1. LOCATING PROBATION OFFICES BY EQUALLY ADDRESSING THE LOCAL
COMMUNITY CONCERNS AND THE NEEDS OF THE RESPONSIBLE
AGENCIES: A SITE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
By
DARREN A. MURPHY
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
OF MASTER OF ARTS IN URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
2002

2. Copyright 2002
by
Darren A. Murphy

3. This Terminal Project is dedicated to my beloved parents, Anthony and Ann Murphy,
who helped me achieve my goal in reaching this next plateau of higher learning and
excellence.

4. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank Almighty God for His grace that has enabled me to complete
this project. I am extremely grateful for all the assistance given by members of my thesis
committee, namely, Dr. Bejleri and Dr. Schneider. Dr. Bejleri’s excellent direction and
guidance enabled me to focus on the necessary elements of my research, GIS
methodology approaches, and writing. I am very indebted for his wise counsel. My
heartfelt thanks go to Dr. Schneider for his helpful suggestions on my early questionnaire
development.
I would also like to acknowledge the immense help from the National Association
of Probation Executives’ Board Members: Dan Beto, Robert Czaplicki, Ron Goethals,
Cherie Townsend, Gary Hinzman, James Rood, Edward Mansfield, Robert Bingham, and
Conway Bushey for providing me with their invaluable professional judgments for my
mail survey questionnaire on which external geographic variables have the greatest
influence on the location of a probation office within an urban and residential setting. I
am also very grateful for the help I received from my good friend Keith Yearwood for
playing the ‘devil’s advocate’ in the early stages of my writing, a task that caused me to
think objectively about the validity of my arguments. I would also like to thank Carolyn
Morgan, City Planner for the City of Gainesville, for giving me the initial thesis idea.
Furthermore, I would also like to thank the staff of the Hillsborough County-City
Planning Commission in the City of Tampa, FL for giving me both the opportunity to
iv

5. fulfill my summer internship in such a wonderful and dynamic environment and for
providing me with my initial GIS methodology framework.
I would not have been able to complete this project without the guidance of
Evelyn Cairns, office manager in the Urban and Regional Planning department. She
provided invaluable help in all of the necessary paperwork and mandates of the Graduate
School. Many a times she helped me at short notice. I am particularly indebted to her for
her help.
I would like to thank the Department of Urban and Regional Planning for providing
me with computer facilities and software that enabled me to complete this final aspect of
my degree. Numerous other persons have assisted me in a variety of ways, and for that I
am indeed grateful. Finally, I would like to thank my parents and my brother and sister
for their continued love and support throughout the project.
v

6. TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................. iv
LIST OF TABLES...............................................................................................................x
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... xi
ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................... xiii
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1
Goal and Objectives........................................................................................................ 1
Long-term Goal.........................................................................................................1
Short-term Objectives ...............................................................................................1
The FDMS’s Current Procedure for Procuring Lease Office Space for the FDOC’s
ACSO....................................................................................................................... 3
Problems with Procedure 210.007: the Initial, General Guidelines ............................... 4
Bureaucratic Oversight .............................................................................................4
Building Specifications.............................................................................................5
Space to Be Located..................................................................................................5
A Case Example: Probation Office Not Moving Next To Schools ................................ 7
Notes. ............................................................................................................................ 10
2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ........................................................................................12
Introducing the “Not-In-My-Back-Yard” Syndrome.................................................... 12
Community opposition to social service providers is typically reduced to three main
concerns: property values, personal security, and neighborhood amenity............. 14
Property Values.......................................................................................................14
Personal Security.....................................................................................................16
Neighborhood Amenity...........................................................................................17
Eight Factors that Determine a Host Community’s Response Towards a Human
Service Provider’s Clientele: Client Characteristics, Facility Characteristics, Type,
Size, Number, Operation Procedures, Reputation of the Sponsoring Agency,
Characteristics of the Host Community................................................................. 19
Client Characteristics ..............................................................................................19
Type ........................................................................................................................22
Size..........................................................................................................................22
vi

7. Number....................................................................................................................22
Operating Procedures..............................................................................................23
Reputation of the Sponsoring Agency ....................................................................24
Characteristics of the Host Community..................................................................25
3 MATERIALS AND METHODS...................................................................................26
Survey Objective........................................................................................................... 27
Overall Design .............................................................................................................. 27
Sample Design .............................................................................................................. 29
Deciding upon the Population of Interest................................................................30
Sampling Frame Development ..................................................................................... 31
Sample Size and Selection............................................................................................ 31
Questionnaire Development ......................................................................................... 32
Question Style: Closed-Ended Questions ...............................................................32
Characteristics of a Specific Closed-End Question: Rating Scales ........................32
Question Wording......................................................................................................... 33
Survey Implementation................................................................................................. 35
Questionnaire Instructions ......................................................................................35
Piloting a Questionnaire................................................................................................ 35
Data Analysis................................................................................................................ 35
Classifying data and Variables................................................................................35
Summarizing Data Using Descriptive Statistical Analysis: Mean, Median,
Mode .......................................................................................................................35
Data Sorting and Defining Datasets.................................................................36
An Introduction to Raster Data........................................................................37
An Introduction to Environmental Science Research Institute’s
ModelBuilder...................................................................................................38
The Weighted Overlay Process........................................................................39
Drawing Conclusions.................................................................................................... 40
Notes. ............................................................................................................................ 40
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION....................................................................................42
Site Suitability Case Study for locating a FDOC’s ACSO within a designated host
community: Gainesville, FL .................................................................................. 42
Step 1: Results from the Mail Survey Questionnaire..............................................42
Step2: Ex-Offender Reintegration, input GIS Data Sets derived from the
Questionnaire...................................................................................................42
Step 3: Combining intermediary GIS datasets into creating an Ex-offender
Reintegration Optimization Model ..................................................................48
Weighted Overlay Table............................................................................................... 49
Step 4. Ex-offender Reintegration Optimization Model-Weighted Overlay
Process ....................................................................................................................52
Step 5: Vulnerable Population Datasets – FDOC’s ACSO Strategic Location
Model...............................................................................................................53
The limitations of this Case Study ..........................................................................55
vii

8. A Social Service Provider’s Necessary Role In Community Relations..................56
The Fundamental Choice for a Social Service Provider: Collaborative or Autonomous
Approach................................................................................................................ 56
Collaborative Approach ..........................................................................................56
Autonomous Approach ...........................................................................................57
The Recommended Community Relations Strategy for the FDMS........................57
Assessing the Application of GIS Tools in State and Local Decision Making ............ 59
Problem Solving and Consensus.............................................................................60
Issues Management.................................................................................................61
Quantifying the benefits of a GIS system ...............................................................62
Future Constraints......................................................................................................... 63
Successfully implementing the use of the Delphi Survey Technique and GIS
Technology ......................................................................................................64
Organizational and Political Constraints.................................................................64
Future Opportunities..................................................................................................... 65
Possible Benefits in Adopting a Negotiation Process with outside Parties ............65
Establishing Site Location Patterns.........................................................................66
Establishing a Designated Social Service Provider Zoning District.......................67
The usage of an appropriated monetary fund to mitigate surrounding property
values ...............................................................................................................68
Possible solutions to the availability of diminishing parcels ..................................68
5 CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY............................................................................70
APPENDIX
A FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES PROCEDURE
210.007, PROCURING LEASE SPACE ......................................................................72
B DELPHI SURVEY TECHNIQUE ................................................................................89
C NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PROBATION EXECUTIVES BOARD OF
DIRECTOR’S CAREER BIOGRAPHIES..................................................................103
D FINALIZED MAIL SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ...................................................107
E DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS –
SITE SUITABLITY ANALYSIS RESULTS .............................................................113
F MULTIPLE UTILITY ANALYSES RESULTS.........................................................116
G THE NEGOTIATION PROCESS: SIX BASIC RULES FOR BOTH THE FDOC
AND FDMS TO FOLLOW IN BARGAINING PRODUCTIVELY WITH THE HOST
COMMUNITY ............................................................................................................117
H DECISION-MAKING MODEL SUMMARY............................................................128
I CITY OF GAINESVILLE’S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.................................130
viii

9. LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................132
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...........................................................................................135
ix

10. LIST OF TABLES
Table page
1.1 FDOC list of incompatible land uses............................................................................6
2.1 Drug use by booked arrestees in 24 selected cities, by charge at arrest, 1991 ............18
3.1 Delphi Survey Technique – Pros and Cons .................................................................28
3.2 Mail Survey - Pros & Cons..........................................................................................29
3.3 Public Policy Issues coded into GIS Data Sets............................................................37
4.1 Effectiveness of a GIS as a Planning Tool...................................................................63
4.2 A Summary of Main Sources of Conflict ..................................................................126
x

