As has been blogged about, a vote for Shotspotter is coming up on Monday. I plan to support this initiative and urge my colleagues to do the same.
We have been discussing this item for more than a year. When the proposal first came before the Council last summer, it was rejected. The causes of concern were cost and length of commitment. The initial cost would have been nearly one million dollars and would have required agreement to a multi-year contract. Councilmembers suggested that the Administration look for a less expensive alternative or grant funds to subsidize the cost and that City Hall re-negotiate the terms of the agreement. Although unwilling at first, the Administration has done exactly that.
The price is now just $169,000 to lease equipment for one year. In addition, the City has been awarded a $250,000 public safety grant that must be used for technology purposes. Those funds will be used to pay for camera installation and monitoring. We are only contractually obligated for one year. If we find that the equipment is not meeting our needs and expectations, we can end the relationship. If we decide to renew, City funds may be needed to pay for next year’s lease.
There have been questions posed by my colleagues about the efficacy of the technology. While these are legitimate concerns, I have not yet heard from any municipality that the equipment is not effective or not worth the investment. I have seen positive reviews and heard other elected officials speak to how they have implemented this technology in their own municipalities. I don’t see why Plainfield should have to wait.
Additionally, and more importantly, our Public Safety Director and officers have continually made the case that an upgrade in technology would empower our police force. With a rise in crime, and budgetary constraints around police manpower, Shotspotter provides a low cost opportunity for the City.
It is important to keep in mind that a technology upgrade is just one piece of our public safety puzzle. Continued conversations and meaningful solutions have to be considered in other enforcement areas such as manpower and structure. We also have to address preventative measures such as youth programs and re-enty solutions before we will see the results we desire and deserve – a safer Plainfield.
.
10 comments:
You are either putting the cart before the horse, or buying the Brooklyn Bridge. I haven't decided which it is yet, but I expect it will be money down the drain because that is what this city does best. Ninety percent of the time we are sold a bill of goods by this administration, and ninety percent of the time the City Council goes along for the ride. The other ten percent is reserved for points made for wrist-slapping the mayor, expounding about non-existent, virtually meaningless reforms, and voting on street encumbrances. Count me as one who is very dismayed by the trajectory of our city and its wasteful ways.
I would like to add that if gunshots went undetected and unreported, and the police had difficulty tracking down the perpetrators and bringing them to justice, ShotSpotter might be worthwhile to try out. However, this doesn't seem to be the case.
More needs to be done to improve the circumstances of those that live in environments that breed crime and violence. You note, correctly, that technology is only one piece of the public safety puzzle. I would say it's only a small piece, and more effort is required on the economic development and job training front so we have sustainable improvements that filter through the whole community.
ShotSpotter is a band-aid, as is much of what this city gets involved with, where it's either band-aids, treats, or freebies. That's what you get when government is managed as a pie to be diced up and consumed. We become enamored with all the bells and whistles. We overpay for a lack of results. Then we go back to square-one, profess our faith, and hold out our hands as beggars.
ShotSpotter caters to the emotions of those who have it backwards. Our problem isn't after the shot. Our problem is permitting the decay that nurtures the shot to begin with. For this we need leadership that doesn't fool itself into thinking that being a better beggar is the solution, and operates like government is the process of directing public resources for private enrichment.
Unless Plainfield has become Afghanistan and you can immediately and indiscriminately launch a retaliatory attack into the location where the shots were fired, Shotspotter will not work. The science is not there. Yes, we should have cameras located in high crime areas and provide access to them in real time for all the police and citizens to view.
I don't know who is pelding this Cool Aide but I spent my entire career in technology and can tell you the devil is in the details, see my Sept.29, 2010, blog post.( http://d-damerica.blogspot.com/2010/09/shotspotter-my-comments-green-fails-at.html}. But then again, my advice is free, so it must not be worth anything. It is always interesting to note that those of us who know technology look at it with a jaundice eye and while those who don’t, like ‘Cargo Cultist,’ rush to embrace it as if it were manna from heaven.
The Council and the Administration would do well to read the article in the August edition of Scientific American, ‘How New York Beat Crime.’
Yeah I know a $250,000 grant is a lot to let slip by, but if only Shotspotter qualifies for the grant then you have to ask yourself who is being paid off and maybe for once Plainfield should take the high road and walk?
