Analysis

Once problems have been scanned, prioritised and stakeholders identified, the next stage is to carry out a more rigorous analysis of the selected problem. Although a comprehensive analysis of the local problem is critical to the success of a problem solving effort, many people essentially skip the analysis phase of the SARA model. However, effective, tailor-made responses cannot be developed unless you know the factors that are contributing to the problem. The analysis stage is omitted for a variety of reasons including:

• The nature of the problem mistakenly appears obvious at first glance

• There may be tremendous pressure to solve the problem immediately

• The pressure of responding to individual incidents does not seem to allow time for detailed inquiries into the nature of the problem

• Investigating or researching the problem does not seem like "real" work

• A strong commitment to the old way of viewing and handling problems prevents potential problem solvers from looking at those problems in new and different ways.

Despite these pressures and perceptions, problem solvers must resist the urge to skip the analysis phase, or risk implementing solutions that are ineffective in the long run.

The first step in analysis is to determine what information is needed. This should be a broad inquiry, uninhibited by past perspectives. Questions should be asked whether or not answers can be obtained. The openness and persistent probing associated with such an inquiry is not unlike the approach that an experienced investigator would take in solving a puzzling crime; reaching out in all directions, digging deeply, asking the right questions. Invited to participate in such an exercise, groups of experienced police and other partners will pose a wide range of appropriate questions. They will also acknowledge that, except for some hunches, they usually do not have the answers to the questions they pose.

A number of simple questions should guide the analysis stage:

• Can we group any information into themes?

• How can we explain the emerging themes?

• Do we understand how or why the problem has occurred and what is driving it?

• Do we know of any past attempts to solve it (in force or elsewhere)?

• Did such attempts succeed and if not, why not?

It is important to consider the problem from different perspectives during analysis. A simple model to assist in doing this is the Problem Analysis Triangle, or PAT. This specifies that three elements are required to constitute a crime or disorder problem: an offender, a victim, and a location.

Image to go here

As part of the analysis phase, it is important to find out as much as possible about all three elements of the triangle. One way to start is by asking for each element of the triangle: "Who? What? When? Where? How? Why? And Why not?"

With regard to the victim/target side of the triangle, research into crime on public transport has shown that a small number of victims and targets account for a large amount of incidents. For example, one study by Levine and Wachs (1986), involving a household survey, reported that of the 108 respondents who had been victims of bus-related crime, twenty-four had been victimised twice, eight had been victimised three times and two had been the victim in six incidents. Similarly, Rose (1979) found when studying assaults on the London Underground that some employees had reported three or more assaults in the study period, significantly more than their work-mates. Finally, Sturman’s (1980) study of vandalism to double-decker buses found the damage to all types of buses was targeted on the upper decks and the back seats. As these studies suggest, effective interventions targeted at repeat victims and repeat targets have the potential to significantly reduce crime.

A fresh look at offenders is critical to a problem solving effort. In the past, much emphasis has been placed on identifying and apprehending offenders. While this can reduce a specific crime problem, particularly if the apprehended offenders account for a large share of the problem, the reduction is often temporary, as new offenders replace the original offenders. The problem of replacement offenders is particularly acute in moneymaking activities such as drug sales, robbery, prostitution, etc. For this reason, problem solvers have found it helpful to learn more about why offenders are attracted to certain victims and places, what specifically they gain by offending and what if anything could prevent or reduce their rates of offending.

It is equally important to analyse the location side of the triangle. Research in the public transport environment suggests that certain locations account for a significant amount of all criminal activity. For example, a study by the Department of Transport (1986) of crime on the London Underground revealed that that fifty per cent of all recorded robberies occurred at 25 of the 274 stations.

An analysis of these locations may indicate why they are so conducive to particular incidents/crime and point to ways in which they can be altered to inhibit offenders and protect victims. Altering the location through improved security or design measures can often lead to a long-term, more comprehensive solution.