Crime in South Africa is beginning to show a glimmer of improvement. The number of murders, for example, has decreased by more than a quarter since 1994, and the murder rate by almost a third. Nevertheless, crime rates generally remain high, and South Africans continue to feel unsafe. In this issue, bythepeople contributors look at innovations for dealing with crime, and also suggest some innovations that haven’t yet been explored in South Africa.

Helen Alexander explores the pros and cons of various community safety initiatives – particularly those that are affordable, and gives advice on how to initiate one. She also considers the highly controversial issue of gated neighbourhoods.

An innovation which relies on ordinary people and cell-phone technology – some 18 million South Africans have cell phones – is eBlockWatch, an initiative driven by a private individual. eBlockWatch uses ordinary people to record crimes they have witnessed and quickly, easily and safely relay that information to the police.

Crime incidents which involve tourists damage tourism. ‘Travel Buddies‘ relies on the technology developed for eBlockWatch to involve volunteers in helping to ensure our tourists have the information which might help to keep them safe. Julia Frielinghaus looks into how Travel Buddies and eBlockWatch work, and how you can get involved.

There are few disincentives to committing a crime in South Africa: the most important being that criminals are unlikely to get caught, and even if caught, unlikely to be convicted. We have a very low conviction rate (convictions per reported serious crimes). Many crimes are simply never investigated, or even if investigated, not prosecuted by the state. Martin Schoenteich considers the possibilities for private prosecutions in South Africa.

Although we already have state-run multi-purpose community centres in South Africa, these have tended not to involve entities like courts or police stations. Making courts an integral part of privately run or managed community centres has the potential to fund state prosecutions and raise the number of successful prosecutions. Martin Schoenteich explores how this could be achieved.

One oft-neglected factor entrenching the cycle of crime is our prison system. Between 10 000 and 20 000 prisoners are released every month from South African prisons. Many were originally imprisoned for less serious offences but leave prison likely to commit more serious crimes. Jean Redpath explores how paradoxically, correctional reform involving private and community players has the potential to reduce the cycle of crime.

Finally, take a break from serious contemplation with Sam Wilson’s Lipstick-toting anarchist’s guide to safety and security’ – because one important way of ‘dealing with crime’ is not to allow it to overtake our lives completely.

Going to court can be a dreary and unnerving experience – even for those not accused of having committed a crime. Most courts are housed in dilapidated buildings which contain no amenities to make the public’s stay a comfortable one. Two innovations have the potential to significantly improving the services the public can expect to find at larger court centres in the country, while simultaneously saving the state money. One such innovation is to appoint private sector court managers to develop income-generating court-based services to improve the public’s experience of going to court. Another, more radical, innovation is to privatise selected court buildings and convert them into profit generating multi-purpose retail nodes.

Poor service

Courts should provide a variety of services to the public. Criminal courts adjudicate on the guilt or innocence of accused persons, civil courts adjudge disputes between litigants. Courthouses also provide the venue where people get married, fines are paid, and child-support disputes settled. In effect, the court-going public are the clients of the courts and the state employees who work there. it is also the public’s tax money which pays for the courts and public servants working within them.

The court system relies on the public for its effective operation. Courts would stop functioning without witnesses willing to testify in court proceedings or offenders paying their fines. Yet, anyone who has had the misfortune of going to court to testify as a witness or seek a reduction in a traffic fine will know what an inhospitable place a courthouse can be. Court centres (i.e. larger magistrates’ courts in the country’s urban centres which contain a number of individual courts under one roof) are neither designed nor managed with a view to making them places which are safe and convenient for the public.

Private sector court managers

To improve the public environment of court centres and the quality of the service delivered by the courts to the public, private sector ‘court managers’ should be appointed. The position of court manager already exists in some large centres in the country. However, presently the primary task of court managers is to streamline the working relationships between magistrates, prosecutors and administrative employees that work in a court building – not to improve the court environment for the public. Moreover, court managers are public servants and are appointed within the restrictive conditions under which state employees are hired.

Private sector court managers should have the mandate to offset some of the costs of operating a court centre, by generating an income for the centre they are responsible for. This could be done through an incentive scheme whereby managers receive a bonus calculated on the income they are able to generate (which would be difficult to do in terms of the strict rules governing public sector managers).

