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

Copyright 2002

by

Darren A. Murphy

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.

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

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

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

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

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

LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................132

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...........................................................................................135

ix

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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).

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:

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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).

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

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).

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

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)

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,

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).

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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).

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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,

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

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

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)

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

43

Figure 4.1: Proximity to the Eighth Circuit Courthouse

44

Figure 4.2: Proximity to bus terminals/shelters/stops

45

Figure 4.3: Social Service Centers/Adult Educational-Vocational Centers

46

Figure 4.4: Optimal radial distance (2-miles)1 of a probation office in relation to the

majority of the probationers’ residencies

47

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

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

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.

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.

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.

52

Step 4. Ex-offender Reintegration Optimization Model-Weighted Overlay Process

Figure 4.11: Weighted Overlay Process results - selected parcels selected

53

Step 5: Vulnerable Population Datasets – FDOC’s ACSO Strategic Location Model

Figu

Wei

preli

inser

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

re 4.12: Vulnerable Population/Model-Ex-offender Reintegration Optimization

Model– qualitative assessment

The parcels represented by the Weighted Overlay Process Value - 5 (red) and

ghted Overlay Process Value - 6 (yellow) are the most suitable for the FDMS’s site

minary site selection process. The researcher highly recommends that this step be

ted between the first and second step in Procedure 210.007, Procuring Lease Space.

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.

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.

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

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

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).

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).

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.

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:

62

a. Early identification, or identifying issues before they become “hot” and positions solidified. Early identification includes locating the geographic and cultural features of an issue so it can be more sharply defined and directly addressed.

b. Effective communications, especially with informal networks of citizens who have not yet organized but have clear concerns. Early communication makes possible “pre-crisis opportunities to anticipate, adapt, act and educate.” Because the geographical extent of the problem is understood, public mangers can concentrate their efforts on educating and communicating with the citizens who have legitimate concerns. In addition, the GIS can provide effective displays illustrating the nature and extent of the problem for use in the communication process.

c. Grounded response, or linking issues with particular people who “own” the issues and keeping in touch with these people throughout the life of the issue. These people have names, address, phone numbers, interests, and values, and belong to both formal and informal networks. The GIS can improve public officials’ response by showing them that an issue is more salient in one area than another, by locating convenient public meeting facilities, and by enhancing their ability to visualize future developments.

d. Rapid intervention, or dealing with an issue while its geographic scope is small, the intensity of feelings it raises is weak, and the issue itself is still in its formative stage (11).

Quantifying the benefits of a GIS system

“In addressing the costs and benefits of a GIS….many local governments [and even

state governments] have spent large amounts of money on GIS technology, with little to

show for it” (O’Looney, 2000, p.12). Referring to that time-tested but true cliché, “the

devil is in the details,” both state and local governments need to be cognizant when

purchasing a GIS technology system, such as ESRI’s ArcGIS 8.1 software application, of

both the upfront and long-term costs, such as personnel training, software upgrades,

software technical support, maintaining a proper data library, software compatibility

issues, etc. All of these variables can cumulatively “bleed” a governmental agency’s

budget (O’Looney 2000). “To avoid disappointment, every [state or] local government

must carefully consider its real needs, the resource available, and the long-term

63

commitment to changing work processes that effective uses of GIS demands” (O’Looney,

2000, p.13).

If a governmental agency is willing to be committed to embracing a GIS

technology with the mindset that such a system may only bear fruit in the long-term, the

realized benefits will eventually outweigh the short-term upfront costs. “[For example],

according to Hugh Calkins of the National Center for Geographic Information and

Analysis, the largest savings from using a GIS in local government come from greater

efficiency in answering citizen inquiries” (O’Looney, 2000, p.15). In addition to the

benefits that GIS technology brings to local governments in answering citizen inquiries,

GIS users also see the benefits in operational and decision-making efficiency:

Table 4.1: Effectiveness of a GIS as a Planning Tool Effectiveness of a GIS as a Planning Tool Indicator Mean Rating* Operational Effectiveness Accessibility of data 4.14 Accuracy of data 3.95 Availability of data 3.90 Data Collection 3.25 Decision-making Effectiveness Mean Rating* Communication of information 4.43 Confidence in analysis 4.06 Identification of conflicts 4.00 Explicitness of decisions 3.81 Decision-making values 3.56 * Respondents were asked to rate the effectiveness of their department with a GIS as

compared to its effectiveness before the introduction of a GIS. (1 = much worse, 2 = somewhat worse, 3 = no change, 4 = somewhat better, 5 = much better)

Source: O’Looney, 2000, p. 14

Future Constraints

Theoretically speaking, even if the FDMS were to incrementally adopt this

revolutionary negotiation process, there are many hurdles that lay in front of this bridge.

The two biggest hurdles are the following: successfully implementing the use of the

64

Delphi Survey Technique and the use of GIS technology within the political decision-making

process.

Successfully implementing the use of the Delphi Survey Technique and GIS Technology

These two intricate processes present both personnel and technological challenges

to any governmental agency, regardless of the social service provider.

If the FDMS is willing to be committed to following its long-term goals in

methodically integrating these processes into its overall negotiation process along with

seeking outside professional guidance from various sources, such as academia and GIS

consulting companies to name a few. The long-term results will outweigh the short-term

upfront costs and growing pains that the FDMS will experience.

Organizational and Political Constraints

The direct state administration of decisions manifested through governmental

mandates has led, by default, to the FDMS’s monopolistic control over what is deemed to

be the “public interest” of where to locate a state governmental office within a designated

host community. Furthermore, since logic is rarely the paramount concern in a state

governmental organizational change, the FDMS’s response to what is considered both

appropriate and feasible will be determined as well by what are essentially “political”

considerations – how entrenched are existing arrangements, how costly and how difficult

is reform, and what kinds of change will be supported or allowed by our state elected

officials and the FDOC’s and FDMS’s respective bureau heads. Notions that this

paradigm shift in power to a joint, collaborative effort between the FDMS and the local

designated host community must be tempered by considerations of what can be

accomplished within the existing constraints of this agency’s current bureaucratic system.

65

Future Opportunities

Besides the benefits of establishing an open-dialogue through a negotiation process

between the FDMS and the respective host community, there are other more subtle but

equally important unrealized opportunities that the FDMS can reap: establishing site

location patterns, establishing a designated social service provider zone, partaking in

future joint studies to address the main community concerns of towards a

probation/parole office.

Possible Benefits in Adopting a Negotiation Process with outside Parties

However before any momentum can be built-up for changing the FDOC’s current

“autonomous” method to selecting its ACSOs in designated residential/urban

communities, there needs to be strong enough incentives, as in the form of both short-

term and long-term benefits for the agency, which will convince Florida’s State elected

leaders and the agency heads for both the FDOC and FDMS, to go forward in making

that important paradigm shift turn into a reality in the form of creating new administrative

guidelines for the FDMS to adhere to, when either procuring or assigning lease office

space for the FDOC’s ACSO within a host community.

These are some of the possible benefits that the FDMS can realize in cooperating

with the public:

• Improved analyzes of the issues: integrated and comprehensive planning produces the data and analysis the FDMS officials, state and local elected officials, and local governmental public administrators need to improve their decision-making choices.

• Improved cooperation and coordination: planning provides a mechanism for increased cooperation and coordination among the FDMS, the public, the police, the courts, as well as between different levels of local government.

• Clear objectives, goals, and priorities: planning permits more precise articulation of purposes and links objectives, goals, tasks, and activities in a more meaningful way.

66

• More effective allocation of resources: planning provides a framework for site-analysis decisions for the FDMS in locating a FDOC’s ACSO within a designated host community. It simplifies the setting of priorities for the use of resources to ultimately achieve the objectives and goals of all affected parties in an orderly, planned fashion.

• Improved programs and services: planning produces a clearer understanding of the site-specific issues and concerns unique to each urban and residential setting. It also makes it easier for the FDMS to formulate objectives and goals and to evaluate and compare alternative site-locations within a given geographic area.

• Improved capacity and quality of personnel: planning focuses organizational effort and provides the FDMS with new knowledge and information. A specialized planning staff, perhaps statisticians and geographic information systems analysts, can help train criminal justice planners and policy analysts in planning processes and techniques, such as the Delphi Survey Technique.

• Different perspectives, contribute to better solutions: different elements of the criminal justice system bring different perspectives and insights into the planning process, as do groups outside the system. Successful programs address the needs, interests, and concerns of all affected parties, not just those of the respective host agency.

• The planning process ensures accountability: the involvement of FDMS/FDOC officials, state and local elected officials, and local governmental public administrators on a proposed Site Analysis Advisory Board (SAAB), ensures accountability and careful direction of the planning process from all participating members.

• The negotiation process ensures legitimacy in the eyes of the public: this process done through an established political/bureaucratic process produces a sense of public legitimacy in the eyes of the public, especially with regard to the final location of a FDOC’s ACSO within a designated host community.

Establishing Site Location Patterns

If the FDMS were to go forward and adopt the overall tenants of the collaborate

approach and utilize it with every procurement or assignment procedure involving a

FDOC’s ACSO. The FDMS will eventually start to see patterns being derived through

the countless concerned, energetic voices of politicians, governmental officials, and the

public, alike. These patterns can then be translated into a preliminary list of site analysis

criteria that the FDMS can eventually transform into an official, finalized list of site

analysis criteria for locating the FDOC’s ACSO, throughout the State of Florida.

67

Establishing a Designated Social Service Provider Zoning District

One of the most troublesome issues that the FDMS encounters when attempting to

either procure or assign leased-office space for FDOC’s ACSO is the geographic

proximity of differing incompatible land uses that are usually accompanied with local

community concerns with regard to property values, personal security, and neighborhood

amenity. With the implementation of the negotiation process along with using a site

suitability modeling GIS application, the FDMS and the respective local political-

authoritative political body/governmental agencies can establish a designated “Social

Service Provider” zoning district.

Although this is theoretical in nature and the legal merits have not been tested as

being constitutional, the rationale for creating such a newly defined zoning district is to

prevent future conflict of interests with regard to incompatible land uses. “[By using the

legal doctrine of] ‘coming to the nuisance’ cases, the courts have held that the residential

development landowner may not have relief if he knowingly came into a neighborhood

reserved for industrial or agricultural endeavors and been damaged

thereby…”(Mandelker, Cunnigham, & Payne, 1995, p. 61. In the case of establishing a

new zoning district, any incompatible land use, such as a school, a daycare center,

or a nursing home, who wants to move into this “Social Service Provider” zoning district,

will be given two options: indemnify the specific social service providers, such as the

FDOC, for the reasonable amount of the cost of moving or shutting down its ACSO or

move elsewhere. Conversely, if the land use is the FDOC’s ACSO, it may be

able to circumvent the possibility of nuisance litigation simply by purchasing enough

excess land to buffer both the perceived and real negative externalities from existing and

possibly future land uses it might possibly come into conflict with.

68

The usage of an appropriated monetary fund to mitigate surrounding property values

In reiterating one of the three main concerns community residents have with regard

to a FDOC’s ACSO, is that it will lower their property values. One possibility is for the

State of Florida’s legislature to appropriate money into a specific fund that would

compensate homeowners, if there is empirical evidence that correlates a FDOC’s ACSO

to destabilizing the host community’s property values.

[The usage of an appropriated monetary fund to mitigate neighboring property values can] be accomplished by . . . underwriting the market value of houses in the immediate neighborhood for, say three years. The fund would be designated to by any nearby house whose failure to sell at fair market value over some period of time is clearly attributable to its proximity to the [community-based] corrections facility. The fund would purchase such houses and be replenished with proceeds of their subsequent sale (Lindsay, 1990, p. 8).

Possible solutions to the availability of diminishing parcels

The current scenario of the FDMS vying with other social service providers for

limited parcels within a designated host community, such as City of Gainesville’s

General Office District, does pose as a genuine dilemma. The researcher recommends

two possible solutions:

• The call for the FDMS to loosen its stringent requirements against the FDOC from purchasing private, real property or constructing a new building.

• The FDMS should appeal to specific designated, host communities that have stringent zoning regulations against probation offices for entry into more zoning districts that are deemed compatible with the FDOC’s ACSO.

Notes.

1. The radial distance of 2 miles is the mean from the best value = 1 mile and the maximum value = 3 miles, originating from the results of questionnaire #2.

