problem solving policing sara

• Short Contribution
• Open access
• Published: 01 March 2018

Enhancing SARA: a new approach in an increasingly complex world

• Steve Burton 1 &
• Mandy McGregor 2  

Crime Science volume  7 , Article number:  4 ( 2018 ) Cite this article

38k Accesses

2 Citations

11 Altmetric

Metrics details

The research note describes how an enhancement to the SARA (Scan, Analyse, Respond and Assess) problem-solving methodology has been developed by Transport for London for use in dealing with crime and antisocial behaviour, road danger reduction and reliability problems on the transport system in the Capital. The revised methodology highlights the importance of prioritisation, effective allocation of intervention resources and more systematic learning from evaluation.

Introduction

Problem oriented policing (POP), commonly referred to as problem-solving in the UK, was first described by Goldstein ( 1979 , 1990 ) and operationalised by Eck and Spelman ( 1987 ) using the SARA model. SARA is the acronym for Scanning, Analysis, Response and Assessment. It is essentially a rational method to systematically identify and analyse problems, develop specific responses to individual problems and subsequently assess whether the response has been successful (Weisburd et al. 2008 ).

A number of police agencies around the world use this approach, although its implementation has been patchy, has often not been sustained and is particularly vulnerable to changes in the commitment of senior staff and lack of organisational support (Scott and Kirby 2012 ). This short contribution outlines the way in which SARA has been used and further developed by Transport for London (TfL, the strategic transport authority for London) and its policing partners—the Metropolitan Police Service, British Transport Police and City of London Police. Led by TfL, they have been using POP techniques to deal with crime and disorder issues on the network, with some success. TfL’s problem-solving projects have been shortlisted on three occasions for the Goldstein Award, an international award that recognises excellence in POP initiatives, winning twice in 2006 and 2011 (see Goldstein Award Winners 1993–2010 ).

Crime levels on the transport system are derived from a regular and consistent data extract from the Metropolitan Police Service and British Transport Police crime recording systems. In 2006, crime levels on the bus network were causing concern. This was largely driven by a sudden rise in youth crime with a 72 per cent increase from 2005 to 2006: The level rose from around 290 crimes involving one or more suspects aged under 16 years per month in 2005 to around 500 crimes per month in 2006.

Fear of crime was also an issue and there were increasing public and political demands for action. In response TfL, with its policing partners, worked to embed a more structured and systematic approach to problem-solving, allowing them to better identify, manage and evaluate their activities. Since then crime has more than halved on the network (almost 30,000 fewer crimes each year) despite significant increases in passenger journeys (Fig.  1 ). This made a significant contribution to the reduction in crime from 20 crimes per million passenger journeys in 2005/6 to 7.5 in 2016/17.

Crime volumes and rates on major TfL transport networks and passenger levels

Although crime has being falling generally over the last decade, the reduction on London’s public transport network has been comparatively greater than that seen overall in London and in England and Wales (indexed figures can be seen in Fig.  2 ). The reductions on public transport are even more impressive given that there are very few transport-related burglary and vehicle crimes which have been primary drivers of the overall reductions seen in London and England and Wales. TfL attributes this success largely to its problem-solving approach and the implementation of a problem-solving framework and supporting processes.

UK, London and transport crime trends since 2005/6

A need for change

TfL remains fully committed to problem-solving and processes are embedded within its transport policing, enforcement and compliance activities. However, it has become apparent that its approach needs to develop further in response to a number of emerging issues:

broadening of SARA beyond a predominant crime focus to address road danger reduction and road reliability problems;

increasing strategic complexity in the community safety and policing arena for example, the increased focus on safeguarding and vulnerability;

the increasing pace of both social and technological change, for example, sexual crimes such as ‘upskirting’ and ‘airdropping of indecent images’ (see http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/london-tube-sexual-assault-underground-transportation-harassment-a8080756.html );

financial challenges and resource constraints yet growing demands for policing and enforcement action to deal with issues;

greater focus on a range of non-enforcement interventions as part of problem solving responses;

a small upturn in some crime types including passenger aggression and low-level violence when the network is at peak capacity;

increasing focus on evidence-led policing and enforcement, and;

some evidence of cultural fatigue among practitioners with processes which indicated a refresh of the approach might be timely.

