When crime occurs, victims may respond in several ways. In the case of some crimes, the initial reaction may be to report the incident to the police. As noted earlier, however, reporting is far from consistent and depends on a range of factors. In many instances, victims seek practical assistance. This may be required, particularly when violence is involved, to stop ongoing assault or harassment. Alternatively, victims may also want practical or emotional assistance to, for instance recover stolen property, apply for available compensation, attend court procedures, or receive psychological counselling and medical treatment. Such services are provided by criminal justice agencies, government and voluntary organisations. The factors decisive to victims' responses to victimisation are awareness, accessibility and perceptions of effectiveness associated with these services.

The police, at the front line of the criminal justice system and responsible for protecting citizens, is an important agency to which crime victims turn for assistance. In Johannesburg, and indeed in many parts of the world, however, people are largely dissatisfied with the service delivered by the police to crime victims and the general public. The main concern of victims in Johannesburg is the ineffectiveness and unprofessional performance of the police in dealing with their cases. This, along with general perceptions of safety (and the fear of crime), encourages victims to respond to crime by taking their own preventive measures.

In Johannesburg, crime victims' responses to their experiences are characterised by several features:

Reporting to the police varies: serious property crimes are well reported, while only about half of violent interpersonal crimes ever come to the police's attention.



Of those victims who did report crimes, the vast majority were not satisfied with the service provided. The reasons given vary across crime types, but generally indicate inadequate investigation, poor service delivery and the unprofessional treatment of victims.



The majority of crime victims do not make use of specialised victim support agencies, although most believe such services would be useful. It would appear that awareness of the existence of such services is poor in Johannesburg.



The suburbs are considered the safest parts of Johannesburg by all victims. Victims living in informal settlements, the inner city and townships perceived their areas of residence as the most unsafe. Feelings of vulnerability in all neighbourhoods are particularly high at night.



Most victims secure their households with door locks, burglar bars and fences. More sophisticated devices are restricted to those who can afford them and a significant proportion of victims in Johannesburg have no household protection against crime.

Recorded crime: The police perspective

Reporting crime to the police is important not only because it is the first step towards securing arrest and conviction, but also because crime information informs police operations and other government and private sector planning processes. A detailed comparison between police statistics and those of the Johannesburg victim survey is not useful, since police and local authority boundaries do not always match, and because definitions of crimes used by the police and by the survey are not exactly the same. Police statistics are therefore used merely to indicate general trends and as a basis for assessing the significance of reporting rates to the police as related by victims in the survey.

Police statistics31 indicate that crime ratios measured per 100 000 of the population in the police area of Johannesburg (which represents most but not all of the Greater Johannesburg Metropolitan Council's area of jurisdiction, as covered by the victim survey),32 are the highest in the country for most property crimes. These include residential and business housebreaking, robbery with aggravating circumstances and other robbery, shoplifting, theft of motor vehicles, theft out of motor vehicles, other thefts and fraud (Figures 13 and 14).

Figure 13: Burglary of residential premises
Crime recorded by the police, Jan - Sept 1997




Figure 14: Robbery with aggravating circumstances
Crime recorded by the police, Jan - Sept 1997



According to the official figures, the Johannesburg policing area fares better on comparative ratios of violent crime. Rates of rape and assault are higher in many other (often rural) police areas in the country than in the Johannesburg or Soweto areas (Figures 15 and 16). Johannesburg's murder rate, however, is the second highest of all police areas in the country, as is the case for attempted murder ratios in Soweto. For attempted murder Johannesburg takes sixth place. Compared to other police areas in South Africa, therefore, crime levels in Johannesburg are high.

Figure 15: Serious assault
Crime recorded by the police, Jan - Sept 1997




Figure 16: Murder
Crime recorded by the police, Jan - Sept 1997



In terms of the distribution of crime types as reported to the police, the most commonly recorded crimes in the Johannesburg police area are property crimes, such as (in descending order of prevalence) `other thefts', theft out of motor vehicles, theft of motor vehicles, residential burglary and robbery. Where violent crimes are concerned, assault occupies only sixth place on the ranking of recorded crime in the Johannesburg police area, but is the most frequently reported crime in Soweto (Figure 17).

Figure 17: Selected crimes in police areas
Crime recorded by the police, Jan - Sept 1997



The trends in the types of crime reported to the police resemble to some extent, the distribution of crime documented by the victim survey. Since the survey prioritised serious crimes over, for example personal theft and theft out of vehicles, it is unsurprising that these crimes were not well reported to the survey. What is significant, is that more vehicle thefts were reported in the Johannesburg police area than were burglaries. According to the survey, burglary is by far the most common crime affecting city residents. The predominance of burglary over car theft in Soweto may account for this, since many township residents probably do not insure their homes against break-ins, and as a result are less likely to report these crimes to the police.

It is also significant that robbery features prominently in recorded crimes in both the Johannesburg and Soweto police areas. Robbery was the second most common crime affecting Greater Johannesburg residents according to the victim survey, followed closely by assault. The high incidence of this violent crime is also reflected in reported trends in the Soweto police area, which supports the survey finding that Africans are much more at risk of such violent offences than other people in Greater Johannesburg. Robbery, according to police classifications, includes car hijacking. In all, 2 884 of these crimes were reported to the police between January and September 1997, over two-thirds of which were reported in the Johannesburg police area.

Reporting crime: The victim perspective

Although the general distribution of crime types in the official statistics resembles that of the victim survey, one can safely assume that actual crime levels may be higher than police figures suggest, since many incidents are not reported to the authorities. This finding is verified by ICVS results. The extent to which official crime figures are accurate, or merely a reflection of reporting tendencies, can usefully be assessed with victim survey data.

Victims were asked whether they, or someone else, reported the most recent crimes they experienced. If trends across the crime categories covered by the survey (namely car theft, robbery, hijacking, burglary, rape and assault) are considered together, the majority of cases (61,5 per cent) were reported to the police. Higher than average overall reporting was documented among white (76,5 per cent) and Asian (72 per cent) victims, while only 53 per cent of Africans said they notified the police. Among victims who said that they lived in the inner city, informal settlements and townships, less than average reporting was the trend. Fifty one per cent of victims living in the inner city, 50 per cent in townships and 47 per cent in informal settlements contacted the police when they were victimised. Reporting trends for the victims of personal crimes indicate above average reporting by older victims (over the age of 40 years) and women. Victims between the age of 15 and 24 years were least likely to report their experiences.

While these trends indicate that reporting is perhaps generally higher than expected in Johannesburg (given the scepticism with which police performance and official crime statistics are regarded), the tendencies for specific crimes vary.

Crimes in which property is stolen are well reported. Over 90 per cent of car thefts and hijacking incidents and 70 per cent of housebreaking were registered with the police (Figure 18). Given that Johannesburg has notoriously high levels of these particular crimes, it is likely that many people insure their property. Since insurance claims require a case number, this compels victims to report the crime. This explanation is more convincing than that which suggests victims report in the hope of recovering their property or punishing the offender. Recovery and conviction rates for crimes, such as burglary and car theft are low, and many car hijackings remain undetected.33

Figure 18: Reporting of crime to the police
Johannesburg Victim Survey



It is worth noting that white victims and those living in the suburbs reported burglaries more often than the average (in over 80 per cent of cases). African victims by contrast, who constitute more than half of all burglary victims, and those victims living in informal settlements and townships registered lower than average reporting rates. It is likely that a large sector of Johannesburg's population do not insure their property against theft.

Reporting trends for robbery and mugging, although aimed at the theft of property, are quite different. Only 31 per cent of victims reported these crimes to the police. Significantly, only 18 per cent of African victims, who constitute 60 per cent of robbery victims, said they reported this crime. In the case of mugging, the police are often not notified, since the items stolen are less likely to be insured, and the chances of the police recovering the property or arresting the perpetrator are slight.

The reporting of violent interpersonal crimes is influenced by significantly different factors. Reporting rates for assault are lower than for property crimes, but higher than for mugging and robbery, with nearly half (45 per cent) of assault victims contacting the police. This higher rate could relate to the fact that most of these incidents involved the use of a weapon, and thus probably caused serious injury, which inclines victims or friends and families to report the attack. The number of women who said they were raped in the survey is too small to make generalisations about all victims in Johannesburg. Of those who did respond to the survey, just over half (52 per cent) reported the crime to the police. It is widely accepted that few rapes ever reach the official crime records, and the survey results probably indicate that women who are prepared to report their experiences to the police are also likely to relate them in an interview.