69

2. The standard recidivism rate (33.8%) is the value on the recidivism rate curve at 24 months after release.

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY

The crux of this terminal project can be summed up essentially into a single

declarative statement: the researcher wants to inform Florida’s state elected leaders and

the respective bureau heads of the FDOC and FDMS of the current shortcomings with

Procedure 210.007: Procuring Lease Space and that there is a more holistic, viable

alternative. This alternative was manifested by demonstrating the short-term objectives

through a case study yet providing the hypothetical blue print of a long-term goal of

implementing a site analysis methodology. The researcher wanted to show how a

practical problem that originates in the world and exacts a specific cost was the catalyst

for providing a practical solution. This would help the FDMS avoid both current and future

ill-advised decisions on where to locate the FDOC’s ACSO within urban and residential

communities, such as the case in Gainesville, FL.

The short-term goals of successfully carrying out a case study in strategically

locating a FDOC’s ACSO in Gainesville, FL using the combination diverse professional

opinions from NAPE’s Board of Directors in conjunction with using a GIS site suitability

application, is testament that this approach is an effective way of graphically conveying

and solving complex public policy issues in the placement of such controversial facilities

within urban and residential communities throughout the State of Florida.

Moreover, the particular GIS application, which was ESRI’s ModelBuilder for

ArcView Spatial Analyst 2.0, used in this site suitability study, allowed the researcher to

create a model through an automated process, visualize the model through an intuitive

70

71

flowchart, document the assumptions, run the model in a graphical user interface

environment, modify each dataset to explore differing alternatives, and share the model’s

methodology with other “ModelBuilder” users for both examining and enhancing the

current procedural process their respective state uses.

Although the long-term goal is less tangible, its implications have far reaching

levels of importance in steering the FDMS into a new era of negotiating productively

with local units of government and public in the placement of the FDOC’s ACSO within

urban and residential settings. The theoretical framework of this proposed site analysis

methodology’s use of an objective, logical decision-making model that would generate

spatial site analysis criteria, which will then be recycled back into the FDMS’s overall

site analysis methodology, provides the basic foundation for criminal justice planners and

policy analysts, alike, to incorporate differing elements of this methodology into their

respective state agency’s procedural process for locating such community-based

correctional facilities.

APPENDIX A FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES PROCEDURE 210.007,

PROCURING LEASE SPACE

ACA/CAC STANDASTATE/FEDERAL FLORIDA ADMINIAND 60H-6, F.A.C. PURPOSE: To proviFlorida Department o

PROCEDURE NUMBER: 210.007 PROCEDURE TITLE: PROCURING LEASE SPACE ISSUE DATE: APRIL 28, 2000 ANNUAL REVIEW: NOVEMBER 1, 2001 SUPERSEDES: POLICY AND PROCEDURE DIRECTIVE 2.02.35 RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY: OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF STAFF RELEVANT DC FORMS: DC2-510, DC2-511, DC2-514A,

DC2-514B, DC2-515, DC2-516, DC2-517, DC2-

518A, DC2-518B DC2-519, DC2-549, DC2-550

DC2-551, DC2-552, DC2-555 AND DC2-556

OTHER RELEVANT FORMS: FM4054, FM 4056, FM 4061, FM 4064, FM4064A, FM 4068, FM 4068A

RDS: NONE STATUTES: SECTIONS 255.249, 255.25 AND 945.28, F.S. STRATIVE CODE: CHAPTER 60H-1 THROUGH 60H-4

de clearly established guidelines for procuring lease space for the f Corrections.

72

73

DEFINITIONS: (1) Addendum, where used herein, refers to a supplement or addition to a lease. (2) Assignment, where used herein, refers to a transfer of a claim, right or interest in property. (3) Assistant Leasing Manager refers to the staff member within the Bureau of Field Support Services who assists the Leasing Manager in the statewide coordination of all real property leasing functions. This staff member is directly responsible for assisting field personnel with management problems and the remedy of site inspection issues associated with the lease agreements. This staff member will consult with the Office of the General Counsel to determine FDC’s legal position on any unresolved problems. (4) Calculated Cost Scores refers to the method that is used to determine points for rental rates. The points for the term of the lease are calculated using present value methodology. The optional renewal terms are calculated by totaling the annual lease rates and assigning points accordingly. (5) Deed refers to a legal document conveying title to real estate. (6) Department of Management Services, where used herein, refers, specifically, to the Bureau of Property Management. DMS refers to the Department of Management Services. (7) Discount Rate refers to an annual percentage that represents the required return on the capital invested in a depreciating asset, such as a building. (8) Evaluation Committee, where used herein, refers to a group of appointed FDC employees that reviews proposals and scores against pre-determined criteria. The Chief of Staff appoints the evaluation committee members. (9) Evaluation Manual, where used herein, refers to the manual (model prepared by the Bureau of Field Support Services, and approved by the Office of the General Counsel) that identifies the guidelines used to evaluate a Request for Proposal. The leasing staff will prepare a manual based on the Request for Proposal using the model template. (10) Extension, where used herein, refers to an agreement by which a lease is made effective on specified terms for an additional period of time. (11) Existing Facility refers to space that is enclosed with a roof system and exterior walls in place. (12) Field Office, where used herein, refers to any office of the Florida Department of Corrections, that is not a part of the Central Office. (13) FTE, where used herein, refers to a full-time employee.

74

(14) Full Service Leases refer to leases that require the lessor to provide utilities and janitorial services in the cost of the rental rate for the leased space. (15) Gross Area, where used herein, refers to the sum of the floor area included within the outside faces of exterior walls for all stories, or areas, which have floor surface. (16) Initiator, where used herein, refers to the leasing specialist that initiates the leasing paperwork. (17) Issuing Officer, where used herein, refers to the FDC employee responsible for the procurement process and the release of the competitive proposal. (18) Lease refers to a legal contract between FDC (lessee) and Building Owner (lessor) providing for the possession and use of a specified property or square footage. (19) Lease Rate refers to the amount of money that the lessee pays to the lessor, per square foot per year, as compensation for leasing office space. (20) Leasing Agent, where used herein, refers to a staff member in the Bureau of Field Support Services who is responsible for the procurement of real property leasing for an assigned coverage area. This staff member will also be known as the Issuing Officer. (21) Leasing Manager refers to the staff member within the Bureau of Field Support Services who is responsible for the statewide coordination of all real property leasing functions. (22) Lessee, where used herein, refers to the Florida Department of Corrections (as a tenant under a lease). (23) Lessor refers to an owner of record or duly authorized representative of real property who has the power and authority to make a lease. (24) Letter of Agency Staffing refers to the DMS form (FM 4056) that projects staffing patternsand enables the user to determine space needs based on the State’s space criteria as set forth in the Department of Management Services’ Facilities Management Program. LAS refers to the Letter of Agency Staffing. (25) Modifications, where used herein, refer to changes to the standard lease agreement that change the terms of the original lease. (26) Non-full Service Leases refers to leases for which the lessee assumes the cost of any one (1) or all of the costs of electrical and janitorial services, in addition to the rental rate for the leased space. (27) Notice of Intent to Protest refers to a written notice to protest the award of a Request for Proposal which must be filed with FDC within seventy-two (72) hours after the posting of an award.

75

(28) Premises, where used herein, refer to real property that is leased. (29) Pre-proposal Conference refers to the conference or meeting that is attended by potential proposers of leased space and leasing specialists. This conference is held for the proposers to have the opportunity to ask questions regarding Request for Proposal prior to the deadline for its submission. (30) Project Proposal Criteria Scores refers to the evaluation committee members’ scoring of the project proposal. (31) Public Entity Crime Statement refers to a document, required by DMS, which must be signed by all lessors who do business with the State of Florida. It provides information concerning restrictions on the ability of persons convicted of public entity crimes to transact business with FDC. (32) Quote Submittal Package refers to the template utilized by FDC in seeking space to be leased that is 4,999 square feet or less. (33) Real Property refers to a building or any part thereof. (34) Real Property Leasing Manual refers to the manual developed by the Department of Management Services which outlines the official guidelines to be followed by all state agencies for procuring leased space. (35) Renewal, where used herein, refers to a lease covenant giving the lessee the right to extend the lease for an additional period of time on specified terms. (36) Request for Proposal refers to the template for competitive solicitation utilized by FDC in seeking space to be leased, which is 5,000 square feet and over. RFP refers to the Request for Proposal. (37) Request for Space Need refers to the form that must be completed by the Bureau of Field Support Services. This form is used to certify the amount of space needed and must be approved by the Department of Management Services, Division of Facilities Management. RSN refers to the Request for Space Need. (38) Term, where used herein, refers to the specified duration of the lease. (39) Time of Posting refers to the date and time of posting the recommended award or no award for a Request for Proposal or Quote Submittal Package.

76

SPECIFIC PROCEDURES: (1) GENERAL GUIDELINES: (a) The Department of Management Services must grant its approval prior to FDC soliciting or negotiating a Request for Proposal or Quote Submittal Package to acquire or to lease space for any square footage amount. (b) DMS is responsible for approving all leases 5,000 square feet and above, the threshold amount stated in Section 255.25(3)(a), F.S. (c) The approval of DMS, 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. (d) DMS will not authorize FDC 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. (e) FDC 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 DMS, Division of Building Construction. (f) In accordance with Section 945.28, F.S., FDC must publish the location of property it intends to lease for probation and parole office space. FDC may have to provide written notification to the county or city administrator at least thirty (30) days prior to signing a lease agreement. 1. In addition, when procuring office space for a probation and parole office, the “Request for Proposal for Probation and Parole Office Space,” DC2-514B, and the “Quote Submittal Package for Probation and Parole Office Space,” DC2-518B, must be utilized. Language concerning the location of a probation and parole office has been incorporated into these templates. 2. If the prospective lessor(s) 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 or the Quote Submittal Package for Probation and Parole Office Space, the public must be notified pursuant to Section 945.28(2), F. S. 3. FDC will place the required advertisement in the local daily newspaper. The onetime advertisement must be published thirty (30) days before FDC signs the lease. 4. Simultaneously with the newspaper publication, the Leasing Agent assigned to the coverage area must sign and send the “Notice of Lease of Probation and Parole Office Space,” DC2-517, to the appropriate county or city administrator. (g) Restrictions on the Proximity of Lease Space for Probation and Parole Offices:

77

1. Effective April 14, 2000, FDC will restrict the location of Probation and ParoleOffices. These offices will not be located within 250 feet of the facilities citedeither in a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Probation and Parole Office Space, orQuote Submittal Package for Probation and Parole Office Space. 2. Any submitted proposal that indicates that the proposed location is within 250 feet of the itemized facilities, FDC will consider non-responsive and will reject the proposal. 3. Exemptions: a. any RFP or Quote Submittal Package issued to the Public prior to April 14, 2000, and b. any lease agreement (including renewal options not yet exercised) that is active on April 14, 2000. (h) The Real Property Leasing Manual produced by DMS is the official set of guidelines for completing all necessary leasing documents. (2) GUIDELINES FOR PRIOR APPROVAL OF SPACE NEED: (a) The field offices will notify the Leasing Manager in the Bureau of Field Support Services when they require leased space. 1. The Leasing Agents and General Services Manager in the Central Office reports to the Leasing Manager. 2. The Leasing Manager will assign this request to a Leasing Agent for processing. 3. The Leasing Agent will acquire information from the field office concerning personnel and special needs. 4. The Leasing Agent will consult with the Bureau of Budget and Management Evaluation in completing the “Allocation Form for Real Property Leases,” DC2- 549, and verifying that funding is available. 5. The Leasing Agent will complete a “Request for Space Need,” FM 4105, “Request for Space Need Memo,” DC2-550, and a Letter of Agency Staffing FM 4056 (if required). (b) A “Letter of Agency Staffing,” FM 4056 is not needed if the amount of space requested does not exceed more than: 1. 250 square feet per full-time employee (FTE) for job functions primarily administrative and performed in the office, 2. 175 square feet per FTE for job functions performed both in the office and field, or 3. 90 square feet per FTE for support staff, if the Request for Space Need is submitted to DMS via their web site on the Internet. (c) If the square footage exceeds the above allotments, the Leasing Agent will complete the LAS and submit it with the Request for Space Need to the DMS. (d) The Leasing Agent will submit the Request for Space Need, completed Allocation Form for Leases and Request for Space Memo to the Leasing Manager for review. If the

