In his opening address to Parliament on June 25 1999, President Mbeki committed government to take measures to ‘… strengthen the community policing forums to improve their capacity to mobilise the people against crime and to improve co-operation between the people and the law enforcement agencies.’

More than two years later little has been done in this regard.

Indeed, eight years after establishing community policing forums, government appears either unable or unwilling to provide clear direction or meaningful practical support to these structures.

The most recent evidence of this was the publication of interim regulations for the CPFs (Regulation No. R.384, Government Gazette no 22273, May 11 2001). The regulations focus mainly on the procedural establishment of the CPFs and their boards, something that was covered by policy and legislation six years ago. More importantly, the regulations either directly avoid or downgrade the issue
of state support for the CPFs, and specifically outlaw some current practices the CPFs have engaged
in to facilitate support for their activities.

Government ambivalence on what it actually wants CPFs to do, and its antipathy towards providing meaningful support to these structures, has meant that CPFs have largely been unable to fulfil their intended functions.

The changing roles of the CPF

The creation of CPFs, which now exist (sometimes in name only) at every police station in the country, was enabled by the Interim Constitution of 1993. Since then, the objectives of these structures have been shifted four times.

Broadly, the major policy shifts affecting CPFs can be summarised as follows:

An initial emphasis, from 1993 to 1995, on ‘oversight’ of the police, characterised by explicit monitoring and evaluation functions for CPFs.



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



Then, in 1997, a clearer shift with the publication of the departmental policy on community policing which emphasised the establishment of problem-solving ‘partnerships’ to help improve police services and assist in reducing crime.



In 1998, the White Paper on Safety and Security, which directed CPFs towards co-operation with local government, community mobilisation against crime, and other social crime prevention functions.



Finally, in February this year, the minister for safety and security committed government to integrate the CPF with the liaison structures of other departments ‘as part of our overall drive to bring communities on board.’

However, while government thinking on the role of the CPF has changed, its lack of practical and systematic support for these structures has remained consistent. This is a result of the contested legal status of the CPF. The crux of the issue is whether or not the CPFs 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 is no doubt that this is indeed the case. CPFs were created by legislation and exercise public functions in terms of that legislation. Therefore the South African constitution (Section 239) obligates the state to ensure that these structures are enabled to meet their intended purposes.

It is this obligation that, despite government’s repeated commitment to empower CPFs, has not been met in a coherent manner. Lacking such support, the CPFs have a very limited reach into South African communities.

This was confirmed by recent survey research conducted by the ISS for the SAPS amongst 17231 respondents residing within the jurisdiction of 45 of the 219 SAPS priority stations (see Crime Index volume 5 number 3 2001). This research indicated that CPFs have generally been unable to tap support from community-based organisations or other local role-players, nor have they been able to mobilise participatory community crime reduction initiatives.

Public awareness of the CPF

The ability of the CPF to mobilise a community-based response to crime can be measured in terms of four criteria:

Public awareness of the CPF.

Knowledge of a CPF in one’s area of residence.

Public knowledge of the functions of the CPF.

Participation in the meetings or activities of the CPF.

As indicated in Figure 1, 44% of the 17231 respondents knew about or had heard of CPF structures.

Members of the public who knew of the CPF structures were generally clear on the role and functions of these structures. Indeed, the understanding of these respondents correlates reasonably closely with the objectives of the CPFs outlined in the policy. Members of the public who knew of the CPFs indicated that, for them, the CPFs helped to:

Assist police-community communication (34%).

Protect the community (32%).

Help the police deal with crime (28%).

Monitor police performance (3%).

Help to resource the police (2%).

However, few respondents who knew in general of the CPF structures, knew of a CPF functioning in their areas of residence.

Figure 2 indicates that roughly one in every three respondents who indicated that they knew of the CPFs said that they knew of a CPF functioning in their area of residence.

However for these respondents, knowledge of a CPF functioning in their areas of residence did not appear to mean engagement with or participation in the CPF or its activities. Indeed, Figure 3 indicates that only 45% of the respondents who know of a CPF in their area of residence participate, even occasionally, in CPF activities.

Clearly then, the public reach of the CPF is very limited. This is indicated in summary in Figure 4.

Even more limited is public knowledge of CPF projects, like crime awareness campaigns. For instance, just one in five respondents (22%) who knew of a CPF in their area of residence indicated that they knew of such activities.

It is clear that in their present form and function CPFs are poorly placed to engage meaningfully in mobilising community participation in local safety and security.

Conclusion