Engaging communities as partners: policing strategies in Johannesburg

Introduction

This study examines the perspectives of the South African Police Services (SAPS) on community–policing strategies used to partner Johannesburg communities in combating crime. The study is conducted on the background of ever increasing rate of crime in South Africa that has made it one of the high crime-ridden societies in the world (Eagle, 2015; Büttner, 2022; Khahla, 2023).

Over the past few years, South Africa has seen rising levels of crime. South Africa is ranked third among the countries with the 10 highest crime rates, expressed in per 100,000 people, globally (World Population Review, 2022). The South African Police Services (2022) reported that the first three months of 2022 experienced more crime. Five crimes at their worst levels seen over the last five years were murder, attempted murder, carjacking, robbery at residential premises and commercial crime. South Africa’s cities of Cape Town, Johannesburg, Durban and Gqeberha are among the most violent cities in the world (McCain, 2022). Therefore, this necessitates effective policing strategies to ensure everyone’s safety in these cities. One such strategy is the utilisation of community policing which brings police and citizens together to prevent crime and solve neighbourhood problems, with emphasis on stopping crime before it happens, rather than responding to calls for service after the crime occurs (Kucukuysal and Beyhan, 2011).

South Africa is one of the countries that imported the concept of community policing from western countries (Brogden, 2002). Community policing was introduced into the SAPS Act in 1998/1999 and has been adopted as the operational philosophy of the SAPS. Extant research reveals that community policing is a contemporary paradigm of policing which improves the relationship between the police and the public (Rena et al., 2005; Ringo et al., 2012) arguing that community policing prevents and reduces crime, reduces disorder and anti-social behavior, promotes feelings of safety and improves police–community accountability. While Kabanda (2022) posits that community policing reduces the likelihood of crime and its impact on victims at the grassroots level. It is in this context that Ekici et al. (2022, p. 12) argue that “community policing is now considered a best practice in contemporary policing and has become an increasingly popular law enforcement strategy internationally, deployed in many countries”.

The US Department of Justice (2014, p. 3) defines community policing, as “a philosophy that promotes organisational strategies that support the systematic use of partnerships and problem-solving techniques to proactively address the immediate conditions that give rise to public safety issues such as crime, social disorder, and fear of crime”. In doing this, the police designate a community in which they will engage in problem solving, develop relationships (that hopefully become partnerships) with the population, collaborate with them to diagnose problems that have some generalised impact, prescribe and implement interventions to solve the problems and continuously monitor the results. Thus, community–policing partnerships involve the collaboration of various stakeholders in developing methods to police the communities. Stakeholders are individuals and groups that have a direct, specific interest in how community policing runs, its mission, its effectiveness and other day-to-day issues (The Open University, 2022). These stakeholders at community level include municipal agencies, private security organisations, individual citizens and the media, who collaborate with the police to address criminal matters and reduce crime.

In theory, partnership in community policing allows stakeholders to collaborate with the police and gives the police the opportunity to understand crime from the stakeholders’ perspective (Tsoabisi, 2020, p. 98). The various stakeholders bring additional solutions to the table to increase community security, as the “police alone cannot successfully prevent or investigate crime without the participation of the public”. This also promotes accountability, as the community and the police account for their actions while solving crime-related problems.

Previously, a study by Brogden (2002) argued that community policing worked best in homogeneous, common-interest, wealthy suburbs, and has performed poorly in heterogeneous, lower class urban contexts where it is most needed. Over two decades ago, in a study of South Africa, Brogden (2002) concluded that community policing failed to take root, because it was an imported concept, which is being applied in a heterogenous society characterised by a huge low class urban context, whereas it is historically tailored for homogeneous, common-interest, wealthy suburbs. Marks et al. (2009, p. 145) argue that community policing in South Africa has not been effective because the “police cling to the idea of a policing monopoly and prove reluctant to exhaust possibilities for sharing the load of creating safety”.