78

Leasing Manager approves the request, s/he will initial the memo and forward to the Bureau Chief of Field Support Services for her/his approval. (e) If the Bureau Chief of Field Support Services, approves these documents, s/he will initial the memo and forward to the appropriate Deputy Director, Office of Administration for final approval and signature. (f) The appropriate Deputy Director, Office of Administration will review the Request for Space Need, completed Allocation Form for Leases and Request for Space Memo. 1. The appropriate Deputy Director, Office of Administration has the authority to sign the Request for Space Need for all leases statewide. 2. If s/he agrees with the request, s/he will sign the memo, check the approval box, sign the Request for Space Need and return all three (3) items to the Leasing Agent for submission to the Department of Management Services. 3. If the documents are not approved, they will be returned to the Leasing Agent for revisions. (g) The Leasing Agent will submit to the DMS Requests for Space Need for all lease actions, including modifications and renewal documents. The following lease modification documents will not accompany an RSN submission: 1. “Modification to Decrease Rental Rate,” FM 4068F, 2. “Change of Effective Date,” FM4068D, or 3. “Cancellation of Lease,” FM 4061. (h) Once the RSN has been approved, the Leasing Agent will submit the RSN to the DMS via its Leasing Direct web site at: http://fcn.state.fl.us/owa_lease/owa/lease_www.leasing_direct.agencies (i) The Leasing Agent will submit each LAS to the DMS using regular mail. There is no provision for electronic submission of the LAS. (j) The Process for the DMS Approval of Request for Space Need: 1. DMS reviews and approves each Request for Space Need . 2. When it approves the RSN, DMS assigns a lease number if it is a new lease. 3. If there is a problem with the RSN, DMS will advise the contact person directly. 4. If DMS requires a Letter of Agency Staffing, DMS will review it along with the RSN. 5. DMS will use both documents in its decision to approve the Request for Space Need. 6. DMS does not sign the LAS. 7. The RSN approval process by DMS takes approximately one (1) week to be completed. (3) GUIDELINES FOR PROCURING OFFICE SPACE 5,000 SQUARE FEET AND OVER: (a) The Leasing Agent will prepare a “Request for Proposal,” DC2-514A (administrative office space) or DC2-514B (probation and parole office space) and the “Evaluation

79

Manual,” DC2-515. The Leasing Agent will prepare these documents based on information obtained from field staff. (b) The Leasing Agent will prepare the “Review of Request for Proposal,” DC2-551, on lavender paper, sign the review sheet and forward with the Evaluation Manual to the Leasing Manager for review and approval. (c) The Leasing Manager will review the RFP and Evaluation Manual to ensure each document complies with the formats and all necessary requirements of DMS and FDC guidelines. 1. The Leasing Manager will work with the Leasing Agent to correct any problems with these documents. 2. The Leasing Manager will either approve documents and forward them to the Office of the General Counsel or return the documents to the Leasing Agent for corrections. (d) The Office of the General Counsel will review the Request for Proposal and Evaluation Manual for all legal requirements to ensure adequate protection of FDC. The Office of the General Counsel will either approve the documents or notify the Bureau of Field Support Services about any discrepancies. (e) Once the Request for Proposal and Evaluation Manual are approved by the Leasing Manager and the Office of the General Counsel, these documents will be returned to the Leasing Agent for issuance. (f) The Leasing Agent will serve as the Issuing Officer and advertise, issue and hold a preproposal conference for the Request for Proposal. 1. During the pre-proposal conference, the participants have opportunities to ask questions about the Request for Proposal. 2. Any written questions that are submitted to the Issuing Officer will become part of an addendum to the Request for Proposal. 3. The Leasing Agent conducting the pre-proposal conference will: a. accept and answer all questions from potential lessors, and b. prepare written answers to the questions in an addendum to the Request for Proposal. 4. The Office of the General Counsel will assist the Leasing Agent as needed to answer questions from the pre-proposal conference. 5. The Department’s written responses to the pre-proposal conference questions in the Request for Proposal addendum will be binding. The addendum is provided to all potential proposers. (g) Leasing Agent Receives and Evaluates Proposals: 1. The evaluation committee will use the model evaluation manual provided by the Bureau of Field Support Services to complete the evaluation process for the proposals. The Issuing Officer will provide a training session with the evaluation committee on the evaluation process prior to the bid opening.

80

a. The Issuing Officer and the Leasing Manager will review all proposals to determine if each contains the minimum mandatory requirements. b. Once the Issuing Officer and Leasing Manager have completed the review of the mandatory requirements, the evaluation committee and the Issuing Officer will conduct mandatory site visit(s) to the proposed facilities together. c. No discussion among evaluators will be allowed during the site visit(s). d. The evaluators will then complete their evaluation of the project proposal criteria independently. e. Each evaluation committee member will submit her/his evaluation scores and information to the Issuing Officer. 2. The Issuing Officer calculates both the final project proposal criteria and cost scores for each proposal. The scores are then combined to determine the final rankings of the proposals. The Issuing Officer prepares the “Evaluation Committee’s Final Report and Award Recommendation For RFP,” DC2-519, based on the evaluation committee’s project proposal criteria scores and the calculated cost scores. 3. The evaluation committee will review the findings, and if they concur with the award recommendation, each member will sign the Evaluation Committee’s Final Report and Award Recommendation. 4. The Evaluation Committee’s Final Report and Award Recommendation will provide: a. a summary of the Request for Proposal process, b. an evaluation that includes lease rates, and c. the award determination. (h) After the Evaluation Committee’s Final Report and Award Recommendation Approval: 1. The Leasing Agent will prepare the “Recommendation of Award Review Sheet,” DC2-511A, on lavender paper and the Recommendation of Award memo for the Bureau Chief of Field Support Services signature. 2. The Bureau of Field Support Services (i.e., Leasing Agent, Leasing Manager and Bureau Chief of Field Support Services) will review and approve the Recommendation of Award Memo and the Evaluation Committee’s Final Report and Award Recommendation. 3. If the Bureau Chief of Field Support Services agrees with the recommendation, s/he will sign the Recommendation of Award memo. (i) After the Bureau of Field Support Services has reviewed and approved the lease documents, they will be forwarded to the Bureau of Budget and Management Evaluation for its review. (j) The Bureau of Budget and Management Evaluation will provide the necessary budget information and forward the recommended award to the Office of the General Counsel for its review. (k) The Office of the General Counsel will either approve documents or notify the Bureau of Field Support Services of any discrepancies. If the Office of the General Counsel

81

approves the documents, it will forward the recommended award to the appropriate Deputy Director, Office of Administration for her/his review. (l) The appropriate Deputy Director of Administration will either approve documents or notify the Bureau of Field Support Services of any discrepancies. If the appropriate Deputy Director of Administration approves, s/he will forward the recommended award to the Deputy Secretary (for Offices of Institutions; Program, Transition and Postrelease Services and Community Corrections leases) or the Chief of Staff (for Central Office and Service Center leases) for her/his review. (m) The Deputy Secretary or Chief of Staff will either approve the documents or notify the Bureau of Field Support Services of any discrepancies. If the Deputy Secretary or Chief of Staff approves the documents, s/he will forward the recommended award to the Secretary for her/his approval and signature. (n) If the Secretary does not agree with the award recommendation, the Bureau of Field Support Services will determine how to proceed. (o) When the Secretary approves and signs the Recommendation of Award Memo, her/his office staff will return it to the Bureau of Field Support Services. Field Support Services personnel should allow approximately two (2) weeks for the submitted Recommendation of Award Memo to be approved and signed by the Secretary. (p) The Leasing Agent will prepare a notification of proposal award for the Leasing Manager’s signature. 1. The Bureau of Field Support Services will publicly post either a notice of “award” or “no award” for a Request for Proposal at the address shown in the document. 2. The Bureau of Field Support Services will make such notification by the time of posting stated in the Request for Proposal. 3. Other interested parties may request to receive a notice of the award. The Leasing Agent will render such notification requests by fax. However, this will not extend the seventy-two- (72) hour period for filing of a Notice of Intent to Protest. (q) If the office space is being utilized as a probation and parole office, staff will follow the guidelines outlined in Section (1)(f). (4) GUIDELINES FOR PROCURING OFFICE SPACE UNDER 5,000 SQUARE FEET: (a) The Leasing Agent will prepare a “Quote Submittal Package,” DC2-518A (administrative office space) or DC2-518B (probation and parole office space). The Leasing Agent will prepare these documents based on information obtained from field staff. (b) The Leasing Agent will prepare the “Review of Quote Submittal Package,” DC2-552, on lavender paper, sign the review sheet and forward it to the Leasing Manager for review and approval.

82

(c) The Leasing Manager will review the Quote Submittal Package to ensure the document complies with the formats and all necessary requirements of DMS and FDC guidelines. 1. The Leasing Manager will work with the Leasing Agent to correct any problems with these documents. 2. The Leasing Manager will both approve documents and forward them to the Office of the General Counsel or return the documents to the Leasing Agent for corrections. (d) The Office of the General Counsel will review the Quote Submittal Package for all legal requirements to ensure adequate protection of FDC. The Office of the General Counsel will either approve the documents or notify the Bureau of Field Support Services about any discrepancies. (e) Once the Quote Submittal Package is approved by the Leasing Manager and the Office of the General Counsel, it will be returned to the Leasing Agent for issuance. (f) The Leasing Agent will solicit competitive written quotes from at least three (3) potential lessors. On occasions when there are not at least three (3) potential lessors, the Leasing Agent will be allowed to utilize less than three quotes, as long as the Leasing Agent has put forth the required effort to solicit lessors for office space. (g) The Leasing Agent and Leasing Manager will review the received quotes for responsiveness and compliance with all mandatory requirements. 1. The Leasing Agent will identify the field staff requirements for the facility prior to any quote submittals and incorporate this information into the Quote Submittal Package. 2. The potential lessor’s quotation will satisfy all these requirements. (h) The Leasing Agent will review all rental rates and prepare a cost analysis, including a present value calculation on the base term, of all submitted proposals. (i) The Leasing Agent, General Services Manager (Leasing) in the Service Center and two (2) local field staff will perform a mandatory site visit(s) to the proposed facilities and determine which quote is in the best interest of the state and FDC. (j) Staff will follow the guidelines outlined in Sections (3)(h) through (3)(q), except no Evaluation Committee’s Final Report and Award Recommendation will be needed for lease space under 5,000 square feet. (5) GUIDELINES FOR EXECUTING LEASE AGREEMENTS: (a) Once space has been procured and the lessor has been determined, the Leasing Agent will prepare three (3) original “Lease Agreements,” FM 4054. These Lease Agreements will include all attachments that are necessary based on the Request for Proposal or the Quote Submittal Package.

83

(b) The “Lease Agreement/Modification Review Sheets” (DC2-510A) will be prepared on lavender paper by the Leasing Agent. (c) Processing the Lease Agreement in the Central Office: 1. The Leasing Agent will forward the Lease Agreement with all its attachments and a copy of the recommendation to award memo, signed by the Secretary, to the Leasing Manager for review and approval. 2. The Leasing Manager will review the lease documents, and if approved, forward to the Bureau Chief of Field Support Services for approval. 3. The Bureau Chief of Field Support Services will review the documents, and if approved, forward them to the Office of the General Counsel. 4. The Office of the General Counsel will review the lease agreement documents and provide comments about them if necessary. 5. If there are any discrepancies, the Bureau of Field Support Services will correct all problems. 6. The General Counsel (or her/his designee) will sign lease agreements after her/his staff approves them. 7. The Office of the General Counsel will forward the signed documents to the appropriate Deputy Director of Administration 8. The appropriate Deputy Director of Administration will review, approve and return the documents to the Bureau of Field Support Services. 9. The Bureau of Field Support Services will continue processing the Lease Agreements. 10. The Leasing Agent will obtain a completed “Disclosure Statement,” FM 4114, and the lessor’s signature on all required documents. The Leasing Agent will complete a “Certificate of Compliance,” FM 4113 and forward to the Leasing Manager for accuracy and signature, with all signed Lease Agreements. (d) The Leasing Manager will route the Lease Agreements and Certificate of Compliance to the Deputy Secretary (if agreements are for the Offices of Institutions; Program, Transition and Post-release Services and Community Corrections leases) or the Chief of Staff (if agreements are for Central Office and Service Center leases) for her/his review. (e) The Deputy Secretary or the Chief of Staff will either approve documents or notify the Bureau of Field Support Services of any discrepancies. If the Deputy Secretary or the Chief of Staff approves, s/he will forward the lease agreement and Certificate of Compliance to the Secretary for her/his approval and signature. (f) Once the Lease Agreements and Certificate of Compliance have been executed, they will be returned to the Bureau of Field Support Services. (g) The Bureau of Field Support Services will prepare a cover letter to DMS and will forward the following documents to DMS for final processing: 1. one (1) original Lease Agreement for leases 4,999 square feet and under or all signed original Lease Agreements for leases over 5,000 square feet, 2. a “Certificate of Compliance,” FM 4113, signed by the Secretary 3. a copy of the Request for Proposal or Quote Submittal Package,

