There is a lack of clarity in government about crime prevention as it is discussed here. While it is clear that crime prevention is considered to be important and desirable, social crime prevention in particular seems to be misunderstood, or has multiple meanings and applications depending on which government department is involved. Linked to this has been the over-reliance on law enforcement strategies to prevent crime, with the focus being on the traditional criminal justice government departments. The contribution that may be made by the social service departments, through their core activities, has received far less attention.

The two most important success factors for crime prevention are programme quality and reach (i.e. the number of people who have access to services). In relation to many of the services under review, government departments are still grappling with the basics of service provision. Key examples include early childhood development and primary health care – both of which have enormous potential to prevent crime. Due to skills shortages however, the impact of both is currently limited. The challenges of having the necessary skill and capacity to deliver high quality programmes pervade much of the discussion in relation to social services. In relation to the issue of programme quality, key determining factors are: programme content, programme theory, clear outcomes, defining the target groups and how they might be impacted, guidelines providing norms and standards as well as action protocols, the monitoring and evaluation of services, good management of programmes, and effective oversight and complaints mechanisms.

There are few signs that South Africa is taking advantage of ‘leverage points’ – or activities that can have many successful crime prevention outcomes. As a country with many priorities and limits on resources, this kind of approach is essential. For example, investing in children, from as young an age as possible, through programmes that ensure their overall health and well-being, is known to create multiple positive outcomes. Yet this philosophy does not seem to permeate the system of service provision. Other leverage points that are not being exploited even though we know they have great crime reduction impact are probation services, diversion, and offender reintegration services.

Creating space in government budgets for the ‘leverage points’ discussed above is also a challenge. Many of the other services provided by the Departments of Health, Education and Social Development are being crowded out by provincial social security services. The pressure on these Departments to deliver on some very basic services also significantly reduces their ability to contribute to crime prevention. Mechanisms must be found to ring-fence budgets for specific programmes in order that they are not sacrificed to other needs. The provision of conditional grants to augment specific social crime prevention services is a strategy that should be considered.

Overall, the information used by government for crime prevention planning is relatively weak. The official SAPS crime statistics are inadequate for crime prevention practitioners, as more and different information is required in order to implement crime prevention programmes. Information about the nature and patterns of victimisation, collected on a regular basis, is essential for programme planning. Further disaggregated information relating to the different vulnerable groups served by the departments under review, e.g. children and the elderly, also needs to be collected.

There is considerable experience and expertise in social crime prevention among civil society organisations, yet there are few avenues for these to benefit government programmes. Civil society organisations have made significant inroads into understanding what works in relation to social crime prevention, and the question is whether these new approaches can be integrated into general government service delivery, and if government can take these projects to a greater scale.

The role for public education programmes in preventing crime prevention has received some attention internationally. This is, however, not the case in South Africa. Although there has been much debate regarding the extent to which behaviour can be changed through public education messages in the mass media, some basic messages about issues such as rights, how to access services, etc. may also serve a crime prevention agenda.