11. LIST OF FIGURES
Figure page
Figure 1.1: Both the current & the proposed FDOC’s Gainesville Main 080 Office, lg.
scale..........................................................................................................................8
Figure 1.2. A) The proposed FDOC site, small scale. B)The proposed FDOC’s ACSO at
the left-end of the Northgate Plaza vacant commercial office space, next to the
Dollar General Store and the Florida Credit Union’s ATM upfront in the parking
lot. C) The Howard Bishop Middle School’s recess area/basketball courts are in
the immediate background of the proposed FDOC’s ACSO.................................10
Figure 3.1. Reaction of San Pedro residents to the differing disabilities/facilities............21
Figure 3.2. A basic diagram of ESRI’s ModelBuilder.......................................................38
Figure 4.1: Weighted Overlay Process – Steps 1 & 2........................................................39
Figure 4.2: Weighted Overlay Process – Steps 3 & 4........................................................40
Figure 4.1: Proximity to the Eighth Circuit Courthouse....................................................43
Figure 4.2: Proximity to bus terminals/shelters/stops........................................................44
Figure 4.3: Social Service Centers/Adult Educational-Vocational Centers ......................45
Figure 4.4: Optimal radial distance (2-miles)1
of a probation office in relation to the
majority of the probationers’ residencies...............................................................46
Figure 4.5: Police/Sheriff Service Area response time within 5, 10, & 15 minutes..........47
Figure 4.6: Ex-Offender Reintegration Flowchart, combining all intermediary GIS
datasets...................................................................................................................48
Figure 4.7: Offender Reintegration Weighted Overlay - Cgzoning ..................................49
Figure 4.8: Offender Reintegration Weighted Overlay – Copareas ..................................50
Figure 4.9: Offender Reintegration Weighted Overlay – Courthousebuff, Offender_Buff,
BusStop_buff .........................................................................................................50
Figure 4.10: Offender Reintegration Weighted Overlay–Reclass Map & Kdensity_1 .....51
xi

12. Figure 4.11: Weighted Overlay Process results - selected parcels selected ......................52
Figure 4.12: Vulnerable Population/Model-Ex-offender Reintegration Optimization
Model– qualitative assessment ..............................................................................53
Figure 4.13. Comparison and contrast of the current and proposed ASCO, relative to the
selected parcels ......................................................................................................54
Figure 4.14: A proposed Site Analysis Advisory Board ...................................................59
Figure 4.15: FDOC – Total Recidivism Rate ..................................................................119
xii

13. Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master in Arts in Urban and Regional Planning
LOCATING PROBATION OFFICES BY EQUALLY ADDRESSING THE LOCAL
COMMUNITY CONCERNS AND THE NEEDS OF THE RESPONSIBLE
AGENCIES: A SITE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
By
Darren A. Murphy
August 2002
Chair: Dr. Ilir Bejleri
Co chair: Dr. Schneider
Department: Urban and Regional Planning
Recently in Gainesville, FL, the Florida Department of Management Services
(FDMS) attempted to assign lease office space to the Florida Department of Correction’s
(FDOC) Adult Community Supervision Office (ACSO) that coincidentally was within a
0.5-mile radius of three schools and a daycare center. It has raised concerns that the
FDMS’s current procedural process for the procurement of leased office space for the
FDOC’s ACSO may pose both direct and indirect impacts upon adjacent, differing land
uses.
In order to address this issue, this project proposes a probation office site location
methodology that would address the community concerns while meeting the needs
of the respective governmenal agencies. This methodology includes developing site location criteria
and a process of implementing it by the FDMS.
xiii

14. The researcher developed the criteria through an administration of a mail survey
questionnaire to a population of interest within the field of community corrections. The
criteria were then applied using Geographic Information System technology in a case
study done within the city limits of Gainesville, FL.
The results demonstrate that the proposed site location methodology can equally
address the needs of the governmental agencies and the local community concerns. This methodology
may be considered by the FDMS for inclusion in its current procedural processes for
procuring or assigning lease space to the FDOC’s ACSO.
xiv

15. CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Goal and Objectives
Long-term Goal
The aim of this terminal project is to assist the Florida Department of Management
Services (FDMS) by developing a comprehensive, inclusive, and rational site-analysis
methodology for the specific placement of the Florida Department of Correction’s
(FDOC) Adult Community Supervision Offices (ACSO) within a host community that
can fit seamlessly with their already established governmentally mandated site-selection
procedures for procuring or assigning lease office space for all of the State of Florida’s
agencies. To further explain what each component means within the context of the
overall site analysis methodology, each will be defined separately and clarified:
• Comprehensive – examining external geographic variables that are both relevant to
legitimate community concerns and the correctional agency’s mission in reducing
ex-offender recidivism rates.
• Inclusive – involving state and local governmental officials along with public
officials/political representatives to partake in a consensus building/decision
making process for strategically locating a FDOC’s ACSO within a designated host
community.
• Quantitative – the usage of a site suitability modeling Geographic Information
System software application that incorporates a set of spatial processes that
converts input data into an output map using specific spatial analysis functions.
Short-term Objectives
Demonstrate this alternative of negotiating partnership roles with the
FDOC/FDMC, local units of government, and the public, through a site suitability case
1

16. 2
study in Gainesville, Florida. It will use the summated attitudinal responses of
professionals within the field of community corrections in directly formulating and
prioritizing specific criteria that deal with two important but dynamically polarized
societal issues addressing the legitimate concerns of the public and successfully
reintegrating the FDOC’s clientele back into society through a process of negotiation.
However, in order to quantify these two societal issues that appear to be
diametrically opposites based upon the parties involved, the focus of this terminal project
will be on what external geographic variables have the greatest influence upon the
placement of a FDOC’s ACSO within a designated urban or residential host community.
Moreover, this terminal project will also address another equally important issue
for the FDMS in developing, creating, and implementing site analysis criteria, which are
mutually beneficial to the needs of a FDOC’s ACSO and the legitimate concerns of the
host community, that will lead the State agency in making informed, strategic decisions
in locating a FDOC’s ACSOs within a designated host community. The current situation
is that there are no official site analysis criteria that have been promulgated either by the
federal government or from any of the national professional community corrections-
oriented organizations for locating probation offices within urban and residential settings.
For example, D. Shellner (personal communication, February 26, 2002) from the United
States Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections Information Center stated
that “there no are federal guidelines employed to locate probation/parole offices in
urban/residential settings.” Additionally, J. R. Weedon (personal communication,
February 8, 2002), Legislative Liaison, American Correctional Association (ACA) stated

17. 3
that, “the ACA does not have standards on site selection for Parole and Probation sites.”
As a fact, the ACA is the official accreditation board for the FDOC.
Within the context of this case study, the site analysis methodology will incorporate
site analysis that is criteria relevant to both parties, as mentioned above, along with a GIS
site suitability-modeling application. The purpose of the model is to help criminal justice
planners and policy analysts working within state- correctional agencies across the
country, in understanding, describing, and predicting how things work within a realistic
urban or suburban environment. By representing only those factors that are important to
the specific issues mentioned above and applying them to a case study, the objective of
this model is to create a simplified, manageable view of the issues relevant to finding the
most suitable site to locate a probation office. Although these site analysis criteria will be
applied to a specific city, they are generic in nature and can be applied to other cities in
Florida or other states.
The FDMS’s Current Procedure for Procuring Lease Office Space for the FDOC’s
ACSO
Florida Department of Management Services (FDMS), the state agency that
provides a centralized review, approval, and supervision of leases to state agencies for
real property as well as the comprehensive management of lease space allocations in
state-owned buildings under its jurisdiction. It currently uses the “autonomous” approach
in selecting the FDOC’s ACSOs within designated urban and residential communities.
“[This] approach presumes no direct contact with the host community prior to siting [a
location within a designated area]” (Dear, 1991, p. 37). The FDMS’s uses Procedure
210.007 to provide clearly established guidelines for procuring lease space for the FDOC
and its ACSO. This procedure is based upon the governmental mandates of the State of

18. 4
Florida’s Chapter 255, Florida Statute and Chapter 60H-1 through 60H-4, Florida
Administrative Code and State/Federal statutes: Sections 255.49, 255.25 and 945.28,
Florida Statute.
However, the FDMS must also adhere to the designated host community’s zoning
regulations. For example, the City of Gainesville’s Land Development Code book
classifies a FDOC’s ACSO as GN-869, which is a social service not found elsewhere,
which is zoned under the General Office District.1
Problems with Procedure 210.007: the Initial, General Guidelines
The researcher wants to alert the reader that this initial specific section: General
Guidelines, as part of Procedure 210.007, will be editorialized for the purpose of
demonstrating the serious shortcomings of it. Overall, the researcher summarizes three
main issues: bureaucratic oversight, building specifications, and space to be located
within that constitute the initial, General Guidelines of Procedure 210.00: Procuring
Lease Space.
Bureaucratic Oversight
The FDMS has the bureaucratic oversight when granting its approval to the
FDOC to solicit or negotiate a request for proposal to acquire or to lease space for any
square footage amount. “FDMS will not authorize FDOC to enter a lease for space in a
privately owned building when suitable space is available in a state-owned facility,
located in the same geographic location, without written justification” ("PROCURING
LEASE SPACE," 2000, p.4). “[Furthermore], FDOC may not construct a building for
state use or lease space in a private building constructed for state use without prior
approval of the architectural design and preliminary construction plans by FDMS,
Division of Building Construction” ("PROCURING LEASE SPACE," 2000, p. 4).

