FROM POLICY TO PRACTICE:
EXPLORING
VICTIM EMPOWERMENT INITIATIVES
IN
SOUTH AFRICA
(Abstract)
Juan Nel & Johan Kruger
Funded by the
Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology
A CSIR Publication
Pretoria, May, 1999.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AIM
Commissioned by the National Crime Prevention Strategy Victim Empowerment Programme
Reference Team and funded by the Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology, the
aim of the research project was to determine critical success factors for victim empowerment
initiatives at a local level involving direct service delivery.
SCOPE
Included in the research were initiatives at a local level, requiring the input of more than one
sector (thus any two of the four key sectors, i.e. Welfare, Security, Justice and Health, or a state
department and a Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO)/Community-Based Organisation
(CBO), etc.). The emphasis was on initiatives where intersectoral co-operation occurred, such as
one-stop trauma/crisis centres for victims of rape and/or child abuse. Furthermore, the
researchers only included victim empowerment initiatives of a reactive nature (assistance and/or
support offered following victimisation, as opposed to those initiatives aimed at pro-actively
preventing victimisation in the first place).
METHODOLOGY
The research was mostly exploratory in nature and employed a triangulation approach. Firstly a
survey questionnaire was delivered to all members on the National Crime Prevention Strategy
(NCPS) Victim Empowerment Programme (VEP) Management and Reference Teams, and to
Provincial Project Leaders of the Department of Welfare (the lead agency in the VEP), a subtotal of 20 (out of 51) were received. The questionnaire was also applied to victim empowerment
initiatives which were selected for focus group interviews (see next paragraph) and 52 (out of
92) focus group participants completed the questionnaire. In addition 9 other persons doing the
NCPS VEP certificate course at Unisa were selected to complete the questionnaire, giving a
grand total of 81 completed questionnaires. The provinces included in the research are Gauteng,
Western Cape, KwaZulu-Natal and Mpumalanga. Local service delivery initiatives were
purposefully selected with the assistance of national and especially provincial NCPS VEP coordinators in terms of various criteria, such as representing good practice or useful informational
opportunities and a fair mix of either government- or NGO/CBO-driven initiatives.
The questionnaire contained a mixture of open- and close-ended questions in order to explore
understanding of victim empowerment principles. Also included were questions measuring the
awareness, knowledge and attitudes towards the NCPS VEP, as well as implementation.
Responses to open questions that were knowledge related were rated by an expert in victim
empowerment, and other qualitative responses were thematically coded and also entered on a
statistical software programme (SPSS) for analysis.
The focus group interviews employed a non-directive interview technique within the framework
of an interview schedule. The interview schedule contained questions such as how, when, why
and by whom an initiative was started, and also focused on problems and successes experienced.
The interviews were then summarised and thematically analysed to identify themes relating to
success and failure in the local victim service delivery context. These themes were integrated
into a model for setting up a victim empowerment initiative at a local level. Feedback of
preliminary results at the consultative workshop (of 4 February 1999) was helpful in improving
the quality of the interpretation of results.
FINDINGS
Information was gathered across a wide range of stakeholders, but sampling was not
random and findings are therefore exploratory. Of the 81 questionnaires received, the
majority (78%) were completed by female participants. The mean age was 39 years and the
majority of participants (60%) had a tertiary education. The highest percentage of participants
(33%) came from Gauteng Province; KwaZulu-Natal (25.9%) and Mpumalanga (22%). The
largest sectors in the survey were the Security (38%), Welfare (29%) and Health (22%) sectors.
Most of the participants at local level from government and other areas were fairly new to the
field of victim empowerment and support (average of 2 years involvement), with those at
national and provincial levels from government involved for 2½ years on average, and those
from the NGO sector at national and provincial levels for an average of more than 7 years. Given
the non-random nature of sampling at local level and the low rates of return at national and
provincial levels, these findings from the questionnaire should be treated as exploratory and
descriptive-interpretative, without generalising too broadly regarding specific sectors or
organisations.
Most respondents had a good understanding of victim empowerment, but little knowledge
regarding the role of their sector in the NCPS VEP. The majority of the respondents (58%)
have never read the NCPS. An even greater percentage (72%) have not read a recent copy of the
business plan for the NCPS VEP. In particular, respondents from the Health and, to a lesser
extent, Security sectors appear not to have easy access to these policy documents. Also,
predictably, the majority of respondents (whether from government (67%) or the NGO sector
(68%)) who operate at the local level, appear to have no access to the NCPS documentation.
Although there was a widespread understanding of the meaning of victim empowerment (73%),
the needs of victims (67%), the main objectives of the NCPS VEP (66%), and ways of breaking
the cycle of violence (64%), only 48% of the respondents knew what roles had been assigned to
their sector in the NCPS VEP. The scenario gets worse when specifically focusing on
respondents at a local level. This is worrying as the roles relate to the implementation of the
NCPS. Respondents involved in functions of policy formulation and co-ordination at a national
and provincial level (especially those representing government) generally seem to have the best
understanding of the objectives of the NCPS VEP and deem the NCPS to be an excellent strategy
in principle, but one which is hampered by various constraints in practice.
There are large differences among agencies regarding levels of implementation, with the
NGO/CBO sector and local initiatives tending to lead the way. Participants in the research
from the NGO/CBO sector (especially at a national and provincial level) seem to be much more
advanced re implementation of the NCPS VEP and also more confident regarding their ability to
fulfil the role that they have been assigned in the NCPS VEP. (Note small sample size and that
these findings ought therefore not to be generalised.) Interestingly, government at a local level
appears to be much further with implementation than government at the other two levels
(especially provincially), yet feel less able to fulfil their role as assigned in the NCPS VEP.
Respondents from the Health sector (at all three levels (63%)) appear to be most confident that
they are on track with the NCPS VEP, followed by the Welfare (55%), Security (48%) and
Justice sectors (20%). In almost all instances it would appear that this is mostly the case for the
local level, followed by national and finally the provincial level. Fortunately, 50% of government
at national level said they were finalising policy and procedures, implying that the picture might
change soon, should there be adequate resources and support for implementation. Only 27% of
the respondents indicated that their organisation has developed or arranged for training initiatives
to assist them in executing the objectives of the programme. The Security sector reports the
lowest (43%) internal consensus and co-operation around issues of the NCPS VEP, followed by
the Justice (53%), Welfare (66%) and Health (77%) sectors.
Key problems in the implementation process are seen to be a lack of resources and a high
workload . The majority of respondents (71%) agreed that their capacity to implement the
strategy was restricted by a lack of resources (human and material). This is particularly the case
in the Health (86%) and Justice (80%) sectors. The Justice (60%) and Security (56%) sectors in
particular complained about a workload that is so high that it allows them very little time and
energy to spend on NCPS VEP matters. Respondents from the Health (77%) and Welfare (73%)
sectors generally seem to be of the opinion that they have well-developed communication and
information dissemination strategies. A large percentage of government officials (85%) were
convinced that their department was highly committed to the NCPS VEP. Intersectoral
interaction and collaboration generally appears to be a reality, especially at a local level, where
57% of respondents believe that it is of a good to excellent quality. Most (79%) believe that cooperation between NGOs/CBOs and government is highly desirable, as well as feasible. The
feasibility is seen to be lowest in the Security and Welfare sectors. The majority of respondents
to the questionnaire (70% from sectors other than Welfare and 50% from the Welfare sector)
were satisfied with the fact that the Department of Welfare is the lead agency in the programme.
Participants in the focus groups appear to be less positive in this regard, stating that Welfare was
very much on the periphery, and seldom perform the co-ordinating role allocated to them in the
NCPS VEP. 57% of respondents to the questionnaire agreed with the statement that the NCPS
VEP was initiated by government in a top-down approach and that it would have been better if it
were a community-driven initiative. Asked who should resource or finance the areas of service
delivery that fall outside the jurisdiction or usual responsibilities of any specific government
department, the majority suggested business (31%), followed by the state (20%), and local
authorities (14%).
Most respondents understood the primary needs of victims and shared the opinion that the
plight of victimised women and children should be prioritised. The delivery of services
aimed at addressing emotional needs (99%), developing crime prevention programmes (99%),
public education on crime prevention (97%), medical assistance (97%), and the provision of
information to victims (97%) were deemed most important. There is a perception among 30% of
this sample that mediation between victims and offenders is not important. Similarly, 24% do not
deem practical assistance (e.g. help with insurance claims, fixing of broken windows, etc.) as
important. The majority shared the opinion that the plight of women and children as victims of
crime and violence ought to be prioritised, and that they require special attention. (This result
should, however, be viewed with caution as it is open to different interpretations.)
The majority of initiatives included in the research operationalise victim empowerment
and support in a similar manner. Almost all primarily direct their services at women and
children (and more specifically to sexual abuse and domestic violence). The services for victims
are mostly rendered by volunteers who donate their time, skills and/or money. These services are
often attached to another service (whether a NGO, such as Citizens Advice Bureau or NICRO, or
a government service, such as a police station or hospital).The benefit of the aforementioned is
that resources can be shared and overhead costs thus limited. Most of the initiatives included in
the research sample have, in some way or the other, been informed by the NCPS policy
framework and therefore share many similarities. While the local situation and needs of the
community mostly determine the nature of the service, the majority provide crisis intervention
and basic counselling, recognition of the trauma, medical examinations, practical assistance,
information and education regarding crime prevention, and referral. These services are almost
exclusively rendered to primary victims (those who have been directly harmed), while the family
and significant others (secondary victims) are seldom the focus of attention. Interestingly, almost
none of the initiatives provide services such as negotiation, mediation and reparation.
Themes which emerged from the focus group discussions suggest that the operational
requirements for a victim empowerment service are:
• Human resources (a skilled project co-ordinator and volunteers; training, supervision and
support, etc.)
• Management structures (leadership with vision and drive, that is responsible for project
management and strategic planning)
• Financial resources (for the remuneration of project co-ordinator; finances to cover real
expenses of volunteers, etc.)
• Facilities and material resources (office space; furniture; telephones; transport; medical
equipment, etc.)
• Marketing strategies and volunteer recruitment
• Networking, a resource directory and a referral system
• Monitoring and evaluation of the service.
The focus group discussion similarly suggest that the principles that are crucial to
intersectoral service delivery to victims include:
• Accountability (transparency, credibility, feedback and reflection on processes)
• Consultation and community ownership (a service by the community for the community)
• Empowerment (whether through raising awareness, enhancing understanding, dissemination of
information, or delivering trauma/crisis support - this also refers to prioritising the needs of the
disadvantaged)
• Co-ordination and partnership (intra- and intersectoral)
• Sustainability (of human and material resources).
According to focus group participants it is also important to prioritise capacity development
and the skills enhancement of service providers. Negotiating clear boundaries (i.e. provide
only specific types of services to specified groups of victims) and remaining focused (i.e. having
a mission statement; policies and procedures; and role clarification) is similarly deemed crucial,
as is the commitment to the 'cause' of victim empowerment and support.
When integrating the quantitative and qualitative research findings, the greatest obstacles
in the delivery of services to victims of crime and violence were seen to be:
• Lack of physical resources (infrastructure/facilities and other resources, such as finances,
transport, telephones, etc.)
• Lack of, or overstretched, human resources (volunteers and employees with limited skills or
training and a lack of planning and other management skills)
• Lack of supportive contexts/structures (includes limited awareness, information and
understanding of the issues and a lack of intersectoral collaboration).
These factors are more or less identical to factors associated with the failure of NCPS VEP
services.
According to participants in the research the factors deemed most crucial to ensure success
in the delivery of services to victims are:
• Adequate physical resources (among others infrastructure, facilities and finances)
• Adequate human resources, with appropriate skills and training to deliver an effective service
(ability to address the needs of victims), and good management (management skills, project
management, support and commitment)
• Supportive contexts/structures (including adequate awareness and understanding of the issues;
commitment to the 'cause' by all parties and motivation to a common vision and goal;
intersectoral co-operation and collaboration with a clear understanding of roles and
responsibilities, guidelines and procedures; and community support and involvement).
SUMMARY OF CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
Critical success factors for victim empowerment initiatives referring mostly, but not exclusively,
to trauma or crisis centres, as identified by respondents to the survey questionnaire and
participants in the focus group discussions can be summarised under four main headings.
Good Relationships with the Community
• Community ownership of the process and consultation of all stakeholders throughout
• Establishing and maintaining trust between community members and service providers.
Gathering and Provision of Relevant Information
• A thorough knowledge and understanding of the NCPS and other relevant policies
• Public awareness of and education on victim issues (of when an individual becomes a victim,
what the plight of victims is, and what services are available for them)

A thorough analysis of the needs and expectations of a particular community, taking into
account the community profile, crime patterns, characteristics of victims in that community,
etc.
• Identifying existing resources in the community by involving relevant government departments,
social service agencies, etc. in the planning process to prevent the duplication or underrepresentation of specific services
• Effective marketing and informational strategies, such as clear signposts indicating the location of
the initiative
• Service provider awareness and skills training
• Efficient referral networks to and from other service providers
• Research, evaluation, monitoring, feedback, and follow-up on the effectiveness of service
rendering in order to consistently provide a service that is relevant, effective and adequate.
Good Management
• An integrated management plan involving different tiers/sectors to ensure accountability
• Management commitment and enthusiasm
• Determining clear and logical programme objectives and activities which also entails role
clarification
• The necessary care in deciding on a relevant organisational structure for an initiative, taking into
account the geographical size, distribution of the population, the extent of the need and availability
of resources in the area
• Clearly negotiated boundaries in terms of the catchment area, the nature of the service to be
rendered and client population to be served
• Appropriate location for the initiative
• Easy and safe access to the initiative for both the victim and service providers
• Efficient administration and minimal red tape.
Adequate Resource Allocation
• Appropriate infrastructure and sufficient human and material resources
• Appointing the correct project co-ordinator, staff and volunteers
• Sufficient support for service provides (project co-ordinator, staff and volunteers)
• Sustainability of the initiative or service
• Management of resources.
There is thus a need for an integrated policy framework with guidelines/protocol for each role
player. Furthermore, what is required is sustainable victim empowerment services at a local
level, not reliant on individual personalities or prior networks and resources, but rather on
intersectoral/-departmental co-operation and viable policies. Initiatives ought to offer
comprehensive, holistic, co-ordinated, and pro-active services in order to be effective. The
planning and establishment of these services ought to be community-driven and ought to bear
long-term goals in mind. Services ought to cater for the diversity in language, culture and world
view of the community in question - i.e. they ought to have local realities in mind. Services
ought to be accessible with regard to their location and/or service fees and should be well
marketed. Ideally all categories of victims of crime and violence ought to be catered for. In order
to answer to the goal of crime prevention, most victims in a specific catchment area ought to be
reached; should receive trauma debriefing soon after the incident of victimisation; and as far as
possible be prevented from becoming re-victimised or taking justice into their own hands. Early
intervention may prevent deterioration in the socio-economic functioning of individuals or their
productivity in the workplace. When required, follow-up and referral ought to take place. Should
government policies truly be person-centred, this will prevent secondary victimisation.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is crucial that bottle-necks and problems, as identified in the research, be addressed, and that
protocols and appropriate policy for implementation of the programme be put in place.
Furthermore, stakeholders ought to have a common understanding of what victim empowerment
and support means in practice. As the aforementioned is mostly a function of policy-makers and
therefore those situated at a national or provincial level, the majority of the recommendations are
aimed at these levels.
Information Dissemination
• A first priority for policy-makers in general, and the NCPS VEP Management Team
specifically, ought to be addressing the need for improved communication right across the
board as clearly indicated in the research. (A national newsletter and/or resource centre as
point of information and advice to those involved in the field of service delivery to victims of
crime will greatly benefit the programme.)
• The NCPS VEP Management Team ought to compile and widely distribute a national
resource directory of training courses, manuals and books, and of organisations whose work
can be of assistance to project co-ordinators, staff and volunteers involved in local initiatives
• The NCPS ought to be updated by the Ministry of Safety and Security as a matter of urgency
and copies thereof ought to be disseminated as broadly as possible (at the very least every
Community Policing Forum (CPF) ought to be in possession of the document and care ought to
be taken that people understand its principles)
• Clear guidelines for implementation of the principles of the NCPS as policy framework
ought to be provided by the Ministry of Safety and Security
• The NCPS VEP Management Team ought to ensure that all stakeholders (politicians, policy-
makers, communities, service providers and victims) have an understanding of the 'big
picture' of victim empowerment (i.e. that it entails more than providing 'a private cubicle and
tea' for victims and includes services such as negotiation, mediation and reparation)
• The NCPS VEP Management Team, in liaison with the Directors-General of each government
department, ought to provide formal guidelines at institutional level on how to operationalise
victim empowerment
• Politicians and policy-makers ought to avoid the perpetuation of gender stereotypes (i.e. the
description of women and children as more vulnerable and in need of special services) and
service providers ought to indicate clearly that services for victims of crime and violence are not
exclusive of men as victims
• The NCPS VEP Management Team ought to organise a national workshop in the
foreseeable future to bring together present project co-ordinators of VEP initiatives to exchange
good practices and to enhance their understanding of the principles required for a successful
service
• All service providers ought to have an updated community resource directory which
provides a clear understanding of the other services on offer in the community
• The findings of this research ought to be widely disseminated by the NCPS VEP
Management Team and be brought under the attention of as many role-players and communities
as possible.
Good Management
• The NCPS VEP Management Team ought to give careful consideration to whether it is in the
best interest of the programme to have Welfare as "the lead department", given their
peripheral role within the Criminal Justice System and their lack of capacity especially at local
level
• The NCPS VEP Management Team ought to hold government departments accountable for
the specific roles and actions allocated to them within the NCPS
• The NCPS VEP Management Team ought to devise protocols and procedures (inter- and
intrasectoral) for co-ordinated multi-disciplinary teams and integrated service delivery
• The NCPS VEP Management Team ought to devise good strategies for project
implementation and the institutionalisation of practices
• The NCPS VEP Management Team ought to assist with the prioritising and planning of
action for each sector
• Business Against Crime ought to consider the sponsoring of project co-ordinators of local
initiatives to attend training courses that will contribute to their skills development
• Management committees and project co-ordinators of initiatives ought to prevent burn-out of
service providers by drawing clear service boundaries (provide only specific types of services to
specified groups of victims, etc.)
• Consideration ought to be given to the utilisation of CPFs as management committees for
local initiatives, whether located at a police station or elsewhere.
Appropriate Resource Allocation
• The needs of the disadvantaged ought to be considered by project initiators in the planning of
new initiatives (this includes access to services in terms of distances, availability of transport and
telephones)
• Where possible, management committees and project co-ordinators of initiatives ought to
ensure that services also provide for the basic needs of the victim (supplying a basic meal,
overnight sleeping facility, etc.)
• Management committees and project co-ordinators of initiatives ought to ensure that, where
possible, services are also extended to cater for the needs of secondary victims (the family and
significant others of those harmed directly)
• Policy-makers and the NCPS VEP Management Team ought to take cognisance of the
financial and other consequences of the programme for all sectors (i.e. who carries
responsibility for budget items, such as telephone costs within the trauma centre, etc.)
• The NCPS VEP Management Team ought to call on the state to provide the infrastructure,
such as office space, footing the bill for telephonic expenses, paying the salaries of coordinators of local initiatives and reimbursing volunteers for real expenses
• The NCPS VEP Management Team ought to devise a policy which provides for insurance
coverage for volunteers in the event of personal loss, injury, disability or death while on
duty
• Consideration ought to be given by project initiators and management committees to locate
victim empowerment initiatives at large police stations or as a second option, large state
hospitals, for purposes of easy access and transport.
A final recommendation is that research ought to be commissioned into client satisfaction with
existing services for victims of crime and violence, as well as into preventative victim
empowerment in SA.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Research Team
Juan Nel* (Director: Centre for Applied Psychology, University of South Africa): Project
manager
Johan Kruger (Department of Psychology, University of South Africa): Research
manager
Carmen Domingo-Swarts (Council for Scientific and Industrial Research): Research
assistant
Kevin Joubert: Field worker
Dawie Nel: Field worker
Consultants
Dr. Barend Taute (Council for Scientific and Industrial Research)
Superintendent Zuzelle Pretorius (SA Police Service)
Dr. Martin Terre Blanche (University of South Africa)
Participants in Consultative Workshops (see Appendix C)
Dr. Evante Schurink (Human Sciences Research Council)
Dr. Rachel Jewkes (Medical Research Council)
Co-researchers
All the participants in the focus groups (see Appendix D)
All the participants in the survey questionnaire (see Appendix E)
Research Commissioned by
The National Crime Prevention Strategy (NCPS) - Victim Empowerment Programme
Reference Team
Research Funded by
The Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology
* Address correspondence to:
Juan Nel, Department of Psychology, University of South Africa, PO Box 392,
PRETORIA 0003.
Tel: 083-282-0791 or (012) 429-8544
E-mail: nelja@unisa.ac.za or johan.kruger@bigfoot.com
_____________________________________________________________________________
Full publication details:
Juan Nel & Johan Kruger
From Policy to Practice: Exploring Victim Empowerment Initiatives in South
Africa
Pretoria, 1999
Published by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research
ISBN 0-7988-5437-5