Chapter 8

A NEEDS ASSESSMENT ON BORDER CONTROL

As an essential component of the national border control mechanism, members of the Border Control Police are specialists in border policing. With less than 1 000 police officers enlisted in the Land Border Police Units, their opinions are highly valued as sources of information on the nature, limitations and needs of border policing in South Africa. In order to canvass the opinions of the border police, a qualitative survey was designed and randomly distributed among border police officers. The self-administered quantitative surveys comprised two components, the border survey and the resource survey. In both surveys, the sample comprised mainly border police. However, the resource survey was targeted only at the most senior officers at each border post.

The border survey was used to obtain opinions about the following:

allocation of time to various border policing issue areas (such as policing illegal immigrants, stolen vehicles, firearms, drugs and contraband, etc.);



allocation of time to the various border police functions (such as administration, customs duties, information gathering, investigations, and more);



identification of the main partnerships with other roleplayers (such as other specialised police units, agencies and government departments);



assessment of the effectiveness of border control mechanisms;



assessment of the significance attached to the policing of firearms; and



recommendations for improved border policing.

The resource survey was administered among the most senior officers in charge at border posts. It was used for qualitative information against which the utility of the more extensive border survey could be gauged. The resource survey obtained opinions about the following:

review of the border post’s resource needs (such as personnel, vehicles and communication systems); and



assessment of the main priority areas and needs of units.

It was vital to obtain the opinions of senior officers in charge as they have a better sense of the real or actual needs of the border post. It can be argued that detached officers — due to their short term of duty — do not fully appreciate the strategic needs of the border post. In most cases, the information obtained in the resource survey confirmed or supported the findings of the border survey.

Sample

The maximum sample for the border survey was 1 100 respondents and 52 respondents for the resource survey. Although the Land Border Police Head Office distributed surveys to all national land border posts, only some border posts were able to return the questionnaires. In total, there were 110 completed border surveys and 20 resource surveys. This is a sufficient sample from which to draw valid conclusions. The 10% return on the border survey and 38% return on the resource survey were relatively good for self-administered questionnaires.

Table 9 outlines the number of border and resource surveys completed at each land border post. The instruction was given that each police officer at the border post should complete a border survey. One member of the internal tracing unit was therefore eligible to complete a survey form.

Overall, representatives from 20 of the 52 land border posts participated in the survey. Higher returns were received from certain provincial borderline areas. Most notably was a strong and prompt return from Mpumalanga, Northern Cape and the KwaZulu-Natal (bordering Mozambique) provincial landborders (see table 10).

The experience of border police officers was measured in terms of two variables: their overall experience in the SAPS and their specific experience in the specialised border control units. Both variables are important to consider, as these will determine, among others, determine the extent of their ability to fulfil their responsibilities in terms of their level of border experience and expertise. On the whole, it was found that police officers in Land Border Control Units had long-standing careers in the police. It was found that 69.5% of the border police sample had been in service for more than 10 years, and 25.1% of the sample had been in the specialised border police for more than 10 years. The lower number of years’ service in the border police, compared to the general police force, was attributed to the fact that a police officer first have to serve as an ordinary police officer before being able to join a specialised police unit (see table 11).

It has to be borne in mind that some of the border police officers were on permanent duty, while others were on detached or temporary duty. When considering the length of time in the border police by type of appointment, it was found that detached police officers clearly had less experience in the border police (see table 12). All detached police officers were serving either a few days on or off, or a full two-month assignment, while permanent border police officers had been assigned for a variety of periods. In the survey, there was approximately one detached member for every four permanent members who answered the survey.

The cross-tabulation of the opinions of the border police by demographic information shows that the permanent border police were relatively more optimistic about border policing that the detached border police (see table 18).

Furthermore, among the permanent border police, those with 15 or more years’ experience in the border police had the most negative view of the effectiveness of border policing (see table 19).

