The SOLAR Project - Sex Offender Legal Advocacy & Reform
← Back to Resources
SOLAR Resource Guide

Supported Claims Library

A source-backed collection of the strongest claims SOLAR believes the evidence supports.

Jump to Sources

Start Here

This library turns SOLAR’s research base into a public reference for outside writers. It does not reproduce every study note or internal research step. It gives the strongest claims SOLAR believes can be responsibly published, with plain-language meaning and source trails.

This is a curated research resource rather than an exhaustive literature review. It presents claims SOLAR believes are strongly supported by the available evidence, with direct source trails and narrowly stated limits where they materially affect the claim.

Publication-safe claim

The strongest wording SOLAR believes should survive competent journalistic, editorial, academic, legislative, or fact-checking scrutiny.

What it means

A conversational version that keeps the same meaning without changing the substance.

Evidence

A concise explanation of why SOLAR can say the claim and what evidence supports it.

Source trail

Direct links to primary studies, government reports, court opinions, or authoritative sources.

Quick navigation

Jump directly to the SOLAR position you need.

How to use this library

Use the claim sentence when you need a concise published formulation; use the evidence paragraph when you need to explain why it is supportable.

Start with the SOLAR position closest to your topic. Each claim card then moves from the polished sentence to ordinary language to the evidence trail. A journalist should be able to scan from position to claim to evidence without reading a long literature review.

The claim labels distinguish empirical findings, evidence syntheses, comparative findings, legal facts, policy inferences, and SOLAR conclusions. That distinction matters: SOLAR can reach policy conclusions, but a normative conclusion should not be presented as if it were a single statistical result.

Boundary rule

Boundaries are not included for balance. They appear only when leaving them out would make the claim materially misleading, when a specific exception would make the sentence vulnerable to competent review, or when naming a narrow exception strengthens the durability of the claim.

Ineffective, harmful, and rooted in misinformation

Publication-safe claims about broad SORN effectiveness, registry mechanisms, public use, and recidivism mythology.

SOLAR’s position

The sex offender registry system is ineffective, harmful, and rooted in misinformation.

Supported claims
Claim 1.1
Evidence synthesis

Publication-safe claim

Across 25 years of evaluated U.S. SORN policies, the strongest broad quantitative synthesis has not demonstrated an overall recidivism-reduction effect.

What it means

After decades of registry laws, the best broad pooled evidence still has not shown that SORN as a system reduces reoffending overall.

Why we can say it / evidence

Zgoba and Mitchell synthesized 18 research articles, 474,640 individuals, and 42 effect sizes. The pooled effect was not statistically significant, including subgroup checks by sexual versus nonsexual recidivism and arrest versus conviction.

Boundary

Minnesota’s Level 3 community-notification study found favorable outcomes among selected higher-risk individuals; that finding should not be generalized into proof that broad public web registries work.

Claim 1.2
Empirical finding

Publication-safe claim

Major state-level evaluations have repeatedly failed to show that broad registry-and-notification systems reduce sexual offending or sexual recidivism.

What it means

Large evaluations in places such as New York, New Jersey, and South Carolina did not deliver the prevention results the public is often told to assume.

Why we can say it / evidence

The New York time-series study reported no support for SORN reducing several sexual-offense outcomes. The New Jersey NIJ evaluation found no demonstrated effect on overall sexual offenses, time to first rearrest, sexual reoffending, or first-time sex offenses. South Carolina adult-recidivism research found registration status did not predict sexual recidivism in modeled analyses.

Claim 1.3
Policy inference

Publication-safe claim

Registration, public Internet disclosure, targeted community notification, verification, residence restrictions, supervision, and treatment are different policy components and should not be treated as interchangeable evidence.

What it means

A study about one part of the system does not automatically prove something about every other part.

Why we can say it / evidence

The evidence separates law-enforcement registration from public notification and broader SORN packages. Prescott and Rockoff’s work is especially important because it analyzes registration and notification as distinct mechanisms rather than one undifferentiated policy.

Claim 1.4
Empirical finding

Publication-safe claim

Public availability of registry information is not the same thing as public use, protective action, or crime reduction.

What it means

A registry website can exist and still fail to produce the behavior change people imagine.

Why we can say it / evidence

Anderson and Sample’s Nebraska survey found that a minority of respondents with valid access data had accessed the registry, and protective action was self-reported and conditional on registry use. This supports the distinction between availability, use, and prevention; it is not a crime-rate experiment.

