Vermont State Auditor Sex Offender Registry Report on Reliability 2010

• Topics: Discrimination, Sex Offenders (Discrimination)

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail

Document text

This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.

Report of the Vermont State Auditor

June 25, 2010

SEX OFFENDER
REGISTRY
Reliability Could Be Significantly
Improved

Thomas M. Salmon, CPA
Vermont State Auditor
Rpt. No. 10-05

Mission Statement
The mission of the Auditor's Office is to be a catalyst for good government
by promoting professional audits, financial training, efficiency, and economy
in government, and service to cities and towns.

This report is a work of the Office of the State Auditor, State of Vermont, and is not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and
distributed in its entirety without further permission from the State of Vermont or the
Office of the State Auditor. 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. Please contact the Office of the State
Auditor if you have questions about reproducing this report.

THOMAS M. SALMON, CPA
STATE AUDITOR

STATE OF VERMONT
OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR
June 25, 2010
Addressees (see next page)
Dear Colleagues,
As required by Act 58 (2009), this report provides the results of our performance audit of the
State’s sex offender registry (SOR). The SOR contains identification, location, conviction, risk,
and treatment information on offenders who have been convicted of sex offenses listed in
13 VSA §5401(10). For those offenders that meet the requirements of 13 VSA §5411a, a subset
of the SOR data is also posted to a public website, http://www.dps.state.vt.us/cjs/s_registry.htm.
We performed our work at the Department of Public Safety’s Vermont Criminal Information
Center, which manages the SOR, and the Department of Corrections and the Courts, which
provide critical information to the registry. Our audit was primarily focused on the reliability of
data in the SOR as well as controls to prevent errors. With respect to the reliability of the SOR
data, we found a sizeable number of serious errors. In addition, the processes used to submit and
enter data into the SOR were largely manual and controls were not always documented or
consistently applied. During the course of the audit, each of the organizations made changes that
are expected to improve the SOR’s reliability. Moreover, the Vermont Criminal Information
Center corrected errors in the SOR as they were brought to its attention.
This report includes recommendations designed to improve the SOR’s data reliability and
controls. In particular, we recommend that the organizations that we reviewed form a working
group to reassess and possibly redesign the processes related to the Vermont sex offender
registry to include possible system solutions to more effectively and efficiently submit
information to the SOR.
I would like to thank the management and staff at the Vermont Criminal Information Center,
Department of Corrections, and the Courts for their cooperation and professionalism during the
course of this audit. If you would like to discuss any of the issues raised by this audit, I can be
reached at (802) 828-2281 or at auditor@state.vt.us.
Sincerely,

Thomas M. Salmon, CPA
Vermont State Auditor
132 State Street • Montpelier, Vermont 05633-5101
Auditor: (802) 828-2281 • Toll-Free (in VT only): 1-877-290-1400 • Fax: (802) 828-2198
email: auditor@state.vt.us • website: www.auditor.vermont.gov

ADDRESSEES
The Honorable Shap Smith
Speaker of the House of Representatives
The Honorable Peter Shumlin
President Pro Tempore of the Senate
The Honorable Richard Sears
Chair
Committee on Judiciary
Vermont Senate
The Honorable William Lippert
Chair
Committee on Judiciary
Vermont House of Representatives
The Honorable Alice Emmons
Chair
Committee on Corrections and Institutions
Vermont House of Representatives
and Chair
Joint Committee on Corrections Oversight
The Honorable James Douglas
Governor
Mr. Robert D. Hofmann
Secretary
Agency of Human Services
Mr. Thomas R. Tremblay
Commissioner
Department of Public Safety
Mr. Andrew A. Pallito
Commissioner
Department of Corrections
Mr. Robert G. Greemore
Court Administrator
Office of the Court Administrator

Contents

Report
Introduction

Page
1

Highlights

Background

Errors in SOR Were Pervasive and Timeliness Generally
Could Not Be Gauged

Significant Control and System Limitations Warrant
Urgent Attention

Observations Pertaining to the Posting of Sex Offender
Addresses on the Internet

Conclusions

Recommendations

Management Comments and Our Evaluation

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Appendix II: Statutory Definition of a Sex Offender

Appendix III: Example of the Information Posted on the
Internet SOR

Appendix IV: Profile of Sample of Community-Based Offenders

Appendix V: Summary of Errors in the Community-Based
Statistical Sample

Appendix VI: Response of the Commissioner of the Department
of Public Safety

Appendix VII: Response of the Commissioner of the Department
of Corrections

Appendix VIII: Response of the Court Administrator

Contents

Tables

Page
Table 1: Major Forms Submitted to VCIC Related to the SOR

Table 2: Offender SOR Status Categories

Table 3: Number and Types of Errors Found in Sample of
57 Community-based Offenders

Figure 1: Effect of the Errors in the Community-Based
Sample (57 records)

Figure 2: Simplified Diagram of the Sources and Types
of Data Sent to the SOR

Figure 3: Effect of the Errors in the Community-Based
Sample (57 records)

Figure 4: Timeframes for VCIC Receipt of Offender Annual
Verification Letters (sent between February 18, 2009 and
January 18, 2010)

Figures

Abbreviations
CPI
DOC
DPS
GAO
PO
SOR
VCHIP
VCIC
VSA

Computer Projects of Illinois
Department of Corrections
Department of Public Safety
U.S. Government Accountability Office
probation and parole officer
Sex Offender Registry
Vermont Criminal History Information Program
Vermont Criminal Information Center
Vermont Statutes Annotated

Introduction
In 1996, with the passage of 13 VSA, Chapter 167, Subchapter 3, the
Vermont Sex Offender Registry (SOR) was established at the Department of
Public Safety’s (DPS) Vermont Criminal Information Center (VCIC).
Vermont’s SOR has undergone substantial changes since the passage of the
original act. In particular, Act 58, approved on June 1, 2009, greatly
expanded the number of offenses that require that the offender be posted to
the Internet.1 Section 14 of Act 58 also requires that addresses of offenders be
posted to their Internet records if the offender (1) has been designated as
high-risk by the Department of Corrections (DOC), (2) has not complied with
sex offender treatment, (3) has an outstanding warrant for his or her arrest,
(4) has a conviction for a sex offense against a child under 13 years of age, or
(5) has been electronically posted for an offense committed in another
jurisdiction that required the person’s address to be electronically posted in
that jurisdiction. This section of the Act takes effect July 1, 2010, after the
issuance of a performance audit report.2 (The remainder of the report will
refer to the primary registry as the SOR and the Internet portion as the
Internet SOR.)
The objectives of our audit were to assess (1) the extent to which the data in
the State’s SOR is reliable and current, and (2) whether the State’s controls
are designed to prevent errors, omissions, and outdated registry data. In
addition, because our report was linked to the inclusion of offender
residential addresses on the Internet SOR and some members of the General
Assembly have expressed reservations about the accuracy of offender
addresses that may be posted on the Internet SOR, we are also providing a
section at the end of this report that provides our observations on this topic.
Our methodology for the first objective included (1) employing automated
data analysis techniques on an electronic copy of the SOR as of February 18,

The Internet SOR can be found at http://www.dps.state.vt.us/cjs/s_registry.htm.

2Section

28 of Act 58 states that Section 14 “shall not take effect until the state auditor, in consultation
with the department of public safety and the department of information and innovation technology, has
provided a favorable performance audit regarding the Internet sex offender registry to the senate and
house committees on judiciary, the house committee on corrections and institutions, and the joint
committee on corrections oversight.” Our role is to conduct the audit and report on its results, but
policy decisions, such as what constitutes a favorable audit in the context of Act 58, is the role of the
Legislature and the Administration.
Page 1

2010 and (2) extracting a statistical sample of community-based3 offenders
from this same electronic copy of the SOR and tracing data in individual
records to source documentation. With respect to our sample, we used
statistical random attribute sampling4 with a 95 percent confidence level, and
5 percent tolerable rate of records not in compliance with the statutorily
established requirements and zero expected population deviation rate (i.e.
expected error rate).5 The audit work for our second objective largely
consisted of reviewing the SOR statute and rules promulgated by VCIC and
DOC, reviewing the various forms and mechanisms used to convey data to
the SOR, and conducting walkthroughs at VCIC, DOC, and the District
Courts, which collectively provide much of the data to the SOR. We also
interviewed DOC probation and parole officers (PO). Additional detail on our
scope and methodology can be found in appendix I.

Community-based offenders are those offenders who are currently residing, employed, or in school in
Vermont or whose last known residence was in Vermont.

Attribute sampling is a type of statistical sampling used to reach a conclusion about a population in
terms of a rate of occurrence. Statistical sampling uses the laws of probability to measure sampling risk
while the random selection of the sample ensures that every sampling unit (in this case a sex offender
record) has the same probability of being selected as every other sampling unit in the population (e.g.,
community-based offenders).

We defined an error as encompassing (1) records that were incorrectly omitted, added, retained, or
deleted from the registry, (2) data in the registry that differed from the source documentation, (3)
omission of data in a registry field, when applicable, and (4) inaccurate registry calculations or
decisions (e.g., whether a record should be on the Internet registry).

Page 2

Highlights: Report of the Vermont State Auditor
Sex Offender Registry: Reliability Could Be Significantly
Improved
(June 25, 2010, Rpt. No. 10-05)
Why We Did This Audit Findings
Act 58 required that we
conduct a performance audit of
Vermont’s sex offender
registry. Our objectives were to
assess (1) the extent to which
the data in the State’s SOR is
reliable and current and (2)
whether the State’s controls are
designed to prevent errors,
omissions, and outdated
registry data.

There were a sizeable number of serious errors in the SOR and the currency of the
system’s data could not be determined. With respect to the SOR’s reliability, one or more
errors were found in the records of most of the 57 community-based offenders in our
randomly selected statistical sample in which we traced data in the system to supporting
documentation and assessed whether offenders were properly categorized (e.g., were or
were not appropriately on the Internet SOR). Moreover, about three-quarters of these
records had errors that were critical or significant in nature (see figure 1), in that offenders
SOR or Internet SOR status was incorrect or would have been incorrect if not fixed after
being brought to VCIC’s attention (critical) or that data used to identify and locate
offenders or conveyed to the public or law enforcement was incorrect, incomplete, or
omitted (significant).

What We Recommend

Figure 1: Effect of the Errors in the Community-Based Sample (57 records)

Our report makes numerous
recommendations to address
specific types of errors and
process weaknesses. We also
made a recommendation that
VCIC, DOC, and the Courts
form a working group to
reassess and possibly redesign
the processes related to the
Vermont sex offender registry
to include possible system
solutions to more effectively
and efficiently submit
information to the SOR.

Critical
Significant
Other
No ne

Further, using an automated data analysis tool to identify anomalies in the SOR database
as a whole, we found an additional 195 critical and significant errors. VCIC corrected
these errors as they were brought to its attention. The errors in the SOR resulted from a
variety of causes, including data entry errors and inaccurate calculations, inaccurate or
incomplete information provided by DOC, and SOR system weaknesses. On the positive
side, a few tests, including verification that the SOR contained all sex offenders who had
been convicted and sentenced in Vermont over a 3-year period, yielded no or few errors.
With respect to the currency of data in the SOR, data was either not available or not
reliable enough to perform a systematic analysis of whether information was being
received and entered into the SOR in a timely manner. An exception was the annual
process used to verify offenders’ location data. In this case, VCIC was generally receiving
data from offenders within required timeframes.
The organizations (i.e., VCIC, DOC, and the Courts) and processes used to support the
SOR did not work in a seamless manner, which limited the State’s ability to prevent
errors, omissions, and outdated registry data. Specifically, the processes were largely
manual and the controls were not always documented or consistently applied. For
example, the VCIC and DOC processes in place to ensure that sex offender treatment
status in the SOR is up to date were not always utilized or documented. Moreover, the
SOR system lacks features, such as electronic interfaces, logic edits, and audit trails, to
help prevent errors or identify what changes were made, when, and by whom. Although
VCIC and DOC have taken action to address some of the process and control weaknesses,
a comprehensive approach involving all of the organizations that provide most of the data
to the SOR is more likely to achieve meaningful and sustainable improvement.
Page 3

Background
Vermont’s SOR has undergone significant changes in the past few years as
new laws have been enacted that have made a variety of changes, including
changes to the definition of a sex offender, the addition of lifetime
registration for some registrants, and requirements to post certain offenders
to the Internet. These changes have not only affected VCIC, which is
responsible for the SOR, but the other State organizations that provide
significant data to the SOR, namely the DOC and the Courts. The resulting
systems and processes used to support the SOR are complicated and
interwoven among these three organizations.

SOR Statutory Requirements
Since the 1996 law that first mandated the establishment of the SOR,6 the
legislature has made several significant revisions to 13 VSA, Chapter 167,
Subchapter 3, which provides the legislative framework for management of
the Registry. For example,
•

Act 49, which was approved on June 12, 2001, required some sex
offenders to register for life7 (all others are required to register for 10
years after release from prison or discharge from parole, supervised
release, or probation, whichever is later). This Act also authorized DPS
to participate in the National Sex Offender Registry Program.8

•

Act 157, which was approved June 8, 2004, required that certain sex
offenders be posted to an Internet Registry and specified the information
that should be posted. This Act also authorized DOC to evaluate sex
offenders for purposes of determining whether the offender is high risk
in order to identify offenders who should be subject to increased public
access as to his or her status as a sex offender.

