The Administration of Megan’s Law in Pennsylvania · Page ii The Administration of Megan’s Law in Pennsylvania: Third Report Table of Contents A Performance Audit by the Pennsylvania

Special Performance Audit

The Administration of Megan’s Law in Pennsylvania: Third Report

January 24, 2005, through November 22, 2005

Pennsylvania Department of the Auditor General Auditor General Jack Wagner

The Administration of Page i Megan’s Law in Pennsylvania: Third Report

Table of Contents

A Special Performance Audit by the Pennsylvania Department of the Auditor General May 2006

Table of Contents Results in Brief iv

Introduction and Background 1

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 4 Objectives and Scope 4 Methodology 5

Findings and Recommendations 7

Recommended Issues for Office of Attorney General to Evaluate 8

Finding One: 10 The State Police improved its performance in administering Megan’s Law since the Department of the Auditor General released its previous report in January 2005. But the State Police did not provide its Megan’s Law Section with the authority necessary to Command wider improvements in the State Police organization and to be recognized without question as the leader in coordinating the fragmented responsibilities of other agencies.

Recommendations 17

Finding Two: 20 The State Police displayed information on its Megan’s Law Web site that accurately matched the information in its files, but that information – addresses and photographs – was not necessarily current and, in some cases, was years old. In addition, the state Police did not do enough to make its Web site userfriendly.

Recommendations 30

Page ii The Administration of Megan’s Law in Pennsylvania: Third Report

Table of Contents

A Performance Audit by the Pennsylvania Department of the Auditor General May 2006

Finding Three: 34 The State Police still did not consistently know exactly when incarcerated sexually violent predators or other offenders were released from prison. Moreover, the State Police contended that actual release dates were important only to other entities.

Recommendations 39

Finding Four: 42 The State Police did not know with certainty whether Megan’s Law registrants were in fact living at their registered addresses. Moreover, the State Police could not verify the current whereabouts of nearly 700 offenders.

Recommendations 44

Finding Five: 46 The Megan’s Law Section of the State Police did not immediately notify its local State Police stations or the local police departments when offenders changed their addresses.

Recommendations 48

Finding Six: 51 The Megan’s Law Section of the State Police did not notify local police departments or local State Police stations when offenders moved out of their jurisdictions.

Recommendation 51

Finding Seven: 53 The Megan’s Law Section of the State Police did not routinely know when the local State Police stations or local police departments had notified neighbors, schools, and child care centers that sexually violent predators lived nearby.

Recommendations 56

The Administration of Page iii Megan’s Law in Pennsylvania: Third Report

Table of Contents


Finding Eight: 58 The State Police did not inform all law enforcement agencies that it did not know the current whereabouts of nearly 700 Megan’s Law registrants for whom it had not received annual or quarterly address verifications.

Recommendations 60

Appendix A: Welcoming screens for Megan’s Law 63 Web sites

Florida 63 Maryland 64 New Jersey 65 Ohio 66 New York 67 Texas 68 Pennsylvania 69

Responses to this Audit Report Pennsylvania State Police 70 Office of Attorney General 96 Pennsylvania Department of Corrections 97 Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole 98 Sexual Offenders Assessment Board 99

Distribution List 100

Page iv The Administration of Megan’s Law in Pennsylvania: Third Report

Results in Brief


Results in Brief

The Pennsylvania State Police improved its administration of Megan’s Law during the period of January 24, 2005, though November 22, 2005, but must still do more to protect the citizens of the Commonwealth, particularly children.

In addition to agreeing with some of the changes discussed in the paragraphs that follow, the State Police improved its administration of Megan’s Law by becoming more proactive than it had been previously. Most important, as the result of amendments that the State Police and others helped to initiate following an audit by the Department of the Auditor General in 2004, the State Police listed all registered sex offenders on the Web site, not just those deemed by the courts to be “sexually violent predators.” The State Police also communicated more with other state and local entities and did better at getting registration information to the right police departments in jurisdictions where offenders resided.

Auditors for the Department of the Auditor General identified 8 findings and 25 recommendations in total during this special performance audit of the State Police’s administration of Megan’s Law. The most significant issues that underlie our findings and recommendations include the following:

§ The State Police is currently prohibited by law from posting on its Web site (www.pameganslaw.state.pa.us) the home street addresses for the vast majority of Pennsylvania’s 8,100 registered sex offenders. Therefore, the General Assembly should amend Megan’s Law to require the posting of home street addresses for all 8,100 convicted sex offenders, not just the 110 deemed by the courts to be “sexually violent predators.”

§ The State Police posted information on its Web site without informing Web users of the many specific cases for which it knew the information was outdated. At least 700 sex offenders had not verified their registration information within the time frames required by law, which is quarterly

http://www.pameganslaw.state.pa.us/

The Administration of Page v Megan’s Law in Pennsylvania: Third Report

Results in Brief


for sexually violent predators and annually for most other sex offenders. The State Police did not know the whereabouts of those 700 offenders and should have told the public that the 700 listings were outdated.

§ Even for offenders who had reported quarterly or annually to “verify” their addresses as required, the State Police did not require its local State Police stations or other local police departments to visit the registered addresses to ascertain with certainty that registrants actually lived there.

§ The State Police also did not tell the public the dates that its local field offices took offenders’ photographs for posting on the Web site. The State Police should list the dates that it takes photographs of registrants so the public can judge for itself how recent the photos are.

§ The State Police did not tell the public if victims were children, even though it was the rape and murder of a child that led to the adoption of a “Megan’s Law” in all 50 states. Furthermore, even if offenders were convicted of multiple sex crimes, the State Police listed only one per offender. The State Police should list all offenses on the Web site to make it more complete and accurate.

§ The State Police did not allow Web site users to “sort” offenders by type of offender, crime, or prison status. The public would have had to scroll through all 8,100 sex offenders to find the 110 predators, even though Megan’s Law clearly sets predators apart from the other offenders. Near the end of our audit work, the State Police said it would make this change sometime in midMay 2006.

§ The State Police did not consistently know the actual dates when offenders were released from prison, particularly in the case of offenders who had been reincarcerated at some point after they had first been named to the Megan’s Law registry. Instead, the offenders were released and then expected to report to the State Police on their own to say that their “old”

Page vi The Administration of Megan’s Law in Pennsylvania: Third Report

Results in Brief


address—that is, the prison address—had changed. Therefore, if the State Police did not know the actual release dates, the State Police could not have known how long it took offenders to report their “address changes.” Knowing release dates of every incarcerated or reincarcerated offender is vital to evaluating the effectiveness of Megan’s Law. The State Police should seek a change to the law if that is the only way to resolve this problem.

§ The State Police did not immediately notify its local State Police stations or other local police departments when offenders moved into the State Police’s or local police’s jurisdiction. Moreover, the State Police did not notify its local stations or other local police at all when offenders moved out of those jurisdictions, even though Megan’s Law amendments made it a requirement to do so. Near the end of our audit work, the State Police addressed this issue and put procedures in place to tell local police when offenders moved out of their jurisdictions.

The audit report that follows makes it clear that, although the State Police—particularly its Megan’s Law Section—holds the key role in administering Megan’s Law, the responsibility does not lie with the State Police alone. Besides the State Police, other entities with Megan’s Law responsibilities include the Department of Corrections, the Board of Probation and Parole, the Sexual Offenders Assessment Board, local police departments, county prisons, county parole offices, district attorneys, and sentencing courts.

Because of the fragmented responsibilities, we have included two recommendations specifically to address that fragmentation. First, the State Police should seek an executive order from the Governor strongly asserting that the State Police is the undisputed leader in coordinating Megan’s Law administration. Second, the Megan’s Law Section within the State Police organization should be elevated to strengthen the Section’s command authority. These two recommendations serve as the foundation for all the others.

The Administration of Page 1 Megan’s Law in Pennsylvania: Third Report Introduction

and Background


Introduction and Background

Megan’s Law is named for Megan Kanka, a sevenyearold New Jersey girl who was brutally raped and murdered in 1994 by a twiceconvicted sex offender who had moved across the street from the Kankas. The family had no knowledge of the neighbor’s past offenses and believed that, if such information had been made available, Megan’s death could have been prevented.

The public outcry following the crime led to the adoption of a “Megan’s Law” by the federal government, every state, and the District of Columbia within two years. These laws generally require the establishment of registration programs so that local law enforcement will know the whereabouts of sex offenders released into their jurisdictions, and notification programs so that the public can be warned about sex offenders living in the community.

The General Assembly in Pennsylvania passed the state’s Megan’s Law in 1995, amended it in 2000, and amended it again in 2004. 1 The purpose of the law can be summarized in its opening paragraph:

If the public is provided adequate notice and information about sexually violent predators and certain other offenders, the community can develop constructive plans to prepare themselves and their children for the offender’s release. 2

This report by Auditor General Jack Wagner is the third report that the Department of the Auditor General has released about Pennsylvania’s administration of Megan’s Law.

1. In April 2004, thenAuditor General Robert P. Casey, Jr., released an interim audit report that exposed serious

1 The Registration of Sexual Offenders Act, 42 Pa.C.S. Section 9791 et seq., is more commonly known as Megan’s Law. 2 42 Pa.C.S. Section 9791(a)(1).

Page 2 The Administration of Megan’s Law in Pennsylvania:

Introduction Third Report and Background


performance deficiencies in how the state alerted local communities to the presence of persons convicted of sex crimes who were required by Megan’s Law to register with the State Police. 3

At the time of that report, the law allowed the public to know the names and precise addresses of only a fraction of the 6,901 registered offenders—in particular, just 27 offenders whom the courts said fit into the higherrisk category of “sexually violent predators.” Auditors had to limit their review to evaluating community notification procedures for the even smaller subset of those 27 predators, or 17 in total, who had been released from prison. The report revealed that, even with that small number of predators, the State Police repeatedly issued wrong, late, and ineffective notices to communities when sexually violent predators moved into local neighborhoods.

2. In January 2005, Auditor General Casey released his second report on the state’s administration of Megan’s Law. 4 The report was released without an assessment of certain data that the Auditor General had sued the State Police to obtain. In the meantime, however, the interim report had resulted in significant changes to the law, 5 including a change requiring the Pennsylvania State Police to post on its Web site the names of all registered sexual offenders, not just the sexually violent predators. The state had addressed some of the other problems identified in the interim report as well, but serious deficiencies still existed. In particular, no single agency under the Governor’s jurisdiction had overall control of the fragmented administration of Megan’s Law or general authority to correct performance deficiencies.

