The practitioner's view

This chapter describes the views of the SAPS and CPF practitioners on the manner in which the policy has been implemented.

Most respondents at the station and area level indicated that they did not believe enough had been done to ensure effective implementation of the community policing policy (Table 10).

Table 10: Has enough been done to ensure effective implementation of the policy?

	Station SAPS	Area SAPS	Station CPF	Area CPF
No	54%	57%	68%	64%
Yes	44%	42%	32%	36%
Don't know	3%	1%	-	-

The most common reasons cited by respondents for the generally negative view were:

a lack of personnel and physical resources;



a lack of support from supervisory structures;



the view in the SAPS that community policing is the function only of the Community Police Officer; and



a lack of general community participation.

These views were largely endorsed by the provincial respondents. Of these the SAPS respondents also mentioned the lack of capacity of the relatively junior community police officers (who are often seen as responsible for implementing community policing) and the lack of participation from the detective service. Provincial secretariat respondents pointed to the lack of support from senior SAPS management and the politicisation of community policing as further inhibiting factors.

The management issues alluded to by the respondents as reasons for their belief that not enough had been done to implement the policy was reinforced by a generally negative view of the ability of the SAPS to facilitate local police responsiveness.

Table 11: Does the structure of the SAPS assist local police responsiveness?

	Station SAPS	Area SAPS	Station CPF	Area CPF
No	67%	52%	71%	56%
Yes	26%	43%	29%	44%
Don't know	6%	5%	-	-

The table above indicates that those at station level are most likely to view the structure of the SAPS as a factor inhibiting effective implementation of the policy.

The most common reasons for the critical view of the SAPS structure at station and area levels were that:

police resources were dispersed through too many layers, resulting in stations being under-resourced;



the hierarchical system resulted in too much red tape; and



there was too little decentralisation of decision-making authority.

These views were largely endorsed by the provincial respondents, who also cited duplication of functions, too many lines of communication and not enough decision-making authority at station level as inhibiting factors related to the structure of the SAPS.

Further, systematic and meaningful support from the senior structures of the SAPS and the CPF boards for the implementation of the community policing policy appears to have been very limited. All the respondents agreed that support from supervisory structures has mainly taken the form of advice, guidance and in some instances, limited financial assistance. The majority of respondents at the station and area level believed that such support had been inadequate.

Clearly, the CPF respondents were most dissatisfied because of lack of support from their area and provincial boards respectively. Interviews with provincial respondents showed that most also believed that the support that was provided—advice, guidance and limited problem solving—was inadequate.

Table 12: Is the support provided from the supervisory level above you sufficient?

	Station SAPS	Area SAPS	Station CPF	Area CPF
No	55%	54%	63%	78%
Yes	32%	46%	37%	22%
Don't know	13%	-	-	-

The support most sought by the station and area respondents was related to the provision of resources, particularly financial and logistical, and greater communication, advice and involvement from representatives of supervisory structures. With the exception of area SAPS respondents, the majority of respondents indicated that they thought the MEC and the provincial secretariats were ineffective in supporting implementation of the policy.

The area SAPS respondents indicated that the MEC and secretariats played a valuable monitoring and advisory role, and had actively promoted the implementation of the policy by providing resources and training and through participation in public CPF activities. However, this was not confirmed by the majority of area CPF respondents, who—while indicating that the MEC and secretariats attended public activities and had provided resources and training—were divided in their opinion as to whether this had been effective (50% no, 46% yes).

The view of the area SAPS respondents was not supported by station level CPF respondents, the majority of whom indicated that the MEC or representatives of the secretariat engaged actively in public CPF activities like meetings. However, almost two-thirds, 62%, thought this was ineffective and insufficient.

Most telling perhaps, was that the police at station level were as likely to say they knew what role the MEC and secretariat fulfilled as they were to say that the MEC and secretariat played no role at all. The local SAPS respondents were more divided in their opinions on the effectiveness of the MEC and secretariats for supporting implementation of community policing. For example, 42% perceived the MEC and secretariats to be ineffective, 27% did not know and just under a third, 31%, indicated their view that the advisory, monitoring and capacity building role of the MEC and secretariats was effective.

Most critical of all were the secretariat respondents themselves. Six of the nine said that they perceived their role and that of the MEC in supporting the implementation of community policing to be ineffective.

The most common reason provided for this was the current lack of resources and capacity, particularly personnel, available for assistance in problem solving at station level. However, two of these respondents indicated that the lack of a clear mandate and direction for the MEC regarding the CPFs was the major inhibiting factor.

However, of most concern to all the respondents was the lack of a dedicated budget. Indeed, most respondents at the station and area level cited this as one of the major factors inhibiting effective implementation.

CPF respondents at station level were more likely to indicate that they had access to some, albeit limited, finance. Fifty-two percent of these respondents said they had acquired such access. However, this could not be confirmed by the SAPS respondents at station level, just 11% of whom indicated that the CPFs had some access to finance. Forty-two percent of the local police respondents said that the CPFs functioned without finances, and 47% did not know.

At area level, the majority of the respondents agreed that the CPFs functioned without a budget and had limited access to finance, if any at all.

These findings suggest that where the CPFs do acquire access to finance, this is done at a very local level or through channels that the station police and area CPF boards do not participate in, or know about.

At the time the research was conducted, there were no regulations to govern the resourcing and activities of the CPFs and their boards. This was also identified as an inhibiting factor by the majority of station and area respondents.

Table 13: Should specific regulations be published for the CPFs?

	Station SAPS	Area SAPS	Station CPF	Area CPF
Yes	73%	68%	60%	64%
No	27%	32%	40%	36%
Don't know	1%	-	-	-

This view was supported by the provincial SAPS respondents and, strongly, by the secretariat respondents. The notable exceptions were the provincial CPF respondents, most of whom were not in favour of regulations for the CPFs.

However, there was a clear difference of opinion between the provincial respondents and the practitioners at station and area level on the focus areas for such regulations. The provincial SAPS respondents believed that the roles and functions of the CPFs required regulation and, after that, factors related to resourcing the CPFs and financial accounting should be considered for regulation. This view was largely supported by secretariat respondents.

However, the need to regulate the role and functions of the CPFs did not appear to be an issue for the area and station level respondents. Rather, the key concern was resourcing the CPFs, particularly the allocation of finances, use of state assets and financial reporting and accounting.

Allied to the perceived need for regulations to govern the functioning of the CPFs, there was a strong demand from respondents at provincial, area and station level that the state should actively support the CPF structures—mostly through the provision of financial and other resources.

As indicated in Chapter 3, these are precisely the issues that the interim regulations have not addressed.

Summary