Police Attitudes and Corruption:
The Findings of the Police Integrity Measurement Survey
at three police stations in Johannesburg
by
Gareth Newham
Research report written for the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, October 2003.
Gareth Newham is a former Project Manager in the Criminal Justice Programme at the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation.
Introduction
This document presents the comprehensive data sets from the Police Integrity Measurement Survey. This report was designed for use by the SAPS Johannesburg Area Commissioner in consultation with the author. Please note that this is not a formal report and is not for general distribution. The data has not been contextualised and therefore no conclusions should be drawn without prior discussion with the author. This data merely represents the average perceptions of police members at all ranks in the stations where the research took place. To understand why these perceptions are held it is necessary to consider further qualitative research.
Police Integrity Measurement Survey is an internationally recognised data gathering instrument.1 This survey is based on contemporary thinking about obtaining a quantifiable measurement of key factors directly related to police occupational culture. The benefit of this survey is twofold:
- It will provide quantitative data on the key organisational characteristics that support or undermine police integrity.
- It will provide the management component with a quantifiable starting point against which to measure improvements in police integrity over time.
What the survey does: it describes some of the key characteristics of a police agency's culture that encourages its members to resist or tolerate certain types of misconduct. The survey obtains numerically ranked opinions from members on hypothetical case scenarios describing integrity related conduct. The survey will provide quantifiable data on the following:
- How seriously police members as a whole perceive typical forms of police conduct related to integrity?
- How police members as a whole perceive the overall normative
environment at the station.
- The extent to which members as a whole know if certain forms of conduct are against SAPS regulations?
- The extent to which there is consistency in perceiving disciplinary
sanctions for various forms of misconduct.
- The extent to which members as a whole perceive the disciplinary
sanctions as appropriate.
- The extent to which members and their colleagues would be willing to report various forms of misconduct?
The survey does not do the following:
- It cannot not identify either corrupt or honest police officers;
- It cannot not provide any evidence of misconduct or dishonest practices – past, present or future.
The following tables indicate the results of the police integrity survey conducted at three police stations, namely Alexandra, Hillbrow and Sandton. The data was weighted to reflect the population distribution across these three stations. So for example, the population of Alexandra constituted 30% of the total population, but
only 26% of the sample. The data for Alexandra was therefore weighted up to correct for this deviation. On the other hand, the sample size for Sandton, represented a greater proportion of the whole than the population for this station. The Sandton data was therefore weighted down to correct for this deviation.
| Station |
Population size |
Population % |
Sample size |
Sample % |
Weight |
| Alexandra |
290 |
30% |
103 |
26% |
1.1250656 |
| Hillbrow |
442 |
45% |
163 |
42% |
1.0835569 |
| Sandton |
249 |
25% |
126 |
32% |
0.7896704 |
| Total |
981 |
100% |
392 |
100% |
|
The following tables indicate the average responses given by participants in the police integrity survey. A score of 1 indicates the lowest denominator or least serious, and a score of 5 indicates the highest, or most serious. These tables outline the respective averages and their rankings for each of the 11 case scenarios posited.
| Seriousness |
| Own view |
Mean |
Rank |
Other Officers |
Mean |
Rank |
| Shop owner gifts: |
2.71 |
1 |
Private bus: |
2.51 |
1 |
| Private bus: |
2.77 |
2 |
Shop owner gifts: |
2.65 |
2 |
| Violence for resisting arrest: |
3.63 |
3 |
Jewellery shop: |
3.11 |
3 |
| Lawyer: |
3.74 |
4 |
Certify documents: |
3.26 |
4 |
| Drunk Police driver: |
3.77 |
5 |
Commander loan: |
3.29 |
5 |
| Lost wallet: |
3.81 |
6 |
Lost wallet: |
3.29 |
5 |
| After hours bar: |
4.10 |
7 |
Illegal immigrant: |
3.63 |
7 |
| Commander loan: |
4.30 |
8 |
After hours bar: |
3.86 |
8 |
| Illegal immigrant: |
4.39 |
9 |
Violence for resisting arrest: |
3.88 |
9 |
| Jewellery shop: |
4.46 |
10 |
Lawyer: |
3.98 |
10 |
| Certify documents: |
4.50 |
11 |
Drunk Police driver: |
4.15 |
11 |
| Mean |
3.83 |
|
Mean |
3.42 |
|
- Overall, individuals were slightly more inclined to think they would view the above offences in a serious light than their colleagues, although this differential is not overly significant.
- While individuals saw the certifying of documents as being the most
serious offence, they deemed that other officers would view the drunk
police driver offence as being the most serious.
| Would this behaviour be regarded as against SAPS regulations |
|
Mean |
Rank |
| Private bus: |
3.15 |
1 |
| Shop owner gifts: |
3.34 |
2 |
| Jewellery shop: |
3.83 |
3 |
| Certify documents: |
3.85 |
4 |
| Lost wallet: |
3.85 |
4 |
| Commander loan: |
3.95 |
6 |
| Illegal immigrant: |
4.23 |
7 |
| After hours bar: |
4.38 |
8 |
| Violence for resisting arrest: |
4.48 |
9 |
| Drunk Police driver: |
4.51 |
10 |
| Lawyer: |
4.57 |
11 |
| Mean |
4.01 |
|
- The corrupt lawyer/police officer scenario ranked highest in terms of how respondents viewed it vis-à-vis contravening police regulations.
- Overall, a score of 4.01 indicates a general perception that these actions represent a contravention of SAPS regulations.
| Discipline |
| Should receive |
Mean |
Rank |
Would receive |
Mean |
Rank |
| Shop owner gifts: |
2.09 |
1 |
Shop owner gifts: |
2.19 |
1 |
| Private bus: |
2.21 |
2 |
Private bus: |
2.28 |
2 |
| Drunk Police driver: |
2.75 |
3 |
Violence for resisting
arrest: |
2.77 |
3 |
| After hours bar: |
2.93 |
4 |
Drunk Police driver: |
2.99 |
4 |
| Lawyer: |
3.04 |
5 |
Lost wallet: |
3.07 |
5 |
| Commander loan: |
3.10 |
6 |
After hours bar: |
3.08 |
6 |
| Violence for resisting arrest: |
3.19 |
7 |
Lawyer: |
3.12 |
7 |
| Jewellery shop: |
3.57 |
8 |
Commander loan: |
3.55 |
8 |
| Illegal immigrant: |
3.58 |
9 |
Illegal immigrant: |
3.62 |
9 |
| Certify documents: |
3.83 |
11 |
Certify documents: |
3.74 |
10 |
| Lost wallet: |
3.96 |
11 |
Jewellery shop: |
3.89 |
11 |
| Mean |
3.11 |
|
Mean |
3.12 |
|
- While the rankings of the cases across the two categories differ, overall there was no distinction between what people thought the form of discipline should be, and what they thought it would be.
- The average for both falls between a written warning and a period of suspension without pay, although it lies closer to the former.
| Willingness to report |
| Own view |
Mean |
Rank |
Other Officers |
Mean |
Rank |
| Private bus: |
2.39 |
1 |
Private bus: |
2.31 |
1 |
| Shop owner gifts: |
2.53 |
2 |
Shop owner gifts: |
2.31 |
1 |
| Violence for resisting arrest: |
3.12 |
3 |
Violence for resisting arrest: |
2.69 |
3 |
| Lost wallet: |
3.32 |
4 |
Lost wallet: |
2.95 |
4 |
| Drunk Police driver: |
3.36 |
5 |
Drunk Police driver: |
2.95 |
4 |
| Lawyer: |
3.41 |
6 |
Lawyer: |
3.02 |
6 |
| After hours bar: |
3.57 |
7 |
After hours bar: |
3.11 |
7 |
| Commander loan: |
3.90 |
8 |
Commander loan: |
3.27 |
8 |
| Illegal immigrant: |
3.90 |
8 |
Illegal immigrant: |
3.35 |
9 |
| Certify documents: |
3.96 |
10 |
Certify documents: |
3.44 |
10 |
| Jewellery shop: |
3.99 |
11 |
Jewellery shop: |
3.45 |
11 |
| Mean |
3.40 |
|
Mean |
2.99 |
|
- Overall, while the individual thinks that s/he is more willing to report an offence than his/her counterpart, the ranking for all cases across the two categories follow the same order.
- The certification of documents case, and the jewellery shop case, are most likely to be viewed as cases that police officers and their colleagues would report, while the cases of the private business and the shop owner dispensing gifts are least likely to be viewed as incidents that would be reported.
| Own view versus view of others |
Seriousness |
Discipline |
Willingness to report |
| Differential |
Differential |
Differential |
| After hours bar: |
0.24 |
-0.15 |
0.08 |
| Certify documents: |
1.24 |
0.09 |
0.22 |
| Commander loan: |
1.01 |
-0.45 |
0.43 |
| Drunk Police driver: |
-0.38 |
-0.24 |
0.37 |
| Illegal immigrant: |
0.76 |
-0.04 |
0.41 |
| Jewellery shop: |
1.35 |
-0.32 |
0.39 |
| Lawyer: |
-0.24 |
-0.08 |
0.46 |
| Lawyer: |
-0.24 |
-0.08 |
0.46 |
| Lost wallet: |
0.52 |
0.89 |
0.63 |
| Private bus: |
0.26 |
-0.07 |
0.55 |
| Shop owner gifts: |
0.06 |
-0.10 |
0.52 |
| Violence for resisting arrest: |
-0.25 |
0.42 |
0.54 |
| Mean |
0.42 |
0.00 |
0.42 |
- The above table reflects the differential in the average ranking figures between a respondents' own view, and the view they think others hold. For all cases, a positive differential reflects a higher ranking for the individual, while a negative differential reflects a higher ranking for others.
- Thus, in the case of the jewellery shop and the commander loan, the
individual is more likely to view these incidents in a more serious light than they think their colleagues would. This applies to the levels of seriousness with which these cases are viewed in general.
- In terms of discipline, there is no difference overall, but in 8 out of 11 cases, there are marginal differences where the individual perceives the disciplinary action to be taken would be greater than s/he thinks it should be.
- In all cases reflecting a willingness to report an incident, the individual thinks s/he would be more willing to report an offence than a colleague would.
Case 1: A police member runs his own private business in which he sells and installs security devices, such as alarm clocks, special locks etc. He does this work in his office hours.
|
Private bus: How serious do you consider behaviour to be? |
Total |
Not at all serious/
slightly serious |
Unsure |
Serious/
very serious |
| Station |
Alexandra |
38.45 |
14.3% |
47.3% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
48.6% |
16.0% |
35.4% |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
59.2% |
13.3% |
27.6% |
100.0% |
| Total |
48.3% |
14.8% |
36.9% |
100.0% |
|
Private bus: How serious do most
Police consider behaviour to be? |
Total |
Not at all serious/
slightly serious |
Unsure |
Serious/
very serious |
| Station |
Alexandra |
44.3% |
16.5% |
39.1% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
53.8% |
16.8% |
29.5% |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
56.8% |
22.1% |
21.1% |
100.0% |
| Total |
51.7% |
18.0% |
30.3% |
100.0% |
|
Private bus: Considered a violation of SAPS regulations? |
Total |
| Def no/no |
Unsure |
Yes/definitely yes |
| Station |
Alexandra |
35.5% |
9.1% |
55.5% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
36.0% |
8.1% |
55.8% |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
41.1% |
9.5% |
49.5% |
100.0% |
| Total |
51.7% |
18.0% |
30.3% |
100.0% |
|
Private bus: What discipline should be applied? |
Total |
| None |
Verbal
Warning |
Written
warning |
Period of
suspension
w/o pay |
Demotion |
Dismissal |
| Station |
Alexandra |
25.9% |
38.4% |
23.2% |
9.8% |
0% |
2.7% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
31.0% |
29.3% |
27.0% |
5.2% |
2.3% |
5.2% |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
41.5% |
31.9% |
23.4% |
0% |
1.1% |
2.1% |
100.0% |
| Total |
32.1% |
32.6% |
25.0% |
5.3% |
1.3% |
3.7% |
100.0% |
|
Private bus: What discipline would be applied? |
Total |
| None |
Verbal
Warning |
Written
warning |
Period of
suspension
w/o pay |
Demotion |
Dismissal |
| Station |
Alexandra |
23.7% |
42.1% |
21.1% |
7.9% |
.9% |
4.4% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
35.6% |
23.0% |
27.0% |
6.3% |
1.1% |
6.9% |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
37.6% |
30.1% |
22.6% |
4.3% |
3.2% |
2.2% |
100.0% |
| Total |
32.5% |
30.4% |
24.1% |
6.3% |
1.6% |
5.0% |
100.0% |
|
Private bus: Would you report police member? |
Total |
| Def no/no |
Unsure |
Yes/definitely yes |
| Station |
Alexandra |
56.3% |
9.8% |
33.9% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
59.8% |
16.7% |
23.6% |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
62.0% |
14.1% |
23.9% |
100.0% |
| Total |
59.3% |
14.0% |
26.7% |
100.0% |
|
Private bus: Would Police members report member? |
Total |
| Def no/no |
Unsure |
Yes/definitely yes |
| Station |
Alexandra |
61.1% |
13.3% |
25.7% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
63.8% |
16.7% |
19.5% |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
59.8% |
17.4% |
22.8% |
100.0% |
| Total |
62.0% |
15.8% |
22.2% |
100.0% |
Case 2: A police member regularly accepts free meals, cigarettes, and other items of small value from shop owners and hawkers. He does not ask for these gifts and is careful not to abuse the generosity of those who gave the gifts to him.
|
Shop owner gifts: How serious do
you consider behaviour to be? |
Total |
Not at all serious/
slightly
serious |
Unsure |
Serious/
very serious |
| Station |
Alexandra |
47.8% |
12.2% |
40.0% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
44.3% |
16.1% |
39.7% |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
63.2% |
15.8% |
21.1% |
100.0% |
| Total |
50.0% |
14.8% |
35.2% |
100.0% |
|
Shop owner gifts: How serious do most
Police consider behaviour to be? |
Total |
Not at all serious/
slightly
serious |
Unsure |
Serious/
very serious |
| Station |
Alexandra |
51.9% |
14.2% |
34.0% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
52.0% |
17.5% |
30.4% |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
66.0% |
18.1% |
16.0% |
100.0% |
| Total |
55.5% |
16.7% |
27.8% |
100.0% |
|
Shop owner gifts: Considered a
violation of SAPS regulations? |
Total |
| Def no/no |
Unsure |
Yes/definitely yes |
| Station |
Alexandra |
41.2% |
6.9% |
52.0% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
34.9% |
9.5% |
55.6% |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
50.6% |
13.5% |
36.0% |
100.0% |
| Total |
40.6% |
9.7% |
49.7% |
100.0% |
|
Shop owner gifts: What discipline should be applied? |
Total |
| None |
Verbal
Warning |
Written
warning |
Period of
suspension
w/o pay |
Demotion |
Dismissal |
| Station |
Alexandra |
31.8% |
33.6% |
28.0% |
2.8% |
1.9% |
1.9% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
32.4% |
33.5% |
25.9% |
4.1% |
2.9% |
1.2% |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
46.7% |
28.9% |
17.8% |
3.3% |
2.2% |
1.1% |
100.0% |
| Total |
35.7% |
32.4% |
24.5% |
3.5% |
2.5% |
1.4% |
100.0% |
|
Shop owner gifts: What discipline would be applied? |
Total |
| None |
Verbal
Warning |
Written
warning |
Period of
suspension
w/o pay |
Demotion |
Dismissal |
| Station |
Alexandra |
27.6% |
37.1% |
25.7% |
5.7% |
1.9% |
1.9% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
30.8% |
27.8% |
29.6% |
7.7% |
3.0% |
1.2% |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
44.6% |
26.1% |
22.8% |
1.1% |
3.3% |
2.2% |
100.0% |
| Total |
33.3% |
30.1% |
26.8% |
5.5% |
2.7% |
1.6% |
100.0% |
|
Shop owner gifts: Would you report police member? |
Total |
| Def no/no |
Unsure |
Yes/definitely yes |
| Station |
Alexandra |
52.3% |
9.3% |
38.3% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
54.4% |
14.6% |
18.5% |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
67.4% |
14.1% |
18.5% |
100.0% |
| Total |
57.0% |
13.0% |
30.0% |
100.0% |
|
Shop owner gifts: Would Police members report member? |
Total |
| Def no/no |
Unsure |
Yes/definitely yes |
| Station |
Alexandra |
60.5% |
9.6% |
29.8% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
59.2% |
14.4% |
26.4% |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
72.5% |
14.3% |
13.2% |
100.0% |
| Total |
62.8% |
12.9% |
24.3% |
100.0% |
Case 3: A police member stops a person who is behaving suspiciously
and discovers he is an illegal immigrant. The police member agrees to
accept money from him in exchange for not arresting him.
|
Illegal immigrant: How serious do
you consider behaviour to be? |
Total |
Not at all serious/
slightly
serious |
Unsure |
Serious/
very serious |
| Station |
Alexandra |
22.8% |
7.0% |
70.2% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
6.8% |
4.5% |
88.6% |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
10.8% |
3.2% |
86.0% |
100.0% |
| Total |
12.5% |
5.0% |
82.5% |
100.0% |
|
Illegal Immigrant: How serious do most
Police consider behaviour to be? |
Total |
Not at all serious/
slightly serious |
Unsure |
Serious/
very serious |
| Station |
Alexandra |
24.3% |
14.8% |
60.9% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
17.1% |
13.7% |
69.1% |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
17.2% |
14.0% |
68.8% |
100.0% |
| Total |
19.3% |
14.1% |
66.6% |
100.0% |
|
Illegal Immigrant: Considered a
violation of SAPS regulations? |
Total |
| Def no/no |
Unsure |
Yes/definitely yes |
| Station |
Alexandra |
14.9% |
7.9% |
77.2% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
2.9% |
5.1% |
92.0% |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
12.8% |
6.4% |
80.9% |
100.0% |
| Total |
8.9% |
6.3% |
84.9% |
100.0% |
|
Illegal immigrant: What discipline should be applied? |
Total |
| None |
Verbal
Warning |
Written
warning |
Period of
suspension
w/o pay |
Demotion |
Dismissal |
| Station |
Alexandra |
8.8% |
26.5% |
31.0% |
23.9% |
2.7% |
7.1% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
.6% |
8.0% |
35.6% |
28.7% |
1.7% |
25.3% |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
6.6% |
17.6% |
25.3% |
39.6% |
2.2% |
8.8% |
100.0% |
| Total |
4.5% |
15.9% |
31.7% |
29.9% |
2.1% |
15.9% |
100.0% |
|
Illegal immigrant: What discipline would be applied? |
Total |
| None |
Verbal
Warning |
Written
warning |
Period of
suspension
w/o pay |
Demotion |
Dismissal |
| Station |
Alexandra |
10.6% |
28.3% |
31.0% |
16.8% |
5.3% |
8.0% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
2.4% |
6.5% |
36.7% |
20.7% |
7.7% |
26.0% |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
6.6% |
16.5% |
25.3% |
29.7% |
6.6% |
15.4% |
100.0% |
| Total |
5.9% |
15.5% |
32.2% |
21.7% |
6.7% |
18.0% |
100.0% |
|
Illegal immigrant: Would you report police member? |
Total |
| Def no/no |
Unsure |
Yes/definitely yes |
| Station |
Alexandra |
27.3% |
9.1% |
63.6% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
12.3% |
15.2% |
72.5% |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
24.4% |
14.4% |
61.1% |
100.0% |
| Total |
19.7% |
13.2% |
67.1% |
100.0% |
|
Illegal immigrant: Would Police members report member? |
Total |
| Def no/no |
Unsure |
Yes/definitely yes |
| Station |
Alexandra |
32.7% |
18.7% |
48.6% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
31.5% |
19.6% |
48.8% |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
34.1% |
27.5% |
38.5% |
100.0% |
| Total |
32.5% |
21.3% |
46.2% |
100.0% |
Case 4: A police member working in the CSC is responsible for certifying copies of documents for members of the public. He asks people who come to the police station for this service for R10 in exchange for certifying their documents.
|
Certify documents: How serious do
you consider behaviour to be? |
Total |
Not at all serious/
slightly serious |
Unsure |
Serious/
very serious |
| Station |
Alexandra |
15.9% |
7.1% |
77.0% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
1.8% |
7.0% |
91.2% |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
8.6% |
7.5% |
83.9% |
100.0% |
| Total |
7.7% |
7.2% |
85.1% |
100.0% |
|
Certify documents: How serious do most
Police consider behaviour to be? |
Total |
Not at all serious/
slightly serious |
Unsure |
Serious/
very serious |
| Station |
Alexandra |
17.9% |
12.5% |
69.6% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
16.6% |
12.0% |
71.4% |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
20.2% |
12.8% |
67.0% |
100.0% |
| Total |
17.8% |
12.3% |
69.8% |
100.0% |
|
Certify documents: Considered a
violation of SAPS regulations? |
Total |
| Def no/no |
Unsure |
Yes/definitely yes |
| Station |
Alexandra |
10.0% |
10.9% |
79.1% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
2.9% |
4.6% |
92.5% |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
12.9% |
3.2% |
83.9% |
100.0% |
| Total |
7.4% |
6.1% |
86.5% |
100.0% |
|
Certify documents: What discipline should be applied? |
Total |
| None |
Verbal
Warning |
Written
warning |
Period of
suspension
w/o pay |
Demotion |
Dismissal |
| Station |
Alexandra |
5.3% |
28.3% |
31.9% |
12.4% |
4.4% |
17.7% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
.6% |
10.3% |
24.7% |
24.1% |
9.2% |
31.0 |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
3.3% |
21.7% |
26.1% |
25.0% |
6.5% |
17.4% |
100.0% |
| Total |
2.6% |
18.5% |
27.2% |
20.8% |
7.1% |
23.7% |
100.0% |
|
Certify documents: What discipline would be applied? |
Total |
| None |
Verbal
Warning |
Written
warning |
Period of
suspension
w/o pay |
Demotion |
Dismissal |
| Station |
Alexandra |
8.8% |
25.7% |
31.9% |
15.9% |
4.4% |
13.3% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
2.4% |
8.8% |
32.4% |
17.1% |
9.4% |
30.0% |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
4.3% |
16.1% |
29.0% |
21.5% |
12.9% |
16.1% |
100.0% |
| Total |
4.8% |
15.7% |
31.4% |
17.8% |
8.8% |
21.5% |
100.0% |
|
Certify documents: Would you report police member? |
Total |
| Def no/no |
Unsure |
Yes/definitely yes |
| Station |
Alexandra |
24.1% |
15.2% |
60.7% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
13.7% |
12.0% |
74.3% |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
21.3% |
16.0% |
62.8% |
100.0% |
| Total |
18.6% |
13.9% |
67.5% |
100.0% |
|
Certify documents: Would Police members report member? |
Total |
| Def no/no |
Unsure |
Yes/definitely yes |
| Station |
Alexandra |
31.8% |
16.4% |
51.8% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
32.7% |
21.1% |
46.2% |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
32.6% |
18.5% |
48.9% |
100.0% |
| Total |
32.4% |
19.0% |
48.5% |
100.0% |
Case 5: A police member discovers a burglary of a jewellery shop. The display cases are smashed, and it is clear that many items have been taken. While searching the shop, he takes a watch worth about two days salary. He reports that the watch had been stolen during the robbery.
|
Jewellery shop: How serious do
you consider behaviour to be? |
Total |
Not at all serious/
slightly
serious |
Unsure |
Serious/
very serious |
| Station |
Alexandra |
14.3% |
10.7% |
75.0% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
5.8% |
5.8% |
88.3% |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
9.5% |
7.4% |
83.2% |
100.0% |
| Total |
9.3% |
7.7% |
83.1% |
100.0% |
|
Jewellery shop: How serious do most
Police consider behaviour to be? |
Total |
Not at all serious/
slightly serious |
Unsure |
Serious/
very serious |
| Station |
Alexandra |
15.9% |
13.3% |
70.8% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
9.4% |
10.0% |
80.0% |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
17.7% |
13.5% |
68.8% |
100.0% |
| Total |
13.5% |
11.9% |
74.7% |
100.0% |
|
Jewellery shop: Considered a violation of SAPS regulations? |
Total |
| Def no/no |
Unsure |
Yes/definitely yes |
| Station |
Alexandra |
15.2% |
12.5% |
72.3% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
2.4% |
4.7% |
92.9% |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
8.4% |
7.4% |
84.2% |
100.0% |
| Total |
7.7% |
7.7% |
84.6% |
100.0% |
|
Jewellery shop: What discipline should be applied? |
Total |
| None |
Verbal
Warning |
Written
warning |
Period of
suspension
w/o pay |
Demotion |
Dismissal |
| Station |
Alexandra |
9.8% |
23.2% |
26.8% |
17.9% |
5.4% |
17.0% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
1.1% |
9.8% |
22.4% |
22.4% |
6.3% |
37.9% |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
5.4% |
12.9% |
18.3% |
33.3% |
6.5% |
23.7% |
100.0% |
| Total |
4.7% |
14.5% |
22.7% |
23.7% |
6.1% |
28.2% |
100.0% |
|
Jewellery shop: What discipline would be applied? |
Total |
| None |
Verbal
Warning |
Written
warning |
Period of
suspension
w/o pay |
Demotion |
Dismissal |
| Station |
Alexandra |
8.9% |
25.0% |
25.9% |
16.1% |
5.4% |
18.8% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
4.0% |
9.8% |
28.9% |
19.1% |
6.4% |
31.8% |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
4.3% |
16.1% |
18.3% |
22.6% |
7.5% |
31.2% |
100.0% |
| Total |
5.6% |
15.9% |
25.4% |
19.0% |
6.3% |
27.8% |
100.0% |
|
Jewellery shop: Would you report police member? |
Total |
| Def no/no |
Unsure |
Yes/definitely yes |
| Station |
Alexandra |
25.7% |
12.4% |
61.9% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
13.3% |
10.4% |
76.3% |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
18.3% |
14.0% |
67.7% |
100.0% |
| Total |
18.2% |
11.9% |
69.9% |
100.0% |
|
Jewellery shop: Would police members report member? |
Total |
| Def no/no |
Unsure |
Yes/definitely yes |
| Station |
Alexandra |
28.8% |
1.6% |
49.5% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
28.2% |
17.2% |
54.6% |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
25.8% |
19.4% |
54.8% |
100.0% |
| Total |
27.8% |
19.0% |
53.2% |
100.0% |
Case 6: A police member has a private arrangement with a defence lawyer whereby he recommends the lawyer to people who have been arrested and are in need of legal assistance. In exchange, the lawyer pays the police member some of the fee he gets from the client.
|
Lawyer: How serious do you consider behaviour to be? |
Total |
| Not at all serious/slightly serious |
Unsure |
Serious/very serious |
| Station |
Alexandra |
35.8% |
10.1% |
54.1% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
15.1% |
10.5% |
74.4% |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
25.8% |
19.4% |
54.8% |
100.0% |
| Total |
23.8% |
12.6% |
63.6% |
100.0% |
|
Lawyer: How serious do most Police
consider behaviour to be? |
Total |
Not at all serious/
slightly serious |
Unsure |
Serious/
very serious |
| Station |
Alexandra |
37.6% |
15.6% |
46.8% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
27.9% |
20.3% |
51.7% |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
39.1% |
16.3% |
44.6% |
100.0% |
| Total |
33.5% |
18.0% |
48.5% |
100.0% |
|
Lawyer: Considered a violation of official SAPS regulations? |
Total |
| Def no/no |
Unsure |
Yes/definitely yes |
| Station |
Alexandra |
34.6% |
9.3% |
56.1% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
10.5% |
12.8% |
76.7% |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
25.6% |
14.4% |
60.0% |
100.0% |
| Total |
21.1% |
12.2% |
66.7% |
100.0% |
|
Lawyer: What discipline should be applied? |
Total |
| None |
Verbal
Warning |
Written
warning |
Period of
suspension
w/o pay |
Demotion |
Dismissal |
| Station |
Alexandra |
24.3% |
21.6% |
26.1% |
14.4% |
5.4% |
8.1% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
5.7% |
20.0% |
37.1% |
19.4% |
5.7% |
12.0% |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
18.3% |
25.8% |
25.8% |
8.6% |
7.5% |
14.0% |
100.0% |
| Total |
14.2% |
21.9% |
31.1% |
15.3% |
6.1% |
11.3% |
100.0% |
|
Lawyer: What discipline would be applied? |
Total |
| None |
Verbal
Warning |
Written
warning |
Period of
suspension
w/o pay |
Demotion |
Dismissal |
| Station |
Alexandra |
22.5% |
22.5% |
25.2% |
16.2% |
5.4% |
8.1% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
12.1% |
16.8% |
35.3% |
16.2% |
5.8% |
13.9% |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
17.4% |
22.8% |
25.0% |
13.0% |
7.6% |
14.1% |
100.0% |
| Total |
16.5% |
19.9% |
29.8% |
15.4% |
6.1% |
12.2% |
100.0% |
|
Lawyer: Would you report police member? |
Total |
| Def no/no |
Unsure |
Yes/definitely yes |
| Station |
Alexandra |
33.6% |
15.5% |
50.9% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
28.4% |
13.6% |
58.0% |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
33.3% |
20.4% |
46.2% |
100.0% |
| Total |
31.1% |
15.8% |
53.0% |
100.0% |
|
Lawyer: Would police members report member? |
Total |
| Def no/no |
Unsure |
Yes/definitely yes |
| Station |
Alexandra |
39.6% |
19.8% |
40.6% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
43.8% |
19.9% |
36.4% |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
43.0% |
18.3% |
38.75 |
100.0% |
| Total |
42.4% |
19.5% |
38.1% |
100.0% |
Case 7: A commander needs R500 to pay off a loan. A junior member offers to give him the money in exchange for extra rest days, which the commander accepts.
|
Commander loan: How serious do
you consider behaviour to be? |
Total |
Not at all serious/
slightly serious |
Unsure |
Serious/
very serious |
| Station |
Alexandra |
18.9% |
8.1% |
73.0% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
6.9% |
9.1% |
84.0% |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
14.1% |
10.9% |
75.0% |
100.0% |
| Total |
12.2% |
9.3% |
78.6% |
100.0% |
|
Commander loan: How serious do most
Police consider behaviour to be? |
Total |
Not at all serious/
slightly serious |
Unsure |
Serious/
very serious |
| Station |
Alexandra |
19.3% |
15.6% |
65.1% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
16.6% |
12.6% |
70.9% |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
20.0% |
18.9% |
61.1% |
100.0% |
| Total |
18.2% |
15.0% |
66.8% |
100.0% |
|
Commander loan: Considered a
violation of SAPS regulations? |
Total |
| Def no/no |
Unsure |
Yes/definitely yes |
| Station |
Alexandra |
14.6% |
9.7% |
75.7% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
4.7% |
9.4% |
85.9% |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
13.3% |
10.0% |
76.7% |
100.0% |
| Total |
9.6% |
9.6% |
80.7% |
100.0% |
|
Commander loan: What discipline should be applied? |
Total |
| None |
Verbal
Warning |
Written
warning |
Period of
suspension
w/o pay |
Demotion |
Dismissal |
| Station |
Alexandra |
10.3% |
24.3% |
28.0% |
11.2% |
13.1% |
13.1% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
1.7% |
14.4% |
30.5% |
19.0% |
21.3% |
13.2% |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
9.9% |
17.6% |
30.8% |
16.5% |
11.0% |
14.3% |
100.0% |
| Total |
6.2% |
18.0% |
29.8% |
16.1% |
16.4% |
13.4% |
100.0% |
|
Commander loan: What discipline would be applied? |
Total |
| None |
Verbal
Warning |
Written
warning |
Period of
suspension
w/o pay |
Demotion |
Dismissal |
| Station |
Alexandra |
11.0% |
21.1% |
29.4% |
14.7% |
11.0% |
12.8% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
4.7% |
14.0% |
31.4% |
15.1% |
20.9% |
14.0% |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
7.7% |
19.8% |
30.8% |
18.7% |
8.8% |
14.3% |
100.0% |
| Total |
7.3% |
17.5% |
30.6% |
15.9% |
15.1% |
13.7% |
100.0% |
|
Commander loan: Would you report police member? |
Total |
| Def no/no |
Unsure |
Yes/definitely yes |
| Station |
Alexandra |
20.9% |
12.7% |
66.4% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
15.8% |
14.6% |
69.6% |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
25.6% |
14.4% |
60.0% |
100.0% |
| Total |
19.7% |
14.0% |
66.3% |
100.0% |
|
Commander loan: Would Police members report member? |
Total |
| Def no/no |
Unsure |
Yes/definitely yes |
| Station |
Alexandra |
29.1% |
15.5% |
55.5% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
30.1% |
18.8% |
51.1% |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
31.1% |
14.4% |
54.4% |
100.0% |
| Total |
30.1% |
16.8% |
53.2% |
100.0% |
Case 8: An on-duty police member sees another vehicle that has driven off the road and had a minor accident. The driver is unhurt, but is very drunk. It transpires that the driver is an off-duty police member. Instead of reporting the incident he transports the driver to his home.
|
Drunk Police driver: How serious do
you consider behaviour to be? |
Total |
Not at all serious/
slightly serious |
Unsure |
Serious/
very serious |
| Station |
Alexandra |
25.7% |
9.2% |
65.1% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
17.7% |
13.1% |
69.1% |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
27.0% |
20.2% |
52.8% |
100.0% |
| Total |
22.3% |
13.7% |
64.1% |
100.0% |
|
Drunk Police driver: How serious do most
Police consider behaviour to be? |
Total |
Not at all serious/
slightly serious |
Unsure |
Serious/
very serious |
| Station |
Alexandra |
30.0% |
14.5% |
55.5% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
33.5% |
16.5% |
50.0% |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
40.4% |
27.0% |
32.6% |
100.0% |
| Total |
34.1% |
18.4% |
47.5% |
100.0% |
|
Drunk Police driver: Considered a
violation of SAPS regulations? |
Total |
| Def no/no |
Unsure |
Yes/definitely yes |
| Station |
Alexandra |
19.1% |
15.5% |
65.5% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
13.6% |
13.1% |
73.3% |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
25.8% |
13.5% |
60.7% |
100.0% |
| Total |
18.1% |
13.9% |
68.0% |
100.0% |
|
Drunk Police driver: What discipline should be applied? |
Total |
| None |
Verbal
Warning |
Written
warning |
Period of
suspension
w/o pay |
Demotion |
Dismissal |
| Station |
Alexandra |
14.5% |
29.1% |
32.7% |
8.2% |
6.4% |
9.1% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
10.3% |
19.4% |
44.0% |
13.7% |
6.9% |
5.7% |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
14.4% |
24.0% |
39.2% |
12.0% |
5.6% |
6.7% |
100.0% |
| Total |
12.5% |
24.0% |
39.2% |
12.0% |
5.6% |
6.7% |
100.0% |
|
Drunk Police driver: What discipline would be applied? |
Total |
| None |
Verbal
Warning |
Written
warning |
Period of
suspension
w/o pay |
Demotion |
Dismissal |
| Station |
Alexandra |
15.3% |
20.7% |
37.8% |
12.6% |
5.4% |
8.1% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
9.8% |
19.7% |
42.8% |
15.0% |
7.5% |
5.2% |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
14.3% |
26.4% |
30.8% |
16.5% |
5.5% |
6.6% |
100.0% |
| Total |
12.5% |
21.6% |
38.4% |
14.7% |
6.4% |
6.4% |
100.0% |
|
Drunk Police driver: Would you report police member? |
Total |
| Def no/no |
Unsure |
Yes/definitely yes |
| Station |
Alexandra |
29.4% |
13.8% |
56.9% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
27.2% |
20.8% |
52.0% |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
37.1 |
21.3% |
41.6% |
100.0% |
| Total |
30.2% |
18.9% |
50.9% |
100.0% |
|
Drunk Police driver: Would Police members report member? |
Total |
| Def no/no |
Unsure |
Yes/definitely yes |
| Station |
Alexandra |
32.7% |
21.8% |
45.5% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
36.8% |
26.4% |
36.8% |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
46.7% |
22.2% |
31.1% |
100.0% |
| Total |
38.0% |
24.1% |
38.0% |
100.0% |
Case 9: A police member accepts free drinks from a bar owner in exchange for turning a blind eye to the fact that the bar is operating after hours.
|
After hours bar: How serious do
you consider behaviour to be? |
Total |
Not at all serious/
slightly serious |
Unsure |
Serious/
very serious |
| Station |
Alexandra |
20.% |
12.6% |
66.7% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
7.5% |
9.2% |
83.3% |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
25.6% |
7.8% |
66.7% |
100.0% |
| Total |
15.7% |
9.9% |
74.4% |
100.0% |
|
After hours bar: How serious do most
Police consider behaviour to be? |
Total |
Not at all serious/
slightly serious |
Unsure |
Serious/
very serious |
| Station |
Alexandra |
25.5% |
16.4% |
58.2% |
100.0% |
| Hillbrow |
21.1% |
15.4% |
63.4% |
100.0% |
| Sandton |
31.1% |
18.9% |
50.0% |
100.0% |
| Total |
24.8% |
16.5% |
58.7% |
100.0% |
|
After hours bar: Considered a violation of SAPS regulations? |
Total |
| Def no/no |
Unsure |
Yes/definitely yes |