The victim survey indicates that police crime statistics for serious property crimes in Johannesburg (and violent crimes which involve the theft of valuable items) are largely accurate. The same cannot be said for violent interpersonal crimes, although reporting of assault is higher than expected. African victims and those living in less affluent parts of Johannesburg are least likely to report their experiences. Since the survey shows that these people are especially at risk for violent crime, it is likely that violent crime rates are much higher in Johannesburg than official statistics suggest.

Levels of reporting in Johannesburg are nevertheless comparable with those elsewhere. In urban areas of Western Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand, reporting is higher than in Africa and Central and Eastern Europe. The lowest levels occur in Latin America and Asia, although there are variations between countries. In all these regions, serious property crimes are well reported to the police while violent crimes have lower reporting rates.34

Car theft and burglary are most often brought to the police's attention in other countries: of 13 developing countries surveyed by the ICVS, nine of these had vehicle theft reporting rates of over 85 per cent. In some urban centres, police were notified of up to 70 per cent of burglaries. Evidence indicates that victims in these countries regard car theft as the most serious crime, probably due to the associated financial loss. This is followed, in order of seriousness, by burglary, sexual incidents, robbery and assault. These perceptions partly account for low reporting rates for violent crimes: comparative experience shows that, as is the case in Johannesburg, between 30 per cent and 40 per cent of robbery and assault are reported. The need for help often encourages people to report violent crime, but a lack of confidence in the police and fear or dislike by victims, discourage reporting.35

The most common explanation world-wide for not reporting crimes to the police relates to the event itself. The explanation (usually given in developed countries) is that the crime was not serious enough. A lack of evidence, inappropriate police action and the existence of compensation benefits for victims of violent crime are also factors. The perception of the attitude of the police and their effectiveness is the second most common reason given by victims, and is noted mostly in developing countries and countries in transition. Here, victims' comments that the police `could do nothing' and particularly `would do nothing' are indicative. Finally, victims sometimes prefer to deal with the incident themselves.36 While the Johannesburg victim survey did not canvass victims' views on why they did not report crimes to the police, levels and reasons for dissatisfaction with the service they received when they did, indicate trends similar to those in other developing countries.

Perceptions of police effectiveness

In Johannesburg, most victims (61 per cent) were dissatisfied with the way the police dealt with their crime reports. This trend is not specific to Johannesburg: even in developed countries where crime levels have stabilised and begun decreasing in recent years, opinions of police effectiveness remain poor.37 Levels of satisfaction are lower in urban areas of some developing countries than the 39 per cent recorded in Johannesburg. Word-wide, less than half of victims tend to be satisfied, with higher levels in western countries.

The trend in developing countries with regard to specific crime types is for victims of violent crimes to be more satisfied with the police response than those reporting property crimes.38 While the victims of some violent crimes in Johannesburg were fairly satisfied, high levels of dissatisfaction were expressed in relation to property crimes. Above average levels of dissatisfaction were recorded for the victims of robbery and mugging (71 per cent) and car hijacking (67 per cent). Those who reported assault and murder, on the other hand, were the most satisfied with police service.

Overall, white victims tended to be most content, while below average levels of satisfaction were recorded for those victims living in informal settlements and, to a lesser extent, the inner city. This suggests that the service delivered by the police to different people and parts of Johannesburg is uneven. Another consideration is that more affluent victims (who largely suffer property crime) are less likely to be concerned with the recovery of property, since they have access to insurance. The main concern these victims have is for better treatment by a more professional police service.

The impact of property (and violent) crimes for poorer victims is more severe, and comparative evidence shows that the main concern in developing countries and countries in transition is for the return of stolen property and the apprehension of offenders,39 something which the police in these regions in particular, are hard pressed to deliver. In Johannesburg, however, survey evidence indicates less variation in the reasons for dissatisfaction between socio-economic groups. This suggests deeper problems with policing in Johannesburg (and probably in South Africa generally), which affect all aspects of police performance and service delivery.

