SE03Peer-reviewed meta-analysis
25-Year SORN Meta-Analysis
Journal of Experimental Criminology
A major peer-reviewed synthesis of 25 years of research on whether broad registration and notification policies reduce recidivism.
Open source← Back to Resources
SOLAR Resource Guide
Research & Data Resources
Explore the research behind SOLAR’s positions on registries, recidivism, child safety, public policy, reintegration, and reform.
The evidence behind our advocacy
SOLAR is an advocacy organization. We read the research, compare findings across disciplines and jurisdictions, and use that evidence to shape the positions that guide our public education and reform work.
This guide brings those positions and their supporting sources together in one place—for readers who want to see where our conclusions come from, explore the underlying research, or use the same sources in their own advocacy and analysis.
No single study carries the whole argument. Taken together, these sources shape our understanding of what registry policy does, what it fails to do, who is actually at risk, and what evidence-based public safety can look like instead.
A note on recidivism data
Recidivism can be measured by rearrest, reconviction, reincarceration, or other recorded events. Those measures are not identical, not every offense is reported or detected, and follow-up periods and study populations matter.
SOLAR positions and supporting evidence
Our nine core advocacy positions, paired with the research and data that inform them.
Position 1
The registry does not deliver what it promises
Decades of research have not shown that broad registry systems reduce sexual offending. The vast majority of sexual offenses are committed by people not on a registry, and recidivism among people convicted of sex offenses is substantially lower than public rhetoric often suggests.
Position 2
Some registry mechanisms can work against safety
Policies that destabilize housing, employment, treatment, and family support can undermine the conditions that support successful reentry. Research also suggests that broad public notification can increase recidivism, challenging the assumption that more exposure necessarily means more safety.
Position 3
Child safety requires looking at relationships and access
Most reported child sexual abuse is committed by someone the child knows. Prevention therefore requires attention to family and trusted-access relationships—including teachers, coaches, clergy, and community leaders—not just the locations of people already on a public registry.
Position 4
Permanent public branding is an exceptional response
Nearly every other serious harm to children is addressed through prevention, regulation, treatment, and ordinary sentence-bound accountability—not lifelong public branding.
Position 5
Registries punish in practice
Public exposure, recurring reporting, residence, proximity, employment, and other restrictions can persist long beyond the original sentence, functioning as continuing punishment in everyday life and raising serious questions of due process, proportionality, and fairness.
Position 6
The burden reaches spouses and children
Public identification, housing and employment barriers, and other restrictions can destabilize entire households. Spouses and children who committed no offense can face financial strain, forced moves, stigma, harassment, isolation, and lost opportunities of their own.
Position 7
Risk is individual and changes over time
Universal requirements, restrictions, and labels ignore major differences among cases, people, time elapsed, conduct, treatment, and actual risk. Policy should be individualized, reviewable, and evidence-based.
Position 8
Permanent status creates durable exclusion
They erect formidable barriers to housing, employment, education, financial services, and community participation, stripping many people of the basic tools needed to rebuild their lives and reintegrate safely.
Position 9
Measure outcomes instead of assuming benefits
The seriousness of sexual harm does not make every intervention imposed in its name effective. Registration, public notification, supervision, treatment, and other interventions should be evaluated according to what they actually accomplish, whom they affect, and whether their demonstrated benefits justify their burdens.
SOLAR Position 1
The sex offender registry system is ineffective and rooted in misinformation.
Decades of research have not shown that broad registry systems reduce sexual offending. The vast majority of sexual offenses are committed by people not on a registry, and recidivism among people convicted of sex offenses is substantially lower than public rhetoric often suggests.
Supporting research and data
SE01 · BJS — Sex-Offender RecidivismSE02 · SMART — Adult Sexual RecidivismSE03 · 25-Year SORN Meta-AnalysisSE04 · Prescott & Rockoff — SORN EffectsSE05 · NIJ-Funded — South Carolina SORN EvaluationSE31 · Agan — Fear without Function?SE29 · USSC — Non-Production Study (2021)SE30 · USSC — CP Recidivism Study (2012)
SOLAR Position 2
Registry policies can make communities less safe.
Policies that destabilize housing, employment, treatment, and family support can undermine the conditions that support successful reentry. Research also suggests that broad public notification can increase recidivism, challenging the assumption that more exposure necessarily means more safety.
