The study sought to gather information on general public perceptions of crime and policing in the priority areas to assist an analysis of public confidence in the police, expectations of the police and engagement with the police, the CPFs and issues of safety and security. The research tool used for this was the general community survey, conducted with 13 659 adult respondents, each residing within a 10km radius of the selected stations.

The data gathered through this survey, which is presented below, provides a picture of public perceptions of safety and security and policing in the priority areas.

Assessment of these perceptions needs to be approached with caution. This is because these are the perceptions of members of the public who may not have had any involvement in safety and security issues in their places of residence or, more importantly, may not have had direct contact with the police at all. Their perceptions would therefore be shaped by factors that have little or nothing to do with policing; factors such as the media, personal communications or general feelings of safety and fear of crime. Indeed, local and international studies have shown that race, neighbourhood context (such as the level of poverty and instability), and feelings of political alienation and disempowerment affect perceptions of the police.

Nevertheless, such perceptions provide an important context as general perceptions about safety and police effectiveness can influence the extent to which people engage with the police and participate in initiatives aimed at reducing crime.

These perceptions are outlined immediately below. In the chapters that follow, these views are combined with those of people who had had direct contact with the police.

Public perceptions of crime in the priority areas

More than one in three of the respondents to the community survey (5 098 respondents or 37% of the sample population) indicated that they, or a member of their household, had been a victim of crime in the 20 months from January 1999 to September 2000 (Table 14).

Table 14: Victimisation in the priority areas

Type of crime	n	%
Home burglary	1 974	27.1
Robbery	1 415	19.5
Assault	1 282	17.6
Vehicle theft	754	10.4
Sexual assault	438	6
Other theft	398	5.5
Hijacking	377	5.2
Murder	288	4
Stock theft	225	3
Child abuse	120	1.7
Total	7 271	100

The discrepancy between the number of respondents indicating they had been a victim of crime, and the number of crimes they said they had been a victim of, suggests that some of the respondents had been a victim of more than one crime.

Given this relatively high rate of victimisation, and the violent nature of many of the crimes, it is no surprise that most of the respondents believed, probably correctly, that crime in their areas of residence had become worse, or that changes in policing policy had had little significant impact over the past four years. This is indicated in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Public perceptions of crime in areas of residence: 1996 - 2000
(n=13 659)




Figure 2: Public perceptions of policing
(n=13 359)

The common public perception that crime in their areas of residence had increased, or that there had been little significant change in the crime rate would, in all likelihood, affect the perceptions of members of the public regarding the quality of policing in their areas of residence, as well as their confidence in the police service overall.

Public perceptions of policing in the priority areas

Forty-six percent of the respondents indicated that they believed the quality of policing in their areas of residence had not changed over the past four years, 30% believed it had become worse and 22%, or roughly one in every five respondents, believed policing had improved.

The most common reasons provided by those respondents who believed policing in their areas of residence had become worse were:

the police were corrupt (29%);


the police lacked motivation (18%);


crime had increased (15%);


there was a poor response to call-outs (9%);


the police provided a generally inadequate service (8%);


the police had insufficient resources (4%); and


there was a lack of police visibility (2%).

Those who believed the quality of policing had improved cited, as the most common reasons for this belief, that:

the police had become more helpful, committed and serious (33%);


crime had decreased (32%);


the police had become more visible and available (17%);


the police were arresting the criminals and solving crime (12%); and


communication between the police and community had improved (7%).

The relatively high levels of victimisation and generally negative perceptions of policing translated, for the respondents, into a general scepticism regarding the police in the priority areas. This is indicated in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Public confidence in the police
(n=13 624)

Figure 3 indicates that 7 367 respondents (54% of the sample), said they had confidence in the police in their area of residence. In contrast, 6 120 (45%) said they lacked confidence in the police and 137 (1%) were non-committal.

Where confidence was expressed in the police, the main reasons given were:

the police were helpful, committed and provided a good service (31%);


the police did their jobs well and upheld the law (24%);


there was a quick response to call-outs (12%);


the police worked hard to protect the community (11%);


the police were arresting the criminals and solving crime (8%); and


police visibility and availability had improved (4%).

The most common reasons provided by respondents who said they lacked confidence in the police were that they believed:

the police were unhelpful, unmotivated and did not provide a good service (28%);


the police were corrupt (23%);


the police were slow to respond (23%); and


there was a lack of follow-up and investigation (6%).

However, this public scepticism does not appear to have resulted in a disengagement from the police. On the contrary, there appears to be a ready and positive willingness to report crime to the police. As many as 10 448 respondents (77% of the sample) said that if they knew about a crime committed against them, members of their household or others, they would report it to the police. In contrast, 3 046 respondents (22%) said they would not report crime to the police and 91 (1%) said they were not sure whether they would report a crime or not.

The primary reasons motivating the willingness to report crimes were that:

this would help reduce crime (65%);


offenders must be apprehended and punished (13%);


it is a citizen's duty (12%); and


people should not take the law into their own hands (9%).

The 22% of respondents who indicated they would not report crime to the police said they were motivated by the belief that:

the police are ineffective, it would be pointless (47%);


they feared reprisals (26%);


they should not get involved (13%); and


the police are corrupt (7%).

Finally, respondents were asked to list one or two things the police should do to improve the public's confidence in them. Their responses are outlined in the table below.

Table 15: The public view of what the police should do to improve public confidence

	n	%
End corruption, police should be more honest, loyal and trustworthy	4 539	23.3
Arrest offenders, solve cases	3 269	16.9
Improve visibility and patrols	2 535	13
Improve response times	2 149	11.1
Improve resources available to the police	1 773	9.1
Work with the community	1 720	8.8
Should be better trained to improve services	937	4.8
Nothing / don't know	782	4.1
Should show equal respect to all they serve	656	3.3
Treat all cases with the same respect	541	2.8
Improve the functions of the justice system and quality of prisons	281	1.4
Assist with crime awareness campaigns	118	0.6
Maintain confidentiality of victims	50	0.3
Promote / work with CPF	63	0.3
Other	32	0.2
Total	19 445	100

This table is significant in that it confirms a widespread public scepticism regarding the integrity of the police. It also indicates that for the general public residing in the priority areas, improvements to the core service functions of the police are likely to have the most positive impact on public perceptions and confidence.

Further, these responses do not indicate a meaningful association between public input and improvements to police service delivery. That is, there does not appear to be much public enthusiasm for general interaction or engagement with the police.

Rather, the table suggests that underpinning public perceptions of the police are the issues of integrity and accessibility. It therefore suggests that what the general public require is the assurance that, when they actually need the services of the police, such services will be provided in a professional and effective manner.

Summary