Two observations: this is a highly political topic and there is highly political language in the linked article. Its conclusions also rely on the integrity of a multitude of referenced studies.

What this article and topic deserves is a colonoscopy level research critique / review.

It's important to note that this researcher would easily get published regardless of what she found. If ShotSpotter works at all, that's a huge result! If it doesn't work, that's also very notable! And if the evidence is mixed, it still contradicts every other unbiased study that shows that ShotSpotter doesn't work. In a way, this was the most boring result.

Plus the author seems to go out of her way to be balanced, writing things like:

> " None of the seven prior investigation evaluations identified by my colleagues and I found evidence that case clearance increased following ShotSpotter deployment. While these findings read as an indictment of the technology, future research should determine if the manner by which police implement and utilize ShotSpotter impacts the likelihood that program goals will be met."

The article links to openly political articles. Whatever the supposed context (excuse), this is a political act in the context of a research presentation. As if this is not enough, the article quotes unsupported statements of Brandon Johnson as well as counterarguments (though the latter are mostly burred in the article link). Which is unnecessary to present their data and is unequivocally political. That they are "both siding" the political argument should not be an argument: a. because it is on its face inappropriate in such a presentation and b. such a tack tries to hurdle the obvious critique question that would follow. Which is whether both sides are presented evenly. Are they acting as political journalists or trying to present data? Give us a break. The authors can write what they wish, of course, but don't ask us to turn a blind eye to the politics that are inserted into the article. Whatever the excuse.

> I also don't understand why this would be a politicized topic.

The topic is openly politicized, as everyone can see from the fact that it is hotly debated on the political stage. It is difficult to believe that you are being serious.

>There's a for-profit corporation selling snake-oil to cities, and then there are people (like the researcher/author) who want to reduce crime and save taxpayer money.

Okay, I see.

I rest my case.

What a waste of time.

>It's important to note that this researcher would easily get published regardless of what she found. If ShotSpotter works at all, that's a huge result! If it doesn't work, that's also very notable! And if the evidence is mixed, it still contradicts every other unbiased study that shows that ShotSpotter doesn't work. In a way, this was the most boring result.

It reads to me like you don't understand the relevant principles under discussion when it comes to research.

>Plus the author seems to go out of her way to be balanced, writing things like:

Is this your idea of research critique? Because this is the type of analysis, generally speaking anyway, that is accomplished in actual competent research critique. And a lot more. Which was the sum of my comment.

We must be in agreement that what this topic calls for is intensive critique and review of all research.

I'll especially be interested in whether or not the metrics are even meaningful, let alone if the results are high evidence, or if the research design itself is faulty. Of course, I wouldn't dare suggest a political reason for that should I see obvious faults in it. Like I said, I'd await a real critique / review and let that speak for itself.

The whole thing is solidly dirty.

Part of the rub is that people being hit are not all that common. (It may be false positives, or just no recovered shells on scene, but many of the ShotSpotter calls result in a nothingburger.) So what has happened in some cities is that ShotSpotter has increased workload in going to calls, so may have had negative spillover in that regards.

After that, it's also generally not distance or speed of drive time - usually the factor that determines speed to the hospital is "opticom", aka traffic light pre-emption. I can move a lot more smoothly if my opticom is making the entire "lane" of intersections green for me, even if traffic is garbage.

There's also a self-selection in that study. Reality is most GSWs do not NEED to go to a L1 Trauma Center (the difference between L1 and L2 in most cases is as simple as "teaching facilities", the difference between these and L3 is who is required to have certain people physically at the hospital 24/7 versus "on-call").

I thought that was the problem: that people in certain neighborhoods didn't call to report shootings.