However, a more recent survey of studies on community policing in South Africa by Lamb (2021) concludes that the performance of community policing remains debatable, noting that although some studies state that it has succeeded in building legitimacy and improving service delivery (for example, Morgan and Newburn, 1997; Reiner, 2010; Hough et al., 2010; Quest Research Services, 2013), other studies contend that the effectiveness of community policing was undermined by scant community involvement and inadequate resources (MacDonald and Stokes, 2006; Buthelezi, 2014; Montesh, 2007 and Bayley, 2016).

This research investigated community–policing strategies used in community policing to combat crime in Johannesburg. It reveals the perceptions of police officers on the performance of the different strategies within community policing in combating crime to arrive at a conclusion of strategies that may work or may not work in different community contexts. In this regard, selected Johannesburg policing communities are identified.

The objectives of the study are (i) to explore the effectiveness of community–policing strategies implemented by various police stations in Johannesburg and how these strategies contribute to creating safer neighbourhood. (ii) To identify the challenges and limitations police face in implementing these strategies, and (iii) to recommend ways to enhance the effectiveness of community–policing strategies in Johannesburg. The paper begins by introducing the topic, providing an overview of the crime situation in South Africa, and discussing the concept of community policing. This is followed by a review of relevant literature that underscores the foreign origin of community policing and its potential limitations within the South African context.

After presenting the theoretical backdrop, the paper moves on to outline the study’s methodology. It details the qualitative research approach and the use of unstructured interviews with key figures across various Johannesburg metropolitan police stations. The methodology section also explains the data analysis process and theme identification.

Following the methodology section, the paper presents the study’s findings. This section provides a detailed analysis of the community–policing strategies in use and their effectiveness, based on police perspectives. The challenges associated with these strategies are also discussed in depth, providing a comprehensive picture of the current state of community policing in Johannesburg.

The discussion section follows, linking the findings back to the literature and exploring the broader implications. This part offers insights into the effectiveness of current community–policing strategies and possible improvements. However, the paper acknowledges the study’s limitations, and notes that its conclusions are based on the police perspective and excludes perspectives from a number of other stakeholders. Suggestions for future research are also provided, focusing on the controversial move towards militarised policing in South Africa and the need to further examine this phenomenon.

Finally, the paper concludes by summarising the key findings, reaffirming the potential of community–policing strategies when appropriately resourced and tailored to specific community needs. It also highlights the necessity of continual research in this area, particularly regarding the integration of technology in policing strategies and the balance between community and militarised policing.

Literature review

There are several definitions of community policing that differ in consonance with context. Pelser (1999) says that community policing is the process of bringing the state and civil society together to co-produce security. Cossyleon (2019, p. 1) states that, community policing is a “philosophy that promotes organisational strategies that support the police system in trying to use partnerships to proactively address issues of the social disorder before they become actual crimes”. This definition converges with that of Lombardo and Lough (2007, p. 117), who state that it is a “philosophy based on the police and communities working together to help solve contemporary community problems related to crime and social and physical disorder”.

Globally, many police departments have transitioned from a militarized approach to a community-based policing model (Koca, 2018; Dintwe, 2012, p. 227). Lieblich and Shinar (2018) contend that police militarisation brings about more violence or abuse of authority and is based on the presumption that the citizen is a threat. A presumption of threat assumes that citizens, usually from marginalised communities, pose a threat of such magnitude as may require the use of extreme violence (Coates, 2015). Mummolo (2018) concludes that, police militarisation fails to enhance police safety or reduce crime at the same time harming police reputation. For example, in the contexts of South Africa, Hornberger (2014), highlights that the militarised apartheid era police force had very little capacity and will to respond to ordinary crime and was disdained by the black communities. Notably, the apartheid era police provided “real” policing to white South Africans only (Brogden, 1996). The police were characterised by impunity and a legitimacy crisis in the eyes of the public (Muntingh and Dereymaeker, 2013).