Implications

In response, TfL undertook a review of how SARA and its problem-solving activities are being delivered and considered academic reviews and alternative models such as the 5I’s as developed by Ekblom ( 2002 ) and those assessed by Sidebottom and Tilley ( 2011 ). This review resulted in a decision to continue with a SARA-style approach because of its alignment with existing processes and the practitioner base that had already been established around SARA. This has led to a refresh of TfL’s strategic approach to managing problem-solving which builds on SARA and aims to highlight the importance of prioritisation, effective allocation of intervention resources and capturing the learning from problem-solving activities at a strategic and tactical level. Whilst these stages are implicit within the SARA approach, it was felt that a more explicit recognition of their importance as component parts of the process would enhance overall problem-solving efforts undertaken by TfL and its policing partners. The revised approach, which recognises these important additional steps in the problem-solving process, has been given the acronym SPATIAL—Scan, Prioritise, Analyse, Task, Intervene, Assess and Learn as defined in Table  1 below:

SPATIAL adapts the SARA approach to address a number of emerging common issues affecting policing and enforcement agencies over recent years. The financial challenges now facing many organisations mean that limited budgets and constrained resources are inadequate to be able to solve all problems identified. The additional steps in the SPATIAL process help to ensure that there is (a) proper consideration and prioritisation of identified ‘problems’ (b) effective identification and allocation of resources to deal with the problem, considering the impact on other priorities and (c) capture of learning from the assessment of problem-solving efforts so that evidence of what works (including an assessment of process, cost, implementation and impact) can be incorporated in the development of problem-solving action and response plans where appropriate. The relationship between SARA and SPATIAL is shown in Fig.  3 below:

SARA and SPATIAL

In overall terms SPATIAL helps to ensure that TfL and policing partners’ problem-solving activities are developed, coordinated and managed in a more structured way. Within TfL problem-solving is implemented at three broad levels—Strategic, Tactical and Operational. Where problems and activities sit within these broad levels depends on the timescale, geographic spread, level of harm and profile. These can change over time. Operational activities continue to be driven by a problem-solving process based primarily on SARA as they do not demand the same level of resource prioritisation and scale of evaluation, with a SPATIAL approach applied at a strategic level. In reality a number of tactical/operational problem-oriented policing activities will form a subsidiary part of strategic problem-solving plans. Table  2 provides examples of problems at these three levels.

The processes supporting delivery utilise existing well established practices used by TfL and its partners. These include Transtat (the joint TfL/MPS version of the ‘CompStat’ performance management process for transport policing), a strategic tasking meeting (where the ‘P’ in SPATIAL is particularly explored) and an Operations Hub which provides deployment oversight and command and control services for TfL’s on-street resources. Of course, in reality these processes are not always sequential. In many cases there will be feedback loops to allow refocusing of the problem definition and re-assessment of problem-solving plans and interventions.

For strategic and tactical level problems, the SPATIAL framework provides senior officers with greater oversight of problem-solving activity at all stages of the problem-solving process. It helps to ensure that TfL and transport policing resources are focussed on the right priorities, that the resource allocation is appropriate across identified priorities and that there is oversight of the problem-solving approaches being adopted, progress against plans and delivery of agreed outcomes.

Although these changes are in the early stages of implementation, it is already clear that they provide the much needed focus around areas such as strategic prioritisation and allocation of TfL, police and other partner resources (including officers and other interventions such as marketing, communications and environmental changes). The new approach also helps to ensure that any lessons learned from the assessment are captured and used to inform evidence-based interventions for similar problems through the use of a bespoke evaluation framework (adaptation of the Maryland scientific methods scale, see Sherman et al. 1998 ) and the implementation of an intranet based library. The adapted approach also resonates with practitioners because it builds on the well-established SARA process but brings additional focus to prioritising issues and optimising resources. More work is required to assess the medium and longer term implications and benefits derived from the new process and this will be undertaken as it becomes more mature.

Eck, J., & Spelman, W. (1987). Problem - solving: problem - oriented policing in newport news . Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum. https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=111964 .

Ekblom, P. (2002). From the source to the mainstream is uphill: The challenge of transferring knowledge of crime prevention through replication, innovation 5 design against crime paper the 5Is framework and anticipation. In N. Tilley (Ed.), Analysis for crime prevention, crime prevention studies (Vol. 13, pp. 131–203).

