elpais.com
Spanish Government Visit Leads to Protocol Violation in Domestic Violence Monitoring System
On September 19th, 2024, a supervisor at Cometa, a domestic violence monitoring center, instructed staff to bypass protocol to minimize alerts before a visit from Spain's government agency against gender violence.
- What specific protocol was violated, and what were the immediate consequences?
- The supervisor ordered staff to ignore low-battery alerts on victim and aggressor devices, instead of following protocol which includes contacting the device owners. This prevented potentially critical safety checks and delayed notifications to law enforcement.
- How did this protocol violation impact the monitoring of victims and aggressors?
- Ignoring low-battery alerts meant failing to contact victims to ensure their device was charged, hindering their ability to use the device's geolocation safety feature. For aggressors, ignoring low-battery alerts meant not contacting them, thus potentially losing their location data, jeopardizing victim safety.
- What broader systemic issues does this incident highlight regarding the domestic violence monitoring system?
- The incident reveals systemic pressure to present a misleadingly positive image to government overseers, prioritizing appearances over effective monitoring. This suggests a need for improved internal controls, stronger enforcement of protocol, and a focus on quality of service rather than superficial metrics.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the event as a deliberate attempt to hide the true number of alerts from a government visit, emphasizing the supervisor's order to bypass protocol and the resulting drastic reduction in visible alerts. The headline (if there was one) likely reinforced this narrative. The opening paragraphs immediately establish the alleged wrongdoing, setting a negative tone.
Language Bias
The article uses charged language such as "trampeando" (cheating), "mala calidad del servicio" (poor service quality), and describes the actions as "saltarse el protocolo" (skipping protocol). While reporting facts, the word choices paint a picture of intentional deception. More neutral alternatives could include 'deviation from protocol,' 'temporary prioritization,' and 'service challenges.'
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the negative aspects of the situation but omits potential mitigating factors. While the supervisor's actions are questionable, the article doesn't explore whether the high number of alerts reflected genuine workload or systemic issues. The perspectives of the supervisor and the Delegación del Gobierno are absent, limiting a balanced view. The article also lacks specifics about the nature of the '163 alerts' - were they all high priority cases, or mostly low-priority ones?
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by implying that either the protocol was followed perfectly or completely ignored. The reality is likely more nuanced, with varying degrees of compliance. The article doesn't explore intermediate solutions or the possibility that the supervisor's actions were motivated by a desire to address the workload, albeit in a flawed manner.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights a case where a supervisor instructed staff to ignore low-battery alerts from domestic violence monitoring devices to improve the appearance of the system before a government inspection. This action directly undermines efforts to protect victims of gender-based violence by delaying or preventing timely responses to potential emergencies. Ignoring low battery alerts means that victims may lose their geolocation, hindering their protection and increasing their vulnerability. The protocol violation demonstrates a disregard for the safety and well-being of victims and compromises the effectiveness of the monitoring system designed to protect them.