Initiating Crime Prevention in Johannesburg

Antoinette Louw, Mark Shaw, Lala Camerer, Rory Robertshaw*

Published in Monograph No 18, Crime in Johannesburg, February 1998


Historically the centre of the South African mining industry, Johannesburg is now the core of the largest concentration of industrial activity in the country. Of a population of 3,5 million people as measured in 1995, about 82 per cent live in established suburbs and townships, with the remaining 18 per cent in informal settlements. Greater Johannesburg is divided into four metropolitan local councils (MLCs): Eastern, Northern, Southern and Western (map not reproduced in electronic form). Population densities are highest in the Eastern MLC, followed by the Southern MLC, the Western MLC and Northern MLC.2

Local government in Johannesburg is under increasing pressure to counter criminality in the city; hence, the launch of the Safer Cities programme. Indeed, town and city authorities (both in South Africa and elsewhere) are often the central point towards which grievances around increasing levels of crime are channelled by local constituencies. This, and the fact that safety at city level has important implications for local economic growth, has meant that developing strategies for preventing and policing crime effectively is increasingly a priority on the agendas of local government in South Africa.



Over the past decade, the growing trend internationally has been to concentrate crime prevention and its control not nationally, but locally at city or town level. Importantly, local government has the capacity to co-ordinate the activities of various departments which can contribute to crime prevention. Such multi-agency approaches have achieved success in several countries. For example, municipal crime prevention projects in France (where there is a national police service as in South Africa) led by local authorities reduced crime by 15 per cent in some areas through joint planning between housing, social services, schools and police departments.3

In the United Kingdom, a national Safer Cities Programme has been operating for some time. Initiatives bringing police, social workers and city government together to analyse the causes of residential burglary on poverty stricken housing estates, reduced break-ins by 50 per cent in the first year and by 75 per cent over four years.4 South African city and town authorities can learn from these developments. Specific crime problems characterise different towns and cities across the country: in Johannesburg for example, levels of rape (in public places) are high in particular parts of the city.5 The solution lies not only in better visible policing in particular areas, but in the provision of lighting and the planning and use of open spaces, such as parks, as well as public toilets and public transport.

Thus, co-ordination between local government departments and the police is critical in achieving and sustaining urban safety. In many cases, local government constitutes the lowest level at which planning can consider the unique needs and specific crime problems of communities. Urban local government is well placed to co-ordinate, if not implement, initiatives to counter criminality.

But this is easier said than done. Crime prevention (both in South Africa and elsewhere) is often considered an add-on to line function local government activities. And, while often politically attractive, safer cities programmes run the danger of being nothing more than window dressing. In addition, South Africa's urgent development priorities mean that there are seldom additional resources for crime prevention. Indeed, Greater Johannesburg Safer Cities is largely funded by foreign donors, although the council is committed to finance the project in the long term. Under circumstances in which funds are limited, crime prevention initiatives are more likely to be seen as peripheral to other municipal programmes and will lack long term sustainability. Crime prevention initiatives, however, should not be seen as separate from ordinary development programmes; they are central in promoting a better quality of life.

Local government in South Africa, although on a limited scale, is becoming involved in crime prevention in three ways:
  • Establishing metropolitan and municipal police services: Local government will shortly have the option of establishing its own police service charged with the function of crime prevention. It is envisaged that such services, while not empowered to investigate crime, will provide visible policing in high density urban areas.
  • Aligning resources and objectives within a crime prevention framework: Crime and crime prevention is increasingly seen as central to the planning of all municipal department functions. This places crime prevention on the agendas, of among others, planning, transport and traffic departments at little extra cost to local government.
  • Initiating targeted crime prevention programmes: Local government if appropriate resources are allocated is well placed to design and implement crime programmes targeted at specific crime problems. Such prevention programmes can either be financially supported by the local government itself or through business, donor or national government funding.
Implementing crime prevention strategies, in whichever of the three forms above, requires an accurate understanding of the nature and levels of crime in any area. Surprisingly little has been known about the levels and types of crime in Johannesburg. This has limited the debate on possible crime prevention strategies.

Information about the extent and nature of criminal activity and the profiles of victims and offenders, is the key to controlling and preventing crime. As the main source of crime information, the police can only provide details of part of the picture. Official crime statistics across the world are largely limited to those incidents which the public choose to report to the police, and which the police in turn record. The unrecorded `dark figure' of crime can be substantial in the case of certain categories of crime (such as sexual crimes and mugging) and less so for others (such as car theft).

Reporting is determined by factors relating to the crime itself, such as how serious the victim regards the offence to be, the links between the victim and the offender (domestic violence is usually under-reported, for among other reasons, fear of reprisals and the potential loss of a breadwinner), and in the case of property crime, whether the goods are insured. The relationship between the police and the public is another factor: if people have little faith in the ability of the criminal justice system to protect them, secure a conviction or recover stolen property, or are treated unprofessionally by the police, they are generally less likely to report. Finally, if access to the nearest police station is limited by distance, poor roads (or an absence of roads), lack of transport or access to telephones, reporting is less likely.

In South Africa, these factors are compounded by the historically uneven distribution of resources (both policing and infra-structural) between formerly `white' and `black' areas, and in particular, the former homeland regions. Procedures for recording crime information by the police in these regions also differed in the past from that of the former South African Police, affecting historical data, as well as current practices.