Supporting research and data
SE03 · 25-Year SORN Meta-AnalysisSE04 · Prescott & Rockoff — SORN EffectsSE06 · SMART/LOC — Registry Collateral EffectsSE08 · Levenson et al. — Residence Restrictions & TransienceSE09 · Colorado SOMB — Residence-Restriction SafetySE23 · SMART — Treatment EffectivenessSE24 · Housing Instability Among Veterans
SOLAR Position 3
Sexual harm to children is primarily a relationship-and-access problem, not a stranger-location problem.
Most reported child sexual abuse is committed by someone the child knows. Prevention therefore requires attention to family and trusted-access relationships—including teachers, coaches, clergy, and community leaders—not just the locations of people already on a public registry.
SOLAR Position 4
Other serious harms are addressed without lifelong public branding.
Nearly every other serious harm to children is addressed through prevention, regulation, treatment, and ordinary sentence-bound accountability—not lifelong public branding.
SOLAR Position 5
Registries are punitive in practice, not merely administrative.
Public exposure, recurring reporting, residence, proximity, employment, and other restrictions can persist long beyond the original sentence, functioning as continuing punishment in everyday life and raising serious questions of due process, proportionality, and fairness.
SOLAR Position 6
Registry systems punish families and children too.
Public identification, housing and employment barriers, and other restrictions can destabilize entire households. Spouses and children who committed no offense can face financial strain, forced moves, stigma, harassment, isolation, and lost opportunities of their own.
Supporting research and data
SOLAR Position 7
One-size-fits-all registry laws are fundamentally flawed.
Universal requirements, restrictions, and labels ignore major differences among cases, people, time elapsed, conduct, treatment, and actual risk. Policy should be individualized, reviewable, and evidence-based.
Supporting research and data
SE02 · SMART — Adult Sexual RecidivismSE21 · ATSA — Evidence-Based Registry ReformSE22 · Hanson et al. — Risk Declines Over TimeSE32 · Hanson et al. — Once a Sexual Offender, Not AlwaysSE33 · Thornton et al. — Residual RiskSE34 · Hanson, Lee & Thornton — High-Risk Long-Term RecidivismSE23 · SMART — Treatment EffectivenessSE29 · USSC — Non-Production Study (2021)SE30 · USSC — CP Recidivism Study (2012)
SOLAR Position 8
Registries create a permanent underclass.
They erect formidable barriers to housing, employment, education, financial services, and community participation, stripping many people of the basic tools needed to rebuild their lives and reintegrate safely.
Supporting research and data
SE06 · SMART/LOC — Registry Collateral EffectsSE07 · Levenson & Tewksbury — Family Collateral HarmSE08 · Levenson et al. — Residence Restrictions & TransienceSE09 · Colorado SOMB — Residence-Restriction SafetySE10 · Human Rights Watch — No Easy AnswersSE24 · Housing Instability Among VeteransSE26 · The Marshall Project — Banished
SOLAR Position 9
Public-safety policy should be judged by measurable outcomes, not presumed benefits.
The seriousness of sexual harm does not make every intervention imposed in its name effective. Registration, public notification, supervision, treatment, and other interventions should be evaluated according to what they actually accomplish, whom they affect, and whether their demonstrated benefits justify their burdens.
Key sources to start with
A front shelf of especially useful studies, reports, and cases for understanding the evidence behind SOLAR’s positions.
If you are new to the subject, these sources are good entry points. They cover registry effectiveness, recidivism, child safety, constitutional law, collateral harm, desistance, and evidence-based reform from several different angles.
SE04Peer-reviewed article
Prescott & Rockoff — SORN Effects
The Journal of Law and Economics
Examining whether law-enforcement registration and public notification have different effects on offending, deterrence, and recidivism.
Open sourceSE01Official data / government report
BJS — Sex-Offender Recidivism
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Comparing rearrest, reconviction, and same-type recidivism across offense categories and understanding how detected recidivism changes with the measure used.
Open sourceSE11Official data / government report
BJS — Sexual Assault of Young Children
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Official data on who commits reported sexual assaults against young children, including the predominance of family members and acquaintances over strangers.
Open sourceSE06Government evidence review
SMART/LOC — Registry Collateral Effects
Federal Research Division, Library of Congress, for the SMART Office
Reviewing research on how registration and notification affect housing, employment, wellbeing, family relationships, and reintegration.