84

4. a copy of the legal advertisement for procurement, 5. a copy of the Request for Proposal Evaluation Manual (RFP only), 6. a copy of all the proposals submitted, 7. a copy of the present value calculations, 8. a copy of the final score sheets by evaluation committee members (RFP only), 9. a copy of the Final Report and Award Recommendation (RFP only) and Recommendation for Award Memo, 10. a copy of the award letter, 11. a signed Disclosure Statement from the lessor, 12. floor plans with measurements (Leases over 5,000 square feet), 13. renovation plans and specifications submitted to the State Fire Marshal (if applicable), and 14. a copy of legal advertisement for noticing the general public if for Probation and Parole Office. (If DMS finds any problems with these documents, DMS will consult the Leasing Agent.) (h) DMS will provide a letter to the Leasing Manager concerning the approval (leases over 5,000 square feet) or acceptance (leases 4,999 square feet and under) of the Lease Agreement. 1. DMS will forward to the Leasing Manager the two (2) original lease agreements for leases 5,000 square feet and over. 2. The Leasing Agent will forward an original Lease Agreement to the lessor. The final original Lease Agreement will be filed in the Bureau of Field Support Services. 3. The Leasing Agent will make a copy of the executed lease agreement and forward a copy to the General Services Manager (Leasing) at the Service Center, the contact person in the field office and the Circuit Administrator (for probation & parole office space). A copy of Addendum A, Rental Rates, will be provided to the Office of Budget and Management Evaluation with an anticipated occupancy date for the lease. (6) GUIDELINES FOR EXECUTING LEASE MODIFICATIONS: (a) When one (1) or both parties determine that a change to the Lease Agreement is needed, a Lease Modification will be prepared using the proper the DMS Lease Modification for that lease action. The Leasing Agent will prepare three (3) original Lease Modifications. These Lease Modifications will include all necessary addenda based on the lease action. (b) The Leasing Agent will prepare the “Lease Agreement/Modification Review Sheet” onlavender paper. (c) Processing the Modification in the Central Office: 1. The Leasing Agent will forward the Modification with all its attachments to the Leasing Manager for review and approval. 2. The Leasing Manager will review the modification documents, and if approved, forward to the Chief of Field Support Services for approval. 3. The Bureau Chief of Field Support Services will review the document, and if approved, forward them to the Office of the General Counsel.

85

4. The Office of the General Counsel will review the modification documents and provide comments about them if necessary. 5. If there are any discrepancies, the Bureau of Field Support Services will correct all problems. 6. The General Counsel (or her/his designee) will sign the modification after her/his staff approves them. 7. The Office of the General Counsel will forward the signed documents to the appropriate Deputy Director of Administration. 8. The appropriate Deputy Director of Administration will review, approve and return the documents to the Bureau of Field Support Services. 9. The Bureau of Field Support Services will continue processing the modification. (d) Staff will follow the guidelines outlined in Section (5) (d) through (j), except in Section (5) (i) the following documents should be forwarded to DMS for final processing: 1. one (1) original Lease Modification for leases 4,999 square feet and under or all signed original Lease Modifications for leases over 5,000 square feet, 2. a Certificate of Compliance, signed by the Secretary, 3. a Disclosure Statement, signed by the lessor, 4. floor plans with measurements (if increasing or decreasing square footage), and 5. renovation plans and specifications submitted to the State Fire Marshal (if renovations are required). (7) GUIDELINES FOR LEASE RENEWALS: (a) Only leases that contain an option to renew for a specified period will be renewed. 1. The lease renewal option may be exercised at the discretion of FDC, depending on the need for space at the renewal time. 2. When FDC decides to exercise a lease renewal, the Leasing Agent(s) should make every effort to renegotiate the lease rates during the renewal process. 3. If the Lease Renewal is not exercised within three (3) months of the lease termination, the lessor is not obligated to renew the lease. (b) When FDC determines that a Lease Renewal is needed, the Leasing Agent will preparethree (3) original DMS Lease Renewals. 1. If the Lease Renewal is exercised not more than six (6) months nor less than three (3) months before the expiration of the Lease Agreement, the “Notice of Lease Renewal,” the FM 4064, will be prepared by the Leasing Agent. a. A letter will be prepared and signed by the Leasing Manager advising the lessor that FDC is exercising a Lease Renewal option. The letter will also include a statement requesting an updated Disclosure Statement from the lessor. The letter will be sent by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to the lessor. b. The Leasing Agent will complete a Certificate of Compliance and forward to the Leasing Manager for acceptance and signature.

86

2. If the Lease Renewal is exercised with less than three (3) months remaining before lease agreement expires, the Leasing Agent will complete the “Agreement for Renewal,” the FM 4064A. 3. If the Lease Renewal is exercised more than six (6) months before the expiration of the Lease Agreement, the Leasing Agent will follow the guidelines in Section (6) “Guidelines for Executing Lease Modifications.” (c) Staff will follow the guidelines outlined in Sections (6)(b) through (6)(d), except the Notice of Renewal will omit Sections (5)(d) and (e). (8) GUIDELINES FOR CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP: (a) When ownership of real property changes, the lease records on file must change at the Central Office, the DMS, and the State Comptroller’s Office, respectively. 1. Lessors do not always notify the FDC of ownership changes. 2. When FDC becomes aware of an ownership change, the Leasing Agent must contact the new owners and request the required documentation. (b) The Leasing Agent will obtain the following documents concerning the leased property: 1. a copy of a Warranty Deed, Quit Claim Deed or other instrument used to transfer title, 2. a Disclosure Statement executed by the new owner(s), 3. an “Acknowledgement of Public Entity Crimes Statement” 4. a “Discriminatory Vendor List,” 5. a “Public Hurricane Shelter,” and 6. any additional information necessary to ensure proper delivery of rental payments to the new owner(s). (c) When the Leasing Agent receives all of the required documentation, s/he will ensure that DMS gets each of these items with a cover letter from FDC. (d) The Leasing Agent will have the new lessor’s information inputted into the Statewide Purchasing Subsystems (SPURS). (e) Upon acceptance of the ownership change, DMS will forward a letter of acknowledgment of ownership to both the Comptroller and FDC. (9) GUIDELINES FOR MANAGEMENT OF LEASES: (a) The field office will appoint an individual, usually the office supervisor, to serve as a contact person for handling maintenance and janitorial issues for its office. (b) When a problem arises, the contact person for the office will complete a “Maintenance/Janitorial Service Request,” DC2-555, and forward the request to the

87

lessor’s management contact via facsimile. (c) If the lessor has not responded and remedied the problem in three (3) working days, theoffice supervisor will forward the request to the General Services Manager (Leasing) atthe Service Center for her/his coverage area for further follow-up. (d) The General Services Manager in the Service Center will contact the lessor’s management contact via phone and advise of the status of the request. 1. The General Services Manager will place the discussions in writing and forward to the lessor. 2. In the written notice, a timeline for remedy of the problem will be addressed. (e) If the lessor does not remedy the problem in accordance with the timeline established with the Service Center, the General Services Manager will forward the problem to the Assistant Leasing Manager in Central Office. (f) The Assistant Leasing Manager will consult with the Office of the General Counsel to determine FDC’s legal position on the problem. (10) SITE INSPECTIONS FOR LEASED PREMISES: (a) The General Services Manager in the service center will perform a quarterly inspection utilizing the “Quarterly Building Inspection Checklist,” DC2-556, for every private sector lease located within her/his Service Center coverage area. (b) One (1) week prior to the on-site inspection, the General Services Manager, or her/his designee, will: 1. contact the lessor or the property management company for the facility and advise that an inspection of the leased premises will be conducted in the near future, 2. inquire if there are any current repair projects, or out-of-service areas at the facility of which FDC should be aware, and 3. allow the lessor the opportunity to express any concerns regarding plumbing, heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) or other repair problems and commit to discussing appropriate issues with the office manager. (c) The General Services Manager will advise FDC’s contact person at the facility and request her/his presence during the inspection. The General Service Manager will: 1. complete a walk through of the leased premises with office contact person and note any problems or concerns, 2. discuss any problems or concerns with office contact person, and 3. complete the DC2-556, sign it and provide to the office contact person for her/his review and signature. (d) Once the DC2-556 is approved and signed, the General Services Manager will providea copy to the following staff: 1. Field Support Services staff member, 2. Leasing Manager, 3. Circuit Administrator (if Probation & Parole Office), and 4. field office contact. (Each DC2-556 is due no later than the fifteenth [15th] of each

88

month following the end of the quarter. The DC2-556 should be provided as it is completed.) (e) Any item on the completed DC2-556, which received a scaled score of two (2) (Needs Improvement section) or below must be brought to the attention of the lessor. 1. The General Services Manager will contact the lessor concerning the discrepancies and follow-up with a written notice. 2. This letter will address all issues of concern and include the corrective action plan agreed upon by the lessor and General Services Manager. 3. The General Services Manager will include this letter with the inspection checklist provided to individuals in Section (10)(d). (f) The General Services Manager and office contact person will work together to assure that the deficiencies listed on the inspection checklist are corrected. 1. The General Services Manager will follow up with the lessor on all concerns. 2. The field office contact person will notify the General Services Manager when repairmen or construction companies are present and addressing the deficiencies. (g) Any deficiencies noted on the DC2-556 must be addressed on the form completed for the following fiscal year quarter. The General Services Manager will note if all issues or problems have been resolved. (h) If the lessor does not remedy the problem in accordance with the timeline established with the Service Center, the General Services Manager will forward the problem to the Assistant Leasing Manager in the Central Office. (i) The Assistant Leasing Manager will consult with the Office of the General Counsel to determine FDCs legal position on any unresolved problem. ________/s/___________________ Michael W. Moore, Secretary

APPENDIX B DELPHI SURVEY TECHNIQUE

There are seven distinct phases in data collection:

Phase 1: Deriving lists of incompatible land use “classes” based upon the Florida

Department of Management Service’s (FDMS) proposal to procure or assign lease office

space for a Florida Department of Correction’s (FDOC) Adult Community Supervision

Office (ACSO) within the designated host community

Phase 2: Categorizing the Site Analysis Advisory Board’s (SAAB) incompatible land

use “classes” into Predefined Zoning Districts (PZD) for a given municipality.

Phase 3: Delphi Administrator assigns a declarative statement to each predefined zoning

district, based upon concentric distance increments

Phase 4: Using a Uni-polar Scale to derive the summated attitudinal of the respondents –

Site Usability Analysis (SUA)

Phase 5: Feed Back Loops (writing and editing comments in between successive rounds)

Phase 6: Considering the distribution of Kendall’s W in the commonality or judgment for

the m observes ( )mn!

Phase 7: Testing the significance of an observed value of W

A: Testing the significance of an observed value of W, n (items) < 7

B-1: Conclusions - reject or accept the null hypothesis that the observers have no

community of preference or no association between rankings, n (items) < 7

89

90

B-2: Conclusions - reject or accept the null hypothesis that the observers have no

community of preference or no association between rankings, n (items) < 7

C: Testing the significance of an observed value of W, n (items) > 7

D-1: Conclusions - reject or accept the null hypothesis that the observers have no

community of preference or no association between rankings, n (items) > 7

D-2: Conclusions - eject or accept the null hypothesis that the observers have no

community of preference or no association between rankings, n (items) > 7

Phase 8: The decision for the Delphi Administrator, based upon the definitive statistical

tests, to initiate further rounds of the Delphi Survey

Phase 9: Assigning a Multiple Utility (MUA) Analysis by assigning a weighting, which

is on a tenth unit scale, to the individual issues.

The Delphi Administrator (DA) presents to the official Site Analysis Advisory

Board (SAAB) all of the issues, within the context of the FDMS’s proposal to either

procure or assign a FDOC’s ACSO within their designated host community, that have

been refined through the previous steps of the “six basic rules for the FDMS and FDOC

in negotiating productively with the local community” along with reinstating the original

purpose of the FDMS’s decision to either procure or assign a FDOC’s ACSO within their

designated host community by means of both a verbal and visual demonstration.

The participants of the SAAB are then instructed by the DA to write down all of

the land uses that they felt were incompatible with the proposed FDOC’s ACSO, within

the explicit context of geographic proximity. Having respondents of the SAAB describe

in writing each issue is essential at this phase, because several respondents are likely to

list the same land uses using different terms or phrases.

91

The DA then consolidates the responses into pre-established zoning districts for the

given municipality, such as Gainesville, Florida, using nominal-level of measurement.

