Lexington human trafficking task force was developed by advocates of human trafficking to help in the development of rights of human trafficking victims. The human trafficking victims’ rights aimed at equipping law enforcement with essential tools for strengthening the penalties from human traffickers and develop a safe pathway for trafficking victims to acquire relief services. The Lexington taskforce is co-chaired by Brittney Thomas and David Mayre who gain their powers from the office of the attorney general and Catholic Charities of Louisville. The meeting of Lexington human trafficking task force represented various social groups which are affected by human trafficking issues including families and children. Youths who are prone to human trafficking were not described in this meeting.
Increased human trafficking in Lexington called for the urgent need of this meeting. The task force met to provide the way forward in reducing cases of human trafficking in the area. It is approximated that 600,000 victims get trafficked across the US borders annually (Gilson, 2015). The victims comprise of children, men, and women. Gilson reports that the victims get subjected to bondage, and any resistance leads to threats from the traffickers; claiming that they will hurt their families back at home. The meeting comprised of government officials, policy makers, and street-level civil servants who included; border guards, police officers, and social workers. According to the Lipsky, the street-level servants play a significant role because they directly interact with the public and know what affects them the most. After issue presentation by the civil servants, the policy makers and the government officials had the role of coming up with policies that will see the reduction of human trafficking in Lexington.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Public official uses various strategies to control, shape and limit their communication with the public during the implementation of policies. A public official can give advance notice to the public concerning a policy an agency is implementing. This is because of public official fears surprises as they would not like to handle a question from the audience and media without having prepared for them. The federal officials would need some time to work with the agency and policymakers to learn how to answer different questions and what to do (Gilson, 2015). Public officials control public communications through timing their contacts with the public. Disclosing findings of an agency can disrupt the schedule of policy announcement taking place on the same day. The disclosure can distract public attention on the report or raise tension; hence public officials make the announcements after a specified delay. Public communications can be controlled and shaped by public officials by controlling the content of the discussions by restricting disclosure of policies. Public officials warn policymakers not to talk about the strategies to the public and have to give a clear clarification about the plans to avoid confusions on the people when policy disclosure is made.
Public use various strategies to communicate their messages to public officials concerning policies being implemented. The public can use media to express their opinions relating to policies being implemented. Use of social media by the people to communicate their messages is easy and effective as the messages will reach the public officials as well as the agencies and they will evaluate the public opinions and make necessary changes to their policies (Gilson, 2015). The public can raise their views during a meeting held by agencies. When public officials are explaining the intended procedures, they give the public the chance to raise their opinions, and people use this opportunity to communicate their messages. Federal officials will note down public views and represent them to the agency for necessary changes to make the policies compatible with the public interests. These strategies used by the public to communicate their messages are neither unruly nor disruptive because the public seek permission to express their opinions.
There are conflicts between government officials and the public. The conflicts arise because when the government is implementing policies, it interferes and affects with interests of the people. This causes violation of the public interests which results in conflicts. Also, disputes between the government and the public arise from government officials evading and ignoring public opinions. This indicates that government officials can ignore the importance of public participation when implementing policies and this leads to occurring of conflicts between the public and the officials. This is because the policies implemented may contradict most of the public lifestyles. The disputes on the issue of public participation should be handle by engaging the public in the implementation of strategies to evade contracting and changing interests and lifestyles of the people. This makes the people to win the conflict as their interests and opinions will be considered in the implementation of policies.
In summary, I learnt that it is vital for the government to include the citizens when making decisions. They should use street-level civil servants and task forces to know what matters affect society. Based on the findings, they should consult few individuals from the community to establish rules and policies. By so doing, there will be fewer conflicts from the public who will feel that their interests have been considered. It is the public that give the government the power through elections. It is, therefore, imperative to have their needs at heart.
Reference
Gilson, L. (2015). Michael Lipsky,'Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Service'.
