For SAPS provincial, area and station managers, as well as many CPF practitioners, the key guide for the implementation of 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 and became the subject of police and CPF workshops across much of the country. The document has, therefore, been accessed by 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; and


63% of station level CPF.

However, it appears from these responses that although access to the policy document has been generally satisfactory, it is limited 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 policy document.

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

Those least likely to view the policy document as an effective guide to implementation were the provincial SAPS respondents and their colleagues in the provincial secretariats.These respondents cited the lack of a coherent strategy and a dedicated budget for implementation, a lack of clarity regarding the roles and functions of the various role-players, and some dysfunctional CPFs as the primary reasons for their views. However, this critique reflects frustration at the manner in 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

	Station SAPS	Area SAPS	Station CPF	Area CPF
Partnership between local police and the community	64%	57%	40%	29%
Improvement in community liaison, input and communication	12%	7%	24%	27%
Responsiveness and accountability from the local police	11%	27%	3%	9%
The building of trust between the police and the community	10%	9%	-	2%
Other	4%	-	-	7%
Providing resources to the SAPS	-	-	5%	7%
Crime prevention activities	-	-	27%	18%

As the establishment of police-community partnerships through the CPF structures is a key practical element of the policy and 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 more important 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 by respondents 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 difference was articulated when respondents were asked about the nature and purpose of partnerships. Their responses are detailed in the table below.

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

	Station SAPS	Area SAPS	Station CPF	Area CPF
To enable joint problem solving	71%	81%	35%	29%
To improve police-community communication and interaction	19%	6%	12%	34%
To improve trust between police and community	4%	2%	-	-
To improve local policing	3%	7%	4%	17%
To establish an equal working relationship	-	-	50%	20%
Other	2%	4%	-	-

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

For police respondents, partnerships are far more likely to focus on acquiring assistance to deal with particular issues, and particularly on acquiring additional resources for general policing purposes or, in some instances, crime prevention activities. 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 the police, acceptance of community representatives by the police and sound working relations with the police. The issue for the CPF respondents is therefore one of acceptance—partnership with the police is viewed primarily as a means of enhancing 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 and CPF representatives have, over time, superseded the original policy goals. For example, the policy is explicit on the purpose of police-community partnerships via the CPF:

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

and, later:

"The establishment of Community Police Forums and Boards, which should be broadly representative of the community, is of crucial importance, ... The main objective of this partnership is to determine, through consultation, community needs and policing priorities, and to promote police accountability, transparency and 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 directly mentioned by the respondents—although they might be implicit in the few responses related to improving trust and local policing.

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

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, as expected, most respondents at provincial, area and station levels, identified the launch or promotion of the CPFs and the area and provincial boards as the primary means through which the policy had been implemented. This translated, for 32% of SAPS and 50% of CPF respondents at station level, to a direct association between implementation of community policing 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 prevention projects were the primary means through which community policing had been implemented. Further, 25% of SAPS station respondents and 19% of CPF station respondents identified joint awareness campaigns as the primary means through which community policing had been implemented. As shown in Table 9, these are activities associated with the functioning of the CPFs. This reinforces the view held by the key role-players that CPFs are viewed as the primary vehicle 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 indicate a clear disjuncture between what the station and area level SAPS and CPF respondents perceive the purpose of their partnerships 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 the purpose of their partnerships (see Table 7). No CPF respondents said that they actually engaged with the SAPS to solve common problems—although this may be inferred from the few responses indicating that the CPF engaged in SAPS or CPF capacity building.

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

Table 9: CPF activities

	Station SAPS	Area SAPS	Station CPF	Area CPF
Crime prevention projects	40%	36%	45%	35%
SAPS/CPF capacity building	13%	9%	9%	13%
Problem solving/planning	13%	13%	-	-
Public awareness campaigns	11%	11%	17%	28%
Resource procurement for SAPS or CPF	7%	11%	15%	8%
Don't know what CPF activities are	6%	-	-	-
Nothing—the CPF has no activities	4%	8%	-	-
Assistance to the SAPS with management issues	3%	6%	-	-
Activities to sustain CPF	-	7%	7%	13%

The limited extent to which the CPF respondents engage with actual policy goals is also emphasised by the very limited role the CPFs play in determining police priorities. For instance, when asked who determines priority crimes and issues at station level, 80% of station SAPS respondents and 72% of station CPF respondents replied that these priorities were determined by the SAPS, primarily by means of crime statistics. Just 11% of SAPS station respondents and 23% of station CPF respondents said that local crime priorities were determined with the aid of input from the CPF. Indeed, 66% of station SAPS and 67% of area SAPS respondents agreed that CPF activities are mainly driven and co-ordinated by the SAPS, 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 that these structures answer to SAPS command structures. Just 17% of SAPS station respondents believed the CPF accounted for its activities to the community. However, station level CPF respondents were divided on the issue—48% believed that they 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% of area CPF respondents replied that the CPFs answer either to SAPS command structures or to CPF boards (which would include 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 more questionable 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 issues and meetings, especially problem solving and the use of resources and finance. This was supported by 72% of the area CPF respondents. Only 23% of the station level police officers, and 9% of the area CPF representatives replied that the CPF 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 project activities. A further 38% said that the CPF reported and accounted for internal CPF issues. This may mean that the accounting for projects is done at a very local community level, without the involvement of the station police or the area CPF board. However, given the data above, it is more likely to mean that there is very little accountability to the community regarding CPF activities.

The original goals of the community policing policy related to the CPFs were to provide community input on local priorities and needs, and monitoring and evaluation of the police to ensure local needs are met. Nevertheless, the data above 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 key role 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 of and 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, local government, NGOs and business organisations had been accessed for support and participation. From the responses provided, it was clear that community structures, local youth and women's groups, religious groups, and other interest groups like farmer and taxi associations were rarely involved. The point here is that the respondents identified government and the stronger, more organised sections of civil society as participants in their activities—NGO's and business organisations—not community structures or local interest groups.

Summary