1. research report from policy to practice: exploring ...

File available on Web in Adobe PDF format (see www.adobe.com): http://www.unisa.ac.za/dept/psy/centre/1report_victim_empowerment.pdf

1. RESEARCH REPORT

FROM POLICY TO PRACTICE: EXPLORING VICTIM EMPOWERMENT INITIATIVES IN SOUTH AFRICA

Juan A. Nel & D. Johan Kruger

Funded by the Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology A CSIR Publication

This report was awarded the Marc Groenhuizen Award at the World Victimology Conference in Montreal during September 2000. This international prize aims to stimulate scientific research and publication in victimology, especially in the victim support field. The competition was established to honour Professor Marc Groenhuijsen, a former president of Victim Support Netherlands, who has played a major role in getting Victim Support firmly established in the Netherlands.

From Policy to Practice: Exploring Victim Empowerment Initiatives in South Africa Juan A. Nel & D. Johan Kruger Pretoria, 1999 Published by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research - Crime Prevention Centre; P O Box 395, Pretoria 0001, RSA; Tel:(012) 841 2312, Fax:(012) 841 4750. ISBN 0-7988-5437-5

FROM POLICY TO PRACTICE: EXPLORING VICTIM EMPOWERMENT INITIATIVES IN SOUTH AFRICA Research Team Juan A. Nel* (Director: Centre for Applied Psychology, University of South Africa): Project manager D. Johan Kruger (Department of Psychology, University of South Africa): Research manager Carmen Domingo-Swarts (Council for Scientific and Industrial Research): Research assistant Kevin Joubert: Field worker Dawie Nel: Field worker

Consultants Dr. Barend Taute (Council for Scientific and Industrial Research) Superintendent Zuzelle Pretorius (SA Police Service) Dr. Martin Terre Blanche (University of South Africa) Participants in Consultative Workshops (see Appendix C) Dr. Evante Schurink (Human Sciences Research Council) Dr. Rachel Jewkes (Medical Research Council)

Co-researchers All the participants in the focus groups (see Appendix D) All the participants in the survey questionnaire (see Appendix E)

Research Commissioned by The National Crime Prevention Strategy (NCPS) Victim Empowerment Programme Reference Team

Research Funded by The Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology

* Address correspondence to: Juan Nel, Department of Psychology, University of South Africa, PO Box 392, PRETORIA 0003. Tel: 083-282-0791 or (012) 429-8544 E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]

This document is dedicated to our soul mates, spouses and families who had to suffer our absence at the most inconvenient times. Thank you for your love - you are the wind beneath our wings. This document is also dedicated to all those wonderful people in the field of victim empowerment and support who give without thought for themselves, who go out in the middle of the night to assist people in distress, who listen to them and support them. Thank you for being there - you are the salt of the earth. ... And to the hidden people, who give whatever they can from the little they have, and in doing so make a great difference, who knit comfort teddies, who give small donations, who answer telephones, who help with administration. Thank you for caring - you are our truest community. Pretoria May, 1999

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AIM Commissioned by the National Crime Prevention Strategy Victim Empowerment Programme Reference Team and funded by the Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology, the aim of the research project was to determine critical success factors for victim empowerment initiatives at a local level involving direct service delivery. SCOPE Included in the research were initiatives at a local level, requiring the input of more than one sector (thus any two of the four key sectors, i.e. Welfare, Security, Justice and Health, or a state department and a Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO)/Community-Based Organisation (CBO), etc.). The emphasis was on initiatives where intersectoral co-operation occurred, such as one-stop trauma/crisis centres for victims of rape and/or child abuse. Furthermore, the researchers only included victim empowerment initiatives of a reactive nature (assistance and/or support offered following victimisation, as opposed to those initiatives aimed at pro-actively preventing victimisation in the first place). METHODOLOGY The research was mostly exploratory in nature and employed a triangulation approach. Firstly a survey questionnaire was delivered to all members on the National Crime Prevention Strategy (NCPS) Victim Empowerment Programme (VEP) Management and Reference Teams, and to Provincial Project Leaders of the Department of Welfare (the lead agency in the VEP), a sub-total of 20 (out of 51) were received. The questionnaire was also applied to victim empowerment initiatives which were selected for focus group interviews (see next paragraph) and 52 (out of 92) focus group participants completed the questionnaire. In addition 9 other persons doing the NCPS VEP certificate course at Unisa were selected to complete the questionnaire, giving a grand total of 81 completed questionnaires. The provinces included in the research are Gauteng, Western Cape, KwaZulu-Natal and Mpumalanga. Local service delivery initiatives were purposefully selected with the assistance of national and especially provincial NCPS VEP co-ordinators in terms of various criteria, such as representing good practice or useful informational opportunities and a fair mix of either government- or NGO/CBO-driven initiatives. The questionnaire contained a mixture of open- and close-ended questions in order to explore understanding of victim empowerment principles. Also included were questions measuring the awareness, knowledge and attitudes towards the NCPS VEP, as well as implementation. Responses to open questions that were knowledge related were rated by an expert in victim empowerment, and other qualitative responses were thematically coded and also entered on a statistical software programme (SPSS) for analysis. The focus group interviews employed a non-directive interview technique within the framework of an interview schedule. The interview schedule contained questions such as how, when, why and by whom an initiative was started, and also focused on problems and successes experienced. The interviews were then summarised and thematically analysed to identify themes relating to success and failure in the local victim service delivery context. These themes were integrated into a model for setting up a victim empowerment initiative at a local level. Feedback of preliminary results at the consultative workshop (of 4 February 1999) was helpful in improving the quality of the interpretation of results. i

FINDINGS F

Information was gathered across a wide range of stakeholders, but sampling was not random and findings are therefore exploratory. Of the 81 questionnaires received, the majority (78%) were completed by female participants. The mean age was 39 years and the majority of participants (60%) had a tertiary education. The highest percentage of participants (33%) came from Gauteng Province; KwaZulu-Natal (25.9%) and Mpumalanga (22%). The largest sectors in the survey were the Security (38%), Welfare (29%) and Health (22%) sectors. Most of the participants at local level from government and other areas were fairly new to the field of victim empowerment and support (average of 2 years involvement), with those at national and provincial levels from government involved for 2½ years on average, and those from the NGO sector at national and provincial levels for an average of more than 7 years. Given the non-random nature of sampling at local level and the low rates of return at national and provincial levels, these findings from the questionnaire should be treated as exploratory and descriptive-interpretative, without generalising too broadly regarding specific sectors or organisations.

F

Most respondents had a good understanding of victim empowerment, but little knowledge regarding the role of their sector in the NCPS VEP. The majority of the respondents (58%) have never read the NCPS. An even greater percentage (72%) have not read a recent copy of the business plan for the NCPS VEP. In particular, respondents from the Health and, to a lesser extent, Security sectors appear not to have easy access to these policy documents. Also, predictably, the majority of respondents (whether from government (67%) or the NGO sector (68%)) who operate at the local level, appear to have no access to the NCPS documentation. Although there was a widespread understanding of the meaning of victim empowerment (73%), the needs of victims (67%), the main objectives of the NCPS VEP (66%), and ways of breaking the cycle of violence (64%), only 48% of the respondents knew what roles had been assigned to their sector in the NCPS VEP. The scenario gets worse when specifically focusing on respondents at a local level. This is worrying as the roles relate to the implementation of the NCPS. Respondents involved in functions of policy formulation and co-ordination at a national and provincial level (especially those representing government) generally seem to have the best understanding of the objectives of the NCPS VEP and deem the NCPS to be an excellent strategy in principle, but one which is hampered by various constraints in practice. There are large differences among agencies regarding levels of implementation, with the NGO/CBO sector and local initiatives tending to lead the way. Participants in the research from the NGO/CBO sector (especially at a national and provincial level) seem to be much more advanced re implementation of the NCPS VEP and also more confident regarding their ability to fulfil the role that they have been assigned in the NCPS VEP. (Note small sample size and that these findings ought therefore not to be generalised.) Interestingly, government at a local level appears to be much further with implementation than government at the other two levels (especially provincially), yet feel less able to fulfil their role as assigned in the NCPS VEP. Respondents from the Health sector (at all three levels (63%)) appear to be most confident that they are on track with the NCPS VEP, followed by the Welfare (55%), Security (48%) and Justice sectors (20%). In almost all instances it would appear that this is mostly the case for the local level, followed by national and finally the provincial level. Fortunately, 50% of government at national level said they were finalising policy and procedures, implying that the picture might change soon, should there be

F

ii

adequate resources and support for implementation. Only 27% of the respondents indicated that their organisation has developed or arranged for training initiatives to assist them in executing the objectives of the programme. The Security sector reports the lowest (43%) internal consensus and co-operation around issues of the NCPS VEP, followed by the Justice (53%), Welfare (66%) and Health (77%) sectors. F

Key problems in the implementation process are seen to be a lack of resources and a high workload . The majority of respondents (71%) agreed that their capacity to implement the strategy was restricted by a lack of resources (human and material). This is particularly the case in the Health (86%) and Justice (80%) sectors. The Justice (60%) and Security (56%) sectors in particular complained about a workload that is so high that it allows them very little time and energy to spend on NCPS VEP matters. Respondents from the Health (77%) and Welfare (73%) sectors generally seem to be of the opinion that they have well-developed communication and information dissemination strategies. A large percentage of government officials (85%) were convinced that their department was highly committed to the NCPS VEP. Intersectoral interaction and collaboration generally appears to be a reality, especially at a local level, where 57% of respondents believe that it is of a good to excellent quality. Most (79%) believe that co-operation between NGOs/CBOs and government is highly desirable, as well as feasible. The feasibility is seen to be lowest in the Security and Welfare sectors. The majority of respondents to the questionnaire (70% from sectors other than Welfare and 50% from the Welfare sector) were satisfied with the fact that the Department of Welfare is the lead agency in the programme. Participants in the focus groups appear to be less positive in this regard, stating that Welfare was very much on the periphery, and seldom perform the co-ordinating role allocated to them in the NCPS VEP. 57% of respondents to the questionnaire agreed with the statement that the NCPS VEP was initiated by government in a top-down approach and that it would have been better if it were a community-driven initiative. Asked who should resource or finance the areas of service delivery that fall outside the jurisdiction or usual responsibilities of any specific government department, the majority suggested business (31%), followed by the state (20%), and local authorities (14%).

F

Most respondents understood the primary needs of victims and shared the opinion that the plight of victimised women and children should be prioritised. The delivery of services aimed at addressing emotional needs (99%), developing crime prevention programmes (99%), public education on crime prevention (97%), medical assistance (97%), and the provision of information to victims (97%) were deemed most important. There is a perception among 30% of this sample that mediation between victims and offenders is not important. Similarly, 24% do not deem practical assistance (e.g. help with insurance claims, fixing of broken windows, etc.) as important. The majority shared the opinion that the plight of women and children as victims of crime and violence ought to be prioritised, and that they require special attention. (This result should, however, be viewed with caution as it is open to different interpretations.)

F

The majority of initiatives included in the research operationalise victim empowerment and support in a similar manner. Almost all primarily direct their services at women and children (and more specifically to sexual abuse and domestic violence). The services for victims are mostly rendered by volunteers who donate their time, skills and/or money. These services are often attached to another service (whether a NGO, such as Citizens Advice Bureau or NICRO, or a government service, such as a police station or hospital).The benefit of the aforementioned is that iii

resources can be shared and overhead costs thus limited. Most of the initiatives included in the research sample have, in some way or the other, been informed by the NCPS policy framework and therefore share many similarities. While the local situation and needs of the community mostly determine the nature of the service, the majority provide crisis intervention and basic counselling, recognition of the trauma, medical examinations, practical assistance, information and education regarding crime prevention, and referral. These services are almost exclusively rendered to primary victims (those who have been directly harmed), while the family and significant others (secondary victims) are seldom the focus of attention. Interestingly, almost none of the initiatives provide services such as negotiation, mediation and reparation. F

Themes which emerged from the focus group discussions suggest that the operational requirements for a victim empowerment service are: • Human resources (a skilled project co-ordinator and volunteers; training, supervision and support, etc.) • Management structures (leadership with vision and drive, that is responsible for project management and strategic planning) • Financial resources (for the remuneration of project co-ordinator; finances to cover real expenses of volunteers, etc.) • Facilities and material resources (office space; furniture; telephones; transport; medical equipment, etc.) • Marketing strategies and volunteer recruitment • Networking, a resource directory and a referral system • Monitoring and evaluation of the service.

F

The focus group discussion similarly suggest that the principles that are crucial to intersectoral service delivery to victims include: • Accountability (transparency, credibility, feedback and reflection on processes) • Consultation and community ownership (a service by the community for the community) • Empowerment (whether through raising awareness, enhancing understanding, dissemination of information, or delivering trauma/crisis support - this also refers to prioritising the needs of the disadvantaged) • Co-ordination and partnership (intra- and intersectoral) • Sustainability (of human and material resources). According to focus group participants it is also important to prioritise capacity development and the skills enhancement of service providers. Negotiating clear boundaries (i.e. provide only specific types of services to specified groups of victims) and remaining focused (i.e. having a mission statement; policies and procedures; and role clarification) is similarly deemed crucial, as is the commitment to the ‘cause’ of victim empowerment and support.

F

When integrating the quantitative and qualitative research findings, the greatest obstacles in the delivery of services to victims of crime and violence were seen to be: • Lack of physical resources (infrastructure/facilities and other resources, such as finances, transport, telephones, etc.) • Lack of, or overstretched, human resources (volunteers and employees with limited skills or training and a lack of planning and other management skills) iv

•

Lack of supportive contexts/structures (includes limited awareness, information and understanding of the issues and a lack of intersectoral collaboration). These factors are more or less identical to factors associated with the failure of NCPS VEP services. F

According to participants in the research the factors deemed most crucial to ensure success in the delivery of services to victims are: • Adequate physical resources (among others infrastructure, facilities and finances) • Adequate human resources, with appropriate skills and training to deliver an effective service (ability to address the needs of victims), and good management (management skills, project management, support and commitment) • Supportive contexts/structures (including adequate awareness and understanding of the issues; commitment to the ‘cause’ by all parties and motivation to a common vision and goal; intersectoral co-operation and collaboration with a clear understanding of roles and responsibilities, guidelines and procedures; and community support and involvement).

SUMMARY OF CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS Critical success factors for victim empowerment initiatives referring mostly, but not exclusively, to trauma or crisis centres, as identified by respondents to the survey questionnaire and participants in the focus group discussions can be summarised under four main headings. F

Good Relationships with the Community

•

Community ownership of the process and consultation of all stakeholders throughout Establishing and maintaining trust between community members and service providers.

•

v

F

Gathering and Provision of Relevant Information

•

A thorough knowledge and understanding of the NCPS and other relevant policies Public awareness of and education on victim issues (of when an individual becomes a victim, what the plight of victims is, and what services are available for them) A thorough analysis of the needs and expectations of a particular community, taking into account the community profile, crime patterns, characteristics of victims in that community, etc. Identifying existing resources in the community by involving relevant government departments, social service agencies, etc. in the planning process to prevent the duplication or under-representation of specific services Effective marketing and informational strategies, such as clear signposts indicating the location of the initiative Service provider awareness and skills training Efficient referral networks to and from other service providers Research, evaluation, monitoring, feedback, and follow-up on the effectiveness of service rendering in order to consistently provide a service that is relevant, effective and adequate.

• C •

• • • •

F

Good Management

•

• • •

An integrated management plan involving different tiers/sectors to ensure accountability Management commitment and enthusiasm Determining clear and logical programme objectives and activities which also entails role clarification The necessary care in deciding on a relevant organisational structure for an initiative, taking into account the geographical size, distribution of the population, the extent of the need and availability of resources in the area Clearly negotiated boundaries in terms of the catchment area, the nature of the service to be rendered and client population to be served Appropriate location for the initiative Easy and safe access to the initiative for both the victim and service providers Efficient administration and minimal red tape.

F

Adequate Resource Allocation

C • • • •

Appropriate infrastructure and sufficient human and material resources Appointing the correct project co-ordinator, staff and volunteers Sufficient support for service provides (project co-ordinator, staff and volunteers) Sustainability of the initiative or service Management of resources.

• • •

•

There is thus a need for an integrated policy framework with guidelines/protocol for each role player. Furthermore, what is required is sustainable victim empowerment services at a local level, not reliant on individual personalities or prior networks and resources, but rather on intersectoral/-departmental co-operation and viable policies. Initiatives ought to offer vi

comprehensive, holistic, co-ordinated, and pro-active services in order to be effective. The planning and establishment of these services ought to be community-driven and ought to bear long-term goals in mind. Services ought to cater for the diversity in language, culture and world view of the community in question - i.e. they ought to have local realities in mind. Services ought to be accessible with regard to their location and/or service fees and should be well marketed. Ideally all categories of victims of crime and violence ought to be catered for. In order to answer to the goal of crime prevention, most victims in a specific catchment area ought to be reached; should receive trauma debriefing soon after the incident of victimisation; and as far as possible be prevented from becoming re-victimised or taking justice into their own hands. Early intervention may prevent deterioration in the socioeconomic functioning of individuals or their productivity in the workplace. When required, follow-up and referral ought to take place. Should government policies truly be personcentred, this will prevent secondary victimisation. RECOMMENDATIONS It is crucial that bottle-necks and problems, as identified in the research, be addressed, and that protocols and appropriate policy for implementation of the programme be put in place. Furthermore, stakeholders ought to have a common understanding of what victim empowerment and support means in practice. As the aforementioned is mostly a function of policy-makers and therefore those situated at a national or provincial level, the majority of the recommendations are aimed at these levels. F

Information Dissemination •

•

•

•

•

A first priority for policy-makers in general, and the NCPS VEP Management Team specifically, ought to be addressing the need for improved communication right across the board as clearly indicated in the research. (A national newsletter and/or resource centre as point of information and advice to those involved in the field of service delivery to victims of crime will greatly benefit the programme.) The NCPS VEP Management Team ought to compile and widely distribute a national resource directory of training courses, manuals and books, and of organisations whose work can be of assistance to project co-ordinators, staff and volunteers involved in local initiatives The NCPS ought to be updated by the Ministry of Safety and Security as a matter of urgency and copies thereof ought to be disseminated as broadly as possible (at the very least every Community Policing Forum (CPF) ought to be in possession of the document and care ought to be taken that people understand its principles) Clear guidelines for implementation of the principles of the NCPS as policy framework ought to be provided by the Ministry of Safety and Security The NCPS VEP Management Team ought to ensure that all stakeholders (politicians, policy-makers, communities, service providers and victims) have an understanding of the ‘big picture’ of victim empowerment (i.e. that it entails more than providing ‘a private cubicle and tea’ for victims and includes services such as negotiation, mediation and reparation)

vii

•

•

•

•

•

F

The NCPS VEP Management Team, in liaison with the Directors-General of each government department, ought to provide formal guidelines at institutional level on how to operationalise victim empowerment Politicians and policy-makers ought to avoid the perpetuation of gender stereotypes (i.e. the description of women and children as more vulnerable and in need of special services) and service providers ought to indicate clearly that services for victims of crime and violence are not exclusive of men as victims The NCPS VEP Management Team ought to organise a national workshop in the foreseeable future to bring together present project co-ordinators of VEP initiatives to exchange good practices and to enhance their understanding of the principles required for a successful service All service providers ought to have an updated community resource directory which provides a clear understanding of the other services on offer in the community The findings of this research ought to be widely disseminated by the NCPS VEP Management Team and be brought under the attention of as many roleplayers and communities as possible.

Good Management •

•

•

• • •

•

•

The NCPS VEP Management Team ought to give careful consideration to whether it is in the best interest of the programme to have Welfare as "the lead department", given their peripheral role within the Criminal Justice System and their lack of capacity especially at local level The NCPS VEP Management Team ought to hold government departments accountable for the specific roles and actions allocated to them within the NCPS The NCPS VEP Management Team ought to devise protocols and procedures (inter- and intrasectoral) for co-ordinated multi-disciplinary teams and integrated service delivery The NCPS VEP Management Team ought to devise good strategies for project implementation and the institutionalisation of practices The NCPS VEP Management Team ought to assist with the prioritising and planning of action for each sector Business Against Crime ought to consider the sponsoring of project coordinators of local initiatives to attend training courses that will contribute to their skills development Management committees and project co-ordinators of initiatives ought to prevent burn-out of service providers by drawing clear service boundaries (provide only specific types of services to specified groups of victims, etc.) Consideration ought to be given to the utilisation of CPFs as management committees for local initiatives, whether located at a police station or elsewhere.

viii

F

Appropriate Resource Allocation •

•

•

•

•

•

•

The needs of the disadvantaged ought to be considered by project initiators in the planning of new initiatives (this includes access to services in terms of distances, availability of transport and telephones) Where possible, management committees and project co-ordinators of initiatives ought to ensure that services also provide for the basic needs of the victim (supplying a basic meal, overnight sleeping facility, etc.) Management committees and project co-ordinators of initiatives ought to ensure that, where possible, services are also extended to cater for the needs of secondary victims (the family and significant others of those harmed directly) Policy-makers and the NCPS VEP Management Team ought to take cognisance of the financial and other consequences of the programme for all sectors (i.e. who carries responsibility for budget items, such as telephone costs within the trauma centre, etc.) The NCPS VEP Management Team ought to call on the state to provide the infrastructure, such as office space, footing the bill for telephonic expenses, paying the salaries of co-ordinators of local initiatives and reimbursing volunteers for real expenses The NCPS VEP Management Team ought to devise a policy which provides for insurance coverage for volunteers in the event of personal loss, injury, disability or death while on duty Consideration ought to be given by project initiators and management committees to locate victim empowerment initiatives at large police stations or as a second option, large state hospitals, for purposes of easy access and transport.

