russracop@att.

net

From: russracop@att.net
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2018 8:21 AM
To: Stodola, Mark; Moore, Bruce; LRBOD
Cc: 'Buckner, Kenton'; 'Matthew Campbell'; 'Max Brantley'; Ean Lee Bordeaux
Subject: LRPD/ShotSpotter purchase

An article in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette this morning reports that the Little Rock Police Department is changing
their mind about using federal grant to purchase equipment to compare shell casings used in criminal acts. They was the
equipment as sending shell casings to the Arkansas State Crime Lab takes too long to get results. This was a good use of
grant funds, we would have a tangible piece of equipment that would only require manpower of the LRPD crime scene
staff operate and maintain. Source: http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2018/may/07/lr-seeks-device-to-detect-
gunfire-20180

Now they want to purchase some questionable software, which while the initial purchase is coverage under the grant
yearly license fees are not.

Forbes published an article in November 2016 in which the U.S. Government, the source of the grant funds we intend to
use to purchase the software, called the effectiveness of the program into question.

“But government interest in that scenario, if there ever was any, has faded. Along the way, Clark has struggled to
maintain ShotSpotter’s rapid growth. Some cities are opting out of their contracts, using the savings to hire additional
police officers and fund more traditional technologies such as surveillance cameras. This has left the company’s future in
flux. Despite its presence in nearly every major metropolitan area of the country, there remains little external validation
of ShotSpotter from researchers or government agencies, which often guide decisions made by local law enforcement.
Now, the company may be forced to abandon part of Clark’s plan, as the CEO seeks to double down on the word-of-
mouth recommendations from police that have propelled ShotSpotter to where it is today”. “Yet, in some cities,
ShotSpotter hasn’t had the effect city officials and residents had hoped for. While officers are responding to more illegal
gunfire, they rarely catch the shooter. And evidence that could be used to build a case and bolster a prosecution--such
as shell casings left behind or witness testimony--isn’t often attributed to ShotSpotter in police or court records. The
question now is whether the technology is worth the millions of dollars it's costing taxpayers each year, and if the lack of
tangible results is because we don't have the ability to measure them, or that they simply don’t exist”.
Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattdrange/2016/11/17/shotspotter-struggles-to-prove-impact-as-silicon-valley-
answer-to-gun-violence/#55e3cd0831cb

The article also points out that many cities that initially used ShotSpotter quit using it and used the saving to hire
additional police officers and fund more traditional technologies, like surveillance and body cameras (which LRPD does
not use at the present time but should for protection of good officers and removal of bad ones). The article also make
the case for the equipment LRPD wanted to buy but is now abandoning.

The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette article points out that the annual cost per square mile of coverage is between $65,000
to $90,000 annually per square mile of coverage, along with a one-time $10,000 service initiation fee per square mile. I
suspect that the grant fund will not be used for annual fees and that public funds from the city will be used for them.
Seems like an exorbitant expense for sketchy software that produces useless results.

The Atlantic reported in November 2017 that independent research and data supporting the effectiveness of
ShotSpotter was non-existant.

1
“Local media and some national outlets have reported on the expansion of gunfire-detection technology in Chicago. But
there is little in the way of independent research supporting ShotSpotter’s claims about decreasing gun violence—or any
other positive outcomes for that matter. This may be why CPD ignored my email requests to interview their chief
technology officer to discuss ShotSpotter’s outcomes and its expansion in Chicago. Jennifer Doleac is one of the very
few academics who has studied ShotSpotter. She’s an assistant professor of public policy and economics at the
University of Virginia who specializes in the economics of crime and how technology impacts public safety. “There is very
good evidence that this technology detects gunfire,” she told me when I asked her about CPD’s claims that ShotSpotter
was behind the decrease in shootings. “But does it have an impact on anything that we care about, such as saving lives
by getting victims to the hospital faster, clearing more cases, reducing crimes, or decreasing gun violence? We have no
evidence.” More than 90 cities nationwide use ShotSpotter despite the lack of independent analysis. And in fact, there
are hints that the technology doesn’t deliver meaningful benefits. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department ended
its four-year contract in February 2016 because it “wasn’t successful in identifying or prosecuting the people who fired
the shots picked up by the system,” according to a memo obtained by The Charlotte
Observer”. Source: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/12/gunfire-alarms-violence/548279/

As stated in the previous paragraph the Charlotte Observer in February 2016 reported that “Charlotte-Mecklenburg
police have decided to not renew their $160,000 a year contract with ShotSpotter, saying the gunshot detection system
didn’t help them make arrests or identify crime victims. ShotSpotter was one of a raft of programs the city implemented
in the months leading up to the 2012 Democratic National Convention, when Charlotte got a federal grant to beef up
security. The grant paid for infrastructure costs for things like a greater network of cameras, but the city had to decide
whether to fold continuing costs into future budgets. The police department’s ShotSpotter decision was made public in a
City Council-Manager memo released on Wednesday. “The system operated as designed,” the memo said. “However,
based on its experience with the system, CMPD feels the return on investment was not high enough to justify a
renewal.” Source: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/crime/article59685506.html

Be good stewards of public funds and do not approve the purchase of the ShotSpotter software.

Russ Racop
301 Alamo Drive
Little Rock, AR 72211
501-352-0043