Claim 1.5
Empirical finding

Publication-safe claim

Law-enforcement research documents implementation limits that constrain the registry’s claimed safety mechanism.

What it means

Even when a registry has informational value, its usefulness depends on accuracy, interagency communication, public understanding, and real-world implementation.

Why we can say it / evidence

Harris and colleagues identified concerns about registry information reliability and utility, inter-system communication, public interpretation, and operational workload. Cubellis and colleagues also found mixed law-enforcement views and lower confidence in public-safety efficacy in states with larger registries.

Boundary

Practitioner perception is evidence about implementation and belief; it is not direct evidence that SORN reduces offending.

Claim 1.6
Empirical finding

Publication-safe claim

Major official and longitudinal studies consistently find that detected sexual recidivism is a minority outcome, with rates varying substantially by population, prior history, age, follow-up period, and outcome measure.

What it means

The evidence does not support the common assumption that people convicted of sex offenses almost always offend again.

Why we can say it / evidence

BJS’s 1994 release study and its nine-year 2005 release study both show detected sexual recidivism as a minority outcome, while longer-term research shows rates vary by subgroup, prior offense history, age, follow-up period, and measurement basis.

Boundary

Official rearrest, charge, conviction, and reincarceration measures undercount undetected conduct and should not be described as lifetime offending rates.

Lasting harm to individuals, families, and communities

Publication-safe claims about housing, employment, psychological, social, administrative, and public-safety-relevant burdens.

SOLAR’s position

Registry systems cause lasting harm to individuals, families, and communities.

Supported claims
Claim 2.1
Evidence synthesis

Publication-safe claim

Documented registry burdens are not merely fairness concerns; they are relevant to the policy’s own public-safety goals.

What it means

Housing loss, job loss, isolation, harassment, and instability matter because stability is part of public safety.

Why we can say it / evidence

Levenson and Cotter, Lasher and McGrath, and Bonnar-Kidd document housing, employment, social, and psychological instability associated with registry and notification systems. Those burdens are relevant to reintegration and public-safety goals, while the direct causal path from any single burden to new offending is harder to establish.

Boundary

Collateral burdens are strongly documented; causal links from each burden to new offending are harder to establish and should not be overstated.

Claim 2.2
Empirical finding

Publication-safe claim

Community notification and public registry exposure have been repeatedly associated with housing, employment, psychological, and social reintegration burdens.

What it means

For many people and families, registry exposure is not just paperwork; it changes where they can live, work, and belong.

Why we can say it / evidence

Levenson and Cotter reported reintegration effects among Florida registrants. Lasher and McGrath’s review found recurring housing and job exclusion and negative psychological effects across quantitative studies, with more intrusive notification linked to greater burden.

Claim 2.3
Empirical finding

Publication-safe claim

Residence restrictions can dramatically shrink lawful housing options in the places where they are imposed.

What it means

A rule that sounds simple on paper can make ordinary housing nearly impossible in a real neighborhood.

Why we can say it / evidence

Zandbergen and Hart’s Orange County, Florida GIS study found that only about 5% of potentially available urban residential parcels remained available under the studied 1,000-foot exclusion zones.

Boundary

This is a jurisdiction-specific GIS case study; zoning, local geography, bus-stop placement, and exclusion rules can materially change the result.

Claim 2.4
Empirical finding

Publication-safe claim

Registry systems can impose substantial public costs even where a major evaluation finds no demonstrated public-safety benefit.

What it means

The burden is not only private. Government agencies and taxpayers also pay for systems that may not deliver measurable prevention gains.

Why we can say it / evidence

The NIJ-funded New Jersey evaluation reported no demonstrated public-safety effect across several outcomes and documented start-up and annual county costs, including approximately $3.9 million in responding-county costs for 2007.

Boundary

The New Jersey cost figures are historical, jurisdiction-specific, and not a national estimate.

Claim 2.5
Empirical finding

Publication-safe claim

Law-enforcement respondents in larger-registry states reported greater concern about collateral consequences and less belief in SORN’s public-safety efficacy.

What it means

Even among people who administer these systems, bigger registries do not necessarily produce greater confidence.

Why we can say it / evidence

Cubellis, Walfield, and Harris found mixed law-enforcement views of SORN and reported that respondents in states with larger registries expressed more concern about collateral consequences and less confidence in public-safety efficacy.

Boundary

This is practitioner-perception evidence, not direct proof of crime reduction or crime increase.