A final recommendation is that research ought to be commissioned into client satisfaction with existing services for victims of crime and violence, as well as into preventative victim empowerment in SA.

ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 AIMS OF THE RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 CHAPTER 2 OVERVIEW OF VICTIM EMPOWERMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 WHY VICTIMS NEED ATTENTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 WHAT ARE VICTIM EMPOWERMENT SERVICES? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Models for the Implementation of Victim Empowerment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 VICTIM EMPOWERMENT AND SUPPORT IN SOUTH AFRICA . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 THE NCPS VICTIM EMPOWERMENT PROGRAMME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 The Public Health Perspective on Crime and Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Responsibilities of Role-Players . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Structures required by the proposed model for Victim Empowerment and Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 A model for Victim Empowerment and Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 CONTEXTUAL FACTORS AND POTENTIAL PITFALLS OF THE NCPS VEP . 17 Forming Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Victimisation Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Utilisers of Victim Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Needs of Rural Communities and the Poor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Role of the Police . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Relying on Volunteers to Render Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . COMMISSIONING OF THE RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THE CONSULTATION PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RESEARCH METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Survey questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Focus group interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Information dissemination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20 20 20 21 21 21 21 24 25

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KNOWLEDGE OF VEP CONCEPTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OPINIONS OF THE NCPS VEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PERCEIVED ABILITY TO ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF VICTIMS . . . . . . . . . . . PERCEPTIONS REGARDING VOLUNTEERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PERCEPTIONS REGARDING GENDER ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IMPLEMENTATION: ACHIEVEMENTS, OBSTACLES AND OPPORTUNITIES

26 26 29 35 36 36 37 38

x

THE NCPS VEP AND GOVERNMENT PROCEDURES AND STRUCTURES . . 48 FUNDING THE CURRENTLY NON-FUNDED AREAS OF THE NCPS VEP . . . 51 CHAPTER 5 INTEGRATION AND IMPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GENERAL FINDINGS AT A LOCAL LEVEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Women and children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Operational service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FACTORS CRITICAL TO THE SUCCESS AND OBSTACLES REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NCPS VEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implementation difficulties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Community involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Principles of Intersectoral Service Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Understanding and awareness of the NCPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Who leads, who follows? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Co-ordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prioritising the needs of the disadvantaged . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Utilisers of the service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Drawing boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Resource Directory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Provision of infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

52 52 52 53 53 54 54 54 55 55 56 56 56 57 57 58 59 59

CHAPTER 6 A ‘HOW TO’ MODEL OF SETTING UP A NEW VICTIM EMPOWERMENT INITIATIVE AT THE LOCAL LEVEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Operational requirements for victim empowerment services . . . . . . . . . . . Criteria for initiator of project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Consultation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Management committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Project co-ordinator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Volunteers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Executive committee for service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Funding and running costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Human resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Supervision and referral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marketing of service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Evaluation of service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

61 61 62 62 65 65 67 67 67 68 69 70 71 72

CHAPTER 7 SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SUMMARY OF CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gathering and Provision of Relevant Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Good Relationships with the Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Good Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adequate Resource Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Information Dissemination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Good Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

73 73 73 73 73 74 74 74 75

xi

Appropriate Resource Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Further recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 GLOSSARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

xii

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: The primary needs of victims (Reeves, 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Table 2: The benefits of victim empowerment (Nel, Koortzen & Jacobs, 1998) . . . . . . . . 6 Table 3: Categories of victim empowerment services (Moolman, 1984). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Table 4: Distinction between preventative and reactive interventions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Table 5: Functions of the national body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Table 6: Functions of the provincial body (Victim Empowerment Interim Steering Committee, 1997). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Table 7: Functions of the local body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Table 8: Two-phase focus group selection process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Table 9: Education of participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Table 10: Provinces represented in sample. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Table 11: Level of offices represented in sample. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Table 12: Agreement with victim empowerment service delivery aspects. . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Table 13: The most frequently mentioned obstacles to successful implementation of NCPS VEP in own sector. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Table 14: Who should finance the areas of service delivery that fall outside the jurisdiction/usual responsibilities of any specific government department. . . . . . 51 Table 15: Profile and skills of the Project co-ordinator. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Framework for the National Crime Prevention Strategy (Interdepartmental Strategy Team, 1996). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Figure 2: How participants experienced the questionnaire. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Figure 3: Level of organisation by organisation type. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure 4: Level of office per sector. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Figure 5: Summary knowledge scores by office level. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Figure 6: Level of understanding of victim empowerment issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Figure 7: Knowledge of the objectives of the NCPS VEP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Figure 8: Know the practical outcomes of the NCPS VEP for your organisation. . . . . . . 32 Figure 9: Knowledge of the most important needs of victims. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Figure 10: Understanding of ways to break the cycle of violence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Figure 11: Percentage of government and NGO/Other who have read the NCPS document. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Figure 12: Percentage of sample who have started implementing the NCPS-VEP. . . . . 38 Figure 13: Currently able to fulfil NCPS VEP role. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Figure 14: Perceptions on the NCPS VEP being on track within own organisation per sector. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Figure 15: Perceived internal consensus and co-operation per sector. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Figure 16: Funding, resources and workload within own organisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Figure 17: Perceived good intersectoral interaction and collaboration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Figure 18: Views on intersectoral interaction and collaboration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Figure 19: Most serious obstacles to successful implementation of the NCPS VEP in own sector. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Figure 20: Factors perceived to be critical to the success or failure of NCPS VEP projects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Figure 21: Relationship of NGOs/CBOs and government. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

xiii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION There is broad consensus that crime and violence pose severe threats to the South African economy and negatively affect the country’s development. Concern has also been raised in different quarters about the so-called ‘moral decay’ of the South African society and the extent to which crime and violence have become endemic. A democratic government is accountable for the management of crime and requires policies, strategies and programmes to carry out this responsibility. The National Growth and Development Strategy (of which the National Crime Prevention Strategy forms a part) and the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP), among others, can be seen as proof that the South African government realises its responsibility in this regard. In recent years, however, much criticism has been levelled against the government’s perceived inability to turn these sound policies into everyday practice and for failing to implement worthy strategies.

South African policy-makers have been criticised for failing to implement sound policies and to translate their planning into everyday practice. The National Crime Prevention Strategy (NCPS), a long-term strategy to address the factors that contribute to high levels of crime in South Africa (SA), was announced in 1996. One of the four pillars of the NCPS is to re-engineer the Criminal Justice System. Among others, this entails transforming the Criminal Justice System to be more 1 victim- centred, and from being retributive to creating a restorative justice system. One of the objectives of the NCPS Victim Empowerment Programme (VEP) is to establish multi-disciplinary services to address the most important needs of victims. The success of the programme clearly depends on the extent to which policies can be translated into practice and to which local realities (i.e. socio-economic and cultural factors) are kept in mind during the planning and implementation of the projects that form part of the NCPS VEP. Although a multitude of initiatives at local levels cater for the needs of victims of crime and violence, the officially designated victim empowerment initiatives are still in their infancy, implying a need for capacity building at national, provincial and local levels. Whilst acknowledging that there are many projects and initiatives at grassroots level that have existed long before the NCPS VEP was conceptualised, and that in many cases these initiatives are delivering excellent victim support services, there is a need for larger initiatives within an intersectoral framework. Also, little is known and documented as to why some of the victim empowerment initiatives prove to be sustainable, while others fail to deliver. Little is known and documented as to why some victim empowerment initiatives prove to be sustainable, while several others fail to deliver in the long run.

1

Underlined words are defined in the Glossary. 1

The need for research into the factors and variables critical to the success of service delivery to victims was first identified by the South African Police Service, Department of Safety and Security. Of the four government departments deemed central to the NCPS VEP (i.e. Welfare, Safety and Security, Justice and Health), the South African Police Service (SAPS) is in all probability the most advanced in coming to terms with its prescribed role. To their advantage was the initial confusion regarding who was to lead the programme. The SAPS was the only department allocated RDP funds for the NCPS VEP, as early as 1995, and soon thereafter appointed a programme co-ordinator for the department at a national level. For many years the community (especially groups lobbying regarding women and children’s issues), also pressurised the police - more so than any other department - to improve its service delivery to victims and communities. In order to fulfil its role as described in the NCPS VEP and within the philosophy of Community Policing, the SAPS has expressed the need for a ‘How to’ guide on ways to establish NCPS VEP initiatives at a local level and to provide a standardised, consistently high-quality service for victims. While the police often have the first contact with victims of crime, they can only play a limited role in supporting victims and are dependent on other roleplayers. Also, as intersectoral collaboration and co-ordinated service delivery to victims is at the heart of the NCPS, it will serve no purpose to view the role of the police at the local level in isolation. It is crucial to the success of the NCPS VEP that the other key departments and sectors also come to understand their roles and responsibilities in victim empowerment and support. There is a need for a ‘How to’ guide on ways to establish NCPS VEP initiatives at a local level and to provide a standardised, consistently high-quality service for victims. AIMS OF THE RESEARCH Commissioned by the NCPS VEP Reference Team and funded by the Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology, the aim of this research project is to determine critical success factors for victim empowerment initiatives at a local level, involving direct service delivery. Included in the research are initiatives at a local level requiring the input of more than one sector (thus any two of the four key departments as described in the NCPS VEP, i.e. Welfare, Security, Justice and Health, or a state department and a Non-Governmental Organisation/Community-Based Organisation, etc). The emphasis is on initiatives where intersectoral co-operation occurs, such as one-stop trauma and/or crisis centres for victims of rape and child abuse. Furthermore, only victim empowerment initiatives of a reactive nature (i.e. assistance and support offered following victimisation, as opposed to those initiatives aimed at preventing victimisation in the first place) have been included in the research.

