Ralph Clark, CEO of SoundThinking, spoke exclusively to The Chicago Defender about the technology’s value and the implications of the council’s decision (Photo Credits: Wikimedia Commons and soundthinking.com).
Earlier this week, the City Council overwhelmingly voted to grant Chicago police superintendent Larry Snelling the power to renew the city’s ShotSpotter contract. This move defied Mayor Brandon Johnson’s wish to terminate the controversial gun detection technology.
Not long after that vote, Johnson vowed to veto the measure that passed 33-14, calling it illegal because, in the words of Corporation Counsel Mary Richardson-Lowry, the ordinance is “in violation of the separation of powers act.” Richardson-Lowry explained, “The legislative branch cannot compel the executive branch to act.”
The progressive mayor campaigned on ending the city’s contract with ShotSpotter on the basis that it had little effect on prosecuting gun cases and disproportionately impacted Black and Brown communities. It’s worth noting that in February, Johnson voted to extend the contract to cover the summer months and the Democratic National Convention, a period in the city where violence increases typically.
Make no mistake: Johnson is not a fan. Most recently, he referred to ShotSpotter as a “walkie-talkie on a pole.”
Just hours before the contract is set to end in Chicago, Ralph Clark, the CEO of SoundThinking, the company behind the technology, met with The Chicago Defender to share his thoughts about the City Council vote, the mayor’s promised veto and the technology’s value.
Tacuma Roeback: How do you feel about the recent City Council vote in favor of keeping ShotSpotter despite the mayor’s indication of a potential veto?
Ralph Clark: Well, I would say we’re incredibly grateful for the really strong support that we’ve seen, not only from the City Council but also from a number of editorial boards, and academic research. I think there was a pretty compelling poll that was done on the residents of Chicago, particularly in the areas that are affected by gun violence, that also came out in very strong support. So we’re incredibly grateful for all that. But I also have to add that we’re disappointed that we even have to have this kind of debate here in the city of Chicago, given the long-term relationship that we’ve had with Chicago PD in helping them address gun violence that is typically underreported by as much as 80 to 90% of the time by a traditional 911.
Tacuma Roeback: What is your message to supporters and even critics of the technology?
Ralph Clark: I say the same thing to both supporters and critics. Look at the data and understand the fact that 80 to 90% of gun violence goes unreported by a 911, which means that’s a public safety gap that we help close to our technology. This technology is not the end all be all to prevent and reduce gun violence in and of itself. We’ve never positioned the technology that way. It really is a very effective tool to make the Chicago Police Department and first responders aware of gun violence in real-time.
As a result, getting them there to these incidents of gun violence helps them be able to save the lives of gunshot wound victims who otherwise would potentially bleed out. And that was really quite interesting again, to go back to the University of Chicago Crime Lab study that showed that up to 85 people’s lives are in the balance per year based on their academic research. I personally think it’s bigger than that, but I’ll certainly stand by the 85. That’s incredibly impactful that a technology could be of assistance in helping first responders get to the scenes of gunshot wound victims and save lives.
Ralph Clark (Photo Credit: New America/Flickr).
Tacuma Roeback: Mayor Johnson has referred to ShotSpotter as little more than “a walkie-talkie on a pole.” How do you respond to such statements, and what would you say to convince him of the technology’s value?
Ralph Clark: That was a pretty interesting meme I think that he’s created with that reference. And I find it really interesting that if that’s what he really thought, that he would extend the service under his term from February through September to deal with the quote-unquote “tough summer months” and the Democratic National Convention. I don’t think he had that view about it being “a walkie-talkie on a stick” when he entered into a seven-month contract to provide support, the support so desperately needed by his department.
On record, Larry Snelling is saying, ‘Hey, I’m not going to get involved in the politics,’ which I appreciate, ‘But I value this tool because I know it helps save lives.’ And I know Mayor Johnson knows that as well. I’ve heard firsthand that a number of folks on his security detail have shared with him their own personal stories about being on patrol, getting a ShotSpotter alert, listening to it, getting to the scene quickly and saving lives. And I’ve heard about a couple of these stories being recounted to him where the officers were getting quite emotional because, when you think about why, hopefully, most people join a police department, it is really to be of service and to show up as a guardian.
What a high calling it is to know that you got to the scene and helped save someone’s life as a result of a technology like this. So he’s aware of that. I think, unfortunately, he’s painted himself in a bit of a corner trying to live up to a campaign promise that maybe he took on without the information that is now completely available to him to know better, right? The fact that he would choose politics over public safety is really discouraging and disappointing.
[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]I want him to be extremely successful as mayor. There’s no question about that. [/perfectpullquote]
It was pretty exciting to see him be elected mayor, but I think he’s got to do better in terms of making critical decisions like this, in really choosing his higher calling of being an elected official responsible for the care and safety of a number of residents versus a few people who helped him get out and knock on doors during his campaign for mayor.
Tacuma Roeback: What will replace ShotSpotter if it’s removed? In your opinion, are there any viable alternatives to gunshot detection technology, and what role do you see ShotSpotter playing in the future of public safety?