South Africa’s National Development Plan 2030 posits that the departure from a highly militarised and politicised police force was one of the key transformation objectives after the onset of democracy in 1994. It states that,

It was considered necessary to professionalise the police, establish a rapport with communities, develop confidence and trust in the police, and promote positive community-police relations. The goal was to transform the police from a paramilitary force to a police service that meets all the criteria of a civilian professional entity. (National Development Plan 2030, p. 392)

Community policing is part of the transition away from past experiences of political violence that engulfed the country during the apartheid regime. This transition has seen an authoritative style of policing turn into community-based policing and service. The term “community policing” was first used in 1997 when the Department of Safety and Security formally published its policy document titled Community– Policing Policy Framework and Guidelines. The document presented community policing as a “collaborative partnership-based approach from the local level of problem-solving and decision making” (Pelser, 1999). Furthermore, the National Development Plan 2030 states that community policing as a philosophy, methodology and practice should be emphasised and strengthened in police training programmes and systems for evaluation of police effectiveness (National Planning Commission, 2014).

The professional era of policing in South Africa saw a shift from the South African Police Force to the SAPSs which saw the police demilitarised (Dintwe, 2012, p. 223) and formed the foundation for the current era of community policing. This era is based on partnership and prevention of crimes rather than remedying crimes that have already happened. This is exemplified by the strategies which inform policing that have radically changed and now include partnerships. These partnerships are anchored in Sections 214 to 223 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. It states that the SAPSs must serve as “a partner” in crime along with communities regarding the safety and security of society.

According to Brogden (2002), the core principles for community policing in South Africa include:

• Service orientation – which means the police providing professional policing services that are responsive to the needs of the community and accountable for addressing these needs.

• Partnership – facilitating co-operative and consultative processes in solving community problems.

• Problem solving – jointly identifying and analysing causes of crime and conflict and the development of innovative solutions to ameliorate them.

• Empowerment – establishing joint responsibility and capacity to address crime.

• Accountability – creating a culture of accountability through the needs of communities.

Minnaar (2010) reported that there are various strategies for community policing; however, most of these are context-specific, as different communities face different challenges. Community policing in the South African context was developed to introduce a collaborative partnership-based approach to local-level problem-solving and embrace the commitment of a new democratic government characterised by public participation (Marks et al., 2009, p. 146). To carry out this commitment, encourage partnerships between the police and communities and engage with communities, there are several policing strategies in place.

The SAPS (2018, p. 1) turnaround strategy, which has the community and several stakeholders at its core, intends to enhance community–policing partnerships to prevent crime through multidisciplinary collaboration. The collaboration focuses on strategic pillars, including educating the community on their role in crime prevention, strengthening multi-stakeholder collaboration, resourcing community–policing forums (CPFs) and promoting community-policing philosophy. The community-policing strategy enables the SAPS to engage with communities through organised structures to participate in the local planning and monitoring of safety and security interventions while modernising community policing through technological advancement solutions.

The community–policing strategy, according to SAPS (2018, p. 1), is a “strategic response to the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, particularly Section 206(3)(a) and White Paper on Safety and Security, 2016”. The strategy further contributes to the National Development Plan 2030s vision of building safer communities through an integrated approach and community participation in safety and security provision initiatives. Within the community–policing strategy, there are other policing strategies such as crime detection, the safer-city concept and the SAPS strategic plan. The strategies all promote partnership policing, visible through the established partnership between the police and civil society. This is exemplified by business partnerships, traditional-based partnerships and government and non-governmental partnerships.

As noted earlier, seven years after the end of apartheid, an evaluation of community policing by Brogden revealed that, it was an implanted process originally designed to work best in homogeneous, common-interest, wealthy suburbs in western countries, which was largely not working in, heterogeneous, crime-ridden lower class urban contexts of South Africa. A later publication by Marks et al. (2009) also argued that community policing in South Africa was being held back by the police who clung to the idea of a policing monopoly and were reluctant to co-produce safety. The latest study by Tyabazo (2023) contends that successful implementation of community policing has been affected by barriers such as resistance of the officers, lack of resources and the lack of training.

