Khayelitsha Commission of Inquiry
Community Perception Survey into Policing in Khayelitsha
Final Report
February 2014
Contact Person: Justin Du Toit, Senior Researcher and Consultant Address: P.O. Box 2129, Clareinch, 7740, Cape Town, South Africa E-mail: [email protected] Cell: 078 235 2946
Tel: (021) 674 0504 Fax: (021) 674 0503
1
Contents
ACRONYMS ...... 3 TABLES ...... 4 APPENDIX B TABLES ...... 4 FIGURES ...... 5 APPENDIX B FIGURES ...... 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 6 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ...... 10
1.1 OBJECTIVES OF STUDY ...... 11
1.2 STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT ...... 11 2. METHODOLOGY ...... 12
2.1 DESKTOP RESEARCH ...... 12
2.2 COMMUNITY PERCEPTION SURVEY ...... 12
2.3 POST-SURVEY WORKSHOP ...... 19 3. CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS ...... 20
3.1 SOCIOECONOMIC PROFILE OF KHAYELITSHA ...... 20
3.2 THE PREVALENCE OF CRIME AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO POLICING IN
KHAYELITSHA ...... 21 4. COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS ON POLICING IN KHAYELITSHA ...... 24
4.1 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS ...... 24
4.2 SOCIOECONOMIC PROFILE OF SAPS PRECINCTS ...... 25
4.3 EXPERIENCES OF CRIME IN KHAYELITSHA ...... 27 5. CONCLUSIONS ...... 48 APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRE ...... 51 APPENDIX B: SURVEY DATA ...... 69 REFERENCES ...... 81 ENDNOTES ...... 84
2
Acronyms
CBD Central Business District CPF Community Police Forum CSO Civil Society Organisation CTMPD Cape Town Municipal Police Department NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NVCS National Victims of Crime Survey QC Quality Control SAPS South African Police Service TAC Treatment Action Campaign TOR Terms of Reference VOCS Victim of Crime Survey
3
Tables
Table 1: Profiles of Khayelitsha Wards, 2011 Census ...... 15 Table 2: Achieved Sample ...... 17 Table 3: Experiences of Crime in the Past Year ...... 29 Table 4: Respondents with Personal Experiences of Crime by SAPS precinct ...... 29 Table 5: Crimes Personally Experienced by Survey Respondents Compared with SAPS Data, by Precinct ...... 32 Table 6: Profile of Family and Close Friends Who Have Experienced Crime in the Past Year, as Described by Respondents ...... 33 Table 7: Reporting of Crime in Khayelitsha, Harare and Lingelethu SAPS Precincts, by Respondent Profile ...... 34 Table 8: Levels of Reporting by Crime Type and SAPS Precinct ...... 35 Table 9: SAPS Station Where Crime Was Reported, by Precinct ...... 36 Table 10: Status of Investigations by Police Station ...... 37 Table 11: Reasons for Non-Reporting of a Recent Crime ...... 38 Table 12: Reasons for Non-Reporting to SAPS ...... 38 Table 13: Respondents Who Feel Safe in Khayelitsha ...... 40 Table 14: Measures Taken to Ensure Safety by SAPS Precinct...... 42 Table 15: Attitudes about Community Police Forums and Vigilantism ...... 47 Table 16: Respondents Who Believe Vigilantism is Justified ...... 47
Appendix B Tables
Table B 1: Crime Reported to SAPS between April 2012 and March 2013, by Precinct ...... 69 Table B 2: Dwelling Type by SAPS Precinct and Gender ...... 70 Table B 3: Level of Education by SAPS Precinct and Gender ...... 71 Table B 4: Employment Levels by SAPS Precinct and Gender ...... 71 Table B 5: Personal Monthly Income by SAPS Precinct and Gender ...... 72 Table B 6: Number of Dependents by SAPS Precinct and Gender ...... 72 Table B 7: Location and Time of Day of Crime Instances, by SAPS Precinct ...... 73 Table B 8: Respondents’ Description of the Profile of the Most Recent Crime Victim ...... 74 Table B 9: Crime perpetrators in Khayelitsha ...... 74 Table B 10: Crime perpetrators in Harare ...... 75 Table B 11: Crime perpetrators in Lingelethu ...... 76 Table B 12: Who Crimes Were Reported To, by SAPS Precinct ...... 76 Table B 13: Evaluations of SAPS by Precinct ...... 78 Table B 14: Perceptions of SAPS in Khayelitsha, by Precinct ...... 79 Table B 15: Respondents Who Have Dealt with CPFs in Khayelitsha ...... 79
4
Figures
Figure 1: Residents 20 Years Old and Above with a Grade 12 Education or Higher, by SAPS Precinct [Source: City of Cape Town, 2011] ...... 16 Figure 2: Employment Levels in Khayelitsha, by SAPS Precinct [Source: City of Cape Town, 2011] ...... 16 Figure 3: Residents with a Personal Monthly Income of Less Than R3,200, by SAPS Precinct [Source: City of Cape Town, 2011] ...... 16 Figure 4: Residents Living in Formal Dwellings, by SAPS Precinct [Source: City of Cape Town, 2011]...... 16 Figure 5: Mthente quality control, data capture and analysis process [Source: Mthente, 2014] ...... 18 Figure 6: Map of Khayelitsha, Cape Town, Western Cape [Source: City of Cape Town, 2011] ...... 21 Figure 7: Contact Crimes Reported between April 2012 and March 2013, by Precinct [Source: SAPS]..... 22 Figure 8: Change in Reported Contact Crimes across Three Precincts, 2011/12 to 2012/13 ...... 22 Figure 9: Feelings of Safety at Location in Khayelitsha During the Day ...... 41 Figure 10: Feelings of Safety at Location in Khayelitsha at Night ...... 41 Figure 11: Change in perceptions of police in Khayelitsha over the past five years (2009 - 2013) ...... 43
Appendix B Figures
Figure B 1: Instances of Crime in the Past Year, by SAPS Precinct ...... 73 Figure B 2: Evaluation of Police Responses to Crime Reports, by SAPS Station ...... 77
5
Executive Summary
On 28 November 2011, a group of civil society organisations (CSOs) represented by the Women’s Legal Centre submitted a formal complaint to the Western Cape Department of the Premier, which related to the operations of the South African Police Services (SAPS) and the Cape Town Municipal Police Department in the suburb of Khayelitsha. With a population of close to 400,000 residents, Khayelitsha is one of the country’s largest townships, and reports the highest rates of murder, attempted murder and aggravated robbery in South Africa, according to police crime statistics. The complainants, which included the Social Justice Coalition, Treatment Action Campaign (TAC), Equal Education, Free Gender, Triangle Project and Ndifuna Ukwazi, stated that residents of over-crowded and under-serviced areas such as Khayelitsha are exposed to high levels of violence and are “often assaulted, robbed, raped and murdered while engaged in activities that others take for granted, such as using the toilet or accessing transport to work”.1 The complaint also laid out a number of grievances against police officers working in Khayelitsha, including the loss of case dockets, poor communication with crime victims, failure to protect witnesses, an unwillingness to cooperate with prosecutors, and generally discourteous and contemptuous treatment towards members of the public.
Although the subject of an unsuccessful Constitutional Court challenge in 2012, a Commission of Inquiry was established to investigate allegations of police inefficiency in Khayelitsha and a breakdown in relations between the community and the police in the area.”2 The work of the Commission commenced in August 2012, and continued through these legal challenges, and Mthente Research and Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd was commissioned to conduct a survey on public perceptions of the police in Khayelitsha in November 2013. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with 1,836 Khayelitsha residents in the three SAPS precincts of Khayelitsha, Harare and Lingelethu West, and these were followed by a qualitative focus group to further explore and analyse research findings.
Demographic and Socioeconomic Profile
Consistent with the results of the 2011 Census, the survey found that respondents residing in Khayelitsha were predominantly Black South Africans, first language isiXhosa speakers and predominantly from the
6
Eastern Cape. Two-thirds of all respondents lived in formal housing, but most reported low monthly incomes. Overall employment levels were just over 50 percent, and most respondents had not completed Grade 12/Matric.
Experiences of Crime
Half of all survey respondents had either personally been a victim of crime in Khayelitsha in the past year, or had a close family member or friend who had experience crime during this period, most often on either one or two occasions. While a higher proportion of men than women experienced crime in Khayelitsha and Harare precincts, a higher proportion of women were crime victims in Lingelethu. Amongst respondents with experiences of crime, these most frequently were in the form of either armed robbery or common robbery, and incidents most often took place at respondents’ homes or in the street. Most crimes, according to survey respondents, were committed by strangers.
Reporting Crime
Crime reporting varied between SAPS precincts, and while more than three-fourths of Lingelethu residents reported recent crimes, this was only true of 60 percent or respondents in Harare and 54 percent in Khayelitsha. Survey results also show that relatively more affluent respondents, who live in formal housing, earn higher incomes and have achieved higher levels of education, are more likely than others to report crime. Specific types are crime are also particularly unlikely to go unreported, including gangsterism, common assault and homophobia. In more than half of all cases, crimes were reported to SAPS, but respondents also reported these incidents to family members/relatives, street committees and friends.
In most cases, respondents reported to police within their own precinct, rather than travelling elsewhere. Although just under 40 percent indicated that police officers had taken a statement, close to one fourth answered that the police “did nothing”, and arrests, court appearances and convictions occurred in only a small minority of cases. Respondents who reported crimes to SAPS evaluated police responses negatively overall. Those who did not report crimes to SAPS described their main reasons as fear of being victimised by perpetrators, and distrust of the police.
7
Perceptions of Safety in Khayelitsha
Survey findings show that close to eight in ten area residents do not feel safe in own community. Focus group respondents described taking detours throughout the suburb in order to avoid high crime areas, and more than 50 percent of respondents described a wide range of public and private locations as unsafe even during the day, including places of worship, public transportation, commercial and retail locations, communal service sites, on the streets, and even in recreational and community places. 62 percent of respondents felt unsafe in their own home during the day, and 76 percent felt unsafe in their own home at night. About a third of respondents had installed home security features in order to improve safety and protection.
Evaluations of SAPS in Khayelitsha
Survey respondents were asked to evaluate SAPS on a wide range of areas related to performance and interaction with community members, including training and capacity, fulfillment of required tasks, efficiency, service quality, and treatment of members of the public with respect and politeness. A majority of these responses were negative across most indicators. More than half of all respondents disagreed that people living in Khayeltisha have confidence in the SAPS.
Attitudes Towards Community Police Forums and Vigilantism
Many survey respondents were aware of Community Police Forums (CPFs) in Khayelitsha, but only about one in five had dealt directly with them. Amongst those who had dealt with CPFs, many described these organisations as helpful, particularly in terms of responding more quickly to crime than SAPS. About three- quarters of all respondents indicated that they feel vigilantism is unjustified, citing reasons such as a lack of evidence and thorough investigations, but one-quarter answered that vigilantism is justified, again citing reasons such as police inefficiency and delayed responses to reported crimes.
8
Conclusions and Key Findings
Key findings emerging from the Community Perception survey included that,
Most participating Khayelitsha residents reported low incomes and education levels, but the Lingelethu precinct is relatively more affluent in comparison with Khayelitsha and Harare precincts. Survey results confirm high levels of crime in Khayelitsha, but levels of reporting differ across precincts, types of crime and according to the socioeconomic profile of respondents. When survey respondents reported crimes to SAPS, they tended to do so within their own precinct, rather than travelling to another. Beyond capturing initial statements, SAPS in the three precincts were viewed as having made little progress in arresting or convicting suspects. Main reasons for non-reporting of crimes include a fear of victimisation by perpetrators, and distrust of the police. A large majority of Khayelitsha residents feel fundamentally unsafe in their community, and even in their own homes. Evaluations of SAPS performance in Khayelitsha are largely negative, across a range of indicators. Most Khayelitsha residents do not engage with CPFs, but those who do view CPFs as more helpful than SAPS.. Many Khayelitsha residents do not engage vigilante groups, but those who do view vigilante groups as more efficienct than SAPS. More than one in four survey respondents views vigilantism as justified.
9
1. Introduction and Background
In August of 2012, Western Cape Premier Helen Zille announced the province’s intention to establish a Commission of Inquiry into “allegations of police inefficiency in Khayelitsha and a breakdown in relations between the community and the police in the area.” According to a statement released by the Department of the Premier, the initial request to establish the Commission was made by a group of civil society organisations represented by the Women’s Legal Centre in 2011.3 These organizations included the Social Justice Coalition, Treatment Action Campaign (TAC), Equal Education, Free Gender, Triangle Project and Ndifuna Ukwazi.4
Khayelitsha is among South Africa’s biggest townships, and the most populous in the Western Cape Province. According to a 2012 report on “Serious Crime in Khayelitsha and Surrounding Areas” by the Crime Research and Statistics division of Crime Intelligence, cumulatively the areas of Khayelitsha, Harare and Lingelethu West occupy the country’s first position “as far as national murder, attempted murder and aggravated robbery figures are concerned.” The formal complaint lodged by the Women’s Legal Centre observed that residents of “over-crowded, under-serviced neighbourhoods and informal settlements” are “often assaulted, robbed, raped and murdered while engaged in activities that others take for granted, such as using the toilet or accessing transport to work”, and cited community reports of high levels of violence against women and girls in particular. The complaint further included a range of grievances against South African Police Services (SAPS) officers working in Khayelitsha, including: lost case dockets; a lack of cooperation with prosecutors; poor communication with crime victims; incorrect granting of bail; failure to protect witnesses; and discourteous and contemptuous treatment towards members of the public. Civil society organisations concluded that the “community has lost confidence in the ability of the police to protect them from crime and to investigate crimes once they have occurred”, and as a result “many crimes simply go unreported, as members of the community see little point in reporting them.”5
Following a Constitutional Court challenge in an unsuccessful bid to stop its proceedings, the work of the Commission started in August of 2012, under the leadership of Justice Kate O’Regan and Advocate Vusi Pikoli. During the same month, Mthente Research and Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd was commissioned to conduct a public perception survey into policing in Khayelitsha, with a focus on experiences and perceptions of crime. The research also analyses public opinion and attitudes
10
within the Khayelitsha, Harare and Lingelethu-West police precincts. The purpose of the study, as discussed during the inception meeting, is to bring the voice and experiences of the community into the work of the Commission.
1.1 Objectives of study
The Khayelitsha Commission was established with the mandate of conducting an inquiry into allegations of police inefficiency and a breakdown in relations between the community and the police in Khayelitsha.6 Within the context of this mandate, the specific objectives of the research study as captured in the Terms of Reference and agreed to by Mthente and the Khayelitsha Commission, are as follows:
To determine community members’ experiences of crime. Reporting patterns to the SAPS in Khayelitsha. Reasons for not reporting crimes to the SAPS in Khayelitsha. Other experiences and interactions with the SAPS in Khayelitsha (i.e. levels of satisfaction and dissatisfaction related to police in Khayelitsha). The use of vigilante or alternative justice systems, and the overall feelings of safety or un-safety within Khayelitsha.
1.2 Structure of the report
The remainder of the report is structured as follows:
Chapter 2 describes the methodology which was used to conduct the study. Chapter 3 provides a contextual analysis of Khayelitsha. Chapter 4 presents the integrated quantitative and qualitative research findings. Chapter 5 synthesises the key findings from the study and draws conclusions.
In addition, Appendix A contains the full questionnaire, and Appendix B contains additional survey data.
11
2. Methodology
Mthente used a multi-pronged research approach in conducting the research, which included a concise desktop review and contextual analysis and a quantitative survey with 1,836 Khayelitsha residents. Post- survey validation workshops were also held with both respondents and non-respondents, in which key themes and findings were discussed and probed.
2.1 Desktop research
Mthente began the research process with a brief desktop review of previous research, existing statistical data and publications (including 2011 Census data from Statistics South Africa), media reports on crime and policing in Khayelitsha, and the background to the establishment of the Commission of Inquiry. This data was used in the development of the survey questionnaire.
2.2 Community Perception Survey
As per the request of the Commission of Inquiry, the draft survey questionnaire was developed and refined in consultation with Mr. Michael Anthony O’ Donovan (Analyst and Director of Quanta Analytics). The draft survey questionnaire was piloted amongst 10 residents at the Site C taxi rank in Khayelitsha on the 6th December 2013 to ensure that all of the questions were clear and easy to understand and identify any research gaps. In consultation with the Commission of Inquiry, the survey questionnaire was subsequently refined and approved (the quantitative survey questionnaire is provided in Appendix I). The fieldwork team, which was composed of 18 unemployed Khayelitsha community members, underwent rigorous training in IsiXhosa to prepare for the fieldwork. This training covered the following components/areas:
1. Introduction to the project, which included: a. Background information about the client. b. The objectives of the survey. c. Mthente’s role. 2. Fieldwork, more specifically: a. Fieldworker responsibilities.
12
b. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs). c. Understanding biases. d. How to deal with different respondents. 3. Understanding the survey questionnaire, which included: a. A step-by-step walkthrough of the survey questionnaire. b. Safety and ethics. c. Role-play.
2.2.1 Sample Selection
The 2011 Census found that 391,749 people live in the suburb of Khayelitsha. The fieldwork sample was drawn from residents of wards 18, 87, 89 – 98, 99 and 109, of which individual demographic profiles are shown in Table 1.i The entire suburb was previously served by the Khayelitsha police station, and the Harare and Lingelethu-West stations were built in 2004. 7
Stratification to select a representative sample was conducted by expert research associate expert associate, Dr Lizette Voges, using the key variables of ward, gender and dwelling type.ii Initial consideration was also given to including nationality as a key variable in this stratification, but given that the Census found that 97 percent of Khayelitsha residents are South African, this variable was excluded from the sample stratification, though included in the survey.8iii Hence, the sample for the survey was not a simple random sample. The sampling technique employed was Proportional Quota Sampling or in other words, Proportional Convenience Stratified Sampling.
Notably, Census data also reveals some differences in the socioeconomic profiles of the three precincts analyses, as shown in Figures 1 – 4. The Lingelethu Precinct in Khayelitshaiv has a smaller population,
i As reflected in the Census 2011 data (available from: http://www.statssa.gov.za/isibalo_conference/docs/Presentation%20Stats%20SA%20Isibalo%20Users%20Conference%2015- %2017%20July%202013%20_%20CCT%20Carol%20Wright.pdf and http://www.capetown.gov.za/en/stats/2011CensusSuburbs/2011_Census_CT_Suburb_Khayelitsha_Profile.pdf). ii Dr Lizette Voges previously provided IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) training courses for five years, and is now Founder and Director of Statsolve Solutions – SPSS and statistics-focused company (http://statsolve.weebly.com/about-us.html). iii Hence, it would have been a major challenge locating respondents of other nationalities residing within Khayelitsha. iv The precinct also includes ward 99, which includes Eastridge and borders on Mitchell’s Plain. 13
higher education and employment levels, as well as a lower proportion of residents earning less than R3,200 per month and a higher percentage living in formal housing than in either the Khayelitsha or Harare precincts. Khayelitsha precinct, comparatively, is characterised by the lowest levels of education, employment and residence in formal dwellings of the three precincts.
14
Table 1: Profiles of Khayelitsha Wards, 2011 Census % 20+ with % Monthly % Living in Pop- % % % Ward Areas Grade 12 or Income Formal ulation Female African Employed higher 15 Residents 20+ with Grade 12 or Higher Employment Education 36% 62% 35% 61% Percent 44% Percent 67% 31% 59% 0% 20% 40% 60% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% All of Khayelitsha Harare Precinct All of Khayelitsha Harare Precinct Lingelethu Precinct Khayelitsha Precinct Lingelethu Precinct Khayelitsha Precinct Figure 1: Residents 20 Years Old and Above Figure 2: Employment Levels in Khayelitsha, by with a Grade 12 Education or Higher, by SAPS SAPS Precinct [Source: City of Cape Town, 2011] Precinct [Source: City of Cape Town, 2011] Personal Monthly Income 74% 45% 79% 37% Percent 59% Percent 73% 78% 32% 0% 50% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% All of Khayelitsha Harare Precinct All of Khayelitsha Harare Precinct Lingelethu Precinct Khayelitsha Precinct Lingelethu Precinct Khayelitsha Precinct Figure 3: Residents with a Personal Monthly Figure 4: Residents Living in Formal Dwellings, Income of Less Than R3,200, by SAPS Precinct by SAPS Precinct [Source: City of Cape Town, [Source: City of Cape Town, 2011] 2011] 16 2.2.2 Achieved sample Using the sampling stratification described in Section 2.2.1 above, Mthente achieved a sample of 1,836 residents across the three SAPS precincts. The achieved sample, shown in Table 2, reflects a slight majority of women respondents in Khayelitsha and Lingelethu, and a majority of men in Harare. Rates of residence in formal housing within the sample were far higher in Lingelethu (85.5 percent) than either Khayelitsha (60.9 percent) or Harare (65.6 percent), and the average age of respondents was 33 years old. Overall, rates of residence in formal housing within the sample (67.7 percent) were higher than the average in Khayelitsha (44.6 percent), possibly as a result of the convenience sampling methodology used, but were lower than the national average for South Africa (77.6 percent). (See Table 2) This sample achieved a 95 percent confidence level, and a margin of error of 2.28 percent. Table 2: Achieved Sample % Formal Precinct Total (N) Male (%) Female (%) % African Housing Khayelitsha 722 46.4% 53.6% 100.0% 60.9% Harare 693 51.2% 48.8% 100.0% 65.6% Lingelethu 391 42.2% 57.8% 98.0% 85.5% Total Sample 1,836 47.2% 52.7% 99.6% 67.7% Total Khayelitsha 391,749 48.9% 51.1% 98.6% 44.6% Total RSA 51 770 560 48.7 51.4 77.4% 77.6% 2.2.3 Fieldwork Surveys were administered face-to-face with residents at central transportation hubs. Surveys were conducted in isiXhosa and English, depending on the preference of respondents, and only with Khayelitsha residents aged 16 or older. To ensure random selection of participants, a sampling interval of every third resident was used. v v Sampling interval refers to the distance between points (i.e. selected primary respondents) in order to ensure randomness of selection – also referred to as the, frequency of data collection. 17 2.2.4 Quality control, data capturing and analysis Mthente employed a rigorous quality control (QC) process to ensure that the dataset was of high quality. The steps outlined in Figure 1 below were followed to QC, capture, clean and analyse the survey dataset. Figure 5: Mthente quality control, data capture and analysis process [Source: Mthente, 2014] 2.2.5 Data reporting The following considerations were taken into account in reporting on survey results: Benchmarking: where possible, survey results are benchmarked against the results of the 2011 Census and the 2012 National Victims of Crime Survey (NVCS). Reporting on N values: in sub cases, and particularly where data analysis uses sub groups, the number (N) of responses is so low that it prevents meaningful analysis, and in such cases N values are also included. Table 8, for example, shows that 75 percent of crimes related to homophobia were unreported, but the N value shows that homophobic incidents were only experienced 4 times in the past year by respondents. Multiple response items: some questions included in the survey allowed respondents to select more than one answer and in such cases, total N values may be higher than the number of overall respondents, and percentages of responses may add up to more than 100 percent. 18 2.3 Post-survey workshop The research team identified survey respondents and non-survey respondents to participate in a post- survey workshop. The workshop guide was developed by Mthente and can be found in Appendix II. The post-survey workshop was held on the 16th January 2014 to probe key findings that emanated from the perception survey. A total of 12 participants from a range of areas within Khayelitsha attended the post- survey workshop (i.e. Site B, Site C, Kuyasa and Harare). Of the 12 participants, three participated in the community perception survey; the remaining 9 participants did not participate in the survey. 19 3. Contextual Analysis This chapter outlines the context and provides a situational analysis of the prevailing socio-economic profile of the Khayelitsha community, the prevalence of crime in the area, and the establishment of the Commission of Inquiry into Policing in Khayelitsha. 3.1 Socioeconomic Profile of Khayelitsha Established in 1983 under the apartheid government, Khayelitsha is the largest township in the Western Cape Province. It is located approximately 35 kilometres from Cape Town’s central business district (CBD), bordered by the N2 highway to the north, the False Bay Coast to the south, and Mitchell’s Plain to the west.9 Census 2011 data finds that the area is home to almost 400,000 residents, of whom a majority – consistent with apartheid residential segregation enforced through the Group Areas Act (1950) – remains Black African (99 percent).10 (See Figure 6) As a large and established residential area, communities within Khayelitsha are diverse, and its geography includes the following sub-areas: Bongani TR Section; Bongweni; Ekuphumleni; Graceland; Griffiths Mxenge; Harare/Holomisa; Ikwezi Park; Khayelitsha SP; Khayelitsha T2-V2b; Khayelitsha T3-V2; Khayelitsha T3-V3; Khayelitsha T3-V4; Khayelitsha T3-V5; Mandela Park; Monwabisi; RR Section; Silver Town; Solomon Mahlangu; Tembani; Town 3; Trevor Vilakazi; Victoria; Mxenge; Village V1 North; Village V1 South; Village V2 North; Village V3 North; Village V4 North; and Washington Square. (See Figure 2) Overall, however, its residents are predominantly low-income earners, with close to three-fourths (74 percent) reporting a monthly income of R 3,200 or less. The area unemployment rate is 38 percent, and more than half of all residents (55 percent) report residing in informal dwellings (i.e. shacks, not in backyard areas).11 20 Figure 6: Map of Khayelitsha, Cape Town, Western Cape [Source: City of Cape Town, 2011] 3.2 The prevalence of crime and the establishment of the Commission of Inquiry into Policing in Khayelitsha As discussed in the Introduction, Khayelitsha residents experience some of the highest crime rates in the country and in the Western Cape Province, particularly in terms of instances of murder, attempted murder and aggravated robbery. Murder and attempted murder are referred to in research conducted by Crime Intelligence in 2012 as “social contact crime”, described as “less policeable” in terms of conventional methods, and influenced by factors such as “a high influx of people not knowing one another and a resultant lack of social cohesion, unemployment, dire poverty, a lack of proper housing/privacy and recreational facilities/activities.”6 The largest number of reported contact crimes in the suburb was in Khayelitsha precinct (3,313), followed by Harare precinct (2,578) and Lingelethu (1,088). Types of crime are shown in Figure 7. Figure 8 also shows increases in most types of reported contact crimes between April 6 Major General (Dr) C. P. de Kock is Acting Divisional Commissioner: Crime Intelligence (http://www.ifaisa.org/current_affairs/Hankel_report-Mdluli.pdf), and Head: Crime Research and Statistics (http://dnaproject.co.za/new_dna/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Intelligence-Strategies-For-Law-Enforcers-yr.pdf). 21 2011 and March 12, and April 2012 and March 2013, with the exceptions of sexual crimes (declined by 31 cases) and murder (declined by 6 cases).7 Robbery with aggravating circumstances 989 316 627 Common robbery 221 87 198 Common assault 774 331 637 Assault with the intent to inflict grievous 707 145 634 bodily harm Attempted murder 208 47 87 Total Sexual Crimes 246 108 263 Murder 168 54 132 Khayelitsha Lingelethu-West Harare Figure 7: Contact Crimes Reported between April 2012 and March 2013, by Precinct [Source: SAPS] Robbery with aggravating … 1571 1932 Common robbery 390 506 Common assault 1557 1742 Assault with the intent to inflict … 1439 1486 Attempted murder 264 342 Total Sexual Crimes 648 617 Murder 360 354 April 2011 - March 2012 April 2012 - March 2013 Figure 8: Change in Reported Contact Crimes across Three Precincts, 2011/12 to 2012/13 7 Recent estimates by the Medical Research Council suggest that as few as 1 in 25 rapes are reported to police. (See Eyewitness News, 2014) 22 In a joint statement released in 2013, the University of Stellenbosch (US) and the University of Cape Town (UCT), highlighted “deep concern about the disturbing levels of violence and insecurity in Khayelitsha, which has [...] been highlighted by controversies surrounding policing, governance and vigilantism in the area [Khayelitsha].”12 Moreover, it was reported that Khayelitsha residents fear leaving their homes at night as a result of on-going violence and intimidation. It was noted that “despite the Khayelitsha community having campaigned for the improvement of the quality of policing services over several years, very little has been done to assuage their concerns.”13 Linked to the prevalence of crime and insecurity, media reports indicated that a total of 78 mob justice murders were committed in the Khayelitsha policing district in the space of 14 months.14 This together with complaints from non-governmental organisations (NGOs) working in the area regarding the “breakdown of residents’ trust in the ability of the police to fight crime and keep them safe,”15 resulted in the establishment of the Commission of Inquiry by Premier Helen Zille, headed by the retired Constitutional Court Justice, Kate O’Regan and former prosecutions boss, Advocate Vusi Pikoli. The Commission is mandated to investigate complaints received by the Premier relating to allegations of inefficiency of the SAPS stationed at three police stations in Khayelitsha (i.e. Lingelethu, Khayelitsha and Harare), as well as to investigate allegations of a breakdown in relations between the Khayelitsha community and the SAPS stationed at the three police stations.16 23 4. Community Perceptions on Policing in Khayelitsha This section of the report presents the findings of the Community Perception survey. It begins with an overview of the demographic and socioeconomic profiles of survey respondents within the Khayelitsha, Harare and Lingelethu SAPS precincts, and then focuses on respondents’ experiences of crime, feelings of safety and perceptions of the police. 