The SARA Process
Scanning, Analysis,
Response, & Assessment
1

• The SARA Process
• Problem Solving Case Studies
2

• S
• A
• R
• A
3

• Identifying recurring problems
• Prioritizing the problems
• Developing broad goals
• Confirming that the problems exist
• Determining how often the problem occurs and how long it has been a concern
• Selecting problems for closer examination
4

• Analyzing calls for service, crime data and agency records for patterns and trends involving repeat locations, victims and offenders
• Mapping specific crimes by time of day, proximity to locations, and other similar factors
• Consulting officers, supervisors, detectives, midlevel managers and command staff
5

• Reviewing police reports
• Surveying the community
• Reviewing citizen complaints
• Participating in community meetings
• Reviewing information from neighborhood associations and nonprofit organizations
• Consulting social service/governmental agencies
• Following media coverage and editorials
6

• Local service/government agencies with jurisdiction or an interest in the problem.
• Victims of the problem, and/or associations representing victims
• Neighbors, coworkers, friends and relatives of victims or neighborhood residents affected by the problem
7

• Agencies or people that have some control over offenders
• Commercial establishments adversely impacted by the crime or disorder problem
• National organizations or trade associations with an interest in the problem.
8

• Identify and make a list of stakeholders for the following types of crimes/problems:
– Speeding in residential neighborhoods
– Vandalism in and around schools
– Sexual assaults on college campuses
– Loitering around bus terminals
– Drug dealing in public housing areas
– Burglaries of local businesses
9

• Identifying and understanding events and conditions that precede and accompany the problem
• Identifying relevant data to collect
• Researching what is known about the problem type
• Taking inventory of how the problem is being addressed and any strengths/limitations of the current response
10

• Narrowing the scope of the problem
• Identifying resources that may be of assistance in developing a deeper understanding of the problem
• Developing a working hypothesis about why the problem is occurring; is it really occurring??
11

• The nature of the problem sometimes falsely appears obvious at first glance
• There may be some tremendous internal and external pressure to solve the problem immediately.
• The pressure of responding to calls does not seem to allow for time for detailed inquiries into the nature of the problem.
12

• Investigating/researching the problem does not seem like “real” police work
• Supervisors may not value analytical work that takes time but does not produce arrests, citations or other traditional measures of police work.
• In many communities a strong commitment to the old ways of handling problems prevents looking at the problem in different ways.
13

Depends on the problem, but here are some general examples of resources:
– Crime analysts
– Crime analysis/report-writing software
– Mapping/geographic information systems
– Technical assistance
– Resident/business surveys
– Crime environment surveys
– Interviews with victims and offenders
– Systems for tracking repeat victimization
– Training
– Laptop computers
– Modems/online services
14

• 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
15

• The responses should be directly linked to the results of your analyses
• Try not to limit responses to the police. Other agencies may need to be involved and take some responsibility
• Responses should be manageable given the resources, available time, and urgency in solving the problem
• A variety of potential responses may be more effective than a single response in some situations.
16

• Collecting pre- and post-response qualitative and quantitative data
• Process Evaluation
– Determining whether the plan was implemented
– Determining whether broad goals and objectives were attained
– Identifying any new strategies needed to augment the original plan
– Better handling of incidents and improved response to the problem
– Conducting ongoing assessment to ensure continued effectiveness
17

• Total elimination of the problem
• Fewer incidents
• Less serious or harmful incidents
• Better handling of the incidents/improved response to the problem
• Removing the problem from police consideration. (See
Shifting and Sharing Guide)
• Diffusion of benefits
18

19

SCANNING ANALYSIS
ASSESSMENT RESPONSE
20

21

22

Convenience Store Robberies
SCANNING
– Police noticed a increase in convenience store robberies in the Spring in 1985
Does this fall within the definition of a problem?
23

Convenience Store Robberies
ANALYSIS
– Officers researched what other departments were doing with similar Robbery problems
– Gainesville Robbery data showed:
• average of 72 robberies annually
• 47 different stores were robbed
• 45 were robbed at least once
• some robbed as many as 14 times
• 75% occurred between 7pm - 5 am
• only one clerk on duty during 92% of robberies
• robber waited for clerk to be alone in 85% of robberies
24

Convenience Store Robberies
ANALYSIS
– Department researched IACP, NCJRS, National
Association of Convenience Stores
– Checked with other jurisdictions
• found that the State of Ohio had addressed similar problem and adopted several ordinances
• required training for clerks
• minimal cash on hand
• drop safes
• clear view of counter from outside
• adequate lighting in parking lot
• Kent, Ohio reduced robberies by 74%
25

Convenience Store Robberies
RESPONSE
– a partnership with convenience store owners formed
– improved natural surveillance/ordinance required 2 clerks on duty during late night hours
– improved lighting inside and outside
– window obstructions (sales signs) removed
– limited cash handling policies implemented
– drop boxes installed
– upgraded access control through fences and walls to slow robbers and removal of obstacles to hide
– enhanced formal surveillance through alarm and video
26 cameras; encouraged visits by police to stores