Act 124 approved on April 25, 1996 and effective on September 1, 1996.

The lifetime registration requirement of Act 49 became effective September 1, 2001.

Currently, the U.S. Department of Justice hosts the Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender Public
Website, which is a cooperative effort between the jurisdictions hosting public offender registries and
the federal government. The national website can be found at http://www.nsopw.gov.
Page 4

•

Act 192 (effective as of May 26, 2006) amended the Internet Registry
provision of the SOR statute, by expanding the types of offenders that
are required to be posted to the Internet SOR.

•

Act 77, which was approved on June 7, 2007, established the
noncompliant high-risk category of sex offenders.9 These offenders are
subject to additional SOR reporting requirements.

•

Act 58, approved in 2009, modified the definition of a sex offender (see
appendix II for this definition), greatly expanded the number of crimes
for which an offender would be posted to the Internet SOR,10 and
required that additional information be included in the Internet SOR. In
particular, this Act requires that addresses of offenders be posted to their
Internet records if the offender (1) has been designated as high risk by
DOC, (2) has not complied with sex offender treatment, (3) has an
outstanding warrant for his or her arrest, (4) has a conviction for a sex
offense against a child under 13 years of age, or (5) has been
electronically posted for an offense committed in another jurisdiction
that required the person’s address to be electronically posted in that
jurisdiction.11

DPS and DOC have issued administrative rules to implement the SOR
statutory requirements. DPS issued a Sex Offender Registry rule effective
December 31, 2004 and DOC issued a Determination of High Risk and
Failure to Comply with Treatment for Purposes of Sex Offender Internet
Registry rule effective June 8, 2005. In addition, DOC issued an internal
directive the purpose of which was to establish procedures for (1) ensuring
that sex offenders under the supervision of DOC are registered with the SOR

13 VSA §5411d defines noncompliant high-risk sex offenders as those who (1) were incarcerated on
or after June 7, 2007 for lewd and lascivious conduct with a child, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, or any attempt to commit these crimes or a comparable offense in another jurisdiction in the
United States, (2) are not subject to indeterminate life sentences under 13 VSA §3271, (3) are
designated as a high-risk sex offender, (4) are noncompliant with sex offender treatment.

This law inadvertently omitted offenders with out-of-state convictions from these new Internet
posting requirements. Act 66 approved on February 24, 2010 corrected this omission.
11

The earliest that this section of the Act could take effect is July 1, 2010.
Page 5

and (2) the determination of high-risk sex offenders and those offenders who
are not in compliance with DOC treatment criteria.12

Overview of Process Used to Provide Data to SOR
While managed by VCIC, the source of the information in the SOR is largely
from DOC caseworkers or POs,13 the Courts, and the offenders themselves.
Figure 2 provides a simplified view of the main types and sources of the data
in the SOR. Except for offender identification and conviction and sentencing
information, this information is generally received by VCIC via the U.S.
mail, faxes, and email and entered into the SOR via manual processes.
Moreover, much of the sex offender conviction and sentencing information
is manually input into another VCIC system, the Vermont Criminal History
Information Program (VCHIP) before it is made electronically available for
input into the SOR.

12
The DOC directive that establishes procedures related to the SOR was originally issued in 1998 and
revised in 2005 and 2008. The most recent version was signed on May 10, 2010 and was effective
June 14, 2010. Unless stated otherwise, the DOC SOR directive mentioned in this report is referring to
the 2008 version.
13

Caseworkers are responsible for offenders’ SOR paperwork when the offenders are confined in a
facility while POs are responsible for offenders who have been released to the community under
various types of supervision, such as probation, parole, or furlough.
Page 6

Figure 2: Simplified Diagram of the Sources and Types of Data Sent to the SOR
Court Administrator’s
Office and District
Courts:
• Conviction and
sentencing data, such
as the docket number,
offense literal (narrative
description of the
charge), and type and
length of sentence
• Violation of Probation
report

Vermont State Police
VINE System:
• Offenders’ photos

VCIC Fingerprint
System:
• Offender identification
data, such as name,
aliases, social security
number, date of birth,
sex

VCIC’s VCHIP System:
• Conviction and
sentencing data
• Offender identification
data

District Courts:
• Order to Provide
Information, which
includes the data
required by 13 VSA
§5403, such as
residential,
employment, and
postsecondary school
data

DOC:
• Registration forms
• Changes to residential,
employment, and
postsecondary school
enrollment data
• Changes in supervision
status, including when
offender is discharged
• Risk designations
• Treatment information
• Offenders’ photos

Offenders:
• Registration forms
• Changes to residential,
employment, and
postsecondary school
enrollment data
• Annual verification letter
(e.g., verifies residential
address, employment
and postsecondary
school data)
• Signed treatment forms
from provider

VCIC staff
adds data
to SORa

a
VCHIP is the only system that provides data electronically to the SOR although the VCHIP data exchange also
requires human intervention in that the SOR coordinator must accept each individual record before the data is
electronically transferred.

Page 7

Further complicating the process is that the responsibility for providing this
information to VCIC can vary and the forms can be completed and sent to
VCIC intermittently as the offender goes through various court and
supervision processes during his or her time on the registry. Table 1 outlines
the major forms that are submitted, when, and by whom.
a

Table 1: Major Forms Submitted to VCIC Related to the SOR

Form
Criminal Charge
Disposition
Report

Order to Provide
Information

Violations of
Probation
Registration
Form

Change of
Address,
Employment,
Education Form

Notification of
High-Risk
Offender

Responsible
Submitter
Court
Administrator’s
Office

Types of Data Elements on Formb

Timing of Submission

Docket information; disposition of the
Monthly electronic transmission of
case, and sentence; offense code (the
the prior month’s cases
statute under which the offender was
convicted) and offense literal (narrative
description of charge).
District Courts
Weekly or bi-weekly
Docket information and offender date
District Courts
Within 10 days after sentencing
of birth, social security number,
residential address, name and address
of post-secondary school in which the
offender is enrolled, and employer
name and address.c
Disposition of the violation and
District Courts
Weekly or bi-weekly
sentence imposed, if applicable.
Offender identification information;
DOC Caseworker No later than 5 days prior to release
conditions of release; treatment
from confinement
compliance status, high risk
designation request; offender location
DOC PO Initial registration within 5 days of
data (e.g., physical residential address,
sentencing and later forms at the
employer name and address);
discretion of the PO
conviction and sentencing information;
age and gender of victim.
Offender convicted in
Within 10 days of arrival in
another jurisdiction
Vermont
Offender residential physical address;
DOC PO
For offenders under DOC
mailing address; employer name and
supervision, within 24 hours of the
address; post-secondary school
change
attending and address; supervising
caseworker; DOC field office.
Offender
For offenders not under DOC
supervision, within 3 days of the
changed
Name and address of offender that has
DOC Sex Offender No later than 5 work days after such
been determined to pose a high degree
a determination has been made
Review Committeee
of dangerousness to others.

Page 8

Form

Responsible
Timing of Submission
Submitter
DOC caseworker No later than 5 days prior to release
from confinement

Types of Data Elements on Formb

DOC Sex
Information on the compliance status
Offender
of offenders under DOC supervision.
Treatment
Compliance and
Non-Compliance
Checklist

Noncompliant
High-Risk
Offender Form
Change of
Treatment and
Supervision
Status Formf
Registration
Information
Verification
Notice

Information similar to the Registration
Form with the addition of vehicle
make, model, color, registration, and
license plate number.
Date probation is closed or parole or
furlough expired and treatment status at
time of discharge.

DOC PO Within 60 days of an offender being
placed on community supervision
the compliance determination
should be made and the form
submitted to VCIC within 5 days.
Also, within 5 days of a change in
status
DOC caseworker
Prior to offender being released
from total confinement

DOC caseworker or
PO

When an offender’s supervision
status has changed (e.g., has been
discharged from probation)

Offender

Annually sent out to offender
within 10 days of birthday and must
be signed and returned to VCIC
within 10 days

Signature of offender attesting to
accuracy of the information in the SOR
regarding physical address, mailing
address, employment information, and
school information.
a

This table provides information on the current forms. These forms have changed over time and the
forms in VCIC files for SOR registrants may not have had all of the data elements shown in this table.
b
This column provides representative information on what is on each form and does not include all
data elements.
c
This form also requires that offenders obtain fingerprints, a photograph, and physical description from
an agency identified by the court.
d
Offenders designated as (1) high-risk are required to report a change within 36 hours and (2)
noncompliant high-risk are required to report a change of address prior to the change or, if the change
was unanticipated, within 1 day of the change.
e
This is a 5-member committee appointed by the Commissioner of Corrections.
f
This form was added in early 2010.

Based on the data received about a particular sex offender, VCIC’s SOR
coordinator makes certain decisions regarding the offender and manually
enters the result into the system. Specifically, the coordinator decides
whether the offender meets the statutory criteria to be (1) on the Registry, (2)
posted to the Internet and, if so, the reason for such posting, and (3) a
lifetime registrant and calculates the date of the end of the offender’s
registration period if the offender does not meet this criteria. In addition, the
SOR coordinator categorizes the registration status of each offender, as
outlined in table 2.

Page 9

Table 2: Offender SOR Status Categories

Status Name
Pending

Active

MIA

Homeless

Status Description
Convicted sex offenders for whom VCIC has received conviction and/or
sentencing information from the court, but for whom a signed Registration
Form has not been submitted to VCIC. VCIC does not consider offenders in
the “pending” status to be registered with the SOR and they are not on the
Internet SOR.
All registered sex offenders (i.e., those for whom a signed Registration Form
was submitted to VCIC) who reside in a Vermont community. These
offenders are eligible to be on the Internet SOR if they also meet the criteria
of 13 VSA §5411a.
Sex offenders that are currently in violation of Vermont SOR requirements.
These offenders are eligible to be on the Internet SOR if they also meet the
criteria of 13 VSA §5411a.
Registered sex offenders who have no actual physical address and must
report daily to local police and/or the registry. These offenders are eligible to
be on the Internet SOR if they also meet the criteria of 13 VSA §5411a.

Student/Employed Registered sex offenders that reside in another state or country but who work
or are students in Vermont. These offenders are eligible to be on the Internet
SOR if they also meet the criteria of 13 VSA §5411a.
Inactive
Sex offenders who are incarcerated (whether on a sex offense or non-sex
offense conviction). These offenders are not on the Internet SOR.
Out-of-State
Sex offenders with either a Vermont or out-of-state conviction who have
registered in Vermont and who currently reside outside of the state. These
offenders are eligible to be on the Internet SOR if they also meet the criteria
of 13 VSA §5411a.
Reg Exp
Sex offenders who have finished their registration obligation – registration
has expired. These offenders are not on the Internet SOR.

# of Offenders
as of 2/18/10
136

1,443

423
361

164

During the course of an offender’s registration period, his or her status
category and Internet posting category may change. For example, an
offender who was in active status and was posted to the Internet SOR that is
later incarcerated on another charge would have his or her status changed to
inactive and would no longer be posted to the Internet SOR until such time
as he or she is no longer incarcerated.
With respect to the process of posting offenders to the Internet SOR, every
evening the vendor who maintains the SOR for VCIC runs a program to
extract the Internet-eligible offenders from the SOR. The vendor then posts
this extract file to the Internet SOR, which is located on a server in the
Department of Information and Innovation’s data center. This process results
in a complete replacement of the file posted on the previous night. See
Page 10

appendix III for an example of what an offender’s record looks like on the
Internet SOR.

Errors in SOR Were Pervasive and Timeliness Generally Could Not
Be Gauged
The number and diverse types of errors14 in the SOR indicate that the SOR
has a pervasive reliability problem.15 Specifically, there were (1) offenders
on the SOR who did not meet the statutory requirements for registration, (2)
errors in dates that effected how long an offender had to be registered, which
resulted in offenders being registered too long or not long enough, (3)
offenders who were listed on the Internet SOR who did not meet the
requirements for such posting as well as offenders who should have been
posted to the Internet SOR and were not, and (4) a wide variety of data
elements that included incomplete, inaccurate, or omitted data. VCIC
corrected these errors as they were brought to its attention. There was not
one primary reason for these errors. For example, some errors resulted from
data entry errors while others stemmed from incorrect or unclear information
from DOC. Moreover, a system error resulted in 174 offenders that should
have been omitted from the Internet being posted to the national sex offender
website (but not the Vermont Internet SOR) for about 7-1/2 months.16 In
addition to reliability concerns, it was not possible to gauge the timeliness of
data entered into the SOR. Specifically, with one exception, data was not
available to determine with certainty whether data was being sent to, and
entered by, VCIC in a timely manner. The exception was related to the
timely completion of annual verifications of offender residential and mailing
addresses, employer names and addresses, and school names and addresses.

For purposes of this audit, we defined reliability as (1) all offenders who fulfill the statutory
requirements for being on the SOR are on it and those that do not are not, (2) each SOR record has a
full set of information, and (3) data in each record is accurate.