4.1 Demographic Profile of Survey Respondents As presented in Section 2, Mthente drew a sample of Khayelitsha residents that was representative of the population of the entire suburb (with 95 percent confidence and a margin of error of 2.28 percent). Accordingly, the sample was found to have the following demographic characteristics: Gender: the percentage of women interviewed (52.8 percent) was slightly higher than that of men. This is consistent with the demographics of Khayelitsha suburb, and the country overall. Race: the large majority of respondents (99.6 percent) were Black Africans, according to historical population categories. This is consistent of the overall demographics of Khayelitsha. Age: Comparable to the overall youthful population of Khayelitsha, of which 49.5 percent is under the age of 24, the average age of survey respondents was 33.6. Language: the large majority of respondents (93.7 percent) were first language isiXhosa speakers. Nationality: 99.4 percent of respondents were South African citizens and less than 1 percent were foreign nationals (11 respondents in total).8 This is consistent of the overall demographics of Khayelitsha. Province of origin: most respondents (67.7 percent) were born in either the Eastern Cape or the Western Cape (27.8 percent). 8 Of the 11 foreign nationals interviewed, five were from Zimbabwe, three from Mozambique, two from Lesotho and one from Nigeria. 24 These demographic characteristics were largely consistent across residential areas and SAPS precincts. They also confirm that the demographic makeup of the sample was largely consistent with that of the entire suburb. 4.2 Socioeconomic Profile of SAPS Precincts Although survey results show relatively consistency in the demographic characteristics of the Khayelitsha, Harare and Lingelethu SAPS precincts, each area – as also evident through analysis of 2011 Census data – has a different socioeconomic profile. Among these differences are the following: Dwelling type: 67.5 percent of respondents lived in formal housing, including houses/brick structures or rented rooms in houses. This percentage was, however, far higher in Lingelethu precinct (84.4 percent) than in Harare (65.4 percent) or Khayelitsha (60.9 percent). Comparatively, 39 percent of respondents in Khayelitsha and 34.3 percent in Harare lived in informal housing, and only 14.4 percent of respondents in Lingelethu lived in informal housing. (See Appendix B,Table B 2) This suggests that survey respondents were somewhat more likely than the entire Khayelitsha population to live in formal housing, but rates of formal housing residence were still lower than the national average in South Africa. Education: overall, 61.5 of respondents indicated a level of educational achievement of below Grade 12/Matric, 33 percent finished Matric, and 5.4 percent had a post-Matric certificate, diploma or degree. The percentage of respondents who had not finished Matric was highest in Harare (66.5 percent) and Khayelitsha (63.7 percent) and lowest in Lingelethu (48.9 percent). (See Appendix B,Table B 3) Census findings indicate that 35.4 percent of Black South Africans over the age of 20 have completed Matric or a higher level of education, and this rises to 35.6 percent within Khayelitsha specifically.17 25 Employment: only just over half (51 percent) of all survey respondents were employed (either full-time or part-time) or self-employed, and employment levels were higher among men (54.5 percent) than women (47.8 percent). Employment levels were highest among men in Lingelethu precinct (69.7 percent) and lowest among women in Khayelitsha precinct (41.8 percent). (See Appendix B, Table B 4) Census 2011 results indicate that 62 percent of Khayelitsha residents were employed.18 Personal income: consistent with the 2011 Census results for Khayelitsha suburb, survey results show that 60.2 percent of respondents indicated a personal monthly income of less than R3,000 per month. Within this percentage, 33.2 percent answered that they had zero income. In keeping with the relatively more affluent profile of Lingelethu residents, 50.7 percent of respondents from that precinct reported a personal monthly income of less than R3,000 per month, compared with 59.8 percent in Khayelitsha and 65.3 percent in Harare precincts. (See Appendix B, Table B 5) The 2011 Census found that 74 percent of Khayelitsha households have a monthly household income of R3,200 or less. 19 Household composition: 44.7 percent of women respondents in Harare, and 40.9 percent of women in Khayelitsha, answered that there were three or more dependents in their household, compared with only 28.1 percent in Lingelethu. Overall, 60.7 percent of respondents had two dependents or less, and 39.3 percent had three dependents or more. Male respondents in Khayelitsha were most likely (27.3 percent) to answer that they did not have any dependents. (See Appendix B, Table B 6) On average, respondents in Lingelethu had a higher number of minors under 16 in their household (2.16) than in either Khayelitsha (1.86) or Harare (1.91). Average household size in Khayelitsha, according to the 2011 Census, is 3.3 persons.20 26 4.3 Experiences of Crime in Khayelitsha 4.3.1 Incidents of Crime 4.3.1.1 SAPS Crime Statistics from Khayelitsha, Lingelethu and Harare As discussed in previous sections, the Khayelitsha, Harare and Lingelethu precincts report among the highest crime rates in the country, particularly in terms of instances of social contact crimes – generally defined as crimes against a person, such as murder and attempted murder, assault and armed robbery. SAPS crime statistics from 2012 to 2012 confirm the prevalence of these types of crime in Khayelitsha. Across the three precincts, there were 6,979 contact crimes reported between April 2012 and March 2013, the greatest numbers of which were robbery with aggravating circumstances (1,932 reports),9, common assault (1,742 reports) and assault with the intent to do grievous bodily harm (1,486 reports). (For a full list of crimes reported between April 2012 and March 2013, see Appendix B Table B 1)21 This means that to about 1.8% of Khayelitsha residents reported contact crimes to the police during that period. SAPS records also show: 2,266 reports of property-related crimes (burglary and theft); 3,016 reports of crimes described as “heavily dependent on police action for detection” (drug- related, illegal possession of firearms/ammunition and driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs); 2,172 reports of other serious crimes (other types of theft, shoplifting and commercial theft); and 351 reports of other types of crime, including culpable homicide, kidnapping, crimen injuria, public violence, and neglect and ill-treatment of children. Altogether, these total about 15,795 incidents of these types of crime, or about four reported crimes per hundred Khayelitsha residents (4.03 percent). 9 SAPS data includes a further subcategory of aggravated robbery incidents, including car-jacking, hijacking, and robbery at residential and non-residential premises. See Appendix B, Table B 1. 27 4.3.1.2 Personal Experiences of Crime Among Community Perception Survey Respondents Crime rates reported by participants in the Khayelitsha Community Perception Survey are exponentially higher than those captured in SAPS statistics: an anticipated difference characteristic of surveys of this kind that Statistics South Africa, in relation to the national Victims of Crime Survey (VOCS), attributes to both under-reporting of crime to the police, and the likelihood that survey respondents describe events that “may not necessarily match the legal definition of crime.”10 Overall, 41.3 percent of survey respondents stated that they had personally experienced crime in Khayelitsha in the past year, and 58.7 had not. Respondents in Harare (63.5 percent) were somewhat more likely to answer that they had not personally experienced crime during the past year, as shown in Table 3. A closer look at the 58 Khayelitsha residents who indicated that they had personally experienced crime in the past year showed the following, as captured in Table 4: Gender: a greater percentage of male respondents in the Khayelitsha (51.4 percent) and Harare (54.9 percent) precincts had personally experienced crime in the past year than female respondents; conversely, in Lingelethu a higher percentage (58.2 percent) of women experienced crime than men (41.8 percent). Dwelling type: more than two-thirds (68.4 percent) of respondents who indicated that they had personally experienced crime lived in formal dwellings. Income: consistent with the overall income profile of the sample, 85.1 percent of respondents who experienced crime in the past year indicated a personal monthly income of below R3,000. Education: in Lingelethu precinct, where the profile of residents reflects higher levels of educational achievement, 54.5 percent of respondents with personal experienced of crime had completed Grade 12 or additional post-Matric education. (See Table 4) 10 This higher reported rate of crime within the Community Perceptions Survey is consistent with Statistics South Africa’s finding that “victimisation surveys are likely to produce higher crime estimates than police-recorded administrative data”, due to the facts that many crimes are not reported to the police, and “victim surveys deal with incidents which may not necessarily match the legal definition of crime. Victim In relation to the national Victim of Crime Survey (VOCS), Statistics South Africa observes that crime victim surveys are “likely to elicit better disclosure of criminal incidents than data from police records” but may also “be subject to undercounting, as some victims may be reluctant to disclose information, particularly for incidents of a sensitive nature, such as sexual assault.” Further, the “accuracy of statistics is influenced by the ability of people to recall past victimisations. The longer the elapsed time period, the less likely it is that an incident will be recalled accurately.” See StatsSA, 2012b, p 61. 28 Table 3: Experiences of Crime in the Past Year EXPERIENCES Khayelitsha Harare Lingelethu Total OF CRIME Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Personally 44.5% 55.5% 36.5% 63.5% 42.2% 57.8% 41.3% 58.7% experienced crime Personally experienced crime AND/OR family or 53.3% 46.7% 48.2% 51.8% 46.8% 53.2% 50.3% 49.7% friends have experienced crime Table 4: Respondents with Personal Experiences of Crime by SAPS precinct VICTIMS OF Gender Dwelling Income Education Age CRIME - SELF* Male Female Formal Informal 4.3.1.3 Crimes experienced by Community Perception Survey respondents and/or family members or close friends An even higher percentage (50.3 percent), consisting of half of the total sample, had either personally experienced crime, and/or had a friend or close family member who had experienced crime in Khayelitsha in the past year. 4.3.1.4 Number of Crimes Experienced in the Past Year Close to two-thirds of survey respondents who had experienced crime in the past year in Khayelitsha (64.4 percent) and Harare precincts (64.1 percent) answered that they personally, and/or close friends and family, had only experienced one instance of crime in the past year. Comparatively, while 46.2 percent of respondents in Lingelethu experienced only one instance of crime, an additional 33 percent experienced two instances: higher than in either Khayelitsha (17.4 percent) or Harare (17.5 percent). (See Appendix B, Figure B 1: Instances of Crime in the Past Year, by SAPS Precinct). 29 4.3.2 Types, Location and Times of Crime Incidents Consistent with police reports of high levels of contact crimes in Khayelitsha, the highest number of crimes indicated by research participants and/or their family members and close friends experienced between the 1st January 2012 and the 1st December 2013, were armed robbery (N = 334) and common robbery (N = 190). Although not used as a crime category in SAPS statistics,11 106 respondents indicated that they had experienced crime related to gangsterism in the past year. A 2012 report by the Western Cape Department of Community Safety also identifies gangsterism as important priority issue for a number of area police stations.22 Further, SAPS data from all three precincts also shows a high incidence of drug-related crime and illegal possession of firearms/ammunition, which are crimes frequently associated with gangsterism. (See 11 Types/categories of crimes used in the Community Perception Survey differed slightly from those used by SAPS and included, for example, incidents of gangsterism, homophobia, substance abuse, corrective rape, xenophobia, and safety concerns in places such as schools and shebeens. This expanded range of crimes is also used, for example, by the Western Cape Department of Community Safety, which has identified issues such as substance abuse and gangsterism to be high priority crimes for a number of police stations in the province. 