untitled document contents not everybody's business … · untitled document 2011/04/04 12:30...

2011/04/04 12:30 PMUntitled Document

of 48http://www.issafrica.org/pubs/Monographs/No71/Mono71full.html

CONTENTS

NOT EVERYBODY'S BUSINESS

COMMUNITY POLICING IN THE SAPS' PRIORITY AREAS

Eric Pelser, Johann Schnetler & Antoinette Louw

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

AUTHORS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CHAPTER 1Introduction

CHAPTER 2Methodology

CHAPTER 3South Africa's changing community policing policy

CHAPTER 4Implementation of the community policing policy

CHAPTER 5Effectiveness of policy implementation: the practitioner's view

CHAPTER 6Impact of the community policing policy: the SAPS' view

CHAPTER 7Public perceptions of policing in the SAPS' priority Areas

CHAPTER 8 The public reach of the community police forums

CHAPTER 9 Police service in the priority areas

http://www.issafrica.org/pubs/Monographs/No71/Acknowledgements.html

http://www.issafrica.org/pubs/Monographs/No71/ListofTables.html

http://www.issafrica.org/pubs/Monographs/No71/Figures.html

http://www.issafrica.org/pubs/Monographs/No71/Authors.html

http://www.issafrica.org/pubs/Monographs/No71/ExecSum.html

http://www.issafrica.org/pubs/Monographs/No71/Chap1.html










CHAPTER 10Conclusion

NOTES

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This monograph is funded by the European Union, USAID, the US Embassy, Ford Foundation and Standard Bank, forthe ISS' criminal justice monitor project.

The authors gratefully acknowledge the various contributions made by the individuals and organisations below, withoutwhom this study could not have been written.

The British Government's Department for International Development.

The South African Police Service's Assistant Commissioner George Moorcroft and Director Wessel van derWesthuizen.

Aki Stavrou, Lizette Meyer, Patrick Burton and the field-team leaders and field-workers of DRA-Development,who conducted the fieldwork in sometimes challenging conditions on time and within budget.

The many police officers, representatives of the provincial Departments for Public Safety and members of theCommunity Police Forums and Area and Provincial Boards who gave so much time and responded so sincerely tothe questionnaires.

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1Police stations and area offices selected for the study

TABLE 2 Police station and area office respondents

TABLE 3 Number of respondents in each province

TABLE 4 Gender of respondents

TABLE 5 Race of respondents


http://www.issafrica.org/pubs/Monographs/No71/Acknowledgements.html

http://www.issafrica.org/pubs/Monographs/No71/ListofTables.html

http://www.issafrica.org/pubs/Monographs/No71/Chap2.html#Anchor-Table-36190





TABLE 6 The development of community policing policy, 1993 – 1999

TABLE 7 The meaning of community policing

TABLE 8 The purpose of partnership between the police and the community

TABLE 9 CPF activities

TABLE 10Has enough been done to ensure effective implementation of the policy?

TABLE 11Does the structure of the SAPSassist local police responsiveness?

TABLE 12 Is the support provided from the supervisory level above you sufficient?

TABLE 13 Should specific regulations be published for the CPFs?

TABLE 14 Victimisation in the priority areas

TABLE 15 The public's view of what the police should do to improve public confidence

TABLE 16 Public knowledge of the functions of the CPF

TABLE 17Public expectations when entering a police station or reporting a crime

TABLE 18 Treatment of complainants in the police station

TABLE 19 For those who reported a crime, did the police...

TABLE 20Did the police tell those reporting a crime that...

TABLE 21Extent of police follow-up with complainant before an arrest (follow-up survey)

TABLE 22




http://www.issafrica.org/pubs/Monographs/No71/Chap5.html#Anchor-23110














Extent of police follow-up with complainant after an arrest (follow-up survey)

TABLE 23What should the police do to improve their service at the station?

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1Public perceptions of crime in areas of residence: 1996 – 2000

FIGURE 2 Public perceptions of policing

FIGURE 3 Public confidence in the police

FIGURE 4 Public awareness of the CPFs

FIGURE 5 Public awareness of the CPFs

FIGURE 6 Public awareness of a CPF functioning in area of residence

FIGURE 7 Public knowledge of CPF projects in area of residence

FIGURE 8 Public support for participation in community safety projects

FIGURE 9 Public participation in CPF activities

FIGURE 10 The public reach of the CPFs

FIGURE 11 Primary source of information on CPF and activities

FIGURE 12 Reason for visiting the police station, exit poll

FIGURE 13 Nature of dockets sampled in the follow-up survey

FIGURE 14 Time taken before the phone was answered at the police station, follow-up survey

FIGURE 15


http://www.issafrica.org/pubs/Monographs/No71/Figures.html


http://www.issafrica.org/pubs/Monographs/No71/Chap8.html#Anchor-Figure-29294













The declining number of complainants who were kept informed about their case

AUTHORS

Eric Pelser is a senior researcher at the Crime and Justice Programme of the ISS. Before joining theInstitute in October 1999, Eric worked in the Department of Safety and Security, first in the new SouthAfrican Police Service and then, for the next three years, in the Policy Planning Division of the NationalSecretariat for Safety and Security. He holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of SouthAfrica and a Master's degree in Public and Development Management from the University of theWitwatersrand.

Johann Schnetler (BA Hons (Philosophy), Mth) is the head of the Research Section within the StrategicManagement Component of the South African Police Service. He is responsible, among others, for theco-ordinating and facilitating of all research in the SAPS, the compilation of a National Strategic Planand the evaluation of services.

Antoinette Louw is head of the Crime and Justice Programme at the ISS. She has been researchingcrime, violence and criminal justice in South Africa since 1991 when she joined the Centre for Socialand Development Studies at the University of Natal. Since 1997 when she joined the ISS, her work inthe policy research field has covered victimisation surveys, crime prevention policy and practice,policing, and public perceptions of justice and safety. Antoinette has an MA in political studies from theUniversity of Natal.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background

This study is intended to describe and assess the implementation of South Africa's community policing policy. It is basedon research, conducted between 22 August and 15 October 2000, commissioned by the British Department forInternational Development for the South African Police Service (SAPS), and is published with the kind permission of theSAPS. The research started with a detailed scan of the legislation, policy and other documents relevant to the developmentand implementation of community policing in South Africa. Next followed a series of interviews with senior policemanagement and community policing practitioners in all the nine provinces, 32 SAPS area command structures and withpersonnel at 45 police stations selected from the 219 SAPS' priority police stations. In addition to the police andpractitioner interviews, three public opinion surveys were conducted. These consisted of:

a general community perception survey in which 13 659 respondents residing within a 10 km radius of the 45selected police stations were interviewed;

an exit poll in which 2 286 people who had been into one of the 45 selected police stations were questioned as theyleft the police station; and

a follow-up survey in which 1 361 people who had reported an incident to one of the 45 selected police stationswithin a 3-month time period were questioned about the quality of service they had received from the police.

The study provides a representative analysis of the implementation of community policing in the SAPS priority areas.However, the diversity in the range of the areas and police stations accessed in the study (urban and rural, advantagedand disadvantaged) together with the fact that there was significant input from provincial role-players, means that theissues raised in the monograph may well be relevant to the implementation of community policing across the country.

Key findings

The policy guiding the implementation of community policing in South Africa has, while consistently focusing on the

http://www.issafrica.org/pubs/Monographs/No71/Authors.html

http://www.issafrica.org/pubs/Monographs/No71/ExecSum.html



functions of the Community Policing Forums (CPFs), substantially shifted in emphasis in the course of the past eightyears.

Initially focusing on oversight of the police, the objectives of the policy have moved through a focus on relationship-building and the creation of 'partnerships' to help improve police services towards a much greater concentration oncommunity mobilisation for social crime prevention.

However, the CPFs have a very limited public reach, and cannot be considered representative of the communities in whichthey function. Further, as CPF practitioners do not appear to engage with their core functions in the manner outlined inthe policy and legislation, the CPFs are, in their current form and functioning, poorly placed to engage meaningfully inlocal safety, security and policing issues.

This is mostly attributable to the continuing lack of practical and systematic support from the state; support that isrequired by legislation.

Therefore, implementation of the changing policy has not been effective in relation to its common core goals, which are:ensuring wide-ranging input on community needs and priorities, improving police responsiveness to these needs, anddeveloping a common sense of public responsibility towards, and capacity for, addressing crime.

Public safety, security and policing in the SAPS priority areas therefore remain a long way away from being seen as acommon responsibility, or everybody's business. They remain, in the perceptions of the general public, still very much'police business'.

The public in the SAPS priority areas, many of whom have been victims of crime, are generally sceptical of theeffectiveness of the police, concerned about police corruption, and not particularly enthusiastic about general interactionwith the police. Members of the public either believe that crime in their areas of residence has increased over the past fouryears, or that the police have made little significant impact on criminal activity. They also believe that the quality ofpolicing in these areas has not changed perceptibly, or that it has become worse over the past four years; therefore theyremain ambivalent regarding the police.

Despite these general perceptions, the majority of those members of the public who sought and received police serviceswere satisfied with them. This positive response was attributed to the professional, supportive and prompt service theyreceived from the police.

The difference between the negative general public perceptions and the positive perceptions of people who had directcontact with the police is indicative of the extent to which external factors, about which the police can do little, caninfluence attitudes. These factors include standards of living, access to other government services, access to information,media reporting, interpersonal communication and general perceptions of governance, and of safety.

Indeed, the research shows that most of the police in the community safety centres (or charge offices) in the priority policestation areas are doing well. They are meeting the relatively high expectations of those who need their services and are,therefore, generating high levels of client satisfaction at least in the initial stages of the processing of cases.

More important for this study, it is difficult to attribute the satisfaction of those who received police services to theimplementation of the community policing policy. This is because, firstly, implementation of the policy has not beeneffective in terms of its primary focus, the functions of the CPFs; and, secondly, no data exists by which to comparecurrent police services and public perceptions with those that pertained prior to the implementation of the policy.

What has been established, however, is that together with a range of other measures associated with the country'sdemocratisation, the policy has succeeded in opening a previously closed organisation to greater public scrutiny, study andinteraction. It is this, as well as the political emphasis over the past three to four years on improving service delivery in allgovernment departments, to which one may more plausibly attribute improvements to basic police services.

CHAPTER 1Introduction

As indicated by a number of commentators, 'community policing' can mean different things to different people.1 So, formore conservative policy-makers, the phrase is likely to mean 'policing the community', that is, law enforcement to keep




the community safe, while for the more liberal, the phrase is likely to mean 'policing with the community'—that is,problem-solving to help communities to keep themselves safe.

Although these understandings imply very different policing approaches and strategies, all may relate to communitypolicing. As William Lyons puts it: "...the conceptual foundations of community policing range from nostalgic images [ofthe police and of communities], to management strategies, to visions of communities strong enough to police themselves".2

Such conceptual vagueness helps explain the popularity of the concept in recent discourse on police transformation.Indeed, a local analyst has attributed this popularity to the 'seductive quality' of its core tenets.3

What are these core tenets? Clifford Shearing provides a succint analysis:

The first is a change in definition of the police from a 'force' to a 'service'. An important expression of this changehas been the development of 'consultative forums' designed to permit communities to make their policing concernsknown to the police and to provide a vehicle for holding the police accountable to them.

Second, is the reconception of the police as people who enable communities to solve their own problems rather thanas people who solve problems on their own. Policing for the state police has become 'everybody's business' ratherthan simply 'police business'.4

This summary will no doubt resonate for South African readers. The 1993 Interim Constitution enabled the establishmentof Community Police Forums at South Africa's police stations and, shortly after the first democratic elections in 1994, thethen South African Police changed its name to the South African Police Service (SAPS). These were the first steps towardsthe development and implementation of South Africa's community policing policy.

Since then, this policy has been articulated in the South African Police Service Act (No. 68 of 1995) and, in 1996, it wasdetailed in a dedicated policy document of the Department of Safety and Security.