19. 5
Building Specifications
“FDMS is responsible for approving all leases 5,000 square feet and above, the
threshold amount stated in Section 255.25(3)(a), F.S ("PROCURING LEASE SPACE,"
2000, p.4). As mentioned above, the City of Gainesville has zoned the FDOC’s ACSO
under General Office District. One of the main dimensional requirements for this district
is that the minimum lot area is 6,000 square feet.2
Space to Be Located
“In accordance with Section 945.28, F.S., FDOC must publish the location of
property it intends to lease for its ACSO. FDOC may have to provide written notification
to the county or city administrator at least thirty (30) days prior to signing a lease
agreement” ("PROCURING LEASE SPACE," 2000, p. 5).
If the prospective lessor(s), [who refers to an owner of record or duly authorized
representative of real property who has the power and authority to make a lease,] of the
winning proposal indicates that the property is within one-quarter (¼) mile from any one
of the itemized facilities in the Request for Proposal for Probation and Parole Office
Space . . . the public must be notified pursuant to Section 945.28(2), F. S.”
("PROCURING LEASE SPACE," 2000, p. 4).
No probation and parole office will be allowed to have a site within 250 feet of any
of the facilities listed below:

20. 6
Table 1.1: FDOC list of incompatible land uses
School for children in grade or lower A licensed day care center facility
A park or playground A nursing home
A convalescent center A hospital
An association for disabled population A mental center
A youth center
A group home for disabled population or
youth
Another place where children or a population especially vulnerable to crime due to age
or physical or mental disability regularly congregates
Source: State of Florida Department of Corrections Bureau of
Field Support Services, Request for Proposal for Probation and
Parole Office Space, DC2-514B, 2001, pgs.16-17.
Any submitted proposal that indicates that the proposed location is within 250 feet
of the itemized facilities, FDOC will reject the proposal.
Although, these initial sections describe a streamlined process with a single
bureaucratic agency responsible for approving all leases intended for the FDOC’s ACSO,
a specific procedural process for notifying the public before the FDOC signs a lease
agreement for one of its ACSO, and a specified buffer distance of an ACSO from
specific, incompatible land uses. Yet, this section is also fraught with serious
shortcomings due to its failure to acknowledge these two important issues:
• Inadequate site analysis criteria that equally address spatial proximity distances of
an ACSO in relation to other social service networks/hubs, and the spatial
proximity of the probation office to other differing, land uses, such as businesses
and residential communities, etc.
• A lack of a procedural process that allows for open channels of communication
between the FDMS and the designated host community’s local units of government
and citizens.
For the un-editorialized version of Procedure 210.007, PROCURING LEASE
SPACE, please refer to Appendix A. The next section provides evidence, through a “real-
life” controversial land use decision in Gainesville, FL, vividly demonstrating these
shortcomings with this initial step in Procedure 210.007: Procuring Lease Office Space.

21. 7
A Case Example: Probation Office Not Moving Next To Schools
“The possibility that a [Florida Department of Correction’s Adult Community
Supervision Office] … office could move to a site within a [½] mile of three Gainesville
schools [and a day care center] had local parents fearing for the safety of their children”
(Rowland 2001, p. 1).
The current location of the Florida Department of Correction’s (FDOC) Adult
Community Supervision Office (ACSO) is located in downtown Gainesville, Florida.
Due to a variety of factors, including the expiration of the FDOC’s ACSO lease in the
Fall 2001, the FDMS had considered, amongst other locations, to place the FDOC’s
ACSO into Northgate Plaza on NE 16th
Avenue, in the Northeastern section of
Gainesville.

22. 8
Figure 1.1: Both the current & the proposed FDOC’s Gainesville Main 080 Office, lg.
scale
“State Rep. Ed Jennings of Gainesville, owner of Northgate Plaza, said the
probation office may move to Northgate [Plaza] to fill a spot left vacant by another state
tenant, the Agency for Health Care Administration” (Rowland, 2000, p. 2). “Jennings
said the Agency for Health Care Administration moved out on [Sept. 6, 2001] into a state

23. 9
office building in the city of Alachua, but its lease at Northgate had not expired. He said
the state is required by law to ‘do their best’ to find another state agency to fill the lease”
(Rowland, 2001, p. 2).
However, the FDMS had failed to recognize how the “geographic proximity” of
this proposed relocation was in relation to the three nearby Gainesville schools and a
daycare center. Furthermore, all three of these Gainesville schools and a daycare center
were within a ½ mile walking radius3
of the proposed relocation site. To both the
school’s principals and the parents whose children attended these schools, they voiced
their collective disapproval of this proposed site for the FDOC’s ACSO on the grounds
that it posed a direct public safety threat to the school children of the immediate area.
State Rep. Jennings summoned a community meeting of all his constituents of Northeast
Gainesville to discuss this proposed relocation effort of the FDOC’s ACSO being
negotiated through the FDMS. Being clairvoyant of his constituents collective, hostile
attitudes towards the proposed relocation effort, State Rep. Jennings stated, “if the
community continues to oppose the relocation, . . . the probation effort is unlikely to be
moved to [the] Northgate [Plaza]” (Rowland, 2001, p. 2). Being almost prophetic in his
words, the highly contentious community meeting that he commenced eventually
prompted the FDMS to remove this location from the list of candidates within the City of
Gainesville, FL.
Jeff Charbonet, principal at Howard Bishop Middle School, whose school’s recess
area abuts the property line of the FDOC’s ACSO proposed relocation site, summed the
collective opinion of the citizens of Northeast Gainesville at that time with his poignant
quote: “I’m in favor of bringing positive development into our community. I think a pizza

24. 10
parlor or an ice cream store would be appropriate, but a probation office would be
inappropriate” (Rowland, 2001, p. 3).
A
B C
Figure 1.2: A) The proposed FDOC site, small scale. B)The proposed FDOC’s ACSO at
the left-end of the Northgate Plaza vacant commercial office space, next to
the Dollar General Store and the Florida Credit Union’s ATM upfront in the
parking lot. C) The Howard Bishop Middle School’s recess area/basketball
courts are in the immediate background of the proposed FDOC’s ACSO.
Notes.

25. 11
1. Chapter 30, Land Development Code, of the Code of Ordinances of the City of
Gainesville, Florida, published by order of the City Commission, DIVISION 3. OFFICE
ZONING DISTRICTS, Sec. 30-59. Office districts: The office districts are established
for the purposes of encouraging the development of professional offices, low to medium
density residential and studio uses at locations where such uses of land would be
compatible with surrounding residential uses and in keeping with the land use policies of
the comprehensive plan.
2. The approval of FDMS, except for technical sufficiency, is not required for leased space
4,999 square feet and less, the threshold amount stated in Section 255.25(2)(b), F.S. –
was left out because the City of Gainesville has zoned the FDOC’s ACSO under General
Office District. One of the main dimensional requirements for this district is that the
minimum lot area be ] to 6,000 square feet.
3. “1/2 Walking Radius” was proposed by the Florida Department of Transportation’s
Pedestrian Facilities Planning and Design Training Course: a summary of key planning,
zoning, engineering and development recommendations. To increase travel distances for
the pedestrian mode, access to and linkages with transit should be provided. One half-
mile (1 k) radius should be used for acceptable walking distances between trip origins
and transit stops (5 to 10 minute walk).

26. CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Introducing the “Not-In-My-Back-Yard” Syndrome
“Whether drawn from reason or from emotion, community opposition [to unwanted
community-based programs] reflects neighbors’ concerns that their lives will change for
the worse” (Allen, 2002, p. 1). As a result, a unified, cyclical, and reactionary
phenomenon, in the form of “Not-In-My-Back-Yard” (NIMBY) syndrome, has taken
firm root in communities, large and small, across our country against these unwanted
community-based social service providers. In today’s climate, NIMBY sentiments
represent the pre-eminent threat to community-based social service providers, such as the
Florida Department of Correction’s (FDOC) Adult Community Supervision Offices
(ACSO). Community residents who are adamant opponents of such social service
programs usually have the upper hand in the local political system, by default, in
successfully thwarting specific unwanted and unpopular social service providers. This is
the result of a combination city and county planning boards’ inability to distinguish
between majority and minority viewpoints and voter apathy to local political issues.
Frequently, in many cases, minority viewpoints are often construed by such quasi-judicial
boards as the majority and the objections of mob rule and demagoguery of specific
unwanted, unpopular social service providers are taken at face value.
The FDMS has been unable to effectively respond to these legitimate public
concerns. “The capacity of [a] state government [such as the State of Florida] to [make
the FDMS] … unified, comprehensive, and authentically rooted [to] the [public interests]
12

27. 13
depends heavily upon the goals of the legislature, the governor, and the agency
administrators” (E. K. Nelson, Cushman, & Harlow, 1980, p. 102). The lack of clearly
defined and inclusive goal-formulating partnerships at the top levels of government in the
State of Florida have had a direct impact upon the FDMS’s policies on selecting the
FDOC’s ACSOs at the local level. These impacts have manifested themselves in the form
of the FDMS’s serious shortcomings and oversights in its overall site-selection process
for its ACSOs, due to its legally bounded obligation to follow the governmental mandates
of the State of Florida’s Chapter 255, Florida Statute and Chapter 60-H, Florida
Administrative Code for procuring office space.
Granted that these governmentally mandated policies work for the majority of the
state agencies, this is not the case with the FDOC’s ACSOs. This is due to the public’s
perception that the FDOC’s clientele exhibit elements of “dangerousness and
unpredictability.” These reactionary responses from community opposition groups can
be vouched for by “[the] former New York City Mayor Koch [who] asserts that NIMBY
sentiments already dominate the agenda of many communities and local politicians”
(Dear, 1991), p. 54). These NIMBY reactionary sentiments can be best explained by
Michael Dear, author of the publication Gaining Community Acceptance that was
prepared for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation:
[These reactionary responses] in part reflect a community backlash against disabled
people and are based on “compassion fatigue” (i.e., frustration at the persistence and
volume of apparently intractable problems such as homelessness), plus an increasing
suburbanization of facilities and clients into jurisdictions hitherto unaccustomed to
their presence (often prompted by new legislation limiting the rights of opposition
groups). It may also be related to the loss of community and the rise of more
aggressively autonomous siting strategies on the part of the service providers (54).

