Scholarlink

<p>Gun violence has led many police agencies to adopt acoustic gunshot detection technology (GDT) to identify gunshots and provide precise locations for rapid police response. Theoretically, GDT could reduce crime through incapacitation and/or deterrence. However, high costs and concerns about effectiveness have led some communities to discontinue its use. Despite growing policy interest, few studies have directly examined GDTs impact on crime. Only 14 such studies were identified in this systematic review, examining the impact of GDT on a range of crime types. A multilevel random effects meta-analysis was conducted of 44 effect sizes from 8 studies with sufficient information. The pooled effect size indicates no significant relationship between GDT and crime (RIRR=1.02; 95% CI [0.90, 1.16]). Moderator analyses using multilevel meta-regression models indicated that neither crime type nor study strength influenced the effects. Substantial between-study heterogeneity was observed, possibly due to inconsistent implementation across jurisdictions. Our findings suggest that while GDT might increase intermediary outcomes like evidence and arrests, it will not reduce crime on its own. Policymakers should consider how technologies like GDT could support other crime reduction efforts. A strategic crime control approach to GDT, including problem analysis, evidence-based responses, partnerships, strategic planning, and built-in accountability mechanisms, is discussed. Achieving GDT-facilitated incapacitation or deterrence requires a comprehensive approach to integrating GDT into organizational practices.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Does Acoustic Gunshot Detection Technology Reduce Crime? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年2月6日

查看全文
  • Jessica Huff,
  • Brenna Dunlap,
  • Roderick L. Pearson Jr.

摘要

Gun violence has led many police agencies to adopt acoustic gunshot detection technology (GDT) to identify gunshots and provide precise locations for rapid police response. Theoretically, GDT could reduce crime through incapacitation and/or deterrence. However, high costs and concerns about effectiveness have led some communities to discontinue its use. Despite growing policy interest, few studies have directly examined GDTs impact on crime. Only 14 such studies were identified in this systematic review, examining the impact of GDT on a range of crime types. A multilevel random effects meta-analysis was conducted of 44 effect sizes from 8 studies with sufficient information. The pooled effect size indicates no significant relationship between GDT and crime (RIRR=1.02; 95% CI [0.90, 1.16]). Moderator analyses using multilevel meta-regression models indicated that neither crime type nor study strength influenced the effects. Substantial between-study heterogeneity was observed, possibly due to inconsistent implementation across jurisdictions. Our findings suggest that while GDT might increase intermediary outcomes like evidence and arrests, it will not reduce crime on its own. Policymakers should consider how technologies like GDT could support other crime reduction efforts. A strategic crime control approach to GDT, including problem analysis, evidence-based responses, partnerships, strategic planning, and built-in accountability mechanisms, is discussed. Achieving GDT-facilitated incapacitation or deterrence requires a comprehensive approach to integrating GDT into organizational practices.