This monograph is intended to describe and assess the implementation of this policy.

CHAPTER 2Methodology

Research design

The research conducted for this study was designed to provide answers to two questions:

How has the Department of Safety and Security's community policing policy been implemented in the SAPS'priority areas?

What effect, if any, has implementation of the policy had on the police and those they serve in the priority areas?

The research was conducted between 22 August and 15 October 2000. Starting with a detailed scan of the legislation,policy and other documents relevant to the development and implementation of community policing in South Africa, theresearch continued with a series of interviews with police management and CPF practitioners at the provincial, area andpolice station levels.5 At the provincial level, 56 structured face-to-face interviews were conducted in each province with:

the provincial Commissioners;the provincial Heads of Crime Prevention;the provincial Heads of Detectives;the provincial Community Policing Co-ordinators;the provincial Service Delivery Improvement Programme Facilitators;the chairpersons of the Provincial Community Policing Board; andthe heads of the provincial Department for Safety and Security or Liaison (the secretariats).




These interviews were conducted with the counterparts of the provincial SAPS and CPF respondents at 45 police stationsspread over all the provinces, and the 32 area offices these stations report to.

The 45 stations were selected via a two-stage multi-level cluster sampling technique. This was based on the number ofprovincial priority stations as a proportion of the total priority stations; the nine priority stations identified by the Officeof the President (one per province); and the rank of the station commissioner—which, given the formula used by the SAPSto determine the appropriate rank of a station commissioner, serves as a proxy for the size of the station and as a proxyfor population density.

The 45 police stations report to 32 area management offices, which were automatically selected following the identificationof the stations to be studied.

Table 1 indicates the stations selected for the study and the area offices to which they report.

Table 1: Police stations and area offices selected for the study

KwaZulu-Natal Free State Gauteng

16 stations – 4 Areas 7 stations – 3 Areas 6 stations – 5 AreasNqutu – Ulundi Park Road – Southern FS Alexandra – JHBC.R. Swart – Durban Botshabelo – Southern FS JHB Central – JHBMtubatuba – Umfolozi Thabang* – Northern FS Brooklyn – PretoriaInanda* – Durban Meloding – Northern FS Katlehong* – East RandAmanzimtoti – Durban Bethlehem – Eastern FS Benoni – North RandPort Shepstone –Umzimkulu

Phuthaditjhaba – Eastern FS Orlando – Soweto

Ficksburg - Eastern FS

Eastern Cape Western Cape Northern Cape

8 stations – 5 Areas 5 stations – 4 Areas 2 stations – 2 AreasIdutywa – Gugulethu – Upington – GordoniaQueenstown West Metropole Galeshewe* –Tsolo* – Umtata Mitchell's Plain* – Diamond FieldUmtata – Umtata West MetropoleKamesh – Uitenhage Delft – East MetropoleEast London – EastLondon

Worcester – BolandKnysna – Southern Cape

Bisho – East LondonMotherwell – P. ElizabethWalmer – P. Elizabeth

Mpumalanga Northern Province North West

3 stations – 3 Areas 4 stations – 3 Areas 4 stations – 3 AreasEmbalenhle – Warm Baths – Bushveld GaRankuwa – MaricoEast Highveld Pietersburg – Central Mogwase – MaricoKanyamanzane* – Nebo – Central Mafikeng* – MolopoLowveld Thohoyandou* –Far North Klerksdorp – Mooi RiverWitbank – Highveld(* indicates a Presidential priority station)



Table 2: Police station and area office respondents

Police station Area office

The Station Commissioner The Area CommissionerThe Head of Crime Prevention The Area Head of Crime PreventionThe Head of Detectives The Area Head of DetectivesThe Community Policing Co-ordinator The Community Policing Co-ordinatorsThe Service Delivery Improvement The Service Delivery ImprovementProgramme Facilitators Programme FacilitatorsThe Chairperson of the local CPF The Chairpersons CPF Area Board

270 interviewsscheduled – 229conducted

198 interviewsscheduled – 169conducted

The small deficits in reaching the target number of interviews are attributable to a range of factors. These included:

Personnel were in the process of being appointed to some of the relevant posts. The field teams sometimes foundthat a particular officer had left, or had been promoted out of a position, and that a replacement had not yet beenappointed.

The officer was away on sick or study leave.

The functions of the Service Delivery Improvement Programme (SDIP) facilitator and the Community Police Co-ordinator were shared by a single officer in some instances. He or she would obviously be interviewed only once.

Interviewees were sometimes unavailable or were called out of interviews because of operational duties.

Some CPF representatives did not make themselves available during the time the field teams were in theirlocalities, often because the chairperson of the CPF was away. In some instances the CPF was dysfunctional andwithout leadership.

In addition to interviewing police officers and members of the CPFs, three public surveys were conducted. These consistedof:

a general community perception survey, in which 13 659 respondents residing within a 10km radius of the 45selected police stations were interviewed;

an exit poll, in which 2 286 people who had been into one of the 45 selected police stations were questioned as theyleft the police station; and

a follow-up survey, in which 1 361 people who had reported an incident to one of the 45 selected police stationswithin a 3-month time period were interviewed. Thirty dockets were randomly selected from those available ateach of the selected police stations, and the complainants in those dockets were contacted either by telephone or, ininstances where a selected complainant did not have a telephone, at home.

Demographic detail of the community surveys is outlined in the following tables.



Table 3: Number of respondents in each province

Community survey Exit poll Follow-up survey

n % n % n %Eastern Cape 2 419 18 401 18 241 18Free State 2 134 16 361 16 240 18Gauteng 1 842 14 311 14 184 14KZN 1 835 13 301 13 181 13Western Cape 1 500 11 248 11 150 11Northern Province 1 205 9 201 9 118 9North West 1 195 9 208 9 96 7Mpumalanga 927 7 155 7 91 7Northern Cape 602 4 100 4 60 4

Total 13 659 100 2 286 100 1 361 100

Table 4: Gender of respondents


n % n % n %Male 7 386 54 1 234 54 780 58Female 6 255 46 1 046 46 575 42

Total 13 641 100 2 280 100 1 355 100

Table 5: Race of respondents


n % n % n %African 10 545 77 1 814 80 919 68

White 1 519 11 196 9 264 20

Coloured 1 319 10 248 11 145 11Indian 255 2 25 1 23 2

Total 13 638 100 2 283 100 1 351 100



Limitations of the methodology

This methodology is limited by two factors.

First, the decision made by the SAPS to focus the study on a sample drawn only from the priority station areas.The priority stations themselves were selected because they record high crime rates or because they fall within oneof the communities targeted by the Presidential Urban Renewal Initiative. This means that these stations are likelyto have been the focus of dedicated attention from police management for some time. Further, because of the crimerate and the attention from police management, SAPS personnel in these stations are likely to face greater pressureto deliver a quality service to the public than personnel in those stations not affected by such serious rates of crime.Further, community role-players in these areas are also more likely to be actively engaged in issues of crime andpolicing.

Second, the research focused on the views about community policing and service delivery of the primary role-players and, in the community surveys, on public perceptions of the police. It is therefore possible that respondents'perceptions may present a picture that is either better, or worse, than the reality.

These two factors limit the ability to generalise the results of the research.

However, the study does provide a representative analysis of the implementation of community policing, the views of theprimary practitioners on that implementation, as well as the views of the public on police services in the priority stationareas. Also, given the diverse range of areas and police stations accessed in the study—and the fact that there wassignificant input from provincial role-players, the issues raised in the monograph may well have relevance for theimplementation of community policing across the country.

CHAPTER 3South Africa's changing community policing policy

Policy

The policy which guides the implementation of community policing in South Africa has, while consistently focusing on thefunctions of the CPFs, substantially shifted in emphasis in the course of the past eight years. The development of the policyis outlined below.6

The first formal reference to community policing, as the prescribed approach, style or methodology for policing indemocratic South Africa, is found in the Interim Constitution, Act 200 of 1993. In Section 221 (1) and (2) the InterimConstitution directed that an Act of Parliament was to "provide for the establishment of community-police forums inrespect of police stations", the functions of which would include:

the promotion of the accountability of the Service to local communities and co-operation of communities with theservice;

the monitoring of the effectiveness and efficiency of the Service;

advising the Service regarding local policing priorities;

the evaluation of the provision of visible policing services, including:the provision, siting and staffing of police stations;the reception and processing of complaints and charges;the provision of protective services at gatherings;the patrolling of residential and business areas; andthe prosecution of offenders; and




requesting enquiries into policing matters in the locality concerned.

The oversight role made explicit here in the emphasis on setting priorities with the police, and monitoring and evaluatingthe police, suggests a greater public influence in policing matters than in many other models of community policing.

This oversight role was enhanced in Section 222 of the Interim Constitution, which directed that the Act was to provide forthe establishment of an independent complaints mechanism to ensure that police misconduct could be investigated byobjective parties.

Thus the political imperative informing community policing was one of accountability. The police were to be legitimised byenhancing public oversight generally, and particularly by enhancing interaction, consultation and accountability at policestation level.

This emphasis on accountability was continued with the publication of the new government's first formal policy statementon safety and security in mid-1994—the Minister's draft policy document entitled "Change". This placed particularemphasis on the democratic control of the police service, and community involvement in safety and security issues.

In advocating greater democratic accountability, the policy statement also addressed the inter-related issues ofdemilitarisation, decentralisation and community consultation. In doing so, it contextualised the transformation of thepolice service within the ambit of community policing. As the new Minister put it, community policing "... must be madeto permeate every aspect and level of policing".

Despite this emphasis, it is precisely this aspect of fundamental transformation of the manner in which policing isstructured, organised and acted out that has arguably received the least attention.

The principles described above were legislated for in the South African Police Service Act of 1995, which formalised therationalisation and amalgamation of the 11 existing police agencies into a single national SAPS with a single commandstructure. The Act formally established a civilian Secretariat for Safety and Security with oversight and monitoringfunctions and created the Independent Complaints Directorate envisaged by the Interim Constitution. It also formallyestablished and detailed the functioning of the Community Police Forums (CPFs). In doing so, the Act contained the firstshift in focus for the CPFs. Whereas in the Interim Constitution the oversight functions of local accountability, monitoringand evaluation for CPFs had been emphasised, the Act established the CPFs with liaison and communication functions.Indeed, the Act stressed that the CPFs were to function primarily to enable improved police-community liaison andcommunication. Specifically, the Act stipulated that such liaison was to focus on facilitating improved problem-solving andpromoting greater co-operation and police transparency and, through this, local accountability.

In a nutshell, the legislation directing the functions of the CPFs emphasised three key responsibilities:

"... (i) the improvement of police-community relations; (ii) the oversight of policing at local level; and (iii)the mobilization of the community to take joint responsibility in the fight against crime." 8

These responsibilities are dichotomous and, in fact, contradictory. The challenges this cluster of divergent tasks posed forthe practical functioning of the CPFs have been pointed out as follows:

"Is it reasonable to believe, for instance, that given the history of conflict between the police andcommunities, that a structure that was designed both to improve relations and oversee the police wouldsucceed in both functions. Is it plausible that in communities where police were perceived to be oppressorsand where the police believe that the most constructive crime prevention is police-led, that many membersof the community would willingly give of their time and resources to assist the police in fighting crime?" 9

To add to this, one may ask whether it is plausible to believe that in other localities, those in which the police were morelikely to be given public support, people would care about oversight?

Nevertheless, the Act made it the responsibility of the police, particularly the station, area and provincial Commissioners,to establish CPFs at police stations, and area and provincial boards.

However, Cabinet approval and the publication in May 1996 of South Africa's National Crime Prevention Strategy(NCPS), which defined crime as a multi-dimensional social issue rather than a one-dimensional security issue, again



shifted thinking as to the function of the CPFs.