Relationship, access, and trust—not stranger-location mapping

Publication-safe claims about child-safety threat models and the limits of registry-centered prevention.

SOLAR’s position

Sexual harm to children is primarily a relationship-and-access problem, not a stranger-location problem.

Supported claims
Claim 3.1
Empirical finding

Publication-safe claim

Reported child sexual abuse is predominantly committed by people known to the child rather than strangers.

What it means

The biggest child-safety problem is usually access and trust, not an unknown person living nearby.

Why we can say it / evidence

BJS’s report on sexual assault of young children reported to law enforcement is the official source trail for the victim-offender relationship point. It supports SOLAR’s use of relationship-and-access framing instead of stranger-danger framing.

Boundary

The BJS source is about cases reported to law enforcement; unreported abuse may have different measurement limits.

Claim 3.2
Policy inference

Publication-safe claim

A registry website is a poor standalone child-safety model because known-access offending is not the same prevention target as stranger-location warning.

What it means

Looking up nearby addresses does not answer the deeper safety questions: who has private access, authority, secrecy, and trust?

Why we can say it / evidence

BJS’s known-perpetrator data show that child sexual harm is predominantly a known-person problem; Anderson and Sample’s public-use study shows that registry availability does not automatically become protective action; and Harris and colleagues document implementation and public-interpretation limits. Together, those findings show why a public map is an incomplete child-safety model.

Claim 3.3
Policy inference

Publication-safe claim

Registry-centered prevention can misdirect attention when it encourages the public to treat location visibility as the main child-safety strategy.

What it means

Children are better protected by prevention systems that address access, reporting, institutional response, supervision, and trusted authority—not by assuming a public map solves the problem.

Why we can say it / evidence

BJS’s known-perpetrator data place relationship and access at the center of the threat model. Anderson and Sample’s findings show the gap between registry availability and protective behavior, while Zgoba and Mitchell’s broad synthesis finds no overall recidivism-reduction effect for SORN. That combination supports prevention strategies that reach beyond location visibility.

Comparative public safety

Publication-safe claims that compare recidivism measures without collapsing overall rearrest, sexual rearrest, reconviction, and specialization.

SOLAR’s position

Other types of crime present a greater and more consistent danger to public safety.

Supported claims
Claim 4.1
Comparative finding

Publication-safe claim

The comparative recidivism picture is outcome-dependent: sex-offense release groups are not uniformly high on overall recidivism, but they are relatively elevated when the outcome is specifically another detected sexual offense.

What it means

The answer changes depending on what you are measuring. Overall rearrest and sexual rearrest are not the same question.

Why we can say it / evidence

BJS’s 1994 and 2005 release cohorts both show lower overall rearrest for sex-offense groups than for other released prisoners, while also showing higher sexual-offense rearrest when the outcome is another rape or sexual assault.

Claim 4.2
Comparative finding

Publication-safe claim

Across major same-cohort official comparisons, several non-sex offense groups have materially higher overall rearrest rates than sex-offense groups.

What it means

People released after sex offenses are not the highest-rearresting category when the measure is any new arrest.

Why we can say it / evidence

The 2019 BJS report found that 67% of rape/sexual-assault releases were arrested for any crime within nine years, compared with 84% of other released prisoners. BJS category comparisons and USSC federal data also show substantial variation across offense groups.

Boundary

Use same-study comparisons where possible; offense groups differ by age, history, sentence, cohort, and release context.

Claim 4.3
Comparative finding

Publication-safe claim

Sexual-offense history is associated with elevated relative risk of later detected sexual offending, while most released sex-offense groups in these official cohorts were not rearrested for another sexual offense.

What it means

A group can have higher relative risk and still have a minority absolute rate. Both facts matter.

Why we can say it / evidence

The BJS nine-year follow-up reported that released sex offenders were more likely than other released prisoners to be arrested for rape or sexual assault, while the absolute sexual rearrest rate was 7.7% over nine years in the 2005 cohort.

Boundary

Relative elevation and absolute prevalence answer different questions; rearrest is detected official-system behavior, not all offending.

Claim 4.4
Comparative finding

Publication-safe claim

Elevated same-type rearrest among people with prior sexual offenses should be understood partly as offense specialization, a broader criminal-recidivism pattern found across many offense categories.

What it means

Repeat-offense concentration is not unique to sexual offending, even though sexual-offense specialization can be pronounced.