30 Table 5). Table 5 indicates low levels of reporting in terms of domestic violence (N = 334). Research indicates that sensitive crimes such as domestic violence are generally under-reported. In addition, respondents were less likely to report such sensitive crimes to a fieldworker (i.e. stranger) at a public transportation hub in Khayelitsha. Survey respondents were also asked about the time of day and location of the recent crimes they experienced, to which the most frequent responses were: At home during the day (15.6 percent) or night (21.6 percent); and On the street during the day (28.3 percent) or night (24.8 percent). (See Appendix B, Table B 7) 31 Table 5: Crimes Personally Experienced by Survey Respondents, by Precinct Khayelitsha Harare Lingelethu Total TYPES OF CRIME Sample Sample Sample Sample Contact Crimes Murder 1 3 1 5 Sexual offense 0 2 0 2 Assault GBH 7 12 5 24 Common assault 5 7 1 14 Common robbery 60 101 25 190 Armed robbery 137 120 69 334 Domestic violence 3 0 1 5 Corrective rape 2 2 0 4 Robbery at residential premises 3 7 6 14 Robbery at business premises 3 2 1 6 Hijacking 6 4 8 18 Crimes Involving the Police Assault from police 7 10 3 20 Threatened by police 2 0 0 2 Property Related Crimes Burglary at residential premises 31 9 6 47 Burglary at business premises 5 6 3 14 Stock theft 1 0 0 1 Theft of motor vehicle 2 1 1 4 Common theft 14 14 9 40 Theft out of a motor vehicle 0 1 0 1 Vandalism 0 0 1 1 Other Serious Crimes Fraud [Commercial Crime] 3 8 2 15 Other Crime Categories Child Abuse 10 6 5 21 Gangsterism 67 8 31 106 Shebeens (violence at shebeens) 3 3 0 6 Homophobia 3 1 0 4 Xenophobia 0 0 1 1 Other 6 7 4 17 Safety Safety with public transport 1 0 2 3 Safety in education/schools 1 1 1 3 Indicates high incidence of crime 4.3.3 Crime Victims and Perpetrators Table 4 in the previous section provides a profile of respondents who indicated that they have personally experienced crime over the course of the past year. Respondents were also asked, in cases in which a close friend or family member had experienced crime during the past year, about the characteristics of that 32 victim. Most were residents of formal housing and, on average, aged between their mid-20s to early 30s, as shown in Table 6. Notably, in Harare in particular, responses suggest that a far higher percentage of recent crime victims were men (66.3 percent) than women (33.7 percent). In the large majority of instances, and across most types of crimes committed, respondents described crime perpetrators as strangers. (See Appendix B,Table B 9, Table B 10 and Table B 11). Table 6: Profile of Family and Close Friends Who Have Experienced Crime in the Past Year, as Described by Respondents VICTIM PROFILE Gender Dwelling Age OF MOST Male Female Formal Informal Min Max Mean Std Dev RECENT CRIME* Khayelitsha 48.2% 51.8% 61.9% 38.1% 14 41 26.4 6.50 Harare 66.3% 33.7% 65.2% 34.8% 14 56 24.1 7.84 Lingelethu 51.4% 48.6% 88.4% 11.6% 20 80 32.1 9.34 *Includes only respondents who indicated that someone else had been a victim of crime in the past year. 4.3.4 Reporting Crime Respondents were also asked whether or not they had reported crimes that occurred during the past year, with some important differences in terms of both the profile of the crime victim and the type of crime experienced. This is consistent with the findings of the VOCS, which determined that “the extent to which a household crime is reported to the police depends on the type of crime.” 23 Across the entire sample, about six out of every ten recent crimes (61.1 percent) were reported to SAPS, but reporting rates varied greatly between SAPS precincts: whereas 77.0 percent of respondents in the relatively more affluent area of Lingelethu reported crimes that occurred in the past year, the same was true of only 60.3 percent of respondents from Harare precinct, and 54.2 percent in Khayelitsha precinct. Notably, as shown in Table 7 and, survey results point to several important key findings: 1. Respondents living in formal housing, with higher incomes and higher levels of education were far more likely than others to report crime; and 2. Specific types of crimes are particularly unlikely to be reported, including gangsterism (with 33 low levels of reporting in Khayelitsha and Harare precincts), common assault (although mentioned by only 14 respondents) and homophobia (mentioned by only 4 respondents). (See Table 8). Mthente noted that, despite the prevalence of social contact crimes as reported in national crime statistics, very few respondents indicated that they had experienced gender-based violence in the past year, including domestic abuse (5 incidents), corrective rape (4 incidents), or sexual offences (2 incidents). (See Table 7) Once again, the VOCS also found that both assault and sexual offences are often under-captured in surveys “because of their sensitivity” and because victims are often “attacked by a known community member(s) from the area, followed by those attacked by their relative.” 24 Table 7: Reporting of Crime in Khayelitsha, Harare and Lingelethu SAPS Precincts, by Respondent Profile REPORTING Gender Dwelling Income Education Age Total CRIMES Male Female Formal Informal 34 Table 8: Levels of Reporting by Crime Type and SAPS Precinct Khayelitsha Harare Lingelethu Total TYPES OF CRIME Rep Unrep N Rep Unrep N Rep Unrep N Rep Unrep N Armed robbery 51.8% 48.2% 137 67.5% 32.5% 120 65.2% 34.8% 69 60.8% 39.2% 334 Common robbery 63.3% 36.7% 60 47.5% 52.5% 101 80.0% 20.0% 25 57.4% 42.6% 190 Burglary at residential premises 74.2% 25.8% 31 88.9% 11.1% 9 83.3% 16.7% 6 78.7% 21.3% 47 Gangsterism 26.9% 73.1% 67 37.5% 62.5% 8 96.8% 3.2% 31 48.1% 51.9% 106 Assault from police 57.1% 42.9% 7 60.0% 40.0% 10 66.7% 33.3% 3 60.0% 40.0% 20 Assault grievous bodily harm (GBH) 57.1% 42.9% 7 75.0% 25.0% 12 80.0% 20.0% 5 70.8% 29.2% 24 Child Abuse 90.0% 10.0% 10 66.7% 33.3% 6 80.0% 20.0% 5 81.0% 19.0% 21 Common theft 57.1% 42.9% 14 57.1% 42.9% 14 66.7% 33.3% 9 57.5% 42.5% 40 Hijacking 83.3% 16.7% 6 75.0% 25.0% 4 100.0% 0.0% 8 88.9% 11.1% 18 Fraud 100.0% 0.0% 3 87.5% 12.5% 8 50.0% 50.0% 2 80.0% 20.0% 15 Common assault 40.0% 60.0% 5 14.3% 85.7% 7 100.0% 0.0% 1 35.7% 64.3% 14 Robbery at residential premises 100.0% 0.0% 3 57.1% 42.9% 7 83.3% 16.7% 6 71.4% 28.6% 14 Burglary at business premises 80.0% 20.0% 5 83.3% 16.7% 6 66.7% 33.3% 3 78.6% 21.4% 14 Shebeens (violence at shebeens) 33.3% 66.7% 3 66.7% 33.3% 3 - - - 50.0% 50.0% 6 Robbery at business premises 66.7% 33.3% 3 50.0% 50.0% 2 0.0% 100.0% 1 50.0% 50.0% 6 Domestic violence 66.7% 33.3% 3 - - - 100.0% 0.0% 1 60.0% 40.0% 5 Murder 100.0% 0.0% 1 66.7% 33.3% 3 100.0% 0.0% 1 80.0% 20.0% 5 Homophobia 0.0% 100.0% 3 100.0% 0.0% 1 - - - 25.0% 75.0% 4 Corrective rape 50.0% 50.0% 2 50.0% 50.0% 2 - - - 50.0% 50.0% 4 Theft of motor vehicle 100.0% 0.0% 2 100.0% 0.0% 1 100.0% 0.0% 1 100.0% 0.0% 4 Safety with public transport 100.0% 0.0% 1 - - - 100.0% 0.0% 2 100.0% 0.0% 3 Safety in education/schools 0.0% 100.0% 1 0.0% 100.0% 1 100.0% 0.0% 1 33.3% 66.7% 3 Sexual offense - - - 100.0% 0.0% 2 - - - 100.0% 0.0% 2 Threatened by police 50.0% 50.0% 2 ------50.0% 50.0% 2 Stock theft 100.0% 0.0% 1 ------100.0% 0.0% 1 Theft out of a motor vehicle - - - 100.0% 0.0% 1 - - - 100.0% 0.0% 1 Vandalism ------100.0% 0.0% 1 100.0% 0.0% 1 Xenophobia ------100.0% 0.0% 1 100.0% 0.0% 1 Other 66.7% 33.3% 6 57.1% 42.9% 7 50.0% 50.0% 4 58.8% 41.2% 17 35 With just over 60 percent of crimes reported, in more than half of all cases (57.5 percent) reports were made to the police, and this rose to 66.9 percent in Lingelethu. Reports were made to family members or relatives in a further 19.1 percent of cases, followed by street committees (10.1 percent) and friends (10.1 percent). Less than one percent (0.8 percent) indicated reporting to vigilante groups. (See Table B 12) The VOCS found that reports to vigilante groups, in cases in which crime reports were made to persons other than the police, were highest with respect to bicycle theft (7.1 percent), but were relatively low in response to housebreaking (1.9 percent), theft of livestock (2.6 percent), theft of crops (1.4 percent), murder (0.0 percent), theft from cars (0.0 percent), deliberate damage to dwelling (0.0 percent) and motor vehicle vandalism (1.4 percent).25 Reporting was relatively consistent across the three police stations, with 33.3% of reports made at Khayelitsha, 31.3 percent at Harare and a slightly lower percent (24.4 percent) at Lingelethu. In other cases respondents did not know where a report was made (4.1 percent) or had gone to another police station (7.1 percent). In a majority of cases, residents tended to make reports within their own precinct, as shown in Table 9. Table 9: SAPS Station Where Crime Was Reported, by Precinct SAPS STATION Khayelitsha Harare Lingelethu Harare police station 13.8% 58.3% 11.1% Lingelethu police station 15.2% 8.3% 65.6% Khayelitsha police station 52.2% 23.7% 22.2% Don’t know/cannot recall 5.1% 4.5% 2.2% Other 13.8% 5.1% 0.0% Total (N) 138 156 90 *Percentage of total responses for multiple response item, N=384. In most cases in which respondents reported crimes to SAPS, they indicated that the police had taken a statement (38.8 percent). However, 23.3 percent answered that they police “did nothing”, and arrests (7.0 percent), a first court appearance (3.8 percent) or a conviction (4.7 percent) reportedly only occurred in a minority of cases, as shown in Table 10. Respondents who reported the most recent crime they experienced to SAPS also evaluated police responses negatively, with 61.6 percent overall describing police response as very poor or poor, and only 33.8 percent as good or excellent. Figure 36 © Mthente Research and Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd, February 2014 9 disaggregates these findings by police precincts. Police Response to Crime Reports 50.0% 45.0% 40.0% 34.2% 35.4% 35.0% 30.4% 29.2% 31.5% 30.0% 27.2% 27.2% 26.3% 23.9% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 7.9% 8.8% 10.0% 5.4% 5.0% 0.0% Very Poor Poor Good Excellent Khayelitsha Station Lingelethu Station Harare Station Figure 9: Evaluation of police responses to crime reports, by SAPS station Community Perception Survey results suggest lower levels of satisfaction with SAPS than in other parts of the province: the VOCS found that 66.1 percent of Western Cape residents were satisfied with the police in their area in 2011, although this declined from 71.1 percent in 2010.26 Table 10: Status of Investigations by Police Station Khayelitsha Harare Lingelethu STATUS OF INVESTIGATION Total Station Station Station Police took statement 46.0% 33.3% 38.1% 38.8% Police made enquiries 8.8% 10.8% 8.0% 11.1% Police identified the suspect 2.7% 4.3% 2.7% 2.6% Police made an arrest 6.2% 11.8% 4.4% 7.0% First court appearance 5.3% 2.2% 4.4% 3.8% Conviction 5.3% 6.5% 3.5% 4.7% Police did nothing 16.8% 23.7% 28.3% 23.3% Other 7.1% 1.1% 4.4% 3.5% Don’t know 1.8% 6.5% 6.2% 5.2% Survey respondents who did not report the most recent crime committed during the past year were asked about their reasons, and more than sixty percent cited fear of being victimised by perpetrators (30.9 37 © Mthente Research and Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd, February 2014 percent) or a lack of trust in the police (31.5 percent). Distrust of SAPS was cited more often in Lingelethu (51.2 percent) than in either Khayelitsha or Harare as a reason for non-reporting. (See Table 11) The results of a specific probe into reasons for non-reporting to SAPS specifically revealed that in 52.5 percent of cases, this was due to a lack of trust in the police: a percentage that rose substantially in Lingelethu in particular, as shown in Table 12. In a further 10.3 percent of cases respondents cited police corruption as a reason for not reporting to SAPS, and in 7.3 percent, police inefficiency. Table 11: Reasons for Non-Reporting of a Recent Crime REASON FOR NON-REPORTING * Khayelitsha Harare Lingelethu Total Afraid of being victimised by perpetrators. 35.6% 25.4% 34.1% 30.9% Do not trust the police. 36.2% 20.8% 51.2% 31.5% Police are corrupt. 2.3% 3.8% 2.4% 2.8% Police are ineffective. 4.0% 21.5% 2.4% 10.0% Cases are thrown out of court. - - - - Accused is back on the street after the crime. 1.1% 2.3% 0.0% 1.4% Cases are gang-related. - - - - Offense not serious. 0.6% 3.1% 0.0% 1.4% Police do not investigate/arrest. 3.4% 1.5% 7.3% 3.1% Perpetrators are back on the street. 18.4% 21.5% 9.8% 18.9% Total (N) 174 130 41 359 *Percentage of total responses for multiple response item, N=345. Table 12: Reasons for Non-Reporting to SAPS WHY CRIME WAS NOT REPORTED TO SAPS Khayelitsha Harare Lingelethu Do not trust the police. 45.5% 51.1% 72.2% Police are corrupt. 10.7% 12.2% 7.4% Police are ineffective. 8.0% 8.9% 1.9% Police are not efficient. 6.2% 3.3% 0.0% Cases are thrown out of court. 0.0% 1.1% 1.9% Cases are gang related. 0.9% 1.1% 0.0% Other (i.e. did not have money to travel to police station; unsure of which police station to report to; 31.2% 22.2% 16.7% could not identify perpetrator; fear of victimisation) Total (N) 112 90 54 *Percentage of total responses for multiple response item, N=256. 38 © Mthente Research and Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd, February 2014 Similarly, the VOCS has found that reasons for non-reporting of crime include: Police issues: the victims believed that either the police would fail to solve the crime, or that some police were corrupt or inaccessible, or that sometimes the police behaviour was inappropriate. Perpetrator issues: some victims did not report a crime to the police because they could not identify the perpetrator(s), while others feared reprisals from the perpetrator(s). Crime related issues: some victims did not report a crime because it was not serious enough; others did not report it because items stolen were not insured or old or not valuable, while others claimed that they had solved the crime themselves. Self-blame issues: these included fear of being blamed, belief that it was partly the victim's own fault, and fear of being exposed or embarrassed.27 4.3.5 Perceptions of Safety in Khayelitsha Findings of the community perception survey fundamentally confirm that Khayelitsha residents do not feel safe in their own suburb. This was true of 77.0 percent of respondents interviewed in the Khayelitsha SAPS precinct, 73.7 percent in Lingelethu and 68.3 percent in Harare. This finding was consistently true with relatively little variation, across SAPS precincts and the different demographic groups of respondents within the sample. (See Table 13) Reasons given for feeling unsafe included that: the “police aren’t concerned enough about us as a community and they don’t protect us”; and that “people are always being robbed in Khayelitsha”. One focus group participant explained, “We are not free to go wherever we would like in Khayelitsha. We take detours, trying to avoid high crime spots in the neighbourhood. There is also a lack of trust amongst community members. We are never sure that the guy coming towards you is going to rob you or not. Even simple errands like going to the shop to buy electricity – one has to be accompanied. Most of the time, we are afraid.” Nationally, the Western Cape has one of the highest proportions of households which believe that violent crime has increased (44.1 percent).28 39 © Mthente Research and Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd, February 2014 Table 13: Respondents Who Feel Safe in Khayelitsha FEEL SAFE IN Gender Dwelling Income Education Age KHAYELITSHA Male Female Formal Informal Against this backdrop of very low percentages of respondents feeling safe in Khayelitsha, residents in all three precincts were asked about the safety of specific sites during the daytime and at night. Amongst the sites perceived to be the safest during the day in Khayelitsha were places of worship such as churches and mosques (44.8 percent), public transport places (40.5 percent) and in private vehicles (36.6 percent) although these were nonetheless considered to be safe by less than half of all respondents. Sites identified as the least safe, even during the daytime, include in or near shebeens (81.3 percent), at recreational and community facilities (71.2 percent) and on the street (68.3 percent). Places of worship were still considered to be safe at night by the highest percentage of respondents (35.3 percent) while the street was described as unsafe by 90.7 percent of respondents. (See Figure 10 and Figure 11). 