•

The aim of this research project is to determine critical success factors for reactive victim empowerment initiatives at a local level, involving direct service delivery to the victims of crime and violence. More specifically, the goals of the research include: Providing some background information on the NCPS, and specifically on the VEP 2

•

Providing a brief literature overview of some of the models that are available to implement victim empowerment at a local level • Exploring the knowledge, attitudes and perceived capacity of service providers of the different sectors described in the NCPS VEP by means of a questionnaire survey and focus groups • Creating awareness of victim empowerment initiatives that are less known, and in doing so, paying tribute to the hard work of individuals and organisations intent on improving the plight of the many victims of crime and violence in this country • Providing a summary of critical success factors for direct service delivery to victims of crime and violence at a local level (i.e. the factors that assist and contribute to a successful initiative, and those which restrict and limit opportunities for success) • Providing a ‘How to’ model for the initiation, planning, establishment, maintenance and evaluation of victim empowerment initiatives at a local level. Chapter 2 of this report is a literature overview in which the rationale for a Public Health perspective on crime and violence is explained, an overview is provided of what victim empowerment services are, the needs of victims are specified, and key terminology is defined. The origins of the NCPS and VEP are also contextualised and the responsibility of the different sectors/role-players is highlighted. The research methodology is described in Chapter 3, and the results of the questionnaire provided in Chapter 4. This is followed by an integration of and discussion of the implications of findings in Chapter 5. Chapter 6 contains a 'How to' model of setting up a new victim empowerment initiative at the local level. The final chapter provides some conclusions and recommendations, with the emphasis on those factors critical to the success of victim empowerment initiatives at a local level.

3

CHAPTER 2 OVERVIEW OF VICTIM EMPOWERMENT On 29 November 1985 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power. This declaration is based on the philosophy that victims should be treated with compassion and respect for their dignity and that they are entitled to access to the Criminal Justice System and to prompt redress for the harm they suffered. The Declaration has far-reaching implications for SA as one of the member states of the United Nations. It recommends measures to be taken on behalf of victims of crime on international and regional levels to improve access to justice and fair treatment, restitution, compensation and assistance (United Nations Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, 1996). The aim in this chapter is to provide an overview of developments in SA with regard to the empowerment and support of victims. Relevant literature on victim empowerment is covered in an attempt to ensure that there is a common understanding of the terminology, definitions, models and theories within the framework of policy and implementation. WHY VICTIMS NEED ATTENTION According to Van Dijk (in Camerer & Nel, 1996: 20) the “... experience of being criminally victimised has become a statistically normal feature of everyday life in an urban setting”. Especially in cities of the developing world, which includes SA, inhabitants are at a high risk of crime victimisation. Property crime and violent crimes against individuals, such as robbery and assault, are the crimes with the highest incidence in SA cities (Statistics SA, 1998). The enormous physical, financial and emotional toll that crime takes on its victims has been well documented (McKendrick & Hoffmann, 1990; Wemmers, 1996). Victims have certain emotional and practical needs which include counselling, referral, information on court procedures and compensation (Camerer, 1995). The nature of the crime will often determine which of these needs the victim experiences. Moreover, the extent to which these needs are perceived as pressing is also influenced by factors such as aid from family or friends and the coping skills of victims themselves (Wemmers, 1996). In Table 1 the primary needs of victims are outlined. The first mentioned need is emotional need. This is easily overlooked and often seen as a low priority by criminal justice officials and victims alike, but the opportunity to address and vent feelings is deemed crucial by mental health professionals.

4

•

Emotional needs: People who are suffering or are under severe stress, such as that induced by crime victimisation, have a greater need for close, supportive interaction with others. Similarly these individuals have the need to vent their feelings of distress • Acknowledgement needs: This relates to the need of victims to be reassured that their feelings of fear, anger and discomfort following victimisation are normal • Practical needs: Perhaps the most easily identifiable and also most pressing and immediate of the needs, these refer to the need for medical care, clean clothing, assistance in filling out the necessary forms, replacement of stolen goods or documents, repairs to damaged property, fitting new locks, transportation, etc. • Information needs: Often deemed the most common need of all victims (Maguire in Wemmers, 1996), this includes the need to be informed of the progress of the case, court hearing date, legal process, information on compensation and insurance, crime prevention and resources in the community • Need for understanding: The need to be understood and not blamed for or questioned on involvement in the crime/violence • Need for contact with the judicial process: The reporting of the crime, and serving as witness during court procedures can be traumatic. Guidance and support regarding the rights and obligations of victims are often required. Table 1: The primary needs of victims (Reeves, 1985). The focusing on victims as a symptom of, rather than a cure for violence, may seem reactive, but according to Camerer (1995), mobilisation around victims of crime may yet prove one of the most effective ways of curbing crime rates. The NCPS is in agreement with this, stating that victimisation itself lies at the heart of much retributive crime, and that the absence of means of victim aid and empowerment play an important role in the cyclical nature of violence and crime. It is said that if victims go untreated they frequently become perpetrators of either retributive violence or of violence displaced within the social or domestic sphere (Interdepartmental Strategy Team, 1996; McKendrick & Hoffmann, 1990). Attending to the practical and emotional needs of victims assists them to cope better with their victimisation and to regain faith in the ability of the Criminal Justice System to protect them (Louw, 1998). Further benefits of addressing the needs of victims are outlined in Table 2.

5

• • •

The reduction of short- or long-term distressing after effects The reduction of personal, marital and relationship problems The reduction of the following in the workplace: • the incidence of sickness and absenteeism • poor concentration • careless mistakes • hypervigilance • conflict with colleagues and managers • irritability and aggression • depression • social withdrawal • physical symptoms such as headaches, stomach-aches and diarrhoea • feelings of threat or embarrassment to ask for help • anxiety that stress and traumatic reactions are labelled as signs of weakness. Table 2: The benefits of victim empowerment (Nel, Koortzen & Jacobs, 1998). Having outlined what the needs of crime victims are and why attending to these needs contributes to crime prevention, the next section explains what is meant by victim empowerment services (also sometimes called victim support schemes). WHAT ARE VICTIM EMPOWERMENT SERVICES? These are services rendered by organisations that endeavour to assist victims by assessing their needs and actively working to address these needs. These services aim at: (a) skilfully supporting victims to deal with their trauma, and preventing secondary victimisation; and (b) preventing crime and violence by advising and guiding victims towards a preventative lifestyle (Snyman, 1990). Organisations offering these services may be governmental, nongovernmental (NGOs) or community-based (CBOs). Moolman (1984) has specified various categories of victim empowerment services (see Table 3). • •

Services catering for the crises following victimisation Services assisting victims and their witnesses to effectively participate in the criminal justice process, while protecting their rights • Compensation schemes • Restitution • Services assisting victims in identifying applicable support services. Table 3: Categories of victim empowerment services (Moolman, 1984). Although examples from the industrially developed world can not simply be applied to developing world contexts (such as SA), the Netherlands and United Kingdom, among others, are examples of countries that deliver excellent services to victims of crime and violence. When comparing the services in these countries to those offered in SA, the differences in cultural specifics, structural limitations and other aspects of the societies ought to be borne in mind. Both the Netherlands and United Kingdom have well developed economies, good infrastructure and sophisticated social welfare systems. All citizens have access to medical, social work, psychological and psychiatric services which are provided by the state at no cost to the individual (Victim Empowerment Interim Steering Committee, 1997). The services that these countries specifically make available to victims of crime, violence and motor car accidents are called Victim Support Schemes, and are additional to 6

the other services already mentioned. These services are primarily rendered by volunteers. In the Netherlands every tax payer pays a very small levy towards its funding, while the state finances the co-ordination and overheads. The police play a significant role in the delivery of victim support in these countries, as they serve as the primary referral agent to service providers (Victim Empowerment Interim Steering Committee, 1997). In most countries both the police and volunteers play a significant role in the provision of assistance and support to victims. According to Van Dijk (in Camerer & Nel, 1996: 26) much can be said in favour of voluntary services: “For crime victims, help offered by volunteers can help to restore trust in fellow citizens. Victim assistance agencies which employ professional counsellors tend to reach out less, and operate more bureaucratically. Voluntary schemes are also less of a financial burden to the state, which must only finance co-ordination and overheads.” Models for the Implementation of Victim Empowerment Different models are available for the implementation of victim empowerment initiatives. According to Van Dijk (Camerer & Nel, 1996) these include the care model, criminal justice model and crime prevention model. In the care model, services are motivated by the desire to contribute to the welfare of others, or as a form of charity. Included are state compensation schemes and centres dealing with rape and domestic violence. Often these services are targeted at women. The criminal justice model dictates certain provisions for the victims of crime and violence in the Criminal Justice System. Among others, these include actions such as appropriate and considerate treatment, referral, and provision of advice on crime prevention for victims by the police on the one hand, and the right to restitution and to inform the court of the impact of the victimisation on the other. The crime prevention model states that by treating crime victims better, they maintain their respect for the law. Victims then co-operate more willingly with the Criminal Justice System, which again benefits crime investigations and prosecutions. SA policy-makers have opted for the crime prevention model of delivering support and assistance to victims, as will become clear from the section outlining the NCPS VEP. But first some comments on the extent to which SA is already providing victim empowerment services. VICTIM EMPOWERMENT AND SUPPORT IN SOUTH AFRICA The initiative for the establishment of victim empowerment initiatives in SA came from both the private and public sector (Snyman, 1990) . The first organisation to assist the victims of crime was the Child and Family Welfare Society, which assisted the victims of child abuse since 1918. Life Line was established in 1963, and in 1981 started Rape Crisis Centres. Rape Crisis SA (RCSA) was established in 1977. Childline followed in 1983, and the National Childline in 1989, run by the Department of Health. NICRO started rendering services to support victims in 1987. First National Bank initiated an in-house support programme in 1989 to assist employees following bank robberies. Other government initiatives include the establishment of the SA Police Child Protection Unit and Rape Crisis Units in 1986; emergency units at provincial hospitals to handle cases of rape, child abuse and child sexual

