For more than a year, researchers at Duke University studied the gunshot detection technology shotspot, examined two major questions: how effective it was, and how did the community feel about it?
Wral probe Sarah Krugar spoke with researchers before the presentation of Thursday afternoon at Durham City Council.
“When Durham decided to pilot the shotspotter technology, he arrived at the Wilson Center … asking if we can make an independent evaluation of the pilot,” said the director of the report co-writer Angie Weis OldPolisi at the Wilson Center for Science and Justice in Duke Law. Independent research was not done at any cost for the city and two reports were concluded.
“This is a difference between qualitative and quantitative,” also explained the Phil Cook, Professor Emeritus of Public Policy and Economics in Duke, who was one of the leading researchers.
Cook, whose academic focus is on gun violence, explained that the Wilson Center along with the Durham Police Department performed a data analysis of the information collected during the city’s one -year pilot program, which ended in December. Shotspotter uses sensors, which are placed within a three-class mile near the city, which is to detect gunshot and inform the police.
“I think it is appropriate to say that Shotspotter performed as an advertisement,” Cook said. “This actually informs the police about many more gunshots compared to the police, which will be known about the 911 calls they receive.”
Data from the Durham Police Department shows that there was no 911 calls in about three -fourths of about 1400 shotspotter alerts a year.
Cook said that Duke Research was unable to conclude whether the shotSpotter has resulted in a decrease in violent crime. He says that it shows that the shotspotter alert improved in official response time, allowing authorities to “gather much more evidence than otherwise”, and “the number of arrests increased, which was made in the scene of the bullets.”
The report provides this example:
“Fayetville Street and E. on the evening of May 6, 2023. A shooting was alerted as a result of a shooting near the intersection of Umstead Street. Police reached the spot and stopped a private vehicle that was hunting a gun bullet. (He was eventually treated in Duke Er and survived.) Shooting was not reported otherwise. Several shell castings were found at the scene, and the analysis of these shell casing assisted the police in arresting a suspect next week. He was accused of serious injuries and hooliganism with a deadly weapon to discharge a gun within the city. ,
In a situation, Cook says that the possibility of technology saves a life. The report gives details of the incident:
“On July 25, a shooting in the target area (Kolfax Street and Linwood Avenue) resulted in several SS notifications. Officers rushed to the spot after less than four minutes of shooting, and found a victim with deadly injuries. He administered first aid to prevent bleeding, and the victims survived. In this case, 911 calls were received 47 seconds after the first SS alert. This is laudable, although uncertain, that the shotspotter’s competent quick response saved the victim’s life. ,
“I think [ShotSpotter] It was successful in the sense that it pushed the needle to make the gun violence some more productive, ”Cook said. “We do not offer a conclusion despite that degree of success, whether it is worthwhile, because of course there are costs on the other side of the laser.”
Cook said that costs include financial costs (a three -year contract with shotspot is estimated at $ 658,500) and the cost of time, as the authorities were called for so many shooting scenes, which they would not know otherwise.
For a qualitative study that assesses community spirit for the shotspotter, Old says that he and his team interviewed 30 people who live in the radius of Shotspotter.
“We have done this because we thought that if we are going to see how the shotspotter is performing, it is also important to know how the community feels about it,” he said. “This is something that another researcher did not actually do before.”
Durham Police Chief Patriss Andrews said that it was important that about 80 percent of the shooting report was started by the police.
Andrews said, “I want to publicly appreciate my entire team, which worked on one of the most groundbreaking pilots for this technique this year.”
Old said that the community members had held mixed opinions of technology, yet more opposed to it in its favor.
“The reason for this with policing as an institution was more and more with doubts and mistrust,” he said, “he explained.
Ten of the respondents were at the fence, wanted more information about it.
“We had no 30 participants of 30, who had a negative impact on policing after the implementation of the shotspotor,” Old Vral Toll.
Even before the rollout in Durham, some residents suspected technology, fearing that this would lead to over-pool, and it fulfills the concerns of privacy.
In a memorandum to the city manager, the city encouraged the city to resume Shotspotter with a three -year contract, Andrews wrote that the department had not received any complaints about the official conduct during the pilot.
While the Report of the Wilson Center does not offer the city council recommendation to restore technology in the city in the city, they hope that it will be useful information for the members of the council, Durham community and beyond.
“I think the absolutely other cities can learn from experience in Durham,” Old said.
Six other cities in Northern Carolina currently have a shotpotter, including Fietville, Wilmington, Rocky Mount, Goldsboro, Winston-Salem and Greenville.