Crime Prevention
Crime Prevention
Introduction
There are numerous theoretical approaches used in developing crime prevention strategies. Whereas some theoretical frameworks are highly effective, others are complex and require extensive resources. The S.A.R.A model and the “Broken Windows” concept are two of the most outstanding theories for crime prevention. They comprise of different components that are vital in terms of enhancing crime prevention plans. This paper seeks to examine the different attributes of both models while also assessing them in line with community oriented policing practices.
Broken Windows Concept
This concept stipulates that maintaining adequate social standards in urban neighborhoods is an essential pillar for crime prevention. This theory is based on an analogy of a building with broken windows. Failure to replace or repair the broken windows only serves to encourage further breakages. This analogy implies that negligence breeds negligence (Hughes, 2002). This also applies to crime prevention in the society. Instances of vandalism and petty crime should be mitigated in order to prevent serious offences.
The escalation of criminal activities occurs when authorities fail to deal with urban disorders and petty crimes (Arrington, 2006). Consequently, authorities must deal with criminal activities in order to avert potential reoccurrence. Current community policing practices conform to this theory. Law enforcement officers seek to address security problems as soon as they arise. This is helpful in preventing the escalation of criminal activities in the community. This aligns with the fundamental tenets of the broken windows concept.
The SARA Model
In contrast to the broken windows concept, the SARA model of crime prevention comprises of four components. Scanning serves as the first component of the SARA model. This component involves the identification of the most persistent challenges as pertains to security. After identifying the challenges, the next step in the scanning phase is the determination of the implications of each challenge. This then forms the basis of setting the right priorities. For each priority, it is essential to identify the appropriate goals.
Analysis is the second component of the SARA model (Hughes, 2002). This component facilitates for data collection and identification of potential alternatives for handling the problem. Additionally, the analytical framework of the SARA model comprises of hypothesis formulation. The third component is the response. This comprises of deliberations as pertains to the applicability of the available alternatives. After such deliberations, the next step is the identification of the most effective alternative. This is then followed by a comprehensive implementation framework of the best alternative.
Assessment is the final component of the assessment (Arrington, 2006). This component helps in establishing whether the implementation framework was effective. It also facilitates for the evaluation of the different shortcomings and benefits of the plan. Consequently, it is possible to develop an effective framework for improving the original plan. As with the broken windows concept, this model also influences current community policing practices. Law enforcement personnel use a systematic approach towards identifying the most appropriate strategies for crime prevention. The systematic analysis is helpful determining the most efficient alternatives.
Conclusion
This paper assesses the SARA and broken windows concepts. Both represent exemplary models for alleviating and controlling crime in the society. Consequently, they are essential components of community policing. The broken windows concept discourages negligence in crime prevention. On the other hand, the SARA model emphasizes on a systematic approach towards alleviating crime in the community. The implementation of these models can help immensely towards mitigating criminal activities in the community.
References
Arrington, R. (2006). Crime prevention: The law enforcement officer’s practical guide. Sudbury. MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning
Hughes, G. & McLaughlin, E. (2002). Crime prevention and community safety: New directions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications
Is this your assignment or some part of it?
We can do it for you! Click to Order!