Goldstein, H. (1979). Improving Policing: A Problem-Oriented Approach. Univ. of Wisconsin Legal Studies Research Paper No. 1336. pp. 236–258. SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2537955 . Accessed 21 Jan 2018.

Goldstein, H. (1990). Problem-oriented policing create space independent publishing platform. ISBN-10: 1514809486.

Goldstein Award Winners (1993–2010), Center for Problem-Oriented Policing. http://www.popcenter.org/library/awards/goldstein/ . Accessed 21 Jan 2018.

Scott, M. S., & Kirby, S. (2012). Implementing POP: leading, structuring and managing a problem-oriented police agency . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

Google Scholar  

Sidebottom, A., & Tilley, N. (2011). Improving problem-oriented policing: the need for a new model. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 13 (2), 79–101.

Article   Google Scholar  

Sherman, L., Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie D., Eck, J., Reuter, P. & Bushway, S. (1988). Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising. National Institute of Justice Research Brief. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/171676.pdf . Accessed 14 Dec 2017.

Weisburd, D., Telep, C.W., Hinkle, J. C., & Eck, J. E. (2008). The effects of problem oriented policing on crime and disorder. https://www.campbellcollaboration.org/media/k2/attachments/1045_R.pdf . Accessed 21 Jan 2018.

Download references

Authors’ contributions

The article was co-authored by the two named authors. SB developed the original concept and developed the methodology and MM helped refine the ideas for practical implementation and provided additional content to the document. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Ethical approval and consent to participate, competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Availability of data and materials

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

60 Fordwich Rise, London, SG14 2BN, UK

Steve Burton

Transport for London, London, UK

Mandy McGregor

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steve Burton .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Burton, S., McGregor, M. Enhancing SARA: a new approach in an increasingly complex world. Crime Sci 7 , 4 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40163-018-0078-4

Download citation

Received : 18 September 2017

Accepted : 19 February 2018

Published : 01 March 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40163-018-0078-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Problem solving
• Transport policing
• Problem oriented policing

Crime Science

ISSN: 2193-7680

• General enquiries: [email protected]

The SARA Model builds on Herman Goldstein’s Problem-Oriented Policing and was developed and coined by John Eck and William Spelman (1987) in Problem solving: Problem-oriented policing in Newport News . Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.

The SARA model is a decision-making model that incorporates analysis and research, tailoring solutions to specific problems, and most importantly, evaluating the effectiveness of those responses. The acronym SARA stands for:

Scanning: Identifying, prioritizing and selecting problems that need addressing using both data from police and other sources as well as community and citizen input.

Analysis: Deeply analyzing the causes of the problem, including the underlying causes of repeated calls for service and crime incidents.

Response: Determining and implementing a response to a particular problem. Ideas for responses should be “evidence-based” when possible (see, for example, the Matrix ) or at least tailored to the specific problem at hand using general principles of good crime prevention.

Assessment: Often the most ignored part of the SARA model, this requires assessing and evaluating the impact of a particular response and being willing to try something different if the response was not effective.

For more information see this Matrix resource as well as the POP Center .

Problem-Oriented Policing

• Reference work entry
• First Online: 27 November 2018
• pp 3989–4000
• Cite this reference work entry

• Anthony A. Braga 5 , 6  

1439 Accesses

1 Citations

Problem Solving Policing

Problem-oriented policing is an alternative approach to crime reduction that challenges police officers to understand the underlying situations and dynamics that give rise to recurring crime problems and to develop appropriate responses to address these underlying conditions. Problem-oriented policing is often given operational structure through the well-known SARA model that includes a series of iterative steps: Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment. Police officers often find it difficult to implement problem oriented policing properly with deficiencies existing in all stages of the process. The existing evaluation evidence shows that problem-oriented policing generates noteworthy crime and disorder reduction impacts. These crime reduction impacts are generated even when problem-oriented policing is not fully implemented; this confirms the robustness of the problem-oriented approach in addressing crime and disorder problems.

