Chicago is preparing to test public safety technology in six police districts, roughly two years after the city dropped ShotSpotter. The pilot covers Chicago Police Department Districts 2, 5, 7, 9, 10 and 11, and it will weigh effectiveness, reliability and privacy protections before the city commits to any long-term purchase, according to reporting from outlets including FOX 32 Chicago and Governing.
The announcement landed in a letter, not a press conference. Chief Procurement Officer Sharla Roberts wrote to Ald. Emma Mitts, who chairs the City Council’s Contracting Oversight Committee. That format matters, because a procurement letter signals a testing phase rather than a finished purchase. It also puts the program inside the same oversight channel that shaped the earlier gunshot detection fight. For a parallel look at how police surveillance tools can go wrong once they are deployed, see our report on the Savannah officer fired over 983 Flock searches.
Don't miss new tech stories on Google
Add Tech Insider once in the Google app and our stories appear in your news suggestions.
Chicago’s Public Safety Technology Pilot, Explained
The core facts fit in a few sentences. Chicago ended its ShotSpotter contract in September 2024. ShotSpotter was supplied by SoundThinking, and the city used it for years before walking away. Now the city plans a structured trial in six districts on the South and West sides. The trial will examine what the announcement calls a range of violence interruption and public safety technologies, including gunshot detection systems.
The phrase “including gunshot detection systems” is the detail that drew the most attention. It means acoustic detection is back on the table for evaluation, even though the city cut its previous provider. It does not mean the city has bought anything, picked a vendor or promised to restore the old model. The letter frames the exercise as a test with conditions attached.
For readers who track hardware, this is a story about sensors, networks and procurement rules as much as policing. A pilot like this decides which devices get bolted to poles and rooftops, who owns the data they collect, and how long a city can walk away from a contract if the results disappoint. Those questions sit in our hardware coverage because the answers depend on what the equipment can actually do.
What the City Has Confirmed So Far
The confirmed list is short, and it helps to separate it from the speculation that tends to follow a story like this. Reports agree on the following points. The pilot is planned for six CPD districts. Those districts are on the South and West sides. The evaluation will focus on effectiveness, reliability and privacy protections. Roberts announced the program in a letter to Mitts.
Roberts also wrote that “appropriate privacy and civil liberties safeguards are in place before making long-term investments.” That sentence reads as a condition on any future purchase. In plain terms, the city says it will test first and decide on durable spending later, and it will check privacy protections along the way.
What the city has not said is just as telling. Officials have not publicly named the vendor or vendors in the pilot. They have not disclosed a product name, a cost, a testing duration, a start date or any performance results. Until those details surface, any claim about who is supplying the hardware is guesswork.
Six Districts on the South and West Sides
The pilot map is the most concrete thing the city has released. Six districts will host the evaluation, and all of them sit on the South and West sides, according to the reporting. The table below lays out the confirmed geography and what the city has left unstated for each field.
| Item | Confirmed detail | Public status |
|---|---|---|
| CPD districts in pilot | Districts 2, 5, 7, 9, 10 and 11 | Confirmed |
| Total districts | Six | Confirmed |
| Part of the city | South and West sides | Confirmed |
| Technologies in scope | Violence interruption and public safety technologies, including gunshot detection | Confirmed |
| Evaluation priorities | Effectiveness, reliability, privacy protections | Confirmed |
| Vendor or vendors | Not named | Not disclosed |
| Cost, duration, start date | Not stated | Not disclosed |
Six districts is a meaningful footprint. It is large enough to produce a real sample and small enough to keep the exercise a pilot. Because the districts cluster on the South and West sides, residents in those areas will live with whatever hardware goes in. That raises the stakes for the privacy and civil liberties review Roberts described.
Where ShotSpotter Left Off
ShotSpotter, made by SoundThinking, was Chicago’s gunshot detection system until the city ended its use in September 2024. The new pilot arrives about two years after that exit. The verified record does not walk through every reason behind the 2024 decision, so this article does not try to reconstruct it. What matters for the pilot is the gap: the city has operated without that system for two years and now wants to compare options.
That gap shapes the new evaluation. A city that has already ended a contract knows what it did not like. It can write sharper requirements the second time around. The stated priorities of effectiveness, reliability and privacy protections read like a checklist built from experience, even though the city has not said so directly.