While the reasons given by victims for their dissatisfaction differed across crime types, the most common overall problem in Johannesburg was that investigations were inadequate (29 per cent), police treated victims badly (25 per cent) and follow-up information about the status of the case was poor or absent (24 per cent). Fifteen per cent of victims said that the police were generally unreliable and unprofessional (Figure 19). These views indicate that poor service delivery is the main complaint for those who have come into contact with the police as a result of crime in Johannesburg. Few victims specified that they would have liked to see their property returned or the offenders arrested and convicted (although these are probably the outcomes expected by those calling for better investigation by the police). Indeed, since the majority of victims in Johannesburg have experienced particular crimes more than once, this may explain why most believe that the level of police investigations is inadequate.

Figure 19: Reasons for dissatisfaction with the police when reporting crime
Johannesburg Victim Survey



Victims of car theft and vehicle hijacking expressed above average dissatisfaction with police follow-up after having reported the crimes. An equal proportion of hijacking victims complained that the police are unprofessional. For those who experienced robbery and assault, the negative attitude of police towards victims was particularly problematic. It is possible that the police pay less attention to the victims of these latter crimes, since the chances of resolving these cases are small.

According to the police in Johannesburg, many assault victims are repeat victims (which the survey confirms) and assault charges are often later withdrawn by the victim (usually because they know the offender and fear the consequences). Also, both victims and perpetrators are often intoxicated when they report these crimes.40 While in no way justification for the poor treatment of victims, these factors may influence the attitude of the police towards assault victims and the service they provide at station level. The negative treatment of victims by the police in the case of assaults which may be the result of domestic violence and other crimes in which victim and offender are known to one another is borne out by the survey evidence. Lower than average levels of satisfaction with the police were recorded when the offender was known to the victim by name. The same applied when crimes which occurred in the home were reported.

Sixteen per cent of assault victims said the police were slow to respond to their calls for assistance well above the average of 6,5 per cent of all crime victims who gave this reason for their dissatisfaction. This confirms the notion that violent crime victims often report crimes because they require immediate assistance. Victims also report these crimes to the police in an attempt to prevent them from happening again: 71 per cent of rape victims were unhappy with the police investigation of their case, while the remaining 29 per cent wanted more follow-up information. This is significant given that unprofessionalism and the poor treatment of victims are often regarded as the main factors that dissuade rape victims from reporting to the police.

The high levels of dissatisfaction with the service provided by the police to those victims of crime in Johannesburg who report their crimes, is of grave concern. Not only are cases less likely to proceed successfully without support from the victim and commitment from the police, but victims have one more reason not to report a crime the next time they are faced with the choice. Since the risk of repeat victimisation in Johannesburg is high, the chances of these victims being in a position to make this choice again are good. In this regard, the odds are already stacked against reporting: the likelihood of reporting to the police diminishes every time another crime is committed against the same victim.41

The police have a real interest in improving reporting levels and treating victims well. Low levels of reporting, given that the true extent and nature of the crime will not be brought to their attention, affect the police's ability to control and prevent crime. Victims are likely to become alienated if the perception exists that there is nowhere for them to turn when faced with victimisation. As such, the proper treatment of victims will enhance the likelihood of reporting further crimes, improve respect for the law and is the easiest and most effective way for the police to improve their public image.42

Many of the problems mentioned by the victims of crime could be addressed through basic improvements at station level. But while the police in South Africa have some way to go in providing the service their name suggests, public opinion is unlikely to improve dramatically. Expectations of what the police should achieve seem to rise faster than what they can achieve, and the police in most countries do not satisfy victims' demands.43 In Johannesburg, for example, even those victims who think the police are successfully controlling crime, believe improved policing will best contribute to improved levels of safety.

Victims of violent crime, in particular, have more specialised needs than purely receiving professional treatment by the police. Their responses to victimisation are driven by the need to receive assistance and prevent the violence from happening again. The police are not always best placed to meet these specialised needs, and indeed should not be expected to do so. It is in this context that various types of agencies have begun offering practical and emotional support to crime victims. These services are more common in developed countries, but even in these regions, the proportion of victims who actually receive such assistance remains small.