The NCPS acknowledged, amongst other things, that the state could not deal with crime alone. Hence it advocatedimproving public responsibility for reducing the high levels of crime through maximising public participation in crimereduction initiatives. It also advocated a multi-departmental approach to the prevention of crime, which entailed highlevels of co-operation and co-ordination of the activities of different government departments, as well as between the threespheres of government. In doing so, the NCPS aimed to provide the means by which the police, other governmentdepartments, the private sector and the non-governmental community (NGO) could integrate their activities. This put theidea of partnership firmly on the safety and security agenda.

The issue of partnership was taken up in greater detail when, in April 1997, the Department of Safety and Securitypublished its formal policy on community policing—the Community Policing Policy Framework and Guidelines.Developed through a consultative process over a three-year period, the Policy Framework defined community policing interms of a collaborative, partnership-based approach to local level problem solving.

The policy therefore articulated a shift in priorities from ensuring oversight and accountability to improving servicedelivery and encouraging participatory or partnership approaches to crime reduction.

Written to provide direction for police managers, the policy document detailed step-by-step guidelines for establishingCPFs, for change management, for demographic and local level crime analysis, for the development of partnerships andfor local level problem solving.

The Department of Public Service and Administration's Batho Pele White Paper on Transforming Public Service Deliveryalso emphasised client-focused public services and the setting of standards for this service. This was the first explicitexpression of community policing as a methodology for improving the service provided by the police.

The five core elements of community policing in South Africa were defined as:

Service orientation: the provision of a professional policing service, responsive to community needs andaccountable for addressing these needs;

Partnership: the facilitation of a co-operative, consultative process of problem solving;

Problem solving: the joint identification and analysis of the causes of crime and conflict and the development ofinnovative measures to address these;

Empowerment: the creation of joint responsibility and capacity for addressing crime; and

Accountability: the creation of a culture of accountability for addressing the needs and concerns of communities.10

The last of these was outlined primarily in terms of the functions of various structures like the National and ProvincialSecretariats, the Independent Complaints Directorate and the members of the Provincial Legislatures responsible forsafety and security (the MECs).

The Community Policing Policy Framework and Guidelines was distributed to all police training institutions and stations.Informative workshops with police officers, many sponsored by international donors and facilitated by NGOs, were heldthroughout the country. In addition, a colour comic book (entitled Safer Streets) which incorporated the CommunityPolicing Policy Framework and provided guidelines for the establishment and functioning of the CPFs was published bythe Department in all 11 languages, for use by CPF practitioners.

Shortly after this, however, the Department of Safety and Security published its White Paper—approved by Cabinet inSeptember 1998—which again shifted the role of the CPFs. Although affirming community policing as the appropriatemethodology for enhancing policing in South Africa, the White Paper explicitly provided for strengthening the capacity ofelected local government to 'supplement' the functions of the CPFs. This was to apply particularly in the areas ofdetermining local policing priorities, and crime prevention initiatives. The White Paper enhanced the shift in CPFfunctions towards greater collaboration with, and assistance to, the police.

Although implicitly downgrading some of the functions of the CPF, the White Paper sought to position these structures asa means of communication and liaison, to facilitate local government's new role in local level crime prevention. Inaddition, the White Paper advocated a review of the appropriateness of the policy and the manner of its implementation,



specifically as a means of providing "clearer guidelines for co-operation between local government and CPFs".11

In summary then, the major policy shifts affecting South Africa's community policing policy and, therefore, the CPFs, canbe tracked chronologically as follows:

An initial emphasis from 1993-1995 on oversight of the police, characterised by explicit monitoring and evaluationfunctions for the CPFs.

From 1995 to 1997, an emphasis on building relationships between the police and the community, characterised bya focus on liaison and communication functions for the CPFs.

In 1997, a clearer shift in the publication of the Departmental policy on community policing, which, building onkey elements of the NCPS, emphasised the establishment of problem solving partnerships to help improve policeservices and assist in reducing crime.

In 1998, the White Paper on Safety and Security directed the CPFs towards community mobilisation against crimeand other social crime prevention functions.

The shifts in policy affecting South Africa's community policing policy are presented in Table 6.

Table 6(a): The development of community policing policy, 1993 - 1999

1993 1994 1995 1995

InterimConstitution(Act 200 of

1993)

Minister's DraftPolicy

Document:Change

SAPS Act (No.68 of 1995)

NationalCrime

PreventionStrategy

Structured democraticoversight of the police

Cultural change: a new(civil) professionalism for

the SAPS

Structured liaison andconsultation betweenSAPS and those they

serve

Crime as a multi-faceted social issuerather than a one-

dimensional securityissue

Intention:addresspolitical

legitimacy ofpolice

Intention:address

acceptance ofpolicing in ademocracy

Intention:enhance policeand community

liaison toimprove

legitimacy ofpolice

Intention:focus andintegrate

governmentand civilsociety

initiatives toaddressprioritycrimes

Provides for CPFs andBoards with oversight

functions:

Advocates:

ldemocratic

Establishes CPFs withprimarily liaison and

communicationfunctions.

Provides for a co-ordinated and

integrated approachto priority crimes.



accountability,

monitoring,and

evaluation

accountability,

demilitarisation,

decentralisation,and

communityconsultation

"Philosophy ofcommunity policing mustinform and pervade the

entire organisation"

Such liaison to beabout:

partnership,

co-operation,

policeservices,

problemsolving,

transparency,&

accountability

Includes provision forCPF oversight

functions provided forin the 1993Constitution

Acknowledges thatthe state cannot

deal with crime onits own.

Advocates:!

maximisingcivilparticipationin crimepreventioninitiatives,and!

improvingcommunity

responsibility forthe prevention of

crime

Table 6(b): The development of community policing policy, 1993 - 1999

1997 1998 1999

Communitypolicing policyframework andguidelines

White Paperon Safety andSecurity

Focus onoperationsin priorityareas

Collaborative problemsolving

Participatory andcomplementary localcrime reduction

OperationCrackdown

Intention:establish broadpartnership withthe communityto improvepolice servicesand reducecrime

Intention:establishmulti-agencyapproach tocrimereduction atlocal level

Intention:addresscrime,enhancepoliceservicesand publicperceptionsin priorityareas

Details communitypolicing as a

Provides for asupplementary role

Unclear impacton objectives of



methodology for:

improvinglocal policeservices,

participatoryproblemsolving, and!

crimereduction

Details method forestablishing CPFs and

main functions andactivities

for local governmenton core CPF

functions:

DirectsCPFs toco-operativerelationshipwith localgovernmentin crimesocialprevention

Shifts CPFcommunityrole tocommunitymobilisation

communitypolicing

Batho Pele________________________________SDIPPublic Service Regulations

access and consultation

client-focused public service

service improvements standards

As indicated in Table 6, it is not clear what the implementation, since mid-2000, of the SAPS' three-year strategy, willhave on the CPFs. This strategy aims broadly at reducing or stabilising crime in the prioritised areas to the extent thatstation level policing can be 'normalised' and effective. It also aims to improve public confidence in the police and publicperceptions of safety. However, it omits detail on the role, if any, envisaged for the CPFs. Given the content of the recentlypublished Interim Regulations for CPFs and their boards, it does not appear that a significant role has been envisaged forthese structures.12

The interim regulations were published in May 2001, that is, three months after the Minister for Safety and Security,Steve Tshwete, said, in his press statement on the Justice, Crime Prevention and Security Cabinet Cluster's crime-combating priorities for 2001, that:

"... as part of our overall drive to bring communities on board, a single structure between communities andthe relevant Cluster Departments will be established to ensure an integrated approach to communityinvolvement in the Integrated Justice System. This will mean an integration of Community Police Fora andliaison structures of other Departments." 13

Although they have the authority of law, the interim regulations do not engage either with explicit direction provided bythe minister or with the direction provided for the CPFs in the White Paper. Rather, the regulations direct the CPFs tofulfil the ambiguous and contradictory objectives laid down for them in the Act, and focus mainly on the proceduralestablishment of the CPFs and their Boards—that is, on issues covered in depth in policy five years before.

However, more significantly, the interim regulations either directly avoid or downgrade the issue of state support for theCPFs. They even specifically outlaw some current practices of the CPFs that facilitate support for their activities.

At issue here is the contested status of the CPFs. The crux of the matter is whether or not they may be considered formal'organs of the state', and therefore whether or not the state has an obligation to sustain and support them. In fact, there isno doubt of this: the CPFs were created by legislation and exercise public functions in terms of that legislation. Therefore,South Africa's Constitution (Section 239) obliges the state to ensure that these structures are able to meet their intendedpurposes.14



This obligation has not been acknowledged in any practical or systematic manner. Thus, while the objectives of the policyguiding the implementation of community policing in South Africa have changed, government ambivalence towardsproviding meaningful support to the structures created by this policy has remained consistent.

Given such government aversion towards providing meaningful support to the CPFs, how likely is it that these structureswill be able to reach into and garner support from South Africa's diverse and fragmented communities?

To put the question differently, in the absence of clear direction and systematic support, how plausible is it that thesestructures will be able to help make public safety and policing everybody's business?

CHAPTER 4Implementation of the community policing policy

For SAPS provincial, area and station managers, as well as many CPF practitioners, the key guide for the implementationof community policing is the Department of Safety and Security's Community Policing Policy Framework and Guidelines,published in 1997.

This chapter details how the community policing policy has been understood and implemented.

Understanding of the community policing policy

The Community Policing Policy Framework and Guidelines were incorporated into the police training curriculum andbecame the subject of police and CPF workshops across much of the country. The document has, therefore, been accessedby the majority of its target audience, including:

all provincial respondents;82% of SAPS area level management;92% of CPF respondents at the area;64% of SAPS station management; and63% of station level CPF.

However, it appears from these responses that although access to the policy document has been generally satisfactory, it islimited where it matters most—at station management level. Indeed, more than a third of SAPS station managers (36%)and 37% of the station CPF respondents interviewed in the research indicated that they did not know of the policydocument.

The majority (80% of SAPS station respondents and 81% of station CPF respondents) who had accessed the policydocument viewed it as clear and practical. Further, at the area level, 90% of SAPS and 96% of CPF respondents indicatedthat they believed it to be clear on the goals of community policing, and that it provided an effective guide toimplementation of the policy because it was clear and practical, particularly in relation to the role and functions of theCPF.

Those least likely to view the policy document as an effective guide to implementation were the provincial SAPSrespondents and their colleagues in the provincial secretariats.These respondents cited the lack of a coherent strategy anda dedicated budget for implementation, a lack of clarity regarding the roles and functions of the various role-players, andsome dysfunctional CPFs as the primary reasons for their views. However, this critique reflects frustration at the mannerin which the policy has been implemented rather than with the policy document itself.

Respondents were asked what they understood by the term 'community policing'. Their responses are detailed in table 7.

Table 7: The meaning of community policing15




StationSAPS

AreaSAPS

StationCPF

AreaCPF

Partnership betweenlocal police and thecommunity

64% 57% 40% 29%

Improvement incommunity liaison,input andcommunication

12% 7% 24% 27%

Responsiveness andaccountability from thelocal police

11% 27% 3% 9%

The building of trustbetween the policeand the community

10% 9% - 2%

Other 4% - - 7%Providing resources tothe SAPS - - 5% 7%

Crime preventionactivities - - 27% 18%

As the establishment of police-community partnerships through the CPF structures is a key practical element of the policyand is prescribed by legislation, it is not surprising that this was the most common element identified by respondents.

However, it is clear that enhancing police-community communication and providing input to the police is much moreimportant to the CPF representatives than to the police, as is engagement in crime prevention activities.

The policy goal of communicating community needs and improving police effectiveness was not raised directly byrespondents at local or area level—although this may be implied in the responses emphasising greater liaison,communication and local police responsiveness and accountability.

Clearly, though, the police and CPF practitioners have different interpretations of community policing. This differencewas articulated when respondents were asked about the nature and purpose of partnerships. Their responses are detailedin the table below.