Assessment of the significance attached to policing of firearms

This survey was undertaken with two objectives in mind. The first was to provide information to Land Border Units to enhance their operational ability. The second was to determine the extent to which current border control mechanisms provide an obstacle to the illegal movement of firearms and to identify areas where policing action to capture illegal firearms can be enhanced.

In terms of legal firearms, it appears that most holders of licensed firearms declare them upon entry into South Africa, although this clearly varies (see table 20). For example, during the visit to the Northern Cape, border control officers expressed the feeling that many of the farmers merely hid their firearms when crossing the border between South Africa and Namibia for short periods of time.

However, the reliability of the finding that 28.7% of the people with firearms ‘almost always’ and 45.4% ‘always’ declare their firearms upon entry into South Africa is questionable, in the light of the finding that firearms are seldom uncovered during searches (see table 21). In addition, it is usually only licensed firearms that are intercepted during searches (see table 22). The border police survey indicated that people who do not declare firearms during searches are usually arrested (54.4%). However, there was little evidence at the border posts that this was the case (see table 23).

The border police were of the opinion that the level of control over the flow of firearms across South Africa’s borders is significantly better than in other Southern African countries. Overall, 20.4% felt that South African border controls were ‘very much better’ and 35.2% felt they were ‘better’. Yet, the effectiveness of the current control mechanisms were seen to be average, with only slightly more respondents feeling that border controls were very effective (12.1%) or effective (23.4%) as opposed to very ineffective (3.7%) and ineffective (23.4%) (see table 25).

Confirming many suspicions, it is relatively easy to smuggle firearms across the South African land borders. It was found that 32.7% of border police respondents felt that it was ‘very easy’ and 14.4% felt that it was ‘easy’ to smuggle firearms across borders (see table 26). Understanding the reasons why it is relatively easy to smuggle firearms across the South African border was one of the motivations for the Arms Management Programme undertaking the survey. The more obvious reason would be the absence of regular patrols along the borderline between border posts. The survey alluded to some other reasons such as the need to enhance current methods of undertaking searches and the partnership between the border police and other specialised police units, as well as providing training and incentives for border police. These suggestions for improving border policing are explored in more rigorous detail below.

Suggestions for improving border policing

A range of items were identified that could improve border policing, such as more resources, better search methods, training and incentives, enhanced partnerships, and replacing and monitoring existing staff (see table 27). These five categories were informed by the responses provided in the survey and represent a cluster, or category of similar responses. Respondents were able to identify as many suggestions as they thought appropriate. On average, each respondent gave approximately two answers per question, but some respondents gave as many as four suggestions.

The most popular suggestion for improved border policing was to allocate more resources to border posts (51.8%). More resources include items such as more staff (60.6% of respondents who identified ‘more resources’), better infrastructure (33.3%), and easier access to appropriate transport (6.1%) (see table 28).

The second top suggestion for improved border policing was the need for better search methods. Approximately one-third of respondents supported the second suggestion. Overall, 17.8% of the recommendations for improved border policing involved ways to improve the outcome of each search. Considering only those responses under the ‘better search methods’ category, it was found that 47.1% of the suggestions were for increased patrols along the borderline, 35.3% for more advanced equipment for searches and 14.7% were for the use of better search methods. A recurring problem seems to be the inadequacy of the current search methods (see table 29). With the relatively small sample base (a count of 34 responses), more research is required into the nature of the inadequacy of the current search methods. This should particularly focus on the extent to which current search methods are influenced by the lack of skills, specialised equipment, time, motivation and appropriate search facilities.

The third suggestion for improved border policing was to provide better training and incentives. Of the suggestions for improved border policing 16.8% involved better training and incentives (see table 30).

Another suggestion for improved border policing was to enhance existing partnerships with other agencies, government departments and specialised police units. It was found that 12.9% of the responses indicated that partnerships with the various other agencies, government departments and specialised units should be changed in some manner to enhance their effectiveness (see table 31).

