Case study 9: Mathare Progressiveyouth group

1. Introduction

1.1. Role player: Mathare Progressive Youth Group

The Mathare Progressive Youth Group (MPYG) is the second of the vigilante groups in this study. It is located within Mathare Valley, a discarded quarry.¹ MPYG is located in part of one of Nairobi's large informal settlements, which recently saw some very distressful blood letting by vigilante groups fighting each other for their beliefs and other ulterior motives. MPYG appears not to have been involved in any of this mayhem.

1.2. Crime prevention mandate

The Mathare Progressive Youth Group (MPYG) felt that the mandate for its crime prevention initiative lay with the Kenya Police Force, i.e. Regular Police and Administration Police.

1.2.3. Links between national and local crime fighting

It could not be determined whether the MPYG was aware of such links, but they felt that there should be a conscious link because crime had to be fought on all fronts, be it by the police or the individual community members.

Furthermore there was a feeling that in the informal settlements the major problems are economic issues. Therefore issues like crime which arise from the poor economic situation could be best handled by the individuals who live within the informal settlements. These in turn would complement the work of the police.

1.3. Role players

MPYG felt that the main role players in crime prevention fell into three clusters, namely volunteer youth groups, the Kenya Police, and the Provincial Administration.

1.3.1. Role players' mandates

MPYG saw the role players' mandates as multiplicities of interconnected tasks. The first was to take care of security of the area. The unemployed youth, by coming together, could enforce security and work towards earning an income legitimately. The range of services suggested by the MPYG include garbage collection, reporting any security concerns to the police, and helping the police to apprehend those who break the law in the area.

1.3.2. Legal basis of role players

The legal basis of the three main role players was explained as follows:

The Kenya Police Force. In so far as MPYG is concerned, the Kenya Police have express powers for crime prevention in the city and the whole country. They are government employees who take care of security.
The Provincial Administration. At the lowest level of Nairobi Provincial Administration is the institution of Chiefs. At these localised levels and within the Chiefs Offices are stationed the Administration Police.² Together the two components of Provincial Administration ensure that law and order are maintained. However, the MPYG regrets that for quite some time Chiefs and Administrative Police have been more concerned with arresting members of the community who are in the illicit brewing industry.³
The Vigilante Group. The MPYG, which is partly a vigilante group and partly 'other things', is registered as a Youth Group with the Ministry of Culture and Social Services. Youth groups are a special category of organisation that the government wishes to encourage.⁴ Apart from security, MPYG also involves itself in sporting activities and garbage collection with the prime aim of ensuring that the members of the organisation do not stay idle. MPYG operates within the Mathare slums.

1.4. Partnership

1.4.1. Structure of partnerships

The crime prevention relationship is such that the youth group works with the various people from the government and other organs. MPYG works with the Nairobi City Council Inspectorate, the Kenya Police and the Provincial Administration.

1.4.2. Relationships with partners

There are no clear written policies, rules or regulations on how to relate to one another as partners in crime prevention. This has to do with how the MPYG was founded and how it is evolving.

The birth of the group was out of a need to solve problems confronting the Mathare locality. Partnership relationships are such that If the Kenya Police and the Provincial Administration are willing to work with the MPYG, then there is communication. However, communications and working relationships differ from time to time. MPYG stated that when there is a good officer in place then partnerships are able to function. When such officers are transferred, then problems resurface again and MPYG has to start fresh communications and negotiations to enable the partners to work together.

Figure 18: MPYG's partners in crime prevention

1.4.3. Functionality of partnerships

MPYG feels that partnerships have been working to some extent. However, there is concern about corruption, which the group states has been the greatest problem. The reference to corruption I assumed was related to inter- and intra-partnership arrangements. The MPYG felt that a reason why corruption is a problem is the lack of a clear understanding of what the security groups' mandates are.

1.4.4. Elements holding the partnership together

The need to solve Mathare Valley's unending problems seems to hold the partners together. These local problems, i.e. insecurity, polluted environments and idleness of the youth, cut across the social and economical problems of Mathare.