Examples of income-generating initiatives, for which a present need exists at most court centres in the country, include:

• Leasing out space of a court centre to catering companies (to open canteens and refreshment stations), banks (to install Automatic Teller Machines) and other small traders (to sell snacks, reading materials and phone cards, and provide photocopying, Internet-access and other basic office facilities for lawyers and witnesses who need to do some work while waiting for their court cases to begin).
• Renting out court rooms after hours to night schools and other training organisations in need of lecture rooms during evenings or over weekends.
• Renting out wall space outside of court rooms for advertisers. Restrictions could be placed on the type of advertisements that would be allowed excluding, for example, political and other controversial advertising. Non-governmental organisations and foreign donor organisations could be approached to rent space for public-interest advertisement to publicise, for example, public health, anti-crime or road safety campaigns.

Privatising court infrastructure

A more radical proposition may be to privatise some of the larger court centres in the country. This would mean that the state would sell selected court buildings to private sector buyers, who would seek to use them on a profitable basis.

Selling existing infrastructure such as courthouses would generate revenue for the state. This could be used to purchase resources for the criminal justice system, such as new police vehicles or information technology equipment, or it could be invested to generate a continuous income for the state.

The private company purchasing a court centre, would rent it to the state for the latter’s use. Court centres could then be given a multi-purpose function. For example, attached to a court centre could be a bank’s automatic teller machine (ATM), pension payout points, and water and electricity pay points. This would provide a benefit to both the provider of the services and the consumer. An ATM connected to a courthouse is less likely to be stolen or vandalised, while the user of the service will be better protected outside, or even inside a court building, as larger court centres are guarded on a 24-hour basis.

The idea is not limited to financial services. Newspapers, groceries and other goods required on a daily basis, could be sold at a venue connected to a court centre. Other services such as doctors’ rooms, and attorneys’ offices could be attached as well. Eventually larger court centres could form the hub of a retail node for the area in which they are situated.

The providers of the services, such as banks, newspaper sellers, Eskom and the post office, would pay a fee or rent to be able to operate in, or on the property of, a court centre. The income generated from these ancillary non-court services could be used to subsidise the court centre. This private sector subsidisation would allow the private operator to rent the court centre to the state at a low cost.

Martin Schoenteich
Martin Schoenteich was formerly a senior researcher at the Institute for Security Studies in Pretoria. He now works for the Open Society Foundation in New York. He writes in his personal capacity.

Crime rates in South Africa have remained a problem since 1994 and the South African Police Service appears unable to provide the protection that citizens need. In rural and urban areas across the country people live in fear of crime. In Johannesburg, up to 60% of residents don’t feel safe in their own homes at night. It’s hardly surprising that people have started to introduce additional security measures to their homes and are increasingly using the armed response and patrol services of private security firms. However, for poorer people, employing a private security company is not an affordable option. The answer for some is volunteer-based, community safety initiatives.

Contents

What are Community Safety Initiatives?
Neighbourhood and Block Watches
Paid Patrols
Enclosed Neighbourhoods
Closed Circuit TV
Making your Community Safety Initiative Work
Further Information

What Are Community Safety Initiatives?

In essence, any community action to improve security in a particular neighbourhood constitutes a community safety initiative. These initiatives vary from formalised structures, such as the Community Policing Forum, to informal efforts by small groups of residents.

This article takes a look at some of the activities that different communities across the country have engaged in to improve their safety.

Different initiatives include:

• neighbourhood watches
• domestic worker’s watch
• block watches
• community patrols
• street committees
• enclosed neighbourhoods
• cctv
• various combinations of the above.

Neighbourhood and Block Watches

Strictly speaking a neighbourhood watch is a community initiative to increase security in a neighbourhood through passive measures such as marking of property and increased community awareness.

A block watch on the other hand, involves more active measures such as voluntary patrols through the community.

In reality these terms are used interchangeably . For the sake of clarity, I will stick to the definitions provided above, unless otherwise indicated.

SA Neighbourhood Watch

SA Neighbourhood Watch is a non-profit organisation that assists people to set up neighbourhood watches in their own communities. For a fee of R65 per person the organisation provides advice and informational materials on how to best operate the neighbourhood watch, the use of a communal engraver to mark possessions and signage containing the neighbourhood watch logo.

The model recommended by SA Neighbourhood Watch is based on four key principles:

1. Property that is permanently marked is less likely to be stolen and more likely to be recovered if it is stolen.
2. The police are best positioned to deal with suspicious people or vehicles once the neighbourhood watch has spotted them.
3. Community members can derive the greatest benefit from a neighbourhood watch scheme if they all simply practice good neighbourliness and keep an eye each other and each other’s property.
4. Visible SA Neighbourhood Watch signage will discourage criminals.

SA Neighbourhood Watch does not recommend block patrols as it believes that such patrols place the neighbourhood watch members at risk and that it is equally effective for members of the neighbourhood watch to look up and down their block every few hours. Members are not allowed to undertake neighbourhood patrols in the name of SA Neighbourhood Watch.

You can contact the SA Neighbourhood Watch National Office at:

PO Box 523, Bruma, 2026
Tel: 011 648 1538
Fax: 011 487 2570

How do you Start a Neighbourhood or Block Watch?

You can create a neighbourhood watch as part of the SA Neighbourhood Watch network, or you can establish an independent group in your neighbourhood.

Registration requirements will depend on the province in which you are situated.

Before you start a new watch you should find out if one already exists in the area. You can do this by contacting your local police station or Community Policing Forum or by speaking to SA Neighbourhood Watch or the Provincial Department responsible for community safety.

If there is no watch in your area, contact your neighbours to find out if others are interested. Once you have a group of people who are willing to take the watch forward, you can arrange a meeting to discuss the area that the watch will protect, the nature of the watch’s activities and what members will have to contribute.

Some of the issues that it is useful to clarify or consider are:

• What area you will covering
• What activities the watch will be involved in
• A code of conduct.

The Western Cape Code of Conduct for Neighbourhood Watches is a useful guideline for all watches. Neighbourhood watches in the Western Cape are required to adhere to the Code and to register with the Department of Community Safety. In return, the Department can assist watches to access equipment (such as bicycles, torches and first aid kits).

For more information on the Western Cape Neighbourhood Watch support programme visit the Cape Gateway website or contact:

John Cloete
Assistant Director: Security Projects
Directorate Social Crime Prevention, Department of Community Safety
Tel: 021 483 4571
Fax: 021 483 2016
Cell: 082 574 4845
jcloete@pawc.wcape.gov.za.

Neighbourhood Watch
Perceived Pros	Perceived Cons
Anonymity of Reports Avoids Reprisals Increased Community Spirit	Insufficient Visibility

Domestic Worker’s Watches

This is another variation on the neighbourhood watch. Domestic workers employed in an area are requested to keep an eye on other properties in the neighbourhood and to report any suspicious activities to the police.

This form of watch can be especially effective as most thefts and burglaries take place between 10 and 12 in the morning when residents are at work.

A domestic worker watch can easily be integrated with a residential neighbourhood or block watch.

To Patrol or not to Patrol

One of the main issues that a community watch needs to decide on is what kinds of activities it will participate in. One key question is whether the community members will volunteer to patrol the neighbourhood.

As mentioned previously, SA Neighbourhood Watch does not encourage patrols because it doesn’t believe that community members should place themselves in harm’s way.

However some communities believe that in order for a watch to be effective it needs to be more visible and play a more proactive role in the community. The scale of these activities can vary enormously.

One extreme is the Rossetenville Street Watch which has generated a great deal of media attention due to its controversial and often violent methods. The Watch consists of a small core group of participants who patrol the neighbourhood regularly (both during the day and during the evenings).

There are many less severe examples, where members of the community take it in turns to patrol the community, keeping an eye out for suspicious people or vehicles and reporting any incidents to the police.

Volunteer Patrols
Perceived Pros	Perceived Cons
Increased community cohesion Proactive measure Reduced crime	When crime decreases, volunteers lose interest Reliant on sustained community enthusiasm and commitment Volunteers may be injured if they confront suspicious persons

Paid Patrols

In some instances, residents have chosen to employ patrol guards to patrol the neighbourhood on foot, on bicycles or in vehicles. The structures and activities of these initiatives vary enormously. For example the Rate Payer’s Association may manage the patrols or an entirely new entity can be established, as in the case of ObzWatch, a community policing initiative in Observatory, Cape Town.

ObzWatch

This section 21 (not for profit) company was established specifically to improve safety in the Observatory area. It collects monthly contributions of R75 from participating residents and businesses to employ patrol guards that roam through the neighbourhood on foot and on bicycle 24 hours a day. There are currently 32 paid employees patrolling the streets. All are trained as police reservists.

Only 25% of the community make contributions to the initiative. Frank Rendall, a board member of the organisation, believes that this is largely due to the fact that many of the properties in the area are rented out and that tenants are not as concerned about the safety of the community as property owners. ObzWatch is working with rental agents in the area to encourage property owners and tenants to contribute to the initiative.

Contributing households are supplied with signage and can call ObzWatch to respond to emergencies.

Private Security Companies

Most private security companies offer a reactive service, whereby they respond to distress calls or alarm activations. Some however, also offer a patrol service to residents in a particular area for a monthly fee.

Paid Patrols
Perceived Pros	Perceived Cons
Trained security officers patrol the neighbourhood The management of the initiative is outsourced and is not dependent on community participation beyond the monthly contributions	Private security guards are open to corruption

Enclosed Neighbourhoods

A number of communities in South Africa, especially in Gauteng, have decided to restrict access to their neighbourhoods as a means of reducing crime.

There are numerous advantages and disadvantages of limiting access to a community. For detailed information on enclosed neighbourhoods and the pros and cons of this community safety option, see the article “Enclosed Neighbourhoods: The Debate”.

It is very important that communities who want to build fences around their communities, close off roads or erect security booms across roads must first get clearance from their local municipality.

Closed Circuit TV

Using technology can also be an effective way to beef up security, not just in your home but also in your neighbourhood.

In central Johannesburg the use of closed circuit television cameras has been extremely successful, reducing certain categories of crime in the areas involved by up to 80% in some cases, with response times of under a minute.

Unfortunately the costs of a CCTV system are prohibitive.

CCTV
Perceived Pros	Perceived Cons
Not invasive Effective	Expensive

Making Your Community Safety Initiative Work

Getting started

Before deciding on the kind of initiative that you want to start in your community, it is best to consult with your neighbours. You can do this through informal one-on-one discussions or by organising a community meeting. You can also use the local press to communicate your ideas with your community.

Discuss the options with your local police and Community Policing Forum. Community Safety initiatives are most effective when they work hand-in-hand with the police. It is important for the success of your project to establish a good working relationship with your local police officers from the outset.

Ensure that you have complied with any local or provincial registration or application requirements.

Support

Groups or organisations in your neighbourhood that can play an important role and can contribute to the success of a community safety initiative include:

• Local SAPS
• Municipal Police
• The Local Council
• The Rate Payers’ Association
• The Community Business Association
• The Community Policing Forum
• City Improvement District (if there is one)

Operational support may be available from your local or provincial authority or from the SAPS. For example, the Western Cape Department of Community Safety provides some equipment and training for registered neighbourhood watches.

Training for members can significantly increase the effectiveness of the community watches and can improve the safety of any members who go out on patrol. Training can include:

• Police reservist training
• conflict resolution
• human rights
• first aid, and
• self-defence.

Many Community Safety Initiatives send members or employees to the police for training as police reservists. Others recruit existing reservists to participate in their programme.

As mentioned previously, one of the most effective means of ensuring that your community initiative is successful is to work closely with the police and other community organisations. It is also important to keep community members updated on the activities, successes and challenges facing the initiative.

Further Information

These are some related sites:

• SA Neighbourhood Watch Website
• The Booysens Community Police Forum website contains a number of useful resources including crime prevention guidelines and a home security booklet.
• Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation
• Community Policing Consortium
• UK Neighbourhood Watch

Helen Alexander
Helen Alexander is a freelance researcher. A law graduate, she was formerly the advocacy coordinator for SWEAT.

The knee-jerk reaction of most South Africans to the problem of crime in South Africa is to demand longer sentences for everyone convicted of any kind of crime. There is also little sympathy for improving prison conditions. But that may be exactly the worst possible policy from the point of view of reducing crime rates. There is a role for civil society and the private sector in finding better ways of dealing with offenders.

Did you know that between 10 000 and 20 000 prisoners are released from South African prisons every month? A scary thought, given that these ex-prisoners face few prospects for employment, and probably don’t qualify for any government support grants. Not to mention that in some prisons, the prison gangs have links with criminal gangs outside of prison. Most ex-prisoners will also have been victims of crime within prison. Apart from being ‘hardened’ by prison, ex-prisoners will have networked with other prisoners and learnt ‘criminal skills’ in prison. Without a doubt, ex-prisoners return to society posing more of a danger than when they went in. As Sarah Henkeman of the Centre for Conflict Resolution has remarked:

‘The deficient circumstances in our prisons facilitate a cycle of recidivism (repeat offending and imprisonment). If the rates of recidivism are anything to go by, the writing is on the wall. If we do not seek to restore and successfully reintegrate offenders, we are fattening a monster (crime) that is already avenging itself on society. We are feeding the very thing we have declared “enemy number one” and pulled out all stops against. For us to make any impact on crime rates, the vicious cycle of recidivism must be broken. A linear system of justice on its own is no match against a cycle of criminality that is self-reinforcing.’ (see CCR paper)

The worst of it is that the majority of prisoners are not in prison because they have been convicted of a serious crime. Consider that of sentenced prisoners, half are sentenced to fewer than six months in prison – indicating the less severe nature of their offences. On top of that, more than 34% of the prison population is awaiting trial. This leaves only 16% of prisoners – around 30 000 – convicted and sentenced for the serious crimes which are of major concern to South Africans. Yet a major cause of the deficient circumstances in prisons, is overcrowding. South African prisons hold about 190 000 prisoners, although they were designed to hold about 110 000.

Prison privatisation?

One solution that has been seized upon to address the overcrowding problem is to build more and better prisons. South Africa, surprisingly, jumped at prison privatisation to meet the demand for more prisons, despite it being an emotive and controversial issue. But plans for more private prisons have now been shelved. What happened?

Soon after the first private prisons opened it became clear that their contracts had been poorly drafted. The prisons were going to cost the state far more than originally thought. This happened because the contracts were negotiated in an atmosphere of secrecy. Doubts about the contract process were also raised when those involved in the contract negotiations left soon after signing to join the successful contractors concerned, raising concern about conflicts of interest and corruption.

Yet despite these problems there is no doubt that conditions in private prisons are better than conditions in state prisons, not least because the terms of the contracts specifically prohibit privatised prisons from accepting more than the agreed number of prisoners, so eliminating the possibility of overcrowding. The agreements also stipulate a range of education, therapeutic and health services that contractors are required to provide. Another advantage often cited is the ability to bypass powerful unions and labour problems.

At first, contracts for seven private prisons were contemplated. However, only two have been constructed and are now operational. Mangaung Maximum Security Prison in Bloemfontein was officially opened on 1 July 2001, after 2 928 prisoners were transferred there, filling all the available prisoner places. The Louis Trichardt Maximum Security Prison opened on 19 February 2002. The names of these prisons should also ring warning bells: why so much concentration on maximum security prisons? One academic has noted that it would have been preferable “(to) utilise foreign money and expertise – to break the cycle of crime for first offenders”.

As we have seen, the ‘worst’ prisoners, who end up in ‘maximum’ or ‘supermax’, are not in the majority. This becomes startlingly clear when we consider the case of the new state-run ‘supermax’ prison in Kokstad . Nearly a year after opening, Correctional Services still struggled to find enough ‘bad eggs’ in sufficient numbers to fill the 1 400-bed prison.

Of course, simply because poor contracts for the wrong kinds of prison were drafted in an improper process doesn’t mean that private prisons are a bad idea. Instead of shelving the idea completely, care can be taken to ensure the same mistakes are not made again, while retaining the advantages such as better and less crowded facilities. However, the mistakes already made may have sullied the whole idea of prison privatisation for the near future.

But building more and better prisons is still not the whole answer to the problem of the cycle of recidivism – no matter how good a prison is, it is still a place from which few emerge reformed. The real issue is that too many people are in prison when more appropriate ways of dealing with their conduct might exist. Of course, criminal behaviour must be addressed. But it makes no sense if punishment leads to more rather than fewer crimes in the future.

Diverting children

South Africa’s new Child Justice Bill recognizes that time spent in prison by children can be bad for both the child and society. The bill creates a number of different sentencing and diversion options, instead of prison time. NICRO, the national crime prevention organisation, has run diversion programmes for young people in conflict with the law for some years.

An effectiveness study showed that 93.5% of children who had been on a NICRO diversion programme did not re-offend in the first year after leaving. However, very few such diversion programmes are available. A gap certainly exists for the development of more such programmes by civil society groups.

Restorative Justice

How else can we address crime without sending all offenders to prison? An under-utilised tactic in South Africa is that of ‘restorative justice’. Although the concept is much talked-about, practical examples of implementation are hard to find in either government or civil society.

There are probably fewer than 100 people in South Africa with the skills needed for restorative justice programmes – a few government social workers and probations officers at ‘One-Stop’ Child Justice Centres, social workers and probation officers mainly in the North West province, and social workers at NGOs such as NICRO, the Restorative Justice Centre and Khulisa.

The theory of restorative justice relies on the idea that society operates with a balance of rights and responsibilities. When an incident occurs which upsets that balance, the balance must be restored. Members of the community, the victim and offender, must come to terms with the incident and carry on with their lives.

Crucially, the offender must accept responsibility for harm that his or her behaviour has caused harm to the victim. The victim in tun must be prepared to negotiate and accept restitution or compensation for the offender’s wrongdoing. Traditional prosecutions tend to sideline the victim, but in restorative justice the victim is at the centre of the process

Because restorative justice concepts have only been employed in a limited way in South Africa over the last ten years, studies in the South African context to assess recidivism rates have not yet been conducted. However, research in other countries has tended to show lower recidivism rates for restorative justice interventions, both in incidence and severity, than for traditional prosecutions and convictions (see the resources listed at www.restorativejustice.org).

Restorative justice aims to ‘put right the wrong’. This reconciliatory ideal is perhaps a difficult idea to win sympathy in the current punitive climate. But for first-time offenders or those guilty of less serious offences, particularly where the offender and victim know each other, the idea seems like a necessity rather than a luxury.

Campaigning for correctional reform is hardly likely to appeal to most South Africans in the current punitive climate. But a new civil society organisation, the Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative, was launched in 2003 to do just that.

Jean Redpath
Jean Redpath is a research consultant specialising in criminal justice issues

“There should be a balance between the security needs of the suburb’s residents and the freedom to use public spaces.”

Jody Kollapen (South African Human Rights Commission)

Contents

• Introduction
• What is an Enclosed Neighbourhood?
• Restricted Access Communities in South Africa
• Perceived Advantages and Disadvantages
• The Main Issues in the Debate
• Local Government Policies on Restricted Access Communities
• Alternative Community Safety Measures

Introduction

Many local governments across South Africa are facing increased requests from communities for permission to close off roads and erect booms to restrict access to residential areas. Local authorities have adopted different policies in this regard. There are advantages and disadvantages to restricting access to suburbs and there is no clear-cut solution.Countries across the world are debating the pros and cons of enclosed communities. The extent to which South Africans are exploring this option is evidenced by the fact that the fifth international conference on gated communities will be hosted in South Africa by the CSIR in 2005. Most of this level of attention is focussed on the spatial development questions posed by enclosed communities and their implications for local government planning.

This article is directed not at policy makers but at people living in communities who may be considering restricting access to their neighbourhood. The article aims:

• To provide information to allow residents to make informed decisions.
• To clarify the legal situation.
• To identify alternative methods of increasing neighbourhood security.

What is an Enclosed Neighbourhood?

This refers to a situation where access to an existing neighbourhood has been restricted by placing barriers across entry points. It does not include security villages that were designed and built to restrict access to privately owned property.For an example of what restricting access to a neighbourhood means in practise we can look to the Gallo Manor community in Johannesburg. There the residents have introduced the following measures:

• Metal-spike fencing around the area
• Only five roads into the area remain open, the rest are closed off
• The remaining roads are closed by booms which are manned by security guards
• At night only two roads are open

In return residents pay a monthly fee of R110 which also covers the cost of having a private security car patrol the area.

Restricted Access Communities in South Africa

Communities across the country are considering restricting access to their neighbourhoods as a means of increasing security. Most restricted access communities are in Gauteng but communities in smaller towns are also exploring this option. Local authorities in 20 cities and town across South Africa indicated to the CSIR that they have received requests from communities for road closures.

The main reason communities are interested in limiting access to their homes is to increase security. Many South Africans do not feel safe in their homes at night. Institute for Security Studies (ISS) research has shown that 65.2% of Johannesburg residents feel unsafe in their homes at night compared to 42.5% in Cape Town.

Interviews with residents in communities that have limited access to their communities indicate that many people feel that government is unable to provide measures to reduce crime in the short-term. This has led people to be proactive about protecting themselves through a variety of measures, including physical barriers to prevent strangers from entering their homes and their communities.

In the past, these measures were limited to burglar bars, walls and security systems. It is becoming increasingly popular, however, for communities to build fences around the entire neighbourhood and erect booms manned by security guards to limit the number of people entering the area.

The City of Johannesburg conducted a survey in 2003 that shows that there are almost 275 neighbourhoods in Johannesburg that have restricted access. Many of these have been erected without the necessary city council approval and are illegal.

Perceived Advantages and Disadvantages

Before looking at the debate more closely, it is useful to consider what people perceive the main advantages and disadvantages of enclosed neighbourhoods to be. The table below summarises opinions expressed in the media.

Pros & Cons
Perceived Pros	Perceived Cons
There is greater security for residents. There is less traffic through the neighbourhood. Property prices rise (The Sunday Times in Feb 1999 reported increases of as much as 20% in areas with road restrictions, compared with an average decline in other areas of about 15%). More jobs are created in the private security sector. Police resources can be deployed elsewhere. There is an increased sense of community. Household insurance is reduced.	One needs to drive further to get in and out of the neighbourhood. Other members of the public may have to drive further to detour around the community. There are bottlenecks at the entrances during peak hours. Property rates in surrounding areas can drop. There may be division amongst residents who are not in favour of the restrictions and those who are, especially when it comes to contributing financially. Barriers do not provide protection from criminals working from within the area. Enclosed neighbourhoods are isolated from the surrounding communities. Privatised security is open to corruption. Urban maintenance may be hampered. Response times by emergency services may be slower. Pedestrians and cyclists are required to use main arterial roads which may be dangerous. Access to public amenities such as parks or schools may be reduced. Crime rates may increase in neighbouring areas as criminals are deflected.

The Main Issues in the Debate

This list of pros and cons provides a clue to the issues that are central to the debate around enclosed neighbourhoods. The most emotive issues are the questions of security and rights. Enclosed neighbourhoods are all about increasing the safety of residents. But what about the safety of people living in adjacent areas and do these measures actually reduce the levels of crime? For people excluded from these areas, there is the matter of rights. Is the creation of an exclusive neighbourhood a new form of apartheid? And why should taxpayers be denied access to public roads, schools and recreational facilities?

When considering these issue (and the many other question relating to enclosed neighbourhoods) it is important to balance the rights and interests of the various groups that are potentially affected. Specifically, it is important to take into the account the following:

• Residents’ concerns around increasing the safety of the homes.
• Neighbouring communities’ concerns about displaced crime and traffic and impacts on property prices.
• The general public’s right to freedom of movement and to access public spaces.
• Service providers’ need to access these and surrounding areas.
• Local government’s need to consider the urban planning implications of enclosed neighbourhoods.

Do Enclosed Neighbourhoods Actually Reduce Crime?

First, let’s look at the security aspects of the debate. When interviewed about the impact of access restrictions on their communities, residents often refer to reduced levels of crime.In an interview with the Sunday Times, Bryanstan resident Peter Van der Meer said, “During the nine months of the road closure there has been not one hijacking. It’s fantastic – the children can go outside to play and we can all walk around the suburb. It has transformed our life.”

Whether statements like these reflect fact or perception, it is indisputable that enclosed communities feel safer than they did before access to their neighbourhoods was limited.

Researchers agree that in some communities crime is significantly reduced. CSIR research has shown that restricting access to neighbourhoods does reduce or prevent most types of crime, especially property crimes. This may be temporary (for six months to a year) or more permanent. However, Karina Landman, a researcher from the CSIR, emphasises that the effect of booms on crime differs from place to place. “It is difficult to generalise, but in some areas, crime has definitely declined, while in others, the crime pattern remains unchanged. Booms on their own don’t guarantee a safer living environment”.

Another consequence of enclosing neighbourhoods is that police are less likely to patrol there. This, and the fact that they have to take a detour to the neighbourhood’s official entrance, means that police (and other emergency service) response times can be increased. This can obviously have a negative impact on safety.

All in all, it seems that enclosing communities does reduce crime in these areas, at least initially. Unfortunately, this often simply means that the crime is displaced to a neighbouring area. Enclosing neighbourhoods does not actually stop crime.

A Matter of Rights

There are compelling rights arguments for both sides of the debate. These centre around the rights to freedom of movement and freedom and security of the person.

Our constitution entitles us to move freely in our country. This is an important right, especially considering our history. During apartheid most South African were prevented from living or even being in certain areas. Many commentators on the enclosed neighbourhood phenomenon have questioned whether these enclosures, (which are generally in well-off, traditionally white suburbs) don’t recreate the exclusive conditions that whites enjoyed under apartheid.

Not only do we have the right to freedom of movement, we also pay taxes towards the maintenance and upkeep of public property. Many people argue that this gives them the right to use public roads and access public facilities, whether they fall within an enclosed neighbourhood or not. Also, once the neighbourhood is gated off, who should be responsible for the maintenance of the neighbourhood roads, the local government using taxpayers’ money or the community that has chosen to close the roads in the first place?

Residents in favour of enclosed neighbourhoods, argue that their right to freedom and security of the person (which entitles us all to be free from violence) gives them the right to take measures to protect themselves, especially if government is unable to ensure that this right to be safe is ensured. As long as these measures are within the law, it’s difficult to argue against that.

A Matter of Law

Laws and regulations are created for the public good and need to take into account the interests of individuals and the broader society. Municipal traffic and development laws need to ensure that everyone’s interests are taken into account. Currently, there are processes in many towns and cities that allow people to apply to have roads closed and to install access restrictions. These applications will only be successful if the traffic and other implications of closing the area are not overly negative.

“Enclosed neighbourhoods influence traffic patterns, influence lifestyle and have a major impact on the maintenance of roads, urban management and functioning,” said Karen Landman, who also points out that although the impact of a single enclosed neighbourhood may be negligible on the broader community, a number of these areas close together can have a significant impact, especially with regards to traffic and urban management and maintenance.

Despite the possibility of being able to enclose a neighbourhood legally, many communities are not bothering with these “formalities” and have erected barriers without council approval. In Johannesburg alone, there are over 180 illegal access-restrictions on public roads. The irony of communities breaking the law in order to protect themselves from criminals shouldn’t be overlooked.

Luckily, this situation is likely to improve as city council’s finalise their policies on this issue. Remember, if you are considering the access restriction option for your neighbourhood you must first find out from your local municipality what you need to do to get council approval.

Isolation and Exclusion

Although it is widely agreed that enclosures distinctly increase community-spirit within the neighbourhood, there are concerns that they separate the group off from the rest of the community. Commentators have voiced a great deal of concern over the exclusionary and isolating impacts that enclosed neighbourhoods have on communities.

Commenting on the situation in Brazil, where crime and violence have also driven people behind walls and gates, Delphine Dabrowski- Sangodeyi, a researcher for the Institut Francais d’Urbanisme notes that segmentation has had a disastrous effect on the social interaction of residents in Brazilian cities, where. “Gated communities have totally debased the free interaction of the varied local, European, African and Indian communities of Brazil in some cities. Traditional social life, which was a vital component of a very free and easy social fabric, has been stunted”.

In addition, there is the possibility of divides within the community if some residents are opposed to the plan. For this reason, the Durban city council has recommended that 90% of all residents should agree to the proposal before council permission can be given.

Local Government Policies on Restricted Access Communities

As noted previously, local government needs to take a number of factors into consideration when deciding whether to permit enclosed neighbourhoods or not. Although there generally seems to be recognition from these authorities that people can close off their neighbourhoods, many municipalities have expressed opposition to this course of action and will only approve applications in certain circumstances.

Johannesburg City Council

Restricted access communities are most prevalent in Gauteng where perceptions of crime are the highest. The City of Johannesburg has inherited a number of contradictory policies from the smaller municipalities that were amalgamated into it. This has caused a great deal of confusion.

In 2003, the Council finalised its policy on restricted access neighbourhoods, which sets out the conditions under which the Council feels these measures are acceptable as well as the procedures for ensuring that barriers are erected legally and with Council permission.

“The long-term impact of security restrictions is not desirable and therefore should not be encouraged or promoted in the City of Johannesburg,” Amos Masondo, Johannesburg Mayor told reporters. However communities can still make applications to the council for approval.

City of Cape Town

As yet, enclosed neighbourhoods are not greatly in evidence in the Cape Town. However, it is rumoured that a number of communities have made applications to the Council. The City of Cape Town has expressed its opposition to enclosed communities. Frank van der Velde, support officer to executive mayoral committee member Danile Landingwe, who is charged with planning, environment, transport and roads, told the Cape Times that “Gating suburbs is not an acceptable policy in Cape Town.

City of Durban

Similarly, a Durban city council discussion document on this matter recommends that booms should only be allowed in certain circumstances and only as a temporary measure.

Alternative Community Safety Measures

When conflicts of rights occur, one of the questions that we are required to ask is whether there are less harmful means of achieving the same end. Are there other community safety initiatives that can decrease crime without limiting people’s right to freedom of movement and without causing the logistical and social problems that may result from gating off our neighbourhoods?

The Johannesburg City Council Policy on Restricted Access Neighbourhoods suggests that limiting access to a community should be a measure of last resort and encourages communities to explore a number of alternatives before erecting barriers. Some of the options are:

• Private security villages or town house complexes where restricting access does not impact on community access to public roads and facilities.
• Employing street guards to patrol the neighbourhood on foot or bicycle.
• Installing closed circuit television (CCV) to provide surveillance of the neighbourhood. This can be a non-intrusive, cost-effective option.
• Neighbourhood watch programmes (increased awareness of neighbours property and safety)
• Block Patrols (voluntary patrolling of neighbourhoods by community-members)

How to go About Enclosing Your Neighbourhood

If you want to enclose your neighbourhood, you need to follow the following process:

• Find out from your neighbours whether they would support this option
• Contact your local council to find out what its policy is and what requirements you need to fulfil

Remember that the cost of enclosing a neighbourhood can be high. This includes the cost of perimeter fencing, gates and booms, as well as the fees for security guards to man entrances, the application fees and the potential costs of road maintenance. Erecting a set of booms and gates can cost in the region of R36 000 and if council approval hasn’t been given, the council will remove these barriers

More Information

If you would like more information on restricted access communities, you can investigate the following resources:

Gated Communities in South Africa website. This site is hosted by the CSIR and aims to encourage active debate around gated communities and so assist people to make informed decisions.
City of Johannesburg City Security Access Restrictions Policy, 2003

Helen Alexander
Helen Alexander is a freelance researcher. A law graduate, she was formerly advocacy coordinator for SWEAT.