Open sourceSE07Peer-reviewed article
Levenson & Tewksbury — Family Collateral Harm
American Journal of Criminal Justice
Documenting spillover consequences experienced by spouses, children, and other family members of people required to register.
Open sourceSE18Supreme Court decision
Smith v. Doe
U.S. Supreme Court
The central constitutional baseline for the Supreme Court's civil-regulatory treatment of Alaska's registry in ex post facto analysis.
Open sourceSE21Expert policy recommendations
ATSA — Evidence-Based Registry Reform
Association for the Treatment and Prevention of Sexual Abuse
Evidence-based recommendations for individualized risk assessment, treatment, review, reintegration, registration, and community notification policy.
Open sourceSE22Peer-reviewed study / PubMed index
Hanson et al. — Risk Declines Over Time
Peer-reviewed research
Evidence that recidivism risk can decline substantially with sustained offense-free time in the community.
Open sourceSE29Government research report
USSC — Non-Production Study (2021)
U.S. Sentencing Commission
Federal non-production recidivism data, including the finding that 4.3% of the studied cohort was rearrested for a sex offense within three years.
Open sourceSE14Inspector General report
DOJ OIG — Larry Nassar Investigation
U.S. Department of Justice Office of Inspector General
A documented case study of institutional failure after credible abuse allegations and the consequences of delayed action.
Open sourceA closer look at federal non-production recidivism
U.S. Sentencing Commission research gives us a particularly useful view of one often-misunderstood subgroup.
Federal non-production CSEM cases are frequently discussed as though repeat sexual offending is nearly inevitable. The Sentencing Commission’s own research does not support that picture.
In the Commission’s 2021 study, 4.3% of the studied non-production cohort was rearrested for a sex offense within three years. Earlier longer-follow-up work found similarly low known sexual and contact-sexual recidivism relative to common public assumptions and contact-offender comparison groups.
These findings reinforce a broader principle running throughout this guide: offense labels are poor substitutes for individualized risk.
Complete source library
Browse the full external evidence catalog used across this guide and the Supported Claims Library, organized by research domain.
A complete, cross-referenced evidence shelf
This library includes all 67 external sources currently cited across this guide and SOLAR’s Supported Claims Library. The seven domains below are organized by research question rather than advocacy position, so a source can appear in more than one domain when it materially informs more than one question.
Registry effectiveness and policy mechanisms
Research on whether registration and notification reduce harm, how different SORN mechanisms operate, whether the public uses registry information as assumed, and how implementation affects utility.
SE03Peer-reviewed meta-analysis
25-Year SORN Meta-Analysis
Journal of Experimental Criminology
A major peer-reviewed synthesis of 25 years of research on whether broad registration and notification policies reduce recidivism.
Open sourceSE04Peer-reviewed article
Prescott & Rockoff — SORN Effects
The Journal of Law and Economics
Examining whether law-enforcement registration and public notification have different effects on offending, deterrence, and recidivism.
Open sourceSE05NIJ-funded research report
NIJ-Funded — South Carolina SORN Evaluation
University of South Carolina research team / NIJ-funded
A detailed South Carolina evaluation of SORN policy effects on sexual violence, recidivism, deterrence, and unintended consequences.
Open sourceSE20Government report
GAO — SORNA Implementation
U.S. Government Accountability Office
Implementation history, jurisdictional challenges, claimed benefits, burdens, and practical consequences of SORNA compliance.
Open sourceSE31Peer-reviewed study
Agan — Fear without Function?
The Journal of Law and Economics
Testing registry effectiveness across three empirical designs, including state-level sexual-offense rates, post-release recidivism, and whether registry locations predict where sexual abuse occurs.
Open sourceSE40Peer-reviewed article
Sandler, Freeman & Socia — New York SORN
Peer-reviewed research
New York time-series evidence on SORN outcomes, including the predominance of first-time sex-offense arrests and tests of registry effectiveness.
Open sourceSE42Peer-reviewed article
Letourneau et al. — South Carolina Adult Recidivism
Peer-reviewed research
South Carolina research testing whether registration status predicted adult sexual recidivism.
Open sourceSE43Government report
New Jersey Megan's Law Evaluation
National Institute of Justice
State evaluation of practical, monetary, and public-safety outcomes under New Jersey's Megan's Law.
