Laserfiche WebLink
28 • Justice Research and Policy <br />darker spots in the map. Only a small portion of the graph was darker, however, <br />which is the least amount of overlap, where sex offenders live more than two <br />miles from a potential target. <br />Contrast this with the map showing the relationship between offenders and <br />parks (Figure 6), where there is obviously a lesser amount of co-location. Part of <br />the reason for this pattern is that there were fewer parks and they were more <br />spread out (73 schools were geocoded in the analysis, and only 41 parks). Much <br />of the difference, however, is that there did not seem to be the attraction between <br />child sex offenders and parks that there was with schools (discussed above) and <br />day cares (which follows). <br />The relationship between day cares and child sex offenders is similar to the <br />relationship between schools and child sex offenders (see Figure 7). There was <br />not as large an area that had the highest co-location between child sex offenders <br />and potential targets; however, as Figure 7 shows, there was a fairly substantial <br />relationship between these two, especially given that there were no darker areas <br />(showing a more dispersed relationship) within the area of highest concentra- <br />tion. This supports the argument that density is not just related to high residen- <br />tial areas, and, conversely, that the relationship between child sex offenders and <br />potential targets is not solely based on the density of the targets. <br />*Figure 5 <br />Pulaski County Sex Offenders - Spatial Density, Offenders to Schools <br />0816 <br />Miles <br />0 - 2,499 Feet <br />2,500 - 4,999 Feet <br />5,000 - 7,499 Feet <br />7,500 - 9,999 Feet <br />10,000 Plus Feet <br />N