40 © Mthente Research and Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd, February 2014 Safe and Unsafe Locations in Khayelitsha During the Day 81.3% In/near a shebeen 18.7% 71.2% Recreational/community places 26.7% 68.3% On the street 27.6% 67.3% Unsafe Accessing communal services 32.7% 67.1% Safe Commercial/retail places 32.9% 61.9% At home 36.1% Location 63.7% Travelling on public transport 36.3% 63.4% Travelling in private vehicle 36.6% 59.5% Public transport places 40.5% 55.2% Places of worship 44.8% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% Percent Figure 10: Feelings of Safety at Location in Khayelitsha During the Day Safe and Unsafe Locations in Khayelitsha at Night On the street 9.3% 90.7% In/near a shebeen 12.5% 87.5% Recreational/community places 15.1% 90.7% 81.1% Accessing communal services 18.9% Commercial/retail places 19.6% 80.4% Unsafe Travelling on public transport 22.3% 77.7% Location Travelling in private vehicle 23.4% 76.6% Safe Public transport places 23.9% 76.1% At home 24.1% 75.9% Places of worship 35.3% 64.7% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% Percent Figure 11: Feelings of Safety at Location in Khayelitsha at Night 41 © Mthente Research and Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd, February 2014 It is important to note that most survey respondents feel unsafe in their own home most of the time, both during the day and at night. Overall, 61.9 percent of respondents felt unsafe in their home during the daytime, and 75.9 percent at night. Recreational and community facilities intended to benefit Khayelitsha residents are also perceived to be highly unsafe. These rates are far higher than in the rest of the province: while 41- 50 percent of households in the Western Cape feel unsafe walking alone in their area at night according to VOCS results, 90.7 percent of Khayelitsha survey respondents feel unsafe in the street at night. When asked about safety measures they had taken to protect themselves, respondents had installed home security (such as alarms, electric fences, etc.) in just over a third of cases (35.6 percent), and installed burglar bars in an additional 11.0 percent. Perhaps to be expected given the income profile of survey respondents, the reported rate of taking additional security measures in the Khayelitsha survey is lower than the overall rate of 64.4 percent in the Western Cape Province.29 Respondents also confirmed that they had joined, or resorted to organising with other community members as a safety measure in a number of cases, including through street/traditional committees (9.6 percent), neighbourhood watches (8.0 percent), Community Police Forums (CPF’s) (6.3 percent) and vigilante groups (2.4 percent). It was interesting to note that despite the relative affluence of the Lingelethu precinct and high rates of crime reporting – the highest percentage of Lingelethu respondents (4.5 percent) resorted to vigilante groups, perhaps with the goals of recovering lost property. However, Lingelethu residents were also among the most negative in their distrust of the police, and more likely than residents in other precincts to report crimes to vigilante groups. (See Table 14) Table 14: Measures Taken to Ensure Safety by SAPS Precinct MEASURES TAKEN TO ENSURE SAFETY Khayelitsha Harare Lingelethu Total Installed home security (alarm, electric fence, 46.7% 52.5% 47.2% 50.4% fence, burglar bars, etc.) Resorted to street/traditional committees 7.4% 9.3% 11.3% 9.6% Resorted to vigilante groups 1.7% 1.9% 4.5% 2.4% Formed part of the neighbourhood watch 10.7% 7.7% 3.0% 8.0% 42 © Mthente Research and Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd, February 2014 Formed part of the Community Police Forums 7.4% 5.1% 5.0% 6.3% (CPFs) Other 5.8% 7.7% 27.0% 11.2% None 22.7% 15.8% 2.1% 16.0% Total (N) 649 690 337 1705 *Percentage of total responses for multiple response item, N=1,705. 4.3.6 Perceptions of SAPS As discussed in Section 4.3.4, distrust of the police was identified by survey respondents as a foremost reason for not reporting recent crimes, and in cases in which crimes were reported evaluations of SAPS’ responses were largely negative. When asked about the extent that their perceptions of the police may have changed over the past five years, most respondents answered that these have either remained the same (36.6 percent) as shown in Figure 12. The latter finding, coupled with the negative rating of the police/police services (overleaf) indicates that respondents viewed the police in Khayelitsha negatively in 2009; hence, the adverse perception of the police is not a new phenomenon, but a historic one. Perceptions of Police in Khayelitsha, 2009-2013 50.0% 45.0% 40.0% 37.7%37.6% 34.3% 35.0% 25.8% 30.0% 27.9% 24.5% 25.0% 19.3% 19.6% 20.2% 20.0% 17.4% 18.6%17.1% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% Positive Negative Same Don't Know Khayelitsha Station Lingelethu Station Harare Station Figure 12: Change in perceptions of police in Khayelitsha over the past five years (2009 - 2013) 43 © Mthente Research and Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd, February 2014 SAPS was also evaluated negatively in a wide range of additional, more specific survey items: 62.6 percent of respondents disagreed that the police in Khayelitsha are trained and able to fulfill their tasks. 61.2 percent of respondents disagreed that the police in Khayelitsha do what they are required to. 55.3 percent of respondents disagreed that the police in Khayelitsha are polite. 38.9% percent agreed that the police provide poor service. 45.3% disagreed that the police in Khayelitsha would stop if flagged down. 56.4% disagreed that the police in Khayelitsha are efficient. More than half (55.0 percent) disagreed that the people who live in Khayelitsha have confidence in the SAPS. More than half (55.4 percent) disagreed that the SAPS treat members of the community with respect. More than half (51.9 percent) disagreed that the police do a good job, but they have been let down by the courts. (See Table B 13) In addition, participants in post-survey focus groups described the SAPS in Khayelitsha as “never on time”, “very unprofessional and disrespectful”, and “apathetic”. One focus group participant explained, “Labeling the police inefficient stems from an experience I had with them when I reported a crime committed against my mother. The first problem is with their call centre for crime reporting. People there are unprofessional. When I reported the crime, the police officer was not attentive at all. They tell you they cannot come out now, so you have to wait. There was no sense of urgency, and there was a lack of concern – as he was laughing with someone/people in the background.”30 Others commented that it “seems like they [SAPS] are not trained in the simplest of tasks”, adding that victims are not taken seriously and that police officers “often call their colleagues to listen to the stories [of reported crimes] and laugh”. Dissatisfaction with police at the national level is generally related to slow response times (72.4 percent) and a perception of laziness (58.0 percent).31 44 © Mthente Research and Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd, February 2014 4.3.7 Attitudes Towards CPFs Finally, survey respondents were asked about the extent that they were familiar with, and had interacted or engaged with CPFs. Respondents were relatively evenly split in terms of knowledge of CPFs, with 48.6 percent indicating that they had heard of such organisations and 51.4 percent that they had not. Of those who had heard about CPFs, most (80.5 percent) had not dealt with the organisations, although 19.5 percent had. Nationally, crime reported to persons or organisations other than SAPS is often in cases of assault or of theft of personal property,32 such as from housebreaking, possibility in the interest of recovering stolen items quickly. Among those who had dealt with CPFs, a huge majority (90.6 percent) described the organisations as “helpful”. (See Table 16) Focus group participants added that CPFs “arrive then and there when you call them”, “arrive before the police when there is a problem” and “interrogate criminals until they tell them where they have hidden the stolen goods”. Overall, male survey respondents (24.4 percent) indicated more direct experience with CPFs than females (16.4 percent). (See Table B 15) Table 15: Attitudes about Community Police Forums and Vigilantism Khayelitsha Harare Lingelethu Total VIGILANTISM Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Heard of Community Police Forums (CPFs) 46.8% 53.2% 47.0% 53.0% 54.5% 45.5% 48.6% 51.4% (N = 1,806) Dealt with Community Police Forums (CPFs) 21.1% 78.9% 19.3% 80.7% 17.4% 82.6% 19.5% 80.5% (N = 877) Found Community Police Forums (CPFs) to be 91.5% 8.5% 93.7% 6.3% 83.8% 16.2% 90.6% 9.4% helpful (N = 180) 45 © Mthente Research and Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd, February 2014 4.3.8 Attitudes Towards Vigilantism Respondents were also asked about whether or not they felt vigilantism is ever justified, and a majority (73.3 percent) answered that it is not, as shown in Table 16. Focus group participants also explained that vigilante groups “never have enough evidence”, “never conduct thorough investigations” and are themselves “committing a crime”. One participant explained that such groups, “…resort to physical violence – beating the accused with steel weapons. They tie the perpetrators to train tracks and leave them there to be run over. They burn them alive and even pour acid over the perpetrators body. Sometimes they do not mean for the ‘justice’ to result in death. For them [it is about teaching other criminals and would-be criminals a lesson … but most of the time it gets out of control and people don’t stop the violence.” At the same time, just over a quarter answered that vigilantism is justified (26.7 percent), with focus group participants citing slow SAPS response times as rationale. One focus group participant commented that vigilante groups “don’t waste time fixing a problem”. Another explained, “As a result of police inefficiency, most of the time the community of Khayelitsha takes justice into their own hands. Our second option after reporting to the police or an alternative to reporting to the police is going to taxi drivers in that area and reporting the crime to them. Taxi drivers are now the ‘go-to’ group since the CPF system is no longer in place. Taxi drivers are quick to respond, they have this way of interrogating and investigating that brings about results, and they are always able to bring back your stolen goods. Also, these perpetrators are afraid of the taxi drivers, they are not afraid of the police at all … taxi drivers will beat up a perpetrator!”33 These services, however, come at a cost: “They [taxi drivers] do not do this for free. They charge a standard rate to assist you and they have a set procedure where they charge approximately R500 to come out to the scene of the crime or house, and an additional amount once your stolen goods have been delivered to you (values ranged from R300- R500). And the community is willing to pay this fee … even if they have to borrow from a neighbour, especially, when your whole house is looted.”34 46 © Mthente Research and Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd, February 2014 Perceptions that vigilantism is justified were relatively consistent across the Khayelitsha (27.0 percent), Harare (26.4 percent) and Lingelethu (26.6 percent) precincts, as shown in Table 16. Closer analysis of those respondents were agreed that vigilantism is justified shows that males in Khayelitsha precinct (31.0 percent) were slightly more likely than other groups to answer that vigilantism is justified. (See Table 17) Table 16: Attitudes about Community Police Forums and Vigilantism Khayelitsha Harare Lingelethu Total VIGILANTISM Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Is vigilantism ever justified 27.0% 73.0% 26.4% 73.6% 26.6% 73.4% 26.7% 73.3% (N = 1,806) Table 17: Respondents Who Believe Vigilantism is Justified VIGILANTISM Gender Dwelling Income Education Age JUSTIFIED Male Female Formal Informal *N = 8 47 © Mthente Research and Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd, February 2014 5. Conclusions 5.1. The demographic profile of the survey respondents consistent with the overall population of Khayelitsha. The survey sample reflected the overall demographic makeup of Khayelitsha, of which residents are predominantly isiXhosa-speaking Black South Africans. A majority of research participants were born in the Eastern Cape, suggesting a migratory community with regular influx from rural areas. 5.2. Most survey respondents reported low income and education levels. The survey sample included a relatively high proportion of Khayelitsha residents living in formal housing, perhaps due in part to government housing delivery in the suburb. Although formal housing is suggestive of higher living standards, other socioeconomic data suggests that overall, survey respondents reported relatively low levels of secondary school completion or higher education, low personal monthly incomes and low levels of employment, the latter particularly among women and in Khayelitsha precinct. 5.3. Lingelethu precinct is relatively more affluent than Harare or Khayelitsha. Reported levels of residence in formal housing, educational achievement, personal income and employment status were all higher in Lingelethu precinct than in either Harare or Khayelitsha, although despite these relative differences it remains a predominantly low-income area. 5.4. Survey results confirm high levels of crime in Khayelitsha. Half of all survey respondents indicated that either they themselves, or a close friend or family member, had experienced crime in the past year, generally on one to two occasions. The prevalence of these crimes, according to respondents, is far greater than captured in SAPS statistics. Incidents of common robbery and armed robbery constituted more than half of the crimes that respondents’ experienced. These crimes took place most frequently at their homes or in the street. Across all of the 3 precincts, perpetrators were most often strangers, rather than friends of family members of the survey respondent. In Harare in 48 © Mthente Research and Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd, February 2014 particular, two-thirds of recent crime victims were men, whereas the gender profile was more even in the Khayelitsha and Lingelethu precincts. 5.5. Crime reporting varies across types of crimes, precincts and the socioeconomic profile of respondents. Survey respondents indicated that about 60 percent of crimes experienced in the past year were reported. However, results show that residents with higher incomes and education levels living in formal housing are more likely than others to report crime. However, gangsterism in particular is often unreported, possibly due to concern over perpetrators living within the community. Crimes such as domestic violence remain under- reported as it is a sensitive issue and hence, respondents might be reluctant to report these crimes to a fieldworker (who live in the community) at a public transportation hub. Research indicates that crimes, such as domestic violence remain under-reported as a result of the sensitive nature of the crime (i.e. perpetrator might be a close friend or family member). 5.6. Many recent crimes were reported to SAPS, most often to the police station in the precinct where respondents reside. Just over half of respondents who reported recent crimes did so to the police, followed by family members, street committees and friends. Very few respondents reported crimes to vigilante groups. Further, respondents most often reported to the police station in their own precinct, rather than travelling to another station or precinct. 5.7. Survey respondents perceive there to be little progress in arrests or convictions in recent cases, and evaluate SAPS responses negatively. Although about 40 percent of respondents who reported recent crimes to SAPS indicated that police had taken a statement, many felt that “nothing” has been done, and in fewer than one in ten cases respectively, respondents stated that the police had made an arrest, a first court appearance had taken place, or a perpetrator had been convicted. More than 60 percent of those who reported crimes to the police described the SAPS response as either poor or very poor – far more negative evaluations that SAPS generally receives throughout the rest of the province. 49 © Mthente Research and Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd, February 2014 5.8. The main reasons for non-reporting of recent crimes are distrust of the police, and a fear of victimisation by perpetrators. Close to a third of respondents who did not report recent crimes cited a lack of trust in the police as their main reason, and this rose to more than 50 percent in Lingelethu precinct specifically. Further, half of non- reporting respondents attributed this to either fear of victimisation by perpetrators, or perpetrators being back out on the street. 5.9. Khayelitsha residents feel fundamentally unsafe in their own community. Less than a third of respondents - across a range of demographic, geographic and socioeconomic sub- groups – felt safe in Khayelitsha. Few public places are thought to be safe, even during the daytime, and simply being in the street was identified as one of the most dangerous sites both in daytime and at night. Nine in ten respondents feel unsafe in the street at night – a rate far higher than elsewhere in the province. 5.10. Evaluations of SAPS performance in Khayelitsha are overwhelmingly negative. Results of both the community perception survey and post-survey qualitative focus groups suggest that Khayelitsha residents evaluate SAPS officers working in the suburb negatively, in terms of capability and training, professionalism, efficiency and treatment of members of the public. Interview participants referred to instances in which they were treated derisively by SAPS officers when going to stations to report crimes. 5.11. Most Khayelitsha residents do not engage with CPFs, but those who do view such groups as more effective than SAPS Survey results reveal relatively widespread awareness of CPFs, although respondents who have actively engage with such organisations are in the minority. 5.12. Although many Khayelitsha residents do not engage vigilante groups, more than one in four residents view vigilantism as justified. Despite the fact that the majority of the respondents indicated that vigilantism is not justified, more than a fourth of respondents found vigilantism acceptable in Khayelitsha. 50 © Mthente Research and Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd, February 2014 APPENDIX A: Questionnaire COMMUNITY PERCEPTION SURVEY INTO POLICING IN KHAYELITSHA Checked by Interviewer Date of call-back Edited by Supervisor signature Interviewer Code Respondent Name and Surname Respondent Physical Address Contact Details (i.e. telephone/cell phone) Fieldwork location/site Ward number Respondent Selection Procedure Select every 4th person as a primary respondent at the designated transportation hubs (i.e. taxi ranks, bus terminals and train stations). QUESTIONNAIRE NUMBER PLACE STICKER HERE 51 © Mthente Research and Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd, February 2014 Introduction Good day. My name is ………………………… and I work for Mthente Research and Consulting Services, an independent research company. We are conducting a survey to understand what you think about policing in Khayelitsha. The information you give us is confidential. Someone from our company may contact you just to verify that the interview took place, but your personal information will never be made public. The interview will take about 10 – 15 minutes. NOTE FOR FIELDWORKER a. Please ensure that the respondent is 16 years or older BEFORE starting the interview. b. Please ensure that the respondent LIVES IN KHAYELITSHA. c. Please read all questions to the respondent and indicate the responses available slowly, reading them aloud. Repeat response options if necessary. d. Please ensure that ALL APPLICABLE questions are completed with the necessary information. SECTION 1: CONSENT YES NO 1. Do I have your consent to continue with this interview? 1 2 SECTION 2: DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SURVEY RESPONDENT MALE FEMALE 2. Record gender (BY OBSERVATION) 1 2 3. Record race (BY OBSERVATION) Black African 1 Coloured 2 Asian 3 White 4 Other 5 Please specify (other): 52 © Mthente Research and Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd, February 2014 4. What is your age today? YEARS 5. What is your first language? DO NOT READ CIRCLE ONE ONLY OPTIONS English 1 Afrikaans 2 IsiNdebele 3 IsiXhosa 4 IsiZulu 5 Sesotho sa Leboa 6 Sesotho 7 Sestwana 8 siSwati 9 Tshivenda 10 Xitsonga 11 Other 12 Please specify other: 6. What is your highest level of education? DO NOT READ CIRCLE ONE ONLY OPTIONS None (no schooling) 1 Completed up to Grade 3 (Standard 1) 2 Grade 4 to Grade 7 (Standard 2 to Standard 5) 3 Grade 8 to Grade 11 (Standard 6 to Standard 9) 4 Grade 12 (Matric) 5 Post Matric Certificate/Diploma/Trade Qualification 6 University Degree/Diploma 7 Post Graduate University Degree 8 53 © Mthente Research and Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd, February 2014 7. Which of the following best describes READ your job status? CIRCLE ONE ONLY OPTIONS Employed – Full time 1 Employed – Part time 2 Retired or Pensioner/Too old to work 3 Scholar and Student 4 Other 5 Please specify: Prefer not to answer 99 8. What is your PERSONAL average monthly income? If you are unsure, please provide DO NOT READ CIRCLE ONE ONLY the closest estimate. OPTIONS Zero 1 Under R1 000 2 R1 001 to R2 000 3 R2 001 to R3 000 4 R3 001 to R4 000 5 R4 001 to R5 000 6 R5 001 to R10 000 7 R10 001 to R15 000 8 R15 001 to R20 000 9 R20 001 to R25 000 10 More than R25 000 11 Prefer not to answer 99 Don’t know 999 9. How would you describe the place where you live? READ OPTIONS CIRCLE ONE ONLY House or brick structure on separate stand 1 Separate entrance or structure on another plot 2 Informal dwelling/shack in backyard 3 Informal dwelling/shack not in backyard 4 Renting a room in a house 5 Caravan or tent 6 Other 7 Please specify: 54 © Mthente Research and Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd, February 2014 10. How many people live in your house? TEXT RESPONSE PERSONS (16 years and older) PERSONS (Under 16 years) Male Female Male Female 11. In which area (in Khayelitsha) do DO NOT READ you live? CIRCLE ONE ONLY OPTIONS Bongani TR Section 1 Bongweni 2 Ekuphumleni 3 Graceland 4 Griffiths Mxenge 5 Harare/Holomisa 6 Ikwezi Park 7 Khayelitsha SP 8 Khayelitsha T2-V2b 9 Khayelitsha T3-V2 10 Khayelitsha T3-V3 11 Khayelitsha T3-V4 12 Khayelitsha T3-V5 13 Mandela Park 14 Monwabisi 15 RR Section 16 Silver Town 17 Solomon Mahlangu 18 Tembani 19 Town 3 20 Trevor Vilikazi 21 Victoria Mxenge 22 Village V1 North 23 Village V1 South 24 Village V2 North 25 Village V3 North 26 Village V4 North 27 Washington Square 28 Other 29 Please specify: 55 © Mthente Research and Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd, February 2014 12. Were you born in South Africa? CIRCLE ONE ONLY YES 1 CONTINUE TO QUESTION 13 NO 2 GO TO QUESTION 14 DO NOT CIRCLE ONE 13. In which province were you born? READ ONLY OPTIONS Eastern Cape 1 Free State 2 Gauteng 3 GO TO KwaZulu-Natal 4 QUESTION 15 Limpopo 5 Mpumalanga 6 North West 7 Northern Cape 8 Western Cape 9 14. In which country were you born? DO NOT READ CIRCLE ONE ONLY OPTIONS Angola 1 Botswana 2 Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) 3 India 4 Lesotho 5 Malawi 6 Mauritius 7 Mozambique 8 Namibia 9 Nigeria 10 Mozambique 11 Pakistan 12 Seychelles 13 Somalia 14 Swaziland 15 Tanzania 16 Zambia 17 Zimbabwe 18 Other 19 Please specify: 56 © Mthente Research and Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd, February 2014 15. In terms of your marital status, are you: READ OPTIONS CIRCLE ONE ONLY Married 1 Living together 2 Never married 3 Widower/widow 4 Separated 5 Divorced 6 Not applicable 99 Undetermined 999 Other 8 Please specify: 16. How many dependents do you have? INSERT NUMBER SECTION 3: EXPERIENCES OF CRIME IN KHAYELITSHA 17. Have you experienced any form of crime over the past year (1 Jan 2012 to 1 Dec 2013) in CIRCLE ONE ONLY Khayelitsha? YES 1 GO TO QUESTION 19 CONTINUE TO QUESTION NO 2 18 18. Have any of your close relatives or friends experienced crime over the past year (1 Jan 2012 to CIRCLE ONE ONLY 1 Dec 2013) in Khayelitsha? YES 1 CONTINUE TO QUESTION 19 NO 2 GO TO QUESTION 32 19. How many times have you/the victims experienced crime over the past year (1 READ OPTIONS CIRCLE ONE ONLY Jan 2012 to 1 Dec 2013) in Khayelitsha? Once 1 Twice 2 Three times 3 More than three times 4 Cannot recall 99 57 © Mthente Research and Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd, February 2014 20. In what month and year did the MOST recent crime INSERT MONTH AND YEAR take place? 21. Please specify the MOST recent crime experienced in Khayelitsha by you or DO NOT READ CIRCLE ONE ONLY your close friends/relatives? OPTIONS Armed robbery 1 Assault from police 2 Assault grievous bodily harm (GBH) (i.e. violent attack to cause 3 serious harm to the body) Burglary at business premises (i.e. breaking into business premise 4 and stealing while someone is away) Burglary at residential premises (i.e. breaking into the home and 5 stealing while someone is away) Child abuse 6 Common assault (i.e. violent attack with no body injuries including 7 street/gang violence) Common robbery 8 Common theft 9 Corrective rape (i.e. when a person is raped because of their 10 perceived sexual orientation or gender identity) Domestic violence (i.e. sexual, physical, stalking, emotional or any abusive behaviour that takes place in a home or family or 11 spouse/partner relationship) Fraud 12 Gangsterism 13 Hijacking 14 Homophobia (i.e. fear/hatred of gay people) 15 Murder 16 Robbery at business premises (i.e. breaking into business premise 17 and stealing while the person is present) Robbery at residential premises (i.e. breaking into the home and 18 stealing while the person is present) Safety in education/schools 19 Safety with public transport 20 Sexual offence (i.e. rape/sexual assault, sexual harassment) 21 Shebeens (i.e. violence at shebeens) 22 Stock theft 23 Substance abuse (i.e. alcohol/drugs) 24 Theft of a motor vehicle 25 Theft out of a motor vehicle 26 Threatened by police 27 Vandalism 28 Informal court killings/community assault/mob killings 29 58 © Mthente Research and Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd, February 2014 21. Please specify the MOST recent crime experienced in Khayelitsha by you or DO NOT READ CIRCLE ONE ONLY your close friends/relatives? OPTIONS Xenophobia (i.e. strong dislike of other people/community members 30 from other countries) Other 31 Please specify: 22. Where did the MOST recent crime take DO NOT READ place and when, experienced by you or CIRCLE ONE ONLY OPTIONS your close friends/relatives? At home during the day. 1 At home after dark/during the night. 2 On the street during the day. 3 On the street at night. 4 In public recreational/community places (parks/halls) during the day. 5 In public recreational/community places (parks/halls) at night. 6 In public places of worship (church/mosque, etc.) during the day. 7 In public places of worship (church/mosque, etc.) at night. 8 In public commercial/retail places (shopping centres, spazas, etc.) 9 during the day. In public commercial/retail places (shopping centres, spazas, etc.) at 10 night. In public transportation places (taxi ranks/bus/train stations) during 11 the day. In public transportation places (taxi ranks/bus/train stations) at night. 12 In/near a shebeen during the day. 13 In/near a shebeen at night. 14 Travelling on public transport during the day. 15 Travelling on public transport at night. 16 Travelling in your private vehicle during the day. 17 Travelling in your private vehicle at night. 18 Accessing communal services (toilets/taps, etc.) during the day. 19 Accessing communal services (toilets/taps, etc.) at night. 20 Other 21 Please specify: 59 © Mthente Research and Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd, February 2014 23. Please provide the profile of the victim of the MOST CIRCLE ONE READ OPTIONS recent crime (if not you): ONLY 23a Gender Male 1 Female 2 23b Age (please capture age today) 23c Dwelling type Formal 1 Informal 2 24. Who committed the crime? READ OPTIONS CIRCLE ONE ONLY Friend 1 Relative 2 Stranger 3 Foreigner (i.e. non-South African citizen) 4 Don’t know 5 Other 6 Please specify: 25. Was the crime reported? CIRCLE ONE ONLY YES 1 GO TO QUESTION 27 CONTINUE TO QUESTION NO 2 26 26. Why was the crime not DO NOT READ MULTIPLE reported? OPTIONS RESPONSE Afraid of being victimised by perpetrators 1 Do not trust the police 2 Police are corrupt 3 Police are ineffective 4 Cases are thrown out of court 5 GO TO QUESTION 37 Accused is simply back on the street after the crime 6 Cases are gang related 7 Offence not serious 8 Police do not investigate/arrest 9 Perpetrators are back on the street 10 Other 11 Please specify: 60 © Mthente Research and Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd, February 2014 27. Who was the crime reported DO NOT READ MULTIPLE RESPONSE to? OPTIONS Police in Khayelitsha 1 GO TO QUESTION 29 Street committee(s) in Khayelitsha 2 Traditional committee(s) in Khayelitsha 3 CONTINUE TO QUESTION Vigilante groups 4 28 Community Police Forums (CPFs) 5 Other 6 Please specify: 28. Why was the crime not reported DO NOT READ MULTIPLE to the police? OPTIONS RESPONSE Do not trust the police 1 Police are corrupt 2 Police are ineffective 3 GO TO QUESTION 37 Police are not efficient 4 Cases are thrown out of court 5 Cases are gang related 6 Other 7 Please specify: 29. At which police station (in Khayelitsha) was the READ OPTIONS MULTIPLE RESPONSE crime reported? Harare police station 1 Lingelethu police station 2 Khayelitsha police station 3 Don’t know/Cannot recall 4 Other 5 Please specify other: 30. How would you rate the police response to the READ OPTIONS CIRCLE ONE ONLY crime reported? Very poor 1 Poor 2 Good 3 Excellent 4 Don’t know/Cannot recall 5 61 © Mthente Research and Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd, February 2014 31. What is the current status of the READ CIRCLE ONE investigation? OPTIONS ONLY Police took statement 1 Police made enquiries 2 Police identified the suspect 3 Police made an arrest 4 Police sent docket to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) 5 GO TO First court appearance 6 QUESTION 37 Conviction 7 Police did nothing 8 Don’t know 99 If don’t know, why do you not know? Other 9 Please specify: 32. Other than the last year (1 Jan 2012 to 1 Dec 2013), CIRCLE ONE ONLY have you ever experienced crime in Khayelitsha? YES 1 CONTINUE TO QUESTION 33 NO 2 GO TO QUESTION 37 33. What was the nature of the crime? DO NOT READ CIRCLE ONE ONLY OPTIONS Armed robbery 1 Assault from police 2 Assault grievous bodily harm (GBH) (i.e. violent attack to cause 3 serious harm to the body) Burglary at business premises (i.e. breaking into business premise 4 and stealing while someone is away) Burglary at residential premises (i.e. breaking into the home and 5 stealing while someone is away) Child abuse 6 Common assault (i.e. violent attack with no body injuries including 7 street/gang violence) Common robbery 8 Common theft 9 Corrective rape (i.e. when a person is raped because of their 10 perceived sexual orientation or gender identity) Domestic violence (i.e. sexual, physical, stalking, emotional or any abusive behaviour that takes place in a home or family or 11 spouse/partner relationship) Fraud 12 Gangsterism 13 62 © Mthente Research and Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd, February 2014 33. What was the nature of the crime? DO NOT READ CIRCLE ONE ONLY OPTIONS Hijacking 14 Homophobia (i.e. fear/hatred of gay people) 15 Murder 16 Robbery at business premises (i.e. breaking into business premise 17 and stealing while the person is present) Robbery at residential premises (i.e. breaking into the home and 18 stealing while the person is present) Safety in education/schools 19 Safety with public transport 20 Sexual offence (i.e. rape/sexual assault, sexual harassment) 21 Shebeens (i.e. violence at shebeens) 22 Stock theft 23 Substance abuse (i.e. alcohol/drugs) 24 Theft of a motor vehicle 25 Theft out of a motor vehicle 26 Threatened by police 27 Vandalism 28 Informal court killings/community assault/mob killings 29 Xenophobia (i.e. strong dislike of other people/community members 30 from other countries) Other 31 Please specify: 34. In what month and year did the crime take place? INSERT MONTH AND YEAR 35. How would you rate the police READ CIRCLE ONE response to the crime? OPTIONS ONLY Very poor 1 CONTINUE TO Poor 2 QUESTION 36 Good 3 GO TO Excellent 4 QUESTION 37 Don’t know/Cannot recall 5 36. If your answer to Q35 was “very poor/poor,” what should the police have done to be more effective/helpful? 63 © Mthente Research and Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd, February 2014 SECTION 4: PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY 37. Do you feel safe in Khayelitsha? CIRCLE ONE ONLY YES 1 NO 2 38. Please explain your answer to Q36. Why do you feel safe or not feel safe? CIRCLE ONE RESPONSE FOR READ OPTIONS EACH ROW 39. How safe do you feel in the following places and at the Not safe following times in Khayelitsha? Not safe Safe Very safe Don’t know at all At home during the day. 1 2 3 4 99 At home after dark/during the night. 1 2 3 4 99 On the street during the day. 1 2 3 4 99 On the street at night. 1 2 3 4 99 In public recreational/community places 1 2 3 4 99 (parks/halls) during the day. In public recreational/community places 1 2 3 4 99 (parks/halls) at night. In public places of worship 1 2 3 4 99 (church/mosque, etc.) during the day. In public places of worship 1 2 3 4 99 (church/mosque, etc.) at night. In public commercial/retail places (shopping centres, spazas, etc.) during 1 2 3 4 99 the day. In public commercial/retail places 1 2 3 4 99 64 © Mthente Research and Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd, February 2014 CIRCLE ONE RESPONSE FOR READ OPTIONS EACH ROW 39. How safe do you feel in the following places and at the Not safe following times in Khayelitsha? Not safe Safe Very safe Don’t know at all (shopping centres, spazas, etc.) at night. In public transportation places (taxi 1 2 3 4 99 ranks/bus/train stations) during the day. In public transportation places (taxi 1 2 3 4 99 ranks/bus/train stations) at night. In/near a shebeen during the day. 1 2 3 4 99 In/near a shebeen at night. 1 2 3 4 99 Travelling on public transport during the 1 2 3 4 99 day. Travelling on public transport at night. 1 2 3 4 99 Travelling in your private vehicle during 1 2 3 4 99 the day. Travelling in your private vehicle at 1 2 3 4 99 night. Accessing communal services 1 2 3 4 99 (toilets/taps, etc.) during the day. Accessing communal services 1 2 3 4 99 (toilets/taps, etc.) at night. Other 1 2 3 4 99 Please specify: 65 © Mthente Research and Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd, February 2014 40. What measures have you taken to ensure DO NOT READ your safety/safety of your household/close MULTIPLE RESPONSE OPTIONS relatives? Installed home security (i.e. electric fence, alarm, etc.) 1 Resorted to street committees/traditional committees 2 Resorted to vigilante groups 3 Formed part of the neighbourhood watch 4 Formed part of the Community Police Forums (CPFs) 5 Other 6 Please specify: SECTION 5: GENERAL ATTITUDES TOWARDS POLICE AND CRIME IN KHAYELITSHA 41. If you/someone you know was assaulted (other than domestic violence), would you report it, or would you CIRCLE ONE ONLY encourage them to report the assault to the police in Khayelitsha? YES 1 GO TO QUESTION 43 NO 2 CONTINUE TO QUESTION 42 42. Who would you report to, in addition to the DO NOT READ MULTIPLE RESPONSE police in Khayelitsha? OPTIONS Street committee(s) 1 Traditional committee(s) 2 Vigilante group(s) 3 Community Police Forums (CPFs) 4 Other 5 Please specify: CIRCLE ONE RESPONSE FOR READ OPTIONS EACH ROW 43. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following Strongly Strongly statements: Disagree Agree Don’t know disagree agree The police in Khayelitsha are trained 1 2 3 4 99 and able to fulfill their tasks. The police in Khayelitsha do what 1 2 3 4 99 they are required to. 66 © Mthente Research and Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd, February 2014 The police in Khayelitsha are polite. 1 2 3 4 99 The police in Khayelitsha provide 1 2 3 4 99 poor service. The police in Khayelitsha would stop 1 2 3 4 99 if “flagged down.” The police in Khayelitsha are 1 2 3 4 99 efficient. The people who live in Khayelitsha have confidence in SAPS in 1 2 3 4 99 Khayelitsha. The SAPS in Khayelitsha treat members of the community with 1 2 3 4 99 respect. Police do a good job, but the court let 1 2 3 4 99 us down (i.e. bail, charges dropped) 44. How have your perceptions of the police in DO NOT READ Khayelitsha changed over the past five CIRCLE ONE ONLY OPTIONS years (2009-2013)? Positive 1 Negative 2 Remained the same 3 Don’t know 99 45. Have you ever heard of vigilantes/alternative crime CIRCLE ONE ONLY institutions that exist in Khayelitsha? YES 1 CONTINUE TO QUESTION 46 NO 2 GO TO QUESTION 49 46. Have you ever had any dealings with CIRCLE ONE ONLY vigilantes/alternative crime institutions? YES 1 CONTINUE TO QUESTION 47 NO 2 GO TO QUESTION 49 47. Was the vigilantes/alternative crime institutions helpful CIRCLE ONE ONLY to you? YES 1 CONTINUE TO QUESTION 48 NO 2 GO TO QUESTION 49 48. In what way(s) were the vigilantes/alternative crime institutions helpful? Please elaborate. 67 © Mthente Research and Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd, February 2014 49. Is vigilantism ever justified? CIRCLE ONE ONLY YES 1 NO 2 50. Please explain your answer to Q49. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR CO-OPERATION FIELDWORKER DECLARATION I hereby certify that this interview has been completed and checked in strict accordance with the instructions given to me. LENGTH OF FIELDWORKER NAME SIGNATURE DATE INTERVIEW 68 © Mthente Research and Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd, February 2014 APPENDIX B: Additional Data Table B 1: Crime Reported to SAPS between April 2012 and March 2013, by Precinct Khayelitsha Harare Lingelethu Contact Crimes Murder 168 132 54 Total Sexual Crimes 246 263 108 Attempted murder 208 87 47 Assault with the intent to inflict grievous 707 634 145 bodily harm Common assault 774 637 331 Common robbery 221 198 87 Robbery with aggravating circumstances 989 627 316 Subtotal 3,313 2,578 1,088 Contact-related Crimes Arson 12 19 9 Malicious damage to property 440 356 175 Subtotal 452 375 184 Property-related Crimes Burglary at non-residential premises 127 92 138 Burglary at residential premises 459 488 314 Theft of motor vehicle and motorcycle 60 113 71 Theft out of or from motor vehicle 135 98 171 Stock-theft 0 0 0 Subtotal 781 791 694 Crimes Heavily Dependent on Police Action for Detection Illegal possession of firearms and 110 81 44 ammunition Drug-related crime 669 532 471 Driving under the influence of alcohol or 292 385 432 drugs Subtotal 1071 998 947 Other Serious Crimes All theft not mentioned elsewhere 472 580 371 Commercial crime 196 47 119 Shoplifting 191 43 153 Subtotal 859 670 643 69 © Mthente Research and Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd, February 2014 Subcategories of aggravated robbery forming part of aggravated robbery above Carjacking 44 53 26 Truck hijacking 4 4 2 Robbery at residential premises 84 70 35 Robbery at non-residential premises 143 88 49 Subtotal 275 215 112 Other crime categories Culpable homicide 40 25 9 Public violence 11 9 9 Crimen injuria 95 25 16 Neglect and ill-treatment of children 14 12 3 Kidnapping 40 34 9 Subtotal 200 105 46 Source: SAPS online. Table B 2: Dwelling Type by SAPS Precinct and Gender DWELLING Khayelitsha Harare Lingelethu Total TYPE Male Fem Total Male Fem Total Male Fem Total Male Fem Total House or brick structure on 43.6% 48.3% 46.1% 39.2% 40.5% 39.8% 60.6% 44.7% 51.4% 44.8% 44.7% 44.8% separate stand Separate entrance or 16.7% 10.3% 13.3% 24.2% 21.6% 22.9% 23% 37.2% 31.2% 20.8% 20.5% 20.6% structure on another plot Renting a room in a 0.6% 2.3% 1.5% 3.9% 1.5% 2.7% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 2.2% 2.0% 2.1% house SUBTOTAL 60.9% 60.9% 60.9% 67.3% 63.6% 65.4% 85.4% 83.7% 84.4% 67.8% 67.2% 67.5% (Formal) Informal dwelling/shack 11.3% 9.0% 10.1% 13.5% 13.3% 13.4% 8.5% 10.2% 9.5% 11.8% 10.8% 11.3% in backyard Informal dwelling/shack 27.8% 30.0% 28.9% 19.2% 22.8% 20.9% 4.2% 5.3% 4.9% 20.1% 21.5% 20.9% not in backyard SUBTOTAL 39.1% 39.0% 39.0% 32.7% 36.1% 34.3% 12.7% 6.5% 14.4% 31.9% 32.3% 32.2% (Informal) Caravan or 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% tent Other 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 0.9% 1.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.3% 70 © Mthente Research and Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd, February 2014 Table B 3: Level of Education by SAPS Precinct and Gender EDUCATION Khayelitsha Harare Lingelethu Total Male Fem Total Male Fem Total Male Fem Total Male Fem Total None (no 6.9% 4.7% 5.7% 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 9.1% 4.4% 6.4% 7.0% 5.1% 6.0% schooling) Completed up to Grade 3 (Standard 1.8% 3.6% 2.8% 7.0% 4.1% 5.6% 5.5% 1.8% 3.3% 4.6% 3.4% 4.0% 1) Grade 4 to Grade 7 (Standard 2 to 16.4% 12.9% 14.5% 15.8% 16.3% 16.0% 16.4% 9.3% 12.3% 16.1% 13.0% 14.4% Standard 5) Grade 8 to Grade 11 (Standard 6 to 40.0% 41.3% 40.7% 36.9% 41.1% 39.0% 20.6% 31.4% 26.9% 35.1% 39.0% 37.1% Standard 9) SUBTOTAL 65.1% 62.5% 63.7% 65.6% 67.4% 66.5% 51.6% 46.9% 48.9% 62.8% 60.5% 61.5% Grade 12 (Matric) 29.6% 31.8% 30.7% 29.9% 27.5% 28.7% 40.6% 46.9% 44.2% 31.8% 34.1% 33.0% Post Matric Certificate/ Diploma 3.9% 3.1% 3.5% 2.8% 4.1% 3.5% 5.5% 3.1% 4.1% 3.7% 3.4% 3.5% / Trade Qualification University Degree / 0.9% 2.1% 1.5% 1.1% 0.6% 0.9% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.2% 1.4% 1.3% Diploma Post Graduate 0.6% 0.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.3% 0.4% 0.6% 1.3% 1.0% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% University Degree Table B 4: Employment Levels by SAPS Precinct and Gender EMPLOYMENT Khayelitsha Harare Lingelethu Total Male Fem Total Male Fem Total Male Fem Total Male Fem Total Employed – Full 27.8% 25.8% 26.7% 32.4% 24.9% 28.7% 43.6% 36.7% 39.6% 32.8% 28.2% 30.4% Time Employed – Part 16.4% 14.7% 15.5% 20.6% 19.8% 20.2% 25.5% 19.0% 21.7% 19.9% 17.3% 18.5% Time Self-Employed 1.5% 1.3% 1.4% 2.5% 4.7% 3.6% 0.6% 0.4% 0.5% 1.8% 2.3% 2.1% SUBTOTAL 45.7% 41.8% 43.6% 55.5% 49.4% 52.5% 69.7% 56.1% 61.8% 54.5% 47.8% 51.0% Retired/Pensioner 7.5% 8.0% 7.8% 5.6% 5.0% 5.3% 5.5% 2.2% 3.6% 6.2% 5.5% 5.8% Scholar / Student 18.5% 19.9% 19.3% 14.4% 18.3% 16.3% 6.1% 18.1% 13.0% 14.4% 18.8% 16.7% Unemployed 26.6% 29.2% 28.0% 23.9% 26.0% 25.0% 3.6% 2.7% 3.1% 21.0% 22.3% 21.7% Prefer Not to 1.5% 1.0% 1.2% 0.6% 1.2% 0.9% 0.6% 0.4% 0.5% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% Answer 71 © Mthente Research and Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd, February 2014 Table B 5: Personal Monthly Income by SAPS Precinct and Gender PERSONAL Khayelitsha Harare Lingelethu Total MONTHLY Male Fem Total Male Fem Total Male Fem Total Male Fem Total INCOME Zero 37.0% 40.3% 38.8% 29.6% 35.2% 32.3% 18.2% 27.0% 23.3% 30.4% 35.8% 33.2% < R1,000 5.4% 8.3% 6.9% 11.3% 11.2% 11.3% 7.9% 7.5% 7.7% 8.2% 9.0% 8.6% R1,001 – 9.9% 9.6% 9.7% 16.9% 15.4% 16.2% 13.9% 6.2% 9.5% 13.4% 10.7% 12.0% R2,000 R2,001 – 5.1% 3.9% 4.4% 6.8% 4.1% 5.5% 9.1% 11.1% 10.2% 6.8% 6.0% 6.4% R3,000 SUBTOTAL 57.4% 62.1% 59.8% 64.6% 65.9% 65.3% 49.1% 51.8% 50.7% 58.8% 61.5% 60.2% R3,001 – 7.8% 4.1% 5.8% 3.7% 3.8% 3.8% 8.5% 4.0% 5.9% 6.1% 4.0% 5.0% R4,000 R4,001 – 1.2% 1.8% 1.5% 1.4% 0.3% 0.9% 6.7% 3.1% 4.6% 2.3% 1.5% 1.9% R5,000 R5,001 – 1.8% 0.0% 0.8% 2.3% 0.3% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 0.1% 0.8% R10,000 R10,001 – 1.5% 0.0% 0.7% 0.3% 0.9% 0.6% 0.0% 0.9% 0.5% 0.7% 0.5% 0.6% R15,000 R15,001 – 0.0% 0.5% 0.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.1% 0.6% 0.0% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% R20,000 R20,001 – 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.3% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% R25,000 > R25,000 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.6% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% Prefer Not to 29.0% 31.0% 30.1% 25.1% 25.1% 25.1% 33.9% 38.9% 36.8% 28.4% 30.4% 29.5% Answer Don’t Know 1.5% 0.5% 1.0% 2.3% 3.0% 2.6% 1.2% 0.9% 1.0% 1.7% 1.4% 1.6% Table B 6: Number of Dependents by SAPS Precinct and Gender Khayelitsha Harare Lingelethu Total DEPENDENTS Male Fem Total Male Fem Total Male Fem Total Male Fem Total None 27.3% 23.4% 25.2% 23.9% 21.5% 22.7% 15.9% 19.1% 17.7% 23.7% 21.7% 22.6% 1 15.1% 17.2% 16.3% 16.2% 14.7% 15.4% 13.8% 21.6% 18.3% 15.3% 17.2% 16.3% 2 20.1% 18.5% 19.2% 19.2% 19.1% 19.2% 32.4% 31.2% 31.7% 22.0% 21.7% 21.8% Subtotal 62.5% 59.1% 60.7% 59.3% 55.3% 57.3% 62.1% 71.9% 67.7% 61.0% 60.6% 60.7% 3 12.6% 18.2% 15.6% 13.5% 14.3% 13.9% 17.9% 12.1% 14.5% 13.9% 15.4% 14.7% 4 9.4% 9.8% 9.6% 12.1% 9.2% 10.7% 11.0% 7.0% 8.7% 10.7% 8.9% 9.7% 5 5.4% 5.8% 5.6% 5.7% 9.9% 7.8% 3.4% 4.0% 3.8% 5.4% 6.7% 6.1% 6 or More 10.1% 7.1% 8.5% 9.4% 11.3% 10.3% 5.6% 5.0% 5.3% 9.0% 8.3% 8.8% Subtotal 37.5% 40.9% 39.3% 40.7% 44.7% 42.7% 37.9% 28.1% 32.3% 39.0% 39.3% 39.3% 72 © Mthente Research and Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd, February 2014 Figure B 1: Instances of Crime in the Past Year, by SAPS Precinct Instances of Crime in the Past Year 70.0% 64.4% 64.1% 60.0% 50.0% 46.2% 40.0% 33.0% 30.0% 17.4% 17.5% 20.0% 13.6% 13.2%11.0% 7.7%7.4% 10.0% 4.5% 0.0% 1 Time 2 Times 3 Times More than 3 Times Khayelitsha Precinct Lingelethu Precinct Harare Precinct Table B 7: Location and Time of Day of Crime Instances, by SAPS Precinct MOST RECENT CRIME Khayelitsha Harare Lingelethu Total SITE AND TIME OF DAY Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night At home. 15.3% 21.8% 15.3% 20.1% 17.5% 24.6% 15.6% 21.6% On the street. 