Convenience Store Robberies
ASSESSMENT
– a 6 month study conducted in 1987
– robberies decreased by 65% from the same period in the previous year
– 1988 study showed 70% reduction from 1986
27

28

Apartment Complex Crime in Santa Barbara, CA
Scanning
 Police received high numbers of disturbance, littering, and vehicle crime complaints from an apartment complex. Owner resisted efforts to improve the property.
Analysis
 Owner had 34 other properties in the city, many in disrepair and requiring a disproportionate amount of police services.
 Apartments were dirty, illegally subdivided, in violation of fire and building codes. For the prior year, 758 arrestees had listed these apartments as their residence.
Response
 Toured a well-maintained property with owner; asked residents to maintain logs; photographed poor living conditions; prosecuted slumlord.
Assessment
 Ongoing. As a condition of probation, owner must appear in court monthly to document progress.
29

Group Homes in Fresno, CA
Scanning

Fresno had 40 group homes that served many functions, from placement of juvenile offenders to juveniles removed from dysfunctional homes.
Analysis

Group homes generated over 1,000 calls for problems ranging from assaults to runaways. Officers becoming “supplemental staff” at the homes; they were sometimes called just to scare the children.
 Five of the 40 homes accounted for 50% of calls; eight for 75%.
Response
 Convened individuals responsible for regulating group homes (e.g., probation, social services). Arranged regular meetings so that those who ran homes without problems could assist others with problem-solving.
Assessment
 Calls in the first year dropped by 300. Two officers estimated it took less than 40 hours to study the problem, implement response, and assess the impact.
30

Disorder Reduction in Green Bay, Wisconsin
Scanning
 Broadway Street was a high-crime area marked by litter, broken alcohol bottles, and homeless people who were often drunk and disorderly. Sixteen taverns operated in a three-block area.
Analysis


Interviews conducted with residents and business owners.
Analysis of offense reports revealed that approximately 20 people were responsible for most of the complaints. Problem taverns produced shootings, stabbings, and prostitution.

Analysis of building designs highlighted many deficiencies (e.g., dark alleys).
Response


Enforcement of public ordinances on open intoxicants, trespassing, and lewd behavior.
Gain cooperation from liquor store and tavern owners in denying alcohol to habitually intoxicated people.

Improved maintenance, lighting, and access control.
Assessment
 The area experienced a 65% reduction in police calls and a 91% reduction in demand for rescue services to handle injuries stemming from assaults. Five problematic taverns were closed through joint efforts by community policing officers and citizens.
31

Traffic Accidents in Arlington, Virginia
Scanning
 During 1999, 4,082 accidents were reported to police. Due to underreporting, the actual number of accidents was estimated to be three times higher.
Analysis
 GIS was used to identify accident hotspots. Using a threshold of at least ten accidents in the preceding twelve months, 49 hotspots were identified.
 Accident reports were analyzed to determine most prevalent times, prevailing road conditions, and likely causes. Officers observed hotspots at various times of day.
 Interviews were conducted with individuals involved in accidents.
Response
 Problem-solving training for traffic officers, installation of turn-lane arrows, reconfiguration of light cycles. Ongoing at time of publication.
Assessment
 Regular meetings are held to determine progress. Officers are evaluated not only on their effectiveness in reducing accidents, but on their ability to incorporate problem-solving principles.
32

Disorderly Youth in New York City
Scanning
 Revealed a high number of neighborhood disruptions and fights because students were being dismissed from two high schools at the same time.
Analysis
 Schools’ dismissal procedures contributed to the problem.
 Students were dismissed at almost exactly the same time to the same block. Students were full of energy, and petty rivalries soon turned into confrontations.
Response
 Spoke with administrators at both schools and persuaded them to stagger dismissal times by 25 minutes and direct departing students in opposite directions.
Assessment
 Revealed a 70% reduction in after-school disorder problem.
33

• You are a commander thinking about adopting a problem-oriented policing approach within your district.
• First, consider the general problems that might be addressed in your district. Now, think more specifically about those general problems. For example, if robbery is a concern, what kind of robbery, where and when is it occurring, who are the victims, who are the likely offenders, etc.
• Second, what data or information sources might you have available to help you narrow the focus of your specific problem?
34

• Once you’ve selected a problem type on which to focus your resources, one of the difficult new skills to learn is how to conduct a comprehensive analysis.
• What kinds of “internal” and “external” evidence might you use in the analysis?
• Use one of the problem types selected by a member of your group.
35

• Choose a Goldstein Award Finalist project from
1993 to the present.
• Read the paper and review and critique the SARA process. Are there any other steps that might have been taken for that specific project to be more successful?
• If that project were implemented in your city/county, what steps or responses might need to change?
36