sara for problem solving

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 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-Solving and SARA

• First Online: 28 April 2022

Cite this chapter

• Iain Agar 4  

567 Accesses

4 Altmetric

Criminologist Herman Goldstein articulated the problem-oriented approach to policing (hereafter, POP) in 1979, recognising that many of the isolated incidents responded to by police are symptomatic of more substantive problems rooted within a disparate array of social and environmental conditions. The basic elements of problem-solving, and indeed problem-solving analysis, begin with grouping incidents as problems and putting them at the heart of policing – the problem becoming a unit of police work (Goldstein H, Problem oriented policing. Temple Univ. Pr, Philadelphia, 1990). The aim of problem-solving is to improve policing by enabling the most efficient use of our finite resources to serve the public effectively. In this chapter, we will work through the organisational theory of POP from the analyst perspective, broken down into two parts – the active role of the analyst in problem-solving and identifying suitable responses, followed by an extended breakdown of the stages in a SARA model and how you can become a problem-solving crime analyst.

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

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

https://popcenter.asu.edu/pop-guides

What Works Crime Reduction Toolkit https://whatworks.college.police.uk/toolkit/Pages/Welcome.aspx

Evidence-Based Policing Matrix https://cebcp.org/evidence-based-policing/the-matrix/

Crime Science Journal https://crimesciencejournal.biomedcentral.com/

Cambridge Journal of Evidence-Based Policing https://www.springer.com/journal/41887

Allison, P., & Allison, P. D. (2001). Missing data . University of Pennsylvania.

Google Scholar  

Ariel, B., Bland, M., & Sutherland, A. (2021). Experimental designs . Sage.

Ashby, M. P. J. (2020). Initial evidence on the relationship between the coronavirus pandemic and crime in the United States. Crime Science, 9 (1). Available at: https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/ep87s/ . Accessed 15 Jan 2021.

Bachman, R., & Schutt, R. K. (2020). Fundamentals of research in criminology and criminal justice: Fifth Edition . Sage Publications, Inc.

Birks, D., Coleman, A., & Jackson, D. (2020). Unsupervised identification of crime problems from police free-text data. Crime Science, 9 (1). Available at: https://crimesciencejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40163-020-00127-4 . Accessed 25 Feb 2021.

Boba, R. (2003). Problem analysis in policing . Police Foundation. Available at: https://popcenter.asu.edu/sites/default/files/library/reading/pdfs/problemanalysisinpolicing.pdf . Accessed 15 Jan 2021.

Boba Santos, R. (2017). Crime analysis with crime mapping . Sage Publications, Inc.

Borrion, H., Ekblom, P., Alrajeh, D., Borrion, A. L., Keane, A., Koch, D., Mitchener-Nissen, T., & Toubaline, S. (2020). The problem with crime problem-solving: Towards a second generation pop? The British Journal of Criminology, 60 (1).

Bowers, K., Tompson, L., Sidebottom, A., Bullock, K., & Johnson, S. D. (2017). Reviewing evidence for evidence-based policing. In J. Knutsson & L. Tompson (Eds.), Advances in evidence-based policing . Routledge.

Brantingham, P., & Brantingham, P. (1995). Criminality of place. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 3 (3), 5–26.

Article   Google Scholar  

Brayley, H., Cockbain, E., & Laycock, G. (2011). The value of crime scripting: Deconstructing internal child sex trafficking. Policing, 5 (2), 132–143. Available at: https://academic.oup.com/policing/article/5/2/132/1518450 . Accessed 25 Feb 2021.

Brown, R., Scott, M. S., & Remington, F. J. (2007). Implementing responses to problems . United States of America 07. Available at: https://popcenter.asu.edu/sites/default/files/implementing_responses_to_problems.pdf . Accessed 25 Feb 2021.

Burton, S., & McGregor, M. (2018). Enhancing SARA: A new approach in an increasingly complex world. Crime Science, 7 (1).

Chainey, S. (2012). Improving the explanatory content of analysis products using hypothesis testing. Policing, 6 (2), 108–121.

Clarke, R. V., & Eck, J. (2003). Becoming a problem-solving crime analyst in 55 small steps . Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science, University College London. Available at: https://popcenter.asu.edu/sites/default/files/library/reading/PDFs/55stepsUK.pdf . Accessed 15 Jan 2021.

Clarke, R. V. G., & Schultze, P. A. (2005). Researching a problem . U.S. Dept. Of Justice, Office Of Community Oriented Policing Services. Available at: https://popcenter.asu.edu/sites/default/files/researching_a_problem.pdf . Accessed 25 Feb 2021.

Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review , [online] 44 (4), 588–608.

Cornish, D. B., & Clarke, R. V. (1986). The reasoning criminal: Rational choice perspectives on offending . Transaction Publishers.

Book   Google Scholar  

Cornish, D. B., & Clarke, R. V. (2016). The rational choice perspective. In R. Wortley & M. Townsley (Eds.), Environmental criminology and crime analysis (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Eck, J. E., & Spelman, W. (1987). Problem-solving: Problem-oriented policing in Newport News . U.S. Dept. Of Justice, National Institute Of Justice. Available at: https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/111964NCJRS.pdf . Accessed 15 Jan 2021.

Eck, J. E. (2017). Assessing responses to problems: an introductory guide for police problem-solvers: 2nd Edition . U.S. Dept. Of Justice, Office Of Community Oriented Policing Services. Available at: https://popcenter.asu.edu/sites/default/files/assessing_responses_to_problems_final.pdf . Accessed 07 Mar 2021.

Eck, J.E. (2019). Advocate: Why Problem-Oriented Policing. In: D. Weisburd and A.A. Braga, eds., Police Innovation: Contrasting Perspectives. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Ekblom, P. (2005). The 5Is framework: Sharing good practice in crime prevention. In E. Marks, A. Meyer, & R. Linssen (Eds.), Quality in crime prevention . Hannover.

Ekblom, P., & Pease, K. (1995). Evaluating crime prevention. In M. Tonry & D. Farrington (Eds.), From building a safer society: Strategic approaches to crime prevention (Vol. 19, pp 585–662). United States.

Goldstein, H. (1990). Problem oriented policing . Temple Univ. Pr.

Goldstein, H. (2003). Problem analysis in policing . Police Foundation.

Guilfoyle, S. (2013). Intelligent policing: how systems thinking methods eclipse conventional management practice . Triarchy Press.

Heeks, M., Reed, S., Tafsiri, M., & Prince, S. (2018). Economic and social costs of crime . Home Office. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/732110/the-economic-and-social-costs-of-crime-horr99.pdf Accessed 15 Jan 2021.

Heuer, R. J. (1999). Psychology of intelligence analysis. Washington, D.C.: Center For The Study Of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency.

Hinkle, J. C., Weisburd, D., Telep, C. W., & Petersen, K. (2020). Problem-oriented policing for reducing crime and disorder: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 16 (2).

Johnson, S. D., Tilley, N., & Bowers, K. J. (2015). Introducing EMMIE: An evidence rating scale to encourage mixed-method crime prevention synthesis reviews. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11 (3), 459–473.

Kennedy, D. M. (2020). Problem-oriented public safety. In M. S. Scott & R. V. Clarke (Eds.), Problem-oriented policing successful case studies . Routledge.

Kime, S., & Wheller, L. (2018). The policing evaluation toolkit . College of Policing. Available at: https://whatworks.college.police.uk/Support/Documents/The_Policing_Evaluation_Toolkit.pdf . Accessed 7 Mar 2021.

Kuang, D., Brantingham, P. J., & Bertozzi, A. L. (2017). Crime topic modeling. Crime Science, 6 (1). Available at: https://crimesciencejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40163-017-0074-0 . Accessed 25 Feb 2021.

Ratcliffe, J. (2008). Intelligence-led policing . Willan Publishing.

Ratcliffe, J. H. (2014). Towards an index for harm-focused policing. Policing, 9 (2), 164–182. Available at: https://academic.oup.com/policing/article/9/2/164/1451352 . Accessed 15 Jan 2021.

Ratcliffe, J. (2016). Intelligence-led policing (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Ratcliffe, J. (2018). Reducing crime: A companion for police leaders . Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Scott, M., & Kirby, S. (2012). Implementing POP: Leading, structuring and managing a Problem-Oriented Police Agency . Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Available at: https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/60830/1/popmanualfinal_copy.pdf . Accessed 15 Jan 2021.

Sherman, L. W. (1997). Preventing crime: what works, what doesn’t, what’s promising: A report to the United States Congress . College Park, Md Univ. Of Maryland. Available at: https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles/171676.pdf . Accessed 15 Jan 2021.

Sherman, L.W. (2020). How to count crime: The Cambridge harm index consensus. Cambridge Journal of Evidence-Based Policing .

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

Sidebottom, A., Tilley, N., & Eck, J. E. (2012). Towards checklists to reduce common sources of problem-solving failure. Policing, 6 (2), 194–209.

Sidebottom, A., Bullock, K., Ashby, M., Kirby, S., Armitage, R., Laycock, G., & Tilley, N. (2020). Successful police problem-solving: A practice guide . Jill Dando Institute of Security and Crime Science, University College London. Available at: https://popcenter.asu.edu/sites/default/files/successful_police_problem_solving_a_guide.pdf . Accessed 15 Jan 2021.

Skogan, W. G. (1977). Dimensions of the dark figure of unreported crime. Crime & Delinquency, 23 (1), 41–50.

Telep, C. W., & Weisburd, D. (2012). What is known about the effectiveness of police practices in reducing crime and disorder? Police Quarterly, 15 (4), 331–357.

Tilley, N., Read, T. and Great Britain. Home Office. Research, Development And Statistics Directorate. Policing And Reducing Crime Unit. (2000). Not rocket science?: problem-solving and crime reduction: Paper 6 . Home Office, Policing And Reducing Crime Unit. Available at: https://popcenter.asu.edu/sites/default/files/library/reading/pdfs/Rocket_Science.pdf . Accessed 25 Feb 2021.

Tilley, N. (2008). Crime Prevention . Willan Pub..

Townsley, M., Mann, M., & Garrett, K. (2011). The missing link of crime analysis: A systematic approach to testing competing hypotheses. Policing, 5 (2), 158–171. Available at: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/91925/ . Accessed 25 Feb 2021.

Walker, J. T., & Drawve, G. R. (2018). Foundations of crime analysis: Data, analyses, and mapping . Routledge.

Weisburd, D., Telep, C. W., Hinkle, J. C., & Eck, J. E. (2010). Is problem-oriented policing effective in reducing crime and disorder? Criminology & Public Policy, 9 (1), 139–172.

Weisburd, D., Hinkle, J. C., & Telep, C. (2019). Updated protocol: The effects of problem-oriented policing on crime and disorder: An updated systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 15 (1–2). Available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/cl2.1089 . Accessed 15 Jan 2021.

Wheeler, A. P. (2016). Tables and graphs for monitoring temporal crime trends. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 18 (3), 159–172.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Essex Police, Chelmsford, UK

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Iain Agar .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

Matthew Bland

Barak Ariel

Norfolk and Suffolk Constabularies, Ipswich, UK

Natalie Ridgeon

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Agar, I. (2022). Problem-Solving and SARA. In: Bland, M., Ariel, B., Ridgeon, N. (eds) The Crime Analyst's Companion. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94364-6_14

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94364-6_14

Published : 28 April 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-94363-9

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-94364-6

eBook Packages : Law and Criminology Law and Criminology (R0)

Share this chapter

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

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Community-Oriented Policing and Problem-Oriented Policing

In 1979, Hermon Goldstein observed from several studies conducted at the time on standard policing practices that law enforcement agencies seemed to be more concerned about the means rather than the goals of policing. He argued that law enforcement agencies should shift away from the traditional, standard model of policing and that police become more proactive, rather than reactive, in their approaches to crime and disorder (Hinkle et al., 2020; Weisburd et al., 2010). Goldstein’s work set the stage for the development of two new models of policing: community-oriented policing (COP) and problem-oriented policing (POP).

COP is a broad policing strategy that relies heavily on community involvement and partnerships, and on police presence in the community, to address local crime and disorder. POP provides law enforcement agencies with an analytic method to develop strategies to prevent and reduce crime and disorder, which involves problem identification, analysis, response, and assessment (National Research Council, 2018).

Although COP and POP differ in many ways, including the intensity of focus and diversity of approaches (National Research Council, 2004), there are several important similarities between them. For example, COP and POP both represent forms of proactive policing, meaning they focus on preventing crime before it happens rather than just reacting to it after it happens. Further, both COP and POP require cooperation among multiple agencies and partners, including community members (National Research Council, 2018). In addition, POP and COP overlap in that each involves the community in defining the problems and identifying interventions (Greene, 2000).

Although few studies focus on youth involvement in COP and POP, youths can play an important role in both strategies. In COP, youths often are part of the community with whom police work to identify and address problems. Youths can be formally involved in the process (i.e., engaging in local community meetings) or informally involved in efforts to strengthen the relationship between the police and members of the community. For example, a police officer on foot patrol may decide to engage with youths in the community through casual conversation, as part of a COP approach (Cowell and Kringen, 2016). Or police might encourage youth to participate in activities, such as police athletic leagues, which were designed to prevent and reduce the occurrence of juvenile crime and delinquency, while also seeking to improve police and youth attitudes toward each other (Rabois and Haaga, 2002). Using POP, law enforcement agencies may specifically focus on juvenile-related problems of crime and disorder. For example, the Operation Ceasefire intervention, implemented in Boston, MA, is a POP strategy that concentrated on reducing homicide victimization among young people in the city (Braga and Pierce, 2005).

This literature review discusses COP and POP in two separate sections. In each section, definitions of the approaches are provided, along with discussions on theory, examples of specific types of programs, overlaps with other policing strategies, and outcome evidence.

Specific research on how police and youth interact with each other in the community will not be discussed in this review but can be found in the Interactions Between Youth and Law Enforcement literature review on the Model Programs Guide.  

Community-Oriented Policing Definition

Community-oriented policing (COP), also called community policing, is defined by the federal Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services as “a philosophy that promotes organizational strategies that support the systemic use of partnerships and problem-solving techniques to proactively address the immediate conditions that give rise to public safety issues such as crime, social disorder, and fear of crime” (Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services, 2012:3). This policing strategy focuses on developing relationships with members of the community to address community problems, by building social resilience and collective efficacy, and by strengthening infrastructure for crime prevention. COP also emphasizes preventive, proactive policing; the approach calls for police to concentrate on solving the problems of crime and disorder in neighborhoods rather than simply responding to calls for service. This model considerably expands the scope of policing activities, because the targets of interest are not only crimes but also sources of physical and social disorder (Weisburd et al., 2008).

After gaining acceptance as an alternative to traditional policing models in the 1980s, COP has received greater attention and been used more frequently throughout the 21st century (Greene, 2000; National Research Council, 2018; Paez and Dierenfeldt, 2020). The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 articulated the goal of putting 100,000 additional community police officers on the streets and established the federal Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services. Research from 2013 suggests that 9 out of 10 law enforcement agencies in the United States that serve a population of 25,000 or more had adopted some type of community policing strategy (Reaves, 2015).

COP comprises three key components (Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services, 2012):

• Community Partnerships. COP encourages partnerships with stakeholders in the community, including other government agencies (prosecutors, health and human services, child support services and schools); community members/groups (volunteers, activists, residents, and other individuals who have an interest in the community); nonprofits/service providers (advocacy groups, victim groups, and community development corporations); and private businesses. The media also are an important mechanism that police use to communicate with the community.
• Organizational Transformation. COP emphasizes the alignment of management, structure, personnel, and information systems within police departments to support the philosophy. These changes may include increased transparency, leadership that reinforces COP values, strategic geographic deployment, training, and access to data.
• Problem-Solving. Proactive, systematic, routine problem-solving is the final key component of COP. COP encourages police to develop solutions to underlying conditions that contribute to public safety problems, rather than responding to crime only after it occurs. The SARA model (which stands for Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment) is one major conceptual model of problem-solving that can be used by officers (for a full description of the SARA model, see Problem-Oriented Policing below).

At the heart of COP is a redefinition of the relationship between the police and the community, so that the two collaborate to identify and solve community problems. Through this relationship, the community becomes a “co-producer” of public safety in that the problem-solving process draws on citizen expertise in identifying and understanding social issues that create crime, disorder, and fear in the community (Skolnick and Bayley, 1988; Gill et al., 2014; National Research Council, 2018).

COP is not a single coherent program; rather, it encompasses a variety of programs or strategies that rest on the assumption that policing must involve the community. Elements typically associated with COP programs include the empowerment of the community; a belief in a broad police function; the reliance of police on citizens for authority, information, and collaboration; specific tactics (or tactics that are targeted at particular problems, such as focused deterrence strategies) rather than general tactics (or tactics that are targeted at the general population, such as preventive patrol); and decentralized authority to respond to local needs (Zhao, He, and Lovrich, 2003). One Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCCA) survey of MCCA members found that some of the most common COP activities were officer representation at community meetings, bicycle patrols, citizen volunteers, foot patrols, police “mini-stations” (see description below), and neighborhood storefront offices (Scrivner and Stephens, 2015; National Research Council, 2018).

Community members who engage in COP programs generally report positive experiences. For example, residents who received home visits by police officers as part of a COP intervention reported high confidence in police and warmth toward officers, compared with residents who did not receive visits (Peyton et al., 2019). Notably, however, those who participate in COP–related activities, such as community meetings, may not be representative of the whole community (Somerville, 2008). Many individuals in communities remain unaware of COP activities, and those who are aware may choose not to participate (Adams, Rohe, and Arcury, 2005; Eve et al., 2003). Additionally, it can be difficult to sustain community participation. While police officers are paid for their participation, community members are not, and involvement could take time away from family and work (Coquilhat, 2008).

Specific Types of COP Programs

Because COP is such a broad approach, programs that involve the community may take on many different forms. For example, some COP programs may take place in a single setting such as a community center, a school, or a police mini-station. Other COP–based programs, such as police foot patrol programs, can encompass the entire neighborhood. The following are different examples of specific types of COP programs and how they can affect youth in a community.

School Resource Officers (SROs) are an example of a commonly implemented COP program in schools. SROs are trained police officers who are uniformed, carry firearms and a police department badge, and have arrest powers. They are tasked with maintaining a presence at schools to promote safety and security (Stern and Petrosino, 2018). The use of SROs is not new; SRO programs first appeared in the 1950s but increased significantly in the 1990s as a response to high-profile incidents of extreme school violence and the subsequent policy reforms (Broll and Howells, 2019; Lindberg, 2015). SROs can fulfill a variety of roles. They are intended to prevent and respond to school-based crime; promote positive relationships among law enforcement, educators, and youth; and foster a positive school climate (Thomas et al., 2013).

The National Association of School Resource Officers (NASRO), the largest professional organization of SROs, formally defines the SRO roles using a “triad model,” which aligns with community policing models (May et al., 2004), and includes the three primary functions of SROs: 1) enforcing the law; 2) educating students, school staff, and the community; and 3) acting as an informal counselor or mentor (Broll and Howells, 2019; Fisher and Hennessy, 2016; Javdani, 2019; Thomas et al., 2013). There may be significant variability in how these roles and responsibilities are balanced, as they are usually defined through a memorandum of understanding between the local law enforcement agency and the school district (Fisher and Hennessy, 2016). Even with the SRO responsibilities formally spelled out, there may still be tensions and ambiguities inherent to the SRO position based on their positioning at the intersection of the education system and the juvenile justice system, which often have competing cultures and authority structures (Fisher and Hennessy, 2016). As members of the police force, the SROs may view problematic behaviors as crimes, whereas educators view them as obstacles to learning. Another ambiguity is that as an informal counselor/mentor, the SRO is expected to assist students with behavioral and legal issues, which may result in a conflict of interest if the adolescent shares information about engaging in illegal activities (Fisher and Hennessy, 2016).

Evaluation findings with regard to the effectiveness of the presence of SROs in schools have been inconsistent. In terms of school-related violence and other behaviors, some studies have found that SROs in schools are related to decreases in serious violence (Sorensen, Shen, and Bushway, 2021; Zhang, 2019), and decreases in incidents of disorder (Zhang, 2019). Others have found increases in drug-related crimes (Gottfredson et al., 2020; Zhang, 2019) associated with the presence of SROs in schools, and other studies have shown no effects on bullying (Broll and Lafferty, 2018; Devlin, Santos, and Gottfredson, 2018). In terms of school discipline, one meta-analysis (Fisher and Hennessy, 2016) examined the relationship between the presence of SROs and exclusionary discipline in U.S. high schools. Analysis of the seven eligible pretest–posttest design studies showed that the presence of SROs was associated with rates of school-based disciplinary incidents that were 21 percent higher than incident rates before implementing an SRO program. However, in another study, of elementary schools, there was no association found between SRO presence and school-related disciplinary outcomes, which ranged from minor consequences, such as a warning or timeout, to more serious consequences such as suspension from school (Curran et al., 2021).

Further, several studies have been conducted on the effects of SROs on students’ attitudes and feelings. One example is a survey of middle and high school students (Theriot and Orme, 2016), which found that experiencing more SRO interactions increased students’ positive attitudes about SROs but decreased school connectedness and was unrelated to feelings of safety. Conversely, findings from a student survey, on the relationship between awareness and perceptions of SROs on school safety and disciplinary experiences, indicated that students’ awareness of the presence of SROs and their perceptions of SROs were associated with increased feelings of safety and a small decrease in disciplinary actions. However, students belonging to racial and ethnic minority groups reported smaller benefits related to SROs, compared with white students (Pentek and Eisenberg, 2018).

Foot Patrol is another example of a program that uses COP elements. Foot patrol involves police officers making neighborhood rounds on foot. It is a policing tactic that involves movement in a set area for the purpose of observation and security (Ratcliffe et al., 2011). The primary goals of foot patrol are to increase the visibility of police officers in a community and to make greater contact and increase rapport with residents. Officers sometimes visit businesses on their beat, respond to calls for service within their assigned areas, and develop an intimate knowledge of the neighborhood. Additionally, police officers on foot patrols may offer a level of “citizen reassurance” to community members and may decrease a resident’s fear of crime by bringing a feeling of safety to the neighborhood (Wakefield, 2006; Ratcliffe et al., 2011; Walker and Katz, 2017). Another duty of foot patrol officers is to engage youth in the community, and some are instructed to go out of their way to engage vulnerable youth. For example, if an officer sees a group of youths hanging out on a street corner, the officer may stop and initiate casual conversation in an effort to build a relationship (Cowell and Kringen, 2016).

Though foot patrols limit the speed at which an officer can respond to a call (compared with patrol in a vehicle), research has found that community members are more comfortable with police being in the neighborhood on foot. Residents are more likely to consider an officer as “being there for the neighborhood” if they are seen on foot (Cordner, 2010; Piza and O’Hara, 2012).

While there are mixed findings regarding the effectiveness of foot patrols on crime (Piza and O’Hara, 2012), improved community relationships are one of the strongest benefits. Research has shown that foot patrol improves the relationships between community members and police officers through increasing approachability, familiarity, and trust Ratcliffe et al. 2011; Kringen, Sedelmaier, and Dlugolenski, 2018). Foot patrols can also have a positive effect on officers. Research demonstrates that officers who participate in foot patrol strategies have higher job satisfaction and a higher sense of achievement (Wakefield, 2006; Walker and Katz, 2017).

Mini-Stations are community-forward stations that allow police to be more accessible to members of a community. Mini-stations (also known as substations, community storefronts, and other names) can be based in many places—such as local businesses, restaurants, or community centers—and can be staffed by police officers, civilian employees, volunteers, or a combination of these groups, and have fewer officers stationed in them (Maguire et al., 2003). These stations allow officers to build on existing relationships with businesses in the area and give citizens easier access to file reports and share community concerns. Additionally, they are a means to achieving greater spatial differentiation, or a way for a police agency to cover a wider area, without the cost of adding a new district station (Maguire et al., 2003). Residents can also go to mini-stations to receive information and handouts about new policing initiatives and programs in the community. Police mini-stations also increase the overall amount of time officers spend in their assigned patrol areas. The concept of mini-stations stems from Japanese kobans , which gained prominence in the late 1980s. Officers who worked in kobans became intimately familiar with the neighborhood they served and were highly accessible to citizens (usually within a 10-minute walk of residential homes) [Young, 2022].

Mini-stations can also be helpful to youth in the community. For example, Youth Safe Haven mini-stations are mini-stations that are deployed in 10 cities by the Eisenhower Foundation. These mini-stations were first developed in the 1980s and are located in numerous youth-related areas, including community centers and schools (Eisenhower Foundation, 2011). In addition to crime outcomes (such as reduced crime and fear of crime), goals of youth-oriented mini-stations include homework help, recreational activities, and providing snacks and social skills training. Older youths can be trained to be volunteers to assist younger youths with mentoring and advocacy. There are mixed findings regarding mini-stations and their effect on crime rates, but research has shown that adults and older youths who participate in mini-station community programs (or have children who participate) are more likely to report crime, and younger youths are more comfortable speaking with police (Eisenhower Foundation, 1999; Eisenhower Foundation, 2011).

Theoretical Foundation

COP approaches are usually rooted in two different theories of crime: broken windows theory and social disorganization theory (Reisig, 2010; National Research Council, 2018). Both focus on community conditions to explain the occurrence of crime and disorder.