Table 8: The purpose of partnership between the police and the community

StationSAPS

AreaSAPS

StationCPF

AreaCPF

To enable jointproblem solving 71% 81% 35% 29%

To improve police-communitycommunication andinteraction

19% 6% 12% 34%

To improve trustbetween police andcommunity

4% 2% - -

To improve localpolicing 3% 7% 4% 17%

To establish an equalworking relationship - - 50% 20%

Other 2% 4% - -



This table indicates clear differences in interpretation between the SAPS and CPF respondents regarding the purpose ofestablishing partnerships.

For police respondents, partnerships are far more likely to focus on acquiring assistance to deal with particular issues, andparticularly on acquiring additional resources for general policing purposes or, in some instances, crime preventionactivities. Thus, for police respondents, partnerships are associated with activities intended to address particular problems—usually, but not always, resource-related problems.

However, for CPF respondents, partnerships are most likely to be interpreted as a means to enable greater access to thepolice, acceptance of community representatives by the police and sound working relations with the police. The issue forthe CPF respondents is therefore one of acceptance—partnership with the police is viewed primarily as a means ofenhancing relationships between the police and those they serve.

These responses are indicative of the extent to which the practical issues raised in the interaction between the police andCPF representatives have, over time, superseded the original policy goals. For example, the policy is explicit on thepurpose of police-community partnerships via the CPF:

"... a major objective of community policing is to establish an active partnership between the police and thecommunity through which crime, service delivery and police-community relations can jointly be analysedand appropriate solutions designed and implemented." 16

and, later:

"The establishment of Community Police Forums and Boards, which should be broadly representative ofthe community, is of crucial importance, ... The main objective of this partnership is to determine, throughconsultation, community needs and policing priorities, and to promote police accountability, transparencyand effectiveness." 17

Only the CPF representatives at area level identified with the goal of greater police-community communication.

Also, the issues of police service delivery and police accountability for meeting local policing priorities were not directlymentioned by the respondents—although they might be implicit in the few responses related to improving trust and localpolicing.

This difference in interpretation was repeated at provincial level. The provincial SAPS respondents emphasised jointproblem solving and improvements to policing as the purpose of establishing partnerships. For these respondents, jointproblem solving was about ensuring the involvement of, and information sharing with, other agencies, so as to supplementpolice resources. However, provincial CPF and secretariat respondents were more likely to emphasise improvingcommunication between the police and the community, community or CPF input, and establishing equal and participatoryrelationships.

Implementation of the policy

As already indicated, establishment of the CPFs was the one key practical step, outlined in the legislation and policy,which SAPS provincial commissioners were obliged to take to implement the community policing policy. Thus, asexpected, most respondents at provincial, area and station levels, identified the launch or promotion of the CPFs and thearea and provincial boards as the primary means through which the policy had been implemented. This translated, for32% of SAPS and 50% of CPF respondents at station level, to a direct association between implementation of communitypolicing policy, the establishment of the CPF and the appointment of a Community Police Officer.

However, 28% of SAPS station respondents and 29% of station CPF respondents reported that joint crime preventionprojects were the primary means through which community policing had been implemented. Further, 25% of SAPSstation respondents and 19% of CPF station respondents identified joint awareness campaigns as the primary meansthrough which community policing had been implemented. As shown in Table 9, these are activities associated with thefunctioning of the CPFs. This reinforces the view held by the key role-players that CPFs are viewed as the primaryvehicle for establishing partnerships and, through this, implementing community policing.



The responses outlined in the table below, while indicating a wide range of perceptions of what the CPFs do, also indicatea clear disjuncture between what the station and area level SAPS and CPF respondents perceive the purpose of theirpartnerships to be (as shown in Table 7), and the actual activities of the CPFs.

For instance, just 13% of SAPS station and area level respondents claimed that the CPFs engaged in problem solving—despite the fact that 71% and 81% of these respondents respectively also indicated that such problem solving was thepurpose of their partnerships (see Table 7). No CPF respondents said that they actually engaged with the SAPS to solvecommon problems—although this may be inferred from the few responses indicating that the CPF engaged in SAPS orCPF capacity building.

Further, none of the respondents at local or area level mentioned that CPFs represent community interests or priorities tothe SAPS. Nor did any of these respondents mention activities aimed at enhancing police responsiveness, service deliveryor police accountability—all of which were key goals laid down in the policy for the CPFs.

Table 9: CPF activities

StationSAPS

AreaSAPS

StationCPF

AreaCPF

Crime preventionprojects 40% 36% 45% 35%

SAPS/CPFcapacity building 13% 9% 9% 13%

Problemsolving/planning 13% 13% - -

Public awarenesscampaigns 11% 11% 17% 28%

Resourceprocurement forSAPS or CPF

7% 11% 15% 8%

Don't know whatCPF activities are 6% - - -

Nothing—the CPFhas no activities 4% 8% - -

Assistance to theSAPS withmanagementissues

3% 6% - -

Activities tosustain CPF - 7% 7% 13%

The limited extent to which the CPF respondents engage with actual policy goals is also emphasised by the very limitedrole the CPFs play in determining police priorities. For instance, when asked who determines priority crimes and issues atstation level, 80% of station SAPS respondents and 72% of station CPF respondents replied that these priorities weredetermined by the SAPS, primarily by means of crime statistics. Just 11% of SAPS station respondents and 23% of stationCPF respondents said that local crime priorities were determined with the aid of input from the CPF. Indeed, 66% ofstation SAPS and 67% of area SAPS respondents agreed that CPF activities are mainly driven and co-ordinated by theSAPS, particularly by the community police officer and sometimes directly by the station or area commissioners.

Thus, when asked to whom the CPFs report and account for their activities, 58% of station SAPS respondents replied thatthese structures answer to SAPS command structures. Just 17% of SAPS station respondents believed the CPF accountedfor its activities to the community. However, station level CPF respondents were divided on the issue—48% believed thatthey accounted to SAPS command structures, and 37% indicated that the CPFs reported to the community.

The divorce between CPF activities and accountability to the community was more evident at the area level. Here, 69% ofarea CPF respondents replied that the CPFs answer either to SAPS command structures or to CPF boards (which wouldinclude SAPS commissioners). Just 18% of area CPF respondents said the CPFs accounted to their communities.



The ability of the CPF to actually engage with, and involve, those they are meant to represent was made even morequestionable when the respondents were asked what the CPFs account for. Respondents were divided on this issue. Sixty-two percent of the station SAPS respondents indicated that the CPF reported on and accounted for internal CPF issuesand meetings, especially problem solving and the use of resources and finance. This was supported by 72% of the areaCPF respondents. Only 23% of the station level police officers, and 9% of the area CPF representatives replied that theCPF at station level account for local level projects.

However, this was not supported by station CPF respondents—50% of whom answered that the CPF account for projectactivities. A further 38% said that the CPF reported and accounted for internal CPF issues. This may mean that theaccounting for projects is done at a very local community level, without the involvement of the station police or the areaCPF board. However, given the data above, it is more likely to mean that there is very little accountability to thecommunity regarding CPF activities.

The original goals of the community policing policy related to the CPFs were to provide community input on localpriorities and needs, and monitoring and evaluation of the police to ensure local needs are met. Nevertheless, the dataabove indicates the extent to which these objectives are no longer prioritised by practitioners at the area and local levels.Rather, this role appears to have been overtaken by a shift towards conceptualising local level crime prevention as the keyrole for the CPFs. This correlates directly with the policy shift advocated in the 1998 White Paper on Safety and Security.For example, the White Paper states that: "CPFs ... have a key role to play in, among other areas, the determination ofand participation in crime prevention programmes".18

Participation in the CPFs

When asked who participated in CPF activities, SAPS and CPF respondents indicated that government departments, localgovernment, NGOs and business organisations had been accessed for support and participation. From the responsesprovided, it was clear that community structures, local youth and women's groups, religious groups, and other interestgroups like farmer and taxi associations were rarely involved. The point here is that the respondents identifiedgovernment and the stronger, more organised sections of civil society as participants in their activities—NGO's andbusiness organisations—not community structures or local interest groups.

Summary

Implementation of the community policing policy has focused almost wholly on the establishment and activities ofthe CPFs.

The practical issues raised in the interaction between the police and CPF representatives have, over time,superceded the original policy goals for the CPFs.

Thus, the representation of community priorities and needs, enhancing police responsiveness to these prioritiesthrough monitoring and evaluation, and helping to improve police service delivery are not prioritised bypractitioners at the area and local levels.

Indeed, local level practitioners were clear that community structures, like local youth groups, women's groups,religious groups, and other interest groups like farmer and taxi associations were rarely involved. Rather, the CPFsappear to target government and the stronger, more organised sections of civil society in their activities.

Further, there is a clear difference in understanding between the SAPS and CPF practitioners regarding thepurpose of their partnership. For police respondents, this relationship is associated with activities intended toaddress particular problems, often related to resource constraints. For CPF practitioners, the issue of partnershipis related to acceptance, that is, partnerships are viewed as a means of building relationships between the policeand the community.

Despite different understandings of the purpose of the partnership between the police and the CPFs, there appearsto be a real shift in the thinking of the primary practitioners towards understanding local level crime prevention asthe key role for the CPFs. This correlates with the policy shift advocated in the 1998 White Paper on Safety andSecurity.



CHAPTER 5Effectiveness of policy implementation: the practitioner's view

The practitioner's view

This chapter describes the views of the SAPS and CPF practitioners on the manner in which the policy has beenimplemented.

Most respondents at the station and area level indicated that they did not believe enough had been done to ensure effectiveimplementation of the community policing policy (Table 10).

Table 10: Has enough been done to ensure effective implementation of the policy?

StationSAPS

AreaSAPS

StationCPF

AreaCPF

No 54% 57% 68% 64%Yes 44% 42% 32% 36%Don'tknow 3% 1% - -

The most common reasons cited by respondents for the generally negative view were:

a lack of personnel and physical resources;

a lack of support from supervisory structures;

the view in the SAPS that community policing is the function only of the Community Police Officer; and

a lack of general community participation.

These views were largely endorsed by the provincial respondents. Of these the SAPS respondents also mentioned the lackof capacity of the relatively junior community police officers (who are often seen as responsible for implementingcommunity policing) and the lack of participation from the detective service. Provincial secretariat respondents pointed tothe lack of support from senior SAPS management and the politicisation of community policing as further inhibitingfactors.

The management issues alluded to by the respondents as reasons for their belief that not enough had been done toimplement the policy was reinforced by a generally negative view of the ability of the SAPS to facilitate local policeresponsiveness.

Table 11: Does the structure of the SAPS assist local police responsiveness?

StationSAPS

AreaSAPS

StationCPF

AreaCPF




No 67% 52% 71% 56%Yes 26% 43% 29% 44%Don'tknow 6% 5% - -

The table above indicates that those at station level are most likely to view the structure of the SAPS as a factor inhibitingeffective implementation of the policy.

The most common reasons for the critical view of the SAPS structure at station and area levels were that:

police resources were dispersed through too many layers, resulting in stations being under-resourced;

the hierarchical system resulted in too much red tape; and

there was too little decentralisation of decision-making authority.

These views were largely endorsed by the provincial respondents, who also cited duplication of functions, too many linesof communication and not enough decision-making authority at station level as inhibiting factors related to the structureof the SAPS.

Further, systematic and meaningful support from the senior structures of the SAPS and the CPF boards for theimplementation of the community policing policy appears to have been very limited. All the respondents agreed thatsupport from supervisory structures has mainly taken the form of advice, guidance and in some instances, limitedfinancial assistance. The majority of respondents at the station and area level believed that such support had beeninadequate.

Clearly, the CPF respondents were most dissatisfied because of lack of support from their area and provincial boardsrespectively. Interviews with provincial respondents showed that most also believed that the support that was provided—advice, guidance and limited problem solving—was inadequate.

Table 12: Is the support provided from the supervisory level above you sufficient?

StationSAPS

AreaSAPS

StationCPF

AreaCPF

No 55% 54% 63% 78%Yes 32% 46% 37% 22%Don'tknow 13% - - -

The support most sought by the station and area respondents was related to the provision of resources, particularlyfinancial and logistical, and greater communication, advice and involvement from representatives of supervisorystructures. With the exception of area SAPS respondents, the majority of respondents indicated that they thought theMEC and the provincial secretariats were ineffective in supporting implementation of the policy.