28. 14
All of us have come to know the phenomenon by the label NIMBY. Whether it is a
landfill, a homeless shelter, or a drug rehabilitation facility, there is bound to be a
segment of the local community that is opposed to it. However, community opposition
has been most vehemently directed against certain social service providers, such as
probation and parole offices. “[This can be related] to the attribution of individual
culpability adding a moral imperative to calls for exclusion. The threat of violence (and
specifically sexual violence) [heightens] local anxieties” (Wilton, 2000, p. 602).
Community opposition to social service providers is typically reduced to three main
concerns: property values, personal security, and neighborhood amenity
Although there are many causes for NIMBY sentiments with historical, political
and societal root causes, however, community opposition is mainly reduced to three areas
of concern: property values, personal security, and neighborhood amenity.
There are no case studies within the respective fields of real estate
finance/economics, sociology, urban planning, criminal statistics, etc., that directly
correlate a probation office to adversely influencing these three main areas of community
concern. However, there is enough important circumstantial evidence that points to
potentially serious problems with the FDMS’s current one-dimensional procedural
process for locating the FDOC’s ACSO within designated host communities, if left
unresolved.
Property Values
“The principal concern voiced by project opponents has been that property values
in their neighborhood would decline” (Dear, 1991, p. 14). For example, Asabere and
Huffman stated, “that apartment buildings in lower zones [that are incompatible with
zones for residential mixed use] sold for 16% less, on average, than the prices they would

29. 15
have commanded in the interiors of residential areas” (pg. 8). Asabere and Huffman
summarized by saying:
Our findings of substantial price discounts supports the hypothesized existence of
a boundary effect for zoning. That is, we now have “real-world” evidence for the
theoretical idea that buyers will pay less for properties in close proximity to lower
uses than for those located in the interiors of conforming zones (p. 8).
In further continuance of showing empirical evidence of how the negative
externalities of a particular land use, such as a probation office, can affect property
values, authors A. Quong Do, Robert Wilbur, and James Short published a study
addressing the issue of whether a neighborhood church positively or negatively affects
the value of nearby single family properties. “[Their] results indicate the effect of
churches on sales price is negative up to approximately 850 feet” (Do et al.1994, p. 127).
“This externality effect is negative, and that the impact decreases as distance from a
church increases” (Do et al.1994, p. 134).
In an interesting comparison to another land use linked to negatively affecting
adjacent, differing property values, “Colwell’s 1990 article in the Journal of Real Estate
Research reports that [the] proximity to towers supporting transmission lines reduces
property values” (McDonough, 1999).
To bolster the previous claim with a legal twist and a judicial precedent:
A 1993 ruling by the New York State Court of Appeals (along with a
similar ruling in Komis v. City of Sante Fe) supports the idea of a
stigmatization associated with power lines. Ruling for the plaintiff, the
New York court did not require proof that the power line posed a health
risk, but only that the perception of danger led to a drop in property value.
The court held that whether the danger is scientifically genuine is
irrelevant to the central issue of market value impact (McDonough, 1999,
p. 3)

30. 16
Personal Security
It is only natural for the public to be more concerned about their personal security
when this particular client group consists of ex-offenders charged with differing crimes
ranging from armed robbery to rape. To add credence to this fear, “Between 1990 and
1999, the percent successful among State parole discharges has ranged from 42% to
49%, without any distinct trend” (Hughes, Wilson, & Allen J. Beck, 2001 et al.
2000, p. 10). Furthermore, Patrick Langan and David Levin, statisticians with the United
States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, did
this study of the rearrest, reconviction, and reincarceration of prisoners tracked 272,111
former inmates for three years after their release in 1994 (Patrick A. Langan & David J.
Levin, 2002, p.1). As part of their findings, an alarming statistical fact became apparent:
“within 3 years from their release in 1994 – 67.5% of the prisoners were rearrested for a
new offense (almost exclusively a felony or a serious misdemeanor)” (Patrick A. Langan
& David J. Levin, 2002, p. 1).
“The key variables [of this particular group that the public is weary of] … are client
dangerousness and unpredictability” (Dear, 1991, p. 14). Moreover, “the concept of
public safety cannot even be adequately expressed as ‘absence of danger,’ because the
‘domestic tranquility’ we seek through public safety surely has subjective as well as
objective dimensions” (Smith & Dickey, 1998, 16). Moreover, “[the] perceived control
over one’s environment underlies many of the factors contributing to higher levels of
fear. People who perceive….their neighborhoods as being out of control are likely to be
more fearful…. as are those who feel vulnerable for physical or social reasons” (Fear of
Crime - Summary Volume LITERATURE REVIEW, p. 8). This expounds upon the local
resident’s fears of being within close proximity to a FDOC’s ACSO. On a final note,

31. 17
“women and children are more likely to be assaulted by someone they know than by a
stranger, [yet] it is [the] random stranger attack that is most feared. Fear of crime is much greater in
some locations [such as the location of a probation office] than others….”(Fear of Crime
- Summary Volume LITERATURE REVIEW, p. 5).
Neighborhood Amenity
Another concern that communities have with regard to the location of a probation
and parole office within their community is the erosion in the quality of nearby
neighborhoods and businesses. To put it in simpler terms, many citizens will see the
probation office as a “beacon” for drawing in ex-offenders within the same vicinity as
their neighborhoods, schools, churches, parks, etc. “Specific threats to overall
neighborhood amenity include: the physical appearance of the facility's clients, some of
whom may appear dirty or unkempt; and antisocial behavior, public urination, defecation
or [drug use or loitering] …”(Dear, 1991, p.15). Moreover, many residents fear that their
neighborhoods will turn into open-market drug zones for drug-addicted probationers and
parolees. As a matter of fact, “it estimated that 70 percent of the offenders on community
supervision in Florida are substance abusers” (Programs and Quarterly Annual Report
1999: Historical Overview of Community-Based Programs, 1999, p. 1). Moreover, to
show the correlation between drug use and crimes committed:
The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Program
measures drug use among arrestees by calculating the percentage of individuals
with positive urine tests for drug use . . . data collected from male arrestees in
1992 in 24 cities showed that the percentage testing positive for any drug ranged
from 42% to 79% across the cities. Positive tests for females arrested ranged from
38% to 85% (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1994, p 2).

32. 18
The table below lists the percentage of arrestees testing positive for drug use.
Table 2.1: Drug use by booked arrestees in 24 selected cities, by charge at arrest, 1991
Percent testing positive
Charge Males Females
Drug sale/possession 79 79
Burglary 68 63
Robbery 65 76
Larceny/theft 64 58
Probation/parole violation 61 60
Stolen property 58 74
Fraud/forgery 56 51
Fight/escape/warrant 52 66
Other 51 46
Weapons 49 62
Public peace/disturbance 48 61
Homicide 48 65
Assault 48 50
Prostitution 47 85
Damage/destruction of property 45 57
Traffic offense 42 48
Family offense 40 38
Sex offense 37 68
Note. “Positive by urinalysis. Drugs tested for included
cocaine, opiates, PCP, marijuana, amphetamines,
methadone, methaqualone, benzodiazepines,
barbiturates, and propoxyphene. Female arrestees were
not tested in three cities,” Source: (Bureau of Justice
Statistics, Fact Sheet: Drug-Related Crime, 1994, p. 2.
Essentially, it comes down to how this client group adversely affects residents from
their normal routine activities, whether keeping little old ladies inside their homes behind
locked doors or preventing young women from strolling around their neighborhood after dark.

33. 19
Eight Factors that Determine a Host Community’s Response Towards a Human
Service Provider’s Clientele: Client Characteristics, Facility Characteristics, Type,
Size, Number, Operation Procedures, Reputation of the Sponsoring Agency,
Characteristics of the Host Community
It is not exact science as to how a community will respond to differing social
service providers. However, the social service providers, including the FDOC, should be
aware that there are eight generalized variables that have a direct influence in
successfully gaining entry and acceptance into an urban and residential community: client
characteristics, facility characteristics, type, size, number, operating procedures,
reputation of the sponsoring agency, and characteristics of the host community (Dear,
1991, p.19).
Client Characteristics
“Public attitudes toward ‘differences’ among people tend to be organized in a
hierarchical fashion” (Dear, 1991, p. 20). The public’s attitude toward a disabled veteran
or a mentally handicapped person can be very different compared to that of a drug addict
or parolee.
Likewise, attitudes toward human service facilities mirror those toward their
corresponding client groups. This was especially evident in a case study done by Robert
Wilton involving research on the grounding of hierarchies of acceptance on the social
constructions of disability in NIMBY conflicts. “The case selected for this study involved
a conflict over multiple human services facilities in San Pedro, one of many communities
compromising greater Los Angeles, [California]” (Wilton, 2000, p. 592). “Collectively,
the economic, social, and political characteristics of San Pedro are significant for an

34. 20
understanding of local reactions to human service facilities and client groups” (Wilton,
2000, p. 593). Within the context of these three important characteristics of a community
arises the typical and formidable organized community opposition to any human service
facility provider wishing to locate in a community.
In San Pedro, the NIMBY conflict centered around “special needs housing.” San
Pedro-based homeless agency, Harbor Interfaith Shelter wanted to expand a current
homeless shelter in downtown San Pedro. The reaction from the community was swift
and negative towards the proposal. “Business owners and residents [quickly] formed
‘Community Advocates for Responsible Environmental Safety’ (CARES)” (Wilton,
2000, pg. 594). CARES’s vehement opposition to Harbor Interfaith Shelter’s expansion
proposal was directly responsible for forcing the San Pedro’s local city councilman to
redefine the once generic, broad special needs housing definition to a more specific list of
definitions relating to special needs housing for differing disabilities/facilities. Please
refer to figure 3.1 for a better understanding of how the residents of San Pedro reacted to
the differing disabilities/facilities.