Broken Windows Theory asserts that minor forms of physical and social disorder, if left unattended, may lead to more serious crime and urban decay (Wilson and Kelling, 1982). Visual signs of disorder (such as broken windows in abandoned buildings, graffiti, and garbage on the street) may cause fear and withdrawal among community members. This in turn communicates the lack of or substantial decrease in social control in the community, and thus can invite increased levels of disorder and crime (Hinkle and Weisburd, 2008). In response, to protect the community and establish control, the police engage in order maintenance (managing minor offenses and disorders). Four elements of the broken windows strategy explain how interventions based on this approach may lead to crime reduction (Kelling and Coles, 1996). First, dealing with disorder puts police in contact with those who commit more serious crimes. Second, the high visibility of police causes a deterrent effect for potential perpetrators of crime. Third, citizens assert control over neighborhoods, thereby preventing crime. And finally, as problems of disorder and crime become the responsibility of both the community and the police, crime is addressed in an integrated fashion. COP programs rooted in broken windows theory often use residents and local business owners to help identify disorder problems and engage in the development and implementation of a response (Braga, Welsh, and Schnell, 2015).

Social Disorganization Theory focuses on the relationship between crime and neighborhood structure; that is, how places can create conditions that are favorable or unfavorable to crime and delinquency (Kubrin and Weitzer, 2003). Social disorganization refers to the inability of a community to realize common goals and solve chronic problems. According to the social disorganization theory, community factors such as poverty, residential mobility, lack of shared values, and weak social networks decrease a neighborhood’s capacity to control people’s behavior in public, which increases the likelihood of crime (Kornhauser, 1978; Shaw and McKay, 1969 [1942]). Researchers have used various forms of the social disorganization theory to conceptualize community policing, including the systemic model and collective efficacy (Reisig, 2010). The systemic model focuses on how relational and social networks can exert social controls to mediate the adverse effects of structural constraints, such as concentrated poverty and residential instability. The model identifies three social order controls with decreasing levels of influence: 1) private, which includes close friends and family; 2) parochial , which includes neighbors and civic organizations; and 3) public, which includes police (Bursik and Grasmick, 1993; Hunter, 1985). Community policing efforts based on the systemic model can increase informal social controls by working with residents to develop stronger regulatory mechanisms at the parochial and public levels (Kubrin and Weitzer, 2003; Resig, 2010). Collective efficacy, which refers to social cohesion and informal social controls, can mitigate social disorganization. Community policing can promote collective efficacy by employing strategies that enhance police legitimacy in the community and promote procedurally just partnerships, to encourage residents to take responsibility for public spaces and activate local social controls (Resig, 2010).

Outcome Evidence

Although there are numerous programs that incorporate COP, there are limited examples of COP programs that directly target youth, and fewer that have been rigorously evaluated (Forman, 2004; Paez and Dierenfeldt, 2020). The following programs, which are featured on CrimeSolutions , are examples of how COP has been implemented and evaluated in different cities.

The Chicago Alternative Policing Strategy (CAPS , developed in 1993, incorporates aspects of both community and problem-oriented policing (see Problem-Oriented Policing, below). The CAPS approach has been implemented by dividing patrol officers into beat teams and rapid response teams in each of the districts. Beat teams spend most of their time working their beats with community organizations, while rapid response teams concentrate their efforts on excess or low-priority 911 calls. Meetings occur monthly for both teams, and they receive extensive training. This structure enables officers to respond quickly and effectively to problems that they have not been traditionally trained to handle but have learned how to do by receiving training, along with residents, in problem-solving techniques. Civic education, media ads, billboards, brochures, and rallies have been used to promote awareness of the program in the community (Skogan, 1996; Kim and Skogan, 2003).

To evaluate the effects of the CAPS program, one study (Kim and Skogan, 2003) examined the impact on crime rates and 911 calls. Data were collected from January 1996 to June 2002, using a time-series analysis. The study authors found statistically significant reductions in crime rates and 911 calls in police beats that implemented the CAPS program, compared with police beats that did not implement the program.

Some studies have found that foot-patrol interventions make varying impacts on different types of street violence. Operation Impact , a saturation foot-patrol initiative in the Fourth Precinct of Newark, NJ, was selected as the target area based on an in-depth analysis of the spatial distribution of street violence. The initiative primarily involved a nightly patrol of 12 officers in a square-quarter-mile area of the city, which represented an increase in police presence in the target area. Officers also engaged in proactive enforcement actions that were expected to disrupt street-level disorder and narcotics activity in violence-prone areas. One study (Piza and O’Hara, 2012) found that the target area that implemented Operation Impact experienced statistically significant reductions in overall violence, aggravated assaults, and shootings, compared with the control area that implemented standard policing responses. However, there were no statistically significant differences between the target and control areas in incidents of murder or robbery.

With regard to community-based outcomes, other studies have shown that COP programs have demonstrated positive results. A COP intervention implemented in New Haven, CT , consisted of a single unannounced community home visit conducted by uniformed patrol officers from the New Haven Police Department. During the visits, the patrol officers articulated their commitment to building a cooperative relationship with residents and the importance of police and residents working together to keep the community safe. One evaluation found that residents in intervention households who received the COP intervention reported more positive overall attitudes toward police, a greater willingness to cooperate with police, had more positive perceptions of police performance and legitimacy, had higher confidence in police, reported higher scores on perceived warmth toward police, and reported fewer negative beliefs about police, compared with residents who did not receive home visits. These were all statistically significant findings. However, there was no statistically significant difference in willingness to comply with the police between residents in households that received home visits, compared with those who did not (Peyton et al., 2019).

Problem-Oriented Policing Definition

Problem-oriented policing (POP) is a framework that provides law enforcement agencies with an iterative approach to identify, analyze, and respond to the underlying circumstances that lead to crime and disorder in the community and then evaluate and adjust the response as needed (Braga et al., 2001; Hinkle et al., 2020; National Research Council, 2004). The POP approach requires police to focus their attention on problems rather than incidents (Cordner and Biebel, 2005). Problems, in this model, are defined “as chronic conditions or clusters of events that have become the responsibility of the police, either because they have been reported to them, or they have been discovered by proactive police investigation, or because the problems have been found in an investigation of police records” (National Research Council, 2004:92).

The POP strategy contrasts with incident-driven crime prevention approaches, in which police focus on individual occurrences of crime. Instead, POP provides police with an adaptable method to examine the complicated factors that contribute and lead to crime and disorder, and develop customized interventions to address those factors (National Research Council, 2018).

As noted previously, the idea behind the POP approach emanated several decades ago (Goldstein, 1979) from observations that law enforcement agencies seemed to be more concerned about the means rather than the goals of policing, or “means-over-ends syndrome” (Goldstein, 1979; Eck, 2006; MacDonald, 2002). In 1990, this work was expanded to systematically define and describe what it meant to use POP approaches in policing. During the 1990s, law enforcement agencies in the United States and other countries (such as Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom) began to implement POP strategies (Scott, 2000).

The traditional conceptual model of problem-solving in POP, known as the SARA model, consists of the following four steps (Weisburd et al., 2010; Hinkle et al., 2020; National Research Council, 2004):

• Scanning. Police identify problems that may be leading to incidents of crime and disorder. They may prioritize these problems based on various factors, such as the size of the problem or input from the community.
• Analysis. Police study information about the identified problem or problems, using a variety of data sources, such as crime databases or surveys of community members. They examine information on who is committing crimes, victims, and crime locations, among other factors. Police then use the information on responses to incidents — together with information obtained from other sources — to get a clearer picture of the problem (or problems).
• Response. Police develop and implement tailored strategies to address the identified problems by thinking “outside the box” of traditional police enforcement tactics and creating partnerships with other agencies, community organizations, or members of the community, depending on the problem. Examples of responses in POP interventions include target hardening, area cleanup, increased patrol, crime prevention through environmental design measures, multiagency cooperation, and nuisance abatement.
• Assessment. Police evaluate the impact of the response through self-assessments and other methods (such as process or outcome evaluations) to determine how well the response has been carried out and what has been accomplished (or not accomplished). This step may also involve adjustment of the response, depending on the results of the assessment.

The SARA model was first defined by a POP project conducted in Newport News, VA, during the 1980s. The Newport News Task Force designed a four-stage problem-solving process . A case study of the project revealed that officers and their supervisors identified problems, analyzed, and responded to these problems through this process, thus leading to the SARA model (Eck and Spelman, 1987).

Since the creation and development of SARA, other models have been established, in part to overcome some noted weaknesses of the original model, such as an oversimplification of complex processes or a process in which problem-solving is nonlinear. These other models include the following 1) PROCTOR (which stands for PROblem, Cause, Tactic or Treatment, Output, and Result); 2) the 5I’s (Intelligence, Intervention, Implementation, Involvement, and Impact); and 3) the ID PARTNERS (which stands for I dentify the demand; D rivers; P roblem; A im, R esearch and analysis; T hink creatively; N egotiate and initiate responses; E valuate; R eview; and S uccess) [Sidebottom and Tilley, 2010]. However, compared with these models, the SARA model appears to be used more often by agencies that apply a POP approach to law enforcement (Sidebottom and Tilley, 2010; Borrion et al., 2020).

A POP approach can be used by law enforcement agencies to address youth-related issues, including offenses committed by youths (such as gun violence, vandalism, graffiti, and other youth-specific behaviors such as running away from home or underage drinking.

For example, in the 2019–20 school year, about one third of public schools experienced vandalism (Wang et al., 2022). If a police agency wanted to tackle the problem of school vandalism , often committed by youth, they could apply the SARA model to determine the scope of the problem, develop an appropriate response, and conduct an overall assessment of efforts. A problem-oriented guide, put together by the Problem-Oriented Policing Center at Arizona State University, outlines the steps that law enforcement agencies can take to use the SARA model and address the issues of vandalism committed specifically at schools (Johnson, 2005).

Thus, during the scanning step of the SARA model, to identify the problem police would focus on the specific problem of school vandalism by examining multiple sources of data, including information gathered from both police departments and school districts. During the analysis step, police would ask about the specific school vandalism problems they are targeting, such as 1) how many and which schools reported vandalism to the police, 2) which schools were vandalized, 3) what are the characteristics (such as the age, gender, school attendance rate) of any youth identified as committing the vandalism, and 4) on what days and times the vandalism occurred. The analysis step also should include information from various data sources, including official reports to the police of school vandalism incidents, interviews with SROs, and information from students at the school (Johnson, 2005).

Once police have analyzed the school vandalism problem and have a clear picture of the issue, they would then move on to the response step. The response depends on what police learn about the vandalism problem at schools. For example, if police find that vandalism occurs because youths have easy access to school grounds, especially after school hours, they might suggest a response that improves building security. Finally, during the assessment stage, police would determine the degree of effectiveness of their response to school vandalism through various measures of success, such as the reduction in the number of incidents of vandalism, the decrease in the costs for repair of damaged property, and the increase of incidents (when they do occur) in which the person or persons who engaged in vandalism are identified and apprehended (Johnson, 2005).

Overlap of POP With Other Policing Strategies

POP shares several similarities and overlapping features with other policing models, such as focused deterrence strategies and hot-spots policing. Hot-spots policing involves focusing police resources on crime “hot spots,” which are specific areas in the community where crime tends to cluster. Hot-spots policing interventions tend to rely mostly on traditional law enforcement approaches (National Research Council, 2004; Braga et al., 2019). Focused deterrence strategies (also referred to as “pulling levers” policing) follow the core principles of deterrence theory. These strategies target specific criminal behavior committed by a small number of individuals who repeatedly offend and who are vulnerable to sanctions and punishment (Braga, Weisburd, and Turchan, 2018).

While POP, focused deterrence, and hot spots policing are three distinct policing strategies, there can be an overlap in techniques. For example, a POP approach can involve the identification and targeting of crime hot spots, if the scanning and analysis of the crime problems in a community reveal that crime is clustering in specific areas. Further, a hot-spots policing intervention may use a problem-oriented approach to determine appropriate responses to address the crime in identified hot spots. However, POP can go beyond examination of place-based crime problems, and hot-spots policing does not require the detailed analytic approach used in POP to discern which strategy is appropriate to prevent or reduce crime (Hinkle et al., 2020; National Research Council, 2018; Gill et al., 2018). Similarly, POP involves targeting resources to specific, identified problems, in a similar way that focused deterrence strategies target specific crimes committed by known high-risk offenders. However, focused deterrence strategies tend to rely primarily on police officers to implement programs, whereas POP may involve a variety of agencies and community members (National Research Council, 2004).

Although POP, focused deterrence, and hot-spots policing differ in some distinct ways (such as intensity of focus and involvement of other agencies), these strategies may often overlap (National Research Council, 2004).

POP draws on theories of criminal opportunity to explain why crime occurs and to identify ways of addressing crime, often by altering environmental conditions (Reisig, 2010). While much criminological research and theory are concerned with why some individuals offend in general, POP strategies often concentrate on why individuals commit crimes at particular places, at particular times, and against certain targets (Braga, 2008; Goldstein, 1979; Eck and Spelman, 1987; Eck and Madensen, 2012). Thus, POP draws on several theoretical perspectives that focus on how likely individuals (including those who may commit a crime and those who may be victimized) make decisions based on perceived opportunities. These include rational choice theory, routine activities theory , and situational crime prevention (Braga, 2008; Braga et al., 1999; Eck and Madensen, 2012; Hinkle et al., 2020; McGarrell, Freilich, and Chermak, 2007). These three theories are considered complements to one another (Tillyer and Eck, 2011).

Rational Choice Theory focuses on how incentives and constraints affect behavior (Cornish and Clark 1986; Gull, 2009). In criminology, rational choice theory draws on the concepts of free will and rational thinking to examine an individual’s specific decision-making processes and choices of crime settings by emphasizing their motives in different situations. The starting point for rational choice theory is that crime is chosen for its benefits. Thus, rational choice theory informs POP by helping to examine and eliminate opportunities for crime within certain settings. Eliminating these opportunities should help to intervene with a potential offender’s motives to commit a crime (Karğın, 2010).

Routine Activity Theory , formulated by Cohen and Felson (1979), is the study of crime as an event, highlighting its relation to space and time and emphasizing its ecological nature (Mir ó–Llinares , 2014). It was originally developed to explain macro-level crime trends through the interaction of targets, offenders, and guardians (Eck, 2003). The theory explains that problems are created when offenders and targets repeatedly come together, and guardians fail to act. Since its formulation, routine activity theory has expanded. In terms of POP, routine activity theory implies that crime can be prevented if the chances of the three elements of crime (suitable target, motivated offender, and accessible place) intersecting at the same place and at the same time are minimized (Karğın, 2010). The SARA problem-solving methodology allows law enforcement agencies to examine and identify the features of places and potential targets that might generate crime opportunities for a motivated offender and develop solutions to eliminate these opportunities, thereby preventing future crime (Hinkle et al., 2020).

Situational Crime Prevention was designed to address specific forms of crime by systematically manipulating or managing the immediate environment with the purpose of reducing opportunities for crime. The goal is to change an individual’s decisionmaking processes by altering the perceived costs and benefits of crime by identifying specific settings (Clarke, 1995; Tillyer and Eck, 2011). Situational crime prevention has identified a number of ways to reduce opportunity to commit crime, such as: 1) increase the effort required to carry out the crime, 2) increase the risks faced in completing the crime, 3) reduce the rewards or benefits expected from the crime, 4) remove excuses to rationalize or justify engaging in criminal action, and 5) avoid provocations that may tempt or incite individuals into criminal acts (Clarke 2009). Certain POP strategies make use of situation crime prevention tactics during the response phase, such as physical improvements to identified problem locations. These may include fixing or installing street lighting, securing vacant lots, and getting rid of trash from the streets (Braga et al., 1999).

Although the POP approach is a well-known and popular approach in law enforcement, there have been a limited number of rigorous program evaluations, such as randomized controlled trials (National Research Council 2018; Gill et al. 2018), and even fewer evaluations specifically centered on youth. 

One meta-analysis (Weisburd et al., 2008) reviewed 10 studies, which examined the effects of problem-oriented policing on crime and disorder. These included various POP interventions and took place in eight cities across the United States (Atlanta, GA; Jersey City, NJ; Knoxville, TN; Oakland, CA; Minneapolis, MN; Philadelphia, PA; San Diego, CA; and one suburban Pennsylvania area.) and six wards in the United Kingdom. The studies evaluated interventions focused on reducing recidivism for individuals on probation or parole; interventions on specific place-based problems (such as drug markets, vandalism and drinking in a park, and crime in hot spots of violence); and interventions that targeted specific problems such as school victimization. Findings across these studies indicated that, on average, the POP strategies led to a statistically significant decline in measures of crime and disorder.

The following programs, which are featured on CrimeSolutions, provide a brief overview of how POP has been implemented and evaluated in the United States. Programs with examined youth-related outcomes or a specific focus on youth are noted; however, most of the research on POP interventions does not focus on youth.

Operation Ceasefire in Boston (first implemented in 1995) is a problem-oriented policing strategy that was developed to reduce gang violence, illegal gun possession, and gun violence in communities. Specifically, the program focused on reducing homicide victimization among young people in Boston (Braga and Pierce, 2005). The program involved carrying out a comprehensive strategy to apprehend and prosecute individuals who carry firearms, to put others on notice that carrying illegal firearms faces certain and serious punishment, and to prevent youth from following in the same criminal path. The program followed the steps of the SARA model, which included bringing together an interagency working group of criminal justice and other practitioners to identify the problem (scanning); using different research techniques (both qualitative and quantitative) to assess the nature of youth violence in Boston ( analysis ); designing and developing an intervention to reduce youth violence and homicide in the city, implementing the intervention, and adapting it as needed ( response ); and evaluating the intervention’s impact ( assessment ). An evaluation of the program found a statistically significant reduction (63 percent) in the average number of youth homicide victims in the city following the implementation of the program. There were also statistically significant decreases in citywide gun assaults and calls for service (Braga et al., 2001). Similarly, another study found a statistically significant reduction (24.3 percent) in new handguns recovered from youth (Braga and Pierce, 2005).