3 Community Notification of Sexually Violent Predators in Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Department of the Auditor General, April 2004. 4 The Administration of Megan’s Law in Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Department of the Auditor General, January 2005. 5 On November 24, 2004, Pennsylvania Governor Edward G. Rendell signed Act 152 of 2004, which contained numerous amendments to Megan’s Law.

The Administration of Page 3 Megan’s Law in Pennsylvania: Third Report Introduction

and Background


3. Auditor General Jack Wagner, under a November 2005 agreement settling the litigation referenced above, was able to complete the assessment of data missing from the prior reports by obtaining the outstanding information from the State Police with the assistance of the Office of Attorney General. Accordingly, this report discusses whether the State Police followed prescribed procedures for providing local police departments with notice not just about sexually violent predators, but also about other sex offenders. The report also discusses whether the related information maintained and displayed on the State Police’s Megan’s Law Web site is complete and accurate.


Objectives, Scope, Third Report and Methodology


Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The Department of the Auditor General carried out this special performance audit in order to provide an independent assessment of how the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania fulfilled certain requirements of the Registration of Sexual Offenders Act, more commonly known as Megan’s Law. We conducted our work according to generally accepted government auditing standards as issued by the Comptroller General of the United States.

Objectives and Scope

The period under review includes the 10month period of January 24, 2005, through November 22, 2005, but references to other periods may be made throughout this report.

The Pennsylvania State Police (State Police), which maintains the Megan’s Law registry, has the most visible role related to community notification requirements and is the lead state agency in administering the law. Therefore, we focused primarily on specific duties performed by the State Police and, in particular, its Megan’s Law Section.

We had two specific objectives:

1. Determine if the State Police followed prescribed procedures for providing notice about sexual offenders and sexually violent predators to local police departments, focusing on the following issues:

§ Did the State Police provide timely notification to local police departments regarding sexual offenders and sexually violent predators who lived, worked, or attended school within the local police departments’ jurisdictions?

§ Did the information provided by the State Police contain complete and accurate information?

The Administration of Page 5 Megan’s Law in Pennsylvania: Third Report Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology


§ Did the State Police take adequate steps to ensure that all sexual offenders and sexually violent predators completed their address verifications, reverifications, and changes in a timely manner?

2. Determine if the Megan’s Law registry information maintained and displayed on the State Police’s Web site, currently located at http://www.pameganslaw.state.pa.us, was complete and accurate, focusing on the following issues:

§ Did the information about sexual offenders and sexually violent predators displayed on the Web site— such as name, address, and place of employment— agree with the information contained on those individuals’ registration and address verification forms as maintained by the State Police?

§ Were the photographs of sexual offenders and sexually violent predators displayed on the Web site up to date, and did they represent each individual’s current appearance?

§ Did the State Police have information that should have been displayed on the Web site but was not?

Methodology

To carry out these objectives, auditors randomly selected a total sample of 50 Megan’s Law registrants from five separate lists provided to us on December 16, 2005, by the State Police:

(List 1) All sexual offenders who were registered under Megan’s Law as of July 1, 2005. There were 5,734 names on this list, and these names were among those that could be viewed by the public on the Megan’s Law Web site registry.





(List 2) All sexually violent predators who were registered under Megan’s Law as of July 1, 2005. There were 93 names on this list, and these names also were among those that could be viewed by the public on the Web site registry.

(List 3) All individuals who were registered as sexual offenders or sexually violent predators under Megan’s Law as of July 1, 2005, but who were no longer living in Pennsylvania, or had completed their required term of registration, or had died. There were 980 names on this “inactive” list, and the names were not among those published on the Web site.

(List 4) All outofstate individuals who were registered as sexual offenders or sexually violent predators in their home states, but who had established their residence, become employed, or enrolled as a student in Pennsylvania as of July 1, 2005. There were 1,415 names on this list, and they were among those on the Web site registry.

(List 5) All individuals who failed or refused to complete an address reverification as of July 1, 2005. These 698 names were drawn from List 1, List 2, and List 4 and therefore were among those that could be viewed by the public on the Web site, but the names had no special designation to indicate that registration was not current.

Overall, then, the public Web site as of July 1, 2005, included the combined 7,242 names from Lists 1, 2, and 4.

Auditors prepared checklists in advance from which to ask questions about how the State Police and its Megan’s Law Section met certain requirements of Megan’s Law as they pertained to each of the 50 registrants. To answer the questions, the State Police copied the files it maintained for


and Methodology


each of the 50 sampled registrants and provided the copies to the Office of Attorney General.

The Office of Attorney General acted as intermediary between the State Police and the auditors by reviewing the files and answering the auditors’ questions about information contained in the copied files. The questions were asked primarily during a series of meetings between representatives of the Department of the Auditor General, the Pennsylvania State Police, the Office of Attorney General, and the Governor’s Office of General Counsel. These meetings occurred between January 4, 2006, and January 19, 2006. The auditors did not have possession of the files or view them directly.

We followed up with questions through March 31, 2006, to complete our field work. We subsequently provided a draft of this report to the State Police, the Office of Attorney General, the Department of Corrections, the Board of Probation and Parole, and the Sexual Offenders Assessment Board for their review and comment. All responses are included in this report beginning on page 70.

Findings and Recommendations

We developed 8 findings during our review of the State Police’s performance for the period under review, and we present 25 recommendations to address the issues we identified. In so doing, we expect to work collaboratively with the State Police to meet an important government auditing standard that promotes government accountability:

Providing continuing attention to significant findings and recommendations is important to ensure that the benefits of audit work are realized. Ultimately, the benefits of an audit occur when officials of the audited entity take meaningful and effective corrective action in response to the auditors’ findings




and recommendations. Officials of the audited entity are responsible for resolving audit findings and recommendations directed to them and for having a process to track their status. If the audited entity does not have such a process, auditors may wish to establish their own process. 6

Recommended issues for Office of Attorney General to Evaluate

The 2004 amendments to Megan’s Law require the Attorney General to conduct and report on an annual performance audit of the Commonwealth’s compliance with Megan’s Law. The first such report must be released to the public by November 23, 2006. 7

Areas of concern that we could not address in our report because of the limited scope of our work include the following, which we believe should be considered by the Attorney General’s office in its future audits:

§ Frequency of community notification. Notification about offenders classified as sexually violent predators is made to neighbors, schools, day care centers, and businesses located in the same neighborhood as the predator. But as long as that predator remains at the same address, notification is not made again, even though neighbors and businesses may change.

§ Sending of court orders to State Police. When Pennsylvania courts issue orders that classify certain sex offenders as sexually violent predators, the courts are now required to send copies of those orders directly to the State Police. We learned during our audit work that the Megan’s

6 Standard 7.30, Government Auditing Standards, 2003 revision, U.S. Government Accountability Office. 7 42 Pa.C.S. Section 9799.8.


and Methodology


Law Section often had to request such court orders, resulting in the potential for delayed notification to communities.

§ Classification of sex offenders and assessments of sexually violent predators. Megan’s Law provides for registrants to be classified as either sex offenders or sexually violent predators. The sexually violent predator classification is more serious because predators have been determined by courts, after evaluation by the state’s Sexual Offenders Assessment Board, to have “a mental abnormality or personality disorder that makes the person likely to engage in predatory sexually violent offenses.” 8 Yet the number of sexually violent predators is very small, less than 1.3 percent compared to the total number of offenders at the time of our review, even though the crimes of both groups often may seem comparable. Other states, such as New York and New Jersey, use different classifications based on the offender’s risk of reoffending. We recommend a thorough analysis of Pennsylvania’s classification and assessment process.

8 42 Pa.C.S. Section 9792.


Finding One Third Report


Finding One The State Police improved its performance in administering Megan’s Law since the Department of the Auditor General released its previous report in January 2005. But the State Police did not provide its Megan’s Law Section with the authority necessary to command wider improvements in the State Police organization and to be recognized without question as the leader in coordinating the fragmented responsibilities of other agencies.

Improvements Made

The Megan’s Law Section of the State Police made improvements since January 2005. We base this statement on interviews with the Megan’s Law Section commander and the assistant counsel for the State Police, and we present four examples below. In the case of the first example, we have also corroborated the information via actual review of the State Police’s Web site.

1. The State Police complied with Megan’s Law amendments of 2004 by adding thousands of registrants—not just sexually violent predators—to its Megan’s Law Web site.

In accordance with the Megan’s Law amendments that resulted from the Department of the Auditor General’s previous reports, the State Police began listing the names of all registrants on its Web site—not just the small number of sexually violent predators. This change is significant.

There were 7,242 names that could be viewed by the public as of July 1, 2005. By midFebruary 2006, the number of names posted on the Web site had increased to more than 8,000. 9

9 As of April 3, 2006, the Megan’s Law Web site, on its “Frequently Asked Questions” page, told the public that, “As of December 2004, there were over 7,100 registered sex offenders in the state of Pennsylvania.” We recommend that the State Police update this number at least monthly.

The Administration of Page 11 Megan’s Law in Pennsylvania: Third Report Finding One


2. The State Police took additional steps to ensure that accurate Megan’s Law registration information was sent to the police offices in the correct jurisdictions.

The Department of the Auditor General’s April 2004 and January 2005 reports revealed that such was not always the case. Depending on where registrants might reside, work, or attend school, the police offices with jurisdiction could be either local police departments or the State Police’s own local stations. Previously, we found that in some instances either the Megan’s Law Section or the local State Police stations did not get the jurisdictions right.

This time, based on answers provided to our questions about the 50 registrants’ files in our sample, we learned of no instances in which the Megan’s Law Section electronically notified a police office in the wrong jurisdiction after receiving the offender’s initial registration form. For changes of address or employment, as opposed to firsttime address registrations, we did find three instances in which the State Police notified police offices in the incorrect jurisdictions but then followed up to correct.

The State Police said that, to ensure accuracy, it had contacted police offices to verify jurisdictions. In addition, to verify the accuracy of registration information about registrants on probation or parole, the Megan’s Law Section sent lists to county probation and parole offices to ask for verification. Megan’s Law Section officials said they received few corrections, which evidenced to them that their registration information was correct.

We note that the Megan’s Law Section did not have authority to command county officials, local police department officials, or even other State Police officials at the local State Police stations to respond to the Section about Megan’s Law matters. Nor did the Megan’s Law Section occupy a level on the State Police organizational chart that would have compelled the heightened response




and elevated cooperation that often accompany higher placements.

3. The State Police started a procedure to document when it received various Megan’s Law forms.

When it receives firsttime registration forms, the State Police has five days to notify the correct police offices of each registrant’s residence, place of employment, and school address. In the spring of 2004, the Megan’s Law Section began using a date stamp to document when it received those forms. By using a date stamp, the Megan’s Law Section said it can now calculate whether it makes timely notifications. Prior to implementing this procedure, the State Police was unable to determine when registration information was actually received.