16
As allowed in Act 58, these offenders had submitted petitions to DOC requesting a waiver from the
Act’s requirement that their records be posted to the Internet SOR. Offenders were not supposed to be
on the Internet while their petitions were being reviewed. This system error was corrected in May
2010 and the offenders with outstanding petitions were removed from the national sex offender
website.

Page 11

In this case, 85 percent of the verification letters were submitted to VCIC
within expected timeframes.

Registry Had Incomplete, Inaccurate, and Omitted Data
The SOR had a substantial number of errors, including incomplete,
inaccurate, and omitted data. Some of these errors were not material in that
they did not affect whether an offender was on the SOR or Internet SOR or
the accuracy of information that was provided to the public or law
enforcement. However, as illustrated in figure 3, there was a sizeable
percentage of the 57 records in the community-based statistical sample that
contained errors in which the effect of the errors was critical or significant.
(See appendix I for an explanation of how we categorized the effect of
errors. In general, records with critical errors indicate that offenders’ SOR or
Internet SOR status was incorrect or would have been incorrect if not fixed
after being brought to VCIC’s attention and records with significant errors
indicates that data used to identify and locate offenders or conveyed to the
public or law enforcement was incorrect, incomplete, or omitted.)
Figure 3: Effect of the Errors in the Community-Based Sample (57 records)
7%
28%

14%

Critical
Significant
Other
None

51%

The statistical sample of community-based offenders (i.e., offenders in
active, MIA, homeless, and student/employed status) was based on a 95
percent confidence level, and 5 percent tolerable rate of records not in
compliance with the statutorily established requirements and zero expected
population deviation rate (i.e. expected error rate).17 By tracing the data in
17

Appendix IV provides a profile of the offenders that were included in our random statistical sample.
Page 12

the SOR to supporting documentation and evaluating VCIC decisions related
to the offender we were able to identify errors and estimate an error rate
(plus or minus 5 percent) for the community-based SOR population. The
error rate for each data element reviewed in the sample can be found in
appendix V.
We also utilized automated data analysis techniques on an electronic version
of the SOR as of February 18, 2010. These techniques allowed us to test the
entire database (including offenders that were in pending, inactive, out-ofstate, and “reg exp” status) for obvious errors (e.g., missing data, incorrect
calculations) and logical inconsistencies (e.g., offenders required to register
for life who have a date in the end registration date field) that were then
checked against supporting documentation to determine whether the test
exceptions were true errors. The results of our automated data analysis also
yielded a substantial number of critical and significant errors. Specifically,
the automated data analysis found an additional 165 and 30 offender records
with errors18 that had a critical and significant effect, respectively.19
There was no single cause of the errors in the SOR. Among the reasons for
errors were (1) data entry and calculation mistakes, (2) incorrect or unclear
information provided to VCIC by DOC, (3) the misapplication of statutory
requirements, (4) SOR system anomalies and glitches, and (5) incomplete
conviction information sent from VCIC’s VCHIP (criminal history) system.
In addition, it is more difficult to maintain up-to-date data in a system in
which there are changes in the underlying requirements (e.g., the SOR
statute). Among the data elements that were added to the SOR because of
statutory changes were victim ages, sex offender treatment compliance, and
high risk designations. It appears that some of the errors (particularly the
omissions) were caused by an incomplete data collection process to backfill
the records of offenders already in the SOR.
The most critical errors in the SOR were those in which offenders were
registered who did not meet the statutory requirements for registration or
those offenders who have not been registered as required even though they
have been in the community for years. With respect to the offenders who
should not have been registered in the SOR, (1) one offender was convicted

We removed the records of the offenders that were in our community-based sample from the results
of the automated data analyses so as not to count errors multiple times.

Our automated data analysis also found many records with other errors, but the effect of those errors
did not meet our definitions of critical and significant so we did not include them in our count.
Page 13

and discharged prior to the inception of the SOR;20 (2) three offenders were
convicted of offenses that are not listed in the statutory definition of a sex
offender21 and there was no evidence that the judges ordered them to
register; (3) three sex offenders convicted in other jurisdictions had already
exceeded the 10 year registration requirement prior to moving to Vermont;
and (4) one offender met the criteria in statute that limited registration of
offenders who were younger than 18 at the time of the offense.22 These eight
offenders have subsequently been removed from the SOR.
Also, the SOR included 14 offenders who fell into the second category of the
most critical errors—offenders who have not been registered even though
some were released into the community years ago. In one of these cases a
registration form was submitted in 2003 and was inadvertently overlooked
by VCIC staff, but in the other cases there was no evidence that a
registration form was received by VCIC. For example, an offender maxed
out23 his sentence in 2002, but there was no evidence in either the VCIC or
DOC files that a registration form was completed before he was released
from the correctional facility. Of the eight other offenders in this category
that were supervised by DOC, (1) DOC’s files had no evidence that a
registration form had been completed as of February 18, 2010 in four cases
and (2) DOC could not find four of the offenders’ files so we do not know
whether these files included the required forms.
The 14 offenders who are not registered have a record in the SOR (most of
them are listed in MIA status) and in some cases are posted to the Internet
SOR (although their Internet SOR records generally did not include a
photograph and other identifying information). Nevertheless, the lack of a
registration form is important because (1) the form includes the notification

Offenders are required to register with Vermont’s SOR if (1) convicted in Vermont on or after July
1, 1996, (2) convicted in Vermont or another state prior to July 1, 1996, confined under the custody of
the Commissioner of Corrections, and released from confinement in Vermont on or after July 1, 1996,
(3) convicted in Vermont or another state prior to July 1, 1996, and was being supervised in the
community in Vermont by the Commissioner of Corrections on July 1, 1996, or (4) convicted or
released from confinement in another state on or after July 1, 1986 and who establishes residence in
Vermont on or after July 1, 1996.
21

13 VSA §5401(10).

13 VSA §5401(10)(B) states “A person who is convicted of any of the following offenses against a
victim who is a minor, except that, for purposes of this subdivision, conduct which is criminal only
because of the age of the victim shall not be considered an offense for purposes of the registry if the
perpetrator is under the age of 18 and the victim is at least 12 years old.”
23

An offender is considered to have maxed out his sentence when he or she completes his or her
maximum sentence while incarcerated and is released without further supervision by DOC.
Page 14

of the offender’s duty to comply with registration requirements (including
his or her signature acknowledging these requirements) as required by 13
VSA §5406 and (2) VCIC did not know where the offenders were going to
be located once they left DOC supervision for later follow-up. Offenders
who knowingly do not comply with registration requirements are subject to
arrest and the penalties outlined in 13 VSA §5409, which can include fines
and imprisonment. If an offender is not compliant with registry
requirements, the SOR coordinator can submit an affidavit to the applicable
State’s Attorney’s Office attesting to the noncompliance and requesting an
arrest warrant. If the State’s Attorney’s Office decides to prosecute, an arrest
warrant is issued. In the cases of the 14 offenders who are not registered, an
arrest warrant was issued for three offenders. In the other 11 cases there was
no evidence that an affidavit was ever completed and submitted requesting
an arrest warrant.
The following subsections highlight some of the other pervasive and
important errors in the SOR. We brought errors to the attention of VCIC as
we found them and changes were made to the SOR, as needed.
Discharge Dates and End of Registration Dates
13 VSA §5407(e) requires that, except for offenders that meet the
requirements for lifetime registration, offenders are required to register for
10 years subsequent to their release from incarceration or discharge from
supervision, whichever is later. According to DPS’s SOR Rule, DOC is
required to forward a discharge notice to VCIC when a sex offender is
discharged from the supervision of DOC. VCIC, in turn, generally24 uses this
date to calculate the date that an offender’s registration requirement ends,
except for those offenders who meet the criteria for lifetime registration.
When an offender’s registration period is finished, a VCIC staff member
changes the offender’s status to “reg exp” and sends a letter to the offender
informing him or her that he or she is no longer required to comply with
Registry requirements.
Out of 57 offenders in our community-based statistical sample, 16 (28
percent) had discharge dates that were inaccurate or missing. In addition, our
automated data analysis found that another 47 offenders had inaccurate or

Offenders with out-of-state convictions were treated differently. In the past VCIC had used the start
registration date as the basis for the beginning of the 10-year registration period rather than the
discharge date. However, recently VCIC changed its process and is now using the discharge dates for
these offenders unless the date is not available.
Page 15

missing discharge dates. Because the discharge dates were incorrect or
omitted, the dates in which these offenders’ SOR registration obligations
ended were also wrong—in some cases by years. Documentation was not
always available at VCIC to determine the origin of the inaccurate discharge
dates in the SOR, although in at least 2 cases the discharge date was wrong
because VCIC used a discharge date for an unrelated offense committed by
an offender, not the date from the relevant sex offense conviction. Most of
the cases in which the discharge date was missing related to offenders
convicted outside of Vermont (although many were supervised by DOC
under an interstate compact).25 In these cases, VCIC’s standard practice was
to use the offender’s registration start date as a basis for calculating the 10year end registration date rather than the discharge date. However, offenders’
discharge dates were generally available at DOC or other jurisdictions and
VCIC’s files did not indicate that this information had been requested. The
registration end dates calculated from the discharge dates often significantly
differed from those calculated based on when an offender started
registration. For instance, the difference in the registration start date and the
discharge date for one offender convicted out of state but supervised by
DOC was about 3 years.
An additional 13 offenders had the correct discharge date information in
SOR, but their end of registration date was miscalculated. For example, one
offender’s discharge date was in 2004, but the end of registration date was
miscalculated and showed that his registration would end in 2017 instead of
2014.
Another important element in determining an offender’s end of registration
is whether he or she meets the requirements of 13 VSA §5407(f) to register
for life (applies only to offenders who were convicted after September 1,
2001). Offenders are required to register for life if they have (1) multiple sex
offense convictions, (2) been convicted of aggravated sexual assault (13
VSA §3253), (3) been convicted of sexual assault (13 VSA §3252),26 (4)
been designated as a sexually violent predator, or (5) been designated as a
noncompliant high-risk offender. There were 22 offenders that met the
requirement for lifetime registration, but had a date in the registration end
field (it should have said “NONEXP” to indicate that the record does not

The Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision governs the transfer of offenders, including
sex offenders, among different jurisdictions.
26
The lifetime registration requirement does not apply to offenders convicted of sexual assault if the
offender is not more than 6 years older than the victim and the victim is at least 14 years old and if the
age of the victim was the basis for the conviction.

Page 16

expire). Since the report that is generated to identify offenders whose
registration is due to expire is based on the end of registration date, we
believe that these offenders would likely have had their registration
prematurely ended. Moreover, there were an additional 38 offenders that
were listed as lifetime registrants that did not meet the statutory requirement
for this designation. These offenders had out-of-state convictions.
As a result of these various types of discharge date/end registration date
errors, some offenders had their registration requirements extended beyond
the statutory requirement or were prematurely removed from their
registration obligations. For example,
•

10 offenders were registered for a year or more past the statutory
requirement.

•

12 offenders had their registration prematurely expired (i.e., were no
longer registered) by VCIC. The premature expiration of registration for
11 of these offenders ranged from 4 months to over 7 years. There was
also one offender who should have been listed as a lifetime offender but
whose record had been expired by VCIC.

In other cases, the discharge and end registration dates that were in error had
not yet resulted in offenders having their registration requirements extended
beyond the statutory requirement or prematurely removed from their
registration obligations. Nevertheless, this would have occurred had the
errors identified in the audit not been corrected by VCIC.
Recently VCIC and DOC have implemented some changes in their processes
related to discharge dates. For instance, in early 2010 a new SOR form was
added (Change of Treatment Status * Supervision Status) that now contains
fields to indicate a parole/furlough date of expiration and a probation closed
date. DOC also recently modified its internal directive related to the SOR
(effective June 14, 2010), which requires that caseworkers or POs submit
this form within 24 hours for offenders who have maxed out, have had their
probation discharged by the Court, or have had their parole or sentence
expire. The SOR coordinator also told us that she is more proactively
seeking discharge information from other states’ law enforcement authorities
and sex offender registries for sex offenders living or convicted out of state.
Internet Status
13 VSA §5411a sets requirements for certain offenders to be posted to the
Internet SOR. For example, offenders who have been convicted of sexual
Page 17

assault, lewd and lascivious conduct with a child, or sexual exploitation of a
minor are required to be posted to the Internet. Other criteria for Internet
posting includes, but is not limited to, offenders with multiple convictions or
those who have been designated as high risk by DOC.
Our statistical sample included two of 57 offenders (4 percent) that were
posted to the Internet, but did not meet the statutory requirements for such
posting. In both of these cases there were errors in the offense description in
the SOR which erroneously showed them to have been convicted of offenses
that qualified them for being posted to the Internet. In addition, our
automated data analysis found another 14 offenders who were erroneously
posted to the Internet. Ten of those offenders were wrongly identified as
eligible to be posted for the reason of having a qualifying offense (they also
did not meet any other criteria for Internet posting).
The other four offenders erroneously posted to the Internet SOR had
offenses that met the statutory requirement for being on the Internet SOR,
but they also had an outstanding petition requesting a waiver for such
posting. Offenders were not supposed to be on the Internet SOR while their
petitions were being reviewed.27 The records of the offenders’ that were not
eligible to be posted to the Internet SOR were removed when it was brought
to VCIC’s attention. While only four offenders requesting an Internet waiver
were on the Vermont SOR site, the names and city/town of all 174 offenders
that have outstanding waiver requests were posted on the national sex
offender website between October 1, 2009 and May 17, 2010. After we
brought this situation to the SOR system vendor’s attention, we were told
that it was caused by a system error in that the selection logic used to
exclude these offenders from the Vermont SOR website was not applied to
the process that extracts offenders for the national site. The vendor fixed the
system error and the offenders with outstanding waiver petitions were
removed from the national sex offender website.
There were also four offenders that should have been posted to the Internet,
but were not. For example, two offenders who were convicted of lewd and
lascivious conduct with a child and sexual exploitation of children,
respectively—offenses required to be posted to the Internet under 13 VSA

27
In addition to expanding the list of sex offenses that would qualify for posting to the Internet SOR,
Act 58 allowed certain categories of sex offenders to petition the DOC Commissioner to remain off
the Internet SOR. Eligible petitioners were supposed to remain off the Internet SOR until their petition
was reviewed and a final decision was made by the DOC Commissioner. As of June 2, 2010 final
decisions on offender petitions had not been made.

