East London Community Policing Forum:
Review, challenges and
responses, May 2006
Background note
Community policing in South Africa did not
grow out of a vacuum, let alone start from a clean slate with the SAPS ACT of
1995 promulgating a new policing dispensation in South Africa. One can take the
onion peel example to look at a context evolving from a fully professional 1st
world standard of policing in the pre-Apartheid era, with a militarised type of
policing, to what we have today where the community plays an active role in
partnership with the SAPS delivering a service, rather than providing the fist
of the law.
Even this is not saying enough as little
is indicated about the dialectics of change as one era never presents a clean
break from a preceding one. Nor can future evolution based on the SAPS Act 1995
by definition prefigure a fully democratic type of security service guided by
the needs of the community, by the community.
Our main primary asset in the East London
Community Policing Forum is the human resource made available by community
activists who have accumulated experiences accumulated by diverse sectors of
the community from pre-Apartheid times, through the negotiations period to
where we are today. With the establishment of the Quigney Community Policing
Forum we brought together the old neighbourhood watch, the Ratepayers
Association, the SANCO Marshal structures and members from the main political
parties, namely the DA through its Ward Councillor Avis Rens, and direct
participation from the Branch Executive of the ANC. We have remained in the
loop of developments commencing with the functioning of these various
structures through the period of transition guided by the National Peace
Accord, to the creative participation of community activists after the 1994
First Democratic Elections. Some of these were active in the Peace Committees
of the National Peace Accord of 1991, others were serving in legal advice
offices, some had community policing backgrounds in Area and Street Committees
during township unrest since the mid 1980’s, and yet others have backgrounds in
serving in the old Neighbourhood Watches organized by the Commandos of the
SADF.
Community policing in South Africa has a local component that has
transformed and interlaced with the formal Community Policing philosophy and
practice, which was introduced into South Africa by aid agencies of western
governments. In the Eastern Cape the role of the Commonwealth Mission to South
Africa in retraining of township activists in community policing during the
transitional years has been of inestimable importance. Similarly the experience
of experienced police officers from countries such as the Netherlands and
Belgium have left an indelible mark on the practice of community policing
country wide as well as in East London.
It
would not be far off the mark to say that the development of Community Policing
in South Africa cut teeth during the struggle years, and matured with the
blending in of community policing experiences from donor countries which
maintained and developed standards to come to grips with the violent crime
situation which only properly became visible once the new democratic government
took office.
Community Policing SAPS East London
In
1995 the South African Police Service Act was promulgated making it mandatory
that every SAPS Station set up a Community Policing Forum. SAPS East London
(Fleet Street) initiated its Community Policing Forum in 1999. Our first
Community Policing Officer Inspector Nxafani set pioneering standards and
instinctively focused on neighbourhood units as the first Sub-forums of the EL
CPF. His creative instinct in establishing the first interim committees was in
no small measure drawn from his POPCRU.
The
Sub-forums set up showed distinct neighbourhood characteristics amplifying both
the merits and the flaws in activating the philosophy of community policing.
Scenery Park, Needs Camp and the Quigney and at a later date Southernwood
hosted Sub-forums with varying degrees of success. In a number of areas we
experienced the first hurdle to be overcome by keeping the community policing
structure out of the clutches of local politicians. In Scenery Park the South
African National Civics Organization, aligned to the ANC came to dominate and
swallow up the local Sub-forum, which no longer exists.
In
Needs Camp a single issue kept the Sub-forum ticking over. Setting up of an EU
funded satellite station was subject to negotiations and over stated
expectations of the Needs Camp Community. While the community rallied with
great enthusiasm eager to get the satellite station up and running, SAPS had to
slow down the pace in order to properly equip and staff the satellite station.
The level of community participation in Needs Camp is impressive and at the
drop of a hat the community rallies in large numbers to respond to calls from
the Sector Manager or to random crime indents. Remarkable about Needs Camp is
the enthusiasm and quality of a youth group that has formed the backbone of the
East London Community Policing Youth Desk.
The
Quigney is characterized by being the prime beachfront area of East London with
a previously staid local community made up mainly of white middle class residents living in cottages or
retirement centres. Since the transition years there has been rapid
transformation, as the Quigney became an attractive place for a proliferation
of nightclubs, pools bars and discos. It became a transit point for many who
after the revocation of the group areas act took up their residence in the
Quigney before moving to other places in better suited suburbs or the large
cities to take up government offices and civil service jobs. More recently the
Quigney is undergoing its more recent transformation in becoming a favourite
place for the many students choosing residence in the Quigney.
Given
these complexities and the availability of a large number of community
activities the Quigney Sub-forum exemplified itself in the transformation and
reconciliation process of community building. It has filled a void in community
organization and become many things in one, but mainly concerned about crime
and crime prevention in partnership with the Ward Committee, the Buffalo City
Development Agency, retirement centres, businesses, and above all regular
participation from residents.
The
Station Commissioner has taken pains to cultivate a best practices approach
between the Sub-forums coordinated at the level of the East London Community
Policing Forum. The East London CPF Committee meets once every fortnight to
consider programme proposals from the Sub-forums and Sub-structures such as
from the Youth Desk and the highly active desk of the Social Crime Prevention
Officer, Captain Ndlela. Because these meetings are regular and kept business
like they have become highly productive. Adding to the professionalism of the
EL CPF meetings is the attendance by the Station Commissioner and his core
staff. At these meetings differences in levels of achievements at the
neighbourhood level can be ironed out and special attention given to coax weaker
areas to action.