Introduction...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Recommended Reading and References

Bayley D (1994) Police for the future. Oxford University Press, New York

Google Scholar  

Braga AA (2008) Problem-oriented policing and crime prevention, 2nd edn. Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder

Braga AA, Weisburd DL (2006) Problem-oriented policing: the disconnect between principles and practice. In: Weisburd DL, Braga AA (eds) Police innovation: contrasting perspectives. Cambridge University Press, New York

Braga AA, Weisburd DL (2010) Policing problem places: crime hot spots and effective prevention. Oxford University Press, New York

Braga AA, Kennedy DM, Waring EJ, Piehl AM (2001) Problem-oriented policing, deterrence, and youth violence: an evaluation of Boston’s operation ceasefire. J Res Crime Delinq 38:195–225

Braga AA, Papachristos AV, Hureau DM (2012) Hot spots policing effects on crime. Campbell Systematic Reviews 2012:8. doi:10.4073/csr.2012.8

Braga AA, Weisburd DL (2012). The effects of focused deterrence strategies on crime: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the empirical evidence. J Res Crime Delinq 49:323–358

Capowich G, Roehl J (1994) Problem-oriented policing: actions and effectiveness in San Diego. In: Rosenbaum D (ed) The challenge of community policing: testing the promises. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

Clarke RV (1995) Situational crime prevention. In: Tonry M, Farrington D (eds) Building a safer society: strategic approaches to crime prevention. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

Clarke RV (ed) (1997) Situational crime prevention: successful case studies, 2nd edn. Harrow and Heston, Albany

Clarke RV (1998) Defining police strategies: problem solving, problem-oriented policing and community-oriented policing. In: O’Connor T, Grant AC (eds) Problem-oriented policing: crime-specific problems, critical issues, and making POP work. Police Executive Research Forum, Washington, DC

Clarke RV, Goldstein H (2002) Reducing theft at construction sites: lessons from a problem-oriented project. In: Tilley N (ed) Analysis for crime prevention. Criminal Justice Press, Monsey

Cohen LE, Felson M (1979) Social change and crime rate trends: a routine activity approach. Am Sociol Rev 44:588–605

Cordner G (1998) Problem-oriented policing vs. zero tolerance. In: O’Connor T, Grant AC (eds) Problem-oriented policing: crime-specific problems, critical issues, and making POP work. Police Executive Research Forum, Washington, DC

Eck JE (2000) Problem-oriented policing and its problems: the means over ends syndrome strikes back and the return of the problem-solver. Unpublished manuscript. University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati

Eck JE, Spelman W (1987) Problem-solving: problem-oriented policing in Newport news. National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC

Goldstein H (1979) Improving policing: a problem-oriented approach. Crime Delinq 25:236–258

Goldstein H (1990) Problem-oriented policing. Temple University Press, Philadelphia

Gottfredson M, Hirschi T (1990) A general theory of crime. Stanford University Press, Stanford

Kennedy DM (2008) Deterrence and crime prevention. Routledge, London and New York

Kennedy DM, Moore MH (1995) Underwriting the risky investment in community policing: what social science should be doing to evaluate community policing. Justice System Journal 17:271–290

Kennedy DM, Piehl AM, Braga AA (1996) Youth violence in Boston: gun markets, serious youth offenders, and a use-reduction strategy. Law Contemp Probl 59:147–197

Moore MH (1992) Problem-solving and community policing. In: Tonry M, Morris N (eds) Modern policing. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

Poyner B, Webb B (1991) Crime free housing. Butterworth-Architecture, Oxford

Read T, Tilley N (2000) Not rocket science? Problem-solving and crime reduction. Crime Reduction Series Paper 6. Policing and Crime Reduction Unit, Home Office, London

Scott M (2000) Problem-oriented policing: reflections on the first 20 years. Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC

Scott M, Clarke RV (2000) A review of submission for the Herman Goldstein excellence in problem-oriented policing. In: Brito CS, Gratto E (eds) Problem oriented policing: crime-specific problems, critical issues, and making POP work, vol 3. Police Executive Research Forum, Washington, DC

SkoganW, Frydl K (eds.) (2004) Fairness and effectiveness in policing: the evidence. Committee to Review Research on Police Policy and Practices. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC

Weisburd DL, Eck JE (2004) What can police do to reduce crime, disorder, and fear? Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci 593:42–65

Weisburd DL, Telep CW, Hinkle JC, Eck JE (2010) Is problem-oriented policing effective in reducing crime and disorder? Findings from a Campbell systematic review. Criminology & Public Policy 9:139–172

www.campbellcollaboration.org

www.popcenter.org

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Criminal Justice, Rutgers University, 123 Washington Street, 07102, Newark, NJ, USA