Page 18

§5411a(a)—were not on the Internet SOR as of February 18, 2010. In
addition, two offenders were erroneously marked as having outstanding
eligible petitions to the DOC Commissioner to remain off the Internet SOR.
These four records were subsequently posted to the Internet.
In addition to whether an offender was appropriately posted to the Internet,
our statistical sample of community-based offenders found numerous
instances in which the information on the Internet was incorrect or
incomplete. For example, there were four instances (12 percent of those
offenders in our sample that were on the Internet) in which the Internet SOR
showed that the offender had been convicted of multiple counts when the
offender had only been convicted on one count. According to VCIC’s SOR
system vendor, this is the result of a system glitch that causes some
duplication on the Internet SOR, which has been known about for some
time. He added that a workaround had been implemented to avoid this
problem. This workaround did not appear to be effective in all cases.
The Internet SOR also often did not include an offender’s middle name or
name suffix (e.g., Jr.). In the case of an offender’s middle name, the SOR
was missing information that was generally readily available in VCHIP. In
the case of the name suffix, the current SOR system does not have a field on
the input screen to capture this information. Name suffixes used to be
collected in the SOR so some offenders’ records included this data.
Nevertheless, even for these offenders the name suffix was not included in
their Internet SOR record. It appears that the usage of the name suffix data
element was dropped years ago when the original SOR system was replaced.
Having the full names of offenders available to the public is important to
ensure that the right person is identified as a sex offender (or not erroneously
identified as a sex offender).
Another example in which the Internet SOR did not accurately reflect
supporting documentation pertained to risk designations. 13 VSA
§5411a(b)(12) requires that the Internet record of applicable offenders who
have not undergone a risk assessment by DOC include language stating that
they are presumed to be high risk. The risk designation information in the
SOR for 20 offenders in our sample (35 percent) was incorrect or omitted.
For those offenders who were posted to the Internet, (1) two had the
presumed high risk language included in their record even though they had
undergone a risk assessment and were not considered high risk by DOC and
(2) eight did not include the presumed high risk language on their Internet
records even though they had not undergone a risk assessment.

Page 19

Age of Victim
Act 58 requires offenders who meet certain requirements to have their
address posted on the Internet as early as July 1, 2010. In particular,
offenders who are on the Internet SOR whose victims were younger than 13
will be required to have their addresses posted. Accordingly, a field for
victim ages was added to the SOR data entry screen in 2009 and VCIC has
been in the process of collecting victim ages through inquiries of DOC, local
law enforcement, and other research.
Our community-based statistical sample of 57 records found that the victim
ages were incorrect or omitted when documentation was available that had
this information in nine (16 percent) and 12 cases (21 percent), respectively.
In most cases, corrections or additions to the SOR related to the victim’s age
would not have had an effect on how the offender was treated with respect to
having his or her address posted on the Internet. However, in some cases, if
the SOR had not been corrected, offenders who should have had their
addresses posted to the Internet would not have had them posted. For
example,
●

An offender was convicted of sexual assault on a minor younger than 16.
The SOR showed the victim’s age as 15, but there was no documentation
in the VCIC files that indicated the origin of this age. We found a copy of
the investigator’s report in the offender’s DOC file that indicated that the
victim was 12 years old at the time of the incident. The confusion in this
case may have occurred because the same document recounted an
incident in which the victim was identified as 15 years old.

●

An offender who was convicted of aggravated sexual assault and lewd
and lascivious conduct with a child did not have the victim’s age entered
into the SOR. According to an October 2004 registration form, the victim
was 10 years old.

In addition, one offender would have had his address posted because DOC
reported to VCIC that the victim was 10 years old and this age was recorded
in the SOR, but the documentation in the offender’s DOC file did not
support this age.

Some Tests Yielded Few Errors
While we found numerous critical and significant errors in our statistical
sample and automated data testing, some of the tests that we ran resulted in
no or few errors thereby indicating that these processes were working
Page 20

relatively well. For example, we validated that the number of offenders listed
on the Internet SOR equaled the number of offenders listed on the electronic
copy of the SOR that we received February 18, 2010 that were coded as
requiring posting to the Internet.
In addition, the SOR contained almost all of the Vermont convictions for sex
offenses defined in 13 VSA §5401(10)(A) and 13 VSA §5401(10)(B) in
which the offender was sentenced between January 1, 2007 and December
31, 2009. During this 3-year period VCIC recorded in the SOR all but one of
the 309 offenders that had been sentenced during that timeframe for an
offense that met these statutory criteria (99.7 percent complete). There was a
slightly higher number of offenders whose records did not reflect all of the
sex offense charges for which they had been convicted—eight of 309
offenders (but 97.4 percent of records had the correct number of charges).
According to the SOR coordinator, in most cases the reason for the
discrepancy in the number of charges was an incomplete transfer of
conviction information from VCHIP to the SOR.
Lastly, we extracted a statistical random sample28 of 53 incarcerated
offenders (i.e., those in inactive status) from the February 18, 2010 SOR file
to confirm that their status was correct. There were two offenders (4 percent)
that were listed in inactive status in the SOR, but who were not in jail as of
February 18, 2010. One offender’s registration obligation had expired in
2009 while he was incarcerated on non-sex offense charges so his status
should have been in “reg exp” rather than inactive status. The second
offender was released on probation on February 14, 2010 and his status
should have been changed to active. The DOC PO told us that it was an
oversight that she did not send VCIC a notice that this offender had been
released.

Registration Process Does Not Lend Itself to Timeliness Analysis
The SOR statute and the DPS rule related to the operation of the SOR
contain several timeframes for when activities need to be performed. For
example, both the statute and the DPS rule require that the courts submit sex
offenders’ conviction records within 10 days after sentencing. In addition,
the rule requires DOC to submit changes in offender residential addresses,
employment, and school enrollment to VCIC within 24 hours for those

We used statistical random attribute sampling with a 95 percent confidence level, and 5 percent
tolerable rate of records not in compliance with the statutorily established requirements and zero
expected population deviation rate (i.e. expected error rate).
Page 21

offenders under supervision. Offenders that are no longer under DOC
supervision are required to submit such changes to VCIC within 3 days of
the change.
The process used by the State to establish, maintain, and remove offenders
from the SOR did not allow us to perform a systematic analysis of whether
the timeframes related to certain data being reported to VCIC are being met.
Specifically,
•

The origination and maintenance of offender records in the SOR is
largely a manual process in which data is generally received via U.S.
mail, fax, and email and entered by VCIC staff (either directly into the
SOR or input into VCHIP and then downloaded into the SOR). Only a
few dates, such as the date a record is first established, are automatically
generated by the system and all of them can be modified manually.

•

The SOR system and forms do not capture dates that would allow some
types of timeliness analysis. For example, the system does not include
dates of when changes are made so it is not possible to assess whether
data entry was close to the date of receipt of the information. In addition,
the forms do not always include information as to the date of the event
(e.g., when the address changed), just the date that the form was signed
or received by VCIC.

•

Incomplete date fields in the system and errors in dates in the system
found during our testing reduced our confidence that accurate
conclusions could be drawn based on the data in the system alone. For
example, the dates that an offender was released from incarceration and
when he or she started SOR registration are important to determining
whether registration forms are being submitted in a timely manner.
However, the release date field in the SOR was generally empty and we
were told that this field is no longer used. Moreover, our statistical
sample of community-based offenders found 14 errors (25 percent) in the
start registration date. Some of the dates were off by only a period of
days, but others were different by many months. While we do not
generally consider an incorrect registration start date to be an important
error by itself, the number of errors meant that we could not rely on this
date in the system to be sufficiently accurate to draw conclusions.

In addition, VCIC does not have a written standard with which to judge the
timeliness of data entry into the SOR. Specifically, DPS’s current SOR rule
(which is in the process of being revised) does not specify how quickly data
should be entered into the SOR. According to VCIC management, they have
Page 22

an unofficial standard of entering data on the same day that it is received.
Nevertheless, an explicit performance measure related to the timeliness of
SOR entry that is tracked or periodically checked would provide greater
assurance that information is being entered into the SOR in a timely manner.
Although we could not perform a systematic analysis of timeliness, the
system had data that could be used to analyze the extent to which offenders
were returning annual verification letters.29 Specifically, 13 VSA §5407(g)
requires VCIC to verify the residential addresses of most offenders
annually.30 VCIC sends a verification letter to offenders within 10 days of
their birthday and offenders must sign and return the form within 10 days.
This form includes the offender’s residential and mailing addresses,
employer name and address, and school name and address. As shown by
Figure 4, the offenders who were sent the verification letters generally
returned them within 20 days of their birthday (85 percent of the time for
verification letters sent out between February 18, 2009 and January 18,
2010).

To perform this analysis, we concluded that the offender’s date of birth and annual verification
receipt date in the system were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of this analysis. We based this
conclusion on the results of our community-based offender statistical sample, in which we found (1)
no records with an error in the date of birth field and (2) four records with errors in the annual
verification receipt date field (7 percent).

VCIC sends out annual verification forms to registrants that are in the active, homeless, and
student/employed statuses. These forms are not sent to registrants that are in pending, out-of-state,
inactive, MIA, or “reg exp” status.
Page 23

Figure 4: Timeframes for VCIC Receipt of Offender Annual Verification Letters a (sent
between February 18, 2009 and January 18, 2010)b

1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
1-20 days

21-40 days

41-60 days

over 60 days

Unreturned

In some cases, VCIC received confirmation of the offender’s address through a confirmation letter or
other means rather than through the annual verification letter. Those offenders are not part of this
analysis.
b
We did not include annual verification letters sent after January 18, 2010, because (1) some offenders
would not have had the opportunity to submit their signed forms and (2) VCIC may not have had the time
to input the date of receipt of the forms.

Of the 30 offenders who did not return their verification letters, five
offenders were subsequently located. The remaining 25 offenders had
addresses in the SOR that remained unverified as of the end of April 2010.
This number of offenders with unverified addresses is in addition to the 75
offenders listed in MIA status in the SOR as of February 18, 2010.

Significant Control and System Limitations Warrant Urgent
Attention
The controls and systems that are in place to prevent errors, omissions, and
outdated SOR data are limited. In particular, there were control weaknesses
in the processes that affected (1) how long offenders were to be registered
and (2) whether offenders are eligible to be posted to the Internet SOR and,
if so, what data is posted. Moreover, the process used to initiate and maintain
sex offender records in the SOR is largely manual and the SOR system does
not have features that would prevent basic errors (e.g., incorrectly calculated
dates) or aid in their identification and correction when they occur.