Next, the respondents verify that the terms have been properly mapped and that their

ideas have been fairly represented. If the respondents uncover major differences, the

researcher may need to repeat this step. Once the differences are resolved, the survey

enters the second phase.

Phase 1: Deriving Objectives

Phase 2: Categorizing the Site Analysis Advisory Boards’ (SAAB) incompatible land use classes into Predefined Zoning Districts (PZD) districts for a given municipality, such as Educational Service Districts (ED)1

92

Phase 3: Delphi Administrator assigns a declarative statement to each predefined zoning district, based upon incremental concentric distances increments.

For example: Issue 1 – A probation/parole office must adhere to specific radial buffer

distance from a residential single family district:

What is the best buffer distance on an incremental ¼ (0.25) mile scale:

Distance Cumulative Mean Rank Value

0.25 (mile) 4 0.50 (mile) 2 0.75 (mile) 5 1.00 (mile) 3 1.25 (miles) 3

Panelist Rank (1.25 miles) Panelist # 1 1 Panelist # 2 5 Panelist # 3 2 Panelist # 4 2 Panelist # 5 3 Panelist # 6 5 Panelist # 7 4 Panelist # 8 5 Panelist # 9 1 Panelist # 10 3 Total 31

1031∑=X = 3.1 or 3

Phase 4: Using a Likert Scale to derive the summated attitudinal of the respondents – Site Utility Analysis (SUA) values

Phase 5: Feed Back Loops (writing and editing comments in between successive rounds)

“[This is an integral phase of the Delphi Survey Technique for thi

means of internal group communications in the Delphi process. It is imp

Round One

s is] the sole

ortant to the

93

design of [the Delphi Survey Technique] to determine the nature and strength of the

feedback and influence” (Scheibe, Skutsch, & Schofer, 1975, p.262).

( )mn!

D

c

m

t

W

g

S I

a

r

m n I

*

t

Phase 6: Considering the distribution of Kendall’s W in the

efinition: Kendall coefficient of concordance (W) measures, in a sense, the

ommunality of judgments for the m rankings. If they all agree W = 1. If they differ very

uch among themselves, the sums of ranks will be more or less equal, and consequently

he sum of squares S becomes small compared with the maximum possible value, so that

is small. As W increases form 0 to 1, the deviations become more different and there is

reater measure of agreement in the rankings.

um of Deviations:

n general with n objects and m rankings or observers, the total of all ranks is mn(n + 1)/2

nd so the average column sum is m(n + 1)/2. Let denote the actual column

ank sums. Then the sum of squares of deviations is

R n,....,R,R 21

( )4

21nm2nn

iRiS +

−∑=

=1

2 (1)

∑ Ri2 = average column sum, squared

= observers (judges/rankers)

=objects (items)

f some of the rankings contain ties,* use the calculation of rho

In this Delphi Survey that I’m recommending, there will be no stipulations for avoiding

he issue of ties.

If some of the rankings contain ties, this equation will be used:

94

(∑ −= uuU 3

121' ) (2) )

In the case of ties, defining the coefficient of W as In the case of ties, defining the coefficient of W as

Umnnm S = W

∑−− ')3(212/1 (3)

A: Testing the significance of an observed value of W, n (items) < 7

M

Source: Kendall, M., & Gibbons, J. D. (1990). Rank Correlation Methods (fifth ed.).

Distance Variables Issue 1 Issue 2 Issue 3 Issue 4 Total Total ^2

0.25 mile 4 6 2.5 2 14.5 210.25 0.50 mile 1.5 1.5 4.5 3 10.5 110.25 0.75 mile 3 5 6.5 4 18.5 342.25

1.00 mile 5.5 3.5 2.5 5.5 17.0 289

N

1.25 miles 7 7 4.5 5.5 24.0 576 1.50 miles 5.5 3.5 1 1 11.0 121 1.75 miles 1.5 1.5 6.5 7 16.5 272.25

∑

= 1921 Ri

2

Phase 6: Testing the significance of an observed value of W

New York: Oxford University Press, p. 122 There are four rankings, we have m = 4 rankings of n = 7 variables and = 1921 ∑ Ri

2

Step 1: Sum of Deviations

( )4

21nm2nn

iRiS +

−∑=

=1

2 = 129

95

∑ Ri2 = average column sum, squared

m = observers (judges/rankers) n =objects (items)

S

tep 2: if some of the rankings contain ties, use the calculation of rho –

( )∑ −= uuU 3

121'

Issue 1: ( ) 0.112/223 =−2

Issue 2: ( ) 0.112/223 =−2

Issue 3: ( ) 5.112/223 =−3 Issue 4: ( ) 5.012/223 =− ∑= 0.4 Step 3: For ties, defining the coefficient of W as

Umnnm S = W

∑−− ')3(212/1=

)0.4(4)773)(42(0833.129

−− = 0.2986

S = square of deviations of the column totals m = observers (judges/rankers) n =objects (items) B-1: conclusions - reject or accept the null hypothesis that the observers have no

community of preference or no association between rankings, with two tests,

n (items) < 7.

First test: Interpretation of Kendall’s W

Using this table: Interpretation of Kendall’s W

W Interpretation Confidence in Ranks .1 Very weak agreement None .3 Weak agreement Low .5 Moderate agreement Fair .7 Strong agreement High .9 Unusually strong agreement Very High

Source: (Schmidt, 1997, p. 767).

96

W = 0.2986

1. A very weak argument ≈ weak agreement amongst Delphi Panelist

2. Confidence in ranks, none ≈ low

B-2: conclusions - reject or accept the null hypothesis that the observers have no

community of preference or no association between rankings, n (items) < 7

N = 7, m = 4 at 5% level of significance, critical value of S is 217.0. (Source:

(Kendall & Gibbons, 1990)Appendix Table 6). Since S = 129.0 < 217.0. Therefore, there

is no evidence of agreement or concordance among rankings.

C: Testing the significance of an observed value of W, n (items) > 7

Chi-square approximation

( )1121

2+

=nmn

SX r (4)

Then, the distribution of is approximately with v = n –1 degrees of

freedom, taken from Fisher’s Table of Significance of Points of

X r2 X 2

X 2 For example, in 28 rankings of 13 (variables) is a value of S was found of 11440

and therefore

1. W = ( )28 311332'

−

12(11440) = 0.080

2. = X r2 ( )113)13)(28(0833.11440

+ = 27

Source: Kendall & Gibbons, pg. 123

97

D-1: Conclusions - reject or accept the null hypothesis that the observers have no

community of preference or no association between rankings, n (items) > 7

Chi-square approximation - = 27 X r2

From Fisher’s Table of Significance of Points of , with v = n –1 degrees of

freedom at an alpha level of 0.01, = 26.217. Our observed value is slightly greater

that this. Therefore, this result is statistically significant, that is the evidence little

evidence against the null hypothesis. As a result, we fail to reject the null hypothesis that

the observers have no community of preference or no association between rankings.

X 2

X 2

D-2: Conclusions - reject or accept the null hypothesis that the observers have no

community of preference or no association between rankings, n (items) > 7

W = ( )28 311332

12(11440)'

− = 0.080

Since we don’t have a critical value of S for m = 28, n = 13. We use Fisher’s z-

distribution with and v degrees of freedom. v1 2

WWmZ e −

−=

1)1(log

21 (5)

mnv

211 −−= = 11.9286 12 (6) ≈

vmv 12 )1( −= = 322.07 (can be take to be infinity) ∞

Observed 080.01

080.0)128(log21

−−

= eZ = 0.4267

98

N = 13, m = 28; one percent points of the distribution of z

0.3908. Z )07.322,93.11(,010.0

≈(Source: (Kendall & Gibbons, 1990)Appendix Table 7B).

Since observed Z > Critical Z, this test is statistically significant, and there is slight

evidence against null hypothesis.

Phase 7: The decision for the Delphi Administrator, based upon the definitive statistical tests, to initiate further rounds of the Delphi Survey till “consensus” is reached among the Delphi Panelists

Phase 8: assigning a Multiple Utility Analysis (MUA) by assigning a weighting, which is on a tenth unit scale, to the individual goals:

• At this phase, all of these issues have reached consensus and have been “tabled”

by the DA, based upon the statistical tests from Phase 6.

WEIGHTING TABULATIONS

Note: To the immediate right to each of the four questions, place a weighting, which is on

a tenth unit scale. The weighting you assign to each of the four questions demonstrates

the degree of influence/importance relative to the other questions. The total sum for all of

the weightings must equal 100%.

Example of a tenth unit scale: 0%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%, and 100%

99

Questionnaire # Questions from Likert Scale Goal Weighting (%)

#1 A probation/parole office must adhere to specific radial buffer distance from a residential single family district:

#2 A probation/parole office must adhere to specific radial buffer distance from a multiple-family residential district:

#3 A probation/parole office must adhere to specific radial buffer distance from an educational services district:

#4

What is the minimum buffer distance that a probation office should be in relation to other “incompatible” land uses, such as a school for children in grade 12 or lower, a licensed daycare center facility, a youth center, or a nursing home?

Total: 100%

100

The Delphi Survey Technique – design2

101

Notes. 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. EDUCATIONAL SERVICES DISTRICT (ED), Sec. 30-77. Purpose. The district is established to identify and locate public educational facilities at appropriate locations throughout the community. 2 The researcher highly recommends that the Delphi Survey Technique be done through a computer-automated environment, where both the Delphi Participants (DP) interact directly through a computer graphical user interface program and assessed by a Delphi Administrator (DA) - see the prototypical example below:

REFERENCES

Kendall, M., & Gibbons, J. D. (1990). Rank Correlation Methods (fifth ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

102

Scheibe, M., Skutsch, M., & Schofer, J. (1975). Experiments in Delphi Methodology. In H. A. Linstone & M. Turoff (Eds.), The Delphi Method : Techniques and Applications. Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Schmidt, R. C. (1997). Managing Delphi Surveys Using Nonparametric Statistical

Techniques. Decision Sciences, 28(3), 763-774.

APPENDIX C NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PROBATION EXECUTIVES BOARD OF

DIRECTOR’S CAREER BIOGRAPHIES

1. Dan Richard Beto (Texas) President, who has recorded more than three decades

in the corrections profession, is Director of the Correctional Management Institute

of Texas at Sam Houston State University in Huntsville, Texas. Prior to his

current position, Mr. Beto served as Chief Probation Officer for two jurisdictions

in Texas and with the U.S. Probation Service for the Southern District of Texas.

He is a past President of the Texas Probation Association and currently serves on

the Board of Directors of the American Probation and Parole Association and on

the faculty of the Executive Development Program for new probation and parole

executives.

2. Thomas H. Williamsa (Washington, D.C.) Vice President Is the Director of Parole

and Probation Services for the District of Columbia. Mr. Williams, who has over

two decades of experience in the field of community corrections, began his career

as a probation officer for the former Supreme Bench of Baltimore City. Prior to

his current position, he was the Director of the Division of Parole and Probation

for the State of Maryland. Mr. Williams is a member of the Board of Directors of

the American Probation and Parole Association.

3. Cherie Townsend (Arizona) Secretary, is the Chief Juvenile Probation Officer for

Maricopa County, Arizona. Prior to moving to Arizona, Ms. Townsend was

103

104

Director of Community Services for the Texas Youth Commission. Overall, she

has devoted more than a quarter of a century to the juvenile justice profession.

Ms. Townsend is a member of the Board of Directors of the American Probation

and Parole Association; in addition, she serves on the faculty of the Executive

Development Program for new probation and parole executives.

4. James E. Rood (Oregon) Treasurer, who has been employed in the criminal

justice profession in a variety of positions for over three decades, is the Deputy

Director of the Multnomah County Department of Community Justice in

Portland, Oregon, a position he has held since 1998.

5. Robert L. Bingham (Indiana) Past President is the Chief Probation Officer for the

Marion Superior Court in Indianapolis, Indiana. Mr. Bingham is a career

corrections professional, having worked for almost three decades in adult and

juvenile community corrections administration in the states of Pennsylvania,

Illinois, and Michigan.

6. W.Conway Bushey (Pennsylvania) Board Member is Director of Grants and

Standards for the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole in Harrisburg,

Pennsylvania. He has been involved in the corrections profession for over three

decades, first as a county probation officer and later with the Pennsylvania Board

of Probation and Parole. Mr. Bushey represents the Mid-Atlantic Region on the

Board of Directors.

