PARSOL Applauds 3rd Circuit Victory Protecting Fair Chance Hiring
April 28, 2026
Dear Members of the Sex Offender Management Board,
I am writing to express my concerns with legislation on the agenda for the current state legislative session, specifically Senate bill SB1092. Given that the SOMB is charged with advising the legislature on policy, I am asking if and when the Board will be fulfilling its duty to advise? I also implore the Board to advise the legislature (its leaders and members) to oppose this bill in lieu of the significant research and debate that is needed.
In addition to serious 5th, 8th, and 14th Amendment, ex post facto, and civil liberties questions, changes to the current probation termination structure as proposed in SB1092 will impede successful rehabilitation, negatively impacting public safety.
As I am sure members are aware,
1. Substantial peer-reviewed research shows that sexual recidivism rates are exceedingly low. Individuals with no prior criminal or sexual offense history present especially low risk of recidivism, and recidivism declines each additional year an individual remains offense-free in the community.
2. Completion of sex offender treatment further reduces risk, and individuals who complete cognitive-behavioral treatment programs consistent with Risk-Need-Responsivity principles—the current standard in the State of Arizona—show lower recidivism rates.
3. Early termination of probation facilitates successful community re-integration, which is itself a protective factor against re-offending. Ongoing supervision restricts access to stable employment and housing—both of which are strongly associated with reduced recidivism and long-term desistance from crime. Allowing early termination for appropriate candidates removes unnecessary barriers to employment, housing, and prosocial community ties, thereby supporting public safety rather than undermining it. Early termination also removes financial burdens on state financial coffers and taxpayers.
4. Arizona’s probation departments and treatment providers operate under chronic staffing shortages, high caseloads, and expanding administrative demands, limiting their capacity to focus on higher-risk individuals. Continued supervision of low-risk individuals who have demonstrated supervision and treatment compliance and sustained offense-free behavior consumes limited resources without public-safety benefit and places added strain on state and local budgets. I am confident that most good-faith stakeholders, several of whom are board members and have acknowledged these challenges in past meetings, agree.
5. Judicial discretion to determine eligibility for early probation termination, guided by structured input from probation departments and treatment providers, represents the most evidence-based approach. Judges are uniquely positioned to balance individualized risk assessment with public-safety considerations when informed by probation officers and treatment providers. This multidisciplinary, case-by-case approach supports efficient allocation of supervision resources and aligns with empirical evidence. This is a model that has worked in Arizona for decades.
In light of this, I, again, am inquiring as to the Board’s plans for expeditiously confronting these issues with legislators and to express their evidence-based opposition. I understand that the Board is still in its nascent stages, but individuals directly affected cannot tolerate delayed action because of supposed nascence. Once laws are passed, it is effectively impossible to reverse them. I would also like to remind the Board that it is comprised of experts possessing a working and ready-to-be-deployed knowledge that can directly shape the direction of these and other policies and, in turn, their resulting real impacts on people’s lives. In fact, one might say the Board is obligated by law to act in the face of policies that are wholly contradicted by objective, verifiable fact.
Sincerely,
Trenton Davis, Ph.D.
Non-exhaustive references for your pleasure:
Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J. & Wormith, J. S. (2011). The Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) Model: Does Adding the Good Lives Model Contribute to Effective Crime Prevention? Does Adding the Good Lives Model Contribute to Effective Crime Prevention? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(7), 735-755.
Bouchard J. & Wong J. S. (2018). Examining the Effects of Intensive Supervision and Aftercare Programs for At-Risk Youth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol, 62(6):1509-1534.
Hanson, R. K. & Bussière, M. T. (1998). Predicting relapse: a meta-analysis of sexual offender recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66(2), 348–362.
Hanson, R. K. & Morton-Bourgon, K. E. (2005). The characteristics of persistent sexual offenders: A meta-analysis of recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(6), 1154–1163.