For notification of offenders’ address changes, the State Police contends that the law does not specify time frames, but the Megan’s Law Section said it nonetheless used the date stamp on receipt of change of address forms as well.

4. The State Police added a feature to its internal database to identify sexually violent predators whose registrations are pending their release from prison.

Our previous reports disclosed instances in which neighbors were not alerted—or were not alerted promptly—to the presence of sexually violent predators as the law requires. The State Police attributed such problems in part to the courts’ not being required to send the names of sexually violent predators directly to the State Police. As a result, another amendment to Megan’s Law now requires the courts, whenever they issue an order deeming



an offender to be a sexually violent predator, to send such orders immediately to the State Police. 10

With the change in law, the State Police should now receive the court orders. However, because the courts must decide which offenders are sexually violent predators prior to sentencing them, the orders most likely will arrive at the Megan’s Law Section when incarcerated predators just begin serving their sentences and, thus, before the registration process takes place at a time closer to release.

The Megan’s Law Section wanted a way to “hold” the court orders, yet keep them within easy reach to prevent the predator designation from being overlooked at the time of actual registration. Accordingly, the Megan’s Law Section told us it enters court order information upon receipt but, at the same time, stores it for expedient retrieval in an “inactive pending registration” file that was added to the internal database. That way, when registration forms from any Megan’s Law offender—sexually violent predator or not—subsequently arrive at the State Police, the Megan’s Law Section should know if the registrant is a predator simply by querying the database. Of course, if the courts fail to send the court orders as required, this process will not work. In practice, the Megan’s Law Section said that, although it did receive court orders, it did not know how many it should have received or how many it may not have received.

Again, the Megan’s Law Section does not occupy a top level position on the State Police’s organization chart. Because toplevel positions can automatically compel expedited responses and exceptional cooperation, elevating the organizational level of the Megan’s Law Section should improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the State Police’s performance.

10 42 Pa.C.S. Section 9795.4(e)(4).




Greater Command Authority Needed for Megan’s Law Section of the State Police

As we have just discussed, the Megan’s Law Section, and accordingly the administration of Megan’s Law, would benefit from an elevation of the Section’s within the State Police organization. This theme will be repeated throughout this report and, thus, more detailed background is helpful here:

The Megan’s Law Section of the State Police is a small eight person unit (that number includes four administrative/clerical positions, two of which are temporary) in the Operational Records Division, which is part of the Bureau of Records and Identification. That bureau is one of about a dozen State Police bureaus, and it operates under one of four deputy commissioners, all of whom report to the State Police Commissioner.

The Megan’s Law Section does not have command authority over the 90 local State Police stations whose troopers carry out Megan’s Law community notification duties in their jurisdictions. The lieutenant who commands the Megan’s Law Section does not report to the deputy commissioner who has operational authority over the 90 local State Police stations.

The State Police is not the only entity responsible for keeping communities safe via Megan’s Law. To put the role of the State Police and its Megan’s Law Section into proper context, following is a list of the state and local entities whose coordination and cooperation are critical to the effective administration of Megan’s Law, starting with the State Police. Also included is a summary, not allinclusive, of related duties.

§ The State Police plays the lead role in Megan’s Law and is the most visible state agency. Both inside and outside of the State Police organization, the Megan’s Law Section is the hub for administering the law’s requirements— maintaining the registry and communicating with all other entities in one way or another, including the State Police



officers in the field, other State Police personnel such as those who maintain the Megan’s Law Web site, and the entities or officials listed below.

§ The Sexual Offenders Assessment Board (SOAB), appointed by the Governor and compensated by the state, assesses offenders to determine if they should be classified as sexually violent predators. 11

§ District attorneys receive the SOAB assessment reports and are responsible for scheduling court hearings during which the assessed individuals have a right to be heard.

§ The sentencing courts, prior to sentencing offenders, rule on whether the district attorneys have proven for the Commonwealth that the assessed individuals are sexually violent predators. The courts are required to send copies of sexually violent predator designations to the State Police. The courts also inform predators and other offenders of their Megan’s Law registration obligations.

§ The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and its prisons, as well as county correctional facilities, are responsible for registering incarcerated Megan’s Law offenders and releasing them from custody only after the State Police communicates that it has received the registration information.

§ The Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole and its field offices, as well as county probation and parole offices, should make sure that Megan’s Law offenders are registered and, also, should monitor their whereabouts.

11 During our meetings with the State Police when we discussed the files of sexually violent predators, we found that 8 of 10 sampled predators had not signed one or more of their registration forms to certify they had attended monthly counseling sessions in programs approved by SOAB as Megan’s Law requires. When we asked State Police officials if they notified SOAB of these instances of possible noncompliance, the officials said they did not. We strongly recommend that the Megan’s Law Section communicate this information to SOAB so that SOAB can follow up to ensure that predators receive their mandated counseling.




§ Local police departments, in jurisdictions where sexually violent predators reside, work, and/or attend school, are responsible for notifying school districts, child care centers, county children and youth agencies, and neighbors of the predator. In jurisdictions where offenders who are not sexually violent predators reside, work, or attend school, the local police departments simply receive notice—but don’t notify others—that the offenders reside, work, or attend school there. (The State Police is the entity that provides the notice to the local police departments in all these cases but, if there are no local police departments in the applicable jurisdictions, State Police officers themselves notify the community members about the predators.)

In short, the State Police and, in particular its Megan’s Law Section, cannot administer the law by itself. Yet that is what the eightperson Megan’s Law Section is, in effect, forced to do.

This conclusion is not new. The main finding in the January 2005 report was that no single Commonwealth agency under the Governor’s jurisdiction had overall control of the fragmented administration of Megan’s Law or general authority to correct deficiencies. The report recommended that the Governor’s Office appoint an official to be accountable for all Megan’s Law operations.

Now, more than ever, it is time for the Commonwealth to resolve that problem. The number of sex offenders in the Megan’s Law registry is 8,000 and growing, and this report says once again that Megan’s Law is still not working as it should be. The public expects the law and those who enforce it to protect community residents, children in particular. Pennsylvanians deserve and are entitled to greater improvements.

Improvements are possible if the Commonwealth makes itself more accountable. The Megan’s Law Section of the State



Police must therefore be elevated to a higher level, and the State Police should do so. At the same time, the State Police should seek an executive order from the Governor to assert more strongly that the Megan’s Law Section is the lead entity to coordinate the actions of Commonwealth agencies that share in administering the law.

Recommendations

1. The State Police should elevate its Megan’s Law Section to a higher level within the State Police organization, with a direct reporting relationship to either a deputy commissioner or the State Police Commissioner.

2. The State Police should seek an executive order from the Governor more strongly asserting that the Megan’s Law Section is the lead entity to coordinate the actions of Commonwealth agencies that share in Megan’s Law administration.

3. The State Police should send each of the applicable courts a notice at least annually, beginning now, to emphasize the importance of sending sexually violent predator court orders to the State Police immediately upon issuance.

4. The State Police should send other entities notices as necessary to emphasize the importance of expedited responses and to compel cooperation beyond that which is usual, normal, and customary as they share in carrying out Megan’s Law requirements.




Response of the State Police to Finding One and Comments from the Department of the Auditor General

The State Police’s official written response to this report is included verbatim beginning on page 70, and the response to Finding One begins on page 71.

In summary, the State Police said that the Megan’s Law Section is properly placed within the Bureau of Records and Identification at State Police headquarters and that the Section “regularly communicates with and receives support from the Deputy Commissioner of Staff and may report directly to the Commissioner for significant Megan’s Law issues.” The response further noted that the Megan’s Law Section is assisted in its duties by four Megan’s Law Field Liaisons who have specialized knowledge of Megan’s Law.

The State Police agreed that improvements were needed regarding communications with the Sexual Assessment Offenders Board, the courts, and other entities. Furthermore, the State Police said it had identified these issues and provided information or communicated regularly with the Sexual Offenders Assessment Board, the district attorneys’ offices, court offices, the Board of Probation and Parole, Department of Corrections, county prisons, county probation and parole departments, and local police departments. Because of these ongoing communications, the State Police said that the Megan’s Law Section “has developed good working relationships with these departments which has [led] to the [Section’s] receiving expedited responses and cooperation.”

Comments from the Department of the Auditor General: Our audit work demonstrates that, even with the “ongoing communications” between the Megan’s Law Section and other entities, there were serious deficiencies because the administration of Megan’s Law is so fragmented. The weaknesses caused by this fragmentation would be more



successfully addressed if the Megan’s Law Section were a more prominent leader with greater command authority and recognition. This leadership is critical.

Accordingly, our position and recommendations remain the same:

(1) The Megan’s Law Section must be elevated.

(2) The State Police should seek an executive order from the Governor acknowledging the Megan’s Law Section as the undisputed leader in coordinating the administration of Megan’s Law in the Commonwealth. .


Finding Two Third Report


Finding Two The State Police displayed information on its Megan’s Law Web site that accurately matched the information in its files, but that information—addresses and photographs—was not necessarily current and, in some cases, was years old. In addition, the State Police did not do enough to make its Web site userfriendly.

Our objective related to the Megan’s Law Web site at http://www.pameganslaw.state.pa.us was to determine if the information maintained and displayed was complete and accurate.

For sexually violent predators, Megan’s Law says that only the information below can be posted: 12

§ name and any aliases § year of birth § the street address, city, county, and zip code of all

residences § the street address, city, county, and zip code of any

institution or location at which the predator is enrolled as a student

§ the city, county, and zip code of any employment location § a photograph of the predator, which must be updated not

less than annually § a description of the offense or offenses which triggered the

application of Megan’s Law § the date of the offense and conviction, if available

For other sexual offenders, no street addresses are published. Instead, only the information that follows can be listed: 13

§ name and any aliases § year of birth § the city, county, and zip code of all residences

12 42 Pa.C.S. Section 9798.1(c)(1). 13 42 Pa.C.S. Section 9798.1(c)(2).


The Administration of Page 21 Megan’s Law in Pennsylvania: Third Report Finding Two


§ the city, county, and zip code of any institution or location at which the offender is enrolled as a student

§ the city, county, and zip code of any employment location § a photograph of the offender, which shall be updated not

less than annually § a description of the offense or offenses which triggered the

application of Megan’s Law § the date of the offense and conviction, if available

The Pittsburgh PostGazette published several articles about deficiencies in Megan’s Law related to the state’s Web site, confirming what any user of the Web site will discover quickly.