105

7. E. Robert Czaplicki (New York) Board Member is Commissioner of the

Onondaga County Probation Department in Syracuse, New York, a position he

has held since 1986. Mr. Czaplicki, who has recorded over 27 years in the

corrections profession, is a past President of the New York State Council of

Probation Administrators. He is a member of the Board of Directors of the

American Probation and Parole Association. Mr. Czaplicki is an at large member

of the NAPE Board of Directors.

8. Ron R. Goethals (Texas) Board Member, who has spent over 25 years in the

corrections profession, is the Director of the Dallas County Community

Supervision and Corrections Department in Dallas, Texas, a position he has held

since 1990. Prior to assuming his current position, he held almost every

administrative position within the department. Mr. Goethals represents the

Southern Region on the Board of Directors. In addition, Mr. Goethals serves on

the Board of Directors of the American Probation and Parole Association and on

the faculty of the Executive Development Program for new probation and parole

executives.

9. Gerald R. Hinzman (Iowa) Board Member has been the Director of the Sixth

Judicial District Department of Correctional Services, a multi-county department

headquartered in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, since 1989. Prior to his current position,

106

Mr. Hinzman served as Chief of Police for Cedar Rapids for four years. He

represents the Central Region on the Board of Directors.

10. Edward T. Mansfield (Colorado) Board Member is the Chief Probation Officer

for the 2nd District Court of Denver in Denver, Colorado. He has devoted almost

four decades to the criminal justice system, first as a police officer in New York

City and later as an administrator with the Maricopa County Adult Probation

Department in Arizona. He is an at-large member of the Board of Directors.

11. Richard E. Wyett (Nevada) is the Chairman of the Nevada Parole Board. Prior to

his current position, Mr. Wyett served as Chief of the Nevada Division of Parole

and Probation and as President of the Make-A-Wish Foundation of Northern

Nevada. Mr. Wyett represents the Western Region on the Board of Directors.

12. Nanci Lee Mary Bouchard (Maine), who began her career as a probation and

parole officer in 1977, is the Associate Commissioner of Adult Community

Corrections for the Maine Department of Corrections, a position she has held

since 1997. In her current position she is responsible for probation, parole, and

pre-release centers in Maine. Ms. Bouchard represents the New England Region

on the Board of Directors.

APPENDIX D FINALIZED MAIL SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

WELCOME TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE

It is authored by Darren Murphy and sponsored through the University of

Florida’s Department of Urban & Regional Planning. It has also been approved by the University of Florida’ Institutional Review Board. s

THE PURPOSE

Through a questionnaire, my goal is to both collect and assess the 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. After these geographic variables are identified, I will then apply them to a case study in Gainesville, FL. Although these geographic variables will be applied to a specific city, they are generic in nature and can be applied to other cities in Florida or other states. __________________________________________________________________ INTRODUCTION

Envision yourself in this “hypothetical situation,” you are an Leasing Agent for the Florida Department of Management Services who is responsible for the procurement of real property leasing for an assigned coverage area, under the following guidelines:

• Must follow the guidelines of Chapter 255, Florida Statute and Chapter 60-H, Florida

Administrative Code when choosing a potential site. The lowest rental rate is the “primary” factor in selecting leased office space.

• Acknowledge and disqualify bids that fail to meet the strict “250” feet buffering

distance requirement for the following “incompatible” land uses:

107

108

A schools for children in grade 12 or lower Hospitals Licensed day care center facilities Association for disabled populations Parks Mental health centers Playgrounds Youth Centers

Nursing Homes Group homes for disabled population or youth

Convalescent (health recovery) centers

Places where children or a population especially vulnerable to crime due to age or physical or mental disability

regularly congregate

In light of these criteria, bear in mind that probations offices, whether fairly or unfairly, have been negatively identified by the public as a cause in the reduction of real estate values, an increase in crime rates, and the erosion of the quality of the immediate neighborhoods. You've heard it many times before: "we, the public, don’t oppose a probation office, per se. We just think it ought to be located somewhere else."

With all of the legal and economic variables considered equal, you are to also focus upon the “geographic proximity” of other differing land uses and how they both arouse public opposition in regards to public safety, property values, and neighborhood character, and indirectly influence a state correctional agency’s success in decreasing probationer recidivism rates.

It's a difficult balancing act for you. However, it is your job to procure existing, leased, office space for a FDOC’s Adult Community Supervision Office that is within the city limits of Gainesville, FL.

T

HE SURVEY

The survey consists of four questions relating to primary site analysis criteria crucial to the location of probation offices.

1. For each of the four questions, either circle or place a checkmark

next to the response most applicable to you.

2. It is allowable to consult with your fellow co-workers, when completing this questionnaire.

Q

UESTIONAIRRE

1.) What is the best distance that future site selections of probation offices should be in relation to the following administrative, transportation, and support services:

a . Please check the best distance to a Courthouse:

_

__ 0.25-mile ___ 0.50-mile ___ 0.75-mile ___ 1-mile

___ Own Recommendation: ____ mile(s) or ___ Criteria Not Suitable b

. Please check the maximum acceptable distance to a Courthouse:

109

___ 2-miles ___ 3-miles ___ 4-miles ___ 5-miles ___ 6-miles ___ Own Recommendation: ____ mile(s) or ___ Criteria Not Suitable

a . Please check the best distance to a Transportation Terminal (bus stop):

___ 250 feet ___ 500 feet ___750 feet ___ 1,000 feet ___ Own Recommendation (check either feet or miles): _____ feet mile

r o ___ Criteria Not Suitable

b. Please check the maximum acceptable distance to a Transportation

Terminal (bus stop):

___ 1,320 feet (0.25 mile) ___ 2,640 feet (0.50 mile) ___ 3,690 feet 5 mile) (0.7

___ 1-mile ___ Own Recommendation (check either feet or miles): feet mile or ___ Criteria Not Suitable

a. Please check the best distance for Social Service Centers (state

governmental services, drug rehabilitation centers, mental health centers, homeless shelters):

_

__ 0.25-mile ___ 0.50-mile ___ 0.75-mile ___ 1-mile

___ Own Recommendation: ____ mile(s) or ___ Criteria Not Suitable

b. Please check the maximum acceptable distance for Social Service Centers (state governmental services, drug rehabilitation centers, mental health centers, homeless shelters):

___ 2-miles ___ 3-miles ___ 4-miles ___ 5-miles ___ 6-miles ___ Own Recommendation: ____ mile(s) or ___ Criteria Not Suitable

a. Please check the best distance for Educational Centers (high schools

which offer GED classes, vocational/employment training centers):

___ 0.25-mile ___ 0.50-mile ___ 0.75-mile ___ 1-mile ___ Own Recommendation: ___ mile(s) or ___ Criteria Not Suitable

b. Please check the maximum acceptable distance for a Educational Centers

(high schools which offer GED classes, vocational/employment training centers):

_

__ 2-miles ___ 3-miles ___ 4-miles ___ 5-miles ___ 6-miles

___ Own Recommendation: ___ mile(s) or ___ Criteria Not Suitable 2.) What is the best circular distance that a probation office should be in relation to the majority of probationers’ residences?

110

a. Please check the best circular distance:

_

__ 0.25-mile ___ 0.50-mile ___ 0.75-mile ___ 1-mile le ___ 0.75-mile ___ 1-mile

___ Own Recommendation: ____ mile(s) or ___ Criteria Not Suitable ___ Own Recommendation: ____ mile(s) or ___ Criteria Not Suitable b. Please check the maximum acceptable circular distance: b. Please check the maximum acceptable circular distance: ___ 2-miles ___ 3-miles 4-miles ___ 5-miles ___ 6-miles ___ 2-miles ___ 3-miles 4-miles ___ 5-miles ___ 6-miles

3.) “What is the most favorable location of a probation office in relation to the police/sheriff department service area?” (Police/Sheriff-Designated Logistical Service Area - See Definition #2)?

3.) “What is the most favorable location of a probation office in relation to the police/sheriff department service area?” (Police/Sheriff-Designated Logistical Service Area - See Definition #2)?

a. Please check the best, realistic drive-time (the amount of time it takes for

a police officer to respond to an emergency dispatch call to a probation office):

a. Please check the best, realistic drive-time (the amount of time it takes for a police officer to respond to an emergency dispatch call to a probation office):

___ 5-minutes ___ 10-minutes ___ 15-minutes ___ 5-minutes ___ 10-minutes ___ 15-minutes ___ Own Recommendation: ____ minutes(s) or ___ Criteria Not Suitable ___ Own Recommendation: ____ minutes(s) or ___ Criteria Not Suitable

b b

. Please check the maximum drive-time: . Please check the maximum drive-time:

___ 20-minutes ___ 25-minutes ___ 30-minutes ___ 20-minutes ___ 25-minutes ___ 30-minutes

4. What is the minimum buffer distance that a probation office should be in relation to other “incompatible” land uses, such as a school for children in grade 12 or lower, a licensed daycare center facility, a youth center, or a nursing home? (Buffer - See Definition #1 )

4. What is the minimum buffer distance that a probation office should be in relation to other “incompatible” land uses, such as a school for children in grade 12 or lower, a licensed daycare center facility, a youth center, or a nursing home? (Buffer - See Definition #1 )

• Please check the minimum distance: • Please check the minimum distance:

_ _

__ 250 feet ___ 500 feet ___ 750 feet ___ 1,000 feet __ 250 feet ___ 500 feet ___ 750 feet ___ 1,000 feet

___ Own Recommendation (check either feet or miles): _____ feet ___ Own Recommendation (check either feet or miles): _____ feet m m

iles iles

or ___ Criteria Not Suitable or ___ Criteria Not Suitable W

EIGHTING TABULATIONS

Note: To the immediate right to each of the four questions, place a weighting, which is on a tenth unit scale. The weighting you assign to each of the four questions demonstrates the degree of influence/importance relative to the other

uestions. The total sum for all of the weightings must equal 100%. q Example of a tenth unit scale: 0%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%, and 100%

111

Questionnaire # Questions from Likert Scale Goal Weighting (%)

#1 A probation/parole office must adhere to specific radial buffer distance from a residential single family district:

#2 A probation/parole office must adhere to specific radial buffer distance from a multiple-family residential district:

#3 A probation/parole office must adhere to specific radial buffer distance from an educational services district:

#4

What is the minimum buffer distance that a probation office should be in relation to other “incompatible” land uses, such as a school for children in grade 12 or lower, a licensed daycare center facility, a youth center, or a nursing home?

Total: 100% DEFINITIONS

#1) Buffer: is a zone around a point feature, such as a school or police station, for safety purposes or deterrence. For example, a drug-free school zone is defined with a 1,000-foot buffer around a school. #2) Police/Sheriff-Designated Logistical Service Area: a shape drawn around a specified service network (such as the City of Gainesville’s roads and streets). Police/Sheriff-Designated logistical Service Areas make it easier to see what is within the given drive- time of a police/sheriff department, such as a probation office.

112

A Graphic Example:

The 3 red dots within the “5-minute Police Service Area” indicate that a police officer from the Gainesville Police Department can respond to an emergency dispatch call in 5 minutes or less based upon the current street & road speed limits.

