Recently I saw the article at [Government Technology] entitled: GIS to Speed Help to Domestic Violence Victims. This article referred to the National Domestic Violence Hotline's decision to use GIS and their fundraiser to cover the costs of updating their hardware and implementing the software.
As you'd expect, the company providing the software sees only the benefits: "Since [calltakers] are often providing a life-saving service, it is important for them to quickly find the most accessible help for the caller. We are proud that our technical expertise and software will help make that possible," ESRI President Jack Dangermond said.
As does apparently the director of NDVH: "We know this is going to make a huge difference in the way that we work. Our goal is to make sure that we can help more people," said Sheryl Cates, executive director of the NDVH
GIS is a great development, with plenty of applications for governments, corporations, and other entities that have need for geographically-based data. I've seen it in action, and it has plenty of potential for streamlining operations and saving time, money, and effort.
Unfortunately, in this case, it is simply the wrong solution. It cannot address the NDVH's problem of calls that go unanswered, and cannot help them serve the public better.
What no one seems to recognize in this case is that GIS can only be helpful if the initial call is made from a land line associated with a ground address. If the call is generated from a cell phone, or VOIP, GIS cannot help at all in finding the nearest agency to fit the needs of the caller. Personnel at NDVH will still need to ask the caller their location, and use whatever method is currently in place for finding the right agency.
This is not the same kind of situation a city would have, for example, when a resident phones about their water bill, or a street light outage. These people would be far more likely to be using their hardwired home phone to conduct their business.
While it's unknown what percentage of calls to NDVH are made from cell phones or VOIP, it's only logical to presume that number is significant, and growing. It may even contribute to making the problem of unanswered calls worse, if the phone personnel at NDVH must spend more time with individual callers in determining their actual location, after first determining their GIS system doesn't have the information they need.
Certainly the intentions of NDVH and ESRI are good, but in this case, perhaps that $900,000 would be better spent in better training or hiring more personnel. Some other solution needs to be found, as GIS clearly is not the whole answer in this situation.