The area SAPS respondents indicated that the MEC and secretariats played a valuable monitoring and advisory role, andhad actively promoted the implementation of the policy by providing resources and training and through participation inpublic CPF activities. However, this was not confirmed by the majority of area CPF respondents, who—while indicatingthat the MEC and secretariats attended public activities and had provided resources and training—were divided in theiropinion as to whether this had been effective (50% no, 46% yes).



The view of the area SAPS respondents was not supported by station level CPF respondents, the majority of whomindicated that the MEC or representatives of the secretariat engaged actively in public CPF activities like meetings.However, almost two-thirds, 62%, thought this was ineffective and insufficient.

Most telling perhaps, was that the police at station level were as likely to say they knew what role the MEC and secretariatfulfilled as they were to say that the MEC and secretariat played no role at all. The local SAPS respondents were moredivided in their opinions on the effectiveness of the MEC and secretariats for supporting implementation of communitypolicing. For example, 42% perceived the MEC and secretariats to be ineffective, 27% did not know and just under athird, 31%, indicated their view that the advisory, monitoring and capacity building role of the MEC and secretariats waseffective.

Most critical of all were the secretariat respondents themselves. Six of the nine said that they perceived their role and thatof the MEC in supporting the implementation of community policing to be ineffective.

The most common reason provided for this was the current lack of resources and capacity, particularly personnel,available for assistance in problem solving at station level. However, two of these respondents indicated that the lack of aclear mandate and direction for the MEC regarding the CPFs was the major inhibiting factor.

However, of most concern to all the respondents was the lack of a dedicated budget. Indeed, most respondents at thestation and area level cited this as one of the major factors inhibiting effective implementation.

CPF respondents at station level were more likely to indicate that they had access to some, albeit limited, finance. Fifty-two percent of these respondents said they had acquired such access. However, this could not be confirmed by the SAPSrespondents at station level, just 11% of whom indicated that the CPFs had some access to finance. Forty-two percent ofthe local police respondents said that the CPFs functioned without finances, and 47% did not know.

At area level, the majority of the respondents agreed that the CPFs functioned without a budget and had limited access tofinance, if any at all.

These findings suggest that where the CPFs do acquire access to finance, this is done at a very local level or throughchannels that the station police and area CPF boards do not participate in, or know about.

At the time the research was conducted, there were no regulations to govern the resourcing and activities of the CPFs andtheir boards. This was also identified as an inhibiting factor by the majority of station and area respondents.

Table 13: Should specific regulations be published for the CPFs?

StationSAPS

AreaSAPS

StationCPF

AreaCPF

Yes 73% 68% 60% 64%No 27% 32% 40% 36%Don'tknow 1% - - -

This view was supported by the provincial SAPS respondents and, strongly, by the secretariat respondents. The notableexceptions were the provincial CPF respondents, most of whom were not in favour of regulations for the CPFs.

However, there was a clear difference of opinion between the provincial respondents and the practitioners at station andarea level on the focus areas for such regulations. The provincial SAPS respondents believed that the roles and functionsof the CPFs required regulation and, after that, factors related to resourcing the CPFs and financial accounting should beconsidered for regulation. This view was largely supported by secretariat respondents.

However, the need to regulate the role and functions of the CPFs did not appear to be an issue for the area and station



level respondents. Rather, the key concern was resourcing the CPFs, particularly the allocation of finances, use of stateassets and financial reporting and accounting.

Allied to the perceived need for regulations to govern the functioning of the CPFs, there was a strong demand fromrespondents at provincial, area and station level that the state should actively support the CPF structures—mostlythrough the provision of financial and other resources.

As indicated in Chapter 3, these are precisely the issues that the interim regulations have not addressed.

Summary

Those associated with direct implementation of the community policing policy do not believe that enough has beendone to implement the policy effectively.

The main reasons for their views are a lack of dedicated resources, a lack of systematic support from theirsupervisory structures, and the view in the SAPS that community policing is the function of a particular post only,that of the Community Policing Officer.

In addition, these practitioners also identified the hierarchical command structure of the SAPS as an inhibitingfactor, indicating that this resulted in a dispersal of limited police resources, too much bureaucracy and too littledecision-making at the local level.

CHAPTER 6Impact of the community policing policy: the SAPS' view

Despite the reservations expressed by police respondents regarding effective implementation of the community policingpolicy, and the general dissatisfaction with the perceived lack of support for implementation, most of the SAPSrespondents were clear that the policy had a positive effect on the manner in which they performed their functions.

Seventy-two percent of station SAPS respondents and 80% of area SAPS respondents said that the implementation ofcommunity policing had improved:

their approach to, and interaction with the community;

the development of a sense of shared responsibility for issues of common concern; and

the development of greater trust and mutual accountability between the police and community.

However, 23% of SAPS station respondents and 20% of area SAPS respondents indicated that implementation of thepolicy had resulted only in more meetings, and had not affected the way they performed their functions. The main reasongiven by these respondents was that they had always sought positive interaction with those they served, and had alwaysadopted a consultative approach.

In answering a different question, though, 82% of station SAPS respondents and 77% of area SAPS respondents said theybelieved that implementation of the policy had resulted in improved services being delivered to the public at station level.

The provincial SAPS respondents indicated that they too had derived benefit from the implementation of the policy,indicating that community policing had brought about a new, interactive, service-oriented approach to policing in whichthe police sought co-operation rather than confrontation.

However, here too a minority of respondents indicated that they had experienced no real change, and that they werepolicing in much the same manner as they had always done.

The provincial secretariat respondents were most positive about the impact the policy had had on the police. Theserespondents said that, despite weaknesses in the implementation of the policy, their experience had shown thatimplementation of the policy had contributed to making the police more accessible, more consultative and more service-oriented than they had been in the past.




CHAPTER 7Public perceptions of policing in the SAPS' priority Areas

The study sought to gather information on general public perceptions of crime and policing in the priority areas to assistan analysis of public confidence in the police, expectations of the police and engagement with the police, the CPFs andissues of safety and security. The research tool used for this was the general community survey, conducted with 13 659adult respondents, each residing within a 10km radius of the selected stations.

The data gathered through this survey, which is presented below, provides a picture of public perceptions of safety andsecurity and policing in the priority areas.

Assessment of these perceptions needs to be approached with caution. This is because these are the perceptions ofmembers of the public who may not have had any involvement in safety and security issues in their places of residence or,more importantly, may not have had direct contact with the police at all. Their perceptions would therefore be shaped byfactors that have little or nothing to do with policing; factors such as the media, personal communications or generalfeelings of safety and fear of crime. Indeed, local and international studies have shown that race, neighbourhood context(such as the level of poverty and instability), and feelings of political alienation and disempowerment affect perceptions ofthe police.

Nevertheless, such perceptions provide an important context as general perceptions about safety and police effectivenesscan influence the extent to which people engage with the police and participate in initiatives aimed at reducing crime.

These perceptions are outlined immediately below. In the chapters that follow, these views are combined with those ofpeople who had had direct contact with the police.

Public perceptions of crime in the priority areas

More than one in three of the respondents to the community survey (5 098 respondents or 37% of the sample population)indicated that they, or a member of their household, had been a victim of crime in the 20 months from January 1999 toSeptember 2000 (Table 14).

Table 14: Victimisation in the priority areas

Type of crime n %

Home burglary 1 974 27.1Robbery 1 415 19.5Assault 1 282 17.6Vehicle theft 754 10.4Sexual assault 438 6Other theft 398 5.5Hijacking 377 5.2Murder 288 4Stock theft 225 3Child abuse 120 1.7Total 7 271 100

The discrepancy between the number of respondents indicating they had been a victim of crime, and the number of crimesthey said they had been a victim of, suggests that some of the respondents had been a victim of more than one crime.




Given this relatively high rate of victimisation, and the violent nature of many of the crimes, it is no surprise that most ofthe respondents believed, probably correctly, that crime in their areas of residence had become worse, or that changes inpolicing policy had had little significant impact over the past four years. This is indicated in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Public perceptions of crime in areas of residence: 1996 - 2000(n=13 659)

Figure 2: Public perceptions of policing(n=13 359)

The common public perception that crime in their areas of residence had increased, or that there had been little significantchange in the crime rate would, in all likelihood, affect the perceptions of members of the public regarding the quality ofpolicing in their areas of residence, as well as their confidence in the police service overall.

Public perceptions of policing in the priority areas

Forty-six percent of the respondents indicated that they believed the quality of policing in their areas of residence had notchanged over the past four years, 30% believed it had become worse and 22%, or roughly one in every five respondents,



believed policing had improved.

The most common reasons provided by those respondents who believed policing in their areas of residence had becomeworse were:

the police were corrupt (29%);the police lacked motivation (18%);crime had increased (15%);there was a poor response to call-outs (9%);the police provided a generally inadequate service (8%);the police had insufficient resources (4%); andthere was a lack of police visibility (2%).

Those who believed the quality of policing had improved cited, as the most common reasons for this belief, that:

the police had become more helpful, committed and serious (33%);crime had decreased (32%);the police had become more visible and available (17%);the police were arresting the criminals and solving crime (12%); andcommunication between the police and community had improved (7%).

The relatively high levels of victimisation and generally negative perceptions of policing translated, for the respondents,into a general scepticism regarding the police in the priority areas. This is indicated in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Public confidence in the police(n=13 624)

Figure 3 indicates that 7 367 respondents (54% of the sample), said they had confidence in the police in their area ofresidence. In contrast, 6 120 (45%) said they lacked confidence in the police and 137 (1%) were non-committal.

Where confidence was expressed in the police, the main reasons given were:

the police were helpful, committed and provided a good service (31%);the police did their jobs well and upheld the law (24%);there was a quick response to call-outs (12%);the police worked hard to protect the community (11%);the police were arresting the criminals and solving crime (8%); andpolice visibility and availability had improved (4%).



The most common reasons provided by respondents who said they lacked confidence in the police were that they believed:

the police were unhelpful, unmotivated and did not provide a good service (28%);the police were corrupt (23%);the police were slow to respond (23%); andthere was a lack of follow-up and investigation (6%).

However, this public scepticism does not appear to have resulted in a disengagement from the police. On the contrary,there appears to be a ready and positive willingness to report crime to the police. As many as 10 448 respondents (77% ofthe sample) said that if they knew about a crime committed against them, members of their household or others, theywould report it to the police. In contrast, 3 046 respondents (22%) said they would not report crime to the police and 91(1%) said they were not sure whether they would report a crime or not.

The primary reasons motivating the willingness to report crimes were that:

this would help reduce crime (65%);offenders must be apprehended and punished (13%);it is a citizen's duty (12%); andpeople should not take the law into their own hands (9%).

The 22% of respondents who indicated they would not report crime to the police said they were motivated by the beliefthat:

the police are ineffective, it would be pointless (47%);they feared reprisals (26%);they should not get involved (13%); andthe police are corrupt (7%).

Finally, respondents were asked to list one or two things the police should do to improve the public's confidence in them.Their responses are outlined in the table below.

Table 15: The public view of what the police should do to improve public confidence

n %

End corruption, police should be more honest, loyal andtrustworthy 4 539 23.3

Arrest offenders, solve cases 3 269 16.9Improve visibility and patrols 2 535 13Improve response times 2 149 11.1Improve resources available to the police 1 773 9.1Work with the community 1 720 8.8Should be better trained to improve services 937 4.8Nothing / don't know 782 4.1Should show equal respect to all they serve 656 3.3Treat all cases with the same respect 541 2.8Improve the functions of the justice system and quality ofprisons 281 1.4

Assist with crime awareness campaigns 118 0.6Maintain confidentiality of victims 50 0.3Promote / work with CPF 63 0.3Other 32 0.2



Total 19 445 100

This table is significant in that it confirms a widespread public scepticism regarding the integrity of the police. It alsoindicates that for the general public residing in the priority areas, improvements to the core service functions of the policeare likely to have the most positive impact on public perceptions and confidence.

