08-22-2016 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Sex offenders and victims • 25 Each of the other areas within the 36 identified as concentrations exhibited patterns similar to that shown in Figure 2. Some areas had a greater concentra- tion of child sex offenders around day cares and schools than the area shown in Figure 2, but the latter area was used as an example because the multiple sites within the concentration area demonstrated the likelihood of several concentra- tions even within a single area. Figure 3 also illustrates the co-location of child sex offenders and targets. In both areas the sex offenders were living in very close proximity to the day care. What is particularly interesting, though, is that each day care was in a relatively rural area, not particularly close to anything, and yet a child sex offender (or in one case two child sex offenders) lived in very close proximity. What we determined from analyzing the 36 concentration areas is that in some areas of the city, a large number of child sex offenders lived in close prox- imity to concentrations of children that may serve as potential targets. The point location relationship between child sex offenders and potential targets supports the argument that at least some child sex offenders are selecting where they live based on potential targets in the area. This was particularly clear when the maps and relationships were examined in detail, especially when the child sex of- fender and target were not co-located with other people. What must be avoided, however, is assigning a purposeful nexus between offenders and targets simply Daycare Offenders 0400Feet Offenders Daycare 600 400 200 0 Feet *Figure 3 Pulaski County Sex Offenders - Proximity of Offender and Daycare Area 1 Area 2