The earlier procurement history adds another wrinkle. Reports conflict on how many companies took part. ABC7 Chicago reported that 15 companies submitted proposals, while CWB Chicago reported nine companies. We flag the disagreement rather than pick a side, because no public document in the record settles it.
What Counts as Violence Interruption and Public Safety Technology
The announcement uses broad language. It refers to “a range of violence interruption and public safety technologies, including gunshot detection systems.” The breadth is deliberate, and it leaves room for more than one product category. The city has not published a list of categories, so what follows describes how such programs are usually structured rather than what Chicago has chosen.
Violence interruption programs typically pair community outreach with data that helps responders reach a scene or a conflict faster. Public safety technology covers a wider set of tools, from acoustic sensors to camera systems to analytics software. Gunshot detection is one slice of that market. By naming it explicitly, the city signals that acoustic detection will compete in the pilot alongside other approaches rather than receive a guaranteed seat.
The wording also hints at a procurement strategy. Testing several categories at once lets the city compare outcomes across tools instead of betting on one vendor’s pitch. Whether Chicago will actually run side-by-side tests is unconfirmed. Officials have not described the test design.
The Hardware Behind Gunshot Detection
Gunshot detection is a hardware problem before it is a software one. Acoustic systems rely on microphones or sensor units mounted on infrastructure such as poles and buildings. Those units listen for sounds that match a gunfire signature and send an alert to a monitoring layer. Reliability depends on placement, power, connectivity and how well the sensors cope with echoes in dense urban areas.
That dependence on physical devices explains why the city named reliability as a priority. A sensor network that drops offline, misreads a firework or lags in delivering alerts loses its value quickly. A pilot gives the city a chance to measure uptime and false alerts under real conditions before it signs a multi-year deal.
The wider hardware trend also matters. Chipmakers keep pushing more processing to the edge, so devices can classify sounds or images locally instead of streaming raw feeds to a server. Our report on Synaptics’ Astra SR200 chips shows how that edge AI silicon is shrinking. Whether any Chicago vendor uses such chips is unknown, but the direction of the industry shapes what bidders can offer.
Effectiveness, Reliability and Privacy: The Three Tests
The city gave three evaluation priorities, and each one invites a different kind of measurement. The city has not released metrics, thresholds or a scoring method. The breakdown below explains what each term could mean in practice, labeled as analysis rather than reported fact.
Effectiveness
Effectiveness asks whether the technology changes outcomes. For a gunshot detection tool, that could mean how quickly responders arrive, how often an alert corresponds to a real incident, or whether the information helps connect victims with help. The hard part is attribution. A drop in violence in one district might come from many causes, so a clean read requires a careful design and comparison districts.
Reliability
Reliability looks at whether the equipment works day after day. It covers sensor uptime, alert accuracy and the rate of missed events. Since the pilot spans six districts with different building density and street layouts, it will stress the systems in different ways. That variety is useful for a city that wants to avoid surprises after a larger rollout.
Privacy protections
Privacy protections cover what the devices record, who can see it, how long data stays stored and what rules limit its use. Roberts tied long-term investment directly to civil liberties safeguards. Privacy fights tend to turn on contract language and audit rights. Courts now treat data handling as a design choice, as our analysis of the $25B Meta privacy-code reckoning shows.
The Procurement Trail: 15 Companies or Nine?
Chicago’s procurement process produced competing numbers. ABC7 Chicago said 15 companies submitted proposals. CWB Chicago reported nine. Both outlets covered the same broader effort, and the gap may reflect different counting rules, such as whether incomplete submissions or related bids were included. The verified record does not explain the difference.
This matters for two reasons. First, the size of the bidder pool signals how competitive the market is. A field of 15 suggests a crowded market with many vendors chasing city contracts, while nine suggests a narrower field. Second, a procurement history that cannot be pinned down makes oversight harder. Council members who review contracts want clean records.
Civic oversight of technology contracts is becoming a theme across the country. Our report on Cook County’s Election Lens ballot tracking shows another local government rolling out a monitoring tool, this time in the elections office, and facing public questions about what the system sees.