35. 21
Source: Wilton, 2000, p. 601
Figure 3.1: Reaction of San Pedro residents to the differing disabilities/facilities
If the public’s perception is that these individuals are not local residents, they will
become less tolerant of the FDOC’s clientele maintaining that these individuals have no
personnel stake in the respective host community or its laws. Essentially, the FDOC must
be cognizant of the fact that a community’s response to its “client-facility” package is
relative to the client characteristics on that qualitative hierarchical scale of acceptability.
Facility Characteristics
Of all of the variables affecting the public’s acceptance of a social service provider,
the facility characteristic is probably the most controllable one. Once the owner, in this

36. 22
case the FDOC, has moved into a building, it should be an incentive for the department to
at least spruce up the facility to make it more appealing to the nearby community. “Next
to the clients themselves, the service facility is the most important image that [social
service] providers offer the host community” (Dear, 1991, p. 25).
Type
“Human service facilities can be classified in a number of ways. One of the more
common distinctions is between facilities that provide housing/residential options and
those that provide services only” (Dear, 1991, p. 26). Since the FDOC’s ACSOs provides
only services to its clientele, the public’s reaction will take on a different dimension than
compared to a halfway house or a homeless shelter.
Size
Another important issue is the size of the client-facility. If all other variables are
considered equal in standing, the size of a facility can certainly influence the public’s
reactions. Hypothetically speaking, suppose the FDOC announced to the citizens of
Gainesville, FL that they were going to open up a twelve-countywide probation/parole
facility in the downtown area, which is capable of handling 500 ex-offenders per day, it
would very likely provoke an outrage and opposition from the public. Fortunately, J.
Flack (personal communication, March 10, 2002) Statewide Leasing Coordinator, Bureau
of Field Support Services referred to the FDMS’s policy on the square footage of its
ACSO’s, with the emphasis on smaller offices, usually equal to or less than 5,000 square
feet, pending on other conditions.
Number
The key factor here is not how many human service facilities are currently in
existence within a one-to-six block area but that an additional human service facility, puts

37. 23
the community’s tolerance level over the edge. The key word here is saturation.
“Saturation is a relative concept-residents see themselves as overburdened in comparison
with other neighborhoods-and there is no absolute level at which saturation becomes
apparent” (Dear, 1991, p. 27). Although saturation can be seen as negative, it can also be
seen as a “positive asset for clients and facility operators … a collection of proximate
facilities can allow for positive interaction between facilities and clients” (Dear, 1991, p.
34). This can be validated by the FDOC’s very own guideline initiated by its
accreditation board, the ACA:
Standard 3-3004 - Field facilities are located within areas, with
community input, that are optimally accessible to offenders' places of
residence and employment, to transportation networks, and to other
community agencies.
Operating Procedures
One of the biggest concerns that a community has in relation to a social service
provider is supervision. The community wants assurances that the social service provider
can have some semblance of control over their clientele, especially for clientele that are
at the bottom level on the community’s relative scale of hierarchy of acceptance, such as
probationers and parolees. Fortunately, this is not a problem for the FDOC. Its probation
and parole officers play important supervisory roles in relation to their clientele. They
have the power to lay “down the hammer” on their clientele that stray from the
stipulations of their respective probation and parole sentences. Furthermore, with the
“real” threat of imprisonment for any technical violation or new crimes committed, most
of their clientele are apt to be law-abiding citizens.
Finally, the FDOC’s ACSOs operate on a “9-5” basis. Therefore, their clientele are
more likely to be watched by a greater percentage of “neighborhood guardians,” such as

38. 24
neighborhood watch members, local business owners, motorists, joggers, etc. Experts
within the field of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design euphemistically call
this phenomenon as “eyes on the street.”
Reputation of the Sponsoring Agency
“The reputation of the facility sponsor [such as the FDOC] often enhances its
chance of acceptance. The greater the reputation, and the longer the history of the
sponsor, the less likely is the facility to invoke a negative reaction” (Dear, 1991), p. 28).
Due to the FDOC’s “autonomous” approach to locating the FDOC’s ACSOs within
designated urban and residential settings, there have not been any opportunities for the
agency to establish a legacy of trust with its host communities. However, the FDOC can
navigate around this thorny issue by becoming proactive with the community’s leaders
and residents and inviting them to tour the facility and educating them on the mission of
the FDOC in the process. For example in Boston, Massachusetts, “Pine Street Inn (PSI),
[which] provides street outreach, emergency shelter, health care, job training, and
housing to 1,300 Bostonians, put together a plan for getting political support. It focused
on elected officials and neighborhood residents. PSI provided tours of the proposed site,
and subsequently made a presentation to the entire neighborhood organization” (Allen,
2002, p. 1). Once again, this is a great strategy for getting both elected officials and
residents acquainted with the mission of a social service provider. By doing so, a human
services provider can instill a higher degree of acceptance in the community’s leaders and
residents, by being upfront and honest with them on what this social service provider’s
goals are and how they will be manifested within this designated host community.

39. 25
Characteristics of the Host Community
“Conventional wisdom suggests that suburban jurisdictions usually close ranks to
prevent the incursion of human service facilities (or any other development perceived as
a threat to the neighborhood); in contrast, inner cities are seen as more tolerant and
accepting …”(Dear, 1991, p. 29).

40. CHAPTER 3
MATERIALS AND METHODS
In the early stages of this terminal project, the researcher had observed a couple of
problems that arose from this controversial land use debate that had occurred in
Gainesville, FL. One of them was the FDMS’s lack of more in-depth site analysis criteria
for addressing the spatial proximity relationships between an ACSO and other social
service networks/hubs along with the spatial proximity of probation offices to a broader
array of other incompatible land uses, such as businesses and residential communities.
This simple but important observation provided the initial framework for this terminal
project. However, the researcher also had to deal upfront with two dilemmas:
1. There are no official site analysis criteria being promulgated at the state, federal,
or nation professional community corrections-oriented associations, per se, for
locating probation/parole offices within an urban or residential setting.
2. From both an ethical and professional point of view, the researcher not having any
expertise in the field of community corrections or having knowledge of what
geographic variables are deemed conducive to locating a probation/parole office
within an urban/residential setting was not inclined to create his own site analysis
criteria.
In developing the methodology for this case study, the researcher planned a twofold
strategy:
A. Development of site analysis criteria
B. Use of these site analysis criteria for a case study
Naturally, the researcher looked at data collection method that would meet the first
goal in developing site analysis criteria. The survey was decided upon as being the best
vehicle for accomplishing this. Simply put, “surveys are a means of meeting information
26

41. 27
[needs]” (Lang, 1998, p. 2). A survey, alone, was not some sort of magical process.
Rather, a survey is a compilation of intricate, time-consuming, logical, and sequential
steps along with a basic understanding of the fundamentals of statistics, the issues, and
the population of interest. As for initiating a survey, there are essentially six basic steps
involved in conducting a survey:
1. Survey objectives
2. Overall design
3. Sample design
4. Questionnaire development
5. Survey implementation
6. Data analysis
Source: (Lang, 1998, p. 3)
Survey Objective
The goal of this effort is to solicit the summated attitudinal responses from experts
within the field of community corrections on what external geographic variables have the
greatest influence on the location of a probation office within an urban and residential
setting. As a result of this effort, these newly founded site analysis criteria will provide
the researcher with a basis for strategically locating a FDOC’s ACSO within the city
limits of Gainesville, Florida, as part of the case study. Although these site analysis
criteria will be applied to a specific city, they are generic in nature and can be applied to
other cities in Florida or other states.
Overall Design
In weighing the options of the two different surveys chosen by the researcher, the
Delphi Survey Technique (See Appendix B) or the Mail Survey, the researcher had to

42. 28
evaluate the feasibility of both data collection options. The tables listed below summarize
both the advantages and disadvantages of each data collection method:
Table 3.1: Delphi Survey Technique – Pros and Cons
Pros: Cons:
This variant, modified Delphi Survey,
which consists of a panel of experts both
from the field of community corrections
and from the local governmental/political
realm, incorporates various viewpoints of
all affected parties and not just those of
host agency (FDOC).
The administrative constraints: the Delphi
Survey requires 100% involvement from
the Delphi Survey participants. Also,
someone would have to be designated as
the official Delphi Administrator.
The applicability of this survey to
immediately formulate and prioritize geo-
spatial datasets from each committee
member makes it an ideal tool for working
toward a consensus in clarifying for a
specific purpose, such as issues relevant to
the relocation of a probation/parole office.
The cost-prohibitive constraints equally
affect both the researcher and the Delphi
participants involved in the time-
consuming Delphi Survey Technique.
The incorporation of differing experts both
inside and outside the field of corrections
gives this process an appearance of
political legitimacy in the eyes of the
public.
The legalistic/bureaucratic constraints are
both time-consuming and costly.