APPENDIX E DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS – SITE

SUITABLITY ANALYSIS RESULTS

Table 1: 8th Circuit Court House Courthouse (in miles) Question 1a 1b Respondent # Best Maximum 1 7.500 10.000 2 0.000 0.000 4 0.000 1.000 5 0.250 1.000 6 5.000 0.000 7 0.000 0.000 8 0.000 0.000 9 10.000 20.000 10 0.250 3.000 11 0.250 2.000 Mean 2.325 3.7 Median 0.25 1 Mode 0 0 Table 2: Bus Terminal Bus Terminal (in feet) Question 1a 1b Respondent # Best Maximum 1 1000 1320 2 1000 2460 4 250 1320 5 250 1320 6 0 1320 7 5280 5280 8 1000 2460 9 100 660 10 750 2460 11 1000 2460 Mean 1063 2106 Median 875 1890 Mode 1000 1320

113

114

Table 3: Social Service Centers Social Services (in miles) Question 1a 1b Respondent # Best Maximum 1 0.500 0.500 2 0.000 0.000 4 0.250 5.000 5 0.500 2.000 6 0.000 0.000 7 1.000 2.000 8 1.000 0.000 9 0.250 6.000 10 1.000 5.000 11 1.000 2.000 Mean 0.55 2.25 Median 0.5 2 Mode 1 0 Table 4: Educational Centers Educational Centers (in miles) Question 1a 1b Respondent # Best Maximum 1 0.500 0.500 2 0.000 0.000 4 0.250 5.000 5 0.500 2.000 6 0.000 0.000 7 1.000 5.000 8 1.000 0.000 9 0.250 6.000 10 1.000 5.000 11 1.000 2.000 Mean 0.55 2.55 Median 0.5 2 Mode 1 0

115

Table 5: Police/Sheriff Service Areas

Police/Sheriff Logistical Service Areas (in

minutes) Question 1a 1b Respondent # Best Maximum 1 5 20 2 5 20 4 5 20 5 0 20 6 0 0 7 10 20 8 5 5 9 1 0 10 10 20 11 5 20 Mean 4.6 14.5 Median 5 20 Mode 5 20 Table 6: Incompatible Land Uses Incompatible Land Uses (in feet) Question 1a Respondent # Best 1 250 2 0 4 1000 5 1000 6 0 7 1000 8 1000 9 0 10 1000 11 1000 Mean 625 Median 1000 Mode 1000

APPENDIX F MULTIPLE UTILITY ANALYSES RESULTS

Results from the Questionnaire: Multiple Utility Average (MUA) values

Respondents Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 1 20 40 30 10 2 0 80 20 0 4 20 20 10 50 5 10 10 30 6 40 50 0 10 7 20 20 10 50 8 20 25 30 25 9 25 50 25 0 10 20 30 30 20 11 30 10 10 50 Mean MUA Value 24.5 33.5 17.5 24.5

50

Question # Question from Questionnaire Percentage

#1

What is the best distance that future site selections of probation offices should be in relation to the following administrative, transportation, and support services 24.5

#2

What is the best circular distance that a probation office should be in relation to the majority of probationers’ residences? 33.5

#3 What is the most favorable location of a probation office in relation to the police/sheriff department? 17.5

#4

What is the minimum buffer distance that a probation office should be in relation to other “incompatible” land uses, such as a school for children in grade 12 or lower, a licensed daycare center facility, a youth center, or a nursing home? 24.5

100%

116

117

APPENDIX G THE NEGOTIATION PROCESS: SIX BASIC RULES FOR BOTH THE FDOC AND

FDMS TO FOLLOW IN BARGAINING PRODUCTIVELY WITH THE HOST COMMUNITY

A successful partnership requires clearly defined roles for each of the players. The

exact nature of these roles can vary, but the process for defining them should not -

meaningful negotiation is the most important factor. There are six basic steps for both the

FDMS and the FDOC to follow in negotiating productively with the local community in

gaining the required levels of cooperation and support for the FDOC’s ACSOs:

1. Soliciting the community’s collective opinions with regard to the FDOC’s ACSO

2. Using negotiators to separate the people from the problems

3. Clarify dynamically opposing interests

4. Generate options for mutual gain for all affected parties

5. Choose the correct Decision Making Model: The Delphi Survey Technique

6. The Usage of a Site Suitability Modeling Application by an official Site Analysis Advisory Board

Step 1: Soliciting the Community’s Collective Opinions in Regards to the FDOC’s ACSO

In the initial step of the negotiating process, the FDOC must develop a process of

soliciting the community’s collective opinions, such as a public hearing or a public

workshop roundtable, on the issues relating to the location of a probation and parole

office within a designated host community. Whatever process is used, the main purpose

of this preliminary data collection effort is to provide both the FDOC with a clear picture

of what the community concerns are and how they are relevant to the location of a

118

probation and parole office within that community. Furthermore, this provides both the

FDOC with a "golden opportunity," in terms of good public relations, to be perceived by

local units of government and the host community as being genuinely concerned about the

concerns they have with regard to the placement of an ACSO.

Step 2: Using negotiators to separate the people from the problems

Once the FDOC has developed an overall understanding of the community’s

concerns related to the placement of a FDOC’s ACSO within their host community, the

next logical step for the agency is to both initiate a public meeting and appoint specific

negotiators. “Experience suggests that the meeting’s program should be presented by at

minimum of [three] personnel: … a government representative [city or county

administrator]; a representative of the sponsoring agency (who may also be the facility

operator) [FDOC]; a client/consumer (who is preferably from the local area)” (Dear,

1991, p. 60). The main purpose of these negotiators is to help separate the people from

the problems with regard to such a facility placed in the midst of their community. Akin

to separating the wheat from its chaff, the negotiators must be able to separate the

public’s perceived fears about the FDOC’s ACSOs from the real, quantifiable issues that

have empirical evidence to validate them. The key component for making the meeting

successful is that the negotiators must be fully prepared to talk about the issues and be

ready to defend their differing positions. For example, the government representative can

be the local police chief who can show official crime rates for violent crimes over a three

year period for this particular neighborhood and make the declarative statement that the

placement of this ACSO in this area would only accentuate the crime problem, especially

when 23.1% of the FDOC’s Active Community Supervision Offender Population fails to

119

fulfill their probation sentence after one year, please see graph below. Whereas, the

sponsoring agency can counter by stating that the recidivism rate for all prison releases is

only 33.8%2 since 1993.

Source: FDOC, 2002, http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/recidivism/curves.html

Figure 4.15: FDOC – Total Recidivism Rate

The key factor in this step is for all parties to clarify all relevant issues concerning the

placement of a FDOC’s ACSO within a designated, residential and urban community.

Step 3: Clarify the dynamically opposing interests

Once the negotiators have separated the valid issues from the invalid ones, the next

step in the negotiating process is to clarify the diametrically opposing interests. In order

for the negotiators to maintain a sense of public credibility, they must objectively state

upfront the two polarized interests that are intertwined in this local land use debate

involving the FDOC’s ACSOs:

120

Public safety – addressing the concerns of the community about the possible threats to personal security, property values, or neighborhood amenity.

Offender reintegration – addressing the FDOC’s goals in locating its probation offices in areas that will directly help their clientele become reintegrated back into society.

Step 4: Generate options for mutual gain for all affected parties

For the negotiating process to become successful, both the FDOC and the FDMS

must incorporate the variables developed and compiled from Step 3 and logically

categorize them according to each of the affected party’s vested interests, with the

purpose of generating options for mutual gain for everyone involved:

a. Examine the variables that are conducive to the FDOC’s mission in successfully reintegrating offenders back into society through its parole/probation offices.

b. Examine the variables that “local politicians” are concerned with: what

possible impacts the FDOC’s clientele might impose upon their constituency in terms of the residents’ reactionary responses of their respective city commissioner, services (increased policing), and taxes (some businesses might suffer a decline in their customer base due to the location of a nearby probation and parole office.

d. Examine the variables that “residents” are concerned with: heightened worry over individual property values, personal safety, and neighborhood character.

Step 5: Choosing the correct Decision Making Model: The Delphi Survey Technique

Making complex decisions is one of the most daunting tasks for a large state

governmental organization, such as the FDMS. Complex decisions require input from the

organization, a structure for laying out alternatives, and a mechanism for weighing

choices. While such decisions are regularly made without the use of decision making

models, it often leads to ill-advised decisions, such as the FDMS’s decision, as part of a

lease assignment, to select a proposed location for the FDOC’s Gainesville Main

probation office that was within a 0.5 mile walking-distance of three schools and a

121

daycare center. The terms used to describe it - crisis management, putting out fires, seat-

of-the-pants governing - all reveal the gracelessness and awkwardness of this method of

decision-making or the lack of it. Decision-making models allow decisions to be made in

a more comfortable and intelligent way. Decision-making models even make decisions

easier by providing guidelines and goals for the finalized decisions to be realized with

their greatest potential impact. This is a summarization of a decision making model’s

main points and components developed by Dr. Scholl from the College of Business

Administration at the University of Rhode Island, please refer to Appendix H for a

complete description of the this decision-making model.

The researcher will address the finer points of the Delphi Survey Technique within

the context of the Decision Making Model’s main points and its components,

respectively:

1. Three components of every decision:

A. Criteria - the standards by which decision makers evaluate alternatives: they

consist of the interests, beliefs, ideologies, and experiences, etc. of each

respondent of an official Site Analysis Advisory Board (SAAB), which is

essentially the members of the Delphi Survey Technique panel, please refer to

Appendix B for more in-depth information on this consensus-building, procedural

process. With their collective yet diverse set of judgments, the SAAB addresses

all of the criteria both derived from the previous steps of the negotiation process

along with the organically developed criteria developed through the actual Delphi

Survey Technique, itself.

122

B. Alternatives - specific courses of action or options, being considered: this is

where the power of feed back loops or the feedback input comes into play. “[The]

feedback input, which forms the sole means of internal group communications in

the Delphi process. It is important to the design of [the Delphi Survey Technique]

to determine the nature and strength of the feedback and influence” (Scheibe,

Skutsch, & Schofer, 1975, p. 262). Through this internal group communication,

alternative options are likely to be generated from such a diverse group of

respondents.

C. Cause and Effect Beliefs – are cognitions linking specific alternatives to specific

criteria: From the very onset, the Delphi Administrator (DA) will state the current

proposal of the FDMS’s proposal to either procure or assign an office space for

the FDOC’s ACSO within this designated local community. The cause is the

geographic proximity of the proposed probation office to differing, incompatible

land uses. The effect is to establish an appropriate buffer distance between the

probation office and incompatible land. This will be done through a Uni-polar

Scale questionnaire, which will ask the respondents to chose a buffer distance, on

incremental scale of specific distances, that is deemed to be the most appropriate

based upon their professional judgment.

2. Based upon the deductive premise that ineffective decisions result from either:

A. Problems with the development of criteria such as incorrect criteria, improper

weighing of criteria or not all relevant criteria considered. This point is already

negated by the fact that the SAAB has received the “refined and polished” issues

that have been debated and analyzed from the various parties in the five previous

123

steps of the negotiation process. With regards to the point about improper

weighting, this issue will be dealt with at three different levels:

• The Political Level – a percentage of the participants on the SAAB are local political representatives, being either county or city commissioners. Therefore, as part of their “political responsibilities” to their constituency, it would be in their best interest to be attuned to the relevant issues/alternatives from the previous steps of the negotiation process along with incorporating their own beliefs, assumptions, or alternative issues.

• The Professional Level – just as there will be local political representatives on the SAAB, there will also be officials from the local units of government professionals who will bring their level of expertise to the table. For example, the local police chief talking about the local crime analysis trends or the local county property appraiser discussing the interrelationships between property values and negative and positive externalities effects they have upon the property values of a particular land use, such as single-family residential homes.

• The Factual Level - many of these same individuals will be weighting their decisions based upon empirical evidence emanating from experts within field of real estate economics or from other authoritative sources. In the meantime, buffer distances established through the Delphi Survey Technique will have to suffice until there is strong enough empirical evidence to supplant it. This cardinal rule should be always be followed by any SAAB going through a Delphi Survey Technique

B. Search for alternatives – did not identify alternatives that would satisfy criteria

set: Fortunately, all alternatives, in this case differing land uses, will be

categorized into predefined zoning districts based upon the designated host

community’s land use codes, such as the City of Gainesville’s Land Development

Code, Article IV. Use Regulations, Division 1. Generally, CD: 30-58, (Please

refer to Appendix I)

C. Use of incorrect cause and effect information: the cause can and will be based

upon the collective input of all participants of the SAAB on what are deemed the

optimal spatial distances for a probation relative to other incompatible land uses,

such as schools, daycare centers, nursing homes, etc. Furthermore, there will be

124

attempts by the participants of the SAAB to draw upon case studies that show

empirical evidence of the externalities of specific land use, such as neighborhood

churches, on the property values of adjacent land uses, such as single-family

residential homes.

3. What is a decision-making construct? A decision-making construct is a model or

plan, which determines the process by which a decision is made.

A. How are criteria determined? It is determined through a combination of two

separate sources:

• As mentioned earlier, a lot of the criteria will be made available to the SAAB, based on the previous four steps of the negotiation process.

• Criteria will be organically developed based upon the proposed FDMS scenario of procuring or assigning a lease office space to a FDOC’s ACSO within their designated host community.

B. How are alternatives generated? Through feedback loops

C. How alternatives are evaluated against criteria, that is, how are cause/effect

relationships established and how are cause/effect conflicts resolved? This is a

very interesting point. Through the feedback loop process, if new a land use, such

as parks/playgrounds, is interjected. It will be discussed amongst participants of

the SAAB, through some form of peer review. A proposed vote will be cast,

based upon majority rule, as to whether this particular alternative should be

incorporated into the current list of issues. If this new land use variable is

accepted as being valid by the majority, it will go through the same Delphi Survey

Technique, as the others. Finally, this whole entire process will be done in

writing.