The ZeroEyes Question: A Separate Transit Pilot
Some readers will connect this story to ZeroEyes, a company that appears in separate Chicago reporting. The available coverage ties ZeroEyes to a Chicago Transit Authority pilot, not to this Chicago Police Department program. No source in the record says ZeroEyes was chosen for the six-district pilot, so any claim that it was selected is unconfirmed.
The distinction matters because the two programs involve different agencies and different goals. The CTA pilot belongs to the transit system. The CPD pilot belongs to the police department and the city’s procurement office. Mixing them up would give readers a false picture of who is testing what, and it could attach a vendor’s name to a program it has no confirmed role in.
We will update this article if the city names its vendors. Until then, the safest reading is that the CPD pilot’s participants remain undisclosed, and the CTA pilot is a separate effort that happens to involve public safety technology in the same city.
What Remains Unknown
The unanswered list is longer than the answered one. The table below sorts the open questions and shows what each would reveal. Reports from FOX 32 Chicago and Governing, among others, repeat the same gaps, which suggests the city has simply not released more.
| Open question | Why it matters | Status in reports |
|---|---|---|
| Which vendor or vendors take part | Shows who holds district data and hardware | Not publicly identified |
| Product names | Lets researchers check independent testing | Not publicly identified |
| Cost to the city | Sets the budget and exit terms | Not disclosed |
| Length of the pilot | Determines how much evidence the city gathers | Not disclosed |
| Start date | Tells residents when devices go live | Not disclosed |
| Performance results | Drives any long-term purchase decision | None yet |
| Bidders in earlier process | Measures market competition | 15 (ABC7 Chicago) vs nine (CWB Chicago) |
Each blank carries a risk. Without a cost figure, residents cannot weigh the pilot against other spending. Without a duration, nobody can judge whether the city will gather enough evidence. And without a vendor name, independent researchers cannot test the product. Council members and community groups will likely press for these details.
Market Impact for Public Safety Vendors
A city of Chicago’s size sets expectations for the market. When it ends a major contract and then reopens the question with tougher conditions, vendors notice. SoundThinking lost its Chicago business in 2024, so the pilot offers a path back for any provider of acoustic detection, though the city has not said whether SoundThinking is involved. The record says nothing on that point, and we draw no conclusion.
For other vendors, the pilot is a showcase. A company that proves reliability and privacy safeguards in six Chicago districts gains a reference customer for other cities. A company that fails publicly risks damage far beyond one contract. Reputation matters here because many cities watch Chicago’s decisions.
The privacy requirement also raises the cost of entry. Vendors must show not only that sensors detect events but that data handling meets the city’s standards. That favors companies with mature compliance programs. Smaller firms may struggle to document safeguards at the level a procurement office expects. Public sector buyers have grown wary after high-profile data failures, including the case we covered in the Pentagon DMDC breach class action, where more than 3 million people were affected according to reports.
How Chicago’s Approach Compares With Other Models
Cities take different routes when they buy public safety technology. The comparison below is qualitative and describes common models, not specific contracts. It places Chicago’s announced pilot structure next to the alternatives so readers can see what is distinctive.
| Approach | How it works | Main strength | Main risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chicago-style pilot | Limited districts, tested before long-term spending | Evidence before commitment | Slow, and results may be hard to attribute |
| Citywide contract | One vendor covers a large area under a multi-year deal | Consistent coverage | Lock-in if the product underdelivers |
| No acoustic detection | City relies on other tools and community programs | Avoids sensor privacy concerns | May miss incidents that go unreported |
| Multi-vendor trial | Several tools tested side by side | Direct comparison | Higher coordination cost |
Chicago’s announced structure sits closest to the first row. Whether it also becomes a multi-vendor trial depends on details the city has not shared. The choice between these models will shape how much the pilot teaches the city and how much weight its findings carry.
Historical Context: From Sensors to Safeguards
Gunshot detection has been contested in American cities for years. Supporters say it speeds help to victims. Critics question accuracy and the way alerts shape policing in specific neighborhoods. Chicago sits at the center of that argument because it used ShotSpotter at scale and then ended the program in September 2024.
The new pilot reflects a shift in how governments buy technology. Instead of signing first and asking questions later, procurement offices increasingly demand proof. Privacy and civil liberties safeguards now appear in the contract conversation from the start. That mirrors a broader pattern in public sector tech, where failed rollouts, such as the one covered in our look at the UK’s scrapped digital ID plan, push governments toward smaller, staged tests.
Chicago’s decision to route the announcement through a Council committee chair also fits that pattern. Oversight bodies want early visibility into spending that touches civil liberties. Roberts’s letter gives the Contracting Oversight Committee a chance to ask questions before a contract takes shape.
Five Predictions for the Pilot
These predictions are our analysis, not reported facts. They rest on the pilot’s stated structure and common patterns in municipal technology programs.
- Vendor names will surface through Council questions. Oversight committees rarely let a pilot run without learning who supplies the equipment, so expect the vendor list to emerge in hearings or records requests.
- Privacy terms will draw as much attention as accuracy. Because Roberts tied investment to safeguards, data retention and access rules will become a main point of debate.
- The city will avoid a long-term commitment during the pilot. The letter’s own framing points to testing first, so a large multi-year award during the trial would contradict the stated approach.
- Competing counts of past bidders will fade once a record is published. A formal document would end the 15 versus nine dispute and give reporters a single figure.
- Other cities will watch the results. A visible pilot in a major city gives smaller governments cover to run their own tests rather than buy blind.
Any of these could change if the city releases new details. The weakest assumption is timing, since officials have not given a start date or a duration. Readers should treat the predictions as directional, not scheduled.
What Residents and Officials Should Watch Next
Several signals will show whether the pilot is serious. The first is disclosure. A city that publishes vendor names, costs and a test plan invites scrutiny and builds trust. A city that stays quiet invites suspicion. The second is independence. If outside researchers can review the data, the findings carry more weight than a self-assessment from the department.
The third signal is community input. The districts involved are on the South and West sides, and residents there will live with any installed devices. A pilot that gathers their views before and during testing stands a better chance of earning legitimacy. The fourth is the exit plan. A pilot should state in advance what results would lead the city to stop, since a trial with no failure condition is really a rollout.
Infrastructure reliability also deserves a look. Outages at cloud providers and data centers can knock monitoring systems offline, as our coverage of the Google Cloud UK outage showed. A detection system that depends on a remote service inherits that service’s weak points, which makes uptime a fair test for any vendor in the pilot.
The Takeaway on Chicago’s Pilot
The takeaway: Chicago is reopening the gunshot detection question without reopening its checkbook. The six-district pilot in Districts 2, 5, 7, 9, 10 and 11 gives the city a structured way to compare tools on effectiveness, reliability and privacy. The most important facts are the ones still missing. No vendor, no price, no timeline and no results have been made public.
Until the city fills in those blanks, the story is a promise of evaluation, not proof of a decision. Residents, Council members and vendors will judge the pilot by what the city discloses next. We will update this report as new details emerge from the Contracting Oversight Committee and from local outlets that cover the program.
FAQ: Chicago’s Public Safety Technology Pilot
Which Chicago districts are in the pilot?
The pilot covers Chicago Police Department Districts 2, 5, 7, 9, 10 and 11. All six sit on the South and West sides, according to reports.
Who announced the pilot?
Sharla Roberts, Chicago’s chief procurement officer, announced it in a letter to Ald. Emma Mitts, who chairs the City Council’s Contracting Oversight Committee.
When did Chicago end ShotSpotter?
The city ended its ShotSpotter use in September 2024. SoundThinking provided the system.
Is gunshot detection returning to Chicago?
Not yet. The pilot will evaluate a range of technologies that includes gunshot detection systems. The city has not announced a purchase or named a vendor.
Is ZeroEyes part of the police pilot?
That is unconfirmed. Available reporting links ZeroEyes to a separate Chicago Transit Authority pilot, not to the CPD program.
How much will the pilot cost and how long will it run?
City officials have not publicly disclosed the cost, the testing duration or the start date.
How many companies bid in the earlier process?
Reports conflict. ABC7 Chicago said 15 companies submitted proposals, while CWB Chicago reported nine.
What will the city measure?
The stated priorities are effectiveness, reliability and privacy protections. The city has not released specific metrics or scoring methods.