Almost anyone in Pennsylvania can live next to one of the state’s 7,800 convicted sex offenders and not know it because the state releases only their counties, hometowns and ZIP codes on its Megan’s Law Web site. Street addresses are provided for only a relative handful—[the sexually violent predators]—twothirds of whom are in prison. The ones who are out on the streets have addresses listed only for their homes, not their workplaces or schools. 14

Adding street addresses for allMegan’s Law registrants would require another change in the law. At the time of this report, various bills related to Megan’s Law were pending action in both the state Senate and House of Representatives. If passed and enacted, at least three of those bills would require the state to post more specific information currently not allowed on the Web site.

In our own review of the Web site, we focused on three questions, which we discuss in the following pages.

14 Fuoco, Michael A., “Making a mess of Megan’s Law in Pennsylvania,” Pittsburgh PostGazette, November 27, 2005.




Question 1. Did the information about sexual offenders and sexually violent predators displayed on the Web site—such as name, address, and place of employment—agree with the information contained on those individuals’ registration and address verification forms as maintained by the State Police?

Conclusion. For the 50 registrants we sampled, we found that, yes, the State Police displayed information that agreed with the individuals’ registration and address verification forms that the State Police had in its files. However, we also found that, unknown to the public, the information was in some cases outdated and, on occasion, years old.

Question 2. Were the photographs of sexual offenders and sexually violent predators displayed on the Web site up to date, and did they represent each individual’s current appearance?

Conclusion. We could not make that determination, and the State Police could not assure the public that all photographs were up to date and represented each individual’s current—or even recent—appearance. The photos may have been the most recent that the State Police had on file, but we could not determine whether they were taken as recently or as frequently as the law requires. From a public perspective, the date accompanying each photograph was misleading because it did not indicate the date the picture was taken. Instead, the date indicated only the date that the State Police had entered the photograph into its registry.



Question 3. Did the State Police have information that should have been displayed on the Web site but was not?

Conclusion. Yes, the State Police did have such information but, as previously discussed, Megan’s Law does not allow that additional information to be displayed. The law, however, would not have prohibited the State Police from making the Web site more userfriendly and also more meaningful to the public.

More details about each of the three conclusions follow:

1. For the 50 registrants in our sample, information on the Web site agreed with the information that the State Police had on file, but the information was sometimes old. In fact, as of July 1, 2005, there were nearly 700 addresses on the Web site that were not current and, therefore, potentially incorrect.

Megan’s Law states that the State Police should “strive to ensure the information contained on the Internet website is accurate, and that the data therein is revised and updated as appropriate in a timely and efficient manner.” 15 In the case of the 50 Megan’s Law registrants whose files we sampled, we found that that the Web site did indeed agree with the registration information on file with the State Police.

The problem was this: The address information in the State Police files was not always current—and in some cases years old—for registrants who had not verified their addresses as required by Megan’s Law, which is quarterly for sexually violent predators 16 and annually for other offenders. 17

15 42 Pa.C.S. Section 9798.1(b)(4). 16 42 Pa.C.S. Section 9796(a). 17 42 Pa.C.S. Section 9796(b).




In fact, as of July 1, 2005, according to the State Police, there were 698 offenders who had not verified their addresses as the law requires.

Stated another way, the State Police could not confirm the whereabouts of nearly 700 sex offenders whose published addresses were outdated. On the Web site, users who viewed any one of those names would believe that each address was up to date, and the State Police did not mark any of the names to indicate otherwise. Instead, the State Police published an overall disclaimer that Megan’s Law requires anyway, 18 stating that “Some of the information contained on this website may be outdated or inaccurate.”

We asked State Police officials why they did not tell the public that the 700 registrants were noncompliant in confirming their listed addresses as required. In response, the officials said the matter was complicated by a lawsuit which had been won by an offender.

In the lawsuit, the offender had argued that the State Police should not be permitted to consider him to be noncompliant. The court agreed, ruling that the State Police could not prove that it sent—or that the offender received—a verification form. 19 The State Police now contends that, as a result of that case, it cannot label offenders as “noncompliant” in those same circumstances.

Megan’s Law has been since updated so that, effective January 1, 2006, proof of sending or receiving verification forms is no longer required by either party.

We believe that, on the Web site, this “noncompliant” label can be avoided even for registrants prior to January 1, 2006, if the State Police instead simply states that it does not have current address verification on file for each of the

18 42 Pa.C.S. Section 9798.1(b)(3). 19 Commonwealth v. Salter, 858 A.2d 610 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2004).



700 registrants in question. That way, the public can be alerted while, at the same time, the offender is not deemed to be noncompliant.

2. The nearly 8,000 photographs posted on the Web site were not accompanied by dates that would inform the public how recently the photographs had been taken.

For most of the photographs, the State Police published the date when officials scanned the pictures into the registry, a date that tells the public nothing of value. As for the rest of the photographs—about 1,200—the word “unknown” appeared after “date photo entered.” In response to our questions about that issue, State Police officials wrote to us that “a technology problem was reporting ‘unknown’ below several offender photographs.”

The dates that photographs were entered into the State Police’s database or into the Web site registry indicated little to auditors during their review. Even more important, however, is that such dates mean nothing to the public. At worst, the public could be misled into thinking that the “date entered,” if recent, means that the photograph is recent as well.

Web site users have every right to expect they will view current or recent photographs, especially since Megan’s Law requires photographs to be taken quarterly for predators and annually for other registrants.

State Police officials told us they plan to add an explanation to the Web site to tell users what the dates on the photos mean. But an explanation will not be helpful if the dates simply continue to chronicle when an employee scans the photographs into the registry.

The deficiencies related to photographs were discussed in the previous report dated January 2005. At that time, the




State Police published the photographs of fewer than 50 sexually violent predators. Not one of those photographs was updated during the entire course of field work at that time, which lasted more than a year. The report recommended that the State Police should ensure the information on the Web site is current and accurate, that photos are up to date, and that the site lists the dates that the published photos were taken.

3. Megan’s Law limited the State Police from including more specific information on the Web site, such as the gender or age of victims, or the physical characteristics of offenders, such as height, weight, and hair and eye color. But those limitations should not have kept the State Police from making the Web site easier to use.

We have already pointed out deficiencies that were also reported by the Pittsburgh PostGazette, and we noted that the law itself prohibits the posting of full addresses for most Megan’s Law registrants. Without a change in the law, the State Police can do no more than it has already done related to posting specific street addresses.

There are improvements that the State Police can make to its Web site without changing the law. Not only have we and the PostGazette identified these areas that need immediate improvement, but any user of the Web site will be able to identify them also. Perhaps most significant— and immediately noticeable—is the inability to conduct meaningful searches on the Web site.

Being able to search for registrants for whom the State Police does not have current address verifications, for example, would alert the public to watch more closely for these offenders, particularly since the State Police might need the public’s assistance to learn of the offenders’ current addresses. But this search option is not available.



Also not available is the ability to easily distinguish sexually violent predators from other offenders. The ability to make this distinction is both basic and critical because Megan’s Law makes it clear that sexually violent predators are the most serious of all offenders. Specifically, sexually violent predators “pose a high risk of engaging in further offenses even after being released from incarceration or commitment,” 20 they are persons who have “a mental abnormality or personality disorder that makes [them] likely to engage in predatory sexually violent offenses,” 21 and they must verify their addresses more frequently than most other sex offenders.

“Protection of the public from this type of offender is a paramount governmental interest,” 22 states the law.

During most of our field work, the State Police repeatedly told us that its Web site contained everything that Megan’s Law required and disagreed that users should be able to complete a separate search for predators. The commander of the Megan’s Law Section reasoned that Web site users might feel a false sense of security if they focused only on the predators, and she did not want the public to be less cautious about any one registrant than another.

The Pittsburgh PostGazette, in the article previously cited, reported that when the State Police refused the paper’s request for a separate listing of the predators, the only way to get those names was to click on the name of every registrant listed.

We assigned an auditor to do that very thing. It took nearly 21 hours to determine there were just 112 predators among the 8,000 registrants in total.

20 42 Pa.C.S. Section 9791(a)(2). 21 42 Pa.C.S. Section 9792. 22 42 Pa.C.S. Section 9791(a)(2).

A guide for the public: Comparing Megan’s Law Web sites

What can I find out about each registered sex offender posted on the Web site?

→ √ = Yes Approximate number of names that

could be viewed as of April 3, 2006 8,000 37,500 4,400 2,000 5,600 14,100 25,000+

PA FL MD NJ NY OH TX Name? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Aliases? √ √ √ √ √ √ Year of birth? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Home street address of each listed offender? √ √ √ √ √ √ Home city of offender? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Home zip code of offender? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Home county of offender? √ √ √ √ √ √ Work address of offender? √ √ √ √ School address of offender? √ √ √ √ Gender? √ √ √ √ √ Race? √ √ √ √ √ Height/weight? √ √ √ √ √ Eye color? √ √ √ √ √ Hair color? √ √ √ √ √ Distinguishing marks? √ √ √ √ Vehicle? √ √ Type (or risk) of offender? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Current Megan’s Law registration? √ √ √ √

Can I sort by any of the following ways to make my search easier? √ = Yes PA FL MD NJ NY OH TX First or last name? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ City of residence? √ √ √ √ County of residence? √ √ √ √ √ √ Zip code of residence? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Distance from some location? √ √ Type of offender? √ √ Age of offender? √ √ Vehicle of offender? √ Megan’s Law registration not current? √ √

What can I find out about the sex offender’s offense? √ = Yes PA FL MD NJ NY OH TX Type of offense committed? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Details of the offense? √ √ Age or sex of victim? √ √ √ √



While it is reasonable for an auditor to perform such a timeintensive task as part of an audit test, or for a reporter to do so as part of a story, the public should not be expected to spend hours and hours finding information that the law sets up as a separate category.

By the end of our field work, the State Police had changed its position and said it would add the option to search for predators separately. As of April 3, 2006, that option was not yet available.

We further evaluated the Pennsylvania Megan’s Law Web site by comparing it to those of neighboring states— Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, and New York—and of Florida and Texas, both of which were rated highly by Parents for Megan’s Law, a national advocacy group. The table on the preceding page shows that, based on a set of questions that we developed to review each site, Pennsylvania’s site ranks near the bottom when compared with those other states.

We also looked at the opening screens for those same states (see Appendix A). The other states all projected a different user orientation than Pennsylvania did on its opening screen, which was dominated by the following:

WARNING ANY PERSON WHO USES THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN TO THREATEN, INTIMIDATE, OR HARASS THE REGISTRANT OR THEIR FAMILY, OR WHO OTHERWISE MISUSES THIS INFORMATION, MAY BE SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION OR CIVIL LIABILITY.