28.8% 25.2% 30.8% 23.4% 22.4% 25.1% 28.3% 24.8% In public recreational/ community 0.5% 0.5% 0.9% 0.0% 1.6% 1.1% 0.9% 0.4% places such as parks or halls. In public places of worship such 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% as churches or mosques. In public commercial/retail places such as shopping centres or 0.0% 0.3% 0.6% 0.9% 1.6% 1.1% 0.7% 0.7% spazas. In public transportation places. 1.3% 1.8% 0.9% 0.3% 0.0% 0.5% 0.9% 0.5% In a shebeen. 0.0% 1.6% 0.3% 1.8% 0.5% 1.1% 0.2% 0.5% Travelling on public transport. 0.3% 1.0% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 1.6% 0.4% 0.7% Travelling in your private vehicle. 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.6% 1.6% 0.5% 0.3% 0.5% Accessing communal services 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% such as toilets or taps. 73 © Mthente Research and Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd, February 2014 Table B 8: Respondents’ Description of the Profile of the Most Recent Crime Victim VICTIM PROFILE Gender Dwelling Age OF MOST Male Female Formal Informal Min Max Mean Std Dev RECENT CRIME* Khayelitsha 48.2% 51.8% 61.9% 38.1% 14 41 26.4 6.50 Harare 66.3% 33.7% 65.2% 34.8% 14 56 24.1 7.84 Lingelethu 51.4% 48.6% 88.4% 11.6% 20 80 32.1 9.34 *Includes only respondents who indicated that someone else had been a victim of crime in the past year. Table B 9: Crime perpetrators in Khayelitsha PERPETRATOR: Don’t % Friend Relative Stranger Foreigner Other Total (N)* KHAYELITSHA Know Crimes** Armed robbery 5.1% 2.9% 61.3% 3.6% 24.1% 2.9% 137 35.7% Common robbery 0.0% 0.0% 80.0% 1.7% 16.7% 1.7% 60 15.6% Burglary at residential premises 3.2% 0.0% 67.7% 0.0% 25.8% 3.2% 31 8.1% Gangsterism 1.5% 1.5% 94.0% 1.5% 0.0% 1.5% 67 17.4% Assault from police 25.0% 0.0% 12.5% 0.0% 12.5% 50.0% 8 2.1% Assault Grievous Bodily Harm 0.0% 14.3% 42.9% 0.0% 28.6% 14.3% 7 1.8% Child Abuse 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 0.0% 10.0% 30.0% 10 2.6% Common theft 14.3% 0.0% 57.1% 0.0% 21.4% 7.1% 14 3.6% Burglary at business premises 20.0% 0.0% 60.0% 0.0% 20.0% 0.0% 5 1.3% Common assault 20.0% 0.0% 60.0% 0.0% 20.0% 0.0% 5 1.3% Hijacking 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 66.7% 0.0% 6 1.6% *Number of respondents who experienced this type of crime in Khayelitsha recently. **This figure represents the percentage of crimes of each type that respondents experienced in Khayelitsha most recently. 74 © Mthente Research and Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd, February 2014 Table B 10: Crime perpetrators in Harare Don’t % PERPETRATOR: HARARE Friend Relative Stranger Foreigner Other Total (N)* Know Crimes** Armed robbery 14.2% 4.2% 60.8% 3.3% 15.8% 1.7% 120 35.8% Common robbery 2.0% 6.9% 57.4% 1.0% 31.7% 1.0% 101 30.1% Burglary at residential premises 0.0% 11.1% 33.3% 0.0% 44.4% 11.1% 9 2.7% Gangsterism 0.0% 0.0% 75.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 8 2.4% Assault from police 40.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 40.0% 10 3.0% Assault Grievous Bodily Harm 25.0% 0.0% 41.7% 0.0% 25.0% 8.3% 12 3.6% Child Abuse 0.0% 0.0% 66.7% 0.0% 16.7% 16.7% 6 1.8% Common theft 0.0% 0.0% 69.2% 0.0% 30.8% 0.0% 13 4.2% Burglary at business premises 0.0% 0.0% 83.3% 0.0% 16.7% 0.0% 6 1.8% Fraud 0.0% 0.0% 62.5% 0.0% 37.5% 0.0% 8 2.4% Common assault 0.0% 0.0% 71.4% 0.0% 28.6% 0.0% 7 2.1% Hijacking 0.0% 25.0% 50.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 4 1.2% *Number of respondents who experienced this type of crime in Harare recently. **This figure represents the percentage of crimes of each type that respondents experienced in Harare most recently. 75 © Mthente Research and Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd, February 2014 Table B 11: Crime perpetrators in Lingelethu Don’t % PERPETRATOR: LINGELETHU Friend Relative Stranger Foreigner Other Total (N)* Know Crimes** Armed robbery 7.2% 7.2% 59.4% 1.4% 24.6% 0.0% 69 37.7% Common robbery 0.0% 0.0% 52.0% 4.0% 40.0% 4.0% 25 13.7% Burglary at residential premises 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6 3.3% Gangsterism 6.5% 0.0% 90.3% 0.0% 3.2% 0.0% 31 16.9% Assault from police 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 33.3% 33.3% 3 1.6% Assault Grievous Bodily Harm 20.0% 0.0% 60.0% 0.0% 20.0% 0.0% 5 2.7% Child Abuse 20.0% 20.0% 40.0% 0.0% 20.0% 0.0% 5 2.7% Common theft 0.0% 0.0% 77.8% 0.0% 22.2% 0.0% 9 4.9% Burglary at business premises 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 0.0% 3 1.6% Common assault 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1 0.5% Hijacking 0.0% 12.5% 25.0% 0.0% 62.5% 0.0% 8 4.4% *Number of respondents who experienced this type of crime in Lingelethu recently. **This figure represents the percentage of crimes of each type that respondents experienced in Lingelethu most recently. Table B 12: Who Crimes Were Reported To, by SAPS Precinct WHO THE CRIME WAS Khayelitsha Harare Lingelethu Total REPORTED TO? Police in Khayelitsha 52.7% 56.1% 66.9% 57.5% Street committee(s) in Khayelitsha 7.1% 12.2% 12.2% 10.1% Traditional committee(s) in Khayelitsha 2.5% 3.6% 3.6% 3.1% Vigilante groups 0.8% 0.9% 0.7% 0.8% Community Police Forums (CPF’s) 6.2% 3.6% 7.2% 5.4% Stranger 7.5% 7.7% 8.6% 7.7% Friend 14.9% 9.0% 3.6% 10.1% Family member/relative 25.7% 19.9% 6.5% 19.1% Other 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.5% Total (N) 241 221 139 701 *Percentage of cases for multiple response item, N=701. 76 © Mthente Research and Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd, February 2014 Police Response to Crime Reports 50.0% 45.0% 40.0% 34.2% 35.4% 35.0% 30.4% 29.2% 31.5% 30.0% 27.2%27.2% 26.3% 23.9% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 7.9% 8.8% 10.0% 5.4% 5.0% 0.0% Very Poor Poor Good Excellent Khayelitsha Station Lingelethu Station Harare Station Figure B 2: Evaluation of Police Responses to Crime Reports, by SAPS Station 77 © Mthente Research and Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd, February 2014 Table B 13: Evaluations of SAPS by Precinct Khayelitsha Harare Lingelethu Total AGREE Dis- Don’t Dis- Don’t Dis- Don’t Dis- Don’t Agree Agree Agree Agree agree Know agree Know agree Know agree Know The police in Khayelitsha are trained and able to fulfill 26.6% 63.6% 9.8% 29.0% 60.0% 11.0% 22.8% 65.5% 11.8% 26.7% 62.6% 10.7% their tasks. The police in Khayelitsha do what they are required to. 27.3% 60.5% 12.2% 27.3% 59.9% 12.8% 23.3% 64.7% 12.0% 26.4% 61.2% 12.4% The police in Khayelitsha are polite. 29.9% 54.6% 15.5% 27.0% 53.1% 19.9% 26.1% 60.4% 13.6% 28.0% 55.3% 16.8% The police in Khayelitsha provide poor service. 37.5% 45.2% 17.3% 44.3% 37.4% 18.3% 32.0% 53.5% 14.6% 38.9% 44.0% 17.1% The police in Khayelitsha would stop if flagged down. 46.8% 44.3% 8.9% 48.8% 40.0% 11.3% 28.9% 56.5% 14.6% 43.7% 45.3% 11.0% The police in Khayelitsha are efficient. 28.1% 55.7% 16.2% 31.2% 54.0% 14.9% 23.3% 61.9% 14.8% 28.2% 56.4% 15.4% The people who live in Khayelitsha have confidence in 27.0% 55.7% 17.3% 27.4% 51.4% 21.2% 24.6% 60.1% 15.3% 26.6% 55.0% 18.4% the SAPS in Khayelitsha The SAPS in Khayelitsha treat members of the 26.6% 57.2% 16.2% 29.1% 49.8% 21.1% 22.0% 62.1% 15.9% 26.6% 55.4% 18.0% community with respect. Police do a good job, but the court let us down (i.e. bail, 20.2% 53.7% 26.0% 23.5% 47.9% 28.6% 21.5% 55.5% 23.0% 21.8% 51.9% 26.4% charges dropped) 78 © Mthente Research and Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd, February 2014 Table B 14: Perceptions of SAPS in Khayelitsha, by Precinct Khayelitsha Harare Lingelethu Total AGREE Dis- Don’t Dis- Don’t Dis- Don’t Dis- Don’t Agree Agree Agree Agree agree Know agree Know agree Know agree Know The police in Khayelitsha are trained and able to fulfill 26.6% 63.6% 9.8% 29.0% 60.0% 11.0% 22.8% 65.5% 11.8% 26.7% 62.6% 10.7% their tasks. The police in Khayelitsha do what they are required to. 27.3% 60.5% 12.2% 27.3% 59.9% 12.8% 23.3% 64.7% 12.0% 26.4% 61.2% 12.4% The police in Khayelitsha are polite. 29.9% 54.6% 15.5% 27.0% 53.1% 19.9% 26.1% 60.4% 13.6% 28.0% 55.3% 16.8% The police in Khayelitsha provide poor service. 37.5% 45.2% 17.3% 44.3% 37.4% 18.3% 32.0% 53.5% 14.6% 38.9% 44.0% 17.1% The police in Khayelitsha would stop if flagged down. 46.8% 44.3% 8.9% 48.8% 40.0% 11.3% 28.9% 56.5% 14.6% 43.7% 45.3% 11.0% The police in Khayelitsha are efficient. 28.1% 55.7% 16.2% 31.2% 54.0% 14.9% 23.3% 61.9% 14.8% 28.2% 56.4% 15.4% The people who live in Khayelitsha have confidence in 27.0% 55.7% 17.3% 27.4% 51.4% 21.2% 24.6% 60.1% 15.3% 26.6% 55.0% 18.4% the SAPS in Khayelitsha The SAPS in Khayelitsha treat members of the 26.6% 57.2% 16.2% 29.1% 49.8% 21.1% 22.0% 62.1% 15.9% 26.6% 55.4% 18.0% community with respect. Police do a good job, but the court let us down (i.e. bail, 20.2% 53.7% 26.0% 23.5% 47.9% 28.6% 21.5% 55.5% 23.0% 21.8% 51.9% 26.4% charges dropped) Table B 15: Respondents Who Have Dealt with CPFs in Khayelitsha Gender Dwelling Income Education Age DEALT WITH CPF Male Female Formal Informal 79 © Mthente Research and Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd, February 2014 Table B 16: Types of crime experienced in 2013 Total TYPES OF CRIME (N=) Armed robbery 142 Assault from police 6 Assault grievous bodily harm (GBH) 10 Burglary at business premises 5 Burglary at residential premises 20 Child abuse 6 Common assault (i.e. violent attack) 5 Common robbery 106 Common theft 15 Corrective rape 0 Domestic violence 2 Fraud 9 Gangsterism 44 Hijacking 6 Homophobia (i.e fear/hatred of gay people) 1 Murder 1 Robbery at business premises 2 Robbery at residential premises 4 Safety in education/schools 2 Safety with public transport 1 Sexual offence 0 Shebeens (i.e. violence at shebeens) 3 Stock theft 1 Substance abuse (i.e. alcohol/drugs) 0 Theft of a motor vehicle 2 Theft out of a motor vehicle 0 Threatened by police 1 Vandalism 0 Informal court killings 0 Xenophobia 0 Other 9 80 © Mthente Research and Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd, February 2014 REFERENCES Business Trust (BT) and the Department: Provincial and Local Government (dplg), 2007, ‘Nodal Economic Profiling Project: Khayelitsha, Western Cape’, available from: http://www.btrust.org.za/library/assets/uploads/documents/3_CIPPN_Khayelitsha%20profile.pdf [30 December 2013] City Press, 2012, ‘Khayelitsha cops exposed by their own,’ available from: http://www.citypress.co.za/news/khayelitsha-cops-exposed-by-their-own-20121110/ [30 December 2013] Crime Research and Statistics Crime Intelligence (report compiled by Major General C. P. de Kock), 2012, ‘Serious Crime in Khayelitsha and Surrounding Areas,’ available from: http://nu.org.za/wp- content/uploads/2012/11/AL30.-3-August-2012-%E2%80%93-Report-on-Serious-Crime-in-Khayelitsha- and-Surrounding-Areas-by-Major-General-CP-de-Kock1.pdf [30 December 2013] Eyewitness News, 2014, ‘Rape Stats Deceptive Due to Under-Reporting,’ Eyewitness News, available from: http://ewn.co.za/2014/01/29/Rape-stats-deceptive-due-to-under-reporting [29 January 2014] Khayelitsha Commission, 2012, ‘Welcome,’ available from: http://www.khayelitshacommission.org.za/ [30 December 2013] Social Justice Coalition, Treatment Action Campaign, Equal Education, Free Gender, Triangle Project and Ndifuna Ukwazi, 2011, Complaint related to the South African Police Service (SAPS) and the Cape Town Municipal Police Department (CTMPD), Available from: http://www.khayelitshacommission.org.za/images/documents/COMPLAINT%20Womens%20Legal% 20Centre.pdf South African Police Services (SAPS), ‘Crime Statistics – April 2012 to March 2013,’ available at: http://www.saps.gov.za/statistics/reports/crimestats/2013/crime_stats.htm 81 © Mthente Research and Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd, February 2014 Statistics South Africa (Stats SA), 2013a, ‘City of Cape Town – 2011 Census Suburb Khayelitsha,’ available from: http://www.capetown.gov.za/en/stats/2011CensusSuburbs/2011_Census_CT_Suburb_Khayelitsha_Prof ile.pdf [30 December 2013] Statistics South Africa (Stats SA), 2013b, ‘City of Cape Town: Use of Stats SA data to inform decision making and planning,’ available from: http://www.statssa.gov.za/isibalo_conference/docs/Presentation%20Stats%20SA%20Isibalo%20Users %20Conference%2015-%2017%20July%202013%20_%20CCT%20Carol%20Wright.pdf http://www.ctholocaust.co.za/pages/annual_review.htm [30 December 2013] Statistics South Africa (Stats SA), 2012a, ‘Census 2011,’ available from: http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/P03014/P030142011.pdf [30 December 2013] Statistics South Africa (Stats SA), 2012b, ‘Victims of Crime Survey 2012,’ available from: Statistics South Africa (Stats SA), 2012a, ‘Census 2011,’ available from: http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/P03014/P030142011.pdf [29 January 2014] University of Stellenbosch (US), ‘Khayelitsha Transformation Project’, available from: http://stbweb02.stb.sun.ac.za/urdr/downloads/Khayelitsha.pdf [30 December 2013] University of Stellenbosch (US) and the University of Cape Town (UCT), 2013, ‘University of Cape and Stellenbosch University express concern on policing in Khayelitsha,’ available from: http://www.uct.ac.za/usr/press/2013/UCT-US_statement_policing.pdf [30 December 2013] Western Cape Department of Community Safety, 2012, ‘Report on the Identification of Policing Needs and Priorities in the Western Cape 2011/12,” available from: http://www.westerncape.gov.za/sites/www.westerncape.gov.za/files/documents/2012/7/report_departme nt_of_community_safety_pnp.pdf [30 December 2013] 82 © Mthente Research and Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd, February 2014 Zille, H, 2012, “O'Regan and Pikoli to head Khayelitsha policing inquiry - Helen Zille”, Statement issued by Western Cape Premier Helen Zille, August 22 2012, Available from: http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71654?oid=321110&sn=Detail. 83 © Mthente Research and Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd, February 2014 ENDNOTES 1 Social Justice Coalition et al, 2011. 2 Zille, 2012. 3 Ibid. 4 Social Justice Coalition et al, 2011. 5 Ibid. 6 Khayelitsha Commission, 2012. 7 Social Justice Coalition et al, 2011. 8 StatsSA, 2012, p 29. 9 Business Trust (BT) and the Department: Provincial and Local Government (dplg), 2007, pg. 8 10 StatsSA, 2013a, pg. 2. 11 Stats SA, 2012a, pg. 5 12 UCT and US, 2013, pg. 1 13 Ibid, pg. 2 14 City Press, 2012. 15 Ibid. 16 Khayelitsha Commission, 2012. 17 Stats SA 2012a; 2013a. 18 Stats SA,2013a. 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid. 21 SAPS, 2013 22 Western Cape Department of Community Safety, 2012. 23 StatsSA, 2012b, 3. 24 StatsSA, 2012b, 4 25 StatsSA, 2012b, 44. 26 StatsSA, 2012b, 31. 27 StatsSA, 2012b, 42. 28 StatsSA, 2012b, 5. 29 StatsSA, 2012b, 21. 30 Focus group participant, January 2014. 31 StatsSA, 2012b, 31. 32 StatsSA, 2012b, 44. 33 Focus group participant, January 2014. 34 Focus group participant, January 2014. 84 © Mthente Research and Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd, February 2014