MA: Reforms are sorely needed at Sex Offender Registry Board

Source: 11/8/23

Serving as Massachusetts state auditor doesn’t just mean reviewing finances. A big part of my role, as I often speak about with folks across the state, is reviewing the performance and efficacy of the Commonwealth’s agencies and entities. A great example of the responsibility to look beyond number crunching is our office’s recently released audit of the Sex Offender Registry Board (SORB).

People are familiar with the concept that Massachusetts registers convicted sex offenders, maintaining a database of where such people live and work in an effort to maintain public safety. This system of public safety is maintained by SORB, a seven-member board appointed by the governor and staffed by more than 70 individuals.

Our recent audit looked at SORB’s operations from July 1, 2019 to June 30, 2021. Covering that two-year period, my team homed in on whether or not SORB classified sex offenders at least 10 days before they were released from custody, thus ensuring they were assigned an appropriate level. Further, we looked at whether SORB or not used all the resources at their disposal to accurately identify sex offenders who were in violation of maintaining their registration.

I was disappointed to find that SORB underperformed in a way that could have a negative impact upon the public.

Read the full article


Related posts

Notify of

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


  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. 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 that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. 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.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
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

In the name of public safety she says. Why is it in interest of public safety this information must be known when statistics says what it says about repeat offenders and those who are first time offenders in addition to the impact it has on those who are known publicly? What has MA history shown about this info they want publicly known to be helpful and its comparison to other crimes that aren’t registered? The auditor gives their email address at the bottom of the article which means the door is open to ask them the hard hitting questions they probably won’t answer and will refer those who ask to another departmental office to answer. The auditor only checks the compliance (how ironic) of the system with itself.

I find it interesting that DiZoglio is concerned about newly released inmates not being classified within 10 days after release, because the info on potential high risk level 2 and 3 inmates isn’t made public right away. What she fails to mention is that a greater number of registrants move to the state everyday, and they also don’t get classified right away. It took me 5 months to receive my classification! Although the board classified me as a level 1, I could have easily been someone who was a level 2 or 3 without their information not made public for 5 months. This woman says she just wants to limit her “reforms” to newly released probationers, but we know it never ends there. Vic rights advocates would then want to adopt an Oregon style system where info is made public on newly released probationers and new residents of that state, until they are classified. And that can take years. At least Mass doesn’t take that long, and info stays private in the meantime.

The reason why SORB underperformed is because the Registry is just a facade of safety and the people that work there know that but maintains an illusion that it works. The Registry is a sham operation at best and a SCAM operation at worst to fleece the public out of money and political support.

Abolish the Registry!

Not surprised. Any government organization that calls itself the “Sex Offender Management Board” is guaranteed to be incompetent and corrupt. Even though California’s CASOMB management board differs from Massachusetts in function, they both support using the lie detector, which is junk science.

The only credit that can be given to one of the Massachusetts SOMB members is that they haven’t used another form of junk “science,” the Static-99R, which is currently being used heavily, in cases other than civil commitments, in at least three states now (with the State of California being the heaviest Static -99R user).

When these management boards support pseudoscience like the polygraph and Static-99 type “risk assessments,” that’s a Big Red Flag not to trust them!!

Last edited 7 months ago by Hoodwinked

Forcing people who committed their offenses 30 years ago, and have remained offense free since, does not rationally serve to meet a legitimate public safety interest.

The government doesn’t give a shit about public safety, they care about justifying their positions.

Fear is how they do that.