Standardized dispatch protocols traded discretionary filtering for reduced individual bias

Evidence

Many years ago, when emergency dispatch systems were first put into effect, it was the dispatchers’ responsibility to filter out which calls needed to be prioritized and which did not (International Academies of Emergency Dispatch, n.d.). This, unfortunately, did not provide for a fair and unbiased system, considering that the dispatch system typically sends off first responders to approximately 240 million calls each year. Starting with the 1980s, a protocol was put into effect to standardize dispatchers’ communication with callers. Today, most dispatch systems follow the protocol of the International Academies of Emergency Dispatch (IAED) and while this helps eliminate some forms of individual bias that could affect the caller (e.g., not sending help because the dispatcher does not believe the caller), it also makes it more difficult to filter out calls that are not urgent, or rather, calls that might not qualify as emergencies at all. — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 284 (#expands, via linked claim)

Many years ago, when emergency dispatch systems were first put into effect, it was the dispatchers’ responsibility to filter out which calls needed to be prioritized and which did not (International Academies of Emergency Dispatch, n.d.). This, unfortunately, did not provide for a fair and unbiased system, considering that the dispatch system typically sends off first responders to approximately 240 million calls each year. Starting with the 1980s, a protocol was put into effect to standardize dispatchers’ communication with callers. Today, most dispatch systems follow the protocol of the International Academies of Emergency Dispatch (IAED) and while this helps eliminate some forms of individual bias that could affect the caller (e.g., not sending help because the dispatcher does not believe the caller), it also makes it more difficult to filter out calls that are not urgent, or rather, calls that might not qualify as emergencies at all. The information that the dispatchers have to ask for before sending a first responder to the scene is very limited and includes the location of the emergency, the phone number the person is calling from, the nature of the emergency, and a physical description of the person suspected of committing a crime (National 911 Program, n.d.). — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 284 (#expands, via linked claim)

Orienting services toward cooperative clients, or clients who respond to treatment, allows street-level bureaucrats to believe that they are optimizing their use of resources. At the same time these perceptions help condone service denials (or even routine treatment) by permitting the private judgment that some clients absorb more than their fair share of resources. — Michael Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy, 1124 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Standardized emergency dispatch protocols remove one bias while blocking filter checks on caller validity — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law: A Definitive Look at…, 284; Dispatcher information loss biased officers toward perceiving Tamir Rice as threatening; Emergency call bias can transfer across agents in a multi-stage chain (+6 more)

Broader Connections

• Standardized emergency dispatch protocols trade individual discretion for difficulty screening out non-emergencies. #expands (0.95) — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 284
• Standardized emergency dispatch protocols remove one bias while blocking filter checks on caller validity #expands (0.93) — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 284
• Resource-optimizing logic quietly legitimizes differential and denied service. #complicates (0.74) — Michael Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy, 1124