This study examined community–policing strategies with a view to drawing conclusions on their separate and discrete performances to combating crime. Numerous research examined make conclusions on the performance of community policing as if it is a single strategy yet it entails a variety of strategies that are exemplified by enhanced cooperation between the police and the communities.

Methodology

This research uses a case study design to address the primary research objectives. Selected participants included key personnel from various Johannesburg police stations, including station commanders and visible police officers. A total of 10 police stations from the Johannesburg metropolitan region were represented among the participants.

In this qualitative study, purposive sampling was adopted, which enabled the selection of respondents with significant knowledge and expertise in crime prevention (Campbell et al., 2020). As stewards of their respective police stations, station commanders acted as important decision makers for this study. Simultaneously, members of the visible policing department, accountable for direct and social media engagement with the public, provided insights into the visual culture of modern policing and its effects on citizen-centric programmes and partnerships. Components of the visible policing programme comprised crime prevention, specialised response services, intelligence collection, social development, school education and public awareness initiatives.

The findings segment of this study reveals semantic relationships, underlining the interplay between different categories crucial in addressing the research objectives. A content analysis approach was adopted to decipher the interview transcripts, pinpointing the policing strategies used and associated challenges within the Johannesburg context. Content analysis provides several noteworthy advantages. Firstly, it offers an in-depth understanding of the police officers’ perspectives on community–policing strategies, thus, uncovering the nuances of their subjective experiences and viewpoints. This method also allows for the interpretation of interview data in context, capturing the sociocultural dynamics inherent in these perspectives. As the study involves multiple interviews across various police stations, content analysis efficiently handles the resulting large amounts of qualitative data, organising and making sense of it systematically. This systematic approach enhances the objectivity, reliability and consistency of the data analysis. In addition, this method also aids in the identification of trends or patterns, which is particularly useful in tracking the evolution of police perspectives and strategies. Interviews generally lasted around an hour, and were transcribed verbatim for the analysis. The identified themes and quotes served to explore contemporary policing’s visual culture and its influence on citizen-focused programmes and partnerships. These programs encompass various areas such as crime prevention, specialised response services, intelligence gathering, social development, school education and awareness campaigns.

Field preparations commenced in the winter of 2019. Despite our readiness, various challenges delayed our on-site activities. Initially, interviews were slated for the spring of 2020. However, the outbreak of COVID-19 forced us to postpone them, eventually commencing in the autumn of that year and concluding in the spring of 2021.

A significant hurdle we encountered was obtaining ethical approval from the SAPS, a process that took a protracted eight months. Following this, we embarked on a four-month journey to gain ethics approval from the University of Pretoria’s ethics committee.

Locating some of our respondents posed yet another challenge, primarily due to inaccuracies in the provided addresses. Some police stations, especially those situated within informal settlements, proved elusive even with global positioning system assistance. As a result, we often found ourselves reliant on local commuters to guide us to our intended destinations.

Results

In this section, the findings of the collected data are presented based on content and thematic analysis. The identified themes discussed in detail below are as follows: the respondents’ understanding of community policing and the involvement of community members in policing, policing strategies, the mentioned police stations used to partner with communities and challenges the police faced in implementing the policing strategies when partnering with communities.

Street patrollers

The fourth strategy is the use of street patrollers as a strategy to partner with communities. The police stations incorporated community members as street patrollers to create safer neighbourhoods and as a strategy to partner with the community. The police shared resources with the community, as the respondent at Station 9 mentioned:

We encourage people to be street patrollers. We have a kiosk and take it to the hotspot, and the community works there.

The same strategy was used at Station 2:

The practical ways: we have got the street patrollers. You might have seen an orange trailer or caravan. The caravan is a collaboration with the Department of Safety; it is normally used by community patrollers.

At other stations, such as Station 1, the respondent mentioned that the patrollers were paid a stipend for assisting in improving safety in the community.

We have patrollers in the street, and they enforce bylaws. They get paid R3 500. We encourage them to come with information, and we pay them.

Challenges to community–policing strategies

The respondents noted that the police stations faced specific challenges, depending on the settlement areas they policed. For example, policing in informal settlements was challenging as the dwellings are built too close together, and there are no proper roads and streetlights to facilitate movement of the police on patrol. A respondent from Station 4 stated: “There are no streets for the police to move in the informal settlements”.

A respondent from Station 6 had a similar response regarding the challenges they faced in policing in these settlements:

Our area has got [an] informal settlement. It is difficult to go into an informal settlement you can’t go in. There are a lot of things happening in the informal settlement. Walking or driving in there is not easy. You cannot just go and walk there. It is not easy. They can even take your firearm.

The police also highlighted that they have limited resources in their bid to combat the high levels of crime in Johannesburg area. The police said that they lacked the resources, such as policing vehicles and human resources, to patrol and be visible in neighbourhoods. For example, the respondents at five Police Stations all stated that they needed more vehicles. The police sometimes cannot cover a bigger area because of [the] lack of vehicles.

The respondent at Police Station 1 stated:

There is no resource in our department. We just capitalise on people being a part of the police by helping police, for example, with patrolling.

Another challenge the police faced in enhancing the strategies was a lack of trust between the communities and the police. Respondents from the police stations argued that the community members distrusted the police, which was visible through their lack of willingness to share information on neighbourhood crimes. This also affected participation of communities in the CPF meetings. In particular, the community members did not trust the police to protect them if they worked with the police and gave them relevant information. For example, the respondent at Station 4 stated the following:

Furthermore, when it comes to getting information, for example, you might find that a particular person [was] maybe murdered here. From there, people will not want to give you information. It’s a problem because for a murder which happened somewhere there, and we were not even there, from there should we start questioning the people there. No-one is willing to give information.

A respondent at Station 9 stated the following regarding the lack of community participation in meetings:

Not everyone is willing to come on board. I have been here for three years. In meetings, a few people will come, and that is a problem. We give out pamphlets to show what we will be discussing, but people will not come.

Discussion

The landscape of Johannesburg’s policing strategies has been a subject of extensive research, providing insights into their potential for reducing crime and facilitating community engagement. CPFs have emerged as a robust platform for rallying community participation and fostering proactive crime prevention efforts. As noted by Dlamini (2017, p. 135), CPFs have been instrumental in creating transparency and accountability, serving as crucial conduits for communication and enabling collective problem-solving for security issues.

In line with this, sector policing strategies have significantly bolstered the interaction between police and community members (SAPS, 2018, p. 11). By catering to the unique security requirements of individual communities, these strategies have been key in reinforcing partnerships and promoting neighbourhood safety.

Furthermore, the advent of technology, specifically social media, has become a significant component of Johannesburg’s policing strategy as indicated by this study. As Bullock (2018, p. 247) suggests, the digital sphere has provided an effective platform for facilitating engagement between police and citizens, aiding in the transformation of police communication from physical spaces to virtual ones.

These strategies, however, have demonstrated varied degrees of success across communities, with Pelser (2000) noting their efficacy to be pronounced in affluent neighbourhoods due to financial contributions and a strong preventative desire among the citizens. Despite these disparities, the police force remains committed to using and integrating technological advancements to enhance their operations. This includes the proposed development of a high-tech security centre and leveraging social media to transition communication to the digital realm, a strategy Strom (2017) considers beneficial for boosting operational efficiency amidst resource constraints and heightened public scrutiny.

As the study shows, the inception of CPFs has proved integral in encouraging community involvement in police operations through collaborative safety initiatives and dialogue. Regular meetings with CPF members allow for the identification and resolution of security challenges, fostering an environment of trust and accountability between the police and the community (Dlamini, 2017, p. 135).

Other policing strategies like sector policing have further enhanced this rapport by allowing for specialised interactions based on the security needs of each community sector (SAPS, 2018, p. 11). The introduction of social media as a strategy has had an expansive reach at the individual level, fostering a platform for dialogue, promoting engagement and expediting action on community concerns, aligning with the digital trend in professional communication (Bullock, 2018, p. 247).