Modus operandi of the East London CPF
If
we look at the general picture since the East London Community Policing was
established with its arsenal of neighbourhood level sub-structures in the late
1990s, there is a clear watershed to be seen in the transforming of the
Sub-forums into Sector Crime Forums. Often the role of a Sub-forum was
indistinct and all too often they became bedevilled by either political
interferences or personality clashes. Sometimes these problems became so
fraught with tensions that entire neighbourhoods fell out of the picture
because putting life back into collapsed sub-structures is never an easy thing
to do.
However, the implementation of Sector Policing made a very significant
difference overall in amplifying the strengths of the stronger Sub-forums, and
ameliorating the weaknesses of the faltering Sub-forums. We are finding a new
breed of SAPS Officers getting the knack as community organizers and not afraid
to roll up the sleeves and be part of community initiatives designed and driven
by the local Sector Crime Forums. Often SAPS Officers take the initiative to
give form and direction to community activity. The direct benfit of this home
growen cooperation model is that such actions always are measureable by results
and make a palpable difference in the safety and comfort of the neighbourhoods.
Given the shared practices there are the following common features in
the functioning of all Sectors:
1.
Each Sector is a distinct
neighbourhood and easily managed for mobilizing stakeholders in local Sector
Crime Forums.
2.
Sector Managers meet with a
regular group of residents to keep a finger on the pulse keeping abreast community
reporting and experience of crime. In the case of the Quigney these meetings
are held once a week.
3.
At these meetings proactive
measures can be planned for focused community patrols at problem places like
schools, or mobilizing groups of stakeholders to address problems they are
experiencing or which they are causing.
4.
Patrol Teams made up of
community volunteers are active in two areas in particular, namely Needs Camp
and the Quigney. In other areas such as Greenfields and Westbank there is
involvement by SAPS Reservists managed directly at the Station Level. There is
also a Forum for rural areas which functions loosely in conjunction with the EL
CPF.
5.
From the East London CPF the
work of the Youth Desk and Social Crime Prevention Officer cross cuts into all
Sectors at once. We have an interesting variety of crime prevention approaches
which are human concern and rights based, such as stimulating a gardening
culture in rural areas, youth sports clubs, and firming up of informal
employment opportunities such as car parking attendants.
6.
In a number of
neighbourhoods there are regular problems around taverns, pools bars and night
spots in general for which specific Patrol Teams have been established to
assist in compliance with opening and closing hours as well as keeping order
outside and between premises of such liquor outlets. At the same time in Needs
Camp and the Quigney all nightclub owners are convened for a regular Tavern
Forum meeting once a month.
Disabling factors
The
lack of an enabling budget attached to the Constitutional requirement for
setting up of Community Policing Forums has been a rancorous question at most
gatherings under the banner of Community Policing. Full participation and
required levels of dedication of community activists to keep involved often
goes well beyond their means. This is particularly the case in the poorer areas
such as Needs Camp.
At
the same time supporting NGOs are dropping off leaving a huge gap in bridging
practical experience with research and development work. This problem has often
been discussed at Area Board level as a lack of a clear succession plan and the
need to revisit the governance framework of establishing and keeping Community
Policing Forums up and running.
Lack
of resources specified for Community Policing at the Station level is also a
disabling factor. Mostly the precinct of a Station is extensive and in order to
ensure participation of community members from all areas Station Commissioners
have to make available transport. This is a drag on police resources and
especially as having vehicles ready to respond to crime are held up
transporting community members of EL CPF meetings. Much depends on the
dedication of Station Commissioners to Community Policing.
While we in the East London Community Policing Forum are never in need of
transport and logistic support from the
Station in making our meetings and events a success, this is merely
coincidental in that the Quigney is close to the EL Fleet Street Station. But
with many other areas distances are significant and SAPS either provides
transport of they are left without the voice of these far-off communities. On
the operational side there often are problems in that there is a shortage of
vehicles to convey community members to CPF meetings as the first need is to respond
to calls from crime reporting members of the community. The shortage of transport
is the number one reason why residents perceive “poor performance” by the SAPS.
This reflects negatively on the image and status of the Community Policing
Forum.
Some end notes
Much of our deliberations at the East London Community Policing Forum
consider crime statistics, the impact we are having in eradicating crime and
proactive measures that need to be taken for preventing crime. When these are
considered generally speaking we feel rewarded knowing that our efforts are not
in vain and have impact. Also growing business confidence and rising property
values in the urban areas gives great satisfaction in that our efforts are also
appreciated and rewarded by business interests at large. Stakeholders are
prepared to contribute resources into our efforts.
Something that does not show
up readily on a statistical picture is more of an intangible nature. When the
community at large has a feeling that they are actively involved in a common
project in fighting crime, they take ownership of their neighbourhoods and
speak with a sense of pride about where they live. In this way effective
community policing has a marked positive impact on local governance.
However, the greatest intangible asset
developed through effective community policing is greatly improved attitudes
between community and the police. Whereas before there was a stand off and even
suspicion of the police, with the ever presence and availability of a Sector Manager
who is readily accessible to the community a gradual change resulting in a
ground shift in attitudes has become palpable.
Berend Schuitema
30th
May 2006
No comments:
Post a Comment