Why we can say it / evidence

BJS’s same-offense specialization table found elevated same-type rearrest likelihood across many offense categories, including homicide, rape, other sexual assault, robbery, assault, burglary, theft, fraud, drug, and public-order offenses.

Boundary

The magnitude of specialization differs by offense, category definitions, and base rates; same-type relative likelihood is not the same as absolute recidivism probability.

Punitive in practice

Publication-safe claims distinguishing legal classification from empirical and lived effects.

SOLAR’s position

Registries are punitive in practice, not administrative in nature.

Supported claims
Claim 5.1
Legal fact

Publication-safe claim

A court’s civil label for a registry scheme does not end the empirical or policy question whether modern registry systems operate punitively in practice.

What it means

Legal doctrine and lived effect are related, but they are not the same thing.

Why we can say it / evidence

Smith v. Doe held Alaska’s then-existing registry nonpunitive for federal ex post facto purposes. Later decisions, including Does #1–5 v. Snyder, show that materially different modern schemes can be judged punitive in effect.

Claim 5.2
SOLAR conclusion

Publication-safe claim

Public exposure, recurring reporting duties, movement and housing limits, employment barriers, and long-duration public status make registry systems function as punishment for many people after sentence completion.

What it means

For the person living under the system, the punishment does not necessarily end when the sentence ends.

Why we can say it / evidence

The claim is a SOLAR synthesis grounded in documented reintegration burdens, residence-restriction housing effects, administrative demands, public-notification consequences, and modern constitutional litigation over punitive effects.

Claim 5.3
Legal fact

Publication-safe claim

Modern registry challenges are fact-sensitive because courts assess the specific law’s effects, not the word “registry” in the abstract.

What it means

The legal answer can change when a registry adds exclusion zones, in-person reporting, public branding, internet disclosure, or other heavy burdens.

Why we can say it / evidence

Smith v. Doe applied an intent-effects framework to Alaska’s law as it existed then. Does #1–5 v. Snyder applied that framework to Michigan’s amended scheme and found punitive effects.

Claim 5.4
Policy inference

Publication-safe claim

When a system produces punishment-like burdens without demonstrating broad public-safety gains, proportionality becomes a central policy question.

What it means

The state should not get to impose lifelong practical punishment merely by calling it administration.

Why we can say it / evidence

Pooled null or inconsistent recidivism effects coexist with documented financial, administrative, housing, employment, and reintegration burdens. That makes benefit-versus-burden an empirical proportionality question.

One-size-fits-all registry laws are flawed

Publication-safe claims about heterogeneity, offense labels, age, time offense-free, assessment tools, treatment, and calibration.

SOLAR’s position

One-size-fits-all registry laws are fundamentally flawed.

Supported claims
Claim 6.1
Empirical finding

Publication-safe claim

An offense label is not a validated measure of an individual’s current risk.

What it means

Knowing what someone was convicted of does not tell you, by itself, how likely that person is to offend again.

Why we can say it / evidence

Research documents substantial heterogeneity by prior offense history, age, time offense-free, criminal history, CSEM versus contact offense profile, and tool population fit. Major comparator datasets show wide variation inside and across offense categories.

Claim 6.2
Empirical finding

Publication-safe claim

Risk is dynamic across the life course: age and time offense-free materially change empirically observed risk.

What it means

Risk is not frozen forever at the moment of conviction.

Why we can say it / evidence

Age, desistance, Static-99R age revisions, and long-term follow-up evidence support the conclusion that risk changes over time and should not be treated as a permanent category label.

Boundary

Age lowers average risk; it does not eliminate risk for every individual.

Claim 6.3
Empirical finding

Publication-safe claim

Validated actuarial methods generally outperform unstructured professional judgment in predicting sexual recidivism.

What it means

Risk decisions should not be based only on fear, offense title, or a professional gut feeling.

Why we can say it / evidence

Babchishin, Hanson, and Helmus’s meta-analysis found stronger predictive performance for actuarial approaches than for unstructured professional judgment. Hanson and Morton-Bourgon’s updated predictor work likewise supports structured, empirically grounded assessment rather than intuition alone.

Boundary

Structured methods are not perfect prediction; usefulness depends on the population, tool purpose, and decision being made.

Claim 6.4
Empirical finding

Publication-safe claim

PCRA results should not be treated as if they directly answer a specialized sexual-recidivism question.

What it means

A general federal risk/needs score is not automatically a sex-offense risk score.