Further, these responses do not indicate a meaningful association between public input and improvements to police servicedelivery. That is, there does not appear to be much public enthusiasm for general interaction or engagement with thepolice.

Rather, the table suggests that underpinning public perceptions of the police are the issues of integrity and accessibility. Ittherefore suggests that what the general public require is the assurance that, when they actually need the services of thepolice, such services will be provided in a professional and effective manner.

Summary

The police in the priority areas serve a generally sceptical public, many of whom have been victims of crime.

Members of the public believe either that crime in their areas of residence has increased over the past four years,or that the policing initiatives have had little significant impact.

Members of the public also believe that the quality of policing in these areas has not changed significantly or that ithas become worse, and therefore they remain ambivalent regarding their confidence in the police.

Despite these perceptions, there does not appear to be real disengagement of the public from the police, as there isclearly a willingness to report crime.

Of concern though, are public perceptions regarding the integrity of the police, especially police corruption. Theseverity of the issue is indicated by the finding that most people who believed that the quality of policing in theirareas had deteriorated and who lacked confidence in the police, cited, as reasons for this belief, police corruptionand lack of motivation. The most common response to the question of what the police should do to improve publicconfidence in them, was that police corruption should be stopped.

There does not appear to be public enthusiasm for general interaction or engagement with the police.

Rather, for the general public living in the priority areas, improvements to the core service functions of the policeare likely to have the most positive impact on public perceptions and confidence.

CHAPTER 8 The public reach of the community police forums

Representivity of the CPFs

The Community Policing Policy Framework and Guidelines is clear that the CPFs "should be broadly representative ofthe community".19 For the purposes of this research, the word representative was understood to mean that the CPFs areintended to "consist of people chosen to act or speak on behalf a wider group"20 —the community in which they function.

For the station level SAPS and CPF respondents, it is very important that the CPFs are 'representative' of the broadercommunity in the police station area. Eighty-eight percent of each of these respondents stated that the CPFs shouldrepresent the broader community. Just nine and three percent of these respondents respectively indicated that the CPFsshould instead represent specific interest groups who could directly assist with policing issues.




However, the SAPS respondents were far less assertive when asked whether they believed the CPF at their station wasactually representative of the community it served. Fifty-four percent indicated that they believed it was, 43% said it wasnot representative and 3% could not say.

The primary reason provided by the SAPS respondents who did not believe that the CPF represented the community wasthat some key local role-players, with whom they interact in other forums, were not represented at CPFs. This theyattributed to the lack of feedback provided by the CPF to the community and, in some instances, the politicisation of theCPF, which were barriers to broad, inclusive participation.

However, the local CPF respondents were much more positive—70% indicated that they believed their CPF representedtheir community, 25% said it was not representative and 6% could not say.

The extent to which the CPFs may be considered representative structures is examined below.

Using the definition above, four criteria were defined to measure the extent to which the CPFs actually do represent thewider group of people living in their areas:

public awareness of the structures;public knowledge of the functions of the structures;knowledge of the existence of a CPF in one's residential area; andparticipation in the meetings or activities of the CPF.

Public awareness of the CPFS

As indicated in the figures below, general public awareness of the CPFs is very limited.

For this section and those that follow, the responses acquired from the general community survey were analysed togetherwith those acquired from the exit poll and the follow-up survey. This was done to assess whether direct interaction withthe police had any impact on general public knowledge of the CPFs.

Figure 4: Public awareness of the CPFs(n=13 624)

Less than half of all respondents to the community surveys (44%) indicated that they had heard of a CPF. The consistencyof the numbers reinforces this point—as indicated in Figure 5 below: 44% of respondents to the community survey, 42%of respondents to the exit poll and 47% of the respondents to the follow-up survey indicated that they had heard of a CPF.

This indicates that public awareness of these structures does not increase as direct interaction with the police increases.

Figure 5: Public awareness of the CPFs



Across all three surveys, African respondents were most likely to be aware of the CPF (46% of those who indicated thatthey had heard of the CPF), with white respondents least likely (36%).

Public knowledge of the functions of the CPFs

Approximately two-thirds of those who said they had heard of the CPFs indicated that they knew what the functions ofthese structures were. As indicated in the table below, those who knew of the CPFs also had a reasonably well-developedgeneral understanding of what the functions of these structures are.

Table 16 indicates that working with the police to help protect the community is the most common public perception of therole of the CPFs amongst those who have heard of these structures. Another commonly held perception concerns therepresentation function of the CPFs, that is, the role of representing and communicating community needs to the police.By contrast, the function of monitoring police performance is one not widely recognised by the public.

Table 16: Public knowledge of the functions of the CPF

Communitysurvey

Exitpoll

Followup

n = 6 008 n =942 n = 637

Assist police-communitycommunication/ensure police knowcommunity needs

34% 36% 33%

Protect community/arrest criminals 34% 31% 30%Help SAPS deal with crime 26% 27% 31%Monitor police performance 4% 3% 3%Help to contribute resources to the police 2% 2% 3%(The data here represents the responses of the 44% of the respondents whoindicated that they had heard of the CPFs)

What is perhaps most important about the table, however, is that it highlights a clear disjuncture between whatrepresentatives of the CPFs indicated were their primary activities—crime prevention projects, awareness campaigns andassisting to resource the SAPS and CPF (see Table 9)—and what those members of the public who are aware of CPFsperceive as their activities. For example, as indicated in Table 9, no representatives of the station or area CPFs mentionedrepresenting community needs to the police as one of their main activities.



Further, very few of the station or area CPF respondents indicated that they played a role in determining local prioritiesfor the police. Yet, on average, one in every three people who knew of these structures and believed they knew what theCPFs' roles are, indicated that they represent community needs to the police. This is indicative of the limited reach of theCPFs into the communities in which they work and the consequent misconceptions of the general public as to the actualwork of CPFs. This indicates the limited ability of the CPFs to make their actual activities and functions known.

Knowledge of a local CPF

Apart from general knowledge of the CPFs and their functions, the most important general indicator of the reach of theCPFs into their communities is whether or not people residing in a particular area know of a CPF functioning in thatarea.

Just 35% of those who had indicated that they were aware of CPFs in general, knew of one functioning in their areas ofresidence. Again, the consistency of the numbers across the three surveys reinforces this point.

Figure 6: Public awareness of a CPF functioning in area of residence

Figure 6 indicates that:

35% of the 6 008 respondents to the general community survey who indicated they were aware of the CPFs, saidthey knew of one functioning in their area of residence;

39% of the 667 respondents of the exit poll who had accessed the police station in their residential area confirmedthat they knew of a CPF functioning in the area; and

32% of the 449 respondents to the follow-up survey who lived in the area where they had reported a crime to thepolice knew of a CPF in the area.

The data therefore indicates that, on average, one in every three people who know about CPFs also know of onefunctioning in their area of residence. The figure also indicates that a person's awareness of a CPF functioning in his orher area of residence does not increase with greater contact with the police.

Again, African respondents across all three surveys were more likely to say they knew of a CPF functioning in their areaof residence, (36% of the African respondents) while white respondents were least likely to know (28%).

However, in all cases, knowledge of a CPF functioning in their areas of residence did not correlate with respondents'knowledge of what the station and area SAPS and CPF respondents indicated were the key activities of the CPFs—crimeprevention projects and awareness campaigns.

As indicated in the figure below, less than 30% of the respondents who said they knew of a CPF functioning in their areasof residence indicated that they knew of crime prevention projects or public awareness campaigns involving the CPF.



Figure 7: Public knowledge of CPF projects in area of residence

However, despite this clear lack of public knowledge of crime prevention projects and awareness campaigns, thereappears to be strong popular support for participation in such projects and campaigns.

As indicated in the figure below, when the survey respondents were asked whether they would be prepared to participatein community-based safety projects, their response was very positive.

Figure 8: Public support for participation in community safety projects

On average, 87% of the public respondents to all three surveys indicated that, if they were asked to, they would participatein community activities to make their areas safer.

Thus, despite CPF representatives indicating that their major activities revolved around crime prevention projects andawareness campaigns, the CPFs appear to have been unable to tap the local potential to participate in such projects.

Participation in CPF activities

As suggested by the analysis above, knowledge of a CPF functioning in one's area of residence does not appear to meaneither active or regular participation in the CPF. On average, less than half of the respondents across all three surveyswho indicated that they knew of a CPF functioning in their area of residence indicated that they participated, evenoccasionally, in CPF meetings or other CPF activities.

Figure 9: Public participation in CPF activities



Clearly then, the public reach of the CPFs is very limited. This is indicated in Figure 10.

Figure 10: The public reach of the CPFs

The general lack of public knowledge of the CPFs and the resultant lack of knowledge of, and participation in, theactivities of the CPFs, may well be attributed to the fact that a core function of these structures—that of enhancing police-community communication and liaison—remains poorly developed.

CPF communication with the public

When asked how the CPFs communicate with those they are meant to represent, 63% of station SAPS and 61% of stationCPF respondents indicated that this was done through formal public meetings. A further 28% of station level SAPSrespondents and 29% of station level CPF respondents indicated that the CPF communicates with the public throughother formal means—local media and CPF pamphlets and newsletters. Just 7% of station level SAPS and 10% of stationlevel CPF respondents indicated that personal communication or word of mouth was their primary means ofcommunicating with their communities. Yet, as indicated in Figure 11 below, such informal communication was identifiedas the primary source of information about the CPF and its activities by those respondents who indicated that they knewof a CPF in their area of residence.

Figure 11: Primary source of information on CPF and its activities (n=2 493)



Just 24% of the respondents who indicated they knew of a CPF in their area of residence said they learned of CPFactivities through formal CPF communication.

Summary

The policy on community policing is clear that the CPF structures are to be representative of the communities inwhich they function. Such representivity is very important to the police at station level and CPF practitioners atstation level.

However, when measured across four criteria, it is clear that these structures cannot be viewed as representative ofthe communities in which they function.

Further, while general knowledge of the functions of the CPFs appears to be reasonably well-developed amongstthose who know of these structures, there is a clear disjuncture between what CPF practitioners indicated weretheir primary activities—crime prevention projects, awareness campaigns and assisting to resource the SAPS andCPF—and what those who know of these structures perceive the activities of these structures to be.

Given the limited public reach of the CPFs, it is clear that in their present form and functioning and withoutmeaningful government support, these structures are poorly placed to engage meaningfully in any of the rolesoutlined for them.

Therefore, implementation of the community policing policy through the establishment of the CPFs has not beeneffective in relation to the core goals of the policy—ensuring wide-ranging input on community needs andpriorities, improving police responsiveness to community needs and developing a joint responsibility and a widercapacity for addressing crime.

The analysis above indicates that in the SAPS' priority areas, public safety and policing is a long way from being seen aseverybody's business. Rather, in the sceptical perceptions of the public, these remain very much police business.

However, could it be that despite the clear lack of public engagement, the policy has had most impact on the policethemselves, in the manner in which they approach and interact with those they are meant to serve? As mentioned inChapter 6, this was identified as the key impact of the policy by the majority of SAPS respondents at station and arealevel.

Indeed, even those who said that implementation of the policy had not affected the way they performed their functionssaid that this was mainly because they had always sought positive interaction with the public.

Also, as already mentioned, the majority of police respondents indicated that they believed that implementation of thepolicy had resulted in improved services being delivered to the public at station level.

The overwhelmingly positive response of the public in the SAPS' priority areas who had actually received police serviceslends some support to this interpretation.



CHAPTER 9 Police service in the priority areas

This chapter details the expectations and experience of respondents residing in the 45 police priority areas who had soughtand received police services.

The research tools used to gather this data were the exit poll, which canvassed the views of 2 286 people who had justvisited a police station, and the follow-up survey, which sought the opinions of 1 361 members of the public who hadreported a crime in the previous three months.

