A critical distance:

Public perceptions and
police service

Key objectives of the SAPS three-year strategy are to improve police service to the public, and to improve public confidence in the police. This is no easy task. However, recent surveys in the SAPS priority station areas indicate a striking difference between the general public’s poor perceptions of the police, and the satisfaction of those who have actually received services from the police. The results indicate that the police in the priority stations are doing well to meet the expectations of those who need their services.

It seems obvious that people’s perceptions of the police would be informed by their direct experience of, or contact with, the police. Yet few surveys of public perceptions and attitudes towards the police take this into account. Most surveys focus on the views of the "general public", that is, the views of people who may not have had direct contact with the police and whose opinions would, therefore, be influenced by a range of factors that may have very little, if anything, to do with policing.

Recent research by the ISS at 45 of the 219 SAPS priority police stations indicates that members of the public who have dealt directly with the police have very different perceptions of the police than those who have not had contact. The ISS research found that, in fact, most people who dealt directly with the police were satisfied with the services they received. This is in sharp contrast to general public perceptions of the police.

Poor public perceptions

In a general public opinion survey of 13 659 respondents residing in the 45 police priority areas, it was found that nearly half the respondents believed that the quality of policing in their areas of residence had deteriorated over the past four years (Figure 1).

The most common reasons cited by those respondents relate directly to police service delivery (Figure 2).

Figure 2 indicates that most respondents who believed policing in their areas had deteriorated in the past four years attribute this to police corruption, a generally inadequate service, a lack of motivation, and an increase in crime.

It should be remembered, however, that these are respondents who may not have had any direct contact with the police at all. Yet they are clearly comfortable citing police service delivery issues as the reason for their negative views.

This is indicative of the extent to which external factors like standards of living, access to other government services, access to information, media reporting, general perceptions of governance, inter-personal communication, and general perceptions of safety can influence attitudes towards the police.

Indeed, in the public opinion survey the most common responses to the question of what the police should do to improve public confidence were:

stamp out corruption (23%)

arrest offenders (17%)

improve resources and training (16%)

improve patrols and visibility (13%)

improve response times (11%)

work with the community (9%).

Satisfaction with police service

These general perceptions contrast sharply with the views of people who have had direct contact with the police.

These views were acquired via:

An exit poll in which 2286 people who had visited one of the 45 stations were interviewed as they left the police station, and



A follow-up survey in which 1361 people who had reported a crime to one of these police stations within a three-month time period were questioned on the quality of service they had received from the police.

Seventy-six percent of respondents — a clear majority — were satisfied with the service they received from the police. This was not because they had low expectations of the police. On the contrary, the vast majority of respondents indicated that they expected to be treated with respect and to receive good service. Very few — just 2% — of respondents expected a negative attitude from the police, a slow or poor service, or had no expectations at all.

The positive response was attributed to the professional, supportive and prompt service respondents received from the police. This is indicated in Figure 3.

Over 80% of these respondents indicated that they were attended to within 15 minutes of entering the police station.

Moreover, respondents in the exit poll were overwhelmingly positive about their experience in the police station, indicating that they:

found the stations clean, tidy and well-maintained (90%)

felt comfortable in the police station (92%)

knew where to go to get the help they needed in the police station (83%).

This hardly appears to be the response one would expect from members of the public dealing with corrupt or unmotivated police officers. Even the 24% of respondents to both polls who were dissatisfied with the service they received from the police, did not share the primary concerns raised in the general public survey. Not one of these respondents in the exit poll or follow-up survey identified corruption as the reason for their dissatisfaction.

Rather, these respondents indicated that their dissatisfaction arose from an experience of:

police rudeness (46%)



slow service (24%)



poor follow-up (11%)



police incompetence, generally because no statement had been taken or a file had been lost (7%).

While these issues may indicate some level of demotivation among SAPS members, this was far from being a common experience. These complaints also bear little relation to the other reasons for dissatisfaction cited by respondents in the general public survey.

Indeed, what these two station-based surveys indicate most clearly is that most of the police in the community safety centres (or charge offices) in the priority police station areas are doing well to meet the expectations of those who need their services and are, therefore, generating high levels of satisfaction.

The critical distance

The results of the three surveys indicate a very clear divide between public perceptions of the police, and the experience of those who have had direct interaction with them.

These results are important for the SAPS. The Department of Public Service and Administration’s White Paper on Transforming Public Service Delivery (Batho Pele) and the subsequent Public Service Regulations (July 1999) require all government departments to establish and sustain service delivery programmes. The public service regulations require that each department publish the service standards that "customers" can expect, and indicate how they intend to meet these standards. Furthermore, departments are required to monitor and evaluate service delivery to the public, and to report on this.

In meeting these requirements the SAPS should try to avoid general public opinion surveys. Assessment methodologies that enable evaluation of actual services provided by the police, and of the satisfaction of those who actually receive these services, would be of far greater benefit. The station-based surveys referred to here, are a case in point.

Eric Pelser
Institute for Security Studies

This article is sponsored by the European Union