General visible policing should not be a priority for South African police

South Africa’s Police Summit on 8 April takes place against the backdrop of major financial constraints facing the South African Police Service (SAPS). The organisation’s 2025/26 budget of R121-billion has declined by 5% in real terms since 2019. 

Summit participants must recognise that making the most effective possible use of SAPS financial resources is a priority. Since South Africa is a developing country, police responsibilities should not be based on assumptions about what police do in more affluent states. 

One such assumption is that the SAPS must be generally visible. Countless South Africans, including senior politicians, endorse the vague assertion that there should be more police on streets throughout the country.

At its broadest, general visibility is the idea that police perform a useful role merely by being seen frequently by the public. The SAPS annual report tells us that “Crime prevention operations aim to… improve visibility in all police station areas” by measures such as roadblocks and patrols. This suggests that SAPS members should be visible everywhere, and that “being seen” is important and useful. 

In Western countries, research supports the idea that police visibility can improve public feelings of safety and confidence in the police. But even in London, only 29% of respondents said they saw police patrolling at least daily or weekly, while 46% said they saw police less than monthly.

Being “generally visible” is a role that can only be assigned to police in affluent countries where police-to-population ratios are comparatively high, and the cost of police vehicles, fuel and officials to perform foot patrols can be covered. There are no African countries where the state police are able to perform this function.

Another problem in South Africa is confusion around the term “visible policing”, which may mistakenly be equated with “police visibility”. “Visible Policing” is one of the SAPS’ five organisational programme names, but it is often used to refer to the work of ordinary uniformed police. 

In the SAPS, “Visible Policing and Operations” has the biggest budget allocation (53%) and most (56%) personnel (see table). There is good reason for “Programme 2: Visible Policing” to be well funded. It provides most of the staff at South Africa’s 1,165 police stations, and includes the public order police and tactical units such as the Special Task Force.



But apart from “being visible”, uniformed police officials have many other important roles, so expecting them to focus on the general visibility function is unrealistic. Moreover, this function can be performed by community patrollers or private security guards – as long as they are properly accountable to the SAPS, their local community police forum or an appropriate arm of the municipal or provincial government. 

That will enable uniformed police station-based SAPS members to prioritise targeted visible policing at high-risk times and in identified high-crime areas. Institute for Security Studies (ISS) research shows that this kind of policing can reduce serious violent crime. The project examined by the ISS involved patrols “focused on specific hotspots at times identified as high-risk through crime analysis, ensuring maximum impact”. This is something trained SAPS members should do. 

The SAPS’ role can also be strengthened by focusing on how uniformed SAPS members can intervene in conflict situations – whether in taverns or people’s homes – to prevent them from escalating into violence. Frequently, these tensions will point towards struggling parents or families, or problems like alcoholism or drug addiction. 

In such cases, SAPS members should do more than consider arrests and criminal charges. Making referrals to other state and community agencies to address difficult family and community problems should become a routine part of what uniformed SAPS personnel do. 

The presence of trusted community patrollers or security guards in shopping areas, townships and other suburbs can help the public feel safer from crimes such as robbery. But trained police officers should not be required to perform this relatively low-skilled function.

The SAPS has recognised the advantages of coordinating rather than providing general police visibility. In 2018, the Community in Blue project was started “to enhance police visibility, mobilise the community to collaborate with the police and maximise the police footprint” without relying on its own personnel to perform this function. 

The latest SAPS annual report indicates that 32,112 Community in Blue patrollers are registered. But it says nothing about the project’s effectiveness or impact. 

Caution is, however, needed if general visibility functions are to be performed by entities other than the police. Properly vetted community police forums have an important role in managing and regulating community patroller groups. But poor control over these forums may compromise the patroller system. 

Esther Padi of the Innovating Kasi Organisation told ISS Today that proper vetting of community police forum leaders is often neglected, leaving the door wide open for criminal groups to influence these structures. Responsibility for vetting generally lies with SAPS station commanders.

Neither sections 205(3) nor 206(3) of South Africa’s Constitution require the SAPS to provide visible policing. To ensure the effective use of police resources, the SAPS should clarify that general visibility is not a service it must provide. This will enable police to focus on the relatively small proportion of the population causing the most harm – a worthy use of government expenditure on SAPS salaries.

If patrolling is needed, that should be done by regulated and accountable community guards or other security personnel. DM

David Bruce, independent researcher and Institute for Security Studies (ISS) consultant.

Research for this article was funded by the Hanns Seidel Foundation.

First published by ISS Today.