7

molestation; and the establishment of the State President’s Fund in 1983 to financially assist victims of so-called terrorist actions. The awareness level and use of victim empowerment agencies in SA are very low. The awareness of the needs of crime victims in SA, as well as effective strategies to empower and assist victims, compare unfavourably with developments elsewhere in the world. City victim surveys conducted during 1997 - 1998 suggest that the awareness level of the existence and benefits of victim empowerment agencies and use thereof are very low (Louw, 1998). This finding is supported by other research suggesting that while almost 50% of victims would have appreciated specialised services, only 4% received such help (Van Dijk in Camerer & Nel, 1996). Although the victim empowerment movement in SA gained momentum during the past decades, not enough is yet done to address the plight of victims. Regardless of the sharp increase in crime and the escalation of violence in this country, very little is done for victims of attempted murder, serious assault, kidnapping, robbery, burglary, arson, vandalism, domestic violence, natural disasters, etc. (Schurink, 1993). Despite the tendency for South African society to ignore the plight of victims other than those of rape and child abuse, research findings indicate that apart from the economic and physical losses suffered by victims, crime victimisation causes extensive emotional distress and accounts for almost as much trauma as rape. Victims of these crimes and violence are thus as vulnerable and as much in need of outreach services as victims of rape and child abuse (Schurink, 1993). The present support services for victims of crime and violence in SA are limited, fragmented, uncoordinated, and therefore also ineffective. The planning and establishment of victim support services in SA are often not community-driven and happen on an ad hoc basis, which results in certain difficulties. Services do not cater sufficiently for the diversity in language, culture and world view and are mostly Euro-centric in nature. Certain services are over-utilised, while others tend to be inaccessible due to their location and/or service fees, or are poorly marketed and therefore not often used. Certain categories of victims are highlighted, while others are neglected. Many service providers specialise in either rape or child abuse, while little or no services are available for other victims. There is also a lack of long-term planning of new services. The community is often unaware of when an individual becomes a victim, what victims’ plight is, and what services are available for them. Many therefore go unsupported, remain traumatised, become victims again and sometimes even turn to crime and violence themselves. This clearly has a severely negative effect on their socio-economic functioning and productivity in the workplace, which in turn contributes to the breakdown of societal values and norms, indirectly increasing the levels of unemployment and poverty in the community at large, thus perpetuating a cycle of violence (Eilers, Jooste, Makhaye, Nel, Railoun & Smith, 1996; Snyman, 1990 & Moolman, 1984). Due to a lack of understanding and insensitivity on the part of many service providers, such as certain individuals in the SAPS and Justice Department, secondary victimisation 8

often occurs. Previous government policies, many of which are still operational, emphasised rules and regulations and were not person-centred. Violence, crime and the plight of victims were also poorly prioritised in government policy until recently. This contributes to the prevailing negative perceptions with regard to government structures (Eilers et al., 1996). Most support services in SA focus on women and children, but even in these fields there appear to be inadequacies. Donor priorities have changed due to the transition in SA which resulted in a major redirection of foreign funding away from NGOs and CBOs, which render these specialised services, to the state. The NGO/CBO sector is thus continually under threat due to a lack of resources. Furthermore, most support services in SA focus on primary victims (those who are directly harmed), while secondary victims (the family and significant others) are seldom the focus of attention. Also, aspects of victim empowerment, such as negotiation, mediation, compensation and reparation are almost non-existent in SA. Most support services in SA focus on women and children and are located in urban centres. Louw & Shaw (1997) emphasise that the focus of attention with regard to crime and crime prevention in SA has primarily been on urban centres until now. This has contributed to the present situation where rural areas, and especially the former homelands, have been left severely underresourced. McKendrick & Hoffmann (1990) place victim empowerment and support within the framework of tertiary prevention of violence, which involves rehabilitation of both victims and the perpetrators of violence. They say that in SA human welfare services tend to neglect primary and secondary prevention in favour of tertiary prevention. This, they warn, does not mean that tertiary prevention services in SA are adequate. As mentioned, these services tend to be lacking in availability and accessibility and are primarily located in previously white and urban areas. With the exception of physical and sexual abuse of women and children, there are few resources specifically directed towards the victims of violence, and virtually none specialised for perpetrators. McKendrick & Hoffmann (1990) argue that there is a nonrecognition of violence or lack of awareness of its seriousness, and warn that existing services will have to be extended in both scope and accessibility and that new resources will have to be created for the victims and perpetrators of those forms of interpersonal violence that are presently overlooked. The White Paper on the RDP (RSA Government Gazette, 1994) also states that SA has inherited a fragmented and inequitable welfare system which requires restructuring. It argues that the aim ought to be to empower the community, foster community care, and to enhance the psycho-social, economic and physical well-being of all citizens, with special emphasis on the disadvantaged. As is clear from the above, many problems exist in the delivery of services to victims in SA. Given that the NCPS and especially the VEP policy frameworks are intent on changing all of this, and that they form the backdrop against which all future decisions will be made with regard to victim empowerment and support in SA, the next section will highlight what these policies entail. THE NCPS VICTIM EMPOWERMENT PROGRAMME Combatting and preventing crime and violence is traditionally seen to be the responsibility of the police. The transformation of the SAPS, however, aims to ensure community participation 9

(i.e. a culture of shared responsibility) in these tasks, in line with the requirements of Community Policing as enshrined in the Constitution. As mentioned in the introductory chapter, the NCPS, announced in May 1996, is a medium to long term (25 years) government strategy to address the factors that lead to high crime rates, and includes prioritisation of urgent crime areas, community policing, public awareness, co-ordination mechanisms and legislation to deliver a crime prevention approach which places the rights and needs of victims at the centre of the strategy (National RDP Office, 1996). It also aims to establish national, provincial and local partnerships, and to mobilise resources in a more co-ordinated manner (Camerer & Nel, 1996). As indicated in Figure 1, the NCPS has four pillars or major strategies: • Improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the Criminal Justice System as a whole • Developing environments that deter crime • Mobilising community support for the fight against crime • Upgrading regional security (National RDP Office, 1996). REDUCED CRIME LEVELS CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS

COMMUNITY VALUES & EDUCATION

Certain & rapid deterrence

Community pressure & Public participation

• Victim empowerment & support • Re-engineering the • Public education criminal justice process programmes • Crime information • School education and intelligence • Prosecutoral policy • Community sentencing • Programmes for minor offenders • Care for juveniles • Synergise and rationalise legislation

ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN

TRANSNATIONAL CRIME

Limit opportunities & Maximise constraints

Regional co-operation & Address cross-border crime

• Environmental design and maintenance • Transnational organised • Identification systems crime • Motor vehicle regulation • Border control and • Corruption ports of entry and commercial crime

Figure 1: Framework for the National Crime Prevention Strategy (Interdepartmental Strategy Team, 1996). SA is said to have a low rate of arrest, conviction, imprisonment and rehabilitation (Glanz, 1996; Nedcor Report, 1996). The perceived weakness of the Criminal Justice System creates a sense of impunity on the part of criminals and helplessness on the part of victims (Interdepartmental Strategy Team, 1996). This is also evident in increased community vigilantism (Camerer & Nel, 1996). One of the NCPS programmes associated with improving the Criminal Justice System is the VEP, the aim of which is to assist in creating crime resistant communities by helping individuals and communities to ‘take on criminals’ (National RDP Office, 1996). This programme furthermore aims at making the criminal justice process (the police, justice officials, etc.) more victim-friendly, accessible, sensitive and service oriented, and developing programmes to assist in minimising the negative effects of crime on its victims. The provision of a holistic and effective person-centred support service for victims of violence and crime is at the heart of the NCPS VEP. 10

As mentioned in the introductory chapter, the provision of a holistic and effective person-centred support service for victims of violence and crime in SA is at the heart of the NCPS VEP. Interventions of both a preventative and reactive nature are implied (see Table 4). To achieve the aforementioned it will be important to, among other things: C Expand the services presently rendered by governmental organisations, NGOs and CBOs C Make these services more accessible C Co-ordinate service delivery C Enhance the understanding and awareness of policy-makers, service providers, and the community at large regarding the plight of victims C Prevent repeat victimisation C Prevent victims becoming perpetrators C Create awareness of available services for victim empowerment and support C Provide guidance towards a preventative lifestyle (Eilers et al., 1996). The NCPS aims at creating a paradigm shift in how crime is perceived and addressed - from an exclusive emphasis on crime control to crime prevention; from emphasising crime as a security issue towards crime as a social issue; from a state-centred Criminal Justice System to a victim-centred restorative justice system; and to viewing safety as a basic need and fundamental right (Interdepartmental Strategy Team, 1996). Thus the NCPS addresses the three levels (primary, secondary and tertiary prevention) required to reduce violence and crime according to the model suggested by McKendrick & Hoffmann (1990). Although NCPS documents do not explicitly make the link, they clearly utilise the principles of the Public Health approach, and in so doing bring SA in line with international trends in terms of how to address crime and violence.

11

Preventative interventions

Reactive interventions

Prioritisation of urgent crime areas Referral to service providers to address the effects of crime • Victim aid, such as: • • information re status and progress of investigation • emotional support in empathic • and person-centred manner • legal advice • practical aid • assistance in court • • compensation • • restitution • Survey of victims’ experiences of • Criminal Justice System • Other research to identify areas for • policy change • Multi-disciplinary one-stop centres for victims of rape, sexual and child abuse Table 4: Distinction between preventative and reactive interventions. • •

Create crime awareness Community awareness of plight of victims Community awareness of available services for victims Legislation and human rights Enhance understanding and awareness of policy-makers and service providers re plight of victims Prevent repeat victimisation Prevent victims becoming perpetrators Educate community re preventative lifestyles Empowerment of vulnerable groups

• •

The Public Health Perspective on Crime and Violence According to Walters (1997) solutions for crime and violence have until recently focused almost solely on the principles of retribution, deterrence and incapacitation. Experience has, however, shown that these criminal justice strategies are not effective in reversing what appears to be a trend towards an increasing incidence of violence in all its forms. Walters (1997) states that Public Health brings to the crime and violence problem two key elements that are underdeveloped in traditional responses: first, a multi-sectoral and interdisciplinary scientific approach to defining the problem of violence, analysing the complexity of its causes, and designing interventions; and second, an explicit focus on prevention. Public health thus provides a preventative counterpoint to the more reactive, deterrence-oriented approach of criminal justice. From the Public Health perspective violence is therefore a problem for many sectors and disciplines, requiring intersectoral approaches which link the prevention contributions of the police, the health sector, education, community groups and ordinary individuals (Kruger, Butchart, Seedat & Gilchrist, 1998). The NCPS utilises the principles of the Public Health approach in terms of how it perceives and proposes to address crime and violence. Desjarlais et al. (1995) place violence and crime in a social health context in order to understand the political and cultural forces that maintain it. They consider violence to be a broad social problem, with traumatic effects that are collective as well as personal, but warn that health professionals can not manage it alone. Since violent behaviour is often linked to poverty, community deterioration and the systematic withdrawal of services and resources, they believe that social and economic infrastructures need development. It is said that in 12