Megan’s Law requires, almost verbatim, that this warning be posted on the Web site. 23 But the law does not require this warning to dominate the opening screen in a way that makes the Web site appear both intimidating and

23 42 Pa.C.S. Section 9798.1(b)(2).




unfriendly. Other states have similar provisions, and New Jersey, in fact, uses almost the same warning but places it at the bottom of the page.

Recommendations

5. The State Police should seek changes to Megan’s Law to allow more meaningful information on its Web site. At a minimum, street addresses for all offenders would help the public know of offenders living nearby, not just within entire zip codes. Also, physical characteristics of the offender—height, weight, hair and eye color—would help prevent misidentifications, while age and gender of victims and description of offenses would alert the public to offenders’ patterns.

6. The State Police should develop more search options for the variable details posted on the Web site registry. Search options should include: sexually violent predators only, sexual offenders only, offenders residing within certain distances that the Web site user specifies, offenders for whom the State Police does not have current addresses, offenders who are in prison or under other supervision, and offenders who are new additions to the registry.

7. The State Police should ensure that its Web site clearly tells the public the date that each offender’s photograph was taken. This recommendation is repeated from our January 2005 report.

8. The State Police should develop a method by which Web site users can easily and clearly identify offenders whose addresses—home, work, and school—may not be up to date when the State Police has not received quarterly or annual confirmation of those addresses. The method could be a separate listing, a notation, and/or a search option.



9. The State Police should develop an opening screen for its Web site that encourages use of the site with a more user friendly opening screen. This action can be accomplished easily by moving the warning to the end of the opening page so that readers will scroll through the more helpful information first.

Response of the State Police to Finding Two and Comments from the Department of the Auditor General

The State Police’s official written response to this report is included verbatim beginning on page 70, and the response to Finding Two begins on page 73.

In summary, the State Police said that the information on its Web site is the most current information reported by each offender, that some offenders do not comply with reporting requirements, and that in such cases the State Police has only that last known information to post. The State Police also noted that, because of its decision to post this last known information, the State Police has learned “the whereabouts of many offenders from web user tips.”

Regarding the photographs of offenders on the Web site, the State Police said that, whenever the Megan’s Law Section receives an updated photograph of an offender, the photograph is scanned into the Megan’s Law registry and appears on the Megan’s Law Web site the following business day. Therefore, the Web site’s photograph is “the most recent photograph reported to the [Megan’s Law Section] and in its files for the offender.” The State Police also stated that the information on the Web site “is updated daily with all information from that business day.” The response also said that new technology used after January 2005 allows the Web site to be automatically updated based on information extracted directly from the Megan Law’s registry. “This new technology process




ensures that the information posted on the website is timely and accurate,” said the State Police.

Finally, the State Police said that it “posts all the information on the website that the law permits,” that the Megan’s Law Section was modifying the information it collects so that it is prepared to post additional information if the law is amended, and that the State Police had decided to allow Web users to separate sexually violent predators from other offenders.

Our comments: Our findings and recommendations remain the same.

§ The State Police must do more. Web site information is often outdated because offenders have not verified or updated their addresses as required. The State Police must take greater initiative to find the offenders and bring the information current. This initiative is important to protect members of the public who, because of outdated information on the Web site, may not be aware that an offender lives nearby.

§ The State Police should tell the public the date that “current” information was reported. Although the State Police noted that the information on the Web site is “the most current information reported” by that offender, we found that “the most current information reported” could be several years old. In fact, for one case in our sample, “the most current information reported” was from the year 2000. There is a simple fix: The State Police should tell the public exactly when that “most current information” was reported.

§ The State Police should tell the public when offenders’ photographs were taken. Offenders’ photographs are posted on the Web site for the public. It is essential for the public to know when the photographs were taken—not



when they were posted—so the public can judge for itself whether the photo is recent.

§ The State Police should tell the public when new information is posted. There are at least 8,000 names on the Web site. A Web site user should not have to scroll through all 8,000 names to try to determine which ones might have been added from one day to the next. The State Police should use a clearly defined identifier or symbol— “new” or “just added”—to tell users which listings are new.

§ The State Police should seek changes in the law as necessary. We have already noted that changes in the law are necessary to add certain new information: street addresses of all offenders, not just predators; probation/parole status; status of offender (compliant or noncompliant); offenders’ physical characteristics; age and gender of victim(s); and more detail about offenses. In the meantime, it appears that the law does permit the State Police to list more about offenses than it lists now. For example, in cases of multiple offenses, the State Police lists only one. In other cases, the State Police provides only a partial statutory reference to the Crimes Code, such as listing rape as “[Section] 3121 Rape” when a more specific listing such as “[Section] 3121(c) – Rape of a Child” would provide the public with more specific and thus more meaningful information. Nor does the State Police allow searches by types of offenses or by other categories that would allow a better utilization of the information it has the authority to publish.

§ The State Police should allow Web site users to separate predators from other offenders. Near the end of our field work, the State Police reversed its earlier position on this matter and said it is now planning to allow users to sort predators from other offenders.


Finding Three Third Report


Finding Three The State Police still did not consistently know exactly when incarcerated sexually violent predators or other offenders were released from prison. Moreover, the State Police contended that actual release dates were important only to other entities.

Of the 50 Megan’s Law registrants whose files we sampled, 20 had their registration forms completed by either state or county prison officials, meaning that the offenders would have been in prison. However, we could not determine the length of time that passed between the completion of those forms at the prisons and when those offenders were released into the community.

Despite our repeated attempts to learn the actual release dates of the 20 offenders, the State Police indicated that it did not have the actual release date in its Megan’s Law files. Based on the information that was in the files, one of those offenders might have been out of prison for almost an entire month before the State Police notified the local police department.

In the prior report released in January 2005, we reported that the State Police did not know and said it did not need to know exactly when sexually violent predators in prison were released into the community. We recommended that the State Police should acknowledge and accept the critical responsibility for knowing those actual release dates. State Police officials subsequently said they would strive to determine those dates.

The Megan’s Law Section of the State Police cannot possibly assure either itself or the public that required notifications are carried out as the law intends and as the public expects if the Section does not know the actual release dates of incarcerated (or reincarcerated) predators or other Megan’s Law offenders.

Once again, however, we have found the question of actual release dates to be problematic. The State Police, in a March 2006 written response to our request for information about this

The Administration of Page 35 Megan’s Law in Pennsylvania: Third Report Finding Three


matter, said it believes “there may be a misunderstanding by the auditors on the significance of release dates.” 24

However, Megan’s Law makes various references to the release of offenders. Following are references that are of particular significance to the public:

§ In the law’s Legislative Findings, the General Assembly emphasized the need for the public to prepare for offenders to be released. With adequate notice and information about predators and certain other offenders, “the community can develop constructive plans to prepare themselves and their children for the offender’s release. This allows communities to meet with law enforcement to prepare and obtain information about the rights and responsibilities of the community and to provide education and counseling to their children.” 25

→ Clearly this legislative finding anticipates that communities will know about incarcerated offenders before their release from custody. But if the State Police does not find out the precise date of an incarcerated offender’s release, how can it evaluate—either pre or postnotification—whether its notice to local police departments and/or local communities did indeed occur in time for those communities to prepare for that release?

§ Release from incarceration plays a significant role in the registration process. Sexually violent predators and other offenders “shall be required to register with the Pennsylvania State Police upon release from incarceration.” 26 Also, correctional facilities “shall not release the offender or sexually violent predator until it receives verification from the Pennsylvania State Police

24 Written response to auditors from the State Police, March 17, 2006. 25 42 Pa.C.S. Section 9791(a)(1) (emphasis added). 26 42 Pa.C.S. Section 9795.2(a)(1) (emphasis added).




that it has received the registration information.” 27 Finally, the Pennsylvania State Police is required to provide local police with the address at which registrants will “reside, be employed or enrolled as a student following his release from incarceration, parole or probation.” 28

→ These references also clearly anticipate that someone will be cognizant of actual release dates. If not, how can the State Police or anyone else subsequently evaluate the registration process to determine if registration did occur upon release, or that offenders were not released before they were registered, or that the State Police notified local police departments in advance of the offender’s release?

§ Megan’s Law also relates “urgency of notification” 29 to release dates. Local police departments or local State Police stations, depending on who has jurisdiction, are required to notify neighbors within five days “after information of the sexually violent predator’s release date and residence has been received by the chief law enforcement officer.” 30

→ The public does not expect that “information of the sexually violent predator’s release date and residence” means information that is imprecise, inexact, or unknown. It is the State Police Megan’s Law Section that provides this “information of the sexually violent predator’s release date” to the local police departments and the local State Police stations. The Megan’s Law Section can evaluate the true “urgency of notification” that the public expects only if the Section knows the actual release

27 42 Pa.C.S. Section 9795.2(a)(4)(i) (emphasis added). 28 42 Pa.C.S. Section 9795.2(c) (emphasis added). 29 42 Pa.C.S. Section 9798(c). 30 42 Pa.C.S. Section 9798(c)(1).



dates, just as the Section should know the actual residence addresses.

We also note that the State Police’s added use of a date stamp to document receipt of “information of the sexually violent predator’s release date” may help the State Police to show how quickly it notifies local police departments or local State Police stations, but it does not show whether or how long a released offender has been on the streets.

The State Police has maintained that release dates are significant only to the offender and the Department of Corrections, and that the significance does not relate to the responsibilities of the State Police. The State Police has also maintained that release dates are inconsequential because many offenders are not sentenced to prison time at all, or because many others receive parole, probation, or intermediate punishment instead.

In short, the State Police has continued to rely on a narrow view of its duties, saying that those duties “are triggered when the [State Police] receives the Sexual Offender Registration Form” and “are not triggered by an offender’s release date.” 31 The State Police, as the lead state agency with the most visible role in administering Megan’s Law, should take a wider view of its duties by also viewing them from the public’s perspective.

This finding does not in any way suggest that the State Police is alone in its responsibility to know and communicate actual release dates. Actual release dates are significant not only to the public and the State Police, but also to the Department of Corrections, local police departments, the Board of Probation and Parole, and the offenders themselves. All those affected by Megan’s Law can better assist in evaluating the effectiveness

31 Written response to auditors dated March 17, 2006, from the Pennsylvania State Police.




of the law, and in particular the promptness of notification, if they have accurate and precise information.

Officials at the State Police are clearly sensitive about our criticism in this matter and have expressed frustration at our focus. These same officials, while at some points saying that release dates are not as significant as we maintain they are, have said at other points that they do request and often receive release dates from, for example, the Department of Corrections. But the public should be alerted that, also according to those officials, the release dates in those cases are approximate release dates as opposed to actual release dates. By all accounts, these approximate release dates often change and are, in fact, typically referred to as “earliest dates of release” by the State Police and other law enforcement personnel.

