08-22-2016 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Sex offenders and victims • 27 overlapped one another. Also in this buffered area was a child sex offender who lived immediately adjacent to a day care. A more explicit example of child sex offenders living in close proximity to potential targets is the area just to the right. Four day cares and a school were all buffered together. There were also four child sex offenders living within this buffered area, and four more who lived just outside the buffered area. As a part of this analysis, sex offenders in the data set who had children as victims were mapped against sex offenders in the data set who did not have children as victims to determine if there were differences in their residence pat- terns. As discussed above, 48% of all child sex offenders lived within the buffer zones. In comparison, 26% (19) of non-child sex offenders lived in these buffer zones. This lends support to the argument that child sex offenders are choosing to live in areas where there are concentrations of potential victims. At the very least, this finding is troubling for the criminal justice system and families alike: that there is a larger percentage and number of sex offenders who had children as victims living in close proximity to concentrations of children than there are sex offenders who did not have children as victims. The analysis of 1,000-foot buffers around potential targets provides some quantification for the argument that child sex offenders are choosing to live in areas where they have access to potential victims. In this analysis, almost half of all child sex offenders lived within 1,000 feet of a day care, school, or park, and a substantially higher percentage of child sex offenders were living in these areas than offenders who did not have children as their victims. Certainly some of the variation can be attributed to the distribution of residential areas within the county. This is not a total explanation, however, and the assumption must be made that some of the child sex offenders were choosing to live in areas where they had access to potential victims. This relationship was further explored in the final analysis of this research, which examined the spatial density of child sex offend- ers and targets. Spatial Relationships In the third and final analysis, Spatial Analyst was used to examine the rela- tionship between each of the target types and where the offenders lived. Although this is a qualitative measure, it does provide additional evidence that can be used to evaluate the assumptions of this research. As shown in Figure 5, there was a substantial relationship between where the child sex offenders lived and the locations of schools. The light area through- out this graph indicates a high co-location, with at least one sex offender living within one mile of at least one potential target throughout the area. There were a few areas with a lesser amount of overlap between the two, as indicated by the