general, mental, social and behavioural health problems represent overlapping clusters of problems that interact so as to intensify one another’s effects on behaviour and well-being. The implication thus is that government departments and sectors previously not involved in the business of crime prevention, are now seen to be crucial to the process. The NCPS VEP stipulates in broad terms what the different roles and responsibilities of these departments and sectors are, as will be indicated in the next section. Responsibilities of Role-Players Victim empowerment and support is a relatively new area within SA, and is regarded as crucial in the reconstruction and development of the country (Interdepartmental Strategy Team, 1996; National RDP Office, 1996 & RSA Government Gazette, 1994). The White Paper on the RDP (RSA Government Gazette, 1994) emphasises the development and empowerment of vulnerable groups. The responsibility for this is assigned to the Office of the President, Departments of Safety and Security, Welfare, Health and Education. Ensuring community empowerment on safety and security matters, such as crime awareness, crime prevention, human rights, police procedures and victim aid, is specifically assigned to the Department of Safety and Security. The NCPS VEP is a comprehensive model accommodating integrated service delivery for victims of crime and violence. There is consensus that the output to be achieved by the NCPS VEP is a comprehensive model accommodating integrated service delivery for victims of crime and violence according to national standards. As emphasised, interdepartmental and intersectoral collaboration is crucial to the process and the main role-players as described in the NCPS VEP are the Department of Welfare (lead agency), supported by the Department of Health, the SAPS, and prosecutors and courts of the Department of Justice. These departments are to be supported in their endeavours by local health authorities, NGOs and CBOs who work in the field of rendering emotional or legal support, and volunteers. Key actions are the extending of training to police and justice officials to introduce victim sensitivity, and referral to other service providers to address the effects of crime; implementation of a victim empowerment programme based on surveys of victims’ experiences of the Criminal Justice System, and providing basic information to complainants and victims as to the progress of cases. The Ministry of Safety and Security has, however, been tasked with ensuring the overall success of the NCPS (Interdepartmental Strategy Team, 1996). An Intersectoral Steering Committee, elected at a National Victim Empowerment Workshop, held in August 1996, has been meeting since November 1996, with the Department of Welfare as chair. This committee, established in terms of the requirements as set out in the NCPS document, and named the NCPS VEP Reference Team, is primarily responsible for the development of broad policy guidelines, while the more recently established NCPS VEP Management Team (primarily consisting of representatives of the key departments of government), is responsible for the implementation and monitoring of an integrated victim empowerment business plan.

13

The NCPS VEP Reference Team is primarily responsible for the development of broad policy guidelines, while the NCPS VEP Management Team is responsible for the implementation and monitoring of an integrated victim empowerment business plan. Despite much deliberation, the NCPS VEP Management and Reference Teams have not yet finally decided on a model best suited to SA circumstances for implementation of victim empowerment and support at a local level. However, based on examples of the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, and also some local research, a model that could be considered will be outlined after first looking at the structures required to ensure the establishment of national, provincial and local partnerships. Structures required by the proposed model for Victim Empowerment and Support Within the proposed model (Victim Empowerment Interim Steering Committee, 1997; Snyman, 1990) there is a national body (at present called the NCPS Victim Empowerment Management and Reference Teams or National Programme Team within the NCPS document), consisting of government and civil society, that serves to set standards and monitor service delivery. In every province there is a further co-ordinating mechanism (Provincial Steering Committee) with centres for victim empowerment at a local level. The national body (i.e. the NCPS Victim Empowerment Management and Reference Teams) comprises representatives of all the provincial bodies, the police, the departments of Welfare, Justice, Health, and Correctional Services, academics and researchers in the field of victim empowerment, and NGOs representing trauma counselling and women and children’s interests. Although not yet formally adopted, it has been suggested that the functions of the national body should include the elements listed in Table 5.

14

•

•

• • • • • • •

• • •

Formulate policies for victim empowerment, such as possible procedures and guidelines, which can be adopted within the police and Justice departments, to better inform complainants of the status and progress of cases Handle communication and co-ordination problems, such as identifying crucial areas of public information which are lacking in enabling victims to make the best use of available services, both state and non-governmental Plan an annual conference for participating victim empowerment initiatives Encourage the training of all service providers Implement regulations to eliminate prejudice against victims of crime and violence Initiate and commission research, such as an audit of victim complaints, in order to identify the most critical areas for policy change Advise parliament of changes that should be made to legislation to improve the position of victims Develop a programme for the extension of victim-offender mediation and the development of policy proposals around victim compensation and restitution Draw up a directory of all service providers and available services. This must support the identification of critical gaps in the provision of such services and the exercise should result in a set of priority areas for development and support Set standards for rendering of services and evaluating criteria for service providers Develop systems for the evaluation of ‘customer satisfaction’ in relation to victims experience of the police and Justice departments Establish contact with neighbouring countries, with a view to expanding victim empowerment services to the entire southern African region.

Table 5: Functions of the national body (Victim Empowerment Interim Steering Committee, 1997). It has further been suggested that the provincial steering committee would comprise representatives of all the organisations in the province that support victims of crime and violence. The proposed functions of this committee are listed in Table 6. • • • • • • •

Co-ordinate support services in the province Initiate new support service programmes, and amend the existing ones according to the needs of the victims Help train volunteers Collect statistical data for research purposes Hold regular meetings with different victim empowerment initiatives to identify breakdowns in co-ordination and communication Represent different empowerment initiatives on the national steering committee Initiate certain crime prevention drives.

Table 6: Functions of the provincial body (Victim Empowerment Interim Steering Committee, 1997). Individual victim empowerment initiatives would comprise all groups and organisations in a community which assist victims of crime. Their functions are listed as per Table 7. 15

• • •

Provide assistance to victims of crime Refer victims to appropriate agencies Provide training to upgrade and develop services in line with standards set by the national steering committee Keep statistics Provide information on crime prevention to the community.

• •

Table 7: Functions of the local body (Victim Empowerment Interim Steering Committee, 1997). The model to be presented now is primarily based on the Draft Position Paper of the NCPS VEP (Victim Empowerment Interim Steering Committee, 1997). It utilises existing structures in the community and mobilises the private and public sectors to meet their social responsibility. It is based largely on the use of volunteers and a limited number of paid coordinators. A model for Victim Empowerment and Support The model utilises existing structures in the community and mobilises the private and public sectors to meet their social responsibility. It is based largely on the use of volunteers and a limited number of paid co-ordinators. 2

Firstly, any victim of crime and/or violence who approaches the police, health workers (and possibly also welfare and justice officials) will receive more victim-friendly service (timeous, empathic and within a more private setting). The individual will receive information on the services available to empower and support victims within a particular community (i.e. will be handed an information brochure on the local victim empowerment initiative), and as standard procedure will be asked whether they would like to be referred to these services. If they answer in the affirmative, the police/health worker/welfare or justice official will refer the victim directly or make the particulars of the victim available to the local victim empowerment initiative (i.e. trauma or crisis centre), where volunteers (who ideally work under supervision of a paid co-ordinator) will be available on a 24-hour basis. A volunteer of the centre will take responsibility to contact the victim as soon as possible in those cases where the victim does not personally visit the centre. The most appropriate services (counselling, assistance with insurance claims, guidance regarding how to prevent victimisation in future, assistance in court, etc.), as negotiated with the victim, will then be made available. The volunteers will either provide the services themselves or refer victims to professionals who specialise in the particular area deemed most suitable. An example of this is where the volunteer provides basic trauma counselling, but subsequently realises that the victim also requires more professional counselling or psychotherapeutic intervention, and therefore refers the victim on to a NGO who specialises in the field or a private practitioner (psychologist or social worker).

2

A distinction is drawn between procedures applicable for victims of social fabric crimes (rape, domestic violence, child and/or sexual abuse) and victims of other crimes. 16

Similarly the police will keep the victim informed of progress with the case and will feed relevant information through to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice will also provide more victim-friendly services and will adapt court proceedings to make victims more central to the process (possibly allowing victims a say in sentencing). If the offender is imprisoned, the victim will be informed of parole dates or the possible death or escape, etc. of prisoners, by the Department of Correctional Services. In cases of social fabric crimes, notorious for being problematic for the police, the victim will be encouraged through media campaigns, etc. to first approach their local victim empowerment initiative (i.e. the multi-disciplinary trauma or crisis centre) where trained volunteers and ideally also mental health workers (such as social workers and psychologists), district surgeons and primary health care workers, legal aid workers, etc. will be available on a 24-hour basis (this implies being on call after hours). After the necessary steps have been taken to deal with immediate priorities (i.e. addressing emotional or physical trauma), and with the victim’s permission, the case information is made available to the police for purposes of investigation. If the victim, however, prefers not to report the crime, case information is filed with the intention that the history of the case is available if the victim at a later stage decides to take legal action. In cases where victims of social fabric crimes first report to the police, they will be encouraged to visit one of the centres before making a statement, but if they so choose, would be allowed to make a statement immediately. Possibly in future all victims will also be asked by the police if they would like victimoffender mediation services to be made available which could result in compensation and/or restitution. If required, either the police (in uncomplicated cases) or Office of the Public Prosecutor will embark on a process of victim-offender mediation. The advantages of this model ought to be clear in that it answers to the principle of coordinated service delivery. It is based on the premise that crime is a social issue and requires a multi-agency approach to address the negative effects thereof on the victim. The VEP will clearly benefit criminal justice officials (especially the police) whose work is lessened in that others primarily take responsibility for addressing the emotional, practical and other needs of the victim, and thus also assist in improving the victim’s perception of the Criminal Justice System. Clearly victims stand to benefit in that their needs are taken seriously. NGOs and CBOs stand to gain by the awareness created of the services they offer and by receiving referrals from previously untapped sources. CONTEXTUAL FACTORS AND POTENTIAL PITFALLS OF THE NCPS VEP Louw & Shaw (1997) believe that the comprehensive nature and inclusiveness of the NCPS is its greatest strength, but potentially also its greatest weakness, given government’s poor track record with regard to co-ordination and evaluation. These researchers further criticise the NCPS for not laying out clear guidelines or an appropriate strategy for the implementation of prevention programmes at a local level within a national framework. Forming Partnerships The NCPS and VEP rely on national, provincial and local partnerships. It is, however, important to take cognisance of the fact that there have been tensions in the relationship between government and the NGO sector, and also national, provincial and local structures of government in SA. This in all probability relates to differences in priorities, resource allocation and styles of operating. These initial tensions seem to have dissipated somewhat as working together has brought about a greater understanding and trust.

17

Many role-players are still unaware of the details of the NCPS, let alone the VEP, and concern has been expressed in certain quarters regarding Welfare as the lead department, given their ‘soft’ image and lack of resources (Camerer & Nel, 1996).

Many role-players are still unaware of the details of the NCPS, let alone the VEP, and concern has been expressed in certain quarters regarding Welfare as the lead department, given their ‘soft’ image and lack of resources.

