Representivity of the CPFs

The Community Policing Policy Framework and Guidelines is clear that the CPFs "should be broadly representative of the community".19 For the purposes of this research, the word representative was understood to mean that the CPFs are intended to "consist of people chosen to act or speak on behalf a wider group"20 —the community in which they function.

For the station level SAPS and CPF respondents, it is very important that the CPFs are 'representative' of the broader community in the police station area. Eighty-eight percent of each of these respondents stated that the CPFs should represent the broader community. Just nine and three percent of these respondents respectively indicated that the CPFs should instead represent specific interest groups who could directly assist with policing issues.

However, the SAPS respondents were far less assertive when asked whether they believed the CPF at their station was actually representative of the community it served. Fifty-four percent indicated that they believed it was, 43% said it was not representative and 3% could not say.

The primary reason provided by the SAPS respondents who did not believe that the CPF represented the community was that some key local role-players, with whom they interact in other forums, were not represented at CPFs. This they attributed to the lack of feedback provided by the CPF to the community and, in some instances, the politicisation of the CPF, which were barriers to broad, inclusive participation.

However, the local CPF respondents were much more positive—70% indicated that they believed their CPF represented their community, 25% said it was not representative and 6% could not say.

The extent to which the CPFs may be considered representative structures is examined below.

Using the definition above, four criteria were defined to measure the extent to which the CPFs actually do represent the wider group of people living in their areas:

public awareness of the structures;


public knowledge of the functions of the structures;


knowledge of the existence of a CPF in one's residential area; and


participation in the meetings or activities of the CPF.

Public awareness of the CPFS

As indicated in the figures below, general public awareness of the CPFs is very limited.

For this section and those that follow, the responses acquired from the general community survey were analysed together with those acquired from the exit poll and the follow-up survey. This was done to assess whether direct interaction with the police had any impact on general public knowledge of the CPFs.

Figure 4: Public awareness of the CPFs
(n=13 624)

Less than half of all respondents to the community surveys (44%) indicated that they had heard of a CPF. The consistency of the numbers reinforces this point—as indicated in Figure 5 below: 44% of respondents to the community survey, 42% of respondents to the exit poll and 47% of the respondents to the follow-up survey indicated that they had heard of a CPF.

This indicates that public awareness of these structures does not increase as direct interaction with the police increases.

Figure 5: Public awareness of the CPFs

Across all three surveys, African respondents were most likely to be aware of the CPF (46% of those who indicated that they had heard of the CPF), with white respondents least likely (36%).

Public knowledge of the functions of the CPFs

Approximately two-thirds of those who said they had heard of the CPFs indicated that they knew what the functions of these structures were. As indicated in the table below, those who knew of the CPFs also had a reasonably well-developed general understanding of what the functions of these structures are.

Table 16 indicates that working with the police to help protect the community is the most common public perception of the role of the CPFs amongst those who have heard of these structures. Another commonly held perception concerns the representation function of the CPFs, that is, the role of representing and communicating community needs to the police. By contrast, the function of monitoring police performance is one not widely recognised by the public.

Table 16: Public knowledge of the functions of the CPF

	Community survey	Exit poll	Follow up
	n = 6 008	n = 942	n = 637
Assist police-community communication/ensure police know community needs	34%	36%	33%
Protect community/arrest criminals	34%	31%	30%
Help SAPS deal with crime	26%	27%	31%
Monitor police performance	4%	3%	3%
Help to contribute resources to the police	2%	2%	3%
(The data here represents the responses of the 44% of the respondents who indicated that they had heard of the CPFs)

What is perhaps most important about the table, however, is that it highlights a clear disjuncture between what representatives of the CPFs indicated were their primary activities—crime prevention projects, awareness campaigns and assisting to resource the SAPS and CPF (see Table 9)—and what those members of the public who are aware of CPFs perceive as their activities. For example, as indicated in Table 9, no representatives of the station or area CPFs mentioned representing community needs to the police as one of their main activities.

Further, very few of the station or area CPF respondents indicated that they played a role in determining local priorities for the police. Yet, on average, one in every three people who knew of these structures and believed they knew what the CPFs' roles are, indicated that they represent community needs to the police. This is indicative of the limited reach of the CPFs into the communities in which they work and the consequent misconceptions of the general public as to the actual work of CPFs. This indicates the limited ability of the CPFs to make their actual activities and functions known.

Knowledge of a local CPF

Apart from general knowledge of the CPFs and their functions, the most important general indicator of the reach of the CPFs into their communities is whether or not people residing in a particular area know of a CPF functioning in that area.