Another program implemented in the same city, the Boston Police Department’s Safe Street Teams (SSTs) , is an example of a place-based, problem-oriented policing strategy to reduce violent crime and includes some components targeting youth. Using mapping technology and violent index crime data, the Boston Police Department identified 13 violent crime hot spots in the city where SST officers could employ community- and problem-oriented policing techniques such as the SARA model. SST officers implemented almost 400 distinct POP strategies in the crime hot spots, which fell into three broad categories: 1) situational/environment interventions, such as removing graffiti and trash or adding or fixing lighting, designed to change the underlying characteristics and dynamics of the places that are linked to violence; 2 ) enforcement interventions, including focused enforcement efforts on drug-selling crews and street gangs, designed to arrest and deter individuals committing violent crimes or contributing to the disorder of the targeted areas; and 3) community outreach/social service interventions, designed to involve the community in crime prevention efforts. Examples of these activities included providing new recreational opportunities for youth (i.e., basketball leagues), partnering with local agencies to provide needed social services to youth, and planning community events. One evaluation (Braga, Hureau, and Papachristos, 2011) found that over a 10-year observation period areas that implemented the SSTs interventions experienced statistically significant reductions in the number of total violent index crime incidents (17.3 percent), in the number of robbery incidents (19.2 percent), and in the number of aggravated assault incidents (15.4 percent), compared with the comparison areas that did not implement the interventions. However, there were no statistically significant effects on the number of homicides or rape/sexual assault incidents. The study also did not examine the impact on youth-specific outcomes.

The Problem-Oriented Policing in Violent Crime Places (Jersey City, N.J.) intervention used techniques from hot spots policing and POP to reduce violent crime in the city. The program and evaluation design followed the steps of the SARA model. During the scanning phase, the Jersey City Police Department and university researchers used computerized mapping technologies to identify violent crime hot spots. During the analysis phase, officers selected 12 pairs of places for random assignment to the treatment group, which received the POP strategies, or to the control group. During the response phase, the 11 officers in the department’s Violent Crime Unit were responsible for developing appropriate POP strategies at the hot spots. For example, to reduce social disorder, aggressive order maintenance techniques were applied, including the use of foot and radio patrols and the dispersing of groups of loiterers. During the assessment phase, the police department evaluated the officers’ responses to the problems, and either adjusted the strategies or closed down the program to indicate that the problem was alleviated. An evaluation found statistically significant reductions in social and physical incivilities (i.e., disorder), the total numbers of calls for service, and criminal incidents at the treatment locations that implemented POP techniques, compared with the control locations (Braga et al., 1999).

COP and POP are two broad policing approaches that, while sharing many characteristics, are still distinct—owing to the focus of their respective approaches. COP’s focus is on community outreach and engagement and does not necessarily rely on analysis methods such as the SARA model. For POP, the primary goal is to find effective solutions to problems that may or may not involve the participation of the community (Gill et al., 2014).

Though COP and POP may differ in their approaches, the end goal is the same in both models. Both are types of proactive policing that seek to prevent crime before it happens. COP and POP also both rely on cooperation from numerous different parties and agencies, including community members (National Research Council, 2018). The two models are similar enough that they often overlap in implementation. For example, the Chicago Alternative Policing Strategy (CAPS) incorporates elements from both models. Using aspects of COP, police officers divide into beat teams and spend most of their time working with community organizations. With regard to POP, CAPS trains officers and residents to use problem-solving techniques that stem from its theoretical basis (Skogan, 1996; Kim and Skogan, 2003).

There are, however, limitations in the research examining the effectiveness of these models. For example, evaluation studies on COP and POP tend to focus on results related to crime and disorder; other outcomes, such as collective efficacy, police legitimacy, fear of crime, and other community-related outcomes are often overlooked or not properly defined (Hinkle et al., 2020; Gill et al., 2014). Exploring other community-related outcomes would be useful, as community involvement is an important component to both models. Further, some researchers have noted specific limitations to the implementation of COP and POP interventions. With regard to COP programs, for example, the definition of “community” is sometimes lacking. This can be an important factor to define, as community may mean something different across law enforcement agencies (Gill et al., 2014). Regarding POP programs, it has been noted that the rigor of the SARA process is limited and that law enforcement agencies may take a “shallow” approach to problem-solving (National Research Council, 2018:193; Borrion et al., 2020). To date, the research on both models has lacked focus on youth; only a few evaluations have focused on youth in either in the implementation process or in examined outcomes (Braga et al., 2001; Gill et al., 2018). Despite these limitations, however, the outcome evidence supports the effectiveness of COP and POP interventions to reduce crime and disorder outcomes.

Adams, R.E., Rohe, W.M., and Arcury, T.A. 2005. Awareness of community-oriented policing and neighborhood perceptions in five small to midsize cities. Journal of Criminal Justice 33(1):43–54.

Borrion, H., Eckblom, P., Alrajeh, D., Borrion, A.L., Keane, A., Koch, D., Mitchener–Nissen, T., and Toubaline, S. 2020. The problem with crime problem-solving: Towards a second-generation POP? British Journal of Criminology 60:219–240.

Braga, A.A. 2008.  Problem-Oriented Policing and Crime Prevention . Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

Braga, A.A., Hureau, D.M, and Papachristos, A.V. 2011. An ex post facto evaluation framework for place-based police interventions. Evaluation Review 35(6):592–626.

Braga, A.A., Kennedy, D., Waring, E., and Piehl, A.M. 2001. Problem-oriented policing, deterrence, and youth violence: An evaluation of Boston’s Operation Ceasefire. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 28(3):195–225.

Braga, A.A., and Pierce, G.L. 2005. Disrupting illegal firearms markets in Boston: The effects of Operation Ceasefire on the supply of new handguns to criminals. Criminology & Public Policy 4(4):717–748.

Braga, A.A., Turchan, B., Papachristos, A.V., and Hureau, D.M. 2019. Hot spots policing of small geographic areas effects on crime. Campbell Systematic Reviews 15:e1046.

Braga, A.A., Weisburd, D.L., Waring, E.J., Mazerolle, L.G., Spelman, W., and Gajewski, F. 1999. Problem-oriented policing in violent crime places: A randomized controlled experiment. Criminology 37(3):541–580.

Braga, A.A., Weisburd, D.L., and Turchan, B. 2018. Focused deterrence strategies and crime control: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the empirical evidence. Criminology & Public Policy 17(1):202–250.

Braga, AA., Welsh, B.C., and Schnell, C. 2015. Can policing disorder reduce crime? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 52(4):567–588.

Broll, R., and Howells, S. 2019. Community policing in schools: Relationship-building and the responsibilities of school resource officers. Policing 15(2):201–215.

Broll, R., and Lafferty, R. 2018. Guardians of the hallways? School resources officers and bullying. Safer Communities doi: 10.1108/SC–06–2018–0018

Bursik, R.J. Jr., and Grasmick, H.G. 1993. Neighborhoods and Crime: The Dimensions of Effective Community Control. Lanham, MD: Lexington.

Clarke, R.V. 1995. Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies . Albany, NY: Harrow and Heston.

Clarke, R.V. 2009. Situational crime prevention: Theoretical background and current practice. In Handbook on Crime and Deviance , edited by M.D. Krohn, A.J. Lizotte, and G.P Hall. New York, NY: Springer.

Cohen, L., and Felson, M. 1979. Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review 44:588–608.

Coquilhat, J. 2008. Community Policing: An International Literature Review. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Police Association Incorporated.

Cordner, G. 2010. Reducing Fear of Crime: Strategies for Police , Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs (OJP), Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services.

Cordner, G., and Biebel, E.P. 2005. Problem-oriented policing in practice. Criminology 4(2):155–180.

Cornish, D.B., and Clarke, R.V., eds. 1986. The Reasoning Criminal: Rational Choice Perspectives on Offending . New York, NY: Springer.

Cowell, B.M., and Kringen, A.L. 2016. Engaging Communities One Step at a Time: Policing’s Tradition of Foot Patrol as an Innovative Community Engagement Strategy. Washington DC: Police Foundation.

Curran, F.C., Viano, S., Kupchik, A., and Fisher, B.W. 2021. Do interactions with School Resource Officers predict students’ likelihood of being disciplined and feelings of safety? Mixed-methods evidence from two school districts. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 43(2):183–361.

Devlin, D.N., Santos, M.R., and Gottfredson, D.C. 2018. An evaluation of police officers in schools as a bullying intervention. Evaluation and Program Planning 71:12–21.