Alternative assistance

In recent years there has been a shift in the thinking of criminal justice agencies away from purely focusing on arresting and convicting criminals, to include the provision of better treatment and services for the victims of crime. In line with this, both the government and non-governmental organisations have sought to meet these needs. International standards for assistance were formulated in the United Nations Declaration on the Basic Principles of Justice, Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power in 1985.44 Addressing the needs of victims, both practically and emotionally, enables them to cope better with their victimisation and to regain faith in the criminal justice system's ability to protect them.

In Johannesburg, comparatively few victims of crime appear to have made use of the services of specialised agencies to address their needs. Indeed, the knowledge among victims of the existence of such organisations appears poor.45 The data suggest that, where they exist, access to such services is an excluding factor for the majority of victims. Only one in every 10 crime victims had used victim support and of this proportion, white victims and victims living in the suburbs used agencies more than the average of 11 per cent. Only three per cent of victims living in the inner city of Johannesburg (ironically where some of these agencies are actually situated) had made use of specialised agencies. There was little evidence from the survey that victims of violent crime made more use of agencies than victims of property crimes, except in the case of rape victims, of whom 17 per cent had received help (Figure 20). This significantly higher proportion of victims receiving specialised assistance suggests that prioritised interventions to address the needs of victims of sexual offences have made some in-roads.


Figure 20: Victims' usage of special agency support
Johannesburg Victim Survey



Comparative surveys conclude that few victims actually sought help of any kind. Although the highest actual levels of usage are in Western Europe, victims in developing countries, in particular, have indicated that they would have liked help. And while assistance may be interpreted as financial support in these regions, the highest proportion of victims requesting help are female victims of violence, whose first priority is to stop the incidents from occurring again.46

In line with the trend in other developing countries, the need for these services is clear in Johannesburg. More than half of all victims thought this kind of support would have been useful. Interestingly, white victims and those living in the suburbs (who make the most use of this assistance) were least likely to regard these agencies as useful. One could assume they have other support networks and resources to draw on, such as private psychological help which others may not be able to afford. African victims and those living in the townships, on the other hand, were the most positive about such services. This may relate to the fact that Africans are more at risk of the violent crimes on which these agencies primarily focus their services. In those cases where a household member had been murdered, as many as 72,5 per cent of victims thought support would have been useful (Figure 21). In the UK, Victim Support, which provides assistance to all victims of crime, has recognised this need and offers specially tailored programmes for families of murder victims.

Figure 21: Perceptions of the usefulness of special agencies
Johannesburg victim Survey



According to the victim survey, men and women made equal use of victim services. Generally, women, as well as those who are victims of more serious and violent crimes, seek such assistance. In Johannesburg, the equal use by men and women of such services may be attributed to the finding that a greater proportion of men were victims of violent crime. The survey also found that men were more likely to think that such services would have been useful. However, the large proportion of victims who were unsure of the usefulness of these agencies (nearly 20 per cent) suggests a low awareness of their existence and of the potential benefits to stem the cycle of violence. It also points to the need for much greater publicity of available services. This is something which is recognised by the Department of Welfare, as the National Crime Prevention Strategy's lead agency on victim empowerment issues.

Alternative protection

Feelings of insecurity and high levels of fear of crime have several sources, not least of which is the experience of actual victimisation and the perception that effective assistance will be unlikely. Preventing crime through personal and community initiatives becomes a priority in environments such as Johannesburg, where crime rates (and especially violent robbery and burglary rates) are high, the effectiveness and support of the police are limited, and there are few other sources of assistance for victims.

According to the survey, Johannesburg's crime victims generally believe the areas in which they live are the most unsafe in the city. Given this, it is unsurprising that they feel particularly vulnerable at night in their neighbourhoods and only fairly safe during the day. Just over half of the victims (52 per cent) identified the inner city as the most unsafe part of Johannesburg, followed by township areas (28 per cent). Suburbs are perceived as the safest areas in Greater Johannesburg: apart from those victims living in these areas (most of whom identified the inner city as being particularly unsafe), all other victims said they were most vulnerable to crime in the places where they live. While people may simply be more familiar with their home environments and those that they visit, it is more likely that few parts of Johannesburg (outside the suburbs) can in fact be considered safe.