In considering the data presented below, it is important to note the following:

The views of the public may be influenced by the sample selection. The stations where the surveys were conductedare all priority stations included in the SAPS' 'Crackdown' strategy. They are high-crime stations, which impliesthat they may have benefited from more intensive attention from top police management than have other stations.The results of this study could therefore provide a more positive picture of policing than holds true for other partsof the country. Conversely, high-crime stations face more pressure in delivering service to the public than do low-crime stations, because of the number of cases they process. This could result in poorer levels of service and thusnegative public perceptions of the police.

The follow-up survey sample is skewed in favour of those complainants who could be traced using the informationon their case dockets. Fieldworkers rejected many dockets during the random selection process, because theinformation contained was insufficient to trace the complainant, either by phone or in person. Detectives wouldhave had equal difficulty in tracing these complainants. Thus the views of those who probably received the leasteffective service, both in the charge office and from detectives, would not be reflected here.

Public expectations of the police

Most of the people who were questioned during the exit poll had visited the station to report a crime. One quarter hadsought administrative services from the police (Figure 12).

Figure 12: Reason for visiting the police station, exit poll

In the follow-up survey, only people who had reported a crime were interviewed. Of these, most had reported propertycrimes (Figure 13).

Figure 13: Nature of the dockets sampled in the follow-up survey




The property crime category consisted mostly of cases of 'other theft' and housebreaking. The vast majority of cases in theviolent crime category were assaults.

Respondents in both the exit poll and the follow-up survey were asked what they expected when they contacted the police.Most of those in the exit poll said that they expected to be treated with respect, and to receive good service. A few expectedthe service to be prompt or that the police would solve the case or arrest the offender. Very few people said they expectedbad treatment, such as slow service and negative attitudes, from the police.

In the follow-up survey, by contrast, a significant majority said they expected the police to solve the case and arrest theoffender. The rest of the respondents expected good service, respect and promptness.

Table 17: Public expectations when entering a police station or reporting a crime

Exitpoll

Follow-up

Good service, respect 59% 20%Prompt service 15% 10%Solution of the case and arrest of theoffender 13% 65%

Information & advice on the case, follow-up 8% -The taking of a statement and supplying ofa case number and insurance number 3% 2%

"Slow service, referral, negative attitude " 1% 0Do not know/no expectations 1% 2%Total 100% 100%

The difference between the expectations in the two surveys shows both that expectations are influenced by actualexperiences, and that expectations change over time. In the exit poll, most people had been to the police station to makethe first report of a crime, which explains why their main expectation was to be treated decently and for the police toprocess their complaints. It would be unreasonable at this early stage to expect the police to arrest offenders or solve thecase, which is probably why so few respondents mentioned these issues.

The follow-up survey respondents were interviewed up to three months after reporting a crime. It is understandable thattheir main expectation at that time was for the police to solve the case. Most of the follow-up survey respondents hadoriginally reported their case at the police station in much the same way as those in the exit poll had done. Theirexpectations at the time of initial reporting would have probably been similar to those of the respondents in the exit poll.



Therefore the police, as service providers, must be able to adapt the way they respond to the needs of the public, as theseneeds are likely to change once certain expectations have been met.

Aside from the differences between the exit poll and the follow-up survey, the data shows that few people had negativeexpectations of the police. It also confirms that what people want is decent treatment and prompt and effective attention tothe matter they have brought to the police.

Impressions of the police station and initial services

Respondents to the exit poll were asked what their impressions were of the police station upon entering. The results wereextremely positive, and suggest that the police officers managing the stations included in the study have devotedconsiderable attention to the appearance of the charge office. More than 90% of respondents were positive about thecondition of the station, saying it was clean, tidy and well maintained. The vast majority (92%) said they felt comfortablein the station, and 83% said they knew where to go to get the help they needed once inside the station.

Prompt service is a key element of good service delivery. Respondents in both the exit poll and the follow-up survey wereasked how long it took for their matter to be attended to in the police station or on the phone, depending on how they hadcontacted the police. All respondents to the exit poll had been to the police station, and the majority of those in the follow-up survey (74%) had reported the crime at the police station. In both cases, over 80% of people were attended to within 15minutes of entering the police station.

Equally important is how long it took for the matter to be dealt with—in other words, how long it took before thecomplainant could leave the station. In the exit poll, a majority (64%) said their matter had been handled within 15minutes of their first being attended to. In the follow-up survey only 42% said the same.

It is not surprising that it took longer for the matter to be settled than for the complainant to be attended to upon arrival,since settling a matter would in most cases involve completing the various forms required in a docket. (Of course, thesurvey data provides no information about the quality of the information on the docket. This is a separate but equallyimportant issue which the study did not address.)

Figue 14: Time taken before the phone was answered at the police station, follow-up survey

Of the respondents in the follow-up survey who reported a crime to the police on the phone, 17% phoned their local policestation and 7% phoned the 10111 emergency number. Half of the people who phoned the station said the phone wasanswered immediately and 21% said it had been answered in under three minutes (Figure 14). The time taken for thephone to be answered in the case of the remaining respondents appears to have been unacceptably long.

Of the 119 people who phoned 10111, 36% said the call was answered immediately and a further 30% said it took up tothree minutes. This means that more respondents who phoned the police station to report a crime said the call wasanswered immediately than did those who phoned the emergency 10111 service. Since the point of 10111 is to provide anemergency service, it is unfortunate that only one-third of calls appear to have been answered immediately.



Public experience in the police station

Respondents in both surveys were asked a range of questions about the way they were treated by the police. As indicatedin Table 18 below, the responses were overwhelmingly positive in both surveys.

Table 18: Treatment of complainants in the police station

Exitpoll

Follow-up

Yes YesDid the police official identify himself/herself? 34% 54%

Could you identify the official fromhis/her name tag? 78% 80%

Was the official willing to help? 93% 92%Did the official treat you with respect? 91% 92%Did the official treat you with sympathy? 79% 83%Did the official know what to do aboutyour issue? 91% 90%

Did the official understand yourconcerns? 92% 92%

Did the official understand yourlanguage? 96% 97%

It is significant that over 95% of respondents in both surveys said the police understood their language.

The area that most obviously requires improvement is the identification of police officials to the public. Few policemembers told the complainant their name, and around 20% could not be identified from their name tags or were notwearing them.

Respondents were also asked whether they were able to discuss the matter they were reporting with enough privacy in thepolice station. A majority said they did have enough privacy: 57% in the exit poll and 61% in the follow-up survey. Maleand female respondents were equally satisfied with the privacy in the station. The requirement for privacy would dependon the type of crime being reported. People reporting an offence like theft, for example, would not necessarily needprivacy. The type of crime that was reported was recorded in the follow-up survey only (Figure 13). Since the majority ofcases were property crimes, it is unsurprising that most victims were satisfied that they had enough privacy.

The effectiveness of the service provided at the station

Those respondents in the exit poll who had reported a crime, and all respondents in the follow-up survey, were asked arange of questions about how the police official handled their case when reporting, and what information was relayed tothem about what to expect after making the initial report.

Table 19 shows that the vast majority of complainants said that their statements were taken quickly and properly, and70% (in the exit poll) said that they had been given a case number. Sixty-six percent of those interviewed in the exit pollwere told what would happen with their case, and 58% (in the exit poll) were told who to contact about their case.

Very few respondents were told about victim support services, or were given information about crime prevention or CPFs.

Table 19: For those who reported a crime, did the police...



Exitpoll

Follow-up

Yes YesTake your statement quickly andproperly? 85% 89%

Tell you that you could make a detailedstatement later? 48% 45%

Give you a case number? 70% 79%Tell you what would happen with yourcase? 66% 60%

Tell you who to contact about yourcase? 58% 56%

Tell you where you could get moresupport? 29% 23%

Offer to take you to where you could getsupport? 15% 13%

Give you information about how toprevent crime? 13% 14%

Tell you about joining a CPF? 6% 7%

These results suggest that police officials in the community safety centre (or charge office) carry out their immediateduties well. However, they appear to neglect those aspects that are not of direct concern to them, such as the investigationprocess (which is probably viewed as the domain of the detective service of the SAPS).

The same can be said regarding the small number of complainants who were told about victim support, crime preventionand the CPFs. Police in the community safety centres probably see these issues as the domain of other components withinthe police station, and therefore of little concern to them.

The finding that less than 30% of respondents were referred to victim support services suggests that the SAPS' VictimEmpowerment Initiative is not having the desired impact on the community safety centre—the main point of interfacebetween complainants and the police. It suggests that the training of frontline police personnel needs to be improved toenable these officials to understand their central role in victim empowerment, witness management and facilitatingsubsequent investigation.

This analysis is supported by further investigation of what information was given to complainants in the community safetycentre about the procedures they should expect after making the first report of a crime.

As indicated in Table 20, although most respondents were given a case number (which is a good start in enablingcomplainants to track their cases), only half or less than half were given any information regarding the investigationprocess.

Table 20: Did the police tell those reporting a crime that...

Exitpoll

Follow-up

Yes YesThey should have a case number? 79% 83%They could have a copy of their statement? 38% 34%They could correct their statement beforesigning? 48% 56%

The detective might need a furtherstatement? 54% 53%



They could ask for contact details of thedetective in their case? 52% 48%

They could ask the detective about whatwashappening to their case? 53% 50%

The detective would inform them of theprogress on their case? 55% 56%

They should tell the detective if they goaway or change address? 37% 31%

They should inform the detective if they fearthatthe suspect may interfere with theircase?

33% 27%

The consequences of failing to inform complainants about the procedures that follow the reporting of a crime, and whatthey can expect from the detection process, are potentially serious. This information is crucial to familiarise complainantswith the criminal justice process, to help ensure that witnesses and complainants can be contacted and traced, and thusthat the case stands a chance of being tried in court.

It would also enable the victim to contact the detective if necessary, rather than leaving the responsibility for the firstcontact with (sometimes overburdened) detectives.

The data outlined above shows that the follow-up process after the initial reporting of the crime is the most importantservice delivery issue for complainants. A complainant needs to know what is likely to happen to his or her case (even ifthis means telling the party that it will probably be closed for lack of evidence). The follow-up should begin in the chargeoffice, with the provision of information to complainants.

Public satisfaction with service at the police station

The vast majority of respondents in the exit poll (77%) and the follow-up survey (74%) were satisfied with the service theyreceived from the police when they reported the crime.

When considering the expectations that people had of the police, particularly those surveyed in the exit poll (Table 17),these results indicate that the police in the community safety centres are doing well to meet the expectations of their'clients', thus generating high levels of public satisfaction.

In the exit poll, 86% of those who were satisfied said this was because the police were professional, helpful and supportive.In the follow-up survey, 58% said the same. The other important reason for satisfaction was that the service was prompt:12% of the exit poll respondents and 37% of the follow-up survey respondents mentioned this.

Among the reasons provided by the few who were not satisfied with the services they had received were that the policewere rude and had negative attitudes towards them. The other key reasons were that the service was slow, there was nofollow-up or investigation, and that the police were incompetent.

The main reasons motivating the responses of all the respondents revolved more around the treatment of complainantsthan the actual effectiveness of the police in dealing with the cases. This emphasises the importance of the variousprogrammes aimed at making the SAPS more supportive and appreciative of victims and witnesses.

Extent of police follow-up with complainants after reporting a crime

Respondents in the follow-up survey were asked a range of questions to assess the extent of contact with detectives afterreporting a crime, and their level of satisfaction with the service provided by the detectives on their cases.

Table 21: Extent of police follow-up with complainant before an arrest (follow-up survey)

Yes



After reporting, did you expect to be contacted by adetective?" 87%

Have you had any contact with a detective sincereporting the crime? 49%

If you have had contact, did the detective contact youfirst? 78%

Do you know what has happened to your case? 37%Do you know how to contact the detective? 62%

The majority of respondents expected to be contacted by a detective after reporting a crime. However, only half (49%)said that they had actually had any contact with the detective after reporting to the police station. Of these, most said thedetective had contacted them first.

