There are a number of Chicago stories that are receiving national attention. One of them is the ShotSpotter saga. ShotSpotter, somewhat ungenerously described by our mayor as a “walkie-talkie on a stick”, was installed in Chicago. The mayor decided it wasn’t worth paying for. The City Council decided to strip the mayor of the authority to approve or disapprove it. The mayor says that’s not legal. The company has terminated service and is starting to dismantle it in Chicago.
Now the editors of the Wall Street Journal have weighed in:
ShotSpotter uses acoustic technology to detect gunfire and dispatches law enforcement to scenes of violence before 911 calls come in. Chicago has deployed the technology since 2012, mainly in its south and west sides. The University of Chicago Crime Lab found it likely saves about 85 lives a year.
The system has detected more than 200,000 gun shots in the 13 months ending in August. Even Mr. Johnson must think the technology works since in February he extended the contract through the summer, which is when gun violence typically peaks and the city hosted the Democratic National Convention.
But last week he said he’d let the ShotSpotter contract expire, calling it a waste of money. He may be taking his cues from Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who charged in May that ShotSpotter perpetuates “over-policing and unjustified surveillance” in minority neighborhoods.
The City Council disagreed and voted 33-14 to give Chicago Police Superintendent Larry Snelling the power to override the mayor’s office. “If one life is saved with gunshot detection technology, then it is absolutely worth having,” Alderman Ray Lopez said.
It is true that Chicago has a nearly $1 billion hole in its budget. Chicago has spent $57.4 million on ShotSpotter since 2018. It spent $300 million housing, feeding, etc. migrants in 2023.
I don’t believe budgets have anything to do with the mayor’s opposition to ShotSpotter. I suspect the “over-policing” is his complaint (I would like to see a definition of “over-policing” that is not circular).
The population of Chicago is one third white, one third black, and one third Hispanic. Chicago homicide victims are three-quarters black, 20% Hispanic, with the balance being “Other”. In other words of the 85 lives the UoC says ShotSpotter saved, 64 were black lives.
Is the Crime Lab data good? I mean, the obvious thing to do here if I am a gang leader is to have some guys go fire some guns somewhere to send all the police there, then do the real shooting while the police are concentrated elsewhere. Also doesnt seem like it would do much to stop the spontaneous “I am drunk/high and you just dissed me/looked at my girlfriend” type of shootings.
Steve
I give it a much simpler explanation then “over-policing” or “it isn’t worth paying for” — its based on “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?”. Don’t be shocked if the Mayor touts in a year or two that gunshots have drastically gone down during his tenure.
That occurred to me as well—that he was concerned that actual data would call his tenure as mayor into question.
BTW I have no opinion on the effectiveness of ShotSpotter. I also have no opinion on over-policing the South and West Side police districts where ShotSpotter has been deployed other than that I doubt it is possible.
Here’s an op-ed in the Tribune about ShotSpotter.
You have no opinion but you are criticizing them for dropping it? According to your editorial, it has no effect on crime. What they claim, and I wondered about this, is that you get people to medical care a bit sooner and have better outcomes. However, that is based upon one study which, this is poorly written, seems to have statistically insignificant results. (I am not sure how to interpret the claim that there is a 1/4 chance the results are just noise, but in general we arent accepting studies as valid unless, again crudely, there is a 95% chance the results are true and not noise. I wish they cited the original article or gave us CI levels or even p levels.)
So since you occasionally write about Chicago govt spending how much money do you want them to spend on technology that, using conventional standards, doesnt work?
Steve
My city started ShotSpotter during the pandemic. I remember the contract being a bit odd, the city paid a large chunk up front (half) to get the system installed, but the rest was due in order to turn the key. The city council started to balk at the final payment given all of the new Covid-related expenses showing up and diminished sales tax revenue. I think ShotSpotter might have revised the payment plan with the belief that once the police start relying on it, they won’t back out.
My understanding is the system identified a lot of gun shots which weren’t called in by residents, but they find spent shells matching the gun type identified by the system, which they investigate. Community policing subsequently started going door to door to encourage residents to report gunshots and to talk about police response. From the maps I’ve seen the most shots are heard around my kids’ old middle school, which makes sense since they heard gun shots in school.
There is at least one local anti-police community group opposed to ShotSpotter, but AFAIK black Alderman have voiced support for it. And to be clear, ShotSpotter appears to have been installed only in certain black neighborhoods based upon an analysis of where gun violence occurred in the past.
There are almost certainly false positives like any tool. People call in fake crimes with burner phones as well, should the city dismantle or cut-back on the phone system?
The false positives seem to be a minor issue. What is claimed in Dave’s piece and several others I looked up is that system has not lead to more arrests or a decrease in crime. The only advantage in terms of outcomes might lie in medical aid arriving sooner but the evidence for that seems poor. Maybe it’s worth $10 million a year for Chicago to know there are unreported gunshots?
Steve