Open sourceSE44Peer-reviewed article
Duwe & Donnay — Minnesota Level 3 Notification
Peer-reviewed research
Evidence of favorable outcomes for targeted community notification among selected higher-risk Level 3 individuals, useful as an important boundary on broad anti-registry claims.
Open sourceSE48Government evidence synthesis
SMART SOMAPI — Management Strategies
SMART Office, U.S. Department of Justice
Federal synthesis on SORN, residence restrictions, supervision and management strategies, including evidence on unintended consequences and public-safety mechanisms.
Open sourceSE49Peer-reviewed article
Anderson & Sample — Public Awareness and Action
Criminal Justice Policy Review
Survey evidence distinguishing registry availability from actual public use, self-reported protective behavior, and measured crime reduction.
Open sourceSE50Peer-reviewed review
Bonnar-Kidd — SORN Public-Health Review
Peer-reviewed public-health research
Open-access review of SORN prevention claims, unintended consequences, and public-health concerns.
Open sourceSE51Peer-reviewed article
Cubellis, Walfield & Harris — Law-Enforcement Perspectives
Peer-reviewed research
Law-enforcement survey evidence on perceived effectiveness, implementation challenges, and the effects of increasingly large registries.
Open sourceSE52Peer-reviewed article
Harris et al. — Registry Effectiveness and Challenges
Peer-reviewed research
National law-enforcement research on registry reliability, public utility, implementation limits, and practitioner perceptions.
Open sourceRecidivism, repeat offending, and offense patterns
Official and peer-reviewed evidence on detected sexual recidivism, first-time versus repeat offending, offense specialization, follow-up periods, and comparisons across release groups.
SE01Official data / government report
BJS — Sex-Offender Recidivism
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Comparing rearrest, reconviction, and same-type recidivism across offense categories and understanding how detected recidivism changes with the measure used.
Open sourceSE02Government research brief
SMART — Adult Sexual Recidivism
SMART Office, U.S. Department of Justice
Understanding sexual recidivism rates, subgroup differences, follow-up periods, measurement challenges, and how risk changes over time.
Open sourceSE29Government research report
USSC — Non-Production Study (2021)
U.S. Sentencing Commission
Federal non-production recidivism data, including the finding that 4.3% of the studied cohort was rearrested for a sex offense within three years.
Open sourceSE30Government research report
USSC — CP Recidivism Study (2012)
U.S. Sentencing Commission
Longer-follow-up federal non-production recidivism data, including known sexual and contact-sexual recidivism and comparisons with contact-offender cohorts.
Open sourceSE35Government journal article
Cohen — Federal CSEM Supervision Risk Tool
Federal Probation / U.S. Courts
Federal CSEM supervision research on rearrest outcomes, PCRA, CPORT, and the limits of transporting general-risk scores into specialized sexual-risk decisions.
Open sourceSE36Government statistical report
BJS — Sex-Offender Recidivism, 9-Year Follow-Up
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Longer-term comparison of rape and sexual-assault release groups with other released prisoners, including overall and sexual rearrest outcomes.
Open sourceSE37Government statistical report
BJS — Prisoner Recidivism, 2012 Releases
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Five-year same-type rearrest comparisons across release-offense categories and evidence about offense specialization.
Open sourceSE38Government statistical report
BJS — Prisoner Recidivism, 1994 Specialization
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Same-offense rearrest patterns across multiple crime categories, useful for comparing specialization rather than assuming recurrence is unique to sexual offending.
Open sourceSE39Federal government research report
USSC — Federal Offenders Released in 2010
U.S. Sentencing Commission
Same-cohort federal recidivism evidence by offense type, age, and criminal history for comparative and individualized-risk analysis.
Open sourceSE40Peer-reviewed article
Sandler, Freeman & Socia — New York SORN
Peer-reviewed research
New York time-series evidence on SORN outcomes, including the predominance of first-time sex-offense arrests and tests of registry effectiveness.
Open sourceSE41Peer-reviewed article
Levenson & Zgoba — Florida Repeat-Arrest Study
Peer-reviewed research
Florida evidence that only a small share of sex-crime arrests involved people with a prior felony sex-crime conviction, informing first-time-versus-repeat offending claims.
