Executive Support For ILP Critical Thinking Examples
Change in police agencies is a welcomed boost in various jurisdictions because it addresses various contentious issues. Key among the reasons why such change is important entails the fact that the routine improvement of police departments increases efficiency and effectiveness in service delivery. With this, police departments come up with new tactics and strategies through which crime can be reduced and the public be protected. Although this might seem as necessary and essential, problems have always arisen. To make matters worse, no deep explanation is given about such failures. To cope with such undesired situations, it is necessary to involve all stakeholders in the planning process.
Over the years, there have been calls for the implementation of intelligence-led policing which takes into account management and assessment of risk (Ratcliffe, 2005). According to this model, intelligence officers should play the role of guided to operations as opposed to operations guiding intelligence. Because of the sensitive nature of the matter, the executive needs to support this policy, lest it fails terribly.
According to the results given in Ratcliffe’s and Phillip’s research, it would be ignorant to argue that ILP has received the support it needs from executives. As a matter of fact, this has not been the case. Ratcliffe and Phillip highlight some of the challenges that implementation of ILP encounters. As a matter of fact, these challenges stem from the unwillingness nature of the executive to perform certain core duties that would enable the police departments to implement the policy.
The first challenge hat points to the lack of executive commitment is the inadequate training offered. As a matter of fact, the executive should be tasked with implementing positive policies that facilitate and improve security. One of the reasons policies fail is because of lack of commitment from the executive. The core duty of any government is to provide security or the citizens (Ratcliffe, 2005). To that effect, the government should ensure that it supports. To this effect, the executive has failed.
Apart from the above discussed challenge, the lack of adequate structures of intelligence units is a direct impact of the executive’s failure to promote the ILP policies and implement them. Success of any policy or department owes much to the continuity factor. When adequate continuity structures are put in place, it becomes easy to implement the policies formulated and ensure the desired impact is achieved. This way, it also becomes easy to track and amend the stage at which such policies broke down. According to Ratcliffe and Phillip, intelligence units lack continuity. It is the role of the executive to ensure this is achieved, hence the argument that it has terribly failed.
Lack of executive support has also promoted lack of clarity on intelligence dissemination. Police departments and agencies ought to come up with the policies they deem fit to reduce crime all over the world (Maguire, 2005). Such policies should be forwarded to the executive for funding and implementation. Whether this has been the case or not is subject to a number of debates, depending on the approach one takes. Although this is the case, Ratcliffe and Phillip are of the contrary opinion. Intelligence dissemination has terribly failed, partly because of lack of support from the executive.
Going by the above arguments, it would be prudent to argue that the executive has failed. Although it has partially participated in the structuring phase, there is a lot to be done to ensure ILP is successful. The executive needs to fully support the move.
Maguire, M., & John, T. (2006). Intelligence Led Policing, Managerialism and Community Engagement: Competing Priorities and the Role of the National Intelligence Model. Policing & Society. doi:10.1080/10439460500399791
Ratcliffe, J. (2005). The Effectiveness of Police Intelligence Management: A New Zealand Case Study. Police Practice and Research. doi:10.1080/15614260500433038