Navigating Interagency Challenges- Conflict and Coordination in Multi-Jurisdictional Drug Units

Navigating Interagency Challenges- Conflict and Coordination in Multi-Jurisdictional Drug Units

Type of Conflict Described in the Case Study

Warren County’s multi-agency joint unit formed to fight the proliferation of crystal meth is undergoing a structural conflict. According to the structural conflict theory, such a conflict originates from the tension that occurs when organizations fight for limited resources (Folarin, 2013). The main tenet of structural conflict is that conflict emanates from specific ways societies are constituted or organized. The structural conflict theory is premised on the state of society and how that state or environment might cause conflict (Folarin, 2013). Structural conflict theory describes situations such as social isolation, discrimination, class inequities, injustice, political exclusion, prejudice, economic exploitation, and the like, all of which frequently contribute to conflict.

As per the Warren County case, the conflict arose from big municipalities wanting to control the entire operation because they offer more contributions to the joint kitty. Besides, the bigger cities were backed by funds from the federal government, hence being entitled to demand a higher stake in decision-making. Another organizational structural issue leading to the conflict in the Warren County anti-meth operation was the discord that led officers to report to their specific municipality heads, instead of adopting a collaborative effort.

Multi-Jurisdictional Drug Units

One of the issues that ought to be discussed before a joint drug response unit is formed is the legal framework and authority under which the team will operate. To successfully formulate the legal framework and authority responsible for executing the mandate, law enforcement officers should involve legal experts who will advise on the legally tenable engagement rules that will go a long way to avoiding conflicts (Rosenbaum, 2002). Among others, the team should establish jurisdictional areas, engagement rules for the units involved, and the protocols of collaboration. The Warren County anti-meth team objectives were hampered partly due to the failure to establish the legal framework under which the team would operate. As evidenced by the jury’s concern in the shooting of a citizen, the joint unit failed to define the roles from the outset. The result was heightened internal bickering and conflicts with other law enforcement agencies.

Further, Rosenbaum, (2002) stresses the need to foster community engagement and evaluate public perception before beginning operations. The joint team failed to engage respective community members to establish facts locally. For instance, the wrongful shooting of a veteran by officers who were implementing a search warrant was avoidable if the team had engaged the public. The officers would have known the veteran well enough to know he was innocent, or at the very least, they would not have used deadly force if they had known more about him. In the same breath, the team failed to consider public perception before launching operations, as most members of the public believed that the team was not effective or necessary.

Another core element that contributes to the success of joint teams is coordination and effective communication. Even though the decisions of a joint unit are independent of external influence, sharing intelligence from individual units that constitute a team is crucial (Rosenbaum, 2002). Concerning the Warren County anti-meth campaign, there was an intelligence failure when an innocent veteran and high school coach was wrongfully killed. The case would have been different if the team had coordinated intelligence with the host unit in the respective municipality where the veteran was wrongfully killed. Even though the district attorney did not find criminal culpability on the officers’ part, the attorney’s office referred to what she termed as a poor organizational structure contributing to the wrongful shooting.

Regarding the impetus posed by federal funding in the fight against drugs, such federal resource allocation has a limited impact on the resolution to fighting against drugs. The primary motivation for this noble goal is to end the social dangers posed by drug abuse. Besides although an irrational fear of drugs may influence political discourse to end the vice, law enforcers focus on bolstering public safety and combating crimes that result from drug abuse. Nonetheless, resource allocation from the federal government and pressure resulting from the public’s fear of drugs often influence the officers’ decisions on drugs and jurisdictions to focus on.

Ways in Which the Conflict Described in this Case Study Could Have Been Managed More Effectively

One of the strategies that would have helped in the management of the conflict among the individual units forming the joint task force is the establishment of standard operating procedures (SOPs). Standard operating procedures outline key processes in a team, including decision-making procedures and conflict resolution mechanisms in anticipation of a potential conflict (Rahim, 2003). Having such protocols in place goes a long way to prevent exacerbation of conflicts which are inevitable when people are working together. Also, there is a need to involve all critical stakeholders through joint operations planning (Rahim, 2003). The joint head of the anti-meth task force in Warren County should have consulted all relevant unit heads, including those coming from smaller municipalities. Such joint planning would have potentially alleviated the possibility of an innocent citizen being shot since the ‘home’ municipality would have offered useful intelligence. Despite these challenges, the initial intentions were good, and the unit needed to be formed to respond to the drug carnage.

References

Folarin, S. F. (2013). Types and causes of conflict. S. Folarin, Readings in Peace and Conflict      Studies, 13-25.

Rahim, M. A. (2003). Toward a Theory of Managing Organizational Conflict. SSRN Electronic Journal, 13(3). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.437684

Rosenbaum, D. P. (2002). Evaluating multi-agency anti-crime partnerships: Theory, design, and measurement issues. Crime prevention studies, 14, 171-225.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

Write an 800-word paper answering the questions that directly follow the end of the case study. The questions to answer are:

What type of conflict is described in the case study? Use the conflict types from the textbook.

Navigating Interagency Challenges- Conflict and Coordination in Multi-Jurisdictional Drug Units

Multi-jurisdictional drug units are common across the country. What issues should be discussed and by whom before such a unit is created? How much of the impetus for the creation of these units can be attributed to increased federal funding and the irrational fear of drugs?
Suggest ways in which the conflict described in this case study could have been managed more effectively. Should the unit have ever existed?
Answer the questions that follow the case study.
Format your paper according to APA guidelines. Include at LEAST TWO (2) citations from a source in your paper.