Page 24

Some Processes Have Not Been Consistently Implemented or Documented
The reliability and timeliness of offender data in the SOR rests on the
effective implementation of processes and controls at the Courts and DOC,
as well as at VCIC. Some of the processes utilized by these organizations to
collect and submit data to the SOR were not always (1) reflective of SOR
requirements, (2) documented, or (3) consistently applied, as highlighted
below.
Offender Supervision Changes
The status of an offender’s DOC supervision is critical. It determines an
offender’s SOR status category, which, in turn, can affect whether an
offender is posted to the Internet SOR or is subject to the annual verification
process. Some offenders were incorrectly listed as being in pending or
inactive status when they had been released from incarceration into the
community and so should have been listed in active status. Because DOC
had not notified VCIC of their change in supervision status, these offenders
were not on the Internet SOR. In addition, other offenders were incarcerated,
but were listed in active, rather than inactive, status. DOC’s ability to notify
VCIC of changes in an offender’s supervision status is hindered by its
system, which does not explicitly flag offenders who are, or should be,
registered with the SOR.
One area in which offender status notification is particularly important is
when the offender is discharged from DOC supervision altogether. This date
is key to determining how long an offender is required to be registered.
DPS’s SOR rule requires that DOC provide VCIC with this date. However,
until recently, DOC’s directive that lays out its internal procedures related to
the SOR did not include this requirement. In addition, until recently there
was no form or other formal mechanism in place to communicate discharge
information to VCIC. Instead POs told us that they generally called or
emailed the SOR coordinator with this information. This informal process
was not effective. For example, 16 of the 57 SOR records of our statistical
sample of community-based offenders (28 percent) had discharge date errors
(inaccuracies or omissions). DOC and VCIC have taken steps to improve the
process used to report discharge dates. In particular, in February this year a
new form was introduced in which this information is now explicitly
required to be submitted to VCIC.
For those offenders still under DOC supervision, another supervision status
area in which we found errors was in the name of the responsible PO and
DOC field office. In our community-based statistical sample, there were five
Page 25

PO name errors (9 percent) and two DOC field office errors (4 percent). The
PO name is important because this is the SOR coordinator’s primary source
of information on an offender supervised in the community. In addition, the
DOC field office and phone number is posted on offenders’ records in the
Internet SOR as the contact point for further information on an offender.
In our discussions with POs, it was clear that they were not sure of their
responsibilities related to notifying VCIC of such changes. When asked who
was responsible for notifying VCIC that the PO or field office had changed,
five responded that it was the sending PO, five stated that it was the
receiving PO, one said both the sending and receiving PO were responsible,
and three stated that they did not know. DOC recently issued guidance to its
staff that clarifies that it is the sending office that is responsible for the VCIC
notification.
Sex Offender Treatment Status Reporting
Effective March 1, 2005, 13 VSA §5411a (a)(5) required that offenders who
do not comply with sex offender treatment or are ineligible for such
treatment to be posted to the Internet SOR. DOC’s directive that addresses
its responsibilities related to the SOR lays out the process of providing
treatment information to VCIC. Specifically, the directive assigns such
responsibility to the correctional facility caseworkers or POs depending on
the offender’s supervisory status, or to offenders themselves, in cases when
they have been discharged from supervision, but have not completed sex
offender treatment. For the supervised offenders, the DOC Directive requires
DOC personnel to notify VCIC of the initial determination of treatment
compliance status. Offenders no longer under DOC supervision are required
to provide monthly updates of their treatment status to VCIC.31
Once treatment compliance information is received at VCIC, it is entered in
the SOR and is used to determine the Internet posting status of sex offenders.
The Internet SOR has four treatment compliance statuses – compliant,
noncompliant, not applicable, and unavailable. The not applicable status is
designed to be used for sex offenders that were convicted prior to March 1,
2005 and were not under DOC supervision as of March 1, 2005. The
unavailable status is used for offenders for whom treatment compliance is
applicable but treatment information has not been received by VCIC.

Treatment information that comes from offenders is required to be certified by their treatment
providers.
Page 26

The SOR contained 79 offenders who met the statutory criteria for having
their treatment compliance reported, but whose treatment status was marked
either as not applicable or unavailable.32 In up to 21 of these cases, treatment
information could result in the offender being posted to the Internet SOR
when they are not otherwise eligible, if they have not complied with their
treatment requirements. In the remaining cases, the offenders are already
posted to the Internet SOR, but their treatment information may need to be
updated to indicate either compliance or noncompliance. The SOR
coordinator explained that treatment compliance information in the SOR has
been difficult to accurately maintain in part because of misunderstandings
related to the interpretation of the data that DOC was providing. For
example, in the past when DOC caseworkers indicated that an offender
leaving prison had completed treatment, the SOR coordinator interpreted this
to mean that the offender’s treatment obligations were done when in fact the
caseworker may have only meant that the treatment requirements related to
the offender’s incarceration period had been completed. The coordinator did
not realize until recently that an offender may have continuing treatment
responsibilities after release.
In addition, less than half of the VCIC offender files reviewed as part of the
community-based statistical sample included the forms that are supposed to
be submitted by DOC to inform VCIC of an offender’s treatment status,
namely, the treatment compliance and noncompliance forms. The lack of
these forms can hinder VCIC’s ability to track and accurately report a sex
offender’s treatment status. For instance, in one case DOC submitted to
VCIC the required noncompliance checklist in January 2008 for an offender.
The offender later became compliant with treatment, but a treatment
compliance form was not sent to VCIC to update his status. Instead, in the
fall of 2009, the offender himself contacted VCIC and provided
documentation to support that he was wrongly listed as noncompliant with
treatment, namely a letter from a treatment provider supporting his
compliance claim.33 Based on this information, VCIC changed his record to
reflect that he was now compliant.34 Nevertheless, since the PO did not
submit the compliance checklist to VCIC, it caused the offender’s Internet
32
Although the treatment status in these records was incorrect, we did not ascertain what their correct
status should be. As a result, we did not include these 79 records in our count of critical and significant
SOR errors.
33

We confirmed with the PO that the offender is currently in compliance with treatment requirements.

Although the record was changed to indicate that the offender is now compliant with treatment,
other related codes were not changed in the SOR because of an oversight, which caused the offender
to be listed on the Internet SOR as both compliant and noncompliant.
Page 27

record to be wrong for a period of time. The PO told us that he was uncertain
when the treatment compliance/noncompliance checklist is required to be
submitted.
The inconsistency of the application of DOC’s treatment notification process
was confirmed by the POs that we interviewed. In particular, about half of
the 14 POs we interviewed stated that they send the treatment compliance
and noncompliance forms required at the onset of the community
supervision process less than 25 percent of the time. Moreover, five POs
stated that they were either unaware of the form or did not know when these
forms were supposed to be submitted to VCIC. These PO responses may be
because DOC’s directive did not clearly indicate when treatment status
information needed to be sent to VCIC. DOC recently clarified the treatment
reporting requirements in its revised directive.35
In the summer of 2009, the lack of updates on sex offenders’ treatment
statuses caused VCIC to request that DOC research and submit the
compliance status for a lengthy list of sex offenders for whom treatment
information was either missing or appeared to be outdated. As the result of
this data call, the treatment information in the SOR at that particular point of
time was updated. However, in the absence of effective ongoing DOC
treatment information update process; there is no guarantee that sex
offenders’ treatment statuses in the SOR will remain current and accurate. It
is too early to tell whether the revised DOC SOR directive will result in
more reliable treatment data in the SOR although the SOR coordinator
reported that she is receiving many more treatment
compliance/noncompliance forms recently.
VCIC also does not have an effective process to track treatment information
for offenders who are no longer under DOC supervision. For instance, one
offender was discharged from DOC’s supervision in July 2008 while still in
a treatment program. He submitted a certification of compliance36 with sex
offender treatment to VCIC in late July 2008. Subsequent to that certification
VCIC did not receive any information on his treatment status until early
March 2009 when VCIC found out that the offender was noncompliant with
treatment and changed his SOR record to reflect this status. Later in March
2009 VCIC received another certification with treatment, indicating that the
35

The new directive was approved May 10, 2010 and was effective June 14, 2010.

A certification of compliance is a form that a non-supervised offender who is still undergoing sex
offender treatment is required to submit to VCIC on a monthly basis to attest to his/her treatment
compliance. The certification is required to be signed by the offender and the treatment provider.
Page 28

offender had re-entered the treatment program. VCIC’s files did not indicate
that it had received any information on the offender’s treatment status
subsequent to March 2009 until we inquired about his status in April 2010.
Such a large time gap in the documentation of treatment status is not
necessarily an indication of an error. However, gaps in when a nonsupervised offender reports his treatment status to VCIC can indicate that he
or she is no longer attending treatment. At this time VCIC does not have a
process for tracking the treatment status for offenders who are no longer
under DOC supervision and have not completed sex offender treatment.
According to the SOR coordinator, she does not make inquiries of sex
offenders or providers in order to obtain information on treatment status to
check that the offender is remaining current. In addition, VCIC does not
have criteria to determine when a previously compliant offender becomes
noncompliant (i.e., such as not submitting a certification of compliance form
as required to remain in good standing). As a result, the current treatment
status of non-supervised offenders that had not completed sex offender
treatment while under DOC supervision may not be accurately captured in
the SOR.
Sex Offender Photo Updates
On April 15, 2009, VCIC sent a letter to offenders who were in active,
homeless, and student/employed status that, pursuant to the SOR statute,
they were required to provide a photograph to the registry each year during
the annual verification process. The April letter instructed offenders that if
they were still under DOC’s supervision that the POs would take the
photographs. Offenders no longer under DOC supervision were directed to
go to the nearest Vermont State Police barrack. Of the 55 offenders in our
community-based sample that this requirement applied to, almost half did
not have a picture on the SOR taken in the timeframes set forth in VCIC's
April 2009 letter (10 were taken before 2008).
In the case of the offenders with outdated photographs who were still under
DOC supervision, POs provided various explanations as to why more recent
photographs were not sent to VCIC. For example, some did not realize that
VCIC was expecting a photograph while others stated that it was an
oversight. For those offenders who were not under DOC supervision, the
SOR coordinator did not systematically check the State Police system that
contains photographs to determine that some offenders had not fulfilled their
obligation to obtain a new photograph. The SOR coordinator stated that as
part of the annual verification process she is now confirming that offenders
have had the required photographs taken.
Page 29

Since an offender’s physical appearance can change over time, it can be
important to have up-to-date photographs. In addition, to aid the public in
assessing the age of photographs posted on the Internet, some states include
the date that the offender’s photograph was last taken on their Internet
registries.
High-risk Designations for Women
13 VSA §5411b requires DOC to evaluate sex offenders to determine
whether they are high risk for the purpose of identifying those offenders who
should be subject to increased public access to his or her status. For example,
an offender who has been designated as high risk is posted to the Internet
SOR. DOC does not perform risk assessments for women offenders and,
therefore, none have been designated as high risk. According to the DOC codirector of the Vermont Center for the Prevention and Treatment of Sexual
Abuse, the tools used to perform risk assessment of men are not validated for
use in assessing women offenders. DOC has not developed an alternative
risk assessment process for women. Although there are far fewer women sex
offenders in the SOR than men (as of February 18, 2010, the SOR included
55 offenders whose gender was identified as female), the SOR statute does
not limit this requirement to male offenders.
Noncompliant High-Risk Offenders
13 VSA §5411d(e) requires DPS to conduct periodic unannounced registry
compliance checks on noncompliant high-risk offenders37 to verify the
accuracy of registration information.38 DPS’s SOR rule does not address this
requirement because it was issued prior to the law that established this
requirement (this rule is in the process of being updated).
Nevertheless, VCIC officials informed us that they fulfill this obligation by
relying on “sweeps” periodically conducted by law enforcement agencies in
which sex offenders’ addresses are physically checked (not just those for
noncompliant high-risk offenders). We were told that prior to conducting a

37
13 VSA §5411d defines noncompliant high-risk offenders as those who (1) were incarcerated on or
after June 7, 2007 for lewd and lascivious conduct with a child, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, or any attempt to commit these crimes or a comparable offense in another jurisdiction in the
United States, (2) are not subject to indeterminate life sentences under 13 VSA §3271, (3) are
designated as a high-risk sex offender, and (4) are noncompliant with sex offender treatment.
38

As of February 18, 2010, there were seven offenders that have been designated as noncompliant
high-risk.
Page 30

sweep; a law enforcement agency will request offenders’ address
information from the SOR coordinator in a particular geographical area. In
addition, the SOR coordinator stated that she generally receives the results of
sweeps from the law enforcement agency (e.g., a new address for an
offender), which she uses to update the SOR. However, VCIC does not keep
this documentation. Accordingly, VCIC did not have evidence to support
that these periodic sweeps included all of the noncompliant high-risk
offenders.

