This chapter details the expectations and experience of respondents residing in the 45 police priority areas who had sought and received police services.

The research tools used to gather this data were the exit poll, which canvassed the views of 2 286 people who had just visited a police station, and the follow-up survey, which sought the opinions of 1 361 members of the public who had reported a crime in the previous three months.

In considering the data presented below, it is important to note the following:

The views of the public may be influenced by the sample selection. The stations where the surveys were conducted are all priority stations included in the SAPS' 'Crackdown' strategy. They are high-crime stations, which implies that they may have benefited from more intensive attention from top police management than have other stations. The results of this study could therefore provide a more positive picture of policing than holds true for other parts of the country. Conversely, high-crime stations face more pressure in delivering service to the public than do low-crime stations, because of the number of cases they process. This could result in poorer levels of service and thus negative public perceptions of the police.



The follow-up survey sample is skewed in favour of those complainants who could be traced using the information on their case dockets. Fieldworkers rejected many dockets during the random selection process, because the information contained was insufficient to trace the complainant, either by phone or in person. Detectives would have had equal difficulty in tracing these complainants. Thus the views of those who probably received the least effective service, both in the charge office and from detectives, would not be reflected here.

Public expectations of the police

Most of the people who were questioned during the exit poll had visited the station to report a crime. One quarter had sought administrative services from the police (Figure 12).

Figure 12: Reason for visiting the police station, exit poll

In the follow-up survey, only people who had reported a crime were interviewed. Of these, most had reported property crimes (Figure 13).

Figure 13: Nature of the dockets sampled in the follow-up survey

The property crime category consisted mostly of cases of 'other theft' and housebreaking. The vast majority of cases in the violent crime category were assaults.

Respondents in both the exit poll and the follow-up survey were asked what they expected when they contacted the police. Most of those in the exit poll said that they expected to be treated with respect, and to receive good service. A few expected the service to be prompt or that the police would solve the case or arrest the offender. Very few people said they expected bad treatment, such as slow service and negative attitudes, from the police.

In the follow-up survey, by contrast, a significant majority said they expected the police to solve the case and arrest the offender. The rest of the respondents expected good service, respect and promptness.

Table 17: Public expectations when entering a police station or reporting a crime

	Exit poll	Follow-up
Good service, respect	59%	20%
Prompt service	15%	10%
Solution of the case and arrest of the offender	13%	65%
Information & advice on the case, follow-up	8%	-
The taking of a statement and supplying of a case number and insurance number	3%	2%
"Slow service, referral, negative attitude "	1%	0
Do not know/no expectations	1%	2%
Total	100%	100%

The difference between the expectations in the two surveys shows both that expectations are influenced by actual experiences, and that expectations change over time. In the exit poll, most people had been to the police station to make the first report of a crime, which explains why their main expectation was to be treated decently and for the police to process their complaints. It would be unreasonable at this early stage to expect the police to arrest offenders or solve the case, which is probably why so few respondents mentioned these issues.

The follow-up survey respondents were interviewed up to three months after reporting a crime. It is understandable that their main expectation at that time was for the police to solve the case. Most of the follow-up survey respondents had originally reported their case at the police station in much the same way as those in the exit poll had done. Their expectations at the time of initial reporting would have probably been similar to those of the respondents in the exit poll.

Therefore the police, as service providers, must be able to adapt the way they respond to the needs of the public, as these needs are likely to change once certain expectations have been met.

Aside from the differences between the exit poll and the follow-up survey, the data shows that few people had negative expectations of the police. It also confirms that what people want is decent treatment and prompt and effective attention to the matter they have brought to the police.

Impressions of the police station and initial services

Respondents to the exit poll were asked what their impressions were of the police station upon entering. The results were extremely positive, and suggest that the police officers managing the stations included in the study have devoted considerable attention to the appearance of the charge office. More than 90% of respondents were positive about the condition of the station, saying it was clean, tidy and well maintained. The vast majority (92%) said they felt comfortable in the station, and 83% said they knew where to go to get the help they needed once inside the station.

Prompt service is a key element of good service delivery. Respondents in both the exit poll and the follow-up survey were asked how long it took for their matter to be attended to in the police station or on the phone, depending on how they had contacted the police. All respondents to the exit poll had been to the police station, and the majority of those in the follow-up survey (74%) had reported the crime at the police station. In both cases, over 80% of people were attended to within 15 minutes of entering the police station.