Why we can say it / evidence

PCRA was built for general federal post-conviction risk and intervention needs. In the federal CSEM validation work, PCRA showed only modest discrimination for five-year sexual rearrest.

Boundary

General-risk tools can correlate with specialized outcomes; correlation does not transform their validated primary purpose.

Claim 6.5
Empirical finding

Publication-safe claim

Moderate AUCs can contain useful ranking information while still being inadequate for precise individual probability claims.

What it means

A tool can be better than guessing and still not tell you that a particular person has a precise percent chance of reoffending.

Why we can say it / evidence

AUC is a discrimination statistic: it ranks relative ordering but does not by itself establish calibration, absolute probability, causation, or certainty for a particular person.

Claim 6.6
Empirical finding

Publication-safe claim

Transporting a score-to-percentage table across populations requires calibration evidence, not just a respectable AUC.

What it means

A number developed in one sample may not give the right absolute-risk estimate in another setting.

Why we can say it / evidence

Static-99R norms and CPORT validation concerns illustrate why discrimination and calibration must be kept separate. Reference-group choice and population fit must be explicit.

Claim 6.7
Empirical finding

Publication-safe claim

Risk assessment should distinguish historical baseline risk from changeable treatment and supervision needs rather than treating risk as permanently fixed.

What it means

Some risk-relevant facts are historical. Others can change with time, treatment, stability, supervision, and behavior.

Why we can say it / evidence

STABLE-2007, SOTIPS, VRS-SO, and treatment meta-analysis evidence support the existence of structured dynamic risk and change-related information.

Boundary

Dynamic ratings require training, appropriate data, and good longitudinal information.

Permanent underclass

Publication-safe SOLAR synthesis claims about cumulative reintegration barriers and long-duration public status.

SOLAR’s position

Registries create a permanent underclass.

Supported claims
Claim 7.1
SOLAR conclusion

Publication-safe claim

Registry systems create a permanent underclass when public status, legal restrictions, private exclusion, and administrative demands combine to block ordinary reintegration.

What it means

The registry can follow a person into housing, work, family life, community participation, and public identity long after the court sentence is over.

Why we can say it / evidence

This is a SOLAR synthesis grounded in documented housing loss, employment exclusion, psychological burden, community-notification effects, residence restrictions, and recurring administrative demands.

Claim 7.2
Empirical finding

Publication-safe claim

Housing barriers are a central mechanism through which registry systems destabilize people and families.

What it means

Housing is not a side issue. Without a lawful, stable place to live, nearly every other part of reentry becomes harder.

Why we can say it / evidence

Zandbergen and Hart’s GIS study shows how exclusion zones can sharply reduce lawful housing supply. Levenson and Cotter and Lasher and McGrath document housing exclusion and residential disruption associated with notification and registry exposure.

Boundary

Housing effects vary by local law, geography, landlord practice, supervision rules, and family resources.

Claim 7.3
Empirical finding

Publication-safe claim

Employment and social exclusion are documented registry consequences, not speculative complaints.

What it means

People on registries often face work and community barriers because their public status invites exclusion.

Why we can say it / evidence

The reintegration evidence includes job loss, job exclusion, social isolation, threats, and psychological effects associated with public registry and notification exposure.

Claim 7.4
Policy inference

Publication-safe claim

A system that undermines housing, employment, and community reintegration can weaken the same stability infrastructure public safety depends on.

What it means

Public safety is not served by making lawful life harder than it needs to be.

Why we can say it / evidence

Documented collateral burdens and the lack of demonstrated broad SORN recidivism reduction support this stability-and-proportionality inference without requiring a claim that every individual burden directly causes reoffending.

Boundary

This is a stability-and-proportionality claim, not a claim that every collateral burden has a proven direct causal effect on reoffending.

Measurable outcomes, not presumed benefits

Publication-safe methodological claims that keep policy claims tied to evidence, mechanisms, and actual outcomes.

SOLAR’s position

Public-safety policy should be judged by measurable outcomes, not presumed benefits.

Supported claims
Claim 8.1
Policy inference

Publication-safe claim

The seriousness of sexual harm does not prove that a registry policy prevents it.

What it means

A problem can be grave and a proposed intervention can still fail.

Why we can say it / evidence

The moral seriousness of sexual harm and the measurable effectiveness of a policy are separate questions. Broad SORN evidence has not demonstrated an overall recidivism-reduction effect, and individual policy components show different mechanisms and evidence profiles.

Claim 8.2
Policy inference

Publication-safe claim

Visibility is not prevention, and the existence of a database is not proof of protective action.