In line with this finding, the proportion of white victims and those living in the suburbs who felt very unsafe at night in their neighbourhoods, was below the average of 65 per cent. By contrast, 70 per cent of victims residing in the inner city and 72 per cent of those in the townships felt particularly vulnerable at night (Figure 22). Women and victims over the age of 60 years expressed similar views. Although the situation improves somewhat during the day, 40 per cent of all victims feel only fairly safe where they live, and 27 per cent feel slightly unsafe.

Figure 22: Feelings of safety in neighbourhoods at night
Johannesburg Victim Survey



Given these high levels of insecurity, the types of protection measures used by victims in their homes vary according to affordability, the type of dwelling in which people live, as well as the types of crime which are the most prevalent. Victims could provide the survey with more than one option, and of the responses given, door locks (18,5 per cent), high fences (16 per cent) and burglar guards (14 per cent) were most commonly reported for all victims as a group (Figure 23). One in 10 victims reported making use of burglar alarms and a guard or night-watchman for protection. The popularity of these measures is undoubtedly related to the high levels of burglary in Johannesburg and the fact that insurance requirements make them a necessity. In the case of burglar alarms, comparative evidence suggests that victims believe these devices also serve as a deterrent, since many are installed only after properties are broken into.47

Figure 23: Protection measures used
Johannesburg Victim Survey



Among inner city residents, who largely live in apartments, the services of a night-watchman or guard was most often reported. Door locks, burglar guards, and intercom systems also provide some protection. Although the cost of protection devices, such as intercoms, is generally higher for flats than for houses, 12 per cent of responses for those living in the inner city accounted for intercom systems.

Sophisticated (and expensive) measures, such as burglar alarms, armed response services and intercoms, are nevertheless more popular among victims living in the suburbs than in the townships. This also applies to the use of guns and the participation in neighbourhood watch schemes. (However, it is likely that more people actually possess firearms, but may have been reluctant to report this to the survey, should these weapons not be licensed.) By far the most common measure for victims living in townships is a fence: 37 per cent reported using this for protection.

The inaccessibility of adequate protection for their households against crime for many of Johannesburg's residents, is evidenced by the sizeable portion of African victims (22 per cent) and victims in informal settlements (70 per cent) who said they have no protection. This, as well as the proportion of Africans who do not protect their properties with the kinds of measures discussed here, is in fact lower than the corresponding 36,5 per cent of victims in other developing countries.48

Although a wide variety of measures are employed by individuals to safeguard their households, this type of protection is not a priority for victims of crime or for the general public, according to survey data. In developing countries, 40 per cent of victims felt that physical protection measures were of limited value, even though they believed their chances of becoming a victim of burglary in the next 12 months was very likely.49 In Johannesburg (and South Africa in general) people are more inclined to allocate responsibility for protection from crime to the government and the criminal justice system. These agencies cannot reasonably be expected to carry the full burden of ensuring public safety. But the breakdown in effective law enforcement is such that attempts at community and personal crime prevention will have limited success without also significantly improving the ability of formal state structures to combat crime.

Holding government responsible

The ability of the police to control and prevent crime in Johannesburg is limited, according to the victim survey. According to most victims (61 per cent), the police are doing a poor job at controlling crime in their areas. Despite this view, victims overwhelmingly believe that the police (and to a lesser extent the criminal justice system) are fundamental in making Johannesburg a safer place. This suggests that, for those who have experienced crime in particular, the responsibility for providing safety in the short term rests squarely with the authorities. In this regard, the survey reflects a number of issues:

Victims in Johannesburg do not believe the police are successfully controlling crime. This is particularly the view of victims who live in townships.



The main reason provided for this is that the police cannot be relied upon to effectively perform their normal, professional duties. Other problems are police corruption and that the police have simply `given up'.



More police and better policing are regarded as the most effective strategies to enhance safety in Johannesburg.



Along with improvements in policing, tougher legislation is favoured.



These views suggest a hardening of attitudes towards crime and appropriate government responses. It is likely that high impact shorter term solutions will be required to shift these perceptions. The views of Johannesburg's crime victims suggest that waiting for long term economic and development-oriented solutions is not an option.

Evaluating police effectiveness at controlling crime tends to be based on general feelings of safety, the types of crime which people have been victims of, as well as actual police performance in the areas in which people live.

