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: