A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.
SAFETY & SECURITY PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE; SECURITY & JUSTICE SELECT COMMITTEE
3 August 1998
DRAFT SAFETY AND SECURITY WHITE PAPER: HEARINGS
Oral submissions presented by:
Department of Correctional Services (Appendix 1)
Technikon South Africa (Appendix 2)
Dr. D Titus, Dean: Public Safety and Criminal Justice, spoke briefly on the trasining programmes that Technikon SA through its Police Practice Programme Group offers.
The training programme on policing offers national diplomas in Policing as well as certificate courses on Human Rights and Community Policing and Police Management. The Technikon SA has been authorised recently to offer the all-inclusive B Tech Policing and concomitant masters and doctoral degrees (M. Tech and D. Tech). Using distance education, the programme has been accessible to tens of thousand of police officials. Technikon SA in consultation with SAPS and other stakeholders will continuing to render relevant outcome-based learning to SAPS.
Dr Minnaar's presentation dealt with shortcomings in the White Paper:
1. Lack of detail
Overall there appears to be worrying lack of detail. While it is generally accepted that White Papers are policy guideline documents, a number of other departmental White Papers have spelt out both their broad policy vision as well as the detail of how they wish to accomplish and implement such policy, i.e. operationalisation of such policy visions.
Even though it is recognised that operational details are contained in the Operational Plans flowing from the broad-based policies contained in the Annual Objectives and Priorities, there remains a need for the formulation (in broad terms) of how such initiatives will be implemented at grassroots level.
While the broad thrust to the document is commendable what has been left out is also of concern. A number of issues need to be looked at in greater detail for incorporation into the White Paper:
• the implementation and functioning of Municipal/Metropolitan Police services - the specific role of local authorities and their funding of such a service
• form of municipal policing and whether this would only function as a slightly more crime prevention-oriented form of Traffic Police. Would municipal by-laws have precedence? Whether such a service would have the capacities to implement visible policing and patrols in sufficient numbers to be effective within CBDs and municipal areas - possible clash of functions and accountabilities and responsibilities at crime scenes.
• functioning of Crime Prevention Forums - clarity is needed on their role and funding as well as specifically how they will be set up (elected or co-opted?); it also needs to address dealing with problems of motivating communities to take part.
• policing in rural areas specifically in tribal authority areas (tribal court jurisdiction, authority of traditional leaders and control over tribal police)
• partnership policing - an examination of the possibility of privatising certain police functions, as well as the role and use of the private security industry in assisting SAPS in crime prevention
• community service (volunteerism) in policing
• youth community service
3. Lack of innovative options
The White Paper would appear to have ignored the opportunity of exploring such innovative options to policing as: a dedicated Tax Police; legislation for the decriminalisation of certain victimless crimes (e.g. prostitution/sex workers, 'soft' drug usage); the possibilities of establishing a separate Border Control agency (wherein all functions such as immigration control, customs & excise, patrolling borderline, policing points of entry [which are currently managed by separate departments] come under one agency similar to the American Immigration and Naturalisation Services.
No mention is made of specific initiatives for modern crime problems such as international syndicates, economic crime, fraud and corruption, illegal immigration gun and drug-smuggling, transnational (crossborder) crime and intrastate co-operation to deal with these issues.
4. Police as victims
While much is said about crime prevention there is very little emphasis on the working conditions of the members of the Service itself. It is a truism of modern management principles that working conditions and environment have a major influence on the quality of service delivery, as well as morale. At the very least, in the current South African context, there should have been an acknowledgement that police themselves are victims of crime, stress, trauma and even death (murder). It is recommended that this first of all be recognised and accepted in principle by management within the SAPS; and secondly that a holistic, integrated internal approach to victim support for members themselves be incorporated into the White Paper specially detailing how such would be implemented and managed.
5. Building morale
Allied to the above is the need for a specific initiate to build morale within the Service. While past initiatives such as Ubuntu workshops, Diversity Training and ad hoc localised projects to address complaints affecting morale have tried to address this problem, there remains a lack of an overall initiative.
6. Research needs
In the modern approach to crime prevention and the wide diversity of crime problems, both national and international, it is imperative that the role and functions of research in this fight be recognised. Modern policing is complex and anti-crime strategies need to be based on well researched objective and scientific research results. Decisions on a whole range of issues are in fact dependent upon the quality of information available to decision makers. This extends beyond merely the analysis of crime statistics; crime trends and what is commonly termed crime 'intelligence' or 'information'. It refers to the wider picture concerning research on all sorts of additional issues such as communication, management principles, human resources. morale, victim and community surveys, legislation, best practices, etc.
This White Paper appears to ignore any role for dedicated research whether inside the Service or in collaboration with academic institutions, research organisations and NGOs. There is not even an acceptance of the principle or recognition of its importance in building a more effective organisation. This is a serious omission and needs to be addressed urgently.
7. Ancillary issues
There are a number of issues that at the very least need to be mentioned for further examination and investigation :
· The informer system
· Witness Protection Programme
· Corruption not only within the SAPS but also in other government departments
· SAPS role in rehabilitation of offenders
· Zero tolerance principle
· Broken window approach
· Vigilantism and the use of People's Courts
· Use of technology
· Section 21 companies and involvement of communities in funding.
Appendix 1: Department of Correctional Services
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
WHITE PAPER ON SAFETY AND SECURITY
1. In general, the White Paper deals with more effective policing principles which include the capacity and capabilities of the police force, effective law enforcement, crime prevention, adequate service to victims, and institutional reform on national, provincial and local levels of government.
2. The White Paper can be supported in principle. However, some comments are made on aspects contained in the White Paper:
2.1 Role of Police lnvestigator (P8): Some of the adverse consequences of inadequate criminal investigations, which should be mentioned, are:
• Resources of the Department of Correctional Services (capacity and finances) are severely stressed by long periods of awaiting trial due to slow investigating and the unnecessary detention of people against whom no conviction can be secured after varying detention periods. This also impacts negatively on the line function responsibilities of this Department.
• Backlogs created by inadequate investigations impacts negatively on already overcrowded prisons. Awaiting trial prisoners make up 30% of the prison population and costs the taxpayer millions of rands that could have been spent elsewhere.
2.2 Reducing the number of people entering the criminal justice system (P9): In addition 10 the proposals in the White Paper it is imperative that the Department of Justice urgently and seriously consider the decriminalisation of certain so called social crimes. Furthermore, the judiciary should be actively encouraged to utilise community based sentences to a greater extent - especially in cases of social crimes and cases where offenders do not threaten the safety and security of the public.
2.3 Effective social crime prevention: It is quite true that it is more cost effective in the medium to long term to invest in projects which prevent crime, than simply spending more on the institutions of policing, courts and corrections. Even in our country experience has taught us that building more and more prisons cannot alone address the problem of crime as incarceration is one of the chain of reactive responses to crime which may only address the symptoms of the underlying social problem. In this regard it can be mentioned that the Department of Correctional Services is currently involved in a number of initiatives aimed at enhancing its accommodation capacity as well as safe custody. This is only supportive to the law enforcement function of the police but cannot address the underlying causes of crime.
2.4 Responsibility of Crime Prevention (P10): Reference is made to "Prisons". The opinion is held that reference should be made to either Correctional Services or to community based sentences (Community Corrections) as the probation system also plays an important role in the prevention of crime.
2.5 Specific interventions to improve investigations (P11): In the collection of crime intelligence, co-operation should be extended to include the Department of Correctional Services as an informer system will also be operational in the Department of Correctional Services in due course. Unofficial informer systems have been utilised n the prison system for many years and have proved to be very successful.
2.6 Developmental crime prevention (P16): An integrated approach which includes the Department of Correctional Services is of utmost importance to prevent duplication of services and to ensure more effective delivery.
• Furthermore clarification should be given on the difference between the functions of the proposed Crime Prevention Unit and the National Operational Co-ordinating Committee (NOCOC) as there could be a great deal of duplication or overlapping of functions.
2.7 Crime prevention programmes: Local government (P27): In the fulfilment of their functions, local government should also include their local Community Correction Forums to prevent duplication of services and to enhance service delivery.
2.8 Section V:
lnstitutional Reform at Provincial and Local level:
As a Department we are represented in the Provincial N.C.P.S. structure, and we are playing a vital role, even at National level we are having a full representation that deals with the Department of Correctional Services' matters.
- But, little is being done at local level, to involve our members in the N.C.P.S. initiative. The information does not filter down to the members, who must implement our ideas at National level.
- We request that the roles of the Community Police Forums be extended. whereby the Department of Correctional Services should also be represented either by the Area Manager or Head of the Prison or someone senior at a Management Area. Our aim is that, our service delivery must be marketed and advocated amongst members of the community, especially through this C.P.F. The Department of Correctional Services representations, must prepare the outside world for the reintegration of inmates back into the community, by changing the mind-set of the community. In this way we will be contributing positively towards N.C.P.S.
- Our Media officers in the Provinces, if possible could be entrusted with this task of co-ordinating and liaising with Area managers/Head of the Prisons in retrieving information about progress made in each and every community in their Provinces and, report back to the Department of Correctional Services, Head Office, (Directorate: Communication Services).
- The Adopt-a-cop concept is a good idea, whereby local schools work hand in hand with S.A.P.S. Our Media officers can also have a direct link with cops adopted by schools, so that during their visits we accompany them and also market our service. We have to be accountable and transparent to our communities by informing them of the advantages and disadvantages of being imprisoned. Members of development programmes working in the Department of Correctional Services, can assist in compiling a programme and the manner of approach in addressing this matter.
- We encourage regular visits by pre-school or primary school kids in our prisons, so that they can have better picture of the prison environment. In this way we will be dealing with crime from its roots. Normally at primary school level, it is the core for child delinquency.
Appendix 2: Technikon South Africa
Re: Submission on the White Paper for Safety and Security
Attached are submissions from my colleague Anthony Minnaar and I. My submission is confined to how the White Paper on Safety and Security relates to local government.
The White Paper on Safety and Security should be read in conjunction with the White Paper on Local Government since there are issues such as community safety and Community Police Forums (CPFs) discussed in both documents.
The White Paper on Local Government states"local government is being seen as a point of integration and co-ordination for the programmes of other spheres of government" - for example, the National Crime Prevention Strategy (NCPS). In respect of this "local government will be expected to play a key role in environmental design and promoting public values and education". It is envisaged that local government will implement social crime prevention measures to promote healthy, prosperous and well informed communities in which criminal activity has little opportunity to flourish". Strategies include the establishment of Municipal police services to support through training and access to police facilities. More importantly, however, is the view that the "department of safety and security envisages an overhaul of the present system of CPFs and their replacement with a system based on municipal public safety committees". This is a new idea and more discussion is needed. Although there has been speculation about turning CPFs into Community Justice Forums or Community Safety Forums with role players from the departments of Justice, Correctional Services and Welfare primarily because the police have to deal with issues over which they do not have any control such as the sentencing of suspects and the granting of bail. CPFs are mentioned only in passing in the local government white paper but where it speaks of community groups one could interpret this broadly to include them. Yet, CPFs are legal bodies created in terms of the South African Police Act 1995.
Since the establishment of CPFs in 1994 and 1995 they have been instrumental in improving the relationship between police and communities particularly in areas where police were seen as the enemy. CPFs have tried to ensure, however erratically, transparency and accountability of the police at a local level to the communities they serve. Moreover, in more affluent areas CPFs have raised funds from the community in order to equip the police to do their work better. But more importantly, CPF members have made the police in their areas more aware of local policing needs and priorities. In addition, they have shown the police the benefits of consulting communities about their safety and security needs.
To date CPFs have not been without their problems, these problems have largely served to ensure that these forums do not reach their full potential. They have often been characterised by a lack of representative, low levels of participation, in-fighting, a lack of understanding of their role and abuse of power. Some have come to feel that CPFs are defunct as they do not have much authority over the police particularly with regard to operational matters. However, CPFs are not organs of national and provincial government therefore we cannot expect them to take on their traits and responsibilities.
The White Paper on Safety and Security seeks to address many of these problems by formalising the relationship of CPFs with local government through placing local government officials on this forum as ex-officio members and chairpersons of CPFs on local crime prevention forums. Even in small ways some measures could go some way towards making public areas and spaces safe and secure for communities and may deter criminal activity. The cutting of grass, provision of street lighting or better road planning impact on crime prevention strategies.
At one level the CPF has an opportunity to place its concerns in a wider perspective rather than at the South African Police Services (SAPS) alone and thereby develop a holistic solution to safety and security issues. Since the tenure of CPF members is typically only a year or two the continuity promised by local government involvement could enhance crime prevention strategies. The tenure of local government officials is five years and it can ensure continuity and consistency in social crime prevention programmes.
The White Paper seems to want to emulate the system currently used in Pretoria. There local government officials do sit in on all CPFs as well as the Area Board. Inevitably there are problems regarding mandates and authorities. CPF members tend to hit their local council representative with problems peripheral to policing matters - such as water and electricity accounts which could be dealt with elsewhere. Perhaps crime prevention has been defined too narrowly. When we speak of crime we mean everyday crime that is dealt with by the police. Yet, crime has much to do with local authorities. It has to do with cutting of grass, adequate street lighting and suitable infrastructure. In many ways it makes sense for local authorities to share their resources with the SAPS. Moreover, with the onset of municipal policing local government can make a far greater direct impact on policing and crime prevention. On the other had, fears have been expressed about ward councillors who take part in the CPFs. They are seen as forcing CPF decisions at council level. So, the mandate problem needs to be ironed out.
In Pretoria a forum composed of the traffic department, fire, emergency services, police and others involved in local government meet regularly. Here matters relating to the co-ordination of crime prevention and safety and security are discussed. Local government officials may bring an element of representative and a range of co-ordinating strategies. However, these roles and responsibilities of these official s have not been systematically defined. By bringing to the table the powers of such decision making bodies (coupled with the municipal and traffic police resources) local government representatives can greatly enhance the role of CPFs.
The White Paper also envisages regular reports by CPFs to local government. This is a good idea since it will promote sound communication and the activities of CPFs will be open to scrutiny. In interviews with a range of safety and security functionaries in local government, it was found that many of them would welcome such reports since communication would be strengthened between local government and CPFs. But some respondents did caution against predominantly statistical reports on crime - the rationale being what purpose would these serve other than to impact negatively on people's attitudes to crime.
Unfortunately, a hidden agenda may be seen in the recommendation of the white paper that local government is meant to "direct the activities of and monitor the composition of CPFs as well as resolving disputes within CPFs in their area". This smacks of having CPFs overseen by political "commissars" intent on using voluntary associations to implement national and provincial policies. Whether or not this in the intention of the White Paper is largely irrelevant – the perception that this may be the case may be enough to totally undermine the institutions.
By facilitating dispute resolution within the CPFs local government (a body not disinterested in the outcome) is placed as judge and jury in the event of disputes. Presently there is limited support for this role. One could speculate that there would not be unequivocal support for this. CPFs are run by the people and the council is there merely to listen. Many overburdened local government officials feel that they (the council) do not want ever to run the CPF. Until now, the provincial secretariats of safety and security and some Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs) have been stepping in to resolve disputes within CPFs and between local police and CPF members. This responsibility should remain with them.
CPFs are by their very nature not representative of the whole community. They are peopled by individuals concerned with community safety and who are willing to give of their time and money for the good of the community at large.
The White Paper has prompted renewed criticism of the capacity of local government to implement national and provincial policies while delivering requisite services. Furthermore, it is viewed as an institution in crisis due to the stresses facing it at present. The Centre for Development Enterprise (CDE) has issued its critical response to the White Paper on Local Government. Its criticism of local government is the "lack of sufficient administrative, managerial and financial capacity in very many local authorities, to enable them to function as viable entities. ...the White Paper assumes capacity in most respects and then lists and enumerates many new functions for local government to perform". The list of functions is described as "daunting" by CDE "even for the largest and most organised metropolitan government". So, if local government is faced with such fundamental structural problems how can it hope to "direct the activities of and monitor the composition of CPFs as well as resolve disputes within CPFs"? Since some CPFs are also faced with a similar problem. It’s a case of the blind leading the blind! There has not been enough sober reflection on local governments’ capacity to take on such a task. It is an attempt to do too much with too little. I therefore question the desirability of this proposition in the White Paper on Safety and Security. However, if the intention of the White Paper on Safety and Security was to work on the co-ordination of police, traffic and local authority security services then it should have been stated more clearly and unambiguously. If the role of local government goes beyond nurturing positive aspects of CPFs, the consequences are potentially disastrous. Thus, the call by CDE for a Presidential Commission Enquiry for Cities and Towns is supported.
The White Paper leaves open the role of local government officials using CPFs to implement political agenda rather than addressing local concerns. This is one gap that needs to be filled rapidly before the debate takes on an unnecessarily destructive dimension.
I hope the above is useful.
Institute for Human Rights and Criminal Justice
Technikon South Africa
CONSOLIDATED REPORT OF SUBMISSIONS ON THE DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY & SECURITY WHITE PAPER: IN SERVICE OF SAFETY, SUBMITTED BY THE DIVISION: PUBLIC SAFETY & CRIMINAL JUSTICE, TECHNIKON SA TO THE PARLIAMENTARY PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON SAFETY & SECURITY AND THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON SECURITY & JUSTICE
Overall there appears to be a worrying lack of detail. While it is generally accepted that White Papers are policy guideline documents, a number of other departmental White Papers have spelt out both their broad policy vision as well as the detail of how they wish to accomplish and implement such policy, i.e. operationalisation of such policy visions.