Victimisation Trends According to Louw & Shaw (1997) crime does not affect everyone in the same manner, and they specify race, class and gender to be significant determinants of the nature of victimisation in this country. The poor form the majority of crime victims (Statistics SA, 1998) and, while the wealthy are mostly the victims of property crimes, the poor are victims of both property and violent crimes. The prevalence of social fabric crimes, such as rape, domestic violence and child abuse, is also much higher among the poor. Males are at greater risk of experiencing crimes than females (Statistics SA, 1998). Race similarly is very significant in determining risk, with Africans being much more at risk from a homicide death than whites. However, a higher percentage of Coloured and white individuals were found to be susceptible to crime in 1997 than Africans and Indians (Statistics SA, 1998). The poor form the majority of crime victims. The prevalence of social fabric crimes, such as rape, domestic violence and child abuse, is also much higher among the poor.

Utilisers of Victim Services It is generally found that women, and victims of more serious and violent crimes, are the greatest utilisers of victim services. Victims of violent crimes also have more specialised needs (Louw, Shaw, Camerer & Robertshaw, 1998). It should, however, be borne in mind that in the first instance most victims seek help from those closest to them, i.e. family and friends. Others, however, turn to official sources, such as the police and clinics. Sources that offer assistance furthermore include community policing forums, street committees and religious bodies (Louw, 1998). Needs of Rural Communities and the Poor While urban areas are generally well-resourced, many townships and rural communities have severe shortages in terms of basic necessities and expertise - this could complicate the implementation of the programme. Rural areas require policy responses that will differ substantially from those of urban settings where crime prevention strategies are easier to implement and monitor (Louw & Shaw, 1997). These authors furthermore argue that much 18

greater attention ought to be given to specific crime prevention strategies for the poor as they are seldom in a position to lobby for the issue, and neither have the resources required to cushion the impact of crime. SA has a very poor health infrastructure. Most citizens do not have medical aid schemes, nor readily access to general physical or mental health services, let alone services specifically catering for victims of crime and violence. The tendency might thus be to want to address all health needs under the banner of the VEP. Most present health services are rendered by private practitioners, NGOs or CBOs, and these are cash-strapped or at risk following a process of redirection of funding, as mentioned earlier. SA has a very poor health infrastructure. Most citizens do not have medical aid schemes, nor readily access to general physical or mental health services, let alone services specifically catering for victims of crime and violence. Role of the Police It should also be borne in mind that many victims of crime and violence never report the crime to the police, the health sector (whether a clinic, hospital or general practitioner) being the first, and often only, sector they seek help from (Kruger et al., 1998). Due to their role in the upholding of the apartheid system the SAPS is particularly unpopular with a broad sector of SA society and therefore often not the first point of contact (or point of entry into the Criminal Justice System). According to Walters (1997), for every one victim of violence presenting to the police, between two and six victims are seen only by health care facilities, and a further unknown proportion receive help elsewhere. This could have implications for how the delivery of services relating to victim empowerment will happen in SA. In planning victim services, it should also be borne in mind that interpersonal violence and sexual crimes often occur over weekends or after hours when limited facilities are available to address the needs of victims. Relying on Volunteers to Render Services Arguably there is no real culture of voluntarism in SA, except within certain religious groupings. It needs to be borne in mind that SA has an unemployment rate of close to 40%, leaving many households to struggle with bread-and-butter issues on a daily basis and thus unable to volunteer their time for services such as are proposed here. At the same time it may be emphasised that any model not relying on volunteers to render these services will probably prove unaffordable, given the many priorities regarding the reconstruction and development of our country. The next chapter looks at the methodology employed in the research and explains the process followed and rationale for the inclusion of specific initiatives in the research sample.

19

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY COMMISSIONING OF THE RESEARCH The research was commissioned by the NCPS VEP Reference Team and funded by the Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology. Funding was channelled through the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research's Crime Prevention Initiative via Dr. Barend Taute. The initially expressed aims were (a) a focus on the critical success factors for Victim Support in the SAPS linking into NCPS projects, and (b) critical success factors for SAPS one-stop centres - to see what works or worked, reasons for successes and failures, and developing criteria. THE CONSULTATION PROCESS At a major consultative meeting with key stakeholders, held on 17 September 1998 at the CSIR (see Appendix C - Victim Empowerment Critical Success Factors Workshop), consensus was reached on the ambit and scope of the research. There was some discussion as to whether the research should focus on the victim (i.e. have victim satisfaction in mind and only look at user/client experience, expectations, fulfilment and empowerment) or the needs, perceptions, expectations and experiences of the service provider. The latter was approved. The suggestion was to hold focus group discussions with practitioners at a local level to obtain their ideas regarding the critical success factors. As the scope of the NCPS VEP is broad, and only limited funding was available for this project, the importance of defining a realistic scope for the research was emphasised. However, workshop participants agreed that it was crucial not to focus only on women and children as victims (as was initially planned), but rather all types of victims of crime. Nevertheless, victim empowerment initiatives focusing on women and children as victims of social fabric crimes - rape, domestic violence and child abuse - are for the most better developed, organised and resourced, and it therefore made some sense to key stakeholders to evaluate these primarily. Consensus was consequently reached that the research should focus on generic victims of crime and criminal violence (i.e. excluding victims of political violence and victims of traffic accidents), but could identify what is specific to children, women and men as victims. To limit the scope of the research it was suggested to focus only on victim empowerment initiatives where direct service delivery at a local level requiring the input of more than one sector was at stake (such as volunteer networks and one-stop centres), rather than also focusing on other forms of victim empowerment, such as policy development, pro-active awareness raising campaigns, etc., or where only one sector is involved in an initiative. The focus is thus only on victim empowerment initiatives of a reactive nature (i.e. assistance and support offered following victimisation, as opposed to those initiatives aimed at preventing victimisation in the first place). In the light of a tight schedule and budget the core research team was appointed in consultation with Dr. Taute, and comprised the authors of this document, together with research assistance from Carmen Domingo-Swarts (CSIR). A team of research consultants was established to help guide and inform the research process: Dr. Evante Schurink (Human Sciences Research Council), Dr. Rachel Jewkes (Medical Research Council) and Superintendent Zuzelle Pretorius (SAPS). Other assistance was contracted in in the form of methodological support from Dr. Martin Terre Blanche (Unisa) and field workers (Kevin 20

Joubert and Dawie Nel). The research team reported to the advisory committee, e.g. the Participants in Consultative Workshops (Appendix C). RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Given the relative infancy of formal NCPS VEP initiatives, a research strategy was designed to explore the state of victim empowerment in South Africa. The strategy included the literature review in the previous chapters, an exploratory survey questionnaire addressed at national and provincial VEP management, and in-depth focus groups with a selection of local service deliverers, who then also completed the survey questionnaire. A triangulation approach was thus employed. Survey questionnaire A questionnaire (see Appendix A) was designed specifically for the project, containing a mixture of open- and closed-ended questions in order to explore the understanding of victim empowerment principles. Also included were questions measuring the awareness, knowledge and attitudes towards the NCPS VEP, as well as implementation. The questionnaire was circulated to the research consultants and also piloted on a small selection of national organisations and two local service delivery groups. Focus group interviews Each focus group consisted of the key role-players and members of a specific initiative, rather than members of various initiatives. This enabled an in-depth historical analysis of the development, strengths and weaknesses of the initiative in a non-threatening and noncompetitive atmosphere. The focus group interviews were run by a facilitator (usually one of the authors) using a non-directive free interview technique (Rogers, 1951) within the framework of an interview schedule (see Appendix B). The focus group interview schedule focused on (a) the history of the project: who initiated the process, how it was started, background information of the community, what kind of services were initially delivered, what management structures were set up, etc. and (b) on the current service: accessibility, effectiveness, type of services and typical client, volunteer selection and management, referral systems, the most important lessons learnt, future plans, etc.. A field worker made interview notes on a record sheet, and in addition the interviews were recorded on audio tape to refer back to, should queries arise or the interview notes be insufficient. A total of 17 focus groups were held (see Appendix D for details). Sampling At national and provincial levels (questionnaires only): All the members of the national NCPS VEP Management and Reference Teams were selected, together with all the provincial VEP co-ordinators of the Department of Welfare. A total of 51 questionnaires were delivered personally where feasible, or posted by mail and followed up with request for compliance by fax and telephone. A total of 20 (39%) questionnaires were received from this group. At local service delivery level (focus groups and questionnaires): • Firstly a selection of provinces representing the main areas of interest were decided on, resulting in the following choices: Gauteng Province and the Western Cape (the wealthiest provinces, with large urban areas, great socio-economic disparities and high 21

crime rates); Mpumalanga (large rural areas which are relatively underdeveloped, average crime rates) and KwaZulu-Natal (large rural and urban areas, poor rural infrastructure and a history of high political and interpersonal violence). Secondly, local service delivery initiatives were purposefully selected in terms of various criteria as set out in Table 8. These were selected with the aid of the national and provincial NCPS VEP co-ordinators of the departments of Welfare or the SAPS, who (considering the amount of available time left before the start of the December school holidays) were deemed to be the best informants for this purpose. A total of 17 initiatives were interviewed, resulting in 61 completed questionnaires for service deliverers at local level.

•

1. Provincial selection criteria

2. Local service delivery selection criteria

Services representing good practice or useful informational opportunities. From the following areas: urban, peri-urban, townships and informal settlements, and rural. Representing a fair mix of either government- or NGO/CBO-driven initiatives. Including initiatives that are poorly documented and have not been researched before. Table 8: Two-phase focus group selection process. Based on socio-economic status: wealth/poverty, income disparity, infrastructure, political stability, and medium to high crime rates.

What follows is a description of the different provinces and cities included in the research sample, together with information on the VEP initiatives surveyed in each province. !

Gauteng

With its population of 7.3 million, unemployment rate of 28% and average income of R33 500 per annum, Gauteng Province is the richest and best resourced province of SA. Almost half a million households live in shacks, however. Zulu is the most common home language, followed by Afrikaans, English and Sotho (Sunday Times, October 25, 1998). Included in the sample were initiatives located in Pretoria, Alexandra and Johannesburg. Although a mere sixty kilometres divide Pretoria and Johannesburg, with Alexandra somewhere in between, these cities are worlds apart in terms of the prevalence of crime and violence. Judged according to police statistics, Pretoria has long been perceived as the safest city in South Africa, while Johannesburg is generally seen to be one of the most dangerous cities in the world. The overall victimisation rate in Pretoria is 54.6%, compared to 62% in Johannesburg. Africans and Asians are more likely than whites and Coloureds to have been victims of crime. Victimisation by violent crimes is more prevalent than by property crimes in both Pretoria and Johannesburg (Louw, 1998). The following Gauteng-based initiatives were included in the sample: • Sunnyside SAPS (a high-rise urban area in Pretoria) on 26 October 1998 (6 participants from the Sunnyside and 1 from the Hillbrow Victim Support project both no longer operate) • ADAPT (Alexandra township) on 12 November 1998 (13 participants) • InterTrauma Nexus (suburban areas in Pretoria) on 18 November 1998 (8 participants from the Eersterust, Menlo Park and Garsfontein projects) • West Rand Victim Support Centre (suburban area in Krugersdorp) on 3 December 1998 (1 participant) 22

• !

