The SARA model is a four-step framework police agencies use to identify recurring community problems, investigate their causes, develop targeted responses, and evaluate results. Its name stands for Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment. Rather than treating each call as an isolated incident, SARA encourages police and community partners to look for patterns and address the conditions that allow problems to continue.
What the SARA Model Means
SARA is a practical problem-solving process associated with problem-oriented policing, an approach developed by criminologist Herman Goldstein. Problem-oriented policing asks agencies to examine specific recurring problems, understand why they occur, and choose responses that are more precise than simply increasing routine patrol or making arrests.
The four stages are connected, but they are not a rigid checklist. Information gathered during analysis may lead a team to redefine the problem. Assessment may show that a response needs adjustment or that the original diagnosis was incomplete. In that sense, SARA works as a cycle: agencies can return to earlier stages as new evidence emerges.
| Stage | Main question | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Scanning | What recurring problem needs attention? | Identify and define a specific, meaningful concern. |
| Analysis | Why, where, when, and how is it happening? | Understand patterns, contributing conditions, and affected groups. |
| Response | What can address the causes? | Choose and carry out a tailored intervention. |
| Assessment | Did the response make a difference? | Measure results, unintended effects, and lessons learned. |
How the Four SARA Stages Work
Scanning: Identify a Specific Problem
Scanning is the process of finding and defining a recurring concern that matters to residents, businesses, public agencies, or police. A problem is more than a single incident or a broad label such as “crime.” It usually involves a pattern of related events that occur in particular places, times, or circumstances and create harm or a reasonable fear of harm.
For example, “disorder downtown” is too broad to guide a useful response. A more workable problem might be repeated late-night assaults outside two bars on weekends, or recurring thefts from vehicles in a particular parking area. A clear definition helps an agency decide what information to collect and how to tell whether conditions change.
Police may identify candidate problems through calls for service, incident reports, repeat addresses, officer observations, and community meetings. Residents, merchants, schools, service providers, and other local organizations can also raise concerns that are not fully reflected in police data. A useful scanning process considers both official records and what affected people experience.
Teams often prioritize problems based on their seriousness, frequency, harm, community concern, and the likelihood that practical action can help. They should also check whether an apparent pattern is real. A rise in reported incidents, for instance, may reflect an increase in reporting rather than an increase in underlying events.
Analysis: Find the Causes and Patterns
Analysis is often the most demanding stage. The team gathers and examines information to understand the problem’s scale, location, timing, victims, people causing harm, and surrounding conditions. The goal is not merely to describe what happened, but to develop a credible explanation of why it keeps happening.
Useful sources can include calls for service, incident reports, dispatch records, site visits, interviews, environmental observations, and data from partner organizations. Depending on the problem, a team might map events, compare weekdays with weekends, review lighting or access, examine business practices, or study the sequence of events before an incident. Data should be handled lawfully and with attention to privacy and accuracy.
A common organizing tool is the crime triangle, which considers the relationship among a potential offender, a suitable target or victim, and a place where an incident can occur. It can help teams look beyond the person who committed an offense to the opportunities and settings that make repeated incidents possible. The analysis may also consider guardianship, management, routine activities, and barriers to informal supervision.
For example, repeated thefts in a parking lot might be associated with a particular row of poorly lit spaces, vehicles left unlocked, limited visibility from nearby buildings, and predictable periods with few people present. If evidence supports that explanation, simply adding patrols may be less effective than changing access, improving sightlines, increasing natural surveillance, and informing vehicle owners. The actual response should depend on the findings, not assumptions.
Good analysis also identifies who is affected and how. A problem can impose different risks on residents, workers, visitors, or people experiencing homelessness. Community input helps test whether police records capture the full impact and can reveal consequences that raw counts do not show. The team should distinguish established facts from hypotheses that require more investigation.
Response: Select and Implement a Tailored Strategy
Response means choosing and carrying out actions that address the causes identified during analysis. The response should be linked to the evidence and may involve police, community members, property owners, local government, schools, health services, or other partners. It does not have to rely solely on enforcement.
Possible strategies include focused patrol, problem-specific investigations, improved lighting, changes to building or parking-lot design, revised business practices, better access control, conflict mediation, environmental cleanup, or connections to social and health services. Some problems may require a combination of measures. The choice should reflect the legal authority, resources, likely benefits, and possible risks of each option.
A response plan should specify who will do what, where, and when. It should also set a realistic schedule, identify needed resources, and establish how implementation will be tracked. If several organizations are involved, clear roles and regular communication can prevent gaps or duplicated effort.
Problem-oriented policing is not synonymous with aggressive enforcement or a particular technology. A strategy can include enforcement when evidence and law support it, but an agency should consider whether enforcement alone will reduce the conditions that produce repeat incidents. Responses should respect civil rights, avoid unjustified burdens on particular communities, and be proportionate to the problem.
Assessment: Measure Results and Adjust
Assessment examines whether the response was implemented and whether the problem changed. Before acting, teams should identify what success would look like and establish a baseline when feasible. Measures might include reported incidents, calls for service, repeat victimization, injuries, community perceptions, or conditions at a problem location.
