The debate over the ShotSpotter gunshot detection system is a classic case of unintended consequences when politics, rather than facts, guides policy. The three major players — the mayor, the City Council, and the company — have all put themselves in a box.
There is a way forward, however, if everyone involved can agree to let independently verified facts drive the decision.
Mayor Brandon Johnson is in a political box. He continues to double down on a campaign pledge to end ShotSpotter driven by ideology and anecdote — the unquestionably tragic police shooting death of 13-year-old Adam Toledo for which ShotSpotter was part of a long sequence of events preceding the shooting but simply was not the “cause.”
The council is in a procedural and policy box. While City Council won a headline victory, overriding the mayor and allowing for ShotSpotter to continue on a ward-by-ward basis, the victory means nothing for two reasons.
First, the council lacks the authority to implement such a plan. Johnson is correct; this decision is for the executive — not the legislative — branch. Second, while you can maintain and activate the ShotSpotter system on a ward-by-ward basis, crime and gunfire do not neatly fall within ward boundaries.
As for the company, it drove a political wedge between the mayor and the council but gave up its best leverage — complete withdrawal from Chicago and the specter of possibly dire consequence to public safety. They know their system won’t be as effective on a ward-by-ward basis and may even yield results that would tarnish the record and reputation of their product and brand.
So, what to do?
It starts with executive leadership. Johnson has an opportunity and an obligation to gather and help the public understand the facts, even if it upsets his core supporters. Building that fact base should be his, and our, number one priority.
The mayor should bring together the different constituencies in the council and the community around an agreed-upon process of data collection to assess the true merits of ShotSpotter. A 2021 report from the Chicago inspector general found that less than 10% of responses to ShotSpotter alerts produced evidence of gun-related crimes, but it also pointed out that, at that time, we still lacked the data to fully know how much ShotSpotter is actually improving overall public safety.
The program has evolved since that time, and the data collection and analysis as a matter of practice, policy and law has greatly expanded. That means the 2021 inspector general report relied upon by ShotSpotter opponents is stale. It is time for a fresh, objective look at the numbers to better inform debate.
ShotSpotter can tell responding officers the times and locations of gun shots, the number of shots, and even something about the type of guns or modifications made to them. Yes, there is also a high percentage of “false positive — alerts” such as fireworks.
But CPD uses the technology as one of several data sources analyzed together to determine whether and how to respond when the system alerts. The data that has been collected and analyzed to date makes clear that the vetted alerts get CPD to the scene of shootings in areas in which 911 reports are low for a host of reasons including that gunfire is so commonplace that it is the socialized, internalized norm.
No reasonable person would say that our police should not respond to gunfire on our streets. No reasonable person would say that our government should not attempt to save the lives of the victims of gunfire. And no reasonable person would say we should not attempt to apprehend those who shoot a firearm on our streets.
It’s fair to ask if ShotSpotter produces tangible results in addressing things reasonable people can agree on. We know that ShotSpotter does not tell police how to respond or who fired the gun. That still requires police work. So, it’s fair to ask whether ShotSpotter is actually making people — and police — safer.
No issue is more important than public safety to Chicago’s future and our reputation as a great place to live, work, raise families, and own homes and businesses. We simply cannot meet our full potential if gun violence continues at its current level, and we need every possible tool in the tool belt to meet this challenge.
At an approximate cost of $10 million per year, ShotSpotter is a minuscule percentage of Chicago’s multi-billion-dollar public safety budget. Noble as it may sound to suggest redirecting this money to addressing “root causes,” we can’t lose sight of the reality that there are life-altering and life-ending violent traumas occurring on our streets every day, and the victims are disproportionally the very Black and brown Chicagoans for whom root-cause efforts are the focus. The path forward is a both/and, not an either/or. If ShotSpotter can contribute to the saving of lives through the mitigation of violent crime experienced now, while that generational work is being done, then it should be put to responsible and closely monitored use.
With the city on track to keep ShotSpotter into the fall, we can do this the right way. We can create a fact-gathering process with everyone at the table. If the facts show that ShotSpotter is speeding police response times, saving lives, and contributing to a safer city, we should keep it. If the facts show otherwise, we should replace it with something better, if something better exists.
Joe Ferguson, president of the Civic Federation, is former Chicago inspector general and member of the Mayor’s Police Accountability Task Force.
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