Just 35% of those who had indicated that they were aware of CPFs in general, knew of one functioning in their areas of residence. Again, the consistency of the numbers across the three surveys reinforces this point.

Figure 6: Public awareness of a CPF functioning in area of residence

Figure 6 indicates that:

35% of the 6 008 respondents to the general community survey who indicated they were aware of the CPFs, said they knew of one functioning in their area of residence;



39% of the 667 respondents of the exit poll who had accessed the police station in their residential area confirmed that they knew of a CPF functioning in the area; and



32% of the 449 respondents to the follow-up survey who lived in the area where they had reported a crime to the police knew of a CPF in the area.

The data therefore indicates that, on average, one in every three people who know about CPFs also know of one functioning in their area of residence. The figure also indicates that a person's awareness of a CPF functioning in his or her area of residence does not increase with greater contact with the police.

Again, African respondents across all three surveys were more likely to say they knew of a CPF functioning in their area of residence, (36% of the African respondents) while white respondents were least likely to know (28%).

However, in all cases, knowledge of a CPF functioning in their areas of residence did not correlate with respondents' knowledge of what the station and area SAPS and CPF respondents indicated were the key activities of the CPFs—crime prevention projects and awareness campaigns.

As indicated in the figure below, less than 30% of the respondents who said they knew of a CPF functioning in their areas of residence indicated that they knew of crime prevention projects or public awareness campaigns involving the CPF.

Figure 7: Public knowledge of CPF projects in area of residence

However, despite this clear lack of public knowledge of crime prevention projects and awareness campaigns, there appears to be strong popular support for participation in such projects and campaigns.

As indicated in the figure below, when the survey respondents were asked whether they would be prepared to participate in community-based safety projects, their response was very positive.

Figure 8: Public support for participation in community safety projects

On average, 87% of the public respondents to all three surveys indicated that, if they were asked to, they would participate in community activities to make their areas safer.

Thus, despite CPF representatives indicating that their major activities revolved around crime prevention projects and awareness campaigns, the CPFs appear to have been unable to tap the local potential to participate in such projects.

Participation in CPF activities

As suggested by the analysis above, knowledge of a CPF functioning in one's area of residence does not appear to mean either active or regular participation in the CPF. On average, less than half of the respondents across all three surveys who indicated that they knew of a CPF functioning in their area of residence indicated that they participated, even occasionally, in CPF meetings or other CPF activities.

Figure 9: Public participation in CPF activities

Clearly then, the public reach of the CPFs is very limited. This is indicated in Figure 10.

Figure 10: The public reach of the CPFs

The general lack of public knowledge of the CPFs and the resultant lack of knowledge of, and participation in, the activities of the CPFs, may well be attributed to the fact that a core function of these structures—that of enhancing police-community communication and liaison—remains poorly developed.

CPF communication with the public

When asked how the CPFs communicate with those they are meant to represent, 63% of station SAPS and 61% of station CPF respondents indicated that this was done through formal public meetings. A further 28% of station level SAPS respondents and 29% of station level CPF respondents indicated that the CPF communicates with the public through other formal means—local media and CPF pamphlets and newsletters. Just 7% of station level SAPS and 10% of station level CPF respondents indicated that personal communication or word of mouth was their primary means of communicating with their communities. Yet, as indicated in Figure 11 below, such informal communication was identified as the primary source of information about the CPF and its activities by those respondents who indicated that they knew of a CPF in their area of residence.

Figure 11: Primary source of information on CPF and its activities
(n=2 493)

Just 24% of the respondents who indicated they knew of a CPF in their area of residence said they learned of CPF activities through formal CPF communication.

Summary

The analysis above indicates that in the SAPS' priority areas, public safety and policing is a long way from being seen as everybody's business. Rather, in the sceptical perceptions of the public, these remain very much police business.

However, could it be that despite the clear lack of public engagement, the policy has had most impact on the police themselves, in the manner in which they approach and interact with those they are meant to serve? As mentioned in Chapter 6, this was identified as the key impact of the policy by the majority of SAPS respondents at station and area level.

Indeed, even those who said that implementation of the policy had not affected the way they performed their functions said that this was mainly because they had always sought positive interaction with the public.

Also, as already mentioned, the majority of police respondents indicated that they believed that implementation of the policy had resulted in improved services being delivered to the public at station level.

The overwhelmingly positive response of the public in the SAPS' priority areas who had actually received police services lends some support to this interpretation.