Eck, J.E. 2003. Police problems: The complexity of problem theory, research, and evaluation. In  Problem-Oriented Policing: From Innovation to Mainstream, edited by J. Knutsson. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, pp. 79–113.

Eck, J.E. 2006. Advocate: Science, values, and problem-oriented policing: Why problem-oriented policing? In Police Innovation: Contrasting Perspectives, edited by D.L. Weisburd and A.A Braga. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, pp. 117–132.

Eck, J.E., and Madensen, T.D. 2012. Situational crime prevention makes problem-oriented policing work. In The Reasoning Criminologist: Essays in Honour of Ronald V. Clarke , edited by N. Tilley and G. Farrell. New York, NY: Routledge.

Eck, J.E., and Spelman, W. 1987. Problem-Solving: Problem-Oriented Policing in Newport News . Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.

Eisenhower Foundation. 1999. Youth Investment and Police Mentoring Final HUD Evaluation . Washington, DC.

Eisenhower Foundation. 2011. Youth Investment and Police Mentoring: The Third Generation Principal Findings. Washington, DC.

Eve, R.A., Rodeheaver, D.G., Eve, S.B., Hockenberger, M., Perez, R., Burton, K., Boyd, L., Phillips, S., and Walker, S.L. 2003. Community-oriented policing in a multicultural milieu: The case of loitering and disorderly conduct in East Arlington, Texas. International Journal of Police Science & Management 5(4):245–264.

Fisher, B.W., and Hennessy, E.A. 2016. School resources officers and exclusionary discipline in U.S. high schools: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Adolescent Research Review 1:217–233.

Forman Jr., J. 2004. Community policing and youth as assets. Criminal Law & Criminology 95(1):1–48.

Gill, C., Weisburd, D.L., Telep, C.W., Vitter, Z., and Bennett, T. 2014. Community-oriented policing to reduce crime, disorder, and fear and increase satisfaction and legitimacy among citizens: A systematic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology 10(4):399–428.

Gill, C., Weisburd, D., Vitter, Z., Shader, C.G., Nelson–Zager, T., and Spain, L. 2018. Collaborative problem-solving at youth crime hot spots: A pilot study. Policing: An International Journal 41(3):325–338.

Goldstein, H. 1979. Improving policing: A problem-oriented approach. Crime and Delinquency 25:236–258.

Gottfredson, D.C., Crosse, S., Tang, Z., Bauer, E.L., Harmon, M.A. Hagen, C.A., and Greene A.D. 2020. Effects of school resource officers on school crime and responses to school crime. Criminology and Public Policy 19(3):905–940.

Greene, J.R. 2000. Community Policing in America: Changing the Nature, Structure, and Function of the Police—Vol. 3: Policies, Processes, and Decisions of the Criminal Justice System : Washington, DC: DOJ, OJP, National Institute of Justice (NIJ).

Gul, S. 2009. An evaluation of rational choice theory in criminology.  Girne American University Journal of Sociology and Applied Science 4(8):36–44.

Hinkle, J.C., Weisburd, D., Telep, C.W., and Petersen, K. 2020. Problem-oriented policing for reducing crime and disorder: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Campbell Systematic Reviews 16:e1089.

Hinkle, J.C., and Weisburd, D.L. 2008. The irony of broken windows policing: A micro-place study of the relationship between disorder, focused police crackdowns, and fear of crime. Journal of Criminal Justice 36:503–512.

Hunter, A. 1985. Private, parochial, and public social orders: The problem of crime and incivility in urban communities. In The Challenge of Social Control: Citizenship and Institution Building, edited by G.D. Suttles and M.N. Zald. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Javdani, S. 2019. Policing education: An empirical review of the challenges and impact of the work of school police officers. American Journal of Community Psychology 63:252–269.

Johnson, K.D. 2005. School vandalism and break-ins. Problem-Oriented Guides for Police, Problem-Specific Guides Series. No. 35. Washington, DC: Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services.

Karğın, V. 2010. Does problem-oriented policing prevent crime? Polis Bilimleri Dergisi 12(3).

Kelling, G.L. 1999. Broken Windows and Police Discretion . Research Report. Washington, DC: DOJ, OJP, NIJ.

Kelling, G.L., and Coles, C.M. 1996. Fixing Broken Windows. New York, NY: Free Press.

Kim, S.Y., and Skogan, W.G. 2003. Community Policing Working Paper 27: Statistical Analysis of Time Series Data on Problem Solving. Chicago, IL: Illinois Criminal Justice Informational Authority.

Kornhauser, R.R. 1978. Social Sources of Delinquency: An Appraisal of Analytic Models. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Kringen, J.A., Sedelmaier, C.M., and Dlugolenski, E. 2018. Foot patrol: The impact of continuity, outreach, and traditional policing activities. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice 14:218–227.

Kubrin, C.E., and Weitzer, C. 2003. New directions in social disorganization theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 40(4):374–402.

Lindberg, M. 2015. False sense of security: Police make schools safer—right? Teaching Tolerance Spring: 22–25.

MacDonald, J.M. 2002. The effectiveness of community policing in reducing urban violence. Crime & Delinquency 48(4):592–618.

Maguire, E.R., Y. Sin, S. Zhao, and K.D. Hassell. 2003. Structural change in large police agencies during the 1990s. Policing: An International Journal 26(2):251–275.

May, D.C., Fessel, S.D., and Means, S. 2004. Predictors of principals’ perceptions of School Resource Officer effectiveness in Kentucky. American Journal of Criminal Justice 29:75–92.

McGarrell, E.F.; Freilich, J.D. and Chermak, S.M., 2007. Intelligence-led policing as a framework for responding to terrorism. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 23(2):142–158.

Miró–Llinares, F. 2014. Routine activity theory.  The Encyclopedia of Theoretical Criminology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 1–7.

National Research Council. 2004. Fairness and Effectiveness in Policing: The Evidence. Washington, DC: National Academics Press.

National Research Council. 2018. Proactive Policing: Effects on Crime and Communities. Washington, DC: National Academics Press.

Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services. 2012. Community-Oriented Policing Defined. Washington, DC: DOJ, Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services.

Paez, R.A., and Dierenfeldt, R. 2020. Community policing and youth offending: A comparison of large and small jurisdictions in the United States. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth 25(1):140–153.

Pentek, C., and Eisenberg, M.E. 2018. School Resources Officers, safety, and discipline: Perceptions and experiences across racial/ethnic groups in Minnesota secondary schools. Children and Youth Services Review, 88:141–148.

Peyton, K., Sierra–Arévalo, M., and Rand, D.G. 2019a. A field experiment on community policing and police legitimacy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116(40):19894–19898.

Piza, E.L., and O’Hara, B.A. 2012. Saturation foot-patrol in a high-violence area: A quasi-experimental evaluation. Justice Quarterly 31(4):693–718.

Rabois, D., and Haaga, D.A.F. 2002. Facilitating police–minority youth attitude change: The effects of cooperation within a competitive context and exposure to typical exemplars. Journal of Community Psychology 30(2):189–195.

Ratcliffe, J.H., Taniguchi, T., Groff, E.R., and Wood, J.D. 2011. The Philadelphia foot patrol experiment: A randomized controlled trial of police patrol effectiveness in violent crime hotspots. Criminology 49(3):795–831.

Reaves, B.A. 2015. Local Police Departments, 2013: Personnel, Policies, and Practices. Washington, DC: DOJ, OJP, Bureau of Justice Statistics.  

Reisig, M.D. 2010. Community and problem-oriented policing.  Crime and Justice 39(1):1–53.

Scott, M. 2000. Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 years . Washington, DC: DOJ, Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services.

Scrivner, E., and Stephens, D.W. 2015. Community Policing in the New Economy. Washington, DC: DOJ, Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services.

Shaw, C.R., and McKay, H. 1969 [1942]. Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Sidebottom, A., and Tilley, N. 2010. Improving problem-oriented policing: The need for a new model? Crime Prevention and Community Safety .

Skogan, W.G. 1996. Evaluating Problem-Solving Policing: The Chicago Experience . Evanston, IL: Northwestern University, Institute for Policy Research.

Skolnick, J.K., and Bayley, D.H. 1988. Theme and variation in community policing. In Crime and Justice: A Review of Research , edited by M. Tonry and N. Morris. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Somerville, Paul. 2008. Understanding community policing. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 32(2):261–277.

Sorensen, L.C., Shen, Y., and Bushway, S.D. 2021. Making schools safer and/or escalating disciplinary response: A study of police officers in North Carolina schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 43(4):495–519.

Stern, A., and Petrosino, A. 2018. What Do We Know About the Effects of School-Based Law Enforcement on School Safety? San Francisco, CA: WestEd.

Theriot, M.T., and Orme, J.G. 2016. School Resource Officers and students’ feelings of safety at school. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 14(2):130–146.