Alan,
Director Hellwig and others have expressed that yes, actually, there is benefit in being able to instantaneously track the location and direction of gunfire. It makes sense to me that this ability to locate gunfire combined with the use of strategically placed cameras that can capture crime on tape will allow for quicker prosecution of criminals with judgements that stick. Other municipal leaders have testified to the effectiveness of this technology and patent rights, for now, mean shotspotter is one of a kind.
Furthermore, I think you are missing a major point that I am trying to make. This is not just about shotspotter. This is part of a larger need to empower our police force. Any organization - public, nonprofit or private, need tools to do their job. Technology has been incorporated as part of the necessary tools of success for many organizations. If our police force doesn't have the tools needed to succeed, then how can we expect anything to change? Why should we expect our police department to operate with technology years behind that of what other law enforcement agencies - federal, state and local - have? The City is very much an organization of employees with specific roles. Police have very important roles. They need to be able to do their jobs well - not just for their needs, but for the benefit of all residents.
Nat,
Thanks for the reference to the Scientific American article. It looks like the author credits "aggressive policing" to NYC's crime drop. The officers there used technology such as CompStat to map areas of high crime and then focused heavily on those “hotspots”. Sounds like another reason to move forward with Shotspotter since it would empower the police force to do their jobs in Plainfield’s high crime areas.
Annie
Despite what Helwig says, nothing is instantaneous, you would need blanket the city with cameras at street level and then maybe you might have captured the crime. His premise is totally flawed. Yes there is a use for cameras in high crime areas but that has nothing to do with Shotspotter.
I wrote a post 9/29/2010, outlining in detail the steps that need to be taken in the implementation of any IT project? Has anyone put together a project plan. You don't need to buy the technology before you but the plan in place.
Why aren't they using CompStat now. All they need is a map, pushpins, and a mind that understands statistics. It ain't Rocket Science as so many people would have you believe.
The city should put before the public a comprehensive plan detailing how they are going to reduce crime for the public to evaluate and explain how the incorporation of any technology is going to advance that plan. Here's one question that should be answered: 'What is the measurable criteria for the success of the program?' We got to the crime scene a minute sooner? If yes, how do you know that. Are median response times kept or are you taking someones word for it?
Customer references are a dime a dozen. I know, I was in the business. I ask them to tell you where Shotspotter failed and why.
A more important question that has not been answered is Shotspotter the only solution that qualifies for the grant? What are the alternatives?
Does anyone trust what Hellwig says? Not many of us.
How to Defeat Shotspotter - It took me less than a minute to find this on the internet: "What about silencers?
'While high-quality silencers (also known as "muzzle blast suppressors") do have the ability to defeat ShotSpotter, the reality is, they are very rare and are illegal nationwide. Thus, while owning a licensed gun is not illegal, and carrying it usually is not (depending on jurisdiction), having in one’s possession a silencer is virtually guaranteed to lead to criminal prosecution. Moreover, silencers are both exceedingly difficult to find and have a negative impact on the accuracy and range of gunfire. Perhaps this is why less than 1% of all crimes in which guns are fired involve silencers, according to the FBI.'" How long will it take the our criminals to figure it out. http://www.gunshotlocating.com/index.php?page=products&sec=139
This all sounds like a bad car deal. You walk away from the sale because you just don't have the money to fully afford what you truly want.
During the following week you get an insurmountable number of phone calls from the salesman trying to haggle a deal with you. After the 20th call he finally presents you with an offer that convinces you to buy something you can't afford and just isn't right for you. This seems to be an ongoing scenario in Plainfield.
It's my opinion that if Shotspotter truly delivered the results claimed by its manufacturer, they would NEVER reduce their rates and there would be much more increased demand for this technology -- you know, basic economics, supply and demand. They need to recover their investment and will make every effort to squeeze out of Plainfield whatever money they can get.
Admittedly, the technology is impressive; but that's it. The administration is taking the bait, once again, from salespeople that come into Plainfield promising us a great deal and once they're gone, the people of this city are just left with more debt and nonsense to deal with.
Take the money and invest in hiring a few more cops; encourage more aggressive policing and have a PLAN of attack on how to take down the thugs and trash that pervade our communities.
Keep it simple! Less is always more.
This is rotten from the core. I don't know what your position is. It is very muddy - like all politicians - you seem to be speaking from both sides.
That makes me even more nervous.
Maybe Jerry Green now has control of you.
Post a Comment