Anthony A. Braga

Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, 79 John F. Kennedy Street, 02138, Cambridge, MA, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anthony A. Braga .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement (NSCR), Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Gerben Bruinsma

VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Department of Criminology, Law and Society, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA

David Weisburd

Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University, Mt. Scopus, Jerusalem, Israel

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Braga, A.A. (2014). Problem-Oriented Policing. In: Bruinsma, G., Weisburd, D. (eds) Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_266

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_266

Published : 27 November 2018

Publisher Name : Springer, New York, NY

Print ISBN : 978-1-4614-5689-6

Online ISBN : 978-1-4614-5690-2

eBook Packages : Humanities, Social Sciences and Law Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Share this entry

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Criminal Justice Know How

We connect community with the criminal justice system.

• Law Enforcement

The S.A.R.A. Model

by Kelly M. Glenn, 2020

When we prevent crime, we prevent victimization, which is the ultimate goal! Several theories exist involving crime prevention, including (but not limited to):

• Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (C.P.T.E.D.)
• The Broken Window Theory
• The S.A.R.A. Model (Scan, Analyze, Respond, Assess)
• The Crime Prevention Triangle

The S.A.R.A. Model of crime prevention is a part of what was coined as “Problem-Oriented Policing” by Herman Goldstein in 1979.  Problem-Oriented Policing, or POP, was a response to reactive, incident-driven policing in which successes in addressing community problems were short-lived.  Before we get into how the S.A.R.A. Model changed that, let’s take a look at an example of a law enforcement response that would be considered reactive and incident-driven with short-lived success:

Officer Comar was assigned to patrol a densely populated downtown area where foot traffic was fairly moderate.  Maris, owner of a local convenience store, called 9-11 nearly every day wanting the police department to come run off the drunks that would come into her store, buy a beer, and then hang around on her sidewalk drinking and asking other patrons to buy them more alcohol.  For Maris, her store felt more like a get together for middle-aged men who traded showers, shaving, and jobs for getting drunk on her doorstep by 10 a.m. Once the store closed for the night, she would spend considerable time waking up the ones that had passed out and cleaning up their trash.  Her main complaint, though, was that they alienated customers and that she was losing good business because of them. Going to the store and running them off was part of Officer Comar’s daily routine. In fact, because she went so often, she got into the habit of pulling into the parking lot, even if Maris didn’t call, hitting her siren, and watching them disperse.  Officer Comar considered this good, proactive police work, and Maris was happy that she didn’t always have to pick up the phone to solve the problem.  

In our scenario, we can clearly identify a community problem:  the local convenience store was overrun by alcohol addicts, and law-abiding citizens were avoiding the business to avoid the drunks.  But was Officer Comar truly doing good, proactive police work by showing up several times a shift to run them off, and was Maris getting the best service from her local police department?  

We’ll find out!

In 1987, Eck and Spelman built upon the Problem-Oriented Policing approach by using the S.A.R.A. Model to address community problems and crime.  S.A.R.A. looks to identify and overcome the underlying causes of crime and disorder versus just treating the symptoms.  It can be applied to any community problem by implementing each of four steps in the model:  Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment.

First Step – Scanning

During the scanning phase, law enforcement works with community members to identify existing or potential problems and prioritize them.  It’s helpful to answer a few questions within this phase:

• Is this problem real or perceived?   For example, do the 291 calls for service to report speeders in a residential area really mean that drivers are exceeding the speed limit?  Or, are the calls coming from one resident who is irritated that drivers won’t slow down to below the speed limit when she crosses the street to check her mail?
• What are the consequences of not addressing this problem?   Are the consequences merely a matter of inconvenience for some people, or does this particular problem impact the health, safety, prosperity, happiness, etc. of community members?
• How often does this problem occur?   Is it daily?  Weekly? Just during certain seasons, or when a big event occurs in town?