Thomas, B., Towvim, L., Rosiak, J., and Anderson, K. 2013. School Resource Officers: Steps to Effective School-Based Law Enforcement. Arlington, VA: National Center for Mental Health Promotion and Youth Violence Prevention.

Tillyer, M.S., and Eck, J.E. 2011. Getting a handle on crime: A further extension of routine activities theory.  Security Journal 24(2):179 – 193.

Wakefield, A. 2006. The Value of Foot Patrol: A Review of Research. London, England: Police Foundation.

Walker, S., and Katz, C.M. 2017. The Police in America: An Introduction, 9th ed. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Wang, K., Kemp, J., and Burr, R. 2022. Crime, Violence, Discipline, and Safety in U.S. Public Schools in 2019–20: Findings From the School Survey on Crime and Safety . NCES 2022–029. Washington, DC: U.S Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Weisburd, D.L., Telep, C.W., Hinkle, J.C., and Eck, J.E. 2010. Is problem-oriented policing effective in reducing crime and disorder? Criminology & Public Policy 9(1):139–172.

Weisburd, D.L., Telep, C.W., Hinkle, J.C., and Eck, J.E. 2008. The effects of problem-oriented policing on crime and disorder. In Campbell Systematic Reviews, edited by M.W. Lipsey, A. Bjørndal, D.B. Wilson, C. Nye, R. Schlosser, J. Littell, G. Macdonald, and K.T. Hammerstrøm. Oslo, Norway: Campbell Corporation.

Wilson, J.Q., and Kelling, G.L. 1982. Broken windows: The police and neighborhood safety. Atlantic Monthly 29–38.

Young, A. 2022. Architecture as affective law enforcement: Theorising the Japanese koban. Crime, Media, Culture 18(2):183-202.

Zhang, J.S. 2019. The effects of a school policing program on crime, discipline, and disorder: A quasi-experimental evaluation. American Journal of Criminal Justice 44:45–62.

Zhao, J.S., He, N., and Lovrich, N.P. 2003. Community policing: Did it change the basic functions of policing in the 1990s? A national follow-up study. Justice Quarterly 20(4):697–724.

About this Literature Review

Suggested Reference: Development Services Group, Inc. January  2023. “Community-Oriented Policing and Problem-Oriented Policing.” Literature review. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.  https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/model-programs-guide/literature-reviews/community-oriented-problem-oriented-policing

Prepared by Development Services Group, Inc., under Contract Number: 47QRAA20D002V.

Last Update: January 2023

• 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

37k 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

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

• 2023 WACOP Board Members
• Conferences
• Community Policing Resources

The SARA Problem Solving Model

The SARA Model Approach to Problem Solving Problem-solving is an integral component of the philosophy of community policing. The problem-solving approach is a methodical process for reducing the impact of crime and disorder problems in a community. One problem solving model frequently used is the SARA model (Scanning, Analysis, Response, Assessment). Defined below, this four-step process is implemented by the policing agency in partnership with the community.

Scanning The identification of a cluster of similar, related or recurring incidents through a preliminary review of information, and the selection of this crime/disorder problem, among competing priorities, for future examination.

Analysis The use of several sources of information to determine why a problem is occurring, who is responsible, who is affected, where the problem is located, when it occurs, and what form the problem takes. Analysis requires identifying patterns that explain the conditions that facilitate the crime or disorder problem. Sources of information may include police data (CAD, arrest, incident data, etc.), victim and offender interviews; environmental surveys; officer, business and resident surveys; social service and other government agency data; insurance information, etc.

Response The execution of a tailored set of actions that address the most important findings of the problem analysis phase and focus on at least two of the following: (1) preventing future occurrences by deflecting offenders; (2) protecting likely victims; or (3) making crime locations less conducive to problem behaviors. Responses are designed to have a long-term impact on the problem, and do not require a commitment of police time and resources that is not sustainable over the long-term.

Assessment The measurement of the impact(s) of the responses on the targeted crime/disorder problem using information collected from multiple sources, both before and after the responses have been implemented.

www.usdoj.gov/cops/cp_resources/cp_sara.htm

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

1100 Vermont Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20530

(202) 514-2058

DOJ Response Center: 1 (800) 421-6770

Wisconsin Association of Community Oriented Police Themeshopy

Problem Solving & The SARA Model

This resource is part of a knowledge-sharing series for the Rural Violent Crime Reduction Initiative (RVCRI) led by LISC Safety & Justice, National Policing Institute, and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA). RVCRI provides resources to small, rural, and tribal jurisdictions seeking to address specific crime concerns. RVCRI funded sites utilize a multi-disciplinary team to identify and prioritize specific crime challenges along with specific places and/or populations to direct grant resources. 

This webinar will introduce the basic concepts of problem-solving methodologies, with an emphasis on the SARA (Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment) Model. Through this session, participants will learn how this problem-solving model can help guide implementation of their RVCRI projects. Participants will also learn how the SARA model can support projects by providing a framework for ongoing data collection, analysis, strategy refinement and assessment of implementation activities.

• Julie Wartell, Founder, Problem Analysis Group
• John A. Connelly, Senior Program Officer, LISC Safety & Justice

Download presentation [+]...

Rural Violent Crime Reduction Initiative (RVCRI)

In the Mississippi Delta, a Police Chief Who Wears Many Hats

The Transformative Power of an Expungement Clinic in the Mississippi Delta

Clinical Problem Solving: What We Do When We Feel Stuck as Clinicians Stuttering Foundation Podcast

• Health & Fitness

We all hit a wall sometimes as clinicians, don't we? Daniel Shaw, M.S., CCC-SLP, joins host Sara MacIntyre, M.A., CCC-SLP, to brainstorm ideas for when we feel stuck as clinicians. They emphasize the importance of acknowledging and normalizing navigating clinician problem-solving moments, even among seasoned clinicians! They share ideas and resources that have helped them regroup or change course to meet their clients' needs. Daniel and Sara take an intentionally informal, conversational approach in this episode, bringing listeners into what would be a very typical 'phone a friend' clinical problem-solving conversation they have together as colleagues and collaborators. They share clinical examples and favorite resources back and forth, acknowledge their own areas of continued growth, and hopefully normalize the problem-solving and troubleshooting process for all clinicians! Resource mentioned: Implementing Cognitive Behavioral Therapy with School-Aged Children Who Stutter with Lisa Scott, Ph.D., CCC-SLP Daniel Shaw, M.S., CCC-SLP, is a speech-language pathologist at the Vanderbilt Bill Wilkerson Center in Nashville, TN, where he serves children, teens, and adults who stutter (along with their families). He also serves preschool-aged children with autism in the Preschool For Children With Autism and coordinates parent education for the program. He loves to read, write, teach, and expose his family to the great outdoors.

• More Episodes
• © 2024 Stuttering Foundation Podcast

Top Podcasts In Health & Fitness

• 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

Collaborative Robotics is prioritizing ‘human problem solving’ over humanoid forms

Humanoids have sucked a lot of the air out of the room. It is, after all, a lot easier to generate press for robots that look and move like humans. Ultimately, however, both the efficacy and scalability of such designs have yet to be proven out. For a while now, Collaborative Robotics founder Brad Porter has eschewed robots that look like people. Machines that can potentially reason like people, however, is another thing entirely.

As the two-year-old startup’s name implies, Collaborative Robotics (Cobot for short) is interested in the ways in which humans and robots will collaborate, moving forward. The company has yet to unveil its system, though last year, Porter told me that the “novel cobot” system is neither humanoid nor a mobile manipulator mounted to the back of an autonomous mobile robot (AMR).

The system has, however, begun to be deployed in select sites.

“Getting our first robots in the field earlier this year, coupled with today’s investment, are major milestones as we bring cobots with human-level capability into the industries of today,” Porter says. “We see a virtuous cycle where more robots in the field lead to improved AI and a more cost-effective supply chain.”

Further deployment will be helped along by a fresh $100 million Series B, led by General Catalyst and featuring Bison Ventures, Industry Ventures and Lux Capital. That brings the Bay Area firm’s total funding up to $140 million. General Catalyst’s Teresa Carlson is also joining the company in an advisory role.

Cobot has the pedigree, as well, with staff that includes former Apple, Meta, Google, Microsoft, NASA and Waymo employees. Porter himself spent more than 13 years at Amazon. When his run with the company ended in summer 2020, he was leading the retail giant’s industrial robotics team.

Amazon became one of the world’s top drivers and consumer of industrial robotics during that time, and the company’s now ubiquitous AMRs stand as a testament to the efficiency of pairing human and robot workers together.

AI will, naturally, be foundational to the company’s promise of “human problem solving,” while the move away from the humanoid form factor is a bid, in part, to reduce the cost of entry for deploying these systems.