MA: ‘Glaring failure’ in criminal and sex offender background checks for professional license applicants

Source: 9/15/21

BOSTON — The state agency that oversees the granting of professional licenses for hundreds of thousands of Massachusetts workers is falling short when it comes to criminal and sex offender background checks on those applicants, according to a newly-released audit.

Auditor Suzanne Bump’s report finds the the Division of Professional Licensure (DPL), which is now referred to as the Division of Occupational Licensure, has been unable to determine whether its boards and commissions were performing Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) and Sex Offender Record Information (SORI) checks before professional licenses were issued, and it’s been a problem for years.

“DPL’s failure to ensure criminal background checks were being conducted by its boards and commissions is a glaring failure in administration, one which the agency has now acknowledged. Now that DPL is in the process of an organizational overhaul, the time is ripe to address deficiencies in the licensure and background check process,” according to Bump. “While this is not the first time that our office has identified the need for corrective action at DPL, it is my hope that our recommendations from this audit are acted upon swiftly to ensure the safety of patrons and residents” Bump said.

Read the full article


Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

That would be a real shame if these people went to school, earned credentials, studied and got a license as a professional, rebuilt there lives and contributed to society. Now if they had just robbed people at the ATM are sold crack to kids then they would be fine, but oh, when when the penis is involved, that is inexcusable and unforgivable.

Imagine this fooey! The most glaring failure ever was just recently remembered. The events of 9\11 was an indictment our federal defense agencies. All those institutions dropped the ball but were not held accountable for their failure to protect the nation. Personally i think it is incredible that no head of agency were fired based on their dereliction. I’ll bet noone gets fired over these errors, but we’ll see.
So why should anyone think they can depend on bureaucrats to get the job done. Ultimately it is up to the individual to keep themselves and their people safe.

Why have two systems? I get that for some jobs you want someone who has never had a sex offense (like child psychologist) while you might care less about some other felonies (like embezzlement), but what about hate crimes? Attempted murder of a former patient? Fraud involving a vulnerable person? There seems to be absolutely no way you could separate relevant criminal history into “sex” and “non-sex” categories for any job requiring licensure. Is there any evidence that people with criminal histories are a specific threat in any professional context? Or is this some trade unionism nonsense about keeping their ranks smaller, prestige higher, and demand maximal?

Or how about this: Once a person has served their sentence, regardless of the offense, they get to pick up and move on, period — No conditions.

Sounds like added punishment.

Cutting off a sex offenders financial support is one of the main tactics the DOJ applies on people force to register, forcing them to go under ground and live like savages on the side of the freeways all across America then one by one their hunted down like anmals and thrown into prison for FTR

Good luck