Such advances in community policing, facilitated by social media, have not only ushered in increased participation and transparency but also paved the way for more efficient technological solutions in policing partnerships. Community initiatives such as street patrolling and awareness campaigns via radio stations have further underlined the community’s role in security, forging a stronger partnership with the police and enhancing the safety of Johannesburg’s neighbourhoods.

Conclusion

The article highlighted police perspectives of community–policing strategies used in Johannesburg. These include utilisation of CPFs, sector policing, use of social media and use of street patrollers. The community–policing strategies revealed that police–community partnerships enhance crime prevention, as the community and other stakeholders, such as government institutions, also play a role in creating safer neighbourhoods. This is in contrast to militarised policing which treats communities as suspects and prone to use of violence. The police mentioned that partnerships with communities helped identify problems and immediate solutions at the local level. The policing strategies improved the transparency and accountability of the police force to the community and encouraged active citizenship. However, the police revealed that they lacked resources such as vehicles and human resources required to ensure full coverage of policing areas. Policing in informal settlements and hostels is difficult due to inaccessibility and overcrowding, respectively. In other instances, community policing is affected by lack of trust and cooperation from community members. To further enhance the effectiveness of community policing, additional vehicles and human resources need to be provided by the government, particularly in low-income neighbourhoods. Furthermore, the lack of resources can be addressed in the partnership. For example, businesses can help by donating resources to the police, and community members can volunteer to increase police manpower, as it is evident from the police that they share their resources with the communities, such as trailers and caravans for street patrollers. In addition, the police can use drones to police settlements where houses are closely built together. More research must be conducted on how technological advancements can be incorporated into policing strategies.

The practical implications of this study are multi-fold. Firstly, it underscores the potential effectiveness of community–policing strategies in South Africa, particularly within the Johannesburg metropolitan area. This positive impact is significant in informing policymakers, police leadership and community leaders about the potential benefits of adopting and refining these strategies. By acknowledging the strategies that are proving successful, such as CPFs, sector policing, street patrollers and the use of social media, efforts can be concentrated on improving these measures. Moreover, these strategies encourage the involvement of community members, fostering a sense of joint responsibility in crime prevention efforts. This mutual involvement may ultimately lead to better crime prevention outcomes and foster stronger relationships and trust between the police and the communities they serve.

Secondly, the study’s findings can aid in addressing the challenges highlighted by police officials, including resource scarcity and difficulties encountered in particular areas like informal settlements and hostels. Policymakers can consider these issues when allocating resources or devising strategies to improve policing efficiency. In addition, the highlighted benefits of collaborations with businesses and volunteer involvement can be taken into account, potentially leading to greater resource mobilisation for policing efforts. By addressing these challenges and making use of existing community resources, authorities can strengthen community–policing strategies and enhance their overall impact on crime prevention.

Limitations

While this study presents an in-depth account from the police respondents across selected stations within the Johannesburg metropolitan area, it did not include perspectives from ordinary community members or other organised partners. Consequently, insights on community policing from these groups remain absent. Notwithstanding, it should be highlighted that the interpretation of the community–policing philosophy and related strategies as provided in this study is solely from the police perspective. Moreover, the inherent nature of case studies limits their broad applicability to other contexts. As such, the findings from this investigation should not be construed as representative of other South African contexts.

Directions for future research

This research primarily focused on the viewpoint of police officers within Johannesburg metropolitan stations about community policing and its associated strategies. It is important, however, to remember that following the end of apartheid and the initial demilitarisation of the police, South Africa has seen a gradual reintroduction of certain militarised policing elements in an effort to combat escalating crime rates. For instance, in 2010, the SAPSs returned to a pre-1995 military ranking system to bolster crime fighting efforts. This shift is the subject of ongoing discussion, and its impact on crime reduction necessitates further investigation. Considering the possibly dual-natured approach to policing in South Africa, incorporating elements of both militarisation and community involvement, further research could shed light on how these combined strategies could enhance crime prevention efforts in the country.