Equally important is how long it took for the matter to be dealt with—in other words, how long it took before the complainant could leave the station. In the exit poll, a majority (64%) said their matter had been handled within 15 minutes of their first being attended to. In the follow-up survey only 42% said the same.

It is not surprising that it took longer for the matter to be settled than for the complainant to be attended to upon arrival, since settling a matter would in most cases involve completing the various forms required in a docket. (Of course, the survey data provides no information about the quality of the information on the docket. This is a separate but equally important issue which the study did not address.)

Figue 14: Time taken before the phone was answered at the police station, follow-up survey

Of the respondents in the follow-up survey who reported a crime to the police on the phone, 17% phoned their local police station and 7% phoned the 10111 emergency number. Half of the people who phoned the station said the phone was answered immediately and 21% said it had been answered in under three minutes (Figure 14). The time taken for the phone to be answered in the case of the remaining respondents appears to have been unacceptably long.

Of the 119 people who phoned 10111, 36% said the call was answered immediately and a further 30% said it took up to three minutes. This means that more respondents who phoned the police station to report a crime said the call was answered immediately than did those who phoned the emergency 10111 service. Since the point of 10111 is to provide an emergency service, it is unfortunate that only one-third of calls appear to have been answered immediately.

Public experience in the police station

Respondents in both surveys were asked a range of questions about the way they were treated by the police. As indicated in Table 18 below, the responses were overwhelmingly positive in both surveys.

Table 18: Treatment of complainants in the police station

	Exit poll	Follow-up
	Yes	Yes
Did the police official identify himself /herself?	34%	54%
Could you identify the official from his/her name tag?	78%	80%
Was the official willing to help?	93%	92%
Did the official treat you with respect?	91%	92%
Did the official treat you with sympathy?	79%	83%
Did the official know what to do about your issue?	91%	90%
Did the official understand your concerns?	92%	92%
Did the official understand your language?	96%	97%

It is significant that over 95% of respondents in both surveys said the police understood their language.

The area that most obviously requires improvement is the identification of police officials to the public. Few police members told the complainant their name, and around 20% could not be identified from their name tags or were not wearing them.

Respondents were also asked whether they were able to discuss the matter they were reporting with enough privacy in the police station. A majority said they did have enough privacy: 57% in the exit poll and 61% in the follow-up survey. Male and female respondents were equally satisfied with the privacy in the station. The requirement for privacy would depend on the type of crime being reported. People reporting an offence like theft, for example, would not necessarily need privacy. The type of crime that was reported was recorded in the follow-up survey only (Figure 13). Since the majority of cases were property crimes, it is unsurprising that most victims were satisfied that they had enough privacy.

The effectiveness of the service provided at the station

Those respondents in the exit poll who had reported a crime, and all respondents in the follow-up survey, were asked a range of questions about how the police official handled their case when reporting, and what information was relayed to them about what to expect after making the initial report.

Table 19 shows that the vast majority of complainants said that their statements were taken quickly and properly, and 70% (in the exit poll) said that they had been given a case number. Sixty-six percent of those interviewed in the exit poll were told what would happen with their case, and 58% (in the exit poll) were told who to contact about their case.

Very few respondents were told about victim support services, or were given information about crime prevention or CPFs.

Table 19: For those who reported a crime, did the police...

	Exit poll	Follow-up
	Yes	Yes
Take your statement quickly and properly?	85%	89%
Tell you that you could make a detailed statement later?	48%	45%
Give you a case number?	70%	79%
Tell you what would happen with your case?	66%	60%
Tell you who to contact about your case?	58%	56%
Tell you where you could get more support?	29%	23%
Offer to take you to where you could get support?	15%	13%
Give you information about how to prevent crime?	13%	14%
Tell you about joining a CPF?	6%	7%

These results suggest that police officials in the community safety centre (or charge office) carry out their immediate duties well. However, they appear to neglect those aspects that are not of direct concern to them, such as the investigation process (which is probably viewed as the domain of the detective service of the SAPS).

The same can be said regarding the small number of complainants who were told about victim support, crime prevention and the CPFs. Police in the community safety centres probably see these issues as the domain of other components within the police station, and therefore of little concern to them.

The finding that less than 30% of respondents were referred to victim support services suggests that the SAPS' Victim Empowerment Initiative is not having the desired impact on the community safety centre—the main point of interface between complainants and the police. It suggests that the training of frontline police personnel needs to be improved to enable these officials to understand their central role in victim empowerment, witness management and facilitating subsequent investigation.

This analysis is supported by further investigation of what information was given to complainants in the community safety centre about the procedures they should expect after making the first report of a crime.

