08-22-2016 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Sex offenders and victims • 21 tion of parks in the county (a total of 43 parks) was obtained from the Parks and Recreation Department. Phone records were used to obtain a listing of all day cares in the county. After identifying all day cares, we confirmed the addresses by contacting the day care by telephone. A total of 171 day cares were identified. After all of the addresses for the sex offenders and targets were obtained, they were geocoded and mapped using ArcView. A number of geocoding prob- lems had to be overcome to proceed with the project. These problems resulted from changes in street names and streets that had been added in the county after release of the maps used in the analysis. Ultimately 90% of the addresses for offenders, 88% of the addresses for schools, 95% of the addresses for parks, and 85% of the addresses for day cares were included in the analysis. We do not see this as a problem, however, because of the nature of the project. The analyses here are mapping the relationship of the location of targets to where child sex offenders live. Problems with the geocoding resulted from inadequate mapping points for geocoding the addresses. As a result, if a sex offender could not be properly mapped to a particular street segment, then neither could the potential target (if there was no street segment mapped to geocode an offender, then there would be no street segment mapped for any of the targets). About the same percentage of each of the data sets could not be geocoded (from 5% to 15% of addresses). Again, since neither target nor sex offender could be mapped, a re- port of the relationship between the two should not be affected. After the data on offenders were broken down into those who offended against children and those who did not, three sets of analyses were conducted. The first was a point location analysis whereby the point locations of all child sex offend- ers and all of the potential targets were geocoded. The maps were then examined for any concentrations or abnormalities that might be important in determining the spatial relationship between child sex offenders and potential victims. In the second analysis, 1,000-foot buffer zones were drawn around each of the targets in the county. Each of the buffered potential targets was then exam- ined to determine how many child sex offenders lived within them. In addition, the number and percentage of child sex offenders living in the buffer zones were compared to the number and percentage of non-child sex offenders living in those buffer zones. The concept of a 1,000-foot buffer zone came from examining federal regu- lations and the Arkansas code, which prohibit certain activities near schools. For example, drug-free zones are established by 21 U.S.C. § 860, which enhances penalties for distributing illicit substances within 1,000 feet of any school, uni- versity, or playground (park). Arkansas Code 5-64-411 provides for a 1,000- foot drug-free zone around schools. Furthermore, 18 U.S.C. § 921 defines a “school zone” as any place “in or on the ground of a public, parochial, or private