Rosebank Community Policing Forum Victim Support Centre (suburban area in Johannesburg) on 3 December (6 participants).

KwaZulu-Natal

With a population of 8.4 million KwaZulu-Natal is the biggest province. The unemployment rate is 39% and the average annual income R24 300. The development backlogs in the province are considered to be enormous; almost half a million people have no education and a further 700 000 are considered illiterate. Half a million households live in traditional housing (Sunday Times, October 25, 1998). During 1997 only 34% of the inhabitants of KwaZulu-Natal were satisfied with the way in which police were controlling crime in their neighbourhood. In the city of Durban it was as low as 23% (Statistics SA, 1998). The following KwaZulu-Natal-based initiatives were included in the sample: • South Coast Hospice and Trauma Centre (service peri-urban and rural areas) on 30 November 1998 (12 participants) • Stanger (service peri-urban and rural areas) on 1 December 1998 (8 participants) • KwaMashu Victim Support Programme (township area) on 1 December 1998 (6 participants) • FAMSA (suburban area in Pietermaritzburg and surrounding areas) on 2 December 1998 (4 participants) • Centre for Criminal Justice (urban and rural areas in Pietermaritzburg and surroundings) on 2 December 1998 (4 participants from the 3 different projects). !

Western Cape

The Western Cape is considered to be the most educated province, has a population of 3.9 million, an unemployment rate of 18% and an average annual income of about R28 900. 54% of the population are Coloured with roughly equal numbers of whites and Africans. Afrikaans is the most common home language (Sunday Times, October 25, 1998). During the period 1993 - 1997 49.6% of Cape Town’s residents were crime victims. Although property crime (burglary) is most prevalent, violent crimes such as mugging and robbery also occur regularly. African and Coloured residents are more likely to be the victims of violent crime, while whites are primarily the victims of property crimes (Louw et al., 1998). During 1997 54% of the inhabitants of the Western Cape were satisfied with the way in which police were controlling crime in their neighbourhood (Statistics SA, 1998). Included in the study were initiatives located in Cape Town, Khayelitsha and Somerset West: • HEAL (Halt Elder Abuse in urban area of Cape Town) on the 1st of December 1998 (5 participants) • Helderberg Crisis Centre (somewhat peri-urban area in Somerset West) on 2 December 1998 (3 participants) • NICRO (Khayelitsha - a township located on the Cape Flats) on 2 December 1998 (2 participants). !

Mpumalanga

Mpumalanga has a population of 2.8 million, an average annual income of R19 900 and an unemployment rate of 33%. The province has one of the least serious housing backlogs: 23

about 100 000 households live in traditional housing and 100 000 in shacks (Sunday Times, October 25, 1998). While the murder rate is decreasing in KwaZulu-Natal and Gauteng, it is seemingly increasing in Mpumalanga and the Western Cape. One of the risks for a woman in a rural area, such as the former homeland, KaNgwane (now integrated into Mpumalanga), is having to walk long distances to perform her domestic tasks of collecting firewood and water (Louw & Shaw, 1997). During 1997 only 37% of the inhabitants of Mpumalanga were satisfied with the way in which police were controlling crime in their neighbourhood (Statistics SA, 1998). Included in the sample were: • Kwa Mashlanga SAPS (rural area) on 9 December 1998 (3 participants) • Vosman SAPS (township area) on 9 December 1998 (6 participants) • Ekalanga SAPS (rural area) on 10 December 1998 (2 participants) • Witbank Victim Support Centre (urban area) on 10 December 1998 (7 participants). Data analysis !

Questionnaire

Responses to open questions in the questionnaire that were knowledge related (i.e. relating to the NCPS VEP or to victim empowerment in general) were rated by an expert in victim empowerment (the first author). Other qualitative responses (perceptions, attitudes and comments) were thematically coded. All responses were then entered on a statistical software programme (SPSS) and descriptive statistics (means and frequency counts) calculated, together with cross-tabulations of selected variables.

How did you experienced the questionnaire? Very useful Motivational Frustrating In-depth Very long Challenging Good/OK 0

5

10

15

20

25

Figure 2: How participants experienced the questionnaire.

Although most respondents experienced the questionnaire positively, a few thought it to be very long, frustrating and challenging. However, it also helped people reflect on their roles, successes and constraints and their ability to attain NCPS VEP objectives. It was also informative and gave them an opportunity to air their views (refer to Figure 2).

24

!

Focus group interviews

Field workers were trained in the principles of victim empowerment and the contents of the NCPS VEP, as well as the focus group interview schedule. During the first focus group, both field workers made interview notes and wrote a report, which was afterwards compared to a full transcription of the focus group interview. The reports and transcription were then discussed and commented on, in order to finalise and standardise the method of note taking and report writing. A synopsis of the focus group reports are given in Appendix D. The interview notes were analysed thematically in order to extract factors contributing to the success or failure of the various aspects of initiatives. Guiding questions used in conducting the thematic analysis were: Is there a generic VEP model that suits all geographic and socio-political communities? Are there certain issues and problems that are specific and unique to geographic areas (urban/peri-urban - suburban/informal/rural)? How do the various modes and nodes of service delivery differ and agree (different sectors/departments as well as different models such as one-stop centre, etc.) What was the typical developmental path of an initiative? What lessons can be drawn from their experiences? This information was utilised to develop a 'How to' model of setting up a new victim empowerment initiative at the local level. Information dissemination Feedback of preliminary results at the consultative workshop (4 February 1999) was helpful in highlighting important issues in the quality and reporting of results. The purpose of the research design used was not to firmly establish variables associated with the success or failure of VEP programmes, but to facilitate an initial exploration of what may constitute key factors in the establishment and maintenance of intersectoral NCPS VEP initiatives.

25

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE In this chapter the results of the questionnaire are presented, and these are then integrated with the results from the focus groups and consultative workshops in the following chapter. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE Of the 81 questionnaires received, the majority (78%) were completed by female participants. The mean age was 38.9 (sd= 10.9) and ranged from 21 to 68. Only 5.1% had an education of Grade 11 (Standard 9) or less, 30.4% had completed matric only and the majority (59.5%) had a tertiary qualification. Formal Education

Count

Percentage

Grade 9 1 1.3% Grade10 2 2.5% Grade11 1 1.3% Grade12 24 30.4% Post Matric 4 5.1% Degree/Diplo 22 27.8% ma 13 16.5% Honours 9 11.4% Masters 3 3.7% Doctorate (2) (Not recorded) Table 9: Education of participants. The highest percentage of participants came from 3 of the 4 areas selected for focus group interviews, namely Gauteng Province (33.3%), which contains a large portion of the various national bodies, Mpumalanga (25.9%) and KwaZulu-Natal (25.9%). The Western Cape, which was also selected for focus group interviews, only represents 6.2%, due to local co-ordination problems and the last-minute unavailability of one of the selected projects. Province

Count

Percentage

Gauteng 27 33.3% KwaZulu-Natal 18 25.9% Mpumalanga 21 22.2% Eastern Cape 1 8.6% Western Cape 7 6.2% Northern Cape 5 2.5% North-West Province 2 1.2% Table 10: Provinces represented in sample. A low proportion of questionnaires were from a national (12.3%) and provincial (12.3%) level. In addition these consist to a large degree of members of the NCPS VEP Management and Reference Teams. These participants are, in general, better informed and highly 26

motivated individuals within the NCPS VEP process. These factors make the generalisation of results to the broader national and provincial levels problematic, but do not detract from the research aim of focusing primarily on on-the-ground operating initiatives. Level of Office

Count

%

12.3% 10 National 12.3% 10 Provincial 75.3% 61 Local Table 11: Level of offices represented in sample. Given the non-random nature of sampling at local level and the low rates of return at national and provincial levels, the findings from the questionnaire should be treated as exploratory and descriptive-interpretative, without generalising too broadly regarding specific sectors or organisations.

Figure 3: Level of organisation by organisation type. Figure 3 shows that local service delivery levels make up the bulk of the sample of government and NGOs/CBOs. This was done intentionally in order to address the relative scarcity of information on local service delivery levels.

As can be seen in Figure 4, the largest sectors in the survey were the Security (38.3%), 27

Figure 4: Level of office per sector. Welfare (29.6%) and Health (22.2%) sectors. Justice (7.4%) and Education (2.5%) had the lowest number of participants. Education was not a main focus of the study as their work was deemed to be more preventive than reactive in nature, thereby falling outside the scope of the survey. Note that a sector consists of all the different organisations working in a specific field, e.g. government departments, NGOs/CBOs, business, etc. The largest local level representation is in the Security (n=23), Welfare (n=17) and Health (n=15) sectors. Participation from provincial levels was disappointing, the highest number coming from the Security sector (n=6). The highest number of representatives on national level, is from the Welfare sector, which contains the Department of Welfare, lead department of the NCPS VEP. In contrast to the other sectors, the Security sector consists of the greatest proportion of government officials (twice the number of the NGO/Other contingent), whereas in the Welfare sector the largest area is the NGO/CBO contingent (three times the number of the other areas). For the other sectors the government to NGO/CBO ratio is more or less equal and private practitioners/academics represent a fraction of the participants in all sectors. Respondents have been involved in the field of victim empowerment and support for a median of 2 years, showing that this is a relatively young field in South Africa. The participants from various sectors have been involved in the field of victim empowerment and support for different periods of time, a median of 5.8 years for the 2 individuals from the Education sector, 4 years for the Health sector and 2 years for the Welfare, Security and Justice sectors. When comparing the office and level of work, the NGO/CBO and others (private practitioners and academics) at national and provincial levels have been involved the longest - median=7.5 years - and at local level the median is only 1.8 years. In government circles at national/provincial level have a median of 2.3 years and the local levels a median of 2 years. Most of the participants have been or are involved in direct service delivery with regards to victim empowerment, e.g. 70.8% of the Welfare sector, 94.4% of the Health sector, 76.7% of the Security sector and 66.7% of the Justice sector. 28

KNOWLEDGE OF VEP CONCEPTS

Figure 5 shows performance on combined knowledge scores, referring to knowledge of various concepts associated with the NCPS VEP (joining questions 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27 - refer to the Questionnaire in the Appendix). There is a statistically significant difference between the performance of national (mean=18.5) and provincial participants (mean=16.1) as opposed to participants from local level (mean=8.1) (F=22.28, p