43. 29
Table 3.2: Mail Survey - Pros & Cons
Pros: Cons:
Cost effectiveness - administering a
questionnaire, through a mail survey, is
very appealing to a researcher because of
its very low cost, involving neither
interviewer wages nor telephone bills.
Coverage Errors – the main problem with
mail surveys is producing an accurate list
to sample from
Honesty – some studies have shown that
people provide more honest answers to
mail surveys than they do to other
interviewing methods
Geographic stratification - the ability of the
Mail Survey to generate truly
representative samples by reaching widely
spread segments of the population
Wording of questions – another area of
critical importance to mail surveys is
questionnaire design – poorly worded
questions are a survey breaker
Source: (American Statistical Association, More About Mail Surveys, 2000, p.2)
Due to the combination of administrative, financial, and time constraints faced by
the sole researcher and the relative simplicity and administrative low cost of conducting a
mail survey questionnaire, this data collection method was chosen over the Delphi
Survey Technique, to accomplish the stated goal and objectives. However, the Delphi
Survey has the advantages of being a more thorough, instantaneous, engaging (feedback
loops) method of data collection.
Sample Design
One of the most critical elements on the quality of data that emerge from a survey
is the choice of people to respond to the questions. This choice involves a number of
decisions:
1. Deciding upon the population of interest
2. Sample frame development
3. Sample size and selection

44. 30
Deciding upon the Population of Interest
The population of interest compromises the entire group from whom a researcher
would like to obtain information: the people whose views are needed to achieve the
objectives of the survey. A judgment has to be made as to who is appropriate in the light
of the objectives of the survey. Furthermore, the researcher was seeking a population of
interest within the field of community corrections that was capable of answering complex
geo-spatial questions within the context of the dynamic interrelationships between a
probation office and adjacent, differing land uses. These types of complex questions
required individuals to have both the experience and expertise, within the field of
community corrections, to answer such questions. To ensure that the choice of
respondents come from the population of interest, the researcher was the one who
developed and commenced the “filter questions” before the development of the
questionnaire:
A. Must either have current or past work experience within the field of community
corrections.
B. Must either have held a current or past senior, administrative position within the
field of community corrections.
C. Must either have current or past experience as a policymaker within a professional
community corrections-oriented organization in developing and promulgating
community corrections policies/guidelines.
The end result of these preliminary filter questions resulted in selecting the
National Association of Probation Executives (NAPE) as the official population of
interest for this mail survey.

45. 31
Sampling Frame Development
Having identified the population of interest, the attempt to identify all of the
individuals within that population was made possible by the small size of the population
of interest, that being the professional community correction-oriented association NAPE:
1. Dan Richard Beto (Texas) President
2. Thomas H. Williams (Washington, D.C.) Vice President2
3. Cherie Townsend (Arizona) Secretary
4. James E. Rood (Oregon) Treasurer
5. Robert L. Bingham (Indiana) Past President
6. Conway W. Bushey (Pennsylvania) Board Member
7. Robert E. Czaplicki (New York) Board Member
8. Ron R. Goethals (Texas) Board Member
9. Gerald Hinzman (Iowa) Board Member
10. Edward T. Mansfield (Colorado) Board Member
11. Richard E. Wyett (Nevada)
12. Nanci Lee Mary Bouchard (Maine)3
For a complete listing of the NAPE member’s career biographies, please refer to
Appendix C
Sample Size and Selection
By successfully identifying all of the individuals from the population of interest,
this is a “census” by definition. The advantages of census is that its findings are known
to reflect precisely the responses of the entire population of interest at the time when the
questionnaire was administered.

46. 32
Questionnaire Development
One of the most important stages in the process of conducting a survey is to design
a questionnaire that will enable the required data to be gathered and prepared for input.
These types of questions are used to identify peoples’ beliefs, opinions, preferences,
motivations, and attitudes. However, “a great deal of care must go into selecting and
designing the question for your mail survey” (American Statistical Association, Series
What is a Survey?, 2000, p. 5).
Question Style: Closed-Ended Questions
As for the type of questions posed to the respondents, the researcher decided upon
close-ended questions. “The distinguishing characteristic of a closed-ended question is
that possible answers or responses are pre-specified by a researcher and thus known prior
to questionnaire administration” (Peterson, 2000, p. 36). However, because the researcher
has no advanced knowledge of how the participants will respond to each question, it is of
utmost importance to the researcher that they become familiar with both the study
participants and the subject (Peterson, 2000). The answers chosen by the researcher can
be derived from a variety of sources:
• The sponsor’s objectives of the research project
• The researcher’s own theories on what constitutes as legitimate responses
• The actual research project can be the inspiration for what constitutes as legitimate
responses.
Characteristics of a Specific Closed-End Question: Rating Scales
Although, there are a variety of closed-end questions, the researcher has chosen to
use a rating scale. “[It is] … defined as a closed-end question whose answer alternatives
are graduated or organized to measure a continuous construct, such as attitude, opinion,

47. 33
intention, perception, or preference” (Peterson, 2000, p. 61). With regard to the
researcher’s aim of measuring the attitudes or opinions of the participants themselves, a
uni-polar scale will be used. This is a variant of a scaled-question measures intensity of
an attitude or opinion using a single descriptor, such as “geographic-proximity” of a
probation office in relation to the distance of a courthouse or an elementary school? “The
advantage of a uni-polar scale is that it avoids the issue of selecting appropriate antonyms
[in comparison to using a Likert scale]” (Peterson, 2000, p. 67).
Furthermore, the researcher will categorize the data and variable classification as
ratio variable. Ratio variables are characterized by equal intervals between categories, as
in interval variables, but also have a recognizable zero point so that absolute measures
can be taken. Finally, the data type is continuous where the variables have an infinite
number of potential values. The values can be bounded within a certain range but the
potential list of values is still infinite. In designing the pre-specified responses to the
questions, the researcher chose a range of distances on an incremental 250 ft, 1,324, “5-
minute” scales, allowing the respondents to choose the option that best fitted their
professional judgment.
Question Wording
Once a style such as using a rating scale is determined, the next step is to add
wording to convey its full meaning. The researcher is not interested in crafting questions
that are confusing to the majority of the respondents, poorly written, or uses offensive
language. The end results will force the researcher to disregard the results from his
questionnaire, due to either unreliable answers or omissions from the respondents or both.
“Despite the absence of a formal, comprehensive theory or even well-defined guidelines
for constructing effective questions, criteria do exist for both constructing and evaluating

48. 34
questions. Five useful and easy-to-apply criteria that are the questions be brief, relevant,
unambiguous, specific, and objective” (Peterson, 2000, p. 50.
Long questions can loose people halfway through, and create confusion: Questions
of more than twenty words should be shortened, if possible.
Only ask questions which gather data that will help reach the objectives of the
survey. Moreover, “when evaluating the relevancy of a research question, it is also
necessary to ascertain the extent to which the question is repetitive of other questions”
(Peterson, 2000, p. 52.
If possible, the only words that should be used in formulating a questionnaire
should be those with universal meaning. In essence, “questions should be worded so that
the least knowledgeable individuals being questioned will understand them without
difficulty. This often means that words used in questioning the general public must be
understood by someone with no more that a middle school education” (Peterson, 2000, p.
54).
“Being specific in wording questions has two sides. A question must be worded so
that answers are specific enough to meet the information requirements necessitating a
research project … [yet] a question should not be too specific that study participants
cannot answer it” (Peterson, 2000, p.56). Simply stated, it must be made clear what study
participants need to consider, for example the use specific nouns to describe places or
time periods.
“Unless a question is worded objectively, it should not be asked. If a researcher
asks a biased question, the answer is already known; thus there is no reason to ask it.
Biased questions alienate the study participants, harm a researcher’s image, and render

49. 35
answers meaningless” (Peterson, 2000, p. 57). The researcher strove not to fall into this
trap by prefacing the “Questionnaire section” with information describing how the
geographic proximity of a probation office in relation to other land uses has both direct
and indirect influences. Therefore, the researcher gives the respondent the proper context
in interpreting the question, instead of asking outright biased questions.
Survey Implementation
Questionnaire Instructions
To enable complete and accurate answers a full set of explanations and instructions
should be included to guide respondents.
Piloting a Questionnaire
“[The purpose of pilot questionnaire is to] determine the ease and accuracy with
which respondents complete the survey and also, to determine the ease of administration
and scoring the instruments [before the full costs of a full-scale survey are incurred]”
(Lang, 1998, p. 8).
(Please refer to Appendix D: Finalized Mail Survey Questionnaire)
Data Analysis
Classifying data and Variables
For the style of question, the researcher will be using interval-ratio variables.
Interval-ratio variables are characterized by equal intervals between categories but also
have a recognizable zero point so that absolute measures can be taken.
Summarizing Data Using Descriptive Statistical Analysis: Mean, Median, Mode
(Please refer to Appendix E)

50. 36
Data Sorting and Defining Datasets
The data must be categorized into useful categories by pulling together all parts of
the questionnaire and relating them to the original research objective. This was
categorizing the questionnaire results into four separate columnar headings:
A. Policy Issue: separates the main issues stemming from the mail survey
questionnaire
B. Question from the Mail Survey Questionnaire: relates each question from the mail
survey questionnaire to the respective policy issue
C. Spatial Category: links the specific land use feature, such as bus terminal, to a
geographically oriented concept, such as centrality or distance from a proposed
probation office.
D. Land use/ArcView GIS Data Sets: assigning or creating ArcView GIS data sets to
represent a set of land use features such as bus terminals, police/sheriff service
areas, or buffers around incompatible land uses. ESRI’s Shapefiles® can
represent point, line, or area features. Each feature in a shapefile represents a
single geographic feature and its attributes.