The Megan’s Law Section did take additional steps to learn the approximate release dates of offenders, such as (1) developing a “fixedscreen” message on its electronic law enforcement network so that the Department of Corrections and county facilities can report approximate release dates using that method, (2) conducting training seminars for county prison wardens and other prison officials in October 2004 and October 2005, at which time the importance of receiving release dates was emphasized, and (3) instructing records officers of county prisons how to register sex offenders and provide necessary information, including approximate release dates.

State Police officials said they also have recommended legislative changes to Megan’s Law to require the Department of Corrections and county facilities to provide release dates. If so, the State Police should ensure that “release dates” mean “actual release dates.”



Recommendations

10. The State Police should seek a change to Megan’s Law to require the Department of Corrections and county facilities to provide the Megan’s Law Section with the actual release dates of incarcerated Megan’s Law offenders.

11. The State Police should use the actual release dates of incarcerated offenders to evaluate the effectiveness of the registration and notification process, which affects others beyond the State Police itself.

12. The State Police and any other entity with Megan’s Law responsibilities should work together, with or without a change in legislation, to ensure that no sexual offenders or sexually violent predators are ever released into the community before they are properly registered.

Response of the State Police to Finding Three, Response of the Department of Corrections to Finding Three, and Comments from the Department of the Auditor General

The State Police and the Department of Corrections have both responded to this finding. The State Police’s official response is included verbatim beginning on page 70, and the response to Finding Three is on page 75. The Department of Corrections’ verbatim response is on page 97.

In summary, the State Police said that it knows actual release dates for offenders incarcerated in state prisons and that it “makes every effort” to obtain offenders’ actual release dates from county prisons. The Department of Corrections said that it has provided actual release dates to the State Police beginning in March 2005.




In addition, the State Police noted that evaluating compliance with Megan’s Law requirements “has been placed with the Office of Attorney General.”

Comments from the Department of the Auditor General: § The responses are not consistent with our audit findings. § Absolute (i.e., actual) release dates were not known by the

State Police except in limited instances when offenders incarcerated in state prisons had served their maximum sentences as opposed to being released on probation or parole prior to the end of their maximum sentences.

§ For cases in which offenders were released into the community on probation or parole, the State Police told our auditors that, when offenders’ files did contain release dates, those dates were anticipated release dates that were subject to change.

§ For cases in which offenders were registered and released but then went back to prison, the State Police would not typically have known when those offenders were released again. Instead, the offenders were released and then expected to report to the State Police on their own to file an address change after returning to the community.

§ The State Police must request that state and local correctional facilities provide absolute release dates as soon as they become known, whether for firsttime registrants or for reincarcerated registrants.

§ The State Police and the correctional facilities will have to work together to implement procedures and followups that work.

§ Absolute release dates—whether at initial registration or at reincarceration—are vital to knowing whether or not the public and/or the local police departments receive notification quickly.

§ If Megan’s Law must be changed to make these procedures happen, then the State Police must take the lead to seek changes to the law.



Evaluating the state’s compliance with Megan’s Law requirements, including determining whether or not the State Police notifies the community quickly about an offender’s release, is not restricted to a selfevaluation by the State Police or to an audit by the Office of the Attorney General. The Department of the Auditor General may also choose to exercise its authority to pursue another audit, investigation, or review as necessary.


Finding Four Third Report


Finding Four The State Police did not know with certainty whether Megan’s Law registrants were in fact living at their registered addresses. Moreover, the State Police could not verify the current whereabouts of nearly 700 offenders.

Megan’s Law requires offenders to report where they plan to reside upon release from incarceration, or upon parole, or upon the commencement of a sentence of intermediate punishment or probation. 32 All offenders are also required to report any change of address to the State Police within ten days of the change. 33 Sexually violent predators are required to verify their addresses quarterly, 34 and other offenders are required to do so annually. 35

As of July 1, 2005, the Megan’s Law Section of the State Police had not received quarterly or annual address verifications for 698 Megan’s Law registrants.

Furthermore, it is unclear whether or not law enforcement officials actually went out and knocked on a door to see if an offender actually lived in the listed residence, regardless of when the offender “verified” his or her address. Instead, the State Police simply determined whether the address existed.

Neither the local police departments nor the local State Police stations are under the command of the State Police’s Megan’s Law Section, yet they all play a role in verifying address/jurisdiction information. Because the local entities are not in her chain of command, the Megan’s Law Section commander could not tell us the specific procedures used by those local officers to verify the address information provided to them by sex offenders. She did say that the officers were trained investigators who knew how to do their jobs properly

32 42 Pa.C.S. Section 9795.2(a)(1) . 33 42 Pa.C.S. Section 9795.2(a)(2)(i). 34 42 Pa.C.S. Section 9796(a). 35 42 Pa.C.S. Section 9796(b).

The Administration of Page 43 Megan’s Law in Pennsylvania: Third Report Finding Four


and would take whatever actions necessary to verify addresses, including contacting the Megan’s Law Section for guidance. The procedure works as follows:

Address verifications and changes are initiated when a registrant reports the information in person at any one of the 90 local State Police stations. Officers there take the information given to them by offenders and then complete “Sex Offender Address Worksheets,” which the offenders are required to sign, attesting that the information is accurate. The officers are then supposed to fax the completed worksheet to the Megan’s Law Section and send the Section the original, while keeping a copy for their records.

At that point, the Megan’s Law Section is responsible for verifying the accuracy of the information on the form before notifying the police office that has actual jurisdiction over the offender. The Megan’s Law Section said it confirmed with that office, whether a local police department or one of the local State Police stations, that the registrant’s address was indeed within the proper jurisdiction.

For sexually violent predators under a local State Police station’s jurisdiction during our review, that station was required to assign an officer to verify personally the existence of the predator’s address and record that verification on a form for the office files. But it was not a practice of the local State Police station to notify the Megan’s Law Section that the verification was performed, or how it was performed.

Again, this “verification” proved only that the address existed, not that the predator actually lived there. In one case, for example, the form arrived at the address of an offender who had since been incarcerated. Someone at that home address then delivered the form to the offender in prison.

While Megan’s Law does not require the State Police to verify that registrants actually live where they say do, the law also does not prohibit the State Police from doing so. In short, the


Finding Four Third Report


State Police has a responsibility to the public that the residential addresses published on the Megan’s Law Web site have been personally checked not only to see that the addresses exist, but also to see that registrants actually live at those addresses.

Recommendations

13. The State Police should seek a change to Megan’s Law to require local State Police stations and local police departments to verify physically that an offender is actually living at his or her registered address, and then to notify the Megan’s Law Section.

14. The State Police should, at various points during the year, select a sample from the Megan’s Law registry and request both local State Police stations and local police departments to verify that an offender actually lives at the address listed in the Megan’s Law Section files.

Response of the State Police to Finding Four, and Comments from the Department of the Auditor General

The State Police’s official written response to this report is included verbatim beginning on page 70, and the response to Finding Four begins on page 75.

In summary, the State Police said it presumes that initial registration information collected by other criminal justice agencies is accurate.

Comments from the Department of the Auditor General: The State Police should not “presume” that information is accurate. The “presumption” of accuracy is different from the actual knowledge of accuracy.

The Administration of Page 45 Megan’s Law in Pennsylvania: Third Report Finding Four


The State Police’s response did not address the very important matter of verifying noninitial addresses that registrants are supposed to report annually or that predators are supposed to report quarterly. Nor did the response address the critical matter of verifying changes of address.

The preceding issues must be addressed because it is a serious shortcoming that the State Police could not be sure of the whereabouts of nearly 700 offenders.


Finding Five Third Report


Finding Five The Megan’s Law Section of the State Police did not immediately notify its local State Police stations or the local police departments when offenders changed their addresses.

Megan’s Law requires registered sex offenders to report a change of residence to the State Police within ten days of the change. 36 The law also requires the State Police to provide notification of an offender’s registration to the state or local police departments of the municipalities in which the offender will reside, be employed, or be enrolled as a student. 37

The State Police contends there is no time requirement to notify other police offices about changes of residence, and we have found the law may be unclear about such a time requirement. Nonetheless, the law contains no prohibition about making these notifications immediately, or about making them within the same fiveday period that the State Police believes is applicable only to notification of “initial” registration information.

Stated simply, the intent of Megan’s Law is to protect the public, and it is therefore imperative that notifications be sent in the most expeditious manner possible in every instance. Delays in notification are unacceptable, whether they occur with a new registrant or an existing registrant with a new address. A delay by the Megan’s Law Section means that the local police departments are delayed in making their own notifications as well.

From our review of 50 files of Megan’s Law registrants, we found there were 7 predators and 25 other offenders who had changed either their residential or employment addresses during the period we reviewed. Cumulatively, the 7 predators and 25 offenders had reported address changes on 73 different occasions. The Attorney General’s representative who was

36 42 Pa.C.S. Section 9795.2(a)(2)(i). 37 42 Pa.C.S. Section 9795.2(c)(1).

The Administration of Page 47 Megan’s Law in Pennsylvania: Third Report Finding Five


viewing the actual files for us calculated the length of time that had elapsed between the date the form was signed by the offender (which should have been the same date that the form was faxed to the Megan’s Law Section) and the date the Section prepared its written notification (in the form of a flyer). For the 73 address changes, the elapsed time is shown in the table that follows:

How long did it take the Megan’s Law Section to send flyers to local police officers* after it first received change of address information about registered sex offenders?

47 address changes State Police took 17 days to send flyer



*either local police departments or local State Police stations

For one offender who changed his residence on three separate occasions, more than 14 days elapsed between the dates he reported all his address changes and the dates the Megan’s Law Section sent the notification flyers.

For one predator, a full week passed between the date that the Megan’s Law Section received the predator’s residential address change and the date that the Megan’s Law Section prepared and sent the notification flyer. Therefore, it is possible that the predator lived at his new address for at least 7 days before local police knew about him and before local schools and neighbors were notified. Children may be more likely to let down their guard after meeting a new neighbor if they do not know he is a dangerous convicted predator.

In the case of the other 6 predators with registration changes, the Megan’s Law Section acted as soon as 1 day and as long as




8 days to send the flyer. The address changes for these 6 predators were for their work addresses, not their residential addresses, and Megan’s Law requires the State Police to notify only local police offices, and not neighbors or schools, about work address changes. Still, address changes for work are important, too, and should be expedited.

The commander of the Megan’s Law Section told us that it places a higher priority on address changes for sexually violent predators than for other sexual offenders, and also that it typically makes additional communications to local police offices other than just sending a flyer. However, in the case of the predator whose new information flyer was not sent out for a full week, we found no evidence that the Megan’s Law Section made any other communications prior to sending the flyer.