Those victims in Johannesburg who experienced particularly violent crimes, such as murder, rape and hijacking are most inclined to have lost confidence in the police, according to the survey. The same applies to victims of some of the most prevalent crimes, such as burglary and car theft. The youngest victims of crime, between the ages of 15 and 24 years, and women also had little faith in the police's abilities.

Feelings of safety are also a factor influencing perceptions of police effectiveness: victims who feel very unsafe in their neighbourhoods at night were least likely to think the police are doing a good job, and were particularly critical of police performance. These were also the group of victims most likely to identify the death penalty as a suitable option for making Johannesburg safer. As feelings of safety improve, victims increasingly identify policing, development and community-related measures as solutions to the crime problem.

The impact of policing is more evident in suburban Johannesburg than elsewhere in the city. Victims living in these areas were most inclined to described the police's ability to control crime as `good', compared with those in the inner city, informal settlements and townships. The main complaints about the police among these victims was that the police had `given up' and were `corrupt'. Nevertheless, victims living in the suburbs were most likely to give the police some credit, saying they were trying hard against all odds.

The police seem to offer the least protection to township residents. Here, more victims said the police were doing a bad job at controlling crime in their area (67 per cent), than did victims living in any other part of Johannesburg (Figure 24). (Interestingly, those staying in informal settlements were no less dissatisfied with the police than the average for this response.) The most common reason given for this view among victims living in the townships was that the police service was unreliable and ineffective in controlling crime. This is also the issue most likely to confront residents of the inner city, where 31 per cent of victims have noted this problem.

Figure 24: Police control of crime in area of residence
Johannesburg Victim Survey



In the face of inadequate policing, high crime levels and the limited available options for alternative household protection and assistance to victims particularly for those who are less affluent and live in townships and informal settlements effective law enforcement and criminal justice are believed to be the answers. Asked to nominate any strategies which the government could adopt to make Johannesburg safer, the most popular choice was for more police (39 per cent which included more visible policing, personnel and resources), followed by better policing (19,5 per cent). One in 10 victims thought harsher penalties would help and 12 per cent suggested the death penalty. Since these latter measures constitute a package of responses related to justice issues, this option was favoured by 21 per cent of crime victims in Johannesburg (Figure 25). Only 11 per cent thought social development would make a difference and as little as one per cent identified community policing as an effective solution. It is possible that only a few respondents identified community policing as a solution, because this was included by implication in the `better policing' option. Furthermore, victims were asked what the government should do to improve safety, and the perception may exist that community policing is a largely non-state initiative.

Figure 25: Safety strategies (unprompted)
Johannesburg Victim Survey



Apart from the death penalty, which was identified as a solution more often by white crime victims and those living in the suburbs, law enforcement options were most likely to be selected by victims living in poorer areas such as informal settlements (49 per cent requested more police) and townships (43 per cent). Similarly, 24 per cent of victims in the inner city called for better policing, as did 28 per cent in informal areas. The nature of the crime problem in the inner city may well require a different prioritisation of crime prevention measures: 16 per cent of victims here (a higher proportion than elsewhere in Johannesburg) said social development was a necessary strategy.

Policing is clearly the favoured solution for victims in Johannesburg. Previous opinion surveys in South Africa have recorded far higher support for socio-economic improvements, such as development, job creation and education, as solutions to crime. According to the victim survey, this no longer applies. This trend, however, does suggest a shift in prioritisation between options (as the urgency of the crime problem increases), rather than a change in the way that crime is understood. When asked which government-led measures other than policing could best deliver safety, 42,5 per cent of victims selected more jobs for the unemployed from a range of five prompted options (Figure 26). But the introduction of harsher penalties was a close second choice (37 per cent).

Figure 26: Safety strategies (prompted)
Johannesburg Victim Survey



These findings reinforce the argument that attitudes to crime and its solutions are hardening: when policing is excluded from the available options for improving safety in Johannesburg, many victims select other interventions which they believe will make a difference in the short term. In this climate, measures such as teaching the youth better norms and values and mobilising the community, are not regarded as a priority, with respectively only nine and eight per cent of victims selecting these options. These are not viewed as unimportant, however. African victims prioritised employment and harsher penalties, but a larger proportion selected better lighting and surveillance (especially those living in informal settlements), teaching the youth better norms and values (which was also a popular choice for victims living in the inner city), and mobilising the community, than did other victims.