1.4.5. Frequency of meetings

MPYG meetings with the Kenya Police, the locality Chief or the Administrative Police take place when there is a problem or crisis that needs to be solved.

1.4.6. Resource sharing

The MPYG feels that the extent of resource sharing is limited. This is not in the least surprising, given that Mathare Valley is one of the poorest informal settlement areas of the city of Nairobi. Furthermore the Kenya Police and the Provincial Administration are already stretched in terms of financial resources.

2. Crime prevention approaches

2.1. Crime prevention initiatives

MPYG's crime prevention approach is localised. It is basically visible policing. The approach is that the youth take up strategic positions in the area and ensure that all is going well. They then get a small financial token from the residents of the area.

2.1.1. Citywide or localised crime prevention initiatives

There is a feeling within MPYG that the security needs of the informal settlements are not really recognised by government. Therefore communities in such areas have been excluded from citywide crime prevention initiatives. The result is that individuals in informal settlements take the law into their own hands on their own initiative. From the MPYG viewpoint, citywide crime prevention has not been fully implemented.

2.1.2. Generic overview of crime prevention approach

The MPYG takes the broad view that crime prevention involves taking care of issues like the combating of theft, mugging and housebreaking and provision of household security. Note should be taken that crime prevention is seen to operate at the personal and household level.

2.2. Philosophy on crime and crime prevention

2.2.1. Meaning of crime prevention

As far as the MPYG is concerned, crime prevention means living in a safe environment free of muggings, theft, and con-men.

2.2.2. Crime prevention approach

As already pointed out above, the predominant crime prevention approach is visible policing, where members of the youth group locate themselves strategically to keep an eye on the activities of the communities within the valley.

2.2.3. Local ownership

The MPYG's approach is fully home grown. The strategies of visible policing were developed by the youth group with the support of some of the members who are employees of private security firms.

2.2.4. Jurisdiction

The MPYG approach to crime prevention primarily targets the Mathare 4 informal settlements.⁵(Please refer to Figure 19). The crimes committed by criminals who reside or hide in Mathare are thought of by the MPYG as 'sophisticated'. These are heavily armed criminals. There is the fear that any attempt to report them to the police authorities may lead to one's death. There is also an opinion that the Kenya Police generally fear these criminals.

2.2.5. Crime prevention and the Metropolitan Council's vision

The MPYG feels that there it is a general goal of the government to ensure security in all areas of the country and Nairobi .

2.2.6. Beneficiaries of the approach

The people who live within the sprawling informal settlement itself were perceived to be the beneficiaries of crime prevention efforts.

2.2.7. Territorial jurisdiction of the approach

MPYG only operates in the Mathare valley, with a specific focus on the Mathare 4 settlement, as shown in Figure 19.

Figure 19: Mathare Valley informal settlements

3. Crime prevention strategy

3.1. Process

3.1.1. Origins of crime prevention approach

The role players, who are the youth in the community, were drawn into the process by the initiative of a youth who identified a need to stop being idle and instead engage in activities that would be productive.

3.1.2. The catalyst

The catalyst for the crime prevention initiative by the MPYG was having to live in a unacceptable state of fear and the need to control one's own territory where one resided.

3.1.3. The conceptualisation of the crime prevention approaches

The conceptualisation of the approach to the strategy was informal in its character; therefore there has not been a clear understanding between the various role players in terms of their tasks and other functions. However, the MPYG is of the opinion that the police have been supportive.

3.1.4. Mediation of priorities

There has not been the development of many approaches; therefore MPYG has not needed to choose priority crime prevention approaches.

3.1.5. Start of initiative

The initiatives for crime prevention began in 1999.

3.2. Strategy design and development

3.2.1. Strategy development

The strategy of crime prevention started on the basis of building a team for solving the area's problems and avoiding idleness. The second stage was to seek support from the community members and in turn ask for a small financial token for the services rendered.

3.2.2. Description of strategy

MPYG appears to not be sufficiently far evolved in crime prevention to be able to elaborate on or articulate its strategies.

4. Implementation

4.1. Implementation of the strategy

The implementation of crime prevention takes place on the basis of agreement between the members of the youth group.

4.2. Monitoring of crime prevention approach

The chairman of the MPYG is in charge of the group's activities. Every MPYG group meets to discuss issues of concern and how to carry out its activities for the day. This includes duties to be undertaken for the day.

4.3. Measures in place to ensure the strategy delivery

MPYG links crime prevention with the need for its members to be employed. They argue that because there is a need for an income for individual members, the group members have to work in order to gain financially from their activities.

4.4. Sharing resources

The resources are shared equally among the members who are working. How this works out in detail could not be determined. However the emphasis has underlying notions of equity so that the youth who work are seen to share benefits.

4.5. Cost considerations

There is no budget as such because MPYG is operating on the bottom rung of income generation in Nairobi. It is a situation of limited resources, basically financial tokens for the services delivered, such as crime prevention and garbage collection done at minimal cost to society.

4.6. Implementation of the strategy

With regard to the implementation of the strategy, MPYG felt that crime prevention should involve the local community, and that it was critical for the community to identify those who are well known to work with the police to ensure there was no foul play in their interactions.

5. Best practice and lessons learnt

5.1. Best practice: major achievements of the approach MPYG listed the following as its successes:⁶

A number of about 30 youths are now able to earn some income.
There is a perception that crime levels have greatly reduced in their territory.
Gradually the fear associated with crime levels has been reduced

5.2. Lessons learnt

5.2.1. Disappointments of the approach

There were three major disappointments in crime prevention from the experiences of MPYG:

There are serious financial constraints, which limits progress and forward planning.
At times the Kenya Police Force have resorted to fighting the MPYG and other groups, on the pretext that 'they could be dangerous'.
There is a lack of proper recognition and appreciation by government organisations of what they do and are trying to achieve.

5.2.2. Lessons learnt

MPYG has learnt a number of lessons. These are:

If you work together as a crime prevention team you will be able to solve the community's problems.
Security problems can be best handled by those living in the areas concerned.

5.3. Planning considerations

MPYG found it difficult to relate to any of the planning considerations, whether in terms of long-term planning, what the City of Nairobi was doing about crime or considering if crime prevention belonged to a traditional planning department.

5.4. Benefits for local government

5.4.1. Local government benefits from this study

MPYG expressed the opinion that local government could benefit from this study by understanding and recognising the security and other needs of the informal settlements where, like any other place in the city, services have to be provided.

5.4.2. Support requirements for the local authority

MPYG was firm in its view that the support the local authority needed for improved crime prevention was:

To have more trained police officers
To involve the local security groups in all they did.

Notes

Mathare informal settlement has been described as “not the largest of Nairobi’s slum areas, but it is the most densely populated. Five hundred thousand people are squeezed together, living in tiny shanty-type mud huts about eight by ten feet, in an area three kilometres long and a little less than a kilometre wide. Within it live people full of frustration, resentment, anger, fear, and hopelessness. Mathare Valley is a mini-city within the city.” King C. ‘A Valley of Hope in Nairobi’. http://www.urbana.org/_articles.cfm?Record Id=357.
As stated above, the Administrative Police are part of the Kenya Police Force, specifically charged with protecting government officers and property.
Whilst one would be in agreement that illicit brew generates grievous social and dire health problems, one could speculate that as this is a common undertaking and income generator in informal settlements, the forces of ‘law and order’ are attracted to it because it is a soft target in which problems of the day can be sorted out ‘informally’.
Youth Groups do not have to undergo the full extent of legal scrutiny that would for instance apply to setting up a company.
This is a section of the greater Mathare Valley informal settlement.
These views were accepted at face value as no records are kept of crime levels.

to top