Only the permanent border police raised the issue of ‘replace and monitor’. This involved suggestions such as rotating staff to improve experience and reduce corruption.

Main obstacles facing the border police

The final section of the border survey aimed to define what the main obstacle was that affect the border police’s ability to undertake their responsibilities as members of a Border Police Unit. Detached members were slightly more affected by ‘bread-and-butter’ issues concerning accommodation, lack of after-hours entertainment, as well as the need for more training and incentives. While these were also of concern to permanent members, they felt that better search methods were also a major obstacle (see table 32).

Similar to the main suggestion for improved border policing, the main obstacle was the lack of resources. It was found that 55.3% of the respondents indicated that the main obstacle to their work as border control officers were the lack of resources. Both detached and permanent border police ranked this as their top priority. The main resource was identified by a long margin as the lack of personnel (see table 33).

OveraUnreliability of computer equipmentll, 18.6% of the border police felt there was a need for more training and incentives. More detached police (26.9%) than permanent border police (17.4%) were of this opinion (see table 34).

In response to the question, what the main obstacles are for the border police, 14.7% of respondents indicated the need for better search methods (see table 35).

It was found that 8.7% of the sample, comprising only permanent border police, felt that action had to be taken to enhance the existing partnerships with other agencies, specialised units or government departments (see table 36).

Finally, four responses were given about the need for better management of the border police at border posts, as well as strategies to address corruption (see table 37). It is interesting that so few of the responses spoke of corruption, which is often thought to be a significant problem at national land borders. However, the fact that this was a voluntary self-administered survey meant that it would most probably not canvass these types of responses.

Findings of the resource survey

The analysis of the results of the border survey clearly assisted in defining and understanding the issue of the problems facing border police. In order to assess the findings of the survey rigorously, these need to be refereed by what the most senior officers in charge at border posts felt were the pitfalls and limitations of border policing.

The nineteen border posts that completed the resource survey were asked to provide information profiling the minimum information about their personnel deployed at the border posts, such as the number of police staff, administrative staff and staff vacancies (see table 38). The high proportion of vacancies indicates that the recurring concern expressed about obtaining more personnel was an actual need. On average, there were eight police staff, two administrative staff and 13 staff vacancies. These averages are based on the assumption that all needs are equal at the land border posts in South Africa, although this is not the case. Various border posts are differentiated by, among others, the flow of people and vehicles, the value of imports and exports, and the geographic or strategic importance of the post. These factors influence the personnel needs at the various border posts. Further research should be undertaken to increase the value of the exercise by obtaining information across all 52 land border posts, as opposed to a sample of 20 border posts, differentiated by Grade A, B and C designated border posts.

Some border posts have sufficient transportation to patrol the distance of land border under their jurisdiction, while others are largely underresourced. It was found that Alexander Bay, Middelputs and Mahamba had the longest distance to cover with each of their vehicles. Without taking the grading of the border posts and the topography into account, among others, it is difficult to assess what the vehicle-to-distance ratio implies for the research. It provides a useful tool for monitoring progress within the border police, and the information provides a baseline against which future data of this kind can be compared. With the relatively small sample base and the qualitative tendencies of the resource survey, it highlights the need for more research to evaluate the objective needs of the various border posts in terms of transportation.

While undertaking the background research for this border project, the issue of the adequacy of the communication system was questioned. The research team was under the impression that it was grossly inadequate. However, 15 of the 19 senior officers in charge reported that their communications systems were adequate (see table 40). More research needs to be undertaken to understand this contradiction in findings.

The resource survey should be considered as an expert survey. Although the number of responses is not large enough to calculate valid percentages, the rank order of the various responses is significant and clearly determines the degree of importance attached to the response.

