Monograph 73: Leaner and Meaner? Restructuring the Detective Service, Jean Redpath

This monograph aims to update readers on the nature, rationale and implications of the restructuring of the detective service within the South African Police Service (SAPS) announced in January 2000. It does this by outlining the approach within SAPS management towards improving the performance of the detective service and as such, hopes to provide clarity on the process of restructuring.

The detective service comprises about 20% of the members of the SAPS. The hierarchical SAPS structure requires detectives to report both to the divisional commissioner of the detective service at head office in Pretoria and to the provincial commissioner of the province in which they are based. Many of those interviewed believe this frustrates detective work and negatively affects performance and morale.

The latest figures show that there were approximately 21,797 detectives in the SAPS. Detectives have unmanageable caseloads of more than 50 serious crimes per detective on average. The performance of the detective service as a whole, and of the specialised investigation units in particular, is difficult to measure accurately. The available data tends to indicate that the performance could be substantially improved. Measured as a ratio of cases sent to court and of cases recorded, low conviction rates are the norm. There is, however, considerable variation between provinces.

Poor performance is a function of several factors, such as uncertain career paths to becoming a detective, inappropriate promotion policies, insufficient training, the unmanageable workload, and the skills drain. Many skilled detectives have left the service, largely as a result of an inability to perform their work properly given the capacity and other constraints they face. Few former detectives that were interviewed for the study said they left because of poor pay.

The restructuring of the detective service has seen approximately 7,000 detectives formerly based at the 503 specialised units re-deployed to station level. The main motivation for the restructuring is to boost the capacity for crime investigation at station level. Another important reason is that the specialised units appear to have performed less well than the station level detectives who investigate less serious crimes. Possible reasons for this are the lack of communication among the units and between the units and station level detectives, and confusion regarding which unit should take responsibility for particular cases. All of this results in delays in investigation.

Several units will remain unaffected by the restructuring announced thus far. These include the commercial branch and the family violence, child protection and sexual offences units, and child protection units. (The structure of the commercial branch is, however, currently being re-considered.)

The restructuring has seen the emergence of two new types of units—the organised crime units and the serious and violent crime units. The mandate of the serious and violent crime units is somewhat unclear. This is likely to pose problems for deciding whether a crime should be investigated by serious and violent crime unit detectives or station level detectives. The exact mandate of the organised crime units had not been finalised at the time of writing. Phased reductions will ultimately see 21 units with 600 detectives based in organised crime units throughout the country.

A potentially problematic development is the absorption of the SAPS’ former anti-corruption units into the organised crime units. It will be difficult for detectives in the new units to investigate their colleagues—given that organised crime more often than not operates with the assistance of corrupt police officers. This problem is likely to be compounded by the precarious financial position of the Independent Complaints Directorate (ICD). ICD detectives are often forced to refer cases against SAPS members to the detective service because of their own capacity constraints.

The organised crime units and the Directorate of Special Operations (DSO, or more commonly known as the Scorpions) are both set to investigate organised crime. The legislation governing the DSO does not clearly outline a jurisdictional basis for distinguishing between it and the detective service of the SAPS. This means there is the potential for duplication and unproductive rivalry. While it is true that the approach of the DSO is different to the SAPS in terms of prosecution-lead investigations and greater teamwork, this need not remain true as SAPS could implement such teams if it so chose. It is not therefore a sufficient argument for the maintenance of two bodies engaged in essentially the same activity. Furthermore, the DSO’s prosecution-led and group-targeted approach may not be appropriate for certain kinds of crime. The objective role of the prosecution service may become blurred if the prosecution is involved in all investigations, especially in instances where the identity of a perpetrator is not known prior to the commencement of an investigation.

The DSO also receives only one sixth of the money allocated to the organised crime sub-programme of the SAPS detective service. It is thus difficult to imagine how it can compete effectively with the detective service. Even if the DSO is far more efficient than the SAPS in its operation, capacity and resource constraints are likely to negatively affect the DSO’s performance in the long run.

A positive development is the productive relationship that has developed between the SAPS detective service and the Asset Forfeiture Unit (AFU) located in the National Prosecuting Authority. This can largely be attributed to the fact that the AFU has no investigative capacity of its own and has to rely on the DSO and the SAPS detective service to source its cases.

The fact that both the DSO and new SAPS organised crime units are focusing on organised crime is a clear indication that government has prioritised this problem. However, while it poses a threat to the authority of the state, organised crime is probably less of a priority for ordinary citizens than violent crime.