Hanson, R. K., Gordon, A., Harris, A. J. R., Marques, J. K., Murphy, W., Quinsey, V. L., & Seto, M. C. (2002). First report of the
Collaborative Outcome Data Project on the effectiveness of psychological treatment for sex offenders. Sexual Abuse, 14(2), 169–194.
Hanson, R. K. & Morton-Bourgon, K. E. (2004; rev. 2022). Predictors of Sexual Recidivism: An Updated Meta-Analysis. Public Safety Canada. <https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2004-02-prdctrs-sxl-rcdvsm-pdtd/ >
Hanson, R. K., Bourgon, G., Helmus, L., & Hodgson, S. (2009). The Principles of Effective Correctional Treatment Also Apply to Sexual Offenders: A Meta-Analysis: A Meta-Analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(9), 865-891
Hanson, R. K., Harris, A. J. R., Helmus, L., & Thornton, D. (2014). High-risk sex offenders may not be high risk forever: Empirical evidence for dynamic predictors of sex offence recidivism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(15), 2792–2813.
Hanson, R. K., Harris, A. J. R., Letourneau, E., Helmus, L., & Thornton, D. (2018). Reductions in risk based on time offense-free in the community: Understanding dynamic predictors of sexual recidivism. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 24(1), 48–63.
Harris, A. J. R., & Hanson, R. K. (2004). Sex offender recidivism: A simple question. Public Safety Canada.
<https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/sx-ffndr-rcdvsm/index-en.aspx>
Helmus, L., Hanson, R. K., Thornton, D., Babchishin, K. M., & Harris, A. J. R. (2012). Absolute Recidivism Rates Predicted by Static-99R
and Static-2002R Sex Offender Risk Assessment Tools Vary Across Samples: A Meta-Analysis: A Meta-Analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(9), 1148-1171.
Hyatt, J. M. & Barnes, G. C. (2014). An Experimental Evaluation of the Impact of Intensive Supervision on the Recidivism of High-Risk Probationers. Crime & Delinquency, 63(1), 3-38.
Jacobs, L. A. & Gottlieb, A. (2020). The Effect of Housing Circumstances on Recidivism: Evidence from a Sample of People on Probation in San Francisco. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 47(9), 1097-1115.
Langan, P. A. & Levin, D. J. (2002). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report (NCJ 193427).
Lipsey, M. W. & Coggeshall, M. B. (2005). Ex-offender employment programs and recidivism: A meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 295–316.
Lösel, F. & Schmucker, M. (2005). The effectiveness of treatment for sexual offenders: A comprehensive meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1(2), 117–146.
Laub, J. H. & Sampson, R. J. (2003). Shared beginnings, divergent lives: Delinquent boys to age 70. Harvard University Press.
Sampson, R. J. & Laub, J. H. (2005). A life-course view of the development of crime. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 602, 12–45.
Sandbukt, I. J., Skardhamar, T, Kristofferson, R., & Friestad, C. (2020). Testing the Static-99R as a global screen for risk of sex offender recidivism. Sex Abuse, 33(6):725–742.
Seto, M. C., Hanson, R. K., & Babchishin, K. M. (2025). The Sexual Recidivism Rates of Women Are Still Low: An Updated Meta-Analysis. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, doi: 10.1002/cbm.70014. Epub ahead of print.
Stinson, J. D. & Becker, J. V. (2013). Treating sex offenders: An evidence-based manual. The Guilford Press.
Thornton, D. & Knight, R. A. (2024). Revisiting the sexual recidivism drop in Canada and the United States: A meta-analysis of 468 empirical studies involving 388,994 individuals. Journal of Criminal Justice, 92, 102188.
Trotter, C. T. (2013). Reducing recidivism through probation supervision: What we know and don’t know from four decades of research. Federal Probation, 77(2), 43–48.
Uggen, C. (2000). Work as a turning point in the life course of criminals: A duration model of age, employment, and recidivism. American Sociological Review, 65(4), 529–546.
Visher, C. A., Winterfield, L., & Coggeshall, M. B. (2005). Ex-offender employment programs and recidivism: A meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 295–316.
