GAO-06-766 National Sex Offender Registry

Appendix I: Briefing Slides

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.

(21)

Page 28

GAO-06-766 National Sex Offender Registry

Appendix I: Briefing Slides

Approach 2: National Computerized Database
Matching—Advantages
Advantages:
• opportunity to update convicted sex offender addresses in much greater volume and
frequency;5
•

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.

5NDNH

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.

(22)

Page 29

GAO-06-766 National Sex Offender Registry

Appendix I: Briefing Slides

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.

(23)

Page 30

GAO-06-766 National Sex Offender Registry

Appendix I: Briefing Slides

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 FBI.

(24)

Page 31

GAO-06-766 National Sex Offender Registry

Appendix I: Briefing Slides

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.6

Uncertain:
•
6This

Volume of records, approach, and frequency of matches not yet determined.
estimate was provided by OCSE and based on the number of convicted sex offenders whose records include at least one social security number.

(25)

Page 32

GAO-06-766 National Sex Offender Registry

Appendix I: Briefing Slides

Conclusions

•

There is potential for improving the ability of law enforcement to locate convicted sex
offenders although current law does not authorize the 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.

(26)

Page 33

GAO-06-766 National Sex Offender Registry

Appendix I: Briefing Slides

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 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.

(27)

Page 34

GAO-06-766 National Sex Offender Registry

Appendix II: Comments from the Department
of Health and Human Services

Appendix II: Comments from the Department
of Health and Human Services

Page 35

GAO-06-766 National Sex Offender Registry

Appendix II: Comments from the Department
of Health and Human Services

Page 36

GAO-06-766 National Sex Offender Registry

Appendix II: Comments from the Department
of Health and Human Services

Page 37

GAO-06-766 National Sex Offender Registry

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff
Acknowledgments

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.

Page 38

GAO-06-766 National Sex Offender Registry

Related GAO Products

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.

(130548)

Page 39

GAO-06-766 National Sex Offender Registry

GAO’s Mission

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
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 GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To
have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go
to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.”

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:
TDD:
Fax:

(202) 512-6000
(202) 512-2537
(202) 512-6061

Contact:

To Report Fraud,
Waste, and Abuse in
Federal Programs

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional
Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548

PRINTED ON

RECYCLED PAPER