Largely Manual SOR System/Process Not Conducive to Preventing Errors
The SOR system was initially developed in-house, but a new system was
purchased from a vendor, Computer Projects of Illinois (CPI), in 2003.
However, this new system was simply the import of the functionality of the
old system to a new system platform. In addition, while the SOR has
changed since 2003 as new functionality has been built (e.g., programming
for the Internet SOR was added in 2004), the system’s base design and
underlying capability is limited.
One of the areas of limitation is the lack of electronic interfaces with other
systems. While the data used in the SOR comes from a variety of sources,
the only electronic interface that provides input into the SOR is the transfer
of offender identification and conviction data from VCIC’s VCHIP system.
However, even the process of entering sex offender conviction information
into VCHIP is largely manual. Specifically, a VCIC clerk manually enters
data from Charge Disposition Reports submitted by the 14 District Courts
for offenders convicted of sex offenses into VCHIP and clicks on a button on
the screen to send that individual’s record to the SOR. If the SOR
coordinator accepts the record, the VCHIP data automatically populates the
SOR. This manual process is in place even though the Court Administrator’s
Office sends electronic files of its criminal charge dispositions to VCIC.
However, since these files are only sent once a month, VCIC chooses to
perform manual data entry into VCHIP to update the SOR in a timelier
manner. According to the Court’s Director of Research and Information
Services, VCIC has requested more frequent electronic submissions, but the
Court is in the process of replacing its current case management system,
which is a higher priority.
Another major source of data for the SOR is DOC. However, there is not an
electronic interface between the DOC systems and the SOR. Among the
barriers to implementing such an interface, are that (1) DOC and VCIC use
different codes to identify offenders, (2) the DOC system does not explicitly
identify registered sex offenders, (3) the DOC system is old and not easily
Page 31

modified, and (4) the SOR does not have the ability to easily interface with
outside systems while ensuring data integrity. Nevertheless, there may be
alternatives that could be considered to more effectively submit data to
VCIC and lower the possibility of error. For example, based on our
observation of the forms that are submitted, most are filled in by hand and,
according to the POs we interviewed, are mailed or faxed to VCIC. Even if
an interface between the DOC system and the SOR is not feasible at this
point, other transmission alternatives that may be possible could include the
use of automated forms and/or the electronic submission of such forms to the
SOR. In our discussions with POs, the most common response that we
received to our question as to what actions could be taken to improve the
accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of the SOR was the automation of
the process of sending information to VCIC and other electronic sharing of
data between DOC and VCIC.
In addition to the lack of electronic interfaces, the SOR system does not
utilize important business process controls39 that are designed to prevent
errors. In particular, the SOR does not have effective data validation and
edits built into the system. According to the U.S. Government
Accountability Office (GAO), input data should be validated and edited to
provide reasonable assurance that erroneous data are prevented or detected
before processing.40 Edits are used to help assure that data are complete,
accurate, valid, and recorded in the proper format. For example, systems can
have edit controls that check for (1) missing data, (2) erroneous dates, (3)
limits and reasonableness, (3) valid, or invalid, combinations of related data
field values, and (4) mathematical accuracy. Many of the errors that we
found in the SOR could have been prevented with the application of such
edit controls. Our automated data analysis found:
●
●
●
●

Duplicate or missing Social Security Numbers,
Duplicate state identification numbers,
Missing dates, and
Illogical combinations, such as offenders designated as lifetime
registrants in the system who also have a date in the end registration date
field.

39
Business process controls are the automated and/or manual controls applied to business transaction
flows and related to the completeness, accuracy, validity, and confidentiality of transactions and data
during application processing.
40

U.S. Government Accountability Office, Federal Information System Controls Audit Manual
(FISCAM), (GAO-09-232G, February 2009).
Page 32

In addition, the SOR system is not programmed to make, or at least assist, in
decisions related to an offender’s registration record. For example, the
system does not calculate the end registration date for 10-year registrants;
instead the SOR coordinator manually performs and enters the calculation.
There were 13 records with calculation errors in the SOR as of February 18,
2010, which caused their end registration dates to be incorrect—sometimes
by many years. In addition, the system does not have logic that identifies
those offenders who meet the criteria for being posted to the Internet SOR.
Instead, the SOR coordinator manually enters the codes that post an offender
on the Internet. If the codes are not added, which occurred in a few cases, the
offender would not to be posted to the Internet. Conversely, in 12 instances,
codes were erroneously added that caused offenders’ records to be
incorrectly posted to the Internet. Edit controls can be utilized to prevent
these types of errors.
Another type of business process control is automated audit trails. An audit
trail shows who has accessed a system and what operations the user has
performed during a given period of time. According to GAO, data that
should be included in an automated audit trail are who initiated each of the
transactions, the date and time of the transactions, and the location of the
transaction origination.41 The SOR system does not track what changes to the
data in the system have been made, when, and by whom. Without such
information it can be very difficult, if not impossible, to link a specific action
in the system to a user. In addition, because the SOR does not utilize an audit
trail that indicates when and what adjustments to an offender’s record were
made, with the exception of residential address data, there is no historical
information available in the system.
The lack of effective SOR business process controls is of particular concern
because of VCIC’s overreliance on a single person to appropriately apply,
without much system support, complicated requirements, such as which
offenders should be on the SOR, posted to the Internet SOR, and how long
registration should last. VCIC’s SOR function is staffed by a full-time
employee (the SOR coordinator) who also has other duties, most notably the
management of the Medical Marijuana Registry. The coordinator spends
about 75 percent of her time on the SOR and is assisted by another VCIC
employee who works 20 hours a week. The staff member who provides
assistance performs largely clerical tasks and does not make some of the

U.S. Government Accountability Office, Federal Information System Controls Audit Manual
(FISCAM), (GAO-09-232G, February 2009).
Page 33

critical decisions related to an offender’s record, such as whether he or she
meets the criteria to be a lifetime registrant. In addition, VCIC’s SOR
procedures do not include some significant functions or what documentation
should be retained. For example, the procedures do not address determining
an offender’s (1) registration eligibility, (2) status category (or how they
differ in terms of requirements), (3) end of registration, or (4) treatment
status. These documentation weaknesses, along with the system’s inability to
identify common errors or guide the user through the decision-making
processes involved with an offender’s registration, means VCIC’s reliance
on a single individual to make these decisions is a high-risk approach.
VCIC has recognized its vulnerability and its need to implement a more
highly automated system and has applied for a $150,000 federal grant to
replace the current system. According to VCIC’s grant request, a new system
would (1) contain the most current, efficient, and versatile interfacing tools
and (2) minimize the amount of human intervention required in order to
minimize the chance of data entry and transcription errors.
We agree that a new system with more electronic interfaces and business
process controls would help prevent inaccuracies, omissions, and untimely
VCIC data. However, layering a new system over the current process is
unlikely to fix the all of the many and varied types of problems that have
adversely affected the reliability of the data in the SOR since the causes of
errors were not solely system-related. For example, the SOR statute does not
require offenders to register if they were under the age of 18 at the time of
the crime, the victim was at least 12 years old, and the conduct that was
criminal was only because of the age of the victim. This set of information is
difficult for VCIC to discern because it does not routinely receive detailed
information on the offense that was committed, including the date of the
offense and the age of the offender as of this date. During the course of the
audit, we found this information in documents filed with the Courts42 and
contained in DOC files, but neither of these organizations routinely provides
this information to VCIC. This example also highlights that the reliability
and timeliness of the SOR is dependent not only on VCIC, but also on
information, processes, and systems utilized by other entities.
Taking a broader view of what currently constitutes the SOR process to
include other organizations could help VCIC address not only reliability

Court procedures state that two of the types of documents that we used to determine offender and
victim ages (dockets and affidavits) are supposed to be supplied to VCIC within 10 days of sentencing,
but the Courts were not consistently sending these documents.
Page 34

concerns, but could have the added benefit of improving the efficiency of the
process. A comprehensive approach to developing a new SOR
process/system could even include recommending changes to the procedures
required by the Registry’s current statutory framework in light of the
technological advances that have occurred since this framework was first put
into place in 1996. For example, since the inception of the statute that
instituted the SOR, the courts have been required to submit the Order to
Provide Information to VCIC for sex offenders defined under 13 VSA
§5401(10). However, according to the SOR coordinator, she does not
generally rely on the Order to Provide Information and often did not even
receive them from the Courts. Indeed, the courts were not sending this
information to VCIC consistently in part because the Court system did not
prompt the clerk to print the Order to Provide Information form for all
offenses listed under 13 VSA §5401(10).43 Accordingly, alternatives to the
current Order to Provide Information process could be considered, such as
requiring the offender to acknowledge his or her obligations to report to the
SOR at the time of conviction or sentencing so that if a registration form is
not later submitted for this offender, he or she has been notified of the
obligation to report. The Court Administrator’s Office is currently in the
process of implementing a new system so it would be prudent to consider
changes to the process now rather than after the implementation is complete.
Other critical considerations in the development of a new system are the
importance of analyzing and documenting requirements prior to its
development and security. In layman’s terms, requirements development and
management involves establishing and maintaining agreement on what the
system is to do (functionality), how well it is to do it (performance), and how
it is to interact with other systems (interfaces). Without such an analysis, an
organization risks that the new system will not fully meet its operational and
performance needs. With respect to security, the current SOR system does
not meet DPS’s or the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s password policies
related to password length and complexity. According to the DPS policy,
passwords are the foundation of the security of DPS’s automated systems.
The VCIC deputy director told us that VCIC recognized this deficiency in
the summer of 2009 and requested that CPI change the password
requirements of the system that authenticates users of VCIC systems,
including the SOR. As of May 24, 2010, this system change request
remained outstanding.

The Court reported that it has fixed this system glitch and the SOR coordinator told us that VCIC is
receiving more of these forms than it has in the past.
Page 35

Observations Pertaining to the Posting of Sex Offender Addresses
on the Internet
Some members of the General Assembly have expressed reservations about
the accuracy of offender addresses that may be posted on the Internet SOR
as early as July 2010.44 Our statistical sample of community-based offenders
did not disclose a substantial number of errors pertaining to residential
addresses (5 percent).45 However, it is important to note that this analysis
was limited to checking whether the address reported by the offender was
accurately entered into the SOR. Our analysis does not assess whether the
addresses accurately reflect where the offenders reside.
Because of the importance of this issue, we make the following observations
regarding the process in place to provide and update offender addresses:
●

13 VSA §5407(a) requires most offenders46 to report their new addresses
within 3 days after any change in residence. However, except for
offenders that are under DOC supervision, there is no mechanism to
systematically validate and document that the offender actually lives at
that address or even that the address is valid. VCIC staff members
explained that law enforcement periodically performs sweeps of sex
offenders in specific geographic areas. VCIC provides them lists of the
offenders in the area being checked. Although the law enforcement
agency may send VCIC the results of the sweep (i.e., offenders who were
not found at the address reported in the SOR), VCIC does not keep this
documentation. Without this documentation, it is not possible to know
how often the residences of sex offenders are physically checked or how
often the residence address in the SOR is wrong.

Act 58 requires that the following offenders have their addresses posted to the Internet SOR:
offenders who (1) have been designated as high risk, (2) have not complied with sex offender
treatment, (3) have an outstanding warrant for their arrest, (4) are subject to the registry for a
conviction of a sex offense against a child under 13 years of age, and (5) have been electronically
posted for an offense committed in another jurisdiction which required the person’s address to be
electronically posted in that jurisdiction.

In addition to the address errors found in the community-based statistical sample, the automated data
analysis found a few other records in the SOR that had incorrect residential addresses.

13 VSA §5407(a) requires offenders who have been designated as high risk by DOC to report within
36 hours and 13 VSA §5411d requires noncompliant high-risk offenders report changes in residence
prior to the change being made. If the change is unanticipated, noncompliant high-risk offenders must
report within 1-day of the change.
Page 36

●

In the case of offenders under DOC supervision, the POs that we talked
to generally reported that they routinely physically verify (or have
another DOC or law enforcement official physically verify) the
residential addresses of offenders. Our statistical sample of communitybased offenders included 22 offenders under DOC supervision. POs
provided evidence in 20 cases (91 percent) that the offender’s residence
had been physically checked. These checks had occurred from 1 day to
about 11 months prior to the date of our visit (half of the checks had
occurred within a month of our visit).

●

13 VSA §5407(g) sets out the requirements for the annual verification
process in that it requires that DPS send out a non-forwardable address
verification form to each registrant at the address last reported by the
registrant. Accordingly, VCIC sends out a non-forwardable annual
verification letter to offenders at the time of their birthdays that they must
sign and return indicating that their residential address has not changed or
providing their new address. However, this letter is sent to offenders’
mailing addresses, which can be a post office box or in care of another
individual. As a result, although non-forwardable, these letters are simply
a self-certification that the offender lives at an address and does not
necessarily indicate that mail has been delivered and received at his or
her physical address.

●

VCIC’s SOR rule states that offenders who move out of state have
completed their Vermont registry requirements (although it is expected
that they would notify VCIC if they returned to Vermont). Accordingly,
these offenders are not required to submit changes of address and the
annual verification letter is not sent to them. Such offenders can be
posted to the Internet SOR and we have been told that their addresses will
be included on the Internet if they meet the statutory requirement for such
disclosure. Since these offenders are no longer tracked by VCIC their
addresses could be years out-of-date.

One way that other states that post addresses to the Internet have used to
inform the public of the reliability of the addresses that are on their Internet
sites is to include the date that the address was last verified or updated. This
type of information could help mitigate misunderstandings in the public if an
offender’s listed address is not the one that he or she is actually using.
In addition to the process that VCIC uses to obtain and maintain valid
offender addresses, another critical aspect to ensuring that the new
requirements are properly implemented relates to the SOR system. As of
Page 37

mid-May 2010 the system changes related to the new address requirements
had not been tested by VCIC. According to VCIC’s deputy director, the
Internet SOR is being transitioned to a new website. Once this occurs testing
of the system’s functionality related to addresses will commence. Given that
system glitches have contributed to some of the problems outlined in this
report, it is important that this testing be robust and thorough.

Conclusion
We believe that the errors we found are preventable with stronger controls
and a more effective system. In particular, the large and diverse number of
errors found in the SOR warrants a fresh look at how convicted sex
offenders are identified and how data is collected and submitted to VCIC.
The SOR process relies on three primary organizations, VCIC, DOC, and the
Courts to ensure that the reliability and timeliness of the data in the system.
By working together these organizations may be able to develop a more
effective solution than the current process. Moreover, it is important that a
more automated approach to the SOR be considered to reduce the errorprone manual processes that are currently in place. However, this is a longterm solution. Of more immediate concern are the offenders’ records that we
did not look at that could have some of the critical and significant errors that
we identified when we compared the SOR data to supporting documentation.
Once these types of errors are addressed (e.g., incorrect end registration
dates) then the State can have confidence that any new system or process
that is adopted will not perpetuate the same errors as the old system/process.
In addition, short-term solutions to address some of the specific process
weaknesses that we found, such as a method to track and report treatment
compliance status to VCIC could also enhance the reliability of the SOR.