The procedure by which address changes are processed is not simple and, as we reported in the previous finding, requires more than just receiving notices and sending them. The Megan’s Law Section said it expedites the process by making phone calls even before sending written notices, but the Section did not document those calls.

Expediting the development and sending of the notification flyers is critical as well. In the case of predators, the flyers are particularly important because notification about predators is expanded beyond local police offices to neighbors, schools, child care centers, and county offices of children and youth.

In summary, any and all notifications about changes of address are significant and should be carried out immediately for the public’s protection.

Recommendations

15. The State Police should further expedite its notifications to local State Police stations and local police departments

The Administration of Page 49 Megan’s Law in Pennsylvania: Third Report Finding Five


when it receives changes of address for Megan’s Law registrants.

16. The State Police should document its telephone calls to local State Police stations and local police departments when it calls them to verify they have jurisdiction over offenders who change their addresses.

17. The State Police, as soon as it verifies an offender’s change of address, should also use its electronic law enforcement messaging capabilities (known as “CLEAN,” or Commonwealth Law Enforcement Assistance Network) to notify local State Police stations or local police departments.

Response of the State Police to Finding Five, and Comments from the Department of the Auditor General

The State Police’s official written response to this report is included verbatim beginning on page 70, and the response to Finding Five begins on page 76.

In summary, the State Police said that there were 59 address changes reported on or after April 2004 by the registrants whose files we reviewed. Furthermore, the State Police noted that it reviewed the files and calculated “the length of time that elapsed between the date the original form was received by the [Megan’s Law Section] and the date the [Section] prepared its written notification (in the form of a flyer).” The State Police’s review showed that the Megan’s Law Section sent flyers out within three days in 54 of the cases, on the same day in 23 of the cases, and the next day in 22 of the cases.

The State Police also said that it was contracting with a vendor to resolve potential time lapses that could occur between the time when forms are completed and the time when they arrive




at the Megan’s Law Section. This resolution would take effect in 26 of the State Police’s field stations.

Comments from the Department of the Auditor General: The State Police’s response is misleading. As our finding shows, there were over 70 address changes, and in some cases it took the police more than a week to send out a flyer about those changes. In its written response, the State Police used a different calculation to measure how long it took to get change ofaddress notices to local police departments. The State Police’s calculation started its count on the day that the Megan’s Law Section received the written notice, not on the day the offender reported the change.

The State Police had 90 field stations during our audit work and indicated in its written response that it would address this problem in about a third of the field stations. The problem should instead be addressed statewide. Until this resolution occurs, the State Police should use its “CLEAN” messaging system to notify local State Police stations or local police departments.

The Administration of Page 51 Megan’s Law in Pennsylvania: Third Report Finding Six


Finding Six The Megan’s Law Section of the State Police did not notify local police departments or local State Police stations when offenders moved out of those jurisdictions.

Megan’s Law requires the State Police to notify local police offices not only when an offender moved into their jurisdiction, but also when the offender moved out of their jurisdiction. 38 This requirement applies to offenders who no longer reside, work, or attend in school in that jurisdiction.

The Megan’s Law Section did not implement procedures to perform this notification and has therefore been noncompliant with the law for more than a year.

The Section’s failure to comply with the notification requirement caused the prior jurisdictions to be in receipt of outdated information. Moreover, the failure meant that prior jurisdictions might still have been devoting some of their valuable resources to keeping track of this information when they did not need to.

During our interview with the commander of the Megan’s Law Section on February 23, 2006, she told us the Section had developed a method for notifying prior jurisdictions and was on its 36th of 37th day of testing the new procedure.

Recommendation

18. The State Police, as required by Megan’s Law, should notify local police offices when offenders no longer reside, work, or go to school in those local jurisdictions.

38 42 Pa.C.S. Section 9795.2(c)(3).


Finding Six Third Report


Response of the State Police to Finding Six, and Comments from the Department of the Auditor General

The State Police’s official written response to this report is included verbatim beginning on page 70, and the response to Finding Six begins on page 77.

In summary, the State Police stated that, in March 2006, it implemented a system by which local police departments received notifications when offenders moved out of the local police jurisdictions.

Our comments: If the State Police has now come into compliance with the law, we need not make any further comments.

The Administration of Page 53 Megan’s Law in Pennsylvania: Third Report Finding Seven


Finding Seven The Megan’s Law Section of the State Police did not routinely know when the local State Police stations or local police departments had notified neighbors, schools, and child care centers that sexually violent predators lived nearby.

When Megan’s Law registrants move into local neighborhoods, neighbors are notified by law enforcement personnel only when the registrants are among the small number of those classified as sexually violent predators. 39 At time of our review, there were just over 100 predators as compared to about 8,000 other offenders.

Our review of ten sexually violent predator files revealed that the local State Police stations and the local police departments responsible for carrying out community notification procedures did not routinely confirm to the Megan’s Law Section that they had completed the neighborhood notifications. Four of the predators were under the jurisdiction of local State Police stations; the remaining six were under the jurisdiction of local police departments.

Of the four predators in our sample, one had been re incarcerated, meaning that community notification requirements were not applicable. For the remaining three, the Megan’s Law Section had evidence to show that neighbors and others were notified about only two of the predators.

If the Megan’s Law Section does not know when community notifications about predators are completed, it cannot assure the public that neighbors, schools, and child care centers are being alerted as they should be. Nor can the Megan’s Law Section evaluate if the notifications are made according to required time frames.

39 If registrants had been convicted in another state that would have subjected them to neighborhood notification in that state, they were then subject to the neighborhood notification requirements in Pennsylvania, just as if they were sexually violent predators.


Finding Seven Third Report


Specifically, local police departments or local State Police stations are required to notify neighbors within five days of receiving information “of the sexually violent predator’s release date and residence.” 40 Other notifications—such as to schools and child care centers—must be made within seven days. 41

We note here that the five and sevenday time requirements are not mentioned on the Web site under the State Police’s otherwise comprehensive “Frequently Asked Questions” or on the Web site’s detailed information page about community notification requirements. These requirements should be added to these Web site pages so the public is even more fully informed how Megan’s Law should work.

Evaluation of any program is important. Evaluating whether community notification requirements were carried out for sexually violent predators is particularly important as it relates to public protection. The public expects the Commonwealth to be accountable for administering Megan’s Law, and accountability includes making sure that every entity with Megan’s Law duties does its job.

Although the law did not require local State Police stations to tell the Megan’s Law Section they had finished notifying neighbors, schools, and others about sexually violent predators, State Police policies and procedures did have such a requirement. Specifically, the local State Police stations were required to send an electronic message using the Commonwealth Law Enforcement Assistance Network, or CLEAN, to tell the Megan’s Law Section.

As we have stated previously, the Megan’s Law Section does not have command authority over the local State Police stations. Therefore, the Section could not address the failure of the local State Police stations that did not follow required

40 42 Pa.C.S. Section 9798(c)(1). 41 42 Pa.C.S. Section 9798(c)(2).



procedures. Elevating the Megan’s Law Section in the State Police organization might increase the propensity of the local State Police stations to comply with this requirement automatically. Still, during the period under review, the Megan’s Law Section could have gone beyond requirements by following up itself with the local State Police station.

Local police departments, like the local State Police stations, are also not required under Megan’s Law to confirm to the Megan’s Law Section that community notification has been completed. Nor are the local police departments required to follow State Police policies and procedures. Accordingly, for the 6 predators in our sample who fell under the jurisdiction of the local police departments, the Megan’s Law Section did not know if neighbors, schools, and child care centers had ever been notified.

The Megan’s Law Section does have a means by which it can request voluntary confirmation of notification by the local police departments. Specifically, when notifying local police departments about sexually violent predators in those jurisdictions, the Section sends a package of information to the officer in charge. Included are copies of the community notification flyer with its photograph, as well as a letter detailing the Megan’s Law duties of the local police. It would be simple enough for the Megan’s Law Section to include in the letter a request for local police departments to confirm when community notification has been completed.

Community notification is at the core of Megan’s Law and provides the notified parties with information they can use to protect themselves, their families, and those in their care. The Megan’s Law Section should do all that it can do to ensure that the required notifications are carried out.


Finding Seven Third Report


Recommendations

19. The State Police should follow up with any local State Police stations that do not confirm they have completed community notification requirements.

20. The State Police should request in its notification letter to local police departments that the officer in charge follows up with the Megan’s Law Section to let the Section know that community notifications were completed in five to seven days as applicable.

21. The State Police should follow up with any local police departments who do not confirm they have notified the community within the required time frames.

22. The State Police, on the “Frequently Asked Questions” and “Notification” pages of its Web site, should add the information about five and sevenday community notification requirements.

Response of the State Police to Finding Seven, and Comments from the Department of the Auditor General

The State Police’s official written response to this report is included verbatim beginning on page 70, and the response to Finding Seven begins on page 77.

In summary, the State Police noted that, for community notification about sexually violent predators, it immediately informed local police departments that had jurisdiction over a predator’s residence. The State Police also said it provided detailed instructions and that it now asks local police departments to notify the Megan’s Law Section when community notification is completed. The State Police noted that it reviewed a sample of notifications and that all had been completed as quickly as required.



Comments from the Department of the Auditor General: There are so few sexually violent predators as compared to other offenders. Therefore, while the State Police said that its own sample yielded positive results, the public should be assured that—for every predator—the local State Police stations and local police departments notified each neighbor, school, child care center, and children and youth agency as the law requires. The State Police should be able to make this assurance to the public whether the notification is the firsttime notification for a newly registered predator, for a predator who has moved to another residential address, for a reincarcerated predator released from prison to the same former address, or for a reincarcerated prisoner released from prison to a different address. In short, in every instance and for every variable, the State Police should know beyond any doubt that neighbors and others have been notified as required. Otherwise, Megan’s Law is not achieving its purpose and the public—particularly children—is put at risk.

The State Police did not explain in its response why the five or sevenday notification requirement is omitted in the “Notification” and “Frequently Asked Questions” pages of its Web site, nor did the response indicate whether this important information would be added.


Finding Eight Third Report


Finding Eight The State Police did not inform all law enforcement agencies that it did not know the current whereabouts of nearly 700 Megan’s Law registrants for whom it had not received annual or quarterly address verifications.

During our interviews, the Megan’s Law Section of the State Police referred to an offender who did not verify his or her address as required by Megan’s Law as a “noncompliant” offender. In these cases, the State Police files—and therefore the public Web site—contained last known addresses that were sometimes far older than the law required.