Ralph Clark: Sure, that’s a great question. So, first and foremost, I’m not aware of anything out there on the market that can provide the type of service that we provide in terms of being able to reliably detect, locate and alert on gunfire without a lot of false positives or false negatives within 30 to 45 seconds of the trigger being pulled.
Our technology is used in evidence collection. It’s used in court cases. We’ve met all manner of evidentiary standards, I would say. And so I’m not aware of anything. I think the idea of making it an either-or situation is really quite dangerous. We’ve always approached this as, with respect to gun violence, it’s not an “either-or.” It’s an “and.” It’s ShotSpotter and violence interruptions. It’s ShotSpotter and community policing. It’s ShotSpotter and a whole bunch of things: cameras, license plate readers, strategic decision support centers, trauma care kits.
[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]You want to put all the resources you possibly can to bear on a very complicated issue of gun violence that’s really tearing up a lot of communities and victimizing people that go beyond the people that actually get hurt and bleed out because of a bullet wound. [/perfectpullquote]
I think even knowing someone who had that experience is traumatic, or listening to gunfire and not seeing a police response is very traumatic for communities because it leads them to believe that their care and safety are not prioritized by the city.
Just imagine this world where now, 80 to 90% of the time, someone fires a gun and no one calls 911 for a lot of really interesting reasons that are understandable. I would say, from retribution to, ‘Gee, do I recognize it as gunfire?’ And probably the most hurtful one is that people are just resigned to, ‘Hey, that’s just the way it is.’ But now imagine this gunfire takes place and no one shows up, and the reason they don’t show up is because they don’t know about it. Our technology hasn’t been there. How discouraging and traumatic would that be for a number of neighborhoods that are dealing with ongoing, persistent gun violence? It is not a problem for people who live in Lincoln Park, but unfortunately, in some parts of the city, it is an issue. We just want to be able to be equipped to help.
Tacuma Roeback: I know you’ve cited the University of Chicago Crime Lab Data, but what would you say to people reading this who really want something tangible to hold on to about this technology’s effectiveness?
Ralph Clark: Yeah, I would say to them, it’s a very simple question: Are communities and neighborhoods better off when criminals fire guns and police don’t show up, or they do show up, which is better? In my mind, it’s better to have police be able to show up and respond to these incidents. Why? Because there could be a gunshot wound victim there whose life can be saved.
There’s sometimes evidence there that can be collected. There are witnesses who can be potentially interviewed. But most importantly, you’re showing a community that their care and safety are a priority of the city. The example I like to use is, again, not to pick on Lincoln Park, but maybe to pick on Lincoln Park. If a gun’s fired in Lincoln Park, do you think police show up to that area where the gun was fired in Lincoln Park?
Tacuma Roeback: [Nods]
Ralph Clark: Okay? I think they do too, actually. And so my question is, well, if the residents of Lincoln Park can expect and deserve a police response to gunfire that actually doesn’t even happen frequently, why isn’t it important for residents in the 7th and 11th districts to expect the same type of response? It’s an issue of equity, as far as I’m concerned. So, that’s what I would say. This is about helping communities become safer. This is about saving lives and making police accountable to serve and protect in a much more efficient, effective and equitable way.
Tacuma Roeback: I know the contract is expiring in just a few days here, but what would this potential extension mean for ShotSpotter? How would the reduced cost impact your operations and commitment to Chicago?
Ralph Clark: So, that’s another great question. The contract we have put in front of the city basically extends the service from Sept. 22 through Dec. 30 of 2025. What we’re doing in terms of the discount is we’re providing two months’ worth of credit as a part of that 13-14 month extension that is a part of this transition thing we did for the last contract. So when we say it’s a significant discount, what we’re saying is this is a significant discount based on the extension that the administration entered into back in February of this year when they wanted to protect the Democratic National Convention and the residents during the quote-unquote “tough summer months.”
So, they essentially enter into a contract, a seven-month contract, but they paid 12 months for it. And we’re saying, ‘Look, we’re on that per square mile per month basis. We’re not looking to charge that much. We’re going to go back to what we have charged traditionally prior to that extension, that emergency extension, to go back to our regular pricing with a 5% COLA (cost-of-living adjustment) increase. So it’s a discount off the last extension, and a significant discount off the last extension. It’s a reasonable count, I would say, off previous years because we’re providing this two-month credit, recognizing that the city paid 12 months for seven months of service to get an open “walkie-talkie on a stick.”
Tacuma Roeback: How have talks around that extension been going? What’s the latest with that?
Ralph Clark: So, it’s been on the table now for, I think, a couple of weeks at least. I guess we’re waiting to see what the formal response is.
[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]We still have some time for the city to accept those terms, although, based on the administration’s comments yesterday, based on the vote, it appears that the mayor is not interested in looking at that. [/perfectpullquote]
So, unfortunately, we’re looking at having to start the decommission process starting Monday of next week and begin to de-install sensors in market, which means we can’t provide the real-time service as of midnight Sunday.
This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.