Despite Mayor Brandon Johnson’s plan to rid Chicago of ShotSpotter, nearly all aldermen representing the neighborhoods where people are most likely to be shot still want the controversial gunshot detection system to stay in their wards.
Fourteen aldermen in the 17 wards with the highest gunshot victimization rates told the Tribune they want to see the police response tool remain. Those aldermen — all representing South and West Side wards — view the tool as a way to get first responders to gunshot victims faster, rather than the too-costly impetus for over-policing it has been labeled by opponents.
The group of supporters forms the backbone of a push to take future control of the technology out of Johnson’s hands. An order up for a final vote Wednesday is designed to give the City Council power to determine ShotSpotter’s fate.
“If it can just do one thing good and save a life, it’s worth trying,” West Side Ald. Emma Mitts, 37th, told the Tribune.
The effort to undercut Johnson’s campaign promise to cancel the ShotSpotter contract pits many regular allies against him. They tout support for the system from neighborhood police district commanders and stark fears about what happens in the absence of the tool that often gives officers their only notice of gunfire.
But despite their concerns, ShotSpotter proponents in neighborhoods hard-hit by violence say they didn’t hear from the mayor’s administration before Johnson announced the city would cut off the technology starting in September.
“I’m not trying to throw him under the bus, but I just think they need to have this conversation with us, since we are out here, on what works and what doesn’t work for us,” Mitts said.
The legislation would require a full City Council vote to remove ShotSpotter from any ward, leading to speculation the measure would lead to ward-by-ward approval for the technology. Sponsor Ald. David Moore, 17th, clarified that he hopes the legislation allows ShotSpotter to remain throughout the city.
A Johnson spokesperson wrote in a statement Tuesday that public safety is a “citywide issue” overseen by the Police Department and mayor that “cannot be effectively managed on a ward-by-ward basis in a way that undercuts that authority.”
As the last-ditch effort to revive ShotSpotter works through City Hall, the aldermen holding out for a gunshot detection system say they still have not heard from the mayor. Administration officials have not reached out to Moore since the South Side alderman’s order breezed through the council’s Police and Fire Committee two weeks ago, he said.
The administration’s positions on ShotSpotter have taken Moore by surprise. “We shouldn’t be finding out about it in the press,” he said.
Johnson announced in February the city would stop using ShotSpotter in late September, nodding to studies questioning its effectiveness as a tool to catch criminals and curb crime alongside its annual price tag of around $10 million. The system uses acoustic sensors mounted on light poles concentrated overwhelmingly on the South and West sides to alert police about the location of suspected gunfire.
As a candidate, he pledged to terminate ShotSpotter, a target of activists that gained notoriety in 2021 after a gunshot alert from a street in Little Village sent responding police running after 13-year-old Adam Toledo. An officer fatally shot Toledo during the chase.
The September end date would give Chicago police time to adapt to the tool’s expiration over the summer, Johnson said. But speculation quickly emerged after the announcement that the company had not yet agreed to the extension, a possibility Johnson refused to directly answer questions about. Days later, he announced there would be an additional two-month “transition period” before the technology goes offline in November.
The company that operates ShotSpotter, SoundThinking, and the technology’s council proponents quickly went to work trying to keep it in Chicago. Company lobbyists shared with aldermen multiple drafts of an order designed to allow ShotSpotter to remain, the Chicago Reader reported Friday. A SoundThinking spokesperson said in a statement Tuesday that the company is “committed to doing whatever we can to help the Chicago Police Department.”
Through early April, Moore’s ward had the city’s second-most shooting victimizations — instances in which a person was wounded or killed by gunfire. He said he thinks he has the votes to pass the order Wednesday, but expects Johnson allies to “defer and publish” it, a parliamentary maneuver to temporarily block a vote. Moore said he hopes some kind of gunshot detection system will continue to operate in Chicago, even if it is not the ShotSpotter system that first came to the city in a 2012 pilot program.
Johnson initially strongly rejected the possibility of replacing ShotSpotter with a different gunshot detection tool, but later floated his openness to using the funds the city spends on the technology for a system to more quickly dispatch ambulances instead of police. His administration has not shared any specific plans for ShotSpotter alternatives.
The decision has also put Johnson at odds with his police Superintendent, Larry Snelling. Snelling publicly praised the tool shortly before Johnson announced it would be axed. The superintendent stuck to his support Friday while speaking next to Johnson at a news conference where he pledged to “work around” whatever the City Council determines.