If we think about Maris and her convenience store, we can clearly identify a few existing symptoms of a problem.  First, Maris is losing business due to the drunks hanging out on her sidewalk all day. Second, other community members who may rely on this convenience store as their easiest option for groceries and goods, may be avoiding it to avoid the drunks.  Third, Maris is maintaining somewhat of a common nuisance. She has an environment that is conducive to crime and disorder, which is creating a burden on local police services. Prioritizing this community problem and reducing or eliminating the aforementioned symptoms by tackling the root cause(s) could be a win for many people.  Let answer the above questions with our scenario in mind:

• Is this problem real or perceived?   The problem is real.  Maris’s declining sales, the police department’s calls for service, and Officer Comar’s own observations and actions support the legitimacy of the issue.
• What are the consequences of not addressing this problem?   This problem will not go away on its own.  In fact, if trouble loves company, we can predict that the group of drunks will continue to grow, thus increasing the calls for service to the police department.  Additionally, Maris’s business will continue to struggle, and without enough customers, the convenience store could eventually close, creating a burden for citizens who do depend upon it.  
• How often does this problem occur?   As calls for service show, this problem is a daily occurance.  More than likely, it is a bigger problem during fair weather than when it’s cold or rainy; however, the problem is consistent and reocurring.

Now that we’ve scanned for the community problem, identified it, and prioritized it by answering some questions, let’s tackle our next step!

Second Step:  Analysis

When we analyze a known community problem, we use relevant data to learn more.  Our goal is to be effective in reducing or eliminating it, so we must pinpoint possible explanations for why or how the problem is occuring.  Again, we can ask some useful questions to guide us:

• What relevant data is available?   Statistics?  Calls for service?  Demographics?
• What are some possible explanations for why or how the problem is occuring?   Are there environmental issues?  Is there a behavioral issue? Is there a lack of appropriate legislation or policy to enforce a solution?  Is there a lack of community services?  
• What is currently being done to address the problem? Is anything at all being done? If something is being done, why is it ineffective? Who is involved in the current response? What resources are being dedicated to the current response? 

Let’s take a look at how we can answer these questions when working with Maris within our scenario:

• What relevant data is available?   Maris can provide records for declining sales, and they can be compared to various seasons of the year when weather may impact the gatherings of the local drunks outside of her convenience store.  The police department can use the number of calls for service, as well as data on how each call for service was cleared (arrest, warning, report, etc.). The police department can also see if other more serious crimes are linked to this problem (physical fights between drunks, thefts out of customer vehicles, etc.).  Collectively, they can identify the average ages of the individuals, as well as their socioeconomic status.
• Maris’s store is open to the public, and the drunks are part of the public.  
• Maris’s store is located in an area that is accessible to foot traffic, and these drunks live in nearby housing. 
• These drunks suffer from an addiction to alcohol, and Maris sells beer.  
• The drunks can pay for the beer whether it be from money they earn, money they receive in public assistance, or money that is given to them by other generous customers.
• Maris calls the police department when she wants the drunks to leave; although sometimes, Officer Comar will automatically address the issue when she drives by.
• The current response is ineffective because the drunks come back later and/or return the following day.
• Maris, Officer Comar, and the local police department are involved in the current response.
• The current response depletes the taxpayer funded resources via the use of the local police department.

Now that a lot of the brain work is done, it’s time to turn ideas into action.  Let’s take a look at the third step in the S.A.R.A. Model:

Third Step:  Response

In this phase of addressing crime, law enforcement and community partners work together to identify and select responses, or interventions, that are most likely to lead to long-term success in reducing or eliminating the community problem they have scanned and analyzed.

Two questions should be asked during this phase:

• What are some possible ways to address the problem?  Do we need more community partners?  Do we need to alter access? Do we need to install monitoring devices?  Does a law or policy need to be implemented or changed? Do we need to better enforce the ones we already have?  Do we need to make a list of community services and make referrals? 
• Which of the potential responses are going to be most successful? Which interventions will attack the root causes, not the symptoms? What interventions will have a positive long-term impact?

Using our scenario, let’s list some possible ways to address Maris’s problem at her convenience store, as well as select the interventions that are likely going to lead to long-term success. Remember, this is a team effort, and Maris definitely should have some input!

