Prisoners at a community dialogue session at the Frankfort Correctional Centre
Constable Motaung from the South African Police Service (SAPS) is a Community Police Officer, responsible for the co-ordination of all victim empowerment programmes in the area. He is the chairperson of a co-ordinating structure, Isidingo Community Forum, which draws together a range of stakeholders in Frankfort to avoid the duplication of activities and services offered to the community.
Despite the existence of this forum Motaung concedes that, until recently, the activities of the police did not rely on input from the community and, therefore, were not really meeting the needs of the community. The patrols and visibility of the police tended to be reactive in nature, relying on limited crime intelligence statistics to identify hotspots or types of crime to concentrate on. As a result, the community did not report crimes as they felt the police did not really care about them and so the cycle continued — no visibility of police, no crimes reported, no focused patrols or investigations by the police. Even the monthly meetings of the Community Police Forum had limited, if any, participation from the community.
So what has changed? In 2014, as part of the Safer South Africa programme, the National Institute Community Development and Management (NICDAM) began the implementation of a series of community dialogue sessions in Frankfort, implemented through two local community facilitators, Martha Mputhi and Mamonaheng Mofokeng. Motaung speaks warmly of the impact that the community dialogue sessions have had in the area. He argues that it has been a “real eye-opener for all concerned”, as never before have all stakeholders sat down with the community and unpacked the issues that are concerning them, particularly as they pertain to gender-based violence.
The community facilitators echo the sentiments of Constable Motaung, arguing that the dialogue sessions have been an important first step in breaking down the barriers between the community and other stakeholders:
“NICDAM came into the community after a number of nasty incidents had taken place. Domestic violence was a big issue in the community, exacerbated by the high levels of drug and alcohol abuse. Sections of the community felt vulnerable, neglected and at the mercy of criminal elements among them.”
The dialogues offered the community an opportunity to raise their fears and concerns without fear or prejudice. The atmosphere created at these sessions, where it was emphasised that there was no wrong or right, allowed participants to be open and honest. Women in particular were encouraged to open up about domestic violence and they felt free to do so as they were often in the majority in these sessions. As Martha says: “Abuse is there, it is happening. But people are now not scared to talk — the issue has been put on the table and people feel open to talk about it.”
A particular strength of the dialogue sessions is that it draws together a range of different stakeholders. In the case of police, members of the force were present to respond to criticism from the community and inform them about the structures that were in place to work with the community as well as the processes to be followed in reporting crime. Other government departments were also able to share information about the programmes and services they offer and the presence of local councillors at these sessions meant that local government was also kept abreast of the developments in the community.
Building on this strength, the approach to the community dialogues involves the recruitment of ambassadors from different groups within the community. These ambassadors work, without pay, as the mouthpiece of the programme, broadcasting the information shared at the sessions as well as assisting in recruiting people for further dialogues. As a result, the dialogue sessions have been attended by both young and old, male and female and representatives of various stakeholder groups and initiatives. As ambassador Elias Motsoeneng says, the dialogue sessions were “like we were in a mini-parliament”. Mamonaheng believes that the dialogue sessions have “empowered the community by engaging different stakeholders”. This is backed up by Motaung, who feels that the “diversity of the audience raised so many issues that we were not aware of”.
The presence of a Correctional Services facility in the town of Frankfort offered an unexpected opportunity to the dialogue process. At an initial dialogue, a group of prisoners were invited to provide some entertainment at particular breaks in the session. However, during the opening discussions and information-sharing, the prisoners seized the opportunity to become involved.
Motaung lauds their involvement, arguing that their experiences lend a particular value to the dialogue. They were able to reflect on why people become involved in crime, especially gender-based violence, and provide insights into the “minds of those involved in crime” that those at the session would not have been exposed to. For example, they noted how “potentially vulnerable individuals” are identified through observing the unkempt state of a house’s garden or yard, which often reflects the absence of a male figure in that household.
By the time the dialogue session moved on to the group work, the prisoners were thoroughly immersed in the process and ended up scattered throughout the various groups. This intimate contact between members of the community and the prisoners proved invaluable to both groups. The prisoners were able to hear from the community about the heartache and pain some members experienced because of crime. They were able to express their remorse to the community for what they had done. As one prisoner commented: “I would have remained angry with myself if I did not cough out what was in my heart.”
The prisoners were also able to share information about particular “payback to the community” initiatives that they were involved in ranging from renovating houses, tidying gardens to organising clothes and food parcels for the particularly needy. According to one of the offenders, through these payback initiatives more and more prisoners are “motivated to participate in the development and transformation of the community”.
As a result of this dialogue session, NICDAM and the community facilitators were requested to run a session within the prison for a larger number of prisoners. The positive effects of these dialogue sessions continue to be felt in Frankfort to this day. The prisoners now have their own committee, which, according to Motaung, very much wants to become a part of the Isidingo Community Forum and the activities that it plans.