“When it comes to ShotSpotter, I’ve seen our officers get to locations quickly and I’ve seen them save lives,” he said.
Johnson stuck to his criticism, calling the data on the technology “very clear.” The differences between Chicago’s most violent neighborhoods and other parts of the city is “gross inequity” created by decades of government disinvestment, and broad investment in them is the best tool to fight crime, he argued.
“The decision has been made,” he said. “Administrations of the past have not been as focused as I have been on getting to the root causes of violence.”
A series of studies, reports and lawsuits have built up and broken down the case against ShotSpotter.
Like Snelling, ShotSpotter’s proponents tout its potential to save lives by speeding up police responses. In the last three years, CPD officers responding to a ShotSpotter alert rendered lifesaving medical aid 430 times, according to the Chicago Police Department.
They also flag findings from a recent Justice Department study that the technology’s alerts bring police to crime scenes faster and keep them there longer. However, the same study determined the tool does not reduce gun violence or improve CPD’s clearance rate.
A recent CPD analysis found that the vast majority of ShotSpotter alerts in the Englewood and Gresham districts — 80% — did not have an accompanying 911 call from a citizen.
A working paper from Ph.D. candidates at the University of California at Santa Barbara found that the flood of ShotSpotter alerts in Chicago resulted in longer police response times — and thus, a decrease in arrests stemming from 911 calls. Attorneys from the MacArthur Justice Center, which is suing the city in a bid to end its use of ShotSpotter, highlight the finding as a way ShotSpotter makes police less efficient.
The criticism is echoed by Ald. William Hall, 6th, whose ward through early April is home to the most shooting victimizations throughout the city. He criticized ShotSpotter for not leading to more arrests and convictions.
“What we need is justice,” he said, adding that the money spent on ShotSpotter should instead be used to prevent violence. “What this mayor is trying to do, and which I solely support, is invest in things that prevent people from picking up a gun.”
“I would rather spend money on infrastructure, job creation, cultural infusion, and young people, young people initiatives, than to spend millions of dollars on technology that does not deliver,” he said. “We don’t need to be alerted when people get shot. We need to do whatever we can to keep people from shooting.”
However, Hall’s backing of the mayor’s plan to oust ShotSpotter makes him a rare voice among peers leading high-shooting wards.
The aldermen who want ShotSpotter to stay in their wards include Ald. Desmon Yancy, 5th; Ald. Greg Mitchell, 7th; Ald. Michelle Harris, 8th; Ald. Anthony Beale, 9th; Ald. Peter Chico, 10th; Ald. Raymond Lopez, 15th; Ald. Stephanie Coleman, 16th; Ald. Ronnie Mosley, 21st, Ald. Monique Scott, 24th; Ald. Walter Burnett, 27th; and Ald. Jason Ervin, 28th.
That backing may not translate universally into support for Moore’s order, however. Several of the aldermen the Tribune spoke with who want to retain ShotSpotter said they are still considering how they will vote on it.
They view ShotSpotter as a necessity because many residents do not call police when they hear gunshots. Some speculated Chicagoans have grown reliant on ShotSpotter to alert police for them. Others said the lack of calls stems from a distrust in police or fears of retaliation for reporting crimes.
“I call 911, but 99% of the community doesn’t call,” Harris said. “While it is not the tool that’s going to keep you from getting shot, it is the tool that may save your life because the police are going to respond to that shot.”
The non-calls make ShotSpotter “an invaluable tool,” Mitchell said.
“I know firsthand: ShotSpotter alerted police, led them to situations that we would have found considerably later or might not at all,” he said. “For something that beneficial to a lot of neighborhoods, I think a lot more conversations with us could have taken place.”
Ald. Jeanette Taylor, 20th, said she is on the fence regarding ShotSpotter. It feels like a “wasted contract” to her, she said, but she thinks she should defer to the police.
She would like to hold out for clearer information on ShotSpotter from the company and city, she said. Moore’s order would mandate the Police Department to collect a wide variety of data to clarify how well the technology works at prompting otherwise unlikely police responses, evidence recoveries and arrests.
“There has to be a full conversation about what is best. And I don’t know that ShotSpotter is,” Taylor said. “But what I’m disappointed in is that we didn’t have the conversation.”
jsheridan@chicagotribune.com
