Community policing needs real, hard work
GLENN HOLLANDS AND LEN KHALANE:Jun 25 2010 16:37  


Politicians dust off the "community safety" concept whenever they need a shiny 
new policy. But, ask Glenn Hollands and Len Khalane, is there real commitment 
to the concept? 

Crime-wise and on the safety front, what can South Africans expect after the 
soccer fans have gone home, hopefully relieved of their money by commerce 
rather than crime? Although visible policing may peak during the World Cup, 
don't count on this being sustained over the next three years. The 10% increase 
in deployed officers may help, but it's not going to inspire you to waltz 
through Hillbrow at midnight. 

The extra cops will, however, be fitter, better shots and more disciplined, 
promises the minister -- and they'll have impressive military-type ranks such 
as "sergeant" rather than lame civilian designations such as "inspector". 

Never mind that policy-makers had sound historical and political reasons for 
demilitarising police ranking systems just a few years ago. The new 
tough-sounding ranks will apparently "ensure clear lines of command and control 
while instilling a sense of discipline …" Obviously the minister did not have 
Lindiwe Sisulu's soldiers in mind when equating military rank with discipline. 

Our police will operate on the understanding that poverty fuels crime - so 
shooting pickpockets is out. On the community front the minister has urged a 
"people's war against crime", but those who thought this meant stoning and 
burning local rapists and thugs (as frequently happens in the former Transkei) 
will be disappointed and the minister will have you locked up -- if the local 
SAPS can get their act together to find you. 

Whereas most citizens think that we already have a single national police 
force, the minister does not agree. Quite what the quest for "a single police 
service" implies is unclear, but early indications suggest that some of the 
metro police formations have not covered themselves in glory. 

Yet further closure or downscaling of the more effective specialist and 
anti-corruption agencies is also likely. The closure of the Scorpions 
(directorate of special operations) remains a dodgy policy decision and many 
suspect that the replacement Hawks (directorate for priority crime 
investigations), will indeed prioritise their investigations to the extent that 
they avoid ruffling important political feathers. The minister did, however, 
mention the Hawks and "municipal fraud" in the same breath, so municipal 
politicians might be well advised to tread more carefully than their colleagues 
at provincial and national level.

Bad news for those entrepreneurial cops who supplemented their salaries by 
selling police dockets at knock-down bargain prices. The e-docket system has 
been introduced at 193 police stations around the country and more than 260 000 
dockets have been scanned in. So, although the paperwork may be spirited out of 
the office, only a really stupid crook is going to pay for a docket that has an 
electronic back-up. Unfortunately many of our criminals are indeed quite thick, 
so this may take a while to catch on. 

Do not loose sleep over the "shoot to kill" injunction and the warning that "We 
shall take no chances with the lives of police officers against criminals" -- 
these are minor tactical adjustments to changing criminal behavior and do not 
signal a policy shift. Community partnership, effective use of intelligence and 
improved laws and policies are still the key strategic elements. Community 
policing is now talked about as "a programme" within general policing rather 
than a general principle for all policing, which may mean the concept is 
beginning to lose its lustre. 

Where does this leave the key policy tenets of the last five years, such as 
community safety forums (CSFs)? Despite the supposed centrality of this model 
it received only a single brief mention in the minister's budget vote speech to 
Parliament in May. 

Politicians tend to dust off the CSF concept whenever they feel the need for a 
shiny new policy instrument in the fight against crime. In fact the concept was 
modeled in the Western Cape as early as 1998 by the NGO UMAC. By 2003 it was 
touted as a best practice and attracted the attention of the United Nations. 
But what have CSFs and other community safety models really achieved? 


At inception, CSFs proposed that crime prevention was best tackled by involving 
affected community stakeholders and addressing crime through a set of 
coordinated interventions. Related government line departments such as justice 
and social development were to be co-ordinated by a local agency -- 
optimistically, this task was assigned to the municipality. 

Whereas community policing forums (CPFs) were neighborhood-based and created 
the basis for a working relationship between local citizens and the police, the 
CSFs were supposed to pick up the longer-term development and welfare 
challenges that would pre-empt spiralling crime.

Promising "integrated problem-solving at local level", and "coordinated 
interdisciplinary approach to crime prevention", the CSF rationale remained 
fairly abstract. Like many other policy frameworks it tried to elevate and 
embroider basic common sense; that is: severe poverty undermines crime 
prevention, it's best to consult local people before trying to improve local 
policing and crime prevention -- and government departments work best when they 
talk to each other. 

In 2001 the pilot CSF project in the Western Cape was evaluated by the 
Institute for Security Studies (ISS), which found limited operational 
interaction between the key departments. It took a CSF between 12 and 28 months 
to generate safety plans, and plans seldom resulted in useful action. 
Understanding of the concept had improved and local neighbourhoods were able to 
give input to the authorities and agree on community safety priorities. 
Overall, however, CSF functions had blurred with CPFs or other government 
agencies and there was a dearth of real action or detailed safety planning. 

In 2004, the East London-based companies Mbumba Development Services, Safrika 
and NGO Afesis-corplan evaluated community safety structures, including CSFs 
for the provincial government. Although the pilot CSFs (Nelson Mandela Metro, 
Lukhanji and Mhlontlo) had facilitated some safety planning, apart from in 
Nelson Mandela Metro the CSFs were weakly established. 

The CSF model did not adapt easily to metro, urban and rural settings and 
represented the public to a limited extent -- especially business. Erratic 
departmental attendance at CSF meetings suggested that the forum was seen as an 
burden rather than an aid to government. 

In rural municipalities, CSFs were poorly led and administered, and would need 
much help from outside agencies. The CSF nonetheless had great potential to 
analyse patterns of crime and community insecurity and to formulate 
municipality-wide plans and responses.

Anecdotal evidence from Cato Manor in KwaZulu-Natal suggests that safety 
initiatives modelled on the CSF concept are having some success, and safety 
auditing and planning has continued in several other areas. Safety plans are 
clearly best driven by a CSF or a similar structure and give the CSF a raison 
d'être -- but the model needs to be pinned down. 

Furthermore, the content, structure and functionality of such plans could 
greatly benefit from recent work on community-safety and crime-prevention 
indicators. Most of the components for more effective community policing are 
already out there -- they just need to be pulled together and deployed with 
political and operational commitment. 

Glenn Hollands and Len Khalane work for Mbumba Development Services 


      

-- 
You are subscribed. This footer can help you.
Please POST your comments to [email protected] or reply to this 
message.
You can visit the group WEB SITE at 
http://groups.google.com/group/yclsa-eom-forum for different delivery options, 
pages, files and membership.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, please email [email protected] . You 
don't have to put anything in the "Subject:" field. You don't have to put 
anything in the message part. All you have to do is to send an e-mail to this 
address (repeat): [email protected] .

Reply via email to