51. 37
Table 3.3: Public Policy Issues coded into GIS Data Sets
A) Policy Issue
B) Question from
the Mail Survey
Questionnaire
C) Spatial
Category
D) Land use/ArcView GIS Data
Sets
• 8th Florida Circuit Courthouse
• Bus Terminals
• Social Service Centers
• Mental Health/Drug
Rehabilitation Facilities
• Educational Service Centers
Question 1
Radial distance from probation
office to the highest concentration
of probationers' residencies
Offender
Reintegration
Question 2
Centrality
D.) Land use/ArcView GIS Data
Sets
A.) Policy Issue
B.) Question from
the Mail Survey
Questionnaire
C.) Spatial
Category
Police/Sheriff Logistical Service
Area
Question 3 Logistics Incompatible land uses
Community
Concerns:
property values,
personal
security, and
neighborhood
amenity
Question 4
Spacing of
Incompatible
Land Uses
F.S. 945.281
An Introduction to Raster Data
Raster data records spatial information in a regular grid as a set of rows and
columns. Each cell within this grid contains a number, such as Site Utility Analysis
(SUA) value ranging from 1 to 9, representing a particular geographic feature, such as a
school, a courthouse, a social service agency, or any other land use deemed important for
the specific site suitability modeling application.

52. 38
An Introduction to Environmental Science Research Institute’s ModelBuilder
Environmental Science Research Institute’s (ESRI) ModelBuilder for ArcView
Spatial Analyst 2.0 software application will be used as the vehicle in locating the
optimal site for a probation and parole office within designated urban and residential
setting. The purpose of the model is to help criminal justice planners and policy analysts
working within correctional agencies across the country in understanding, describing, and
predicting how things work in within a real urban, suburban, or rural environment. By
representing only those factors that are important to the specific issues mentioned above
and applying them to a case study, the objective of this model is to create a simplified,
manageable view of the issues relevant to finding the most suitable site to locate a
probation office within an urban or residential setting.
Source: ESRI, Redlands, CA
Figure 3.2: A basic diagram of ESRI’s ModelBuilder
Blue rectangles represent input data, such as property values
The orange ovals represent functions that process the input data

53. 39
The green rounded rectangles represent output data, which is the preferred
residential areas, that is created when the model is run.
The Weighted Overlay Process
One of the ModelBuilder built-in processes is the Geographic Information Systems
(GIS) Technique: the Weighted Overlay Process. It creates an output grid theme by
combining the values in multiple input grid themes. To combine input themes with
different kinds of data, you assign the values in the input themes to values on a common
evaluation scale. You weight the themes as to their influence, and then add them together.
All of the theme’s respective weighting must equal 100%.
Source: ESRI, Redlands, CA
Figure 4.1: Weighted Overlay Process – Steps 1 & 2

54. 40
Source: ESRI, Redlands, CA
Figure 4.2: Weighted Overlay Process – Steps 3 & 4
Site suitability is a common application for weighted overlay. For example, when
relocating a probation office, considering the appropriate zoning for a particular
municipality, the proximity to bus terminals and social service providers can lead to
making informed, strategic decisions as to where to locate such a facility within an urban
and residential setting.
Drawing Conclusions
This small sample size of ten respondents “cannot” be seen as representing the
overall views of the population of probation executives across this country: tentative
conclusions can be drawn from, but their limitations must be explicitly recognized by the
reader. It is the strong recommendation of the researcher that future surveys being with a
larger sample size, preferably be ≥ 100.
Notes.
1. F.S. 945.28: Public Notice to the Community - When the site of the proposed probation
and parole office space is to be located within one quarter mile of a school for children in
grade 12 or lower, licensed day care center facility, park, playground, nursing home,
convalescent center, hospital, association for disabled population, mental health center,
youth center, group home for disabled population or youth, or other place where children

55. 41
or a population especially vulnerable to crime due to age or physical or mental disability
regularly congregates . . . .
2. Mr. Williams opted not to participate in the self-administered mail survey.
3. Ms. Bouchard officially retired at the beginning of this year. However, the NAPE will not
replace the vacant position till they have their annual Board of Directors election in
Summer 2002.

56. CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Site Suitability Case Study for locating a FDOC’s ACSO within a designated host
community: Gainesville, FL
Listed below are the final results from the questionnaire. The SUA values are
divided into a “best” and “maximum” category. These values simply reflect the
respondents’ professional judgment/opinion on what are the appropriate minimum and
maximum spatial distances from a probation office to a specific, differing land use, such
as the courthouse, a social service center, or an elementary school. The Multiple Utility
Analysis values reflect each respondents weighting or importance of each question
relative to the other question.
Step 1: Results from the Mail Survey Questionnaire
(Please refer to Appendices F and G for the Site Utility Analysis and Multiple
Utility Analysis results, respectively)
Step2: Ex-Offender Reintegration, input GIS Data Sets derived from the
Questionnaire
A. Proximity to the Eighth Circuit Courthouse
B. Proximity to bus terminals/shelters/stops
C. Social Service Centers/Adult Educational-Vocational Centers
D. Optimal radial distance of a probation office in relation to the majority of the
probationers residencies’
E. Police/Sheriff Service Area response time within 5, 10, 15 minutes
42

57. 43
Figure 4.1: Proximity to the Eighth Circuit Courthouse

58. 44
Figure 4.2: Proximity to bus terminals/shelters/stops

59. 45
Figure 4.3: Social Service Centers/Adult Educational-Vocational Centers

60. 46
Figure 4.4: Optimal radial distance (2-miles)1
of a probation office in relation to the
majority of the probationers’ residencies

61. 47
Figure 4.5: Police/Sheriff Service Area response time within 5, 10, & 15 minutes

62. 48
Step 3: Combining intermediary GIS datasets into creating an Ex-offender
Reintegration Optimization Model
Figure 4.6: Ex-Offender Reintegration Flowchart, combining all intermediary GIS
datasets

63. 49
Weighted Overlay Table
Specify the percent influence for each theme, that being a Multiple Utility Analysis
(MUA) weighting, and a Scale Value, that being a Site Suitability Analysis (SUA) value,
for each input field value. Scale values will be multiplied by the percentage influence
before they are added to other themes.
Figure 4.7: Offender Reintegration Weighted Overlay - Cgzoning
“Cgzoning” is the default raster dataset for the City of Gainesville’s zoning
districts. Since the FDOC’s ACSOs are zoned under Office Facility (OF) =
21(Input Label) and Office Residential (OR) = 22 (Input Label). The rest of the
remaining zoning districts are not factored into the Weighted Overlay.

64. 50
Figure 4.8: Offender Reintegration Weighted Overlay – Copareas
“Copareas” is the raster dataset representing the Gainesville Police Department
and Alachua County Sheriff’s Department logistical service areas/response times
for the following time intervals: 5, 10, 15 minutes.
Figure 4.9: Offender Reintegration Weighted Overlay – Courthousebuff, Offender_Buff,
BusStop_buff
“Courthousebuff” is the raster dataset for 1-mile incremental concentric buffers
around the Florida Eighth Circuit Courthouse.

65. 51
“Offender_Buff” is the raster dataset for 0.25 mile concentric, incremental buffers
around all mental health, social services, and educational programs available that
are available to ex-offenders.
“BusStop_buff” is the raster dataset for 700 foot concentric, incremental buffers
around all of the bus terminals in the City of Gainesville, FL.
Figure 4.10: Offender Reintegration Weighted Overlay–Reclass Map & Kdensity_1
“Reclass Map” is the raster dataset for all the parcel values that have been
reclassified under “total assessed value” from the Florida Department of
Revenues property tax data for 1999 “Kdensity_1” is the raster dataset that shows
the distribution of all values and areas of concentration of probationers’
residencies. It is meant to tell the reader that there are approximately five
probationers’ residencies within a proposed 2-mile radius of probation office.

66. 52
Step 4. Ex-offender Reintegration Optimization Model-Weighted Overlay Process
Figure 4.11: Weighted Overlay Process results - selected parcels selected

67. 53
Step 5: Vulnerable Population Datasets – FDOC’s ACSO Strategic Location Model
The Vulnerable population datasets as defined by Florida Statute 945.28 –
Public Notice to the Community and is overlaid on top of the selected parcels
for the FDMS to chose from based upon the results of the Weighted Overlay
Figure 4.12: Vulnerable Population/Model-Ex-offender Reintegration Optimization
Model– qualitative assessment
The parcels represented by the Weighted Overlay Process Value - 5 (red) and
Weighted Overlay Process Value - 6 (yellow) are the most suitable for the FDMS’s site
preliminary site selection process. The researcher highly recommends that this step be
inserted between the first and second step in Procedure 210.007, Procuring Lease Space.

68. 54
All ten selected
parcels within a
0.73 mile radius
Figure 4.13: Comparison and contrast of the current and proposed ASCO, relative to the
selected parcels
This figure above shows how the selected parcels (in green) chosen through the
GIS Weighted Overlay Process are spatially relative to both the FDOC’s ACSO –
Gainesville Main Circuit current and failed locations. Although, all both the FDOC’s
current and failed location sites are both within the “5-minute” Police/Sheriff Service
area and near high density concentrations of their clientele. For future relocation efforts,
the only available choices that are mutually beneficial to both FDOC’s ACSO functional
needs and the local community’s concerns are within the yellow circle.