As indicated in Table 20, although most respondents were given a case number (which is a good start in enabling complainants to track their cases), only half or less than half were given any information regarding the investigation process.

Table 20: Did the police tell those reporting a crime that...

	Exit poll	Follow-up
	Yes	Yes
They should have a case number?	79%	83%
They could have a copy of their statement?	38%	34%
They could correct their statement before signing?	48%	56%
The detective might need a further statement?	54%	53%
They could ask for contact details of the detective in their case?	52%	48%
They could ask the detective about what washappening to their case?	53%	50%
The detective would inform them of the progress on their case?	55%	56%
They should tell the detective if they go away or change address?	37%	31%
They should inform the detective if they fear thatthe suspect may interfere with their case?	33%	27%

The consequences of failing to inform complainants about the procedures that follow the reporting of a crime, and what they can expect from the detection process, are potentially serious. This information is crucial to familiarise complainants with the criminal justice process, to help ensure that witnesses and complainants can be contacted and traced, and thus that the case stands a chance of being tried in court.

It would also enable the victim to contact the detective if necessary, rather than leaving the responsibility for the first contact with (sometimes overburdened) detectives.

The data outlined above shows that the follow-up process after the initial reporting of the crime is the most important service delivery issue for complainants. A complainant needs to know what is likely to happen to his or her case (even if this means telling the party that it will probably be closed for lack of evidence). The follow-up should begin in the charge office, with the provision of information to complainants.

Public satisfaction with service at the police station

The vast majority of respondents in the exit poll (77%) and the follow-up survey (74%) were satisfied with the service they received from the police when they reported the crime.

When considering the expectations that people had of the police, particularly those surveyed in the exit poll (Table 17), these results indicate that the police in the community safety centres are doing well to meet the expectations of their 'clients', thus generating high levels of public satisfaction.

In the exit poll, 86% of those who were satisfied said this was because the police were professional, helpful and supportive. In the follow-up survey, 58% said the same. The other important reason for satisfaction was that the service was prompt: 12% of the exit poll respondents and 37% of the follow-up survey respondents mentioned this.

Among the reasons provided by the few who were not satisfied with the services they had received were that the police were rude and had negative attitudes towards them. The other key reasons were that the service was slow, there was no follow-up or investigation, and that the police were incompetent.

The main reasons motivating the responses of all the respondents revolved more around the treatment of complainants than the actual effectiveness of the police in dealing with the cases. This emphasises the importance of the various programmes aimed at making the SAPS more supportive and appreciative of victims and witnesses.

Extent of police follow-up with complainants after reporting a crime

Respondents in the follow-up survey were asked a range of questions to assess the extent of contact with detectives after reporting a crime, and their level of satisfaction with the service provided by the detectives on their cases.

Table 21: Extent of police follow-up with complainant before an arrest (follow-up survey)

	Yes
After reporting, did you expect to be contacted by a detective?"	87%
Have you had any contact with a detective since reporting the crime?	49%
If you have had contact, did the detective contact you first?	78%
Do you know what has happened to your case?	37%
Do you know how to contact the detective?	62%

The majority of respondents expected to be contacted by a detective after reporting a crime. However, only half (49%) said that they had actually had any contact with the detective after reporting to the police station. Of these, most said the detective had contacted them first.

Most of the respondents said they knew how to get hold of the detective concerned, even though less than half had actually had any contact. This suggests that complainants wait for detectives to contact them, and are unlikely to initiate further contact after reporting a crime. Given the fairly low level of communication between the complainant and the police, it is not surprising that only 37% knew what had happened to their cases. Most of those (84%) who were informed about the progress of their cases had received the information from a detective.

Those respondents who knew what had happened in their cases were asked if they had been informed by a detective that an arrest had been made. Those who knew that an arrest had been made were then asked a range of questions aimed at ascertaining whether detectives keep complainants informed about court proceedings.

Of the total 1 361 respondents who were interviewed in the follow-up survey, only 34% could answer this question. The rest did not know what had happened to their cases and most had not had any contact with detectives (Figure 15). Half of the 34% of respondents (53%) said they had been told by the detective that an arrest had been made. These complainants (who made up only 18% of the total sample of 1 361) were kept well informed by the detectives on their cases.

Figure 15: The declining number of complainants who were kept informed about their case

As indicated in Table 22, the majority were aware of the court case / roll number, the outcome of the bail hearing, whether they had to appear in court and on what day, and when the court was likely to make a decision on the case.

