Rural exposure:

Measuring police performance in rural areas


People living in deep rural areas are almost as likely to become victims of crime as those in urban areas. However, the rural poor are less able to deal with crime. Survey results question the police’s crime combating ability in these areas.

A 1998 ISS Rural Victims Survey survey of 756 inhabitants of 40 African rural settlements in six predominantly rural provinces found that 56.9% of the respondents had been victimised at least once between July 1993 and July 1998. This rate of victimisation is similar to urban rates and supports the findings of South Africa’s 1998 National Victims Survey, indicating that the difference between the levels of crime in the urban and rural areas may not be as great as commonly thought.

According to the ISS Rural Victims Survey, the most common crime affecting rural settlements in the Eastern Cape, Kwa-Zulu Natal, Mpumalanga, Northern Province, North West, and the Free State was stock theft (16.9% of respondents). Burglary and violent crime — which includes murder, sexual assault, and assault — respectively affected 15.6% and 13.1% of the respondents.

If the rural poor are less able to deal with crime, the police are even less able to combat crime. More police visibility, reporting crime, faster police response times, and greater satisfaction of police service, were found to be the key indicators for successful policing in rural areas.

Police visibility

In the ISS Rural Victims Survey, respondents were asked "How often do you see a police officer on duty in your village (or area)?" Table 1 details their response.

Table 1 Police visibility

Response
Number of respondents
Percentage
respondents
Never see a police officer
253
33.50%
See a police officer less than once a month
241
31.90%
See a police officer more than once a month
134
17.70%
See a police officer at least once a week
78
10.30%
See a police officer every day
50
6.60%
Total
756
100%

This experience matches that of operational police officers based in the deep rural areas. People in such areas are unlikely to see a police officer unless the police are there to attend to a complaint or to arrest a suspect.

Further, in some localities, complicity in crime or retribution for crimes committed in the locality translates into an open hostility towards the police which inhibits visible patrols.

Reporting crime

Practically then, the limited police presence and infra-structural constraints mean that most interaction between the police and those they serve occurs at the police station, when police assistance is sought.

However, the remoteness of some of the police stations and the lack of telephones and transportation means that, for many in the rural areas, seeking help from the police can sometimes be a long and relatively expensive experience.

Yet, as indicated in Table 2, the rates of reporting of crime, and especially reporting to the police, appear relatively high.

Table 2 reveals that the police are still viewed by the majority of victims as the primary authority for dealing with crime. Thus, the cynicism and loss of faith in the police characteristic of many urban areas seems not to have developed to the same extent in South Africa’s rural areas.

Table 2 Reporting Crime

Stocktheft
Violent
crimes
Burglary
Damage to
property
Percentage of
victims who
reported crime
80.2%
71.0%
66.4%
73.0%
-Incident
reported to SAPS
69.3%
84.2%
72.4%
47.4%
-Incident
reported to
traditional
authority
29.7%
10.9%
24.1%
31.6%
-Incident
reported to
community
structure
1.0%
4.9%
3.4%
21.0%

Response time

However, the very limited ability of the police to respond timeously to reported crime may lead to growing disillusionment. This is indicated in the Table 3 which outlines, according to the victims of crime, the time taken by police to arrive at the crime scene

Table 3 Time taken by the police to arrive at crime scene

Stocktheft
Violent
crimes
Burglary
Damage to
property
Under 2 hours
38.70%
51.80%
42.40%
55.60%
2 – 5 hours
12.90%
8.70%
8.50%
11.10%
5 hours to 2 days
14.50%
9.90%
13.60%
11.10%
More than 2 days
8.10%
13.60%
22.00%
–
Did not come at all
25.80%
13.60%
13.60%
22.20%

Client satisfaction

It is hardly surprising then that most victims of crime were not particularly happy with the service they received from the police (Table 4).

Table 4 Client satisfaction

Victims of
stocktheft
Victims of violent crime
Victims of violent crime
Satisfied
21.40%
32.10%
26.90%
Non-committal
12.90%
22.60%
1 case
Dissatisfied
65.70%
45.20%
71.40%
-No follow up or contact after crime reported
44.40%
25.00%
26.80%
- No investigation or arrest
51.10%
43.70%
56.10%
- Treated unprofessionally by police
1 case
18.70%
9.70%
- Suspect arrested then released
1 case
12.60%
7.30%

However, some of this dissatisfaction, particularly much of that associated with the perceived lack of investigation and arrests, may be attributed to factors beyond the control of the police. Most obviously, a thorough investigation may reveal little concrete evidence and witnesses willing to give evidence may be lacking. Not surprisingly this would result in hardly any arrests.

Thus, to improve perceptions of police competence, informative communication or feedback on the process and progress of a reported case is crucial. Given the proportion of victims who claimed to have received no contact or further follow-up from the police, this is clearly lacking in rural areas.

This situation is not helped by the real lack of communication between the police and the community. For instance, when asked whether a Community Police Forum (CPF) had been established in their area, most respondents said ‘no’ (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Respondents' knowledge of whether there
was a Community Police Forum in their area

Implications for policing

Without sufficient and adequate basic resources, both human and material, public perceptions of policing cannot be expected to improve.
  • Given the size, geographical isolation and dispersion of the rural areas, it is unlikely that a police strategy based on present notions of proactive ‘community policing’ can be sustained.
  • If policing in the deep rural areas is and can only be reactive in nature, then the ‘proactive’ functions of the rural SAPS should focus on gathering intelligence to guide the deployment of both station personnel and specialised units, and to support the detective functions.
  • An enhanced police training programme is required, which should focus on the basic requirements for those who lack them — such as literacy, driving skills and basic police training — as well as more advanced information and evidence gathering techniques.
  • There would be little point in improving the training and abilities of rural based officers if the current reluctance to work in these areas is not overcome. Therefore, an incentive scheme in which periods of service in the deep rural areas would be rewarded is required.

Conclusion

For the police these issues imply rethinking the current approach to measuring police performance in the rural areas. A more suitable approach would aim to:
  • Improve the ratio of arrests and changes to the incidence of priority crimes as reported to the police.
  • Improve the rate of successful prosecutions and the conviction of offenders.
Measurement of these factors is more likely to be indicative of actual police performance than the current system which uses statistics on crime rates.

Eric Pelser
Institute for Security Studies