125

4. The effectiveness of the decision making construct may be judged by the

following:

A. Does the construct allow/encourage the decision maker to include all relevant

criteria? As mentioned above, the decision makers, in this case the respondents of

SAAB, are participating in a Delphi Survey Technique that not only has feedback

loops but a Delphi Moderator that moderates all relevant issues relevant to the

spatial proximity of a probation office in relation to all of the incompatible land

uses categorized by the SAAB.

B. Does the construct allow/encourage the consideration of all alternatives? Yes, the

feedback loops, as mentioned above, allow/encourage all participants to discuss

the specific distances for an incompatible land use that are deemed a safe distance

in relation to the location of a probation office.

C. Does the construct allow/encourage the decision-makers to have access to the

most accurate cause/effect information? Unfortunately, there are no empirical

studies that have been done linking the externalities of a probation office on other

differing land uses, such as single-family residential homes or general business

districts. As mentioned earlier, there are empirical studies that link the

externalities of a particular land use to negatively affecting the real estate prices

of adjacent, differing land uses. A lot of these studies will provide the basis for

making both qualitative and quantitative decisions at what is deemed to be the

most appropriate buffer distance for a probation office to adjacent differing,

incompatible land uses.

5. Conflict from a Decision Making Perspective.

126

A. Conflict manifests itself as a disagreement over alternatives or positions. When

there is agreement as to what option to pursue, what plan to implement, or what

course of action to take, no substantive conflict exist or consensus has been

reached. The Delphi Survey Technique circumvents these pitfalls by using the

combination of a pre-selected group of individuals that are attuned to the host

community’s concerns along with the Delphi Survey Technique’s feedback loops.

B. When conflict does exist (an impasse as to what option to choose), its source is

one of the following:

• Value Based Conflict - Disagreement over Criteria or Interests. This is a broad category, which not only includes individuals attempting to accomplish mutually exclusive goals, but also includes differences in importance or weights placed on multiple criteria. Also included in this category are hidden agenda.

• Theory Based Conflict - Disagreement over cause/effect beliefs or theories. In this case, individuals share the same goal or interests, but disagree about the best way to accomplish this goal. The underlying cause is that they do not share common theories regarding the relationships between alternatives and criteria.

Listed below is a cross-sectional table that describes the main sources of conflict:

Table 4.2: A Summary of Main Sources of Conflict Criteria or Goals Criteria or Goals The two main sources of conflict

Criteria Agree Disagree

Cause/Effect Beliefs Disagree Theory Based

Conflict

Both Value and Theory Based Conflict

Cause/Effect Beliefs Agree No Substantive

Conflict Value Conflict

Source: Decision Making Models Summary, 2002, p. 2

Step 6: The Usage of a Site Suitability Modeling Application by an official Site Analysis Advisory Board

The results of the Delphi Survey Technique will become the crucial input data for

a site suitability modeling application, such as ESRI’s ModelBuilder for Arcview

Spatial Analyst 2.0, which will generate an actual location within a designated

127

host community that will meet the “majority” approval of all parties involved in

the Delphi Survey Technique.

APPENDIX H DECISION-MAKING MODEL SUMMARY

Main Points Components

A. Criteria - the standards by which decision makers evaluate alternatives B. Alternatives - specific courses of action or options, being considered 1. Three components of every decision: C. Cause and Effect Beliefs – are cognitions linking specific alternatives to specific criteria A. Problems with the development of criteria such as incorrect criteria, improper weighing of criteria, or not all relevant criteria considered B. Search for alternatives – did not identify alternatives that would satisfy criteria set

2. Based upon the deductive premise that ineffective decisions result from either:

C. Use of incorrect cause and effect information A. How are criteria determined? Which criteria should be used in making a decision? B. How are alternatives generated?

3. What is a decision-making construct? A decision-making construct is a model or plan which determines the process by which a decision is made.

C. How are alternatives evaluated against criteria, that is, how are cause/effect relationships established and how are cause/effect conflicts resolved? A. Does the construct allow/encourage the decision maker to include all relevant criteria B. Does the construct allow/encourage the consideration of all alternatives?

4. The effectiveness of the decision making construct may be judged by the following: C. Does the construct allow/encourage the

decision maker to have access to the most accurate cause/effect information?

128

129

Continued A. Conflict manifests itself as a disagreement over alternatives or positions.

5. Conflict from a Decision Making Perspective

B. When conflict does exist, its source is one of the following: Value Based Conflict - Disagreement over Criteria or Interests. This is a broad category which not only includes individuals attempting to accomplish mutually exclusive goals, but also includes differences in importance or weights placed on multiple criteria. Also included in this category are hidden agenda. Theory Based Conflict - Disagreement over cause/effect beliefs or theories. In this case, individuals share the same goal or interests, but disagree about the best way to accomplishment this goal. The underlying cause is that they do not share a common theory regarding the relationships between alternatives and criteria.

Source: Decision Making Models Summary, 2002, www.cba.uri.edu/Scholl/Notes/Decision_Making_Models.htm

APPENDIX I CITY OF GAINESVILLE’S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE

Districts Categories RSF-1: 3.5 units/acre single-family residential district RSF-2: 4.6 units/acre single-family residential district RSF- 3: 5.8 units/acre single-family residential district RSF-4: 8 units/acre single-family residential district RMF-5: 12 units/acre multiple-family residential district RMF-6: 8-15 units/acre multiple-family residential district RMF-7: 8-21 units/acre multiple-family residential district RMF-8: 8-30 units/acre multiple-family residential district RC: 12 units/acre residential conservation district RMU: Up to 75 units/acre residential mixed use district RH-1: 8-43 units/acre residential high density district

Residential districts

RH-2: 8-100 units/acre residential high density district OR: 20 units/acre office residential district Office district OF: General office district BUS: General business district BA: Automotive-oriented business district Business districts

BT: Tourist-oriented business district.

130

131

Continued Districts Categories

MU-1: 10-30 units/acre mixed use low intensity MU-2: 14-30 units/acre mixed medium intensity Mix use districts

CCD: Up to 150 units/acre central city district W: Warehousing and wholesaling district

I-1: Limited industrial district

Industrial districts

I-2: General industrial district AGR: Agriculture district CON: Conservation district MD: Medical Services district PS: Public services and operations district AF: Airport facility district ED: Educational services district

Special use district

CP: Corporate park district

LIST OF REFERENCES

Allen, M. (2002). Why Not in Our Backyard? PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL, WINTER(45),1

Asabere, P. K., & Huffman, F. (1999). Price Impacts of Incompatible Land Uses. Office

of Real Estate Research, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Retrieved 4/22/02, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://www.cba.uiuc.edu/orer/V13-1-3.pdf

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1994). Fact Sheet: Drug-Related Crime. U.S. General

Printing Office. Retrieved 6/18/02, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/drrc.pdf

Dear, M. (1991). Gaining Community Acceptance (Report prepared for the Robert Wood

Johnson Foundation). Los Angeles: Department of Geography and School of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Southern California.

Decision Making Models Summary. Retrieved 6/17/02, 2002, from the World Wide Web:

www.cba.uri.edu/Scholl/Notes/Decision_Making_Models.htm Do, A. Q., Wilbur, R. W., & Short, J. L. (1994). An Emperical Examination of the

Externalities of Neighborhood Churches on Housing Values. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 9(2), 127-136.

E. K. Nelson, J., Cushman, R., & Harlow, N. (1980). Program Models: Unifications of

Community Corrections. Washington, DC: U.S. General Printing Office. Fear of Crime - Summary Volume LITERATURE REVIEW.[Electronic Source]. The

National Crime Prevention Programme. Retrieved 6/28/02, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://www.ncp.gov.au/ncp/Publications/80241_FOC_Summary/008_Literature.htm

Hughes, T. A., Wilson, D. J., & Allen J. Beck, P. D. (2001). Trends in State Parole,

1990-2000. United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. Retrieved 4/25/02, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/tsp00.pdf

Kunstler, J. H. (1996). Home From Nowhere: Remaking Our Everyday World For The

Twenty-First Century. New York: Simon & Schuster.

132

133

Lang, J. (1998). BASIC STEPS IN CONDUCTING SURVEYS [Electronic Source]. The

Ad Hoc Information Committee. Retrieved 6/28/02, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://www.energy.ca.gov/marketinfo/documents/98-10_LANG2.PDF

Lindsay, M. C. (1990). A Matter of Partnership: Public Involvement in Residential

Community Corrections. United States Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections. Retrieved 02/23/02, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://www.nicic.org/pubs/1990/009499.pdf

Mandelker, D. R., Cunnigham, R. A., & Payne, J. M. (1995). Planning and Control of

Land Development: Cases and Materials (Fourth ed.). Charlottesville: Michie Law Publishers.

McDonough, C. C. (1999). The Price of Zoning Revisited: Zoning Issues Raised by the

Telecommunications Act of 1996. Office of Real Estate Research, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Retrieved 4/22/02, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://www.cba.uiuc.edu/orer/V13-1-1.pdf

More About Mail Surveys (2000). [Electronic Source]. American Statistical Association.

Retrieved 6/28/02, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://www.amstat.org/sections/srms/brochures/Mail.pdf

O' Looney, J., Ph.D. (2000). Beyond Maps: GIS and Decision Making in Local

Government. Redlands: ESRI Press. Patrick A. Langan, P. D., & David J. Levin, P. D. (2002). Recidivism of Prisoners

Released in 1994. United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. Retrieved 6/16/02, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf

Peterson, R. A. (2000). Constructing Effective Questionnaires. Thousand Oaks: Sage

Publication, Inc. PROCURING LEASE SPACE, 210.007 Stat. Ann. §§ 60-255.249, 60-255.25, 60-

945.28, Florida Statute (2000). Programs and Quarterly Annual Report 1999: Historical Overview of Community-Based

Programs (1999). [electronic]. Florida Department of Corrections Statistics and Publications. Retrieved 01/08/01, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/pqannual/1999/historical.html

Rowland, A. (2001, 9/10/2001). Probation office sparks protest. Internet Edition of The

Gainesville Sun. Retrieved 10/4/01, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.sunone.com/articles/2001-09-10g.shtml

134

Scheibe, M., Skutsch, M., & Schofer, J. (1975). Experiments in Delphi Methodology. In H. A. Linstone & M. Turoff (Eds.), The Delphi Method : Techniques and Applications. Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Smith, M. E., & Dickey, W. J. (1998). What If Corrections Were Serious About Public

Safety? Corrections Management Quarterly, 2(3), 12-30. Wilton, R. (2000). GROUNDING HIERARCHIES OF ACCEPTANCE: THE SOCIAL

CONSTRUCTION OF DISABILITY IN NIMBY CONFLICTS. Urban Geography, 21(7), 586-608.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Darren Murphy was born in Schenectady, New York. He moved with his parents

in 1976 to Tampa, FL, where he finished his middle and secondary education. He

enrolled at the University of South Florida (USF) and graduated with a Bachelors of Arts

in Biology and a Bachelors of Science in Environmental Science and Planning. In the

interim period between his graduation from USF and his enrollment at the University of

Florida, Darren was torn between whether to go into the biological field in a regulatory-

oriented position, into education as a teacher, or explore a career in urban planning, one

of his boyhood fascinations of understanding how cities were planned, such as the city he

grew up in.

As a matter of fact, while growing up in Tampa, Darren and his neighborhood

friends were constantly bored because of the fact that his neighborhood was totally

isolated from parks and playgrounds. Fortunately, the open field next to his neighborhood

provided the outlet for his adolescent, sports-related activities. It was officially christened

by him and his friends as “the b-field,” short for the baseball field. Darren and his friends

had a lot of fond memories of that makeshift baseball field, until it was forever changed

into a sterile, cookie-cutter-style, medical office complex/parking lot. This forced him

and his friends to play stick ball on the pavement of our neighborhood street, which

always made my mother nervous. That moment forever left a “bad taste” in his mouth

about the City of Tampa’s planning or lack of it.

135

136

Whether it was fate or destiny, while I was in this interim phase in my life, I was

formally introduced to one of my mother’s friends, who happened to be a senior planner

for the Hillsborough County-City Planning Commission. This “life-changing” meeting

eventually steered me in the direction of pursuing a Masters in Urban and Regional

Planning at the University of Florida, with the idealistic, lofty goals of making our cities,

especially Tampa, more functional and attuned to the needs of city and suburban

dwellers. Although this has been tempered by both the stark political/economic realities

and his own natural cynicism, he is still interested in planning and urban design

principles as applied to today’s and tomorrow’s cities. Thanks to his sense of humor and

good temperament, he is not bound to be overwhelmed by the challenges of city planning

thrown in his direction.