Table 22: Extent of police follow-up with complainant after an arrest (follow-up survey)

	Yes
tIf you know what has happened to your case, did the detective tell you that an arrest was made?	53%
If an arrest was made, did the detective tell you...
The court case / roll number?	80%
The outcome of the bail hearing?	72%
Whether you had to go to court?	88%
The date of your court appearance/s?	86%
The date when the court would decide on the case?	72%
What the court's decision was?	64%

These results indicate that after a crime is reported there is little follow-up by investigating officers until an arrest is made. After an arrest, however, the quality of the service provided by the detectives is perceived to be good. This suggests that there are two phases in the follow-up process: the pre- and post-arrest phases. The survey results indicate that police service is weaker in the pre-arrest phase. Officers both in the community service centre and the detective service are responsible for delivering this service to complainants.

The superior service in the post-arrest follow-up stage is confirmed by the overall level of satisfaction expressed by respondents with the service rendered by the investigating officers. Of those respondents who knew what had happened to their cases, the vast majority (80%) were satisfied with the service from detectives. (It is however important to reiterate that only 34% of the total sample of 1 361 people interviewed in the follow-up survey knew what had happened to their case. The views on satisfaction with the detective service are therefore the opinions of only a small percentage of complainants).

Most of those respondents who were satisfied with service from the detectives said the reason was that the police were helpful, supportive and honest (58%). Other significant reasons were that the detectives followed up the case (25%), and took action against the suspect (16%). The main reasons for not being satisfied were that there was no follow-up and investigation (69%), that service was slow and that the charge had not been taken seriously (20%).

The findings on the service received in the police station and after a crime had been reported reflect the two important elements of police service identified by the public: being treated properly and having the charges brought dealt with.

It is, however, worth noting that for complainants, 'dealing with the matter' in the case of detectives means providing follow-up information to complainants, rather than actually arresting perpetrators or securing convictions.

Following up a case could obviously lead to an arrest and conviction, but complainants' expectations are currently more modest—they need to know what is happening with their case, if anything. This does not mean that detectives should shift their focus away from their core business of investigating crime and arresting perpetrators. Rather, it shows that there is more to satisfying complainants than making an arrest. It also indicates the importance of training police officials in victim and witness management skills.

Efforts to improve the pre-arrest service to complainants who have reported a crime will need to focus on both the detectives and the charge office / uniform personnel. Detectives are no doubt overburdened by large case loads, which limit their ability to contact complainants after they have reported a crime. Nevertheless, some method must be found to deal with the expectation of complainants that they will be kept informed.

Public perceptions of how service at the station can be improved

Respondents in both the exit poll and follow-up survey were asked what the police should do to improve service at the station.

Table 23: What should the police do to improve their service at the station?

	Exit poll	Follow-up
Improve skills	31%	20%
Provide more resources	20%	16%
Give prompt response and service	19%	11%
Solve cases, arrest criminals	9%	16%
Treat people & cases equally	6%	10%
Follow up on cases	1%	13%
Improve their attitude towards the public	5%	8%
Nothing, don't know	8%	5%
Have greater visibility and more patrols	1%	2%
Work with the community, raise awareness	0%	1%
Total	100%	100%

Among respondents to the exit poll, the key issues for better service were improving skills, providing the police with more resources and providing a prompt service.

The views of the follow-up survey respondents covered the same issues, but included solving cases, arresting criminals and providing follow-up to complainants about their cases.

A comparison with the data in Table 17, on what people expected from the police when they made their first report of a crime, confirms that people's expectations and experiences of the police influenced their suggestions for improving service. It is however important that very few respondents said the police should improve their attitude to the public, be more helpful or supportive.

Together with the other results in this chapter, it is evident that the police have done well to respond in a helpful, respectful and supportive way to those who visit the station and report crime.

Importantly though, the positive responses received from those who accessed police services are hardly those one would expect from members of the public dealing with corrupt or unmotivated police officers. Indeed, even the 24% of respondents to both polls who were dissatisfied with the service they received from the police did not share the primary concerns raised in the general community public survey. Not one of these respondents identified corruption as the reason for their dissatisfaction.

The results of the three surveys therefore indicate a very clear divide between public perceptions of the police and the experience of those who have had direct interaction with them. This is indicative of the extent to which perceptions of the police can be shaped by factors that have little or nothing to do with the police. Thus, factors like neighbourhood context (such as the level of poverty and insecurity), feelings of political disempowerment, access to the media, personal communications or general feelings of risk and fear of crime can affect perceptions of the police.

Summary