Most of the respondents said they knew how to get hold of the detective concerned, even though less than half had actuallyhad any contact. This suggests that complainants wait for detectives to contact them, and are unlikely to initiate furthercontact after reporting a crime. Given the fairly low level of communication between the complainant and the police, it isnot surprising that only 37% knew what had happened to their cases. Most of those (84%) who were informed about theprogress of their cases had received the information from a detective.

Those respondents who knew what had happened in their cases were asked if they had been informed by a detective thatan arrest had been made. Those who knew that an arrest had been made were then asked a range of questions aimed atascertaining whether detectives keep complainants informed about court proceedings.

Of the total 1 361 respondents who were interviewed in the follow-up survey, only 34% could answer this question. Therest did not know what had happened to their cases and most had not had any contact with detectives (Figure 15). Half ofthe 34% of respondents (53%) said they had been told by the detective that an arrest had been made. These complainants(who made up only 18% of the total sample of 1 361) were kept well informed by the detectives on their cases.

Figure 15: The declining number of complainants who were kept informed about their case

As indicated in Table 22, the majority were aware of the court case / roll number, the outcome of the bail hearing, whetherthey had to appear in court and on what day, and when the court was likely to make a decision on the case.

Table 22: Extent of police follow-up with complainant after an arrest (follow-up survey)

Yes

tIf you know what has happened to your case, did thedetective tell you that an arrest was made? 53%



If an arrest was made, did thedetective tell you...

The court case / roll number? 80%The outcome of the bail hearing? 72%Whether you had to go to court? 88%The date of your court appearance/s? 86%The date when the court would decide on the case? 72%What the court's decision was? 64%

These results indicate that after a crime is reported there is little follow-up by investigating officers until an arrest ismade. After an arrest, however, the quality of the service provided by the detectives is perceived to be good. This suggeststhat there are two phases in the follow-up process: the pre- and post-arrest phases. The survey results indicate that policeservice is weaker in the pre-arrest phase. Officers both in the community service centre and the detective service areresponsible for delivering this service to complainants.

The superior service in the post-arrest follow-up stage is confirmed by the overall level of satisfaction expressed byrespondents with the service rendered by the investigating officers. Of those respondents who knew what had happened totheir cases, the vast majority (80%) were satisfied with the service from detectives. (It is however important to reiteratethat only 34% of the total sample of 1 361 people interviewed in the follow-up survey knew what had happened to theircase. The views on satisfaction with the detective service are therefore the opinions of only a small percentage ofcomplainants).

Most of those respondents who were satisfied with service from the detectives said the reason was that the police werehelpful, supportive and honest (58%). Other significant reasons were that the detectives followed up the case (25%), andtook action against the suspect (16%). The main reasons for not being satisfied were that there was no follow-up andinvestigation (69%), that service was slow and that the charge had not been taken seriously (20%).

The findings on the service received in the police station and after a crime had been reported reflect the two importantelements of police service identified by the public: being treated properly and having the charges brought dealt with.

It is, however, worth noting that for complainants, 'dealing with the matter' in the case of detectives means providingfollow-up information to complainants, rather than actually arresting perpetrators or securing convictions.

Following up a case could obviously lead to an arrest and conviction, but complainants' expectations are currently moremodest—they need to know what is happening with their case, if anything. This does not mean that detectives should shifttheir focus away from their core business of investigating crime and arresting perpetrators. Rather, it shows that there ismore to satisfying complainants than making an arrest. It also indicates the importance of training police officials invictim and witness management skills.

Efforts to improve the pre-arrest service to complainants who have reported a crime will need to focus on both thedetectives and the charge office / uniform personnel. Detectives are no doubt overburdened by large case loads, whichlimit their ability to contact complainants after they have reported a crime. Nevertheless, some method must be found todeal with the expectation of complainants that they will be kept informed.

Public perceptions of how service at the station can be improved

Respondents in both the exit poll and follow-up survey were asked what the police should do to improve service at thestation.

Table 23: What should the police do to improve their service at the station?

Exitpoll

Follow-up



Improve skills 31% 20%Provide more resources 20% 16%Give prompt response and service 19% 11%Solve cases, arrest criminals 9% 16%Treat people & cases equally 6% 10%Follow up on cases 1% 13%Improve their attitude towards thepublic 5% 8%

Nothing, don't know 8% 5%Have greater visibility and morepatrols 1% 2%

Work with the community, raiseawareness 0% 1%

Total 100% 100%

Among respondents to the exit poll, the key issues for better service were improving skills, providing the police with moreresources and providing a prompt service.

The views of the follow-up survey respondents covered the same issues, but included solving cases, arresting criminals andproviding follow-up to complainants about their cases.

A comparison with the data in Table 17, on what people expected from the police when they made their first report of acrime, confirms that people's expectations and experiences of the police influenced their suggestions for improving service.It is however important that very few respondents said the police should improve their attitude to the public, be morehelpful or supportive.

Together with the other results in this chapter, it is evident that the police have done well to respond in a helpful,respectful and supportive way to those who visit the station and report crime.

Importantly though, the positive responses received from those who accessed police services are hardly those one wouldexpect from members of the public dealing with corrupt or unmotivated police officers. Indeed, even the 24% ofrespondents to both polls who were dissatisfied with the service they received from the police did not share the primaryconcerns raised in the general community public survey. Not one of these respondents identified corruption as the reasonfor their dissatisfaction.

The results of the three surveys therefore indicate a very clear divide between public perceptions of the police and theexperience of those who have had direct interaction with them. This is indicative of the extent to which perceptions of thepolice can be shaped by factors that have little or nothing to do with the police. Thus, factors like neighbourhood context(such as the level of poverty and insecurity), feelings of political disempowerment, access to the media, personalcommunications or general feelings of risk and fear of crime can affect perceptions of the police.

Summary

Two key elements of police service delivery emerge from the survey results: the need to treat people decently and todeal with their complaint professionally.

These two service requirements are as important at the time that a crime is reported as they are after reporting.The results show that the police in the priority stations have done particularly well with regard to the former, butless so with the latter.

However, there can be little doubt that the SAPS' attitude towards, and treatment of, their clients is positive. Thevast majority of complainants indicated that the police respond in a helpful, respectful and supportive way to thosewho visit the station and report crime.

Further, there is a widespread and obvious satisfaction with the initial service complainants received from thepolice when reporting a crime. This is not because public expectations of police service were low, but rather,because most respondents who had had contact with the police had relatively high expectations of the service they



would receive.

However, the quality of service that the police provide—in other words their ability to deal with complaintseffectively—appears to deteriorate from the time that a crime is reported to when an arrest is made. These resultssuggest that after a crime is reported there is little reporting back to complainants by police officers until an arrestis made.

Once an arrest is made, however, the quality of the service provided by the detectives is perceived to be good.

Importantly, in suggesting what they would like to see improved at the police stations, very few respondentsindicated that the police should improve their attitude, or be more helpful and supportive towards their clients.This should be seen as an important achievement for the SAPS in the priority stations.

CHAPTER 10Conclusion

The analysis above has indicated that the objectives of South Africa's community policing policy have changed over thepast eight years, from an initial emphasis on oversight of the police through a focus on relationship-building and thecreation of partnerships to help improve police services, towards a much greater concentration on community mobilisationfor crime prevention. Further, the analysis indicates that implementation of this changing policy has focused almostentirely on the functions of the CPFs.

However, it is clear from the very limited public reach of these structures that implementation of the community policingpolicy has not been effective in relation to its common core goals—ensuring wide-ranging input on community needs andpriorities, improving police responsiveness to these needs, and developing a common public responsibility and capacity foraddressing crime. This is mostly attributable to the continuing lack of meaningful and systematic support from the state,although this is required by legislation.

Thus, in their current form and functioning, the CPFs are poorly placed to draw participation and support fromcommunity-based organisations or other local role-players, and to mobilise participatory community crime reductioninitiatives.

Public safety, security and policing in the SAPS priority areas therefore remain a long way away from being seen as acommon responsibility, or everybody's business. They remain in the perception of the general public, still very much'police business'.

However, it appears from the views of the police and the public, that much of the basic business of the police has beenimproved.

Methodologically it is difficult to attribute this improvement to the implementation of the community policing policy. Thisis because, firstly, implementation of the policy has been ineffective with regard to its primary focus, the functions of theCPFs; and, secondly, there is no data by which to compare current police services and public perceptions with those thatexisted prior to the implementation of the policy.

What is more certain, however, is that together with South Africa's democratic constitution and a range of other measuresassociated with the country's democratisation—like the establishment of parliamentary, departmental and independentoversight structures—the policy has succeeded in opening a previously closed organisation to greater public scrutiny,study and interaction. It is this opening, as well as the political emphasis over the past three to four years on improvingservice delivery in all government departments, to which one may more plausibly attribute improvements to basic policeservices.

NOTES


http://www.issafrica.org/pubs/Monographs/No71/Notes.html



1. See, for example: A Crawford, Crime prevention and community safety: Politics, policies and practices, Longman,London, 1999; W Lyons, The politics of community policing, University of Michigan, Anne Arbor, 1999.

2. W Lyons, op cit, p 40.

3. E Van der Spuy, The Secret to Successful Policing? Crime and Conflict, No 3, Spring 1995, Indicator South Africa.

4. C Shearing, Participatory policing: modalities for lay participation, Imbizo, Research in Progress Series, No 2,December 1998, Community Peace Foundation, p 8.

5. National level police managers and CPF practitioners were, by mutual agreement, excluded from the research.This was motivated by the participation of these stakeholders at all stages of the research design and, secondly, bythe implementation function of the provincial command structures of the police. Formal responsibility for theimplementation of community policing is delegated, through Section 19(1) of the South African Police Service Act(Act 68 of 1995), to the provincial command structures of the South African Police Service.

6. For a more detailed discussion of the assumptions informing the development of this policy, see E Pelser, TheChallenges of Community Policing in South Africa, ISS Occasional Paper No 40, Institute for Security Studies,Pretoria, 1999.

7. Minister of Safety and Security, F S Mufamadi, media statement, Cape Town, 25 May 1994.

8. A Altbeker & J Rauch, Community Participation Workshop, Report for Business Against Crime (Gauteng), May1998, p 2.

9. Ibid, p 2.

10. Department of Safety and Security, Community Policing Policy Framework and Guidelines, 1997, pp 2-3.

11. Department of Safety and Security, White Paper on Safety and Security: In Service of Safety, 1998.

12. Department of Safety and Security, South African Police Service Interim Regulations for Community Police Forumsand Boards, No R384, 11 May 2001. Published in Government Gazette No. 22273.

13. Minister of Safety and Security, S Tshwete, media statement: Justice, Crime Prevention and Security Cluster, 12February 2001.

14. Opinions of Professor Christo Botha, Associate Professor in Constitutional and Public International Law,University of South Africa; and Azhar Cachalia, Partner of Cheadle, Thompson & Haysom Inc. Attorneys. Both

http://www.issafrica.org/pubs/PAPERS/40/PAPER40.HTML



opinions motivate this position on the grounds that the state has an obligation in law to establish these structures toperform a public function for the state. More importantly, the state 'controls' these structures in that it has theright to prescribe what the functions of the CPFs are and how these are to be performed (see Esack and Another vthe Commission on Gender Equality 2000 (7) BCLR 737 (W) p 744).

15. The questionnaires administered to provincial, area and station role-players were designed to allow respondents toanswer questions in their own words. At the completion of the interviews the information provided by therespondents was used to develop categories for coding and analysing the responses. The tables or other graphicsused in this report were generated using the responses provided.

16. Community Policing Policy Framework and Guidelines, op cit, p 1.

17. Ibid, p 2.

18. White Paper on Safety and Security: In Service of Safety, op cit, p 34.

19. Community Policing Policy Framework and Guidelines, op cit, p 2.

20. The New Oxford Dictionary of English, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1998

untitled document contents not everybody's business … · untitled document 2011/04/04 12:30...

Documents