The system was first deployed in Pittsburgh in 2014 in parts of police Zone 5, which includes neighborhoods such as Bloomfield, Morningside, Lincoln-Lemington and Homewood. Since then, it has expanded to all police zones, but does not cover the entire city.
Since 2014, the city has spent about $8.1 million on the system. The Controller's Office, aware of the "significant investment," initiated the audit to assess the effectiveness and cost-efficiency of the program.
"In creating this report, we looked specifically at whether ShotSpotter helps reduce crime over time, whether it helps police respond more quickly and strategically to shooting incidents and whether it helps the City respond to incidents that may not otherwise be reported," Controller Rachael Heisler said in a statement.
The data doesn't show a "significant reduction in overall crime levels" but does show an improvement in response times, her statement said.
Between 2018 and 2023, police response times to 911 calls were, in most cases, more than double the amount of time it took for them to respond to a ShotSpotter alert, according to the controller's report.
The report also noted a significant decrease in 911 calls to report possible gunfire, adding that without the ShotSpotter system there would be "delayed discoveries or unreported gunfire incidents."
Both 911 calls and ShotSpotter alerts produced nearly the same amount of what is considered productive results. Productive results would include an arrest, a gun-related injury or a report being filed, while unproductive results are things like a false alarm.
However, it does not appear that the use of ShotSpotter has made any significant change in gun violence in the city, the report found.
"When comparing the trends of confirmed gunshot injuries prior to ShotSpotter and after, no significant change is evident," the report said.
Between 2012 and 2017 — before the ShotSpotter implementation — reported gunshot injuries hovered just over 200 reports. After 2018 through 2024, those reports average exactly 200 per year.
A big push for the city to first start and then expand the program was the notion that it would reduce crime.
However, there was significant pushback from the public. Many claimed that the sensors were being placed in predominately Black neighborhoods, but leadership from the city's bureau of police said the sensors were dispersed based on crime data.
Last year, when City Council voted to expand the system to Carrick, Councilwoman Barb Warwick said she was looking forward to seeing data from Carrick's crime before the system is installed versus after to judge its effectiveness.
The system has been controversial in other cities such as Chicago and Atlanta, which have decided to not use the system, after officials described it as expensive, racially biased and ineffective.
In Pittsburgh though, Council President Dan Lavelle, who represents one of the city's majority minority areas, previously said that his constituents requested the system be installed in their neighborhoods.
The city spends about $1.2 million per year on the system, although Mr. Lavelle said he would "be willing to spend even more than that to save those lives," during a discussion last year.
The city's contract with the company that manages the system is set to expire at the end of this year. Multiple council members have indicated that they would like to have "more robust conversations" about the contract before deciding whether to renew it.
© 2025 the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