What it means

A public list only matters if it is accurate, understood, used, and connected to behavior that actually reduces harm.

Why we can say it / evidence

Anderson and Sample’s public-use study, Harris and colleagues’ implementation research, and Zgoba and Mitchell’s broad SORN synthesis all support separating availability, use, protective behavior, and crime reduction.

Claim 8.3
Policy inference

Publication-safe claim

Practitioner belief that SORN is useful is evidence about practitioner perception, not direct evidence that SORN reduces offending.

What it means

Survey answers can tell us what administrators think. They cannot, by themselves, prove crime prevention.

Why we can say it / evidence

Cubellis, Walfield, and Harris document mixed law-enforcement views of SORN, while Harris and colleagues identify operational and implementation concerns. Those studies support claims about practitioner perception and administration, not direct crime-rate effects.

Claim 8.4
Policy inference

Publication-safe claim

Registry policy should be evaluated component by component rather than as one indivisible package.

What it means

Registration, public notification, verification, residence restrictions, and supervision can have different evidence, mechanisms, and burdens.

Why we can say it / evidence

Prescott and Rockoff explicitly separate registration from notification, Zgoba and Mitchell synthesize broader SORN evidence, and Duwe and Donnay evaluate Minnesota’s selected Level 3 community-notification program. Those studies illustrate why evidence about one component should not be generalized across the whole policy package.

Claim 8.5
Policy inference

Publication-safe claim

Where demonstrated public-safety gains are null, narrow, or inconsistent, financial, administrative, and reintegration burdens become central to whether a registry policy is proportionate.

What it means

Costs and harms matter most when the promised benefit is weak or unproven.

Why we can say it / evidence

Zgoba and Mitchell’s pooled null finding, New Jersey cost evidence, reintegration burdens, residence-restriction housing effects, and law-enforcement implementation concerns together support a benefit-versus-burden framework.

Boundary

Minnesota’s selected Level 3 community-notification program produced favorable outcomes in one major evaluation; that finding does not establish a broad public-safety benefit for public registry systems generally.

Claim 8.6
Empirical finding

Publication-safe claim

Any recidivism claim that omits its measurement basis is incomplete.

What it means

Rearrest, charge, conviction, reincarceration, self-report, and actual offending are not interchangeable.

Why we can say it / evidence

Outcome measurement is foundational. The same population can produce different rates depending on the endpoint, follow-up period, source of data, and subgroup definition.

Sources and methodology note

How claims and sources are selected and presented.

This page organizes primary studies, government reports, court opinions, and other authoritative sources into evidence-supported public claims. Source trails prioritize original sources, while SOLAR evidence guides are listed below as synthesis gateways.

Claims are curated for strength, relevance, and accuracy. Complicating evidence is used to define scope and boundaries when it materially changes what the evidence allows SOLAR to say.

Common reporting mistakes to avoid

  • Rearrest is not reconviction.
  • Public availability is not prevention.
  • Practitioner perception is not measured efficacy.
  • General-risk tools are not automatically specialized sexual-risk instruments.
  • Registration, notification, residence restrictions, supervision, treatment, and verification are not interchangeable policies.

Primary SOLAR evidence gateways

Registry Effectiveness Evidence Guide

SOLAR Guide
Deeper synthesis on registration, notification, public use, and measurable public-safety outcomes.

Recidivism Evidence Guide

SOLAR Guide
Deeper synthesis on rearrest, reconviction, follow-up periods, absolute rates, and comparator evidence.

Risk Assessment Guide

SOLAR Guide
Deeper synthesis on offense labels, actuarial tools, dynamic risk, calibration, and individualized assessment.

Research & Data Resources

SOLAR Resource
Research-oriented starting point for source trails, data resources, and evidence navigation.

Advocacy Positions

SOLAR Page
The public SOLAR positions this claims library is organized around.

Related SOLAR resources

Registry Effectiveness Evidence Guide

SOLAR
Use this for broader support on whether registries reduce offending.

Recidivism Evidence Guide

SOLAR
Use this for careful distinctions among rearrest, reconviction, absolute rates, and comparator groups.

Risk Assessment Guide

SOLAR
Use this for individualized-risk, tool-purpose, AUC, calibration, and dynamic-risk issues.

Source list

Direct source trail for the claims above.

Sources & verification

Current through August 25, 2026. Primary-source links were reviewed during drafting; publisher access and URLs may change over time.