Open sourceSE53Research / government-hosted publication
Hanson & Bussière — Predictor Meta-Analysis
Research / Public Safety Canada
Foundational meta-analysis of factors associated with sexual-offense recidivism and the heterogeneity of risk.
Open sourceSE54Research / government-hosted publication
Hanson & Morton-Bourgon — Updated Predictors
Research / Public Safety Canada
Updated meta-analysis of characteristics associated with persistent sexual offending and structured risk assessment.
Open sourceSE55Government-hosted research summary
Hanson — Sex Offender Recidivism: A Simple Question
Public Safety Canada
Plain-language synthesis explaining why observed sexual recidivism varies by subgroup, follow-up period, age, and prior history.
Open sourceChild safety, relationships, and trusted access
Sources on who harms children, family and acquaintance relationships, trusted-access settings, institutional failures, and prevention strategies that reach beyond public address lists.
SE11Official data / government report
BJS — Sexual Assault of Young Children
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Official data on who commits reported sexual assaults against young children, including the predominance of family members and acquaintances over strangers.
Open sourceSE12Official data explainer
OJJDP — Child Maltreatment Perpetrators
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Understanding the family, caregiver, and known-person context in which much child maltreatment occurs.
Open sourceSE13Government research synthesis
ED — Educator Sexual Misconduct
U.S. Department of Education
Understanding trusted access, authority, grooming, reporting, and safeguarding issues in school settings.
Open sourceSE14Inspector General report
DOJ OIG — Larry Nassar Investigation
U.S. Department of Justice Office of Inspector General
A documented case study of institutional failure after credible abuse allegations and the consequences of delayed action.
Open sourceSE25Victim-prevention / nonprofit resource
NSVRC — SART Prevention Toolkit
National Sexual Violence Resource Center
Connecting sexual-violence response to broader prevention, survivor support, multidisciplinary practice, and community safety.
Open sourceCollateral consequences, housing, families, and reintegration
Research and reporting on housing, employment, family spillover, residence restrictions, displacement, stigma, transience, and the stability conditions that support successful reentry.
SE06Government evidence review
SMART/LOC — Registry Collateral Effects
Federal Research Division, Library of Congress, for the SMART Office
Reviewing research on how registration and notification affect housing, employment, wellbeing, family relationships, and reintegration.
Open sourceSE07Peer-reviewed article
Levenson & Tewksbury — Family Collateral Harm
American Journal of Criminal Justice
Documenting spillover consequences experienced by spouses, children, and other family members of people required to register.
Open sourceSE08Peer-reviewed article
Levenson et al. — Residence Restrictions & Transience
Criminal Justice Policy Review
Examining the relationship between residence restrictions, housing availability, transience, and community stability.
Open sourceSE09State government report
Colorado SOMB — Residence-Restriction Safety
Colorado Sex Offender Management Board
Official Colorado analysis of safety issues surrounding living arrangements, residence restrictions, and community placement.
Open sourceSE10Investigative / policy report
Human Rights Watch — No Easy Answers
Human Rights Watch
Historical and policy context on registration, notification, exclusion, collateral consequences, and the expansion of registry laws.
Open sourceSE24Peer-reviewed study / PubMed index
Housing Instability Among Veterans
Peer-reviewed research
Quantitative evidence on the association between registered-sex-offender status and housing instability or homelessness in a large veteran population.
Open sourceSE26Investigative media / illustrative case
The Marshall Project — Banished
The Marshall Project
A concrete Miami-Dade illustration of displacement and homelessness produced by layered residence restrictions.
Open sourceSE45Peer-reviewed article
Levenson & Cotter — Megan's Law and Reintegration
Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice
Survey evidence on housing, employment, threats, social effects, and reintegration burdens associated with public registration and notification.
Open sourceSE46Peer-reviewed review
Lasher & McGrath — Reintegration Review
Peer-reviewed research
Quantitative review of community notification, reintegration, housing, employment, and psychological consequences.
Open sourceSE47Peer-reviewed article
Zandbergen & Hart — Residence Restrictions
Justice Research and Policy
GIS evidence on how residence-restriction laws can sharply reduce lawful housing options.
Open sourceSE48Government evidence synthesis
SMART SOMAPI — Management Strategies
SMART Office, U.S. Department of Justice
Federal synthesis on SORN, residence restrictions, supervision and management strategies, including evidence on unintended consequences and public-safety mechanisms.
