Community Policing
The S. A. R. A. Model
Preamble
S.A.R.A. (Problem Oriented Policing)
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 is a response to reactive, incident-driven policing in which successes in addressing community problems were short-lived. Our goal in the Chicagoland area is to move away from reactive law enforcement responses that have short-lived success. 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
Today we will focus on the S.A.R.A. model as we look to identify and overcome the underlying causes of crime and disorder versus just treating the symptoms. The S.A.R.A model can be applied to any community problem by implementing each of four steps in the model: Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment. Sit back and lets immerse ourselves in this journey to make a better tomorrow because ChicagoTogetherWeCan.
Upon a full assessment of this reading, a number of main points will emerge from this writing:
The most significant point is that the S.A.R.A. Model cannot be successful without the involvement of community partners. In this approach, it takes collaboration at each stage to reach a long-term solutions that works.
One thing we know is that if you make this work and take our neighborhoods back we have to step out into the land of discomfort and engage in the community because this greaat city has so much to offer and we don’t want to see that go away.
Lets make every community a better place to live so that we can realize of a better Chicago because…
#ChicagoTogetherWeCan.
Video Resources
S.A.R.A Introduction
Analysis
Response
Scanning Video
Assessment
S.A.R.A Model Deep Dive
In this section we will provide you with the details to be successful in the implementation of the S.A.R.A model along with an example. Let’s dive right into the four (4) steps in this process:
Step 1
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.
Step 2
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.
Step 3
Response
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.
Step 4
Assessment
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.
Step 1: 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!
Step 2 - 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.
What are some possible explanations for why or how the problem is occurring? There are several possible explanations for why or how these drunks are gathering on the sidewalk outside of Maris’s convenience store, and a few are downright obvious:
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.
What is currently being done to address this problem?
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:
Step 3: 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:
a) an outline of each potential response,
b) the objective for each potential response,
c) who is implementing each response, and
d) 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 – Primary Intervention
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
Responsibilities:
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 – Alternate and or Additional Intervention
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
Responsibilities:
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.
Step 4: 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.
In Summary
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!
Para 2
Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment the path forward on our journey to making a better tomorrow because #ChicagoTogetherWeCan.
Upon a full assessment of this reading, a number of main points will emerge from this writing:
The most significant point is that the S.A.R.A. Model cannot be successful without the involvement of community partners. In this approach, it takes collaboration at each stage to reach a long-term solutions that works.
One thing we know is that if you make this work and take our neighborhoods back we have to step out into the land of discomfort and engage in the community because this great city has so much to offer and we don’t want to see that go away.
Lets make every community a better and safer place to live so that we can realize of a better Chicago because…
#ChicagoTogetherWeCan.