Even though it is recognised that operational details are contained in the Operational Plans flowing from the broadbased policies contained in the Annual Objectives and Priorities, there remains a need for the formulation (in broad terms) of how such initiatives will be implemented (plan framework) at grassroots level.
LACUNAE/SHORTCOMINGS IDENTIFIED IN THE WHITE PAPER
A number of shortcomings, lacunae and omissions were identified in the submissions, namely:
· No specific policing philosophy as a framework guideline clearly stated in the White Paper
· Absence of specifics on funding
· No specific lines of accountability laid down
· Lack of fixed goals linked to a timeframe
· Lack of an overt commitment to Community Policing although this is implied throughout the White Paper
· The specific training needs entailed in implementing some of the social crime prevention strategies are not spelt out
· Failure to stipulate mechanisms to implement, monitor and evaluate aims and goals as set out in the White Paper
· A more explicit statement is needed regarding diversion as the most cost-effective means of reducing the number of people entering the criminal justice system
· There is a need to recognise the lack of resources in poor communities as an inhibiting factor in crime prevention efforts. Allowance for or specific funding to overcome this obstacle will need to be made
· There is no acceptance of the logical step of the extension of partnership policing to privatisation specifically with reference to the private security industry
· The form municipal policing will take is not spelt out nor whether this would only function as a slightly more crime prevention oriented form of Traffic Police. Would municipal by-laws have precedence? Whether such a service would have the capacities to implement visible policing and patrols in sufficient numbers to be effective within CBDs and municipal areas - possible clash of functions and accountabilities and responsibilities at crime scenes, remain areas of concern
· There is no mention of policing in rural areas specifically in tribal authority areas (the issue of tribal court (Khoro) jurisdiction, authority of traditional leaders and control over tribal police are ignored completely)
· No acknowledgement of the role or contribution of community service (volunteerism) in policing
· Youth community service is not mentioned as an alternative option for crime prevention
· The failure to expand the provision of adequate services to victims by adopting the provisions of the United Nations Declaration for the Protection of Victims
· Confusion about "community crime prevention" as opposed to such existing concepts as developmental or situational crime prevention. There should be greater emphasis on community involvement in crime prevention. More detailed clarification on "social crime prevention" is also required
· An assumption in the White Paper that all community police for a countrywide are functioning effectively within a sound community-police relationship is misleading and a gross generalisation. The problems surrounding the CPFs need to be taken account of and appropriate measures be formulated for their proper functioning (possible exploitation by local councilors for political ends; sustainability; adequate local government financial support; lack of funding and resources; poor communication between CPFs and communities and lack of trust of police)
· Will merely meeting the needs of victims of crime and an improved delivery of service reduce crime. A closer examination of a "harder" approach to perpetrators (for instance the zero tolerance concept and stiffer sentencing, bail restrictions etc.) needs to be undertaken
· The link between increasing the numbers of detectives, better training and establishing specialised units is not clearly established. If the former two occur would the latter be necessary?
· The corollary that more detectives means less uniformed members to patrol is obvious. Accordingly a recognition that numbers not only of detectives but also of uniform personnel also need to be increased
· The lack of placing within the broader context in the South African situation, no recognition that outside factors will enormously influence outcomes of crime prevention and bringing down crime levels, for example economic development and extent of upliftment of disadvantaged communities, investment hostile labour laws, mass unemployment etc.
· Lack of focus on institutional enabling crime
· No recognition of the possibilities of outsourcing certain functions and duties of the SAPS
· Short on details of how outcomes will be achieved or on modus operandi for the wideranging but vague " social crime prevention" strategy
· No emphasis on training linkages to other skills, for instance communication, language and life skills, diversity, gender awareness and sensitivity training, report writing, appropriate court dialogue, interview techniques, information analysis, meeting procedures, media liaison etc.
· The White Paper would appear to have ignored the opportunity of exploring a number of new and innovative options to policing
CPFs AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
1. The question of an overhaul of the present system of CPFs and their replacement with a system based on municipal public safety committees is a new idea and should be discussed in greater detail.