Open sourceRisk assessment, desistance, and treatment
Research on heterogeneity, age, time offense-free, actuarial and dynamic tools, calibration, CSEM-specific assessment, treatment, and evidence-based individualized decision-making.
SE02Government research brief
SMART — Adult Sexual Recidivism
SMART Office, U.S. Department of Justice
Understanding sexual recidivism rates, subgroup differences, follow-up periods, measurement challenges, and how risk changes over time.
Open sourceSE21Expert policy recommendations
ATSA — Evidence-Based Registry Reform
Association for the Treatment and Prevention of Sexual Abuse
Evidence-based recommendations for individualized risk assessment, treatment, review, reintegration, registration, and community notification policy.
Open sourceSE22Peer-reviewed study / PubMed index
Hanson et al. — Risk Declines Over Time
Peer-reviewed research
Evidence that recidivism risk can decline substantially with sustained offense-free time in the community.
Open sourceSE23Government research brief
SMART — Treatment Effectiveness
SMART Office, U.S. Department of Justice
A federal synthesis of treatment research and its relationship to risk reduction, rehabilitation, and prevention.
Open sourceSE29Government research report
USSC — Non-Production Study (2021)
U.S. Sentencing Commission
Federal non-production recidivism data, including the finding that 4.3% of the studied cohort was rearrested for a sex offense within three years.
Open sourceSE30Government research report
USSC — CP Recidivism Study (2012)
U.S. Sentencing Commission
Longer-follow-up federal non-production recidivism data, including known sexual and contact-sexual recidivism and comparisons with contact-offender cohorts.
Open sourceSE32Peer-reviewed study
Hanson et al. — Once a Sexual Offender, Not Always
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law
Long-term evidence that sexual recidivism risk declines with sustained offense-free time across age and initial-risk groups, supporting reviewable policies that recognize desistance.
Open sourceSE33Peer-reviewed study / PubMed index
Thornton et al. — Residual Risk
Sexual Abuse
Showing how evaluators can incorporate offense-free time into individualized estimates of lifetime, residual, and year-by-year sexual recidivism risk.
Open sourceSE34Peer-reviewed study / PubMed index
Hanson, Lee & Thornton — High-Risk Long-Term Recidivism
Sexual Abuse
Long-term evidence from a deliberately high-risk sample showing substantial heterogeneity in risk while also examining how residual risk changes after extended offense-free periods.
Open sourceSE35Government journal article
Cohen — Federal CSEM Supervision Risk Tool
Federal Probation / U.S. Courts
Federal CSEM supervision research on rearrest outcomes, PCRA, CPORT, and the limits of transporting general-risk scores into specialized sexual-risk decisions.
Open sourceSE53Research / government-hosted publication
Hanson & Bussière — Predictor Meta-Analysis
Research / Public Safety Canada
Foundational meta-analysis of factors associated with sexual-offense recidivism and the heterogeneity of risk.
Open sourceSE54Research / government-hosted publication
Hanson & Morton-Bourgon — Updated Predictors
Research / Public Safety Canada
Updated meta-analysis of characteristics associated with persistent sexual offending and structured risk assessment.
Open sourceSE55Government-hosted research summary
Hanson — Sex Offender Recidivism: A Simple Question
Public Safety Canada
Plain-language synthesis explaining why observed sexual recidivism varies by subgroup, follow-up period, age, and prior history.
Open sourceSE56Peer-reviewed meta-analysis
Hanson & Morton-Bourgon — Risk-Assessment Accuracy Meta-Analysis
Psychological Assessment
Meta-analysis of 118 prediction studies comparing actuarial, structured professional judgment, and unstructured approaches to predicting sexual recidivism.
Open sourceSE57Professional guidance
Static-99R — Coding Rules
Professional risk-assessment guidance
Professional guidance on Static-99R eligibility, coding, scoring, age adjustments, and proper instrument use.
Open sourceSE58Professional guidance
Static-99R — Evaluators Workbook
Professional risk-assessment guidance
Guidance on reference groups, relative risk, absolute estimates, and the limits of interpreting actuarial scores.
Open sourceSE59Government journal article
PCRA — Construction and Validation
Federal Probation / U.S. Courts
Federal evidence on the PCRA as a general post-conviction risk-and-needs instrument, useful for distinguishing general from specialized sexual-risk questions.
