Is ShotSpotter Effective? Separating Facts from Fiction

Home / Is ShotSpotter Effective? Separating Facts from Fiction

In recent years, ShotSpotter—an acoustic gunshot detection system—has been the center of intense debate. This surprises many people. Who wouldn’t want police to respond to shootings in their community? Those who oppose it question its efficacy, its impact on communities, and whether it addresses the root causes of gun violence. These arguments against ShotSpotter are based on misunderstandings, inaccuracies, or misleading representations that must be addressed.

Is ShotSpotter Effective in Reducing Crime?

Image of The Impact of ShotSpotter Deployment in Winston-Salem, NC Updated Study Results, 2024One common criticism is that ShotSpotter does not reduce crime. Please point to the single piece of technology that can do this. That’s right—no such tool exists. Crime is a complex social issue and addressing it requires a comprehensive strategy. But ShotSpotter makes important contributions to that effort. For instance, independent research and testimonials from law enforcement show that ShotSpotter significantly improves response times to gun-related incidents by providing real-time alerts, typically within 60 seconds of gunfire. Faster response times mean police can provide medical aid to victims sooner, secure crime scenes faster, locate witnesses before they leave, and improve the chances of collecting valuable evidence. This allows police to initiate timely investigations in the pursuit of justice for victims and accountability for offenders.

Furthermore, labeling the system as a “gimmick,” as Houston’s mayor did, disregards ShotSpotter’s tangible results. For example, rigorous, independent research consistently shows that ShotSpotter notifies police of more gunfire, faster, leading them to collect more ballistic evidence and seize more crime guns. It also regularly leads police to gunshot wound victims who might not have survived without that immediate, life-saving aid. These outcomes are directly tied to ShotSpotter’s ability to detect incidents that might otherwise go unreported, especially in communities where distrust in law enforcement or fear of retaliation from criminals leads to underreporting of gunfire incidents.

How Precise is ShotSpotter?

Some critics claim ShotSpotter leads police to respond to incidents that don’t involve gunfire, such as cars backfiring or fireworks being set off. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the system works. ShotSpotter uses multiple layers of filtering and review to ensure it is accurate. Studies have shown that ShotSpotter’s accuracy rates are consistently high, and the technology’s integration of machine learning and human reviewers minimizes false positives. According to independent firm Edgeworth Economics, “Our audit of SoundThinking’s ShotSpotter data confirmed an accuracy rate of 97.69% for detecting, classifying, and publishing gunfire incidents.” Even so, no technology is perfect. SoundThinking does not claim ShotSpotter is, and continually strives to improve its performance (even though it is already very good).

2024 study results showing ShotSpotter is effective.

 

Why is ShotSpotter Controversial?

Critics have raised concerns that ShotSpotter contributes to over-policing, particularly in black and brown neighborhoods. But customers themselves – not SoundThinking – decide where to deploy ShotSpotter based on objective historical data. Gun violence does not affect every community the same way. Areas that experience higher rates of gun violence receive priority. That only makes sense because that is where victimization occurs. An unfortunate reality is that places that suffer the most are often Black and brown neighborhoods. Critics would deny these neighborhoods—and the good people that live in them—a crucial tool to help respond to chronic gun violence. ShotSpotter’s mission is to address gun violence where it happens, regardless of demographics. Ignoring gunfire in these areas would only perpetuate inequities, not resolve them.

ShotSpotter vs. Root Causes of Gun Violence

Critics argue that funding for ShotSpotter should instead be directed toward addressing the root causes of gun violence, such as socioeconomic disparities and historical underinvestment. This argument presents a false dichotomy. Investing in technology to combat gun violence does not preclude funding for community-based initiatives. In fact, these efforts should complement each other.

ShotSpotter plays a unique role in addressing the immediate and urgent issue of gun violence. By providing timely alerts, the system helps ensure that first responders can intervene before incidents escalate or become fatal. While long-term solutions—such as job training programs, mental health services, and community outreach—are crucial, they cannot replace the need for tools that address the immediate dangers posed by gun violence. The two approaches are not mutually exclusive but rather should comprise a holistic public safety strategy.

Does ShotSpotter Work?

Critics often point to studies on ShotSpotter’s use in Chicago and Kansas City to argue that it is not effective. It is not clear whether those critics have actually read these studies. While the research concludes that ShotSpotter does not singularly reduce crime rates (see above), these studies consistently show that ShotSpotter:

  • increases awareness of gunfire,
  • improves response times,
  • aids in evidence collection, and
  • does not produce racial disparities in enforcement while it does it.

As the authors of some of these studies note: the system does what it promises to do. (And it’s worth mentioning that some studies do show that ShotSpotter helps reduce crime rates…but the critics don’t cite those.)

Open LetterRather than selectively citing studies to dismiss ShotSpotter’s efficacy, they should recognize that ShotSpotter is just one component of a broader public safety strategy.

For instance, though ShotSpotter can lead investigators to evidence, they must take it from there. Effective policing requires a combination of tools, resources, training, and community partnerships. ShotSpotter’s value lies in its ability to provide actionable intelligence that supports precise, evidence-based policing and enhances officer accountability. By focusing on technology’s integration with other initiatives, cities can amplify its benefits while addressing broader social concerns.

What About Cities that Cancel ShotSpotter?

Some might say, “cities across the country are cancelling ShotSpotter,” and they often repeat a handful of cities that have discontinued service, like San Antonio and Charlotte, and that’s over the last decade or so. Some cities have decided not to renew, almost always for funding reasons or a change in civic leadership.

What is important to understand is that more customers have expanded or renewed their coverage in the last year alone than have not renewed in the entire last decade. The cities that use ShotSpotter know it is effective, accurate, and welcome in the communities they serve. Check out what 12 Massachusetts chiefs shared publicly.

Conclusion: ShotSpotter is Effective, Accurate, and Saves Lives

Critics of ShotSpotter often rely on oversimplified arguments and cherry-picked data that fail to account for the complexities of modern policing and public safety. The system is not a panacea for gun violence, but it is a critical tool to address its destructive effects on individuals and communities. Instead of framing the issue as a choice between investing in the technology or investing in communities, cities should embrace a balanced approach that leverages both and recognize that deploying ShotSpotter is a form of community investment.

The technology should, of course, be transparently evaluated, but misinformed claims should not be allowed to overshadow the system’s proven benefits.

ShotSpotter’s role in a comprehensive public safety strategy is clear:

  • it saves lives,
  • provides actionable data, and
  • supports more effective policing.

As cities evaluate its impact, focusing on facts and separating them from fiction is essential to making informed decisions based on evidence and community needs.

Learn More about ShotSpotter

a man wearing a blue suit and tie
Author Profile
Tom Chittum
Tom is SVP of Forensic Services at SoundThinking. His team supports the effective application of products...Show More
Tom is SVP of Forensic Services at SoundThinking. His team supports the effective application of products in investigations, forensics, and litigation. He has 27 years of federal law enforcement experience and was formerly the Chief Operating Officer of the ATF.Show Less
Search