69. 55
The limitations of this Case Study
Although, this case study was effective in demonstrating how the integration of
differing professional judgments can be applied to a broad spectrum of geographic
variables relevant to the “strategic placement” of an probation office within an urban or
residential setting with the usage of a site suitability modeling application, such as
ESRI’s ArcView Spatial Analyst 2.0. Yet, there are limitations of this case study, due to
the built-in bias of only reflecting the opinions of professionals within the field of
community corrections. Therefore, there needs to be a more robust, integrated site
analysis methodology that can handle various parties both within the field of community
corrections and outside of it.
As recommended earlier by the researcher as an alternative to the mail survey, the
Delphi Survey Technique is such a procedural process that fulfills that challenge of
incorporating various parties, with relative ease. Essentially, the Delphi Survey
Technique is a procedure for gathering judgments or opinions and working toward
consensus among participants, please refer to Appendix B for a more in-depth discussion
about this consensus-building procedural process.
Nonetheless, in order to harness the real powers of the Delphi Survey Technique,
state correctional agencies, such as the FDOC, will need to first go through a formalized
negotiation process with local units of government and the public that will distill the core
issues relevant to the successful placement of a probation office within that designated
host community. In effect, the Delphi Survey Technique is the second to the last step in a
negotiation process recommended by the researcher, please refer to Appendix G for a
more in-depth discussion about it.

70. 56
A Social Service Provider’s Necessary Role In Community Relations
Essentially, the FDMS plays the surrogate role in community relations with the
designated host community, by default in accordance with Procedure Number 210.007:
Procuring Lease Office Space, for the FDOC’s ACSO. “As soon as a . . . [the FDMS]
decide[s] to [procure or assign lease space for the FDOC’s ACSO, the agency] . . . must
also chose one or two communication strategies: collaboration with the host community
or an autonomous approach independent of the host [designated community]” (Dear,
1991, p. 35). Engaging the local community opposition will not be a pleasant experience
or a fruitful one if the social service provider is not prepared to deal with their concerns.
Therefore, community relations should be an important part of a social service provider’s objective.
Akin to a military general conducting a major battle, his army cannot win a decisive victory on the
battlefield without a well-conceived plan.
The Fundamental Choice for a Social Service Provider: Collaborative or
Autonomous Approach
“In deciding how to approach the community, [social service] operators
immediately encounter a fundamental choice between two alternative strategies:
collaborative, implying open cooperation between operator and host community … or
autonomous, involving operation action independent of the host community, generally
anticipating community compliance with a set of established rules. …”(Dear, 1991, p.
36).
Collaborative Approach
The collaborative approach follows the belief of respecting the legitimate concerns
of the local community through open-ended dialogue. While acknowledging the rights of
the local community residents, the social service provider asks for reciprocal respect for

71. 57
the rights of its current and future clientele, whether they be the mentally disabled or
probationers. The collaborative approach can be likened to a “social contract” between
the host community and the operator, with both parties acknowledging what is expected
from the relationship (Dear, 1991). “The collaborative option is always indicated in those
circumstances where good community relations are vital to the on-going success of a
program” (Dear, 1991, p. 37). This strategy also makes good sense if the social service
operator is expecting strong resistance from local community residents and businesses,
alike. If this method is done correctly in “true-faith fashion,” both mutually dependent
parties can realize the prospects of both present and future positive neighborly relations.
Autonomous Approach
“[This] approach accords priority to the rights of the [FDOC’s] clients” (Dear,
1991, p. 37). “To be successful, the autonomous approach has to be backed by
[legitimate] authority. This usually means that the [FDMS] is acting with the mandate of
governmental rules, [such as Procedure Number 210.007: Procuring Lease Space for the
FDOC’s ACSO.]” Dear, 1991, p. 38). This method is still accepted as the current
operative norm for the FDMS.
The Recommended Community Relations Strategy for the FDMS
This is an interesting predicament that the FDMS has been placed in. On the one
hand, it is legally obligated to follow the State of Florida’s governmentally mandated
rules, yet it is also a taxpayer-funded state governmental agency whose ultimate authority
is vested through the citizens of the State of Florida. Faced with these two apparently
contradictory influences, the FDMS can incorporate a new strategy that is the best of both
worlds: abide by the State of Florida’s Chapter 255, Florida Statute and Chapter 60-H,
Florida Administrative Code with regard to leasing office space, yet engage the

72. 58
designated host community in a collaborative outreach strategy. By making the local
community residents equal partners in the FDMS’s site selection process for locating the
FDOC’s ACSOs within designated host communities, the chances of the FDOC in
successfully getting the approval of a host community are more than likely to be realized
and community opposition will be minimized to some extent.
It is very important for FDMS officials to realize that the current site selection
process fails to take into account how “private citizens feel threatened by a proposed
residential community corrections facility in their neighborhood. Beyond their fear for
the well being of their families, they feel imposed upon, devalued, and angry. These
feelings are legitimate and unlikely to be soothed by reassuring platitudes. Fairness
demands that they be acknowledged; pragmatism demands that they be engaged and
accommodated” (Lindsay, 1990, p.8). Therefore, at this fifth phase in the negotiation
process, the FDMS needs to incorporate a vehicle, such as the Delphi Survey Technique,
that can pull together the “refined and polished” issues from the previous four steps in the
negotiation process in conjunction with using a pre-established site-analysis advisory
panel. “Creating a [site-analysis advisory board] of prominent local leaders can be an
effective way of: (a) legitimizing the activities of the proposed facility; (b) incorporating
needed skills (both technical and advocacy); (c) defusing opponents (by, for instance,
appointing the most vocal to the advisory panel)” (Dear, 1991, p. 44). By doing so, the
FDMS gives the public a opportunity, that have never had before, to play an integral role
in the site-selection process of locating a FDOC’s ACSO within their designated host
community (Lindsay, 1990). Listed below is a proposed City of Gainesville Site Analysis
Advisory Board (SAAB).

73. 59
Figure 4.14: A proposed Site Analysis Advisory Board
This proposed SAAB is based upon the rational of using the currently established
local political/governmental infrastructure with an equal balance of representatives from
both the FDOC and FDMS, please refer to Appendices B and G for in-depth information
about how SAAB is incorporated into the negotiation process.
Assessing the Application of GIS Tools in State and Local Decision Making
The vehicle used to carry out the site suitability model was a GIS Weighted
Overlay Process application. There are many loosely defined definitions out there for the
term “GIS.” However, for both state and local governments, there is a more specific
definition:
A GIS is a computer technology that combines geographic data (the
locations of man-made and natural features on the earth’s surface) and
other types of information (names, classifications, addresses, and more) to
generate visual maps and reports (O'Looney, 2000, pg. 5).

74. 60
“With improvements in the usability of GIS technology, the power of GIS displays,
and the price-to-power ratio of GIS, the number and types of GIS uses and users have
expanded exponentially” (O' Looney, 2000, p. 8. With today’s powerful analytical GIS
modeling software applications, state and local policy makers now have the power to
analyze complex statistical, interrelationships of a specific area, such as a municipality,
and graphically display the computer image to an audience. “The computer image can
prove to be a great tool for educating the general public. What had previously taken
prolonged efforts at verbal persuasion and cajoling and browbeating - with little success –
could now be accomplished in a few minutes” (Kunstler, 1996, p. 224).
The merits of GIS technology in state and local decision making will be explained
in greater detail under the following main points: problem solving and consensus, issues
management, and quantifying the benefits of a GIS system.
Problem Solving and Consensus
“Groups that can generate new information on a public policy issue are often able
to set the terms of the debate….” (O' Looney, 2000 p. 9). The debate in this case is
addressing two public policy issues that warrant a mutual understanding and respect for
each other. Through a GIS site suitability application, groups that were once at odds with
each other can now sit down at the table and solve their differences by displaying them
graphically. “[Despite the fact that] some GIS enthusiasts have suggested that increased
use of GIS technology will ease public policy by providing correct, accurate information
that can be more effectively analyzed and communicated than in the past” (O' Looney,
2000, p. 9). However, GIS technology should not be understood by both parties as a
simple means to end but rather as a tool that will ease the decision-making process.

75. 61
Issues Management
GIS can certainly make the generation of data a lot easier due to its powerful geo-
rational database capabilities of querying, joining, relating, etc. However, there are no
assurances that it will eliminate conflict between parties in the negotiation process. To the
contrary, conflict may arise even after the input data is entered into the GIS site
suitability application and the maps are generated. Certain individuals of the SAAB will
balk at the graphical results and declare in frustration that their viewpoints are not being
reflected in the final outcome. John O’Looney states that this arises for two reasons:
First, a GIS can often reveal but [does] nothing about underlying conflicts
of interest. Second, when the conflict is about facts, a GIS can [intensify]
the conflict by producing numerous new facts, offering multiple
perspectives on old facts, and introducing new ways of integrating and
overlaying data so as to reshape the way information is communicated.
New facts and new ways of interpreting existing facts increase conflict
because they increase not only people’s ability to find or create “facts” to
support their own point of view but also their power to construe facts
differently (10).
While GIS may intensify the conflict of interests amongst differing parties within a
SAAB, the converse is also true as in the form of conflict resolution. “A GIS can….
provide a new arena in which disputes can be raised, explored, and potentially resolved –
before they split the polity” (O' Looney, 2000, p. 10.
In the spirit of seating officials from the FDMS/FDOC with the local political
leaders/units of governments of the designated host community to the proverbial
“negotiating table,” GIS technology within the context of issues management can help
these parties manage and resolve the complexities of local governmental problem-
solving, especially in the case of strategically locating a FDOC’s ACSO office within an
urban and residential setting that adheres to the mutual consensus of all parties involved.
O’Looney states that this is done through four sequential steps: