Institutionalization of Task Forces

: a temporary grouping under one leader for the purpose of accomplishing a definite objective

That’s what Webster defines a task force. I find it increasingly interesting the number of task forces that are formed for a variety of reasons and never seem to go away. I would call attention to the word “temporary” included in Webster’s definition.

The concept of a task force seems to be a valid one: identify a problem, put a few heads together to deal with the issue and then resolve it. Unfortunately it’s been my experience that task forces seldom cease to exist once they are founded. I find it interesting that when they get together and develop their mission statement, goals and objectives and ways to measure their progress, they never include the manner in which to disband.

This is particularly the case in drug task forces and task forces formed to address crime and criminal acts that are symptomatic of a larger social concern. For over 30 years now, I’ve been witness to federal and state dollars invested in the formation of task forces to fight drugs and gangs. I’m also guilty of complaining rather loudly when the funding has been threatened. Why, you may ask am I now raising the issue of the longevity of task forces.

Quite frankly it’s because the manner in which the drug and gang task forces were formed based on old federal law enforcement models have failed. We still have drugs on the street, there are still street dealers and I just read an article this morning about a gang-related incident so it would appear that those hoodlums are still at large as well.

To his credit, Governor Pawlenty ordered an examination of how funding of task forces were used in Minnesota. It raised a big bru ha ha to say the least. My gosh, you mean we have to justify that millions of dollars invested over the past 30 years has made a difference?

You betcha.

And I won’t even begin to go into how misleading the numbers reported regarding drug arrests really are.

Please understand that I’m not being critical of the law enforcement folks and prosecutors who are involved in fighting this mess. They are doing the best with what they are being given to work with.

I’m just suggesting that the task force concept probably isn’t the best venue in which to continue.

In looking at different issues, I’ll use two premises in which to base my discussion:

1. our current process (the so called war on drugs) is not working
2. legalizing drugs is not an option – simply an admission that we can’t find a real solution to a problem.

Current task forces fight over turf, information, money, publicity and personnel. Somewhere in that mix, they find the time to bust a few drug labs or buy mercenaries to buy some drugs and make a few busts. Ironically, most state troopers probably seize more dope during regular traffic enforcement than do all the other efforts.

What we do know is that the time proven police practice of developing intelligence through informants, citizens and comparing various cases leads to good case management and a better than average solvability factor.

There is also this myth that drug users and those who sell them are not very bright and are unsophisticated. A good example was the beating I took this summer when I suggested that providing mainstream media the facts we had regarding drug distribution and the fact we were tired of them messing with our kids. Well, believe it or not, most of those in the drug business do monitor the media and how to manipulate it as they choose and they certainly know how to use computers. If we are going to stay ahead of them from an intelligence gathering standpoint, our cops had better get with it and our communities should stop discounting the fact that these thugs are pretty savvy when it comes to communication. Drug dealers love it when communities are so busy pointing fingers at each other over who knows what about who uses drugs in their communities because while that is all going on, they are quietly going about their drug selling business.

So if one works from the premise that no one wakes up one morning and says ” I think I’ll become a slobbering junkie today,” then a social impact implication on the use of any intoxicating substance should be considered. The economics of the business must be examined as well as the transportation system used. The law enforcement end of the business would be coordinated from a multi-jurisdictional level on a national scale with computer access and contact via PDAs to all those involved. With an international flair to this business and the use of
GPS and other electronic tools, the need for high level drug speculation would not be necessary, just better collection of information at the street level. That means the cop working the late shift fills out a field interview card, works traffic enforcement aggressively and verbal warnings where no data is collected goes away.

The process would take a while. It would be literally like fighting a small country but could be accomplished. Keep in mind that Al Capone went to jail for tax evasion, not being a gangster. If the squeeze economically was consistent on the money flow and the interruption of their transportation routes, the impact would impact the business. If treatment became easier to access than the drug of choice isn’t there a chance an impact could be made?

We should consider the impact of drug usage in this country as big a terrorist threat as any one person hiding in caves in Afghanistan. With the right leadership, I believe that countries will ban together to fight this problem on the political, social and economic levels where it deserves to be attended to. It’s time to stop insulting the intelligence of reasonable people around the world by pretending to arrest our way out of this problem and give it the global attention it deserves.