The top border police priorities (identified in the resource survey), when compared with those identified in the border survey under the ‘allocation of time to various border policing issues areas’, supported the findings on all aspects except on the absence of the prioritisation given to drugs. The responses in the border survey highlighted that the majority of time was allocated to patrolling people and vehicles, followed jointly by drugs and firearms, while these top border police priorities made no specific mention of drugs.

The main needs of the Border Police Units reinforced the ideas raised in the border survey, especially in terms of the need for more personnel, equipment, infrastructure and vehicles (see table 42).

It is interesting that the main place where firearms cross is the borderline and not the border post (see table 43). This means that, in order to curb the proliferation of firearms in South Africa, as well as in the subregion, the effective patrolling of the country’s borderline should be addressed. The responsibility for patrolling the national borderline is delegated to the SANDF. Visits to the borders and interviews with senior border police indicate that this is currently not occurring adequately given the lack of operational co-ordination among the agencies, government departments and specialised border units involved in aspects of national border management. In addition, the SANDF has serious budget constraints, which hamper its ability to deploy sufficient personnel along the borderline.

The solutions to the problem of firearms crossing national land borders are integrally wound up in those for improving the effectiveness and capacity of the Land Border Police Units (see table 44).

Conclusion

The aim of the survey was to gather information on the activities the Border Control Units spent their time on. It was found that border police spent more time on certain issue areas, such as illegal immigrants and stolen vehicles, while relatively less time was spent on searches for firearms and drugs. Relatively more time was spent on undertaking searches than on any other border police function, including investigations, information-gathering, customs duties and administration. With the information on time allocation, border police officers will be better able to align the actual time allocation with the desired time allocation. For instance, it may be better to increase the current time allocated to information-gathering and investigations to generate better profiling to inform the selection of who is searched.

National land border management is premised on the idea of working partnerships. For example, at lower grade borders, the border police undertake customs functions based on a partnership, or the border police rely on the dog units for searches. Although these working relationships between the border police and other agencies, government departments and other police units are formal and regulated by instructions, both in the national legislated framework and through institutional co-operation agreements, they do not necessarily operate at maximum efficiency. From qualitative interviews, it was found that the partnerships which work (function near to operative maximum efficiency), among others, relied on the goodwill of the individuals involved. The data presented in this report shows that the enhancement of these partnerships is necessary to improve border policing. It was found that 12.6% (third highest recommendation) of the respondents identified the enhancement of these partnerships as critical, while 8.7% of respondents identified these same partnerships as the main obstacle to border policing.

Similar to the time allocation, the survey determined the relative frequency of interaction between the border police and other agencies, government departments and police units. This was measured by the ‘frequency of contact’. This frequency does not necessarily mean that the border police and the various agencies, government departments and police units have a good relationship, but it does imply that there is some working understanding. It is a well-established fact that frequent contact allows the opportunity for fostering a working understanding. It was found that the border police had the highest level of contact with immigration (Department of Home Affairs), followed in joint second place with customs (SARS) and the SAPS Vehicle Theft Unit. There are a number of police units that could be expected to have a higher frequency of contact with the border police, such as the Illegal Firearms Investigation Unit and the Narcotics Units, as well as the National Intelligence Agency. It would be preferable to see the contact between these agencies and the border police improving. More specifically, in visits to border posts, it was found that the border police lacked and identified the need for many of the specialised skills involved in searching for both firearms and drugs. In addition, the border police need operational intelligence to guide their search actions in order to increase their chances of success.

Searching was the one police function that used the greatest proportion of the border police’s time. However, this was one of the suggestions for improved border policing by 17.8% of the respondents, and identified by 14.7% as a current obstacle to border policing. In the survey, the border police felt they lacked both the skill and equipment to undertake effective searches and, as previously identified, access to intelligence-driven information that would more effectively guide the identification of people and vehicles to be searched. The latter point is particularly pertinent in light of the fact that significant numbers of border control officers are on detached duty. Thus, they are unable to spend long periods of time at border posts to develop their own sense of those people and vehicles that should be searched.