• Although Maris’s store is open to the public, her business is privately owned and located on private property.  Existing laws in her locality protect private business and property owners by allowing them to bar people from the property as long as it is not discriminatory based on protected classes, so Maris does have the legal authority to ban the drunks from her property and business.  During a meeting with the police department, in which everyone is sharing information and working together to come up with a response plan, Officer Comar confirms what Maris already suspected:  many of these addicts have long histories of arrests for public intoxication, trespassing, etc., and going to jail for a night or two isn’t much of a deterrent for them. While she can go through the effort of barring each one and the police department can make arrests, both she and the police department agree that it’s not the most effective route for long-term success.  This intervention was eliminated from the response plan.
• Maris’s store is accessible to foot traffic, which is both a blessing and a curse.  There is nothing she can do or wants to do to alter the way her customers enter her business or property.  With that said, Maris does not have “No Loitering” signs posted on the property, and her locality has enforceable loitering laws.  “No Loitering” signage could motivate customers to make their necessary transactions and leave, but she has always been hesitant to put them up because she does not want to appear “unfriendly” to youth who come by and chat over a bag of chips and a soda.  She also learns that despite there being a local ordinance against loitering, the local judges are hesitant to impose any significant sanctions for it. Maris opts not to install “No Loitering” signage. This intervention was eliminated from the response plan.
• Maris offers a product (beer) that her problem customers are addicted to, but it’s also a popular product among her good customers.  Regardless, she could stop selling it. Upon some discussion, Maris shares that she is unwilling to stop selling beer.  It is one of her best selling products, and she has a loyal customer base who have kept her in business by overlooking and literally overstepping the drunks to come in and buy their favorite case of beer from her.  This prompted Officer Comar to ask, “Are your best customers the ones who come in, buy their beer, and leave with beer as singles out of the cooler or as warm cases of beer you have stocked on the shelves?” Maris thought about it quickly and responded that the warm cases of beer are cheaper.  Her customers often opt for those and simply put their beer in their fridge when they get home. As if a light came on, the entire group began talking about how her problem customers are not going to be interested in drinking warm beer as soon as they leave the store. If Maris were to stop selling single beers in the cooler, the group of drunks may stop gathering on her sidewalk all day long. Maris was very open to trying this. 
• During the meeting, the police department also advises Maris that she does have the legal authority to refuse service to anyone, even paying customers. Technically, she can refuse to serve the drunks.  Maris gave it some thought, but instead of refusing service to the group of drunks that frequent her store, she decides that she will continue to sell them warm cases of beer or any other product they opt to purchase.  After all, many of them also buy snacks or may have limited access to food. This intervention of refusing them service altogether was eliminated from the response plan.  
• Finally, the police department and Maris acknowledge that while they don’t have control over everything, they can’t ignore the fact that addiction plays a role in this community problem. Officer Comar shares that she has access to a list of free resources for addicts, including locations and times of AA Meetings.  The police department could make a poster with the information, and Maris could hang it in the window of her store. Maris liked this idea. It made her feel as if she was contributing to a solution for a problem that is bigger than just her and her convenience store.

As we can see, out of all of that scanning and analyzing, only two responses appear to be a viable long-term strategy, but that’s okay!  Even one effective strategy is better than a dozen ineffective ones. 

Now that we have two good possibilities, let’s look at what needs to be included in our response plan:

• an outline of each potential response, 
• the objective for each potential response, 
• who is implementing each response, and 
• the responsibilities of each person or agency implementing each response.

Let’s finish out our plan of action for the interventions Maris, Officer Comar, and the police department agreed upon.

RESPONSE PLAN – Intervention #1

• Outline:  Maris will stop selling individual beers in the cooler at her convenience store for six months but will continue selling warm cases of beer on the shelves. 
• Objective:  To eliminate the desire of drunk patrons to loiter at Maris’s convenience store
• Who Implements:  Maris
• Maris will contact her distributors and alter her beer orders for six months.
• Maris will instruct her employees not to stock individual beers in the cooler for six months.
• Maris will post signage on the cooler doors that state, “We no longer sell individual beers.  Please select from our great variety of cases on Aisle 2.”

RESPONSE PLAN – Intervention #2

• Outline: Maris will also hang a poster about local AA Meetings and resources for addicts in the window of her convenience store.
• Objective: to provide referrals to resources available for addicts
• Who Implements: Office Comar and Maris
• Officer Comar will compile all of the AA Meeting locations, dates, and times and will create a poster.
• Maris will hang the AA Meeting poster in the window of her store.

Now, we sit back and wait!  The team agreed to carry out the last step of the S.A.R.A. Model, Asssessment, in six months.  Let’s take a look at what that will entail.