Recommendations
We recommend that the Commissioner of the Department of Public Safety,
Commissioner of the Department of Corrections, and Court Administrator
form a working group to reassess and possibly redesign the processes related
to the Vermont Sex Offender Registry to include possible system solutions
to more effectively and efficiently submit information to the SOR.

Page 38

We recommend that the Commissioner of the Department of Public Safety
direct the Director of the Vermont Criminal Information Center to:
●

Review all discharge dates, end registration dates, internet status, and risk
assessment and lifetime registrant flags to confirm that the system
accurately reflects supporting documentation and appropriately applies
the statutory standard. This review should initially focus on those
offenders whose records are posted on the Internet and may have their
residential addresses added to the site.

●

Work with the SOR system vendor to identify and correct the records of
offenders that are shown on the Internet SOR as erroneously having been
convicted of more counts than is factual.

●

Perform a requirements analysis for the acquisition or development of a
new SOR system (or redesign of the existing system) that includes, at a
minimum, (1) improved electronic communication with DOC and the
Courts, (2) a more robust set of edits, (3) an audit trail, (4) features in
which the system automatically performs (or prompts the user to take)
actions that are currently performed manually, such as the calculation of
the end registration date, and (5) improved security features.

●

Develop performance standards for the timely entry of data into the SOR
and periodically assess whether these standards are being met.

●

Modify the SOR procedures to include all SOR functions and
documentation retention standards, including requirements to retain the
results of the “sweeps” conducted by law enforcement when they
physically check the residences of sex offenders.

●

Develop a process to identify and track the treatment progress of
offenders that are no longer under DOC supervision.

●

Add the date the offender’s photograph was last updated to the Internet
SOR records.

●

Add the date last verified to the residential addresses posted to the
Internet SOR.

Page 39

We recommend that the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections:
●

Explore, in conjunction with VCIC, system solutions to submit SOR
forms electronically.

●

Develop a mechanism to identify, and flag in its system, sex offenders in
DOC custody who are registered, or required to register, with the SOR
and prompts DOC personnel to submit required information to VCIC as
necessary (e.g., the submission of a change of address form when a
registered sex offender is sent to a DOC facility).

●

Monitor the effectiveness of the department’s new SOR directive,
particularly whether it results in more accurate and timely data
submissions to VCIC and, if not, implement additional mechanisms to
achieve this end, such as specialized training in areas of noncompliance.

●

Develop a process to perform a risk assessment for women sex offenders
that would meet the requirements of 13 VSA §5411b.

Management Comments and Our Evaluation
The Commissioner of the Department of Public Safety, Commissioner of the
Department of Corrections, and Court Administrator provided written
comments on a draft of this report, which are reprinted in appendices VI,
VII, and VIII, respectively.
The Commissioner of DPS’s June 22, 2010 response stated that overall the
department concurs with the findings and recommendations in the report. In
addition, the Commissioner outlined actions that the department is taking
with respect to our recommendations. Notably, the department plans to form
a working group along with the Commissioner of Corrections and the Court
Administrator to reassess the need to redesign the workflow process
associated with the SOR in an effort to develop a more accurate and efficient
registry. Moreover, the Commissioner reported on other actions that DPS is
taking. For example, the Commissioner noted that DPS formed an internal
data quality improvement/audit team that is tasked with addressing many of
our recommendations. For instance, the Commissioner reported that this
team is expected to review the discharge date, end registration date, internet
status, and risk assessment and lifetime registration flags for every individual
on the registry. This is expected to take 8 weeks to complete.

Page 40

Lastly, the Commissioner of DPS asserted that the efforts that are outlined in
his response to this report would support a “favorable performance” that
would prepare DPS to include addresses on the Internet SOR as directed by
the legislature. While we cannot opine on the efficacy of actions that are not
yet complete, the explanation of the planned measures contained in the
Commissioner’s response to our draft report would seem to largely address
the reliability problems that we found with the current SOR. Nevertheless, it
is critical that these short-term efforts be coupled with the development of a
more efficient and effective SOR process and system to provide added
assurance that improved reliability would continue in the future.
In his June 22, 2010 response to our draft report, the Commissioner of the
Department of Corrections stated that he agreed with our conclusion that a
more effective SOR is needed. The Commissioner stated that it is his intent
to continue to work with the Commissioner of Public Safety and the Court
Administrator to identify short and long-term solutions to more effectively
and efficiently submit information to the registry. In the interim, the
Commissioner reported that his department is taking other actions. For
example, he reported that at his direction, DOC staff members are in the
process of conducting a full-scale audit of the registry process to ensure that
the department is in compliance with existing policy, with an eye towards
the errors identified in our report. This process is expected to be completed
within the next 90 days. The Commissioner added that periodic reviews will
be required to monitor compliance and staff training needs. Other actions
noted by the Commissioner are the development of a “tickler” system to
notify staff to submit information to DPS and a risk assessment instrument
for women sex offenders.
The Court Administrator’s June 21, 2010 comments on a draft of our report
stated that the office agrees with our findings, conclusions, and
recommendations as it pertains to the Courts. He noted that a working group
formed by the Commissioners of DPS and DOC, and the Court
Administrator would likely succeed in developing a more accurate and
efficient registry. In addition, the Court Administrator stated that in response
to the findings in the report that the district courts have been instructed to
provide VCIC with the Order to Provide Information, docket, and affidavit
for all cases qualifying for the SOR. The Court Administrator added that
regular reminders of these requirements will be made to ensure that these
documents are consistently provided by the courts. Lastly, the Administrator
added that these activities will be automated once the Court’s new case
management system is operational, which is expected to be in about 2 years.

Page 41

- - - - In accordance with 32 VSA §163, we are also providing copies of this report
to the Secretary of the Agency of Administration, Commissioner of the
Department of Finance and Management, and the Department of Libraries.
In addition, the report will be made available at no charge on the State
Auditor’s web site, http://auditor.vermont.gov/.

Page 42

Appendix I
Scope and Methodology
In planning our work with respect to our first objective, we defined the terms
reliable and current for purposes of the audit. We defined SOR reliability as
follows: (1) all offenders who fulfill the statutory requirements for being on
the registry are on it and those who do not are not, (2) each record has a full
set of information, and (3) data in each record is accurate. The registry was
considered to have current information if (1) information was received by
VCIC from offenders within statutory timeliness requirements (e.g., address
verification), (2) information was received by VCIC from other State
organizations (e.g. Corrections, Judiciary) in a timely manner, and (3) data
was entered into the registry a timely manner.47
In designing our approach to assess whether the SOR was reliable, we
utilized guidance from the GAO.48 Specifically, GAO’s Data Reliability
Guide outlines a variety of approaches to assessing the reliability of data,
including performing data testing and tracing to and from source
documentation. Data testing relates to applying logical tests to electronic data
files, such as looking for duplicate records or values outside of a designated
range. With respect to tracing to and from source documents, the GAO guide
refers to tracing a random sample of data records to help determine whether
the computer data accurately and completely reflect these documents.
Consistent with GAO’s guidance, we (1) employed automated data analysis
techniques on an electronic copy of the Registry as of February 18, 2010 and
(2) extracted a representative sample of community-based offenders from this
same electronic copy of the SOR and traced data in individual records to
source documentation. Prior to performing these tasks we gained an
understanding of the Registry’s data elements, the interrelationships among
data elements, and valid values. We also scanned the data in the electronic
copy to assess its reliability for purposes of our analyses (e.g., that dates were
in the date fields and that data was not garbled). We concluded that the
electronic SOR files that we received were sufficiently reliable for the
purpose of conducting this audit.
With respect to the automated data analysis that we performed on the
electronic copy of the SOR, we downloaded the February 18, 2010 copy into
an automated analysis tool. Using this tool, we performed a variety of tests,
as follows:

47
We reviewed the information available regarding the timeliness of the data in the SOR and concluded
that, except in the case of the annual verification process, we could not perform a systematic analysis of
the currency of VCIC data.
48

Assessing the Reliability of Computer-Processed Data (U.S. Government Accountability Office,
GAO-09-680G, July 2009).
Page 43

Appendix I
Scope and Methodology
●

We tested for anomalies, such as incorrect or missing values in critical
fields, dates that appeared to be erroneous, and the inconsistent or
incorrect application of Registry rules. For example, we ran tests to
determine whether (1) all offenders who had been designated high risk by
DOC were on the Internet SOR, (2) any annual verification letters had not
been received, and (3) the end registration date was calculated correctly.

●

We chose judgmental samples of offenders in statuses that were not
covered by our community-based and incarcerated offender samples to
determine whether the offenders were in the correct categories. In
particular, we scanned offenders in the pending and “reg exp” statuses
looking for anomalies in the data that would indicate that the offender was
in the wrong status.

●

We compared the SOR data to data from the Court’s automated system to
test whether the SOR contained all recent convictions that met statutory
criteria. Specifically, the Court Administrator’s Office provided an
electronic file of all sex offenders [as defined by 13 VSA §5401(10)] that
had been sentenced between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2009.49
Using our data analysis tool, we compared the Court’s file to the SOR file
to determine whether there were offenders who had been convicted and
sentenced for crimes under 13 VSA §5401(10) that were not in the
Registry.

●

We compared the SOR file provided to us as of February 18, 2010 to a
copy of the Internet SOR that we downloaded the following day (the
Internet SOR file is updated overnight so changes on February 18th would
be shown on February 19th on the Internet). The purpose of this test was
to confirm that the system logic used to extract sex offenders for the
Internet actually resulted in those offenders, and only those offenders,
being posted to the Internet SOR.

For each data analysis test that yielded results (i.e., a potential error), we
sought explanations from the VCIC SOR coordinator; DOC probation and
parole and treatment personnel; and the Court’s information technology and
court administration personnel, as applicable. When necessary, we also

49
Prior to performing this test we gained a general understanding of the Court system’s data elements,
interrelationships among the data, and valid values and scanned the data in the electronic copy to assess
its reliability for purposes of our analyses (e.g., that dates were in the date fields and that data was not
garbled). We concluded that the file that we received from the Courts was reliable for the purpose of
our test. We did not, however, review the internal controls related to this system.

Page 44

Appendix I
Scope and Methodology
reviewed relevant documentation, such as court dockets, DOC records, and
various SOR forms as part of researching and validating our results.
Regarding our statistical sample of community-based offenders,50 we used the
data from the SOR as of February 18, 2010 as the basis for pulling the
sample. We used statistical random attribute sampling with a 95 percent
confidence level, and 5 percent tolerable rate of records not in compliance
with the statutorily established requirements and zero expected population
deviation rate (i.e. expected error rate). Our universe consisted of the sex
offenders with status codes of active,51 MIA,52 homeless,53 and
student/employed.54 There were 1,549 SOR records that met these criteria on
February 18, 2010 and our sample size was 57 records.
For each record in the community-based sample, we traced data elements
related to the offenders’ identification, conviction, sentencing, supervision,
and location to supporting information from VCIC, DOC, or the Courts.
Supporting information generally consisted of reviewing (1) the offender’s
record in VCIC’s criminal history system, VCHIP; (2) the offender’s
movement history and risk assessment history in the DOC system; (3)
completed SOR forms, such as the registration form, change of address form,
and treatment compliance/noncompliance forms; (4) court dockets; (5)
affidavits filed in support of the charges, and (6) parole documentation. In
addition, we evaluated VCIC’s decisions related to (1) whether the offender
should be on the SOR and the Internet SOR, (2) the status of the offender,
and (3) whether the offender was required to be a 10-year or lifetime
registrant.
We also performed a more limited review of incarcerated offenders. We
limited our review of these offenders to checking whether a statistical sample
of offenders listed in the SOR as being in inactive status were correctly in
this status. To pick our sample, we used statistical random attribute sampling
with a 95 percent confidence level, and 5 percent tolerable rate of records not
in compliance with the statutorily established requirements and zero expected

These are offenders who live, work or go to school in Vermont.

All registered sex offenders (i.e., those for whom a signed Registration Form was submitted to VCIC)
who reside in a Vermont community.
52

These are sex offenders who are currently in violation of Vermont SOR requirements.