No single measure tells the whole story. A reduction in police reports could indicate fewer incidents, but it could also reflect reduced reporting or a change in recording practices. A thorough assessment considers multiple indicators and checks whether the response was delivered as planned. It should also look for displacement, such as incidents moving to nearby streets or different times, and for diffusion of benefits to adjacent areas.
Assessment is not just a final score. If the response did not work, the team can ask whether the analysis missed a cause, implementation was incomplete, or the strategy was a poor fit. If conditions improved, the team can consider whether the change is sustained and what practices may be worth continuing. Sharing results with residents and partner agencies supports transparency and future problem solving.
Example: Applying SARA to Repeated Retail Theft
Suppose a shopping district reports recurring thefts at several small stores. During Scanning, police and business owners define the issue more precisely: repeated thefts of specific goods at a small group of stores during predictable busy periods. They confirm that the concern is more than a few unrelated reports and identify the impact on employees and businesses.
During Analysis, the team reviews incident timing, store layouts, staffing, product placement, and how suspects leave the area. Interviews and site visits may reveal that high-value items are displayed near exits, employees have limited visibility during rushes, and stores share information inconsistently. Those findings provide a basis for considering changes rather than assuming that more patrol is the only answer.
For the Response, participating stores might adjust displays, improve sightlines, train staff in safe reporting practices, and share timely descriptions of recurring methods through lawful channels. Police could coordinate targeted follow-up based on evidence, while business partners track changes in prevention practices. Any enforcement should follow applicable law and agency policy.
During Assessment, the team compares theft reports and other relevant indicators with the baseline, checks whether stores adopted the planned measures, and asks employees whether the situation has changed. It also checks for movement to other businesses or nearby locations. Results determine whether to sustain, revise, or discontinue parts of the response.
Why Agencies Use SARA
SARA gives agencies a shared structure for moving from a general complaint to a testable plan. It can help focus limited resources on persistent problems, encourage coordination with people who have relevant knowledge, and make the reasoning behind an intervention more explicit. It also creates a point at which agencies can evaluate whether an approach is working rather than assuming that activity equals success.
The model supports accountability when teams document the problem, evidence, chosen response, and results. This record can help supervisors and community partners understand why a strategy was selected and what was learned. It can also help an agency distinguish an effective intervention from one that merely produces visible activity.
However, using the SARA labels does not guarantee effective problem solving. A weak analysis can lead to a poorly targeted response; inadequate follow-through can prevent a sound strategy from being implemented; and limited assessment can make results difficult to interpret. SARA is a framework for disciplined inquiry, not a shortcut around it.
Common Challenges and Good Practices
- Defining the problem too broadly: Narrow the issue by location, time, behavior, affected people, and repeat pattern.
- Jumping to a familiar response: Complete enough analysis to explain the problem before choosing a tactic.
- Relying on one data source: Compare police records with observations and community or partner input where appropriate.
- Confusing activity with results: Track outcomes, not just arrests, patrol hours, meetings, or equipment installed.
- Ignoring unintended effects: Check for displacement, unequal burdens, privacy concerns, and changes in community trust.
- Ending without feedback: Share findings with affected people and use lessons to refine future work.
Strong SARA projects use clear definitions, reliable information, realistic measures, and meaningful collaboration. They also document uncertainty: if the evidence does not establish a cause, the team should avoid presenting a theory as fact. Where a response could affect rights or access to public space, agencies should consider legal requirements, fairness, and community impact throughout the process.
SARA and Problem-Oriented Policing
SARA is commonly taught as a problem-solving model within problem-oriented policing, but the terms are not interchangeable. Problem-oriented policing is the broader approach: it calls for careful study of recurring problems and tailored responses. SARA is one widely used framework for organizing that work. Agencies may use other methods or adapt SARA to fit local needs.
The model is also distinct from simply responding to calls as they arrive. Routine response remains necessary, but SARA encourages police to examine whether repeated incidents share causes that can be changed. It emphasizes learning and prevention alongside the handling of individual events.
For additional background, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services provides resources on problem-oriented policing. The Center for Problem-Oriented Policing explains the SARA model and offers guides for analyzing specific problems. Herman Goldstein’s work on problem-oriented policing is a foundational source for the approach.
Frequently Asked Questions About the SARA Model
What does SARA stand for in policing?
SARA stands for Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment. The stages help police and partners identify a recurring problem, investigate its causes, take a targeted action, and evaluate the results.
Is SARA a type of policing?
SARA is best understood as a problem-solving framework used in problem-oriented policing, not as a complete policing philosophy or a specific enforcement tactic. It can organize work on many types of recurring public-safety problems.
Does SARA always require an arrest?
No. A response may include lawful enforcement when appropriate, but it can also involve environmental changes, prevention, community partnerships, or services. The response should follow the analysis and comply with legal and policy requirements.
Why is assessment important?
Assessment helps determine whether a response reduced harm, whether it was implemented as intended, and whether problems shifted elsewhere. Without it, an agency cannot reliably distinguish an effective strategy from one that simply generated activity.