Weapons Detection System Use in Schools

The dramatic increase in shootings at schools following the Columbine incident brought the use of weapons detection systems to the forefront. Their acceptance and use varied significantly. Each school district was forced to make decisions on its use without the benefit of previous studies or recommendations from governmental or professional groups. Blake and Associates conducted a limited study to identify how and when weapons detection systems were used and the results achieved.Twenty-nine school districts in 18 states west of the Mississippi River were queried concerning the use of weapons detection systems within their schools. The population ranged from 9,102 to 159,908 students; a total of 1,181,948 students. The average number of students was 40,757, with a mean of 31,013 students. Ten school districts had dedicated security departments and nine had a school law enforcement unit.

Eleven of the school districts did not use any form of weapons detection system. One district used a fixed system only; 11 districts used hand held detectors only, and six districts used a combination of fixed and hand held detectors.

• Only in the larger student population schools was there a dedicated safety and security organization. Smaller population schools rely on administrative staff to administer the program as a secondary responsibility.
• The majority of school districts with weapons detection equipment utilize hand held units on an “as needed” basis, primarily in middle and high schools and at school events.
• When used on a continuous basis, fixed units subjecting the students, staff and general public to search, combined with mandatory wearing of photographic identification cards, appears to produce the best results.
• There does not appear to be a practice of statistically justifying the continuing use of the equipment and quantifying the results. Nine districts believed there was “some” or “significant” impact on school problems.

The individuals operating the systems were from different elements of the school environment–seven districts used law enforcement and security officers only; three districts used administrative staff members only; four districts used a combination of law enforcement and administrative staff members; three used security and administrative staff members only; and one used law enforcement officers only.

The usage of the equipment varied significantly. Two districts used it in any school; six in middle and high schools only; one only in high schools; three in middle, high, and alternative schools; two in alternative schools only; and four only at athletic events. The search criterion was students only in five districts; students, staff and the general public in three districts; and only as needed in ten districts.

The primary reasons for initiating the use of weapons detection equipment were predicated on an increase in gang and criminal activity, including one murder, and the introduction of weapons and contraband into the schools.

Students, staff and the public generally accept the use of weapons detection equipment, although there were some districts in which the staff and general public believed that it should be used less often. A very small minority believed that it was an invasion of their privacy. Others believed that anything to enhance safety and security was acceptable. Many students believed that ALL persons entering the school building should be screened, as students were not the only potential threat to school safety.

There appeared to be no real effort to identify the impact of this equipment on a reduction in school problems. One district felt it was not a great deterrent; five believed there was “some” impact; four districts believed there had been a significant impact; and eight districts could not identify the degree of impact.

Various comments were made concerning the use of weapons detection systems:

• One district had been under Federal Court jurisdiction for a number of years because of allegations of discrimination in previous use of the equipment.
• The equipment had been determined to be too expensive during a previous pilot program but was now being reevaluated.
• One district determined required resources were not justified by the anticipated results.
• Weapons detection systems were considered too extreme for public acceptance and there were continuing objections to fencing school property. The district is being criticized for using CCTV on the building exteriors that the ACLU believed was an invasion of privacy.
• One district using a fixed system had a policy of required random unannounced use at all middle and high schools 2-3 times weekly to reduce overall manpower costs.
• Two districts did not use the equipment based on administrative decisions by the school board and superintendent.
• Some districts do not use weapons detection systems because of problems caused by an open campus policy, multiple buildings at the same school, and inability to control access to school buildings because of the number of entrances and the size of the parking lots.
• One large school district switchboard operator did not know if they had a school safety and security program and could not locate this information. This could be a very serious problem if a bomb threat or other safety and security problem was reported to the school district office.

Numerous issues affect the use of weapons detection systems. Primary decision factors are equipment and related staffing costs, public relations and potential litigation, and complexity of building and campus design features. Innovative administrators have found alternatives to satisfy the concerns–unannounced use on a varied daily schedule, restricting use to high-risk schools, and random selection of students to be screened. Let’s hope that deferring to public pressure to reduce spending and avoid litigation does not result in devastating consequences.

« Return