this understanding, we hereafter use these terms interchangeably.
1.3.3. Importantly, the route map is predicated on the assumption that there is the will and intention to carry out the prescribed actions.
1.4.Limitations to the Work
1.4.1. A report of this nature obviously had to contend with some limitations. The more germane ones include the following:
Being a volunteer group, limits were placed on the time and resources available.
It was thus unable to do any primary research where this was needed. Some conclusions are thus grounded in experience rather than in factual evidence. This is especially true of the justice system (which is generally under-researched).
The STFC thus sought to tap into the experiences of key practitioners and administrators and to interact with as many stakeholders as possible. However, given the limitation of time, this was not as extensive as we wished it to be.
1.4.2. The members of the STFC are of the view that none of these limitations materially affected the substantive recommendations emanating from the work.
1.5.Leadership and Accountability
1.5.1. Although the STFC did not conduct an exhaustive evaluation of the degree to which the recommendations of previous reports have been implemented, the consultations and discussions have led to the view that at best past recommendations provided a temporary respite from the overwhelming threat of crime and violence and, at worst, they were in the main ignored beyond the announcement of their publication.
1.5.2. The Report of the Task Force on Political Tribalism (July 1997) is a case in point. It could be argued that almost nine years after the publication of that document, the features which define garrison communities and constituencies still exist. In fact, there is a denial of their existence among very powerful elements of the political leadership.