Open sourceSE60Peer-reviewed article
CPORT — Development Study
Peer-reviewed research
Development evidence for a CSEM-specific empirical risk tool and the distinction between specialized and general risk assessment.
Open sourceSE61Peer-reviewed article
CPORT — Validation Study
Peer-reviewed research
Validation evidence for CPORT in adult male CSEM populations, including discrimination and population-fit questions.
Open sourceSE62Peer-reviewed article
CPORT — Critical Review
Peer-reviewed research
Critical review identifying limitations in the evidence base for using CPORT in U.S. CSEM-exclusive forensic settings.
Open sourceSE63Peer-reviewed article
STABLE-2007 — Prospective Study
Peer-reviewed research
Prospective evidence on structured dynamic risk factors, change over time, and recidivism.
Open sourceSE64Peer-reviewed article
SOTIPS — Validation Study
Peer-reviewed research
Validation evidence for a structured dynamic-risk and treatment-progress instrument.
Open sourceSE65Peer-reviewed article
VRS-SO — Validity and Reliability
Peer-reviewed research
Evidence on structured assessment of risk, treatment targets, and therapeutic change.
Open sourceSE66Peer-reviewed meta-analysis
Schmucker & Lösel — Treatment Meta-Analysis
Journal of Experimental Criminology
Meta-analytic evidence on specialized treatment and sexual-recidivism outcomes.
Open sourceLaw, constitutional doctrine, and punitive effects
Court decisions, government legal summaries, and legal scholarship on civil versus punitive classification, constitutional limits, exclusion, residence restrictions, and modern registry burdens.
SE18Supreme Court decision
Smith v. Doe
U.S. Supreme Court
The central constitutional baseline for the Supreme Court's civil-regulatory treatment of Alaska's registry in ex post facto analysis.
Open sourceSE19Supreme Court decision
Packingham v. North Carolina
U.S. Supreme Court
Understanding constitutional limits on broad registry-related restrictions and the continuing rights of people with convictions.
Open sourceSE20Government report
GAO — SORNA Implementation
U.S. Government Accountability Office
Implementation history, jurisdictional challenges, claimed benefits, burdens, and practical consequences of SORNA compliance.
Open sourceSE27Government legal summary
SMART — 2025 Case Law Summary
SMART Office, U.S. Department of Justice
Orientation to registry litigation, constitutional doctrine, and lower-court developments current through July 2025.
Open sourceSE28Law review article
Banishment by a Thousand Laws
Washington University Law Review
Legal and policy analysis of residence restrictions, exclusion zones, cumulative burdens, and modern banishment theory.
Open sourceSE67Federal appellate decision
Does #1–5 v. Snyder
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Sixth Circuit decision holding Michigan's amended registry punitive in effect for ex post facto purposes, illustrating that modern schemes are assessed on their actual effects.
Open sourceComparative harms and alternative public-safety responses
Official sources showing how other serious and recurring harms are measured and addressed through prevention, regulation, technology, treatment, enforcement, and ordinary criminal accountability.
SE15Official data explainer
CDC — Firearm Injury & Death
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Official public-health data for comparing the scale of serious harms and the prevention systems used to address them.
Open sourceSE16Government report
NHTSA — Impaired-Driving Prevention
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Showing how a recurring public-safety harm is addressed through prevention, technology, enforcement, research, and intervention.
Open sourceSE17Official data / government report
BJS — Domestic Violence
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Official victimization data on another serious and often underreported form of interpersonal harm.
Open sourceKeep researching
Official databases, research indexes, and legal resources for going beyond the sources collected here.
Research starting points
Bureau of Justice Statistics
OfficialOfficial federal statistics and reports on crime, victimization, corrections, and recidivism.
SMART Office
OfficialFederal resources on registry management, SORNA, case law, research, treatment, and policy.
U.S. Sentencing Commission
OfficialFederal sentencing data and research, including reports on non-production CSEM offenses and recidivism.
National Institute of Justice
OfficialResearch and evaluation materials on criminal justice policy and public safety.
PubMed
ResearchSearch peer-reviewed biomedical, behavioral, treatment, and public-health research.
Google Scholar
ResearchSearch academic literature, citations, related studies, and newer work building on the sources in this guide.
U.S. Supreme Court opinions on Justia
CourtReadable access to Supreme Court opinions, including Smith v. Doe and Packingham v. North Carolina.