As of July 1, 2005, the State Police listed 698 offenders, or nearly 10 percent of the total population of its registered sex offenders, for whom it had not received address verifications. As noted previously, Megan’s Law requires sexually violent predators to report to the State Police four times a year to verify addresses. 42 Other offenders must do so annually. 43 Criminal penalties can be imposed for failing to follow these requirements.

Looking only at our sample of 50, we found that the State Police had not received quarterly or annual address verifications at one time or another during our audit period for more than half of that sample, or 26. Moreover, there were 38 times in total when the offenders had failed to verify their addresses, meaning that some of the 26 had failed to verify their addresses on more than one occasion.

Some offenders had not reported back to the State Police for several years, while others were late by only a few days.

During our audit, we learned that the Megan’s Law Section sent “investigation letters” to the law enforcement agencies with jurisdictions over the noncompliant offenders in our sample. The investigation letter explained that the offender

42 42 Pa.C.S. Section 9796(a). 43 42 Pa.C.S. Section 9796(b).

The Administration of Page 59 Megan’s Law in Pennsylvania: Third Report Finding Eight


had not checked in as required and requested the local police department to conduct an investigation. These investigations were sent consistently, we found, but notifications were not made to other law enforcements agencies in other jurisdictions.

We have previously referenced the Commonwealth Law Enforcement Assistance Network, known as CLEAN. This network is shared by the state’s criminal justice agencies to access driver’s license and vehicle registration records, state criminal history records maintained by the State Police, protection from abuse order records, “wanted” files, and other data. Yet the Megan’s Law Section did not include Megan’s Law compliance information on the CLEAN system so that every law enforcement agency in the state could access that information.

Not using the CLEAN system during our audit period meant that the State Police missed putting the system to practical use in administering Megan’s Law. For example, the commander of the Megan’s Law Section confirmed that if a Megan’s Law offender were to be stopped for a traffic violation, the police officer performing the stop would know from the CLEAN system that the person is a Megan’s Law registrant, but not that uptodate registration information was missing.

Megan’s Law does not require the State Police to include this type of information on the CLEAN system. However, the law does not prohibit it, meaning the Megan’s Law Section is not taking advantage of an opportunity to collect missing the annual or quarterly information that Megan’s Law requires.

During our interviews with the commander of the Megan’s Law Section, she noted that the CLEAN system did provide a telephone number that a police officer could call to ask questions of the Megan’s Law Section in cases where more information was needed. Police officers access the CLEAN system 24 hours, 7 days a week, during which time they can also make traffic stops or come into other contact with Megan’s Law registrants. But the Megan’s Law Section is




staffed only weekdays from 6:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., therefore limiting other police officers’ access to fulltime Megan’s Law Section employees. Moreover, a recorded voice on the toll free line for the Megan’s Law Section, 18667713170, says that the hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Offenders who refuse to comply with Megan’s Law are subject to criminal penalties, but we have no information about any such penalties imposed. What is most important, however, is for the Commonwealth to find the offenders for whom it does not have uptodate registration information.

If the Megan’s Law Section made all law enforcement officials aware when it is missing uptodate information such as that of the 700 offenders during our audit period, then those officials could help to collect that information. But they cannot help if they do not know. Utilizing the CLEAN system for this purpose makes sense and would enhance communication between law enforcement agencies while, at the same time, improving the administration of Megan’s Law.

Recommendations

23. The State Police should ensure that the Megan’s Law Section tollfree telephone number for the public, 1866 7713170, is answered by a knowledgeable Megan’s Law Section employee 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

24. The State Police should ensure that any telephone numbers used solely for police departments and other law enforcement personnel are also answered by knowledgeable Megan’s Law Section personnel 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

25. The State Police should utilize the Commonwealth Law Enforcement Assistance Network to identify sex offenders for whom registration information is not current.

The Administration of Page 61 Megan’s Law in Pennsylvania: Third Report Finding Eight


Response of the State Police to Finding Eight and Comments from the Department of the Auditor General

The State Police’s official written response to this report is included verbatim beginning on page 70, and the response to Finding Eight begins on page 78.

In summary, the State Police has responded that it is “inquiring” into a system that would allow state and local police officers to contemporaneously access information about sex offenders, such as whether or not they have not kept their registration information up to date. The State Police also noted that the Parents for Megan’s Law organization has shown that, in Pennsylvania, 7.5% of registered sex offenders were non compliant compared to about 24% percent of offenders across the nation. The State Police said that the lower rate “demonstrates the commitment and dedication of the [State Police and its Megan’s Law Section], along with other law enforcement departments, to make certain that registered sex offenders comply with their registration requirements.”

The State Police also said that its commitment to finding non compliant offenders is demonstrated through its participation in other initiatives, and it lists those initiatives in an attachment to its response (reproduced on pages 95 and 96 of this report).

The State Police’s response concluded by saying that its goal is to provide extraordinary service to the citizens of Pennsylvania, that its “dedicated personnel” perform their jobs “to the best of their ability and with great pride in the Department,” and that it hoped the Department of the Auditor General’s auditors “had the opportunity to see the “dedication, pride, and spirit of the [Megan’s Law Section] as well as their outstanding work.”




Comments from the Department of the Auditor General: After “inquiring” about a system to determine the whereabouts of 700 “noncompliant” sexual offenders, the State Police should implement such a system so that the number of missing offenders can be lowered further.

The State Police’s response did not address our two recommendations about the Megan’s Law Section providing telephone assistance 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. We still feel strongly that the telephone should be answered 24 hours a day.

The Administration of Page 63 Megan’s Law in Pennsylvania: Third Report Appendix A


Appendix A

Welcoming screens, including Pennsylvania’s, for Megan’s Law Web sites

Florida: First screen of Megan’s Law Web site

http://www.fdle.state.fl.us (accessed April 3, 2006)

http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/


Appendix A Third Report `


Maryland: First screen of Megan’s Law Web site

http://www.dpscs.state.md.us/onlineservs/sor/ (accessed April 3, 2006)

http://www.dpscs.state.md.us/onlineservs/sor/



New Jersey: First screen of Megan’s Law Web site

http://www.njsp.org/info/reg_sexoffend.html (accessed April 3, 2006)

http://www.njsp.org/info/reg_sexoffend.html




Ohio: First screen of Megan’s Law Web site

http://www.ag.state.oh.us/citizen/esorn.asp (accessed April 3, 2006)

http://www.ag.state.oh.us/citizen/esorn.asp



New York: First screen of Megan’s Law Web site

http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/nsor/index.htm (accessed April 3, 2006)

http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/nsor/index.htm




Texas: First screen of Megan’s Law Web site

http://records.txdps.state.tx.us/soSearch/default.cfm (accessed April 3, 2006)

http://records.txdps.state.tx.us/soSearch/default.cfm



Pennsylvania: First screen of Megan’s Law Web site

http://www.pameganslaw.state.pa.us (accessed April 3, 2006)


Page 70 Response from Pennsylvania State Police

Response from Pennsylvania State Police

Response from Pennsylvania State Police Page 71










Attachment A to State Police’s Response (page 81)



Attachment B to State Police’s Response (pages 83 – 86)






Attachment C to State Police’s Response

(pages 88 – 90)





Attachment D to State Police’s Response

(page 92)



Attachment E to State Police’s Response

(pages 94 – 95)



Page 96 Response from Office of Attorney General

Response from Office of Attorney General

Response from Department of Corrections Page 97

Response from Department of Corrections

Page 98 Response from Board of Probation and Parole

Response from Board of Probation and Parole

Response from Sexual Offenders Assessment Board Page 99

Response from Sexual Offenders Assessment Board


Distribution List Third Report `


Distribution List

This report was distributed to the following officials upon its release:

State Agencies The Honorable Edward G. Rendell Governor Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

The Honorable Thomas W. Corbett, Jr. Attorney General Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

The Honorable Robert P. Casey, Jr. State Treasurer Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Barbara Adams, General Counsel Office of General Counsel

Colonel Jeffrey B. Miller Commissioner Pennsylvania State Police

The Honorable Jeffrey A. Beard Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

Catherine McVey, Chairman Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole

Diane L. Dombach, Executive Director Sexual Offenders Assessment Board

Harvey C. Eckert, Commonwealth Comptroller Office of the Budget

General Assembly The Honorable Robert C. Jubelirer President Pro Tempore Senate of Pennsylvania

The Honorable John M. Perzel Speaker House of Representatives

The Honorable David J. Brightbill Majority Leader Senate of Pennsylvania

The Honorable Robert J. Mellow Minority Leader Senate of Pennsylvania

The Honorable Samuel H. Smith Majority Leader House of Representatives

The Honorable H. William DeWeese Minority Leader House of Representatives

The Honorable Noah W. Wenger Majority Chair Senate Appropriations Committee

The Honorable Vincent J. Fumo Minority Chair Senate Appropriations Committee

The Honorable Brett Feese Majority Chair House Appropriations Committee

The Honorable Dwight Evans Minority Chair House Appropriations Committee

The Administration of Page 101 Megan’s Law in Pennsylvania: Third Report Distribution List


General Assembly (Continued)

The Honorable Stewart J. Greenleaf Majority Chair Senate Judiciary Committee

The Honorable Jay Costa, Jr. Minority Chair Senate Judiciary Committee

The Honorable Dennis M. O’Brien Majority Chair House Judiciary Committee

The Honorable Thomas R. Caltagirone Minority Chair House Judiciary Committee

The Honorable John C. Rafferty, Jr. Majority Chair Senate Law and Justice Committee

The Honorable Sean F. Logan Minority Chair Senate Law and Justice Committee

The Honorable Jane Clare Orie Majority Chair Senate Aging and Youth Committee

The Honorable LeAnna Washington Minority Chair Senate Aging and Youth Committee

The Honorable Jerry Birmelin Majority Chair House Children and Youth Committee

The Honorable Michael C. Gruitza Minority Chair House Children and Youth Committee

Court Offices The Honorable Ralph J. Cappy Chief Justice Supreme Court

The Honorable Joseph A. Del Sole President Judge Superior Court

The Honorable James Gardner Colins President Judge Commonwealth Court

Zygmont A. Pines, Esq. Court Administrator of Pennsylvania Administrative Office of PA Courts

This report is a matter of public record. Copies may be obtained by accessing our Web site www.auditorgen.state.pa.us or by writing to the Pennsylvania Department of the Auditor General, Office of Communications, 318 Finance Building, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120. If you have any questions regarding this report or any other matter, you may contact the Department of the Auditor General by mail, email, or telephone at 7177872543.

http://www.auditorgen.state.pa.us/

Documents

The Administration of Megan’s Law in Pennsylvania · Page ii The Administration of Megan’s Law in Pennsylvania: Third Report Table of Contents A Performance Audit by the Pennsylvania