Fourth Step – Assessment

During the final phase of the S.A.R.A. Model, the team evaluates two questions:

• Was each intervention in the response plan implemented in a way that was consistent with the plan?   Did each person and/or agency carry out their responsibilities?  Did anyone veer off course? Did the plan lose momentum?  
• Did the response achieve their intended effects?   Were the objectives met?  If not, why?

When the team from our scenario met again six months later, they assessed their response by answering both questions:

• Was each response implemented in a way that was consistent with the plan? It was determined that Maris, Office Comar, and the police department stuck to the plan, and each person/agency followed through on their responsibilities for the entire six months.
• Did the response plan achieve their intended effects?   Yes!  Maris described the first few days as a little rough.  In fact, she had to call the police department more than once to handle customers who became disorderly when they saw that she was no longer offering single beers in the cooler.  Officer Comar had been the one to show up on a few occasions, but both were happy to report that once they made it through the first week, it was smooth sailing. The kind of customers who are currently frequenting the store are the kind of customers Maris wants, and she’s even seen her sales pick up.  As for assessing whether or not addicts received referrals to community resources through the posters Officer Comar made and Maris hung, it’s difficult to ascertain. While Officer Comar did call around to the AA Meeting hosts to find out if any of the known addicts from the convenience store had attended meetings, AA explained that their meetings and attendees must remain confidential.  

Of course, not every response is going to be as successful as the one in our scenario, but in those cases, teams can demonstrate their commitment to Problem-Oriented Policing by revisiting the S.A.R.A. Model and determining which steps need to be repeated.  

One pitfall should also be noted, even with the most successful responses:  As with any success, we can sometimes become complacent, and when we become complacent, we let down our guard.  This is when small cracks in the response occur, and the problem can get a foothold again. For example, in our scenario, if Maris feels like things are going so well that she can probably start selling single beers in the cooler again, the problem behaviors could eventually return.  It’s never a bad idea to schedule follow-up assessments just to ensure the response is still working!

Finally, it’s important to highlight again that the S.A.R.A. Model cannot be successful without the involvement of community partners.  In our scenario, it took collaboration at each stage to reach a long-term solution that worked.

Many thanks to two former students, Miller Comar and Maris Benar, and former law enforcement officer John Moisa, for serving as inspiration for the S.A.R.A. Model scenario!

Suggested Citation for this Article

Glenn, K.M., Criminal Justice Know How, LLC, 2020,  The S.A.R.A. Model , https://criminaljusticeknowhow.com/the-sara-model/

Related Posts

National Law Enforcement Appreciation Day

5 Things Every Domestic Violence Report Should Include

Thank You to Our 911 Dispatchers

• The SARA Model

A commonly used problem-solving method is the SARA model (Scanning, Analysis, Response and Assessment). The SARA model contains the following elements:

• Identifying recurring problems of concern to the public and the police.
• Identifying the consequences of the problem for the community and the police.
• Prioritizing those problems.
• Developing broad goals.
• Confirming that the problems exist.
• Determining how frequently the problem occurs and how long it has been taking place.
• Selecting problems for closer examination.
• Identifying and understanding the events and conditions that precede and accompany the problem.
• Identifying relevant data to be collected.
• Researching what is known about the problem type.
• Taking inventory of how the problem is currently addressed and the strengths and limitations of the current response.
• Narrowing the scope of the problem as specifically as possible.
• Identifying a variety of resources that may be of assistance in developing a deeper understanding of the problem.
• Developing a working hypothesis about why the problem is occurring.
• Brainstorming for new interventions.
• Searching for what other communities with similar problems have done.
• Choosing among the alternative interventions.
• Outlining a response plan and identifying responsible parties.
• Stating the specific objectives for the response plan.
• Carrying out the planned activities.

Assessment:

• Determining whether the plan was implemented (a process evaluation).
• Collecting pre– and post–response qualitative and quantitative data.
• Determining whether broad goals and specific objectives were attained.
• Identifying any new strategies needed to augment the original plan.
• Conducting ongoing assessment to ensure continued effectiveness.
• What Is Problem-Oriented Policing?
• History of Problem-Oriented Policing
• Key Elements of POP
• The Problem Analysis Triangle
• Situational Crime Prevention
• 25 Techniques
• Links to Other POP Friendly Sites
• About POP en Español