2. Local government strategies regarding the establishment of municipal police services, support of such strategies through training and access to police facilities; and the expected key role of local authorities in environmental design and promoting public values and education, and their implementation of social crime prevention measures need to be expanded in more detail.
3. The problems surrounding the operationalisation of CPFs need also to be noted so that measures ensuring their more effective implementation at local level be instituted. While the White Paper seeks to formalise the relationship between local government and CPFs this relationship needs to be widened in perspective to take cognisance of innovative crime preventative strategies at this level involving both the community as a whole and the CPF as a body.
4. A specific concern regarding the White Paper's proposals for CPFs is the fact that it appears to want to emulate the system currently in place in the Pretoria area where local councilors do sit on the CPFs. This raises its own set of problems. Moreover, crime prevention has also perhaps been defined too narrowly. In essence the roles, mandate and responsibilities not only of local government officials but also of the CPF members and individuals within communities need to be clarified. By bringing to the 'table' the powers of local government decisionmaking bodies (coupled with the municipal and traffic police resources) local government representatives are able to greatly enhance the role of the CPFs.
5. A further concern has been the recommendations in the White Paper for monitoring and directing (control/regulatory) of the activities of CPFs by local government. The danger here being of political control for the implementation of national and provincial policies. The direct concern here is that this might undermine the legitimacy and effectiveness/ independence of CPFs.
6. Finally, there are unanswered concerns in the White Paper about the ability/capacity of local government to implement policies and deliver the requisite services particularly in the field of social crime prevention and operations of CPFs. This links directly to the current fundamental structural problems that exist at local government level. It is also unclear in the White Paper to what extent there should be co-ordination between the police, traffic and local authority security services.
POLICE AS VICTIMS
While much is said about crime prevention there is very little emphasis on working conditions of the members of the Service itself. It is a truism of modern management principles that working conditions and environment have a major influence on the quality of service delivery, as well as morale. At the very least, in the current South African context, there should have been an acknowledgement that police themselves are victims of crime, stress, trauma and even death (murder). It is recommended that this first of all be recognised and accepted in principle by management within the SAPS; and secondly that a holistic, integrated internal approach to victim support for members themselves be incorporated into the White Paper specifically detailing how such would be implemented and managed.
Allied to the above is the need for a specific (spelt out) initiative to build morale within the Service. While past initiatives such as Ubuntu workshops, Diversity Training and ad hoc localised projects to address complaints affecting morale have tried to address this problem there remains a lack of an overall initiative. What is recommended here is the acceptance by Top Management structures of the problem and the formulation of a dedicated and specific approach along accepted management principles to deal with the issue of low morale. It is here recognised that this would involve a multi-faceted approach since the issues are many (e.g. absenteeism; low educational qualifications; literacy rates; lack of effective training; poor resources etc. In this regard, for instance, a simple linkage between promotion prospects and obtaining additional post-matric qualifications would encourage members to study further. In addition, further promotion linkages to such things as productivity and service evaluation in which individuals are rated according to performance might also be of value in dealing with the issue of morale).
In the modern approach to crime prevention and the wide diversity of crime problems, both national and international, it is imperative that the role and functions of research in this fight be recognised. Modern policing is complex and anti-crime strategies need to be based on well researched, objective and scientific research results. Decisions on a whole range of issues are in fact dependent upon the quality of information available to decision-makers. This extends beyond merely the analysis of crime statistics; crime trends and what is commonly termed crime 'intelligence' or 'information'. It refers to the wider picture concerning research on all sorts of additional issues such as communication, management principles, human resources, morale, victim and community surveys, legislation, best practices etc.
This White Paper appears to ignore any role for dedicated research whether inside the Service or in collaboration with academic institutions, research organisations and NGOs. There is not even an acceptance of the principle or recognition of its importance in building a more effective organisation (besides listing it under the functions of the Monitoring Section of the Secretariat). This is a serious omission and needs to be addressed urgently.
There are a number of issues (of possible lesser concern) that at the very least need to be mentioned for further examination and investigation:
· The informer system
· Witness Protection Programme
· Corruption not only within the SAPS but also in other government departments · SAPS role in rehabilitation of offenders
· Zero tolerance principle
· Broken window approach
· Vigilantism and the use of Peoples Courts
· Use of technology (e.g. CBD CCTV; tracker systems; hi-tech fingerprint and crime information databases etc.)
· Section 21 companies and involvement of communities in funding
No related documents
- We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting
Download as PDF
You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.
See detailed instructions for your browser here.