These are registered sex offenders who have no actual physical address and must report daily to local
police and/or the registry.
54

These are registered sex offenders that reside in another state or country but who work or are students
in Vermont.
Page 45

Appendix I
Scope and Methodology
population deviation rate (i.e. expected error rate). There was a universe of
423 SOR records that were in inactive status on February 18, 2010 and our
sample size was 53 records. Our analysis of the sample of incarcerated
offenders was limited to verifying that the DOC system recorded the
offenders as being in a DOC correctional facility as of February 18, 2010. We
followed up on those cases in which the offender was recorded as not being
in a DOC facility by obtaining an explanation from the VCIC SOR
coordinator or applicable probation and parole officer. We also confirmed
that those offenders listed by DOC as being released from the DOC
correctional facility to other jurisdictions were listed by those jurisdictions as
being incarcerated. We performed this check by using the applicable
jurisdictions’ Internet-based inmate locator search tools.
As part of evaluating the results of our data analysis test and communitybased and incarcerated offender statistical samples, we defined an error as
encompassing (1) records that were incorrectly omitted, added, retained, or
deleted from the registry, (2) data in the registry that differed from the source
documentation, (3) omission of data in a registry field, when applicable, and
(4) inaccurate registry calculations or decisions (e.g., whether a record should
be on the Internet registry). We also used the following categories to
characterize the effect of the errors found in an offender’s record.55
●

Critical. Errors that have resulted, or would have resulted if not
corrected, in a sex offender (1) being incorrectly omitted, added, retained,
or deleted from the Registry or (2) being incorrectly omitted, added,
retained, or deleted from the Internet Registry.

●

Significant. Errors related to (1) sex offender identification (e.g., name
and Social Security Number), (2) sex offender location information
related to his or her residence, employment, or school, (3) other data that
is on the Internet or provided to law enforcement agencies, or (4) incorrect

An offender’s Registry record could have more than one error and our process of categorization
considered all of the errors taken together. In addition, errors of a similar nature may be categorized
differently depending on the circumstances of an individual sex offender record. To illustrate, in the
case of an offender whose registry record incorrectly showed him or her as compliant with treatment
requirements; if a change from treatment compliance to noncompliance resulted in an offender being
listed on the Internet registry, the error would be categorized as critical, but if the offender was already
listed on the Internet registry for another reason, the error would be categorized as significant because
the error would effect the accuracy of the data reported on the Internet. In another example, errors in
discharge dates would be categorized differently depending on whether the offender was required to
register for 10 years after discharge from supervision or for life. If the offender was in the 10-year
category, we generally considered errors in discharge dates to be critical because the offender could be
on the Registry for a longer or shorter period of time than required. However, if the offender was
required to register for his or her lifetime, a discharge date error would be categorized as “other”
because it would not effect how long the offender was on the registry.
Page 46

Appendix I
Scope and Methodology
coding in the system that would have caused an offender’s address to be
incorrectly added or excluded from the Internet Registry after July 1, 2010
if not corrected.
●

Other. Information that is omitted or incorrect in the registry, but does
not directly effect whether an offender is on the Registry or Internet
Registry or data that is provided to the public or law enforcement
agencies.

In performing work in support of our second objective, we gained an
understanding of the control processes that were used to ensure the reliability
and timeliness of data in the SOR. To gain this understanding, we (1)
reviewed the statute and laws related to the Registry; (2) reviewed the DPS
Sex Offender Registry Rule effective December 31, 2004; (3) reviewed
DOC’s sex offender registry directive effective September 9, 2008; (4)
reviewed the DOC rule pertaining to risk assessments and treatment effective
June 8, 2005; (5) performed walkthroughs of processes used to submit and
maintain data in the SOR with the VCIC SOR coordinator, the VCHIP
coordinator, a DOC caseworker and probation and parole officers, and
District Court staff, and (6) interviewed other VCIC, DOC, and Court
Administrator officials, including the VCIC Director and Deputy Director,
DOC Field Services Executive and Co-Director of the Vermont Center for
the Prevention and Treatment of Sexual Abuse, and the Office of the Court
Administrator’s directors of the Division of Trial Court Operations and
Division of Research and Information Systems. We also reviewed system
documentation from the vendor that maintains the SOR and obtained
clarifications of how it works from the vendor’s representative.
Using all of the above sources, we flowcharted the various manual and
automated processes used to initiate, maintain, and remove a sex offender’s
record from the SOR. We validated this flowchart with appropriate officials
from VCIC, DOC, and the Courts. Using the flowchart we identified control
gaps and inconsistent applications of controls.
We performed our work between October 2009 and May 2010 primarily at
VCIC and DOC’s offices in Waterbury. We also performed site visits to
DOC’s Probation and Parole Offices in Barre, Brattleboro, Burlington,
Hartford, Morrisville, Newport, St. Albans, Rutland, and Springfield and to
DOC’s Southern State Correctional Facility in Springfield. Except for the
exception described below, we conducted this performance audit in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards, which
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate
evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based
Page 47

Appendix I
Scope and Methodology
on our audit objectives. The standard that we did not follow requires that our
system of quality control for performance audits undergo a peer review every
three years. Because of fiscal considerations, we have opted to postpone the
peer review of our performance audits until 2011. Notwithstanding this
exception, we believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis
for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Page 48

Appendix II
Statutory Definition of a Sex Offender
13 VSA §5401(10) defines a sex offender as the following:
(A) A person who is convicted in any jurisdiction of the United States,
including a state, territory, commonwealth, the District of Columbia, or
military, federal, or tribal court of any of the following offenses:
(i) sexual assault as defined in 13 VSA §3252.
(ii) aggravated sexual assault as defined in 13 VSA §3253.
(iii) lewd and lascivious conduct as defined in 13 VSA §2601.
(iv) sexual abuse of a vulnerable adult as defined in 13 VSA §1379.
(v) second or subsequent conviction for voyeurism as defined in 13 VSA
§2605(b) or (c).
(vi) kidnapping with intent to commit sexual assault as defined in 13 VSA
§2405(a)(1)(D).
(vii) aggravated sexual assault of a child in violation of section 3253a of this
title; and
(viii) a federal conviction in federal court for any of the following offenses:
(I) Sex trafficking of children as defined in 18 U.S.C. §1591.
(II) Aggravated sexual abuse as defined in 18 U.S.C. §2241.
(III) Sexual abuse as defined in 18 U.S.C. §2242.
(IV) Sexual abuse of a minor or ward as defined in 18 U.S.C. §2243.
(V) Abusive sexual contact as defined in 18 U.S.C. §2244.
(VI) Offenses resulting in death as defined in 18 U.S.C. §2245.
(VII) Sexual exploitation of children as defined in 18 U.S.C. §2251.
(VIII) Selling or buying of children as defined in 18 U.S.C. §2251A.
(IX) Material involving the sexual exploitation of minors as defined in 18
U.S.C. §2252.
(X) Material containing child pornography as defined in 18 U.S.C. §2252A.
(XI) Production of sexually explicit depictions of a minor for import into the
United States as defined in 18 U.S.C. §2260.
(XII) Transportation of a minor for illegal sexual activity as defined in 18
U.S.C. §2421.
(XIII) Coercion and enticement of a minor for illegal sexual activity as
defined in 18 U.S.C. §2422.
(XIV) Transportation of minors for illegal sexual activity, travel with the
intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct with a minor, and engaging in illicit
sexual conduct in foreign places as defined in 18 U.S.C. §2423.
(XV) Transmitting information about a minor to further criminal sexual
conduct as defined in 18 U.S.C. §2425.
(ix) an attempt to commit any offense listed in this subdivision (A).
(B) A person who is convicted of any of the following offenses against a
victim who is a minor, except that, for purposes of this subdivision, conduct
which is criminal only because of the age of the victim shall not be
Page 49

Appendix II
Statutory Definition of a Sex Offender
considered an offense for purposes of the registry if the perpetrator is under
the age of 18 and the victim is at least 12 years old:
(i) any offense listed in subdivision (A) of this subdivision (10).
(ii) kidnapping as defined in 13 VSA §2405(a)(1)(D).
(iii) lewd and lascivious conduct with a child as defined in 13 VSA §2602.
(iv) slave traffic as defined in 13 VSA §2635.
(v) sexual exploitation of children as defined in 13 VSA chapter 64.
(vi) procurement or solicitation as defined in 13 VSA §2632(a)(6).
(vii) aggravated sexual assault of a child as defined in 13 VSA §3253a.
(viii) sex trafficking of children or sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion
as defined in 13 VSA §2635a.
(ix) sexual exploitation of a minor as defined in 13 VSA §3258(b).
(x) an attempt to commit any offense listed in this subdivision (B).
(C) A person who takes up residence within this state, other than within a
correctional facility, and who has been convicted in any jurisdiction of the
United States, including a state, territory, commonwealth, the District of
Columbia, or military, federal, or tribal court, for a sex crime the elements of
which would constitute a crime under subdivision (A) or (B) of this
subdivision (10) if committed in this state.
(D) A person 18 years of age or older who resides in this state, other than in a
correctional facility, and who is currently or, prior to taking up residence
within this state, was required to register as a sex offender in any jurisdiction
of the United States, including a state, territory, commonwealth, the District
of Columbia, or military, federal, or tribal court; except that, for purposes of
this subdivision, conduct which is criminal only because of the age of the
victim shall not be considered an offense for purposes of the registry if the
perpetrator is under the age of 18 and the victim is at least 12 years old.
(E) A nonresident sex offender who crosses into Vermont and who is
employed, carries on a vocation, or is a student.

Page 50

Appendix III
Example of the Information Posted on the Internet SOR

Page 51

Appendix IV
Profile of Sample of Community-Based Offenders
Because of concerns over confidentiality, we are not providing the names or
characteristics of individual offenders in our community-based sample.
However, the following provides summary-level information on the offenders
in this sample:
Sex
56 males
1 female
Internet Status
33 on Internet
24 not on Internet
DOC Supervisory Status
22 under supervision
35 not under supervision
Place of Conviction
50 were convicted in Vermont
6 were convicted in another jurisdiction
1 was convicted both in Vermont and another jurisdiction
Vermont Statute Convicted Under56
12 were convicted of lewd and lascivious conduct
14 were convicted of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child
23 were convicted of sexual assault
1 was convicted of aggravated sexual assault
3 were convicted of sexual exploitation of a child
5 were convicted of other Vermont crimes
County of Residence as of February 18, 2010
Addison—1 offender
Bennington—2 offenders
Caledonia—2 offenders
Chittenden—6 offenders
Essex—1 offender
Franklin—7 offenders

Some offenders had convictions under multiple Vermont statutes. Also, this category does not
include out-of-state convictions.
Page 52

Appendix IV
Profile of Sample of Community-Based Offenders
Grand Isle—1 offender
Lamoille—4 offenders
Orange—4 offenders
Orleans—1 offender
Rutland—8 offenders
Washington—6 offenders
Windham—8 offenders
Windsor—3 offenders
Unknown—2 offenders
Not in Vermont—1 offender

Page 53

Appendix V
Summary of Errors in the Community-Based Statistical Sample
The following table summarizes the errors found in our statistical sample of
57 community-based sex offenders.
Table 3: Number and Types of Errors Found in Sample of 57 Community-based
Offenders

Type of Errora
Data Element

Name
Name alias
Date of birth
Date of birth alias
Sex
Race
Eye color
Height
Social Security Number
Social Security Number alias
Photo existence
Docket number
Offense literal description
Conviction date
Sentence
Age of victim
Discharge date
Registration start date
Registration end date
Lifetime Registrant flag
Annual verification letter
receipt date
Residential address
County of residence
Employer name
Employer address
School name
School address
High risk designation flag
Treatment compliance flag
Noncompliant high-risk
offender flag

30 b
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20c
20c
20c
20c
0
0
0
0
0
0

2
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
4
0
0
5
11
10
11
9
7
13
15
1
3

0
3
0
4
0
0
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
12
9
1
1
0
1

32
5
0
4
0
1
1
1
4
2
0
24
26
26
27
21
16
14
16
1
4

Error
percentage
(based on
57 records
in sample)
56%
9%
-7%
-2%
2%
2%
7%
4%
-42%
46%
46%
47%
37%
28%
25%
28%
2%
7%

0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0

3
3
4
4
0
0
4
3
0

0
0
0
1
0
0
16
2
0

3
3
5
7
0
0
20
5
0

5%
5%
9%
12%
--35%
9%
--

Number
Incomplete

Number
Inaccurate

Page 54

Number
Omitted

Number of
Records
with Errora

Appendix V
Summary of Errors in the Community-Based Statistical Sample
Type of Errora
Data Element

DOC Probation and Parole
Office
Probation and Parole Officer
SOR status
Notification
Internet category

Number
Incomplete

Number
Inaccurate

Error
percentage
(based on
57 records
in sample)
2
4%

Number of
Records
with Errora

Number
Omitted

0
0
7
7

4
5
4
4

1
0
2
2

5
5
13
13

9%
9%
23%
23%

The types of errors will not always add to the total number of records with an error because some
offenders had multiple types of errors related to a particular data element. For example, in some cases
the offender’s record may not include a conviction (incomplete) and the conviction data included in the
SOR may not be correct (inaccurate).

The incomplete error type for name was due to missing name suffixes (e.g., Jr.) or middle
names when they were available.
c
The incomplete error type for these data elements generally related to violations of
probation.

Page 55

Appendix VI
Response of the Commissioner of the Department of Public Safety

Page 56

Appendix VI
Response of the Commissioner of the Department of Public Safety

Page 57

Appendix VI
Response of the Commissioner of the Department of Public Safety

Page 58

Appendix VII
Response of the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections

Page 59

Appendix VII
Response of the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections

Page 60

Appendix VIII
Response of the Court Administrator

Page 61