Gun detection survey finds many campuses turning to technology to end gun violence

With the recent increase in mass shootings in the United States and with an average of 327 people shot each day in the United States, schools, higher education institutions, and healthcare facilities are working hard to keep guns of all kinds outside their campuses. Many have adopted different types of weapon detection technologies to detect guns, knives, bombs, and other objects that could be used by a person to harm others or themselves.

In response to this emerging trend, Campus Security asked K-12, college and hospital security directors, police chiefs and other administrators responsible for the security of their organizations to participate in the first Campus Security Weapons, metal and gunshot detection investigation. More than 200 protection professionals participated and answered questions about everything from the types of systems they use, where they deploy their weapon detection technology, how often they use it, the challenges they encountered with this technology and much more.

Read on to see the results. To read the full report which includes graphs, Click here.

Campuses most commonly use handgun and carry detection systems

By far the most popular type of weapon detection system used by survey participants is “weapon/metal detection using sensors integrated into walk-through or hand-held detectors.” . Nearly two in three participants (63%) say they use this type of technology. At 74%, hospitals and higher education institutions are the campuses that use this type of system the most, compared to 55% of K-12 campuses.

Video weapon detection systems are the second most popular type of gun control solution adopted by respondents (21%). However, at 30% and 24% respectively, hospitals and primary and secondary schools have adopted this type of technology much more than colleges and universities (12%).

More than one in ten (11%) survey participants said their organization owned, borrowed or rented a gunshot detection system. At 14%, K-12 respondents are twice as likely as higher education and hospital respondents (7%) to report using this type of solution. X-ray machines are the least popular weapon detection system. Only 6% of all survey participants reported owning or using this equipment.

Aggression sensors, K9s and vaping detectors were among the “other” systems adopted by survey participants. More than one in five participants (21%) said they have no gun control system.

1 in 3 people surveyed are proactive in their equipment purchases

Nearly two in five respondents (39%) said they had acquired a weapon/metal detection system using sensors built into walk-through or handheld detectors in the past two years, and more than One in three people surveyed (36%) are considering buying. this type of system in the coming years. At 25%, video-enabled weapon detection systems were the second most popular weapon detection solution purchased in the past two years by survey participants. Additionally, 32% of respondents plan to purchase this equipment in the next two years.

Gunshot detection systems were purchased by 18% of respondents in the past two years, and 19% plan to purchase this solution in the next two years. X-ray machine purchases bring up the rear with only 10% having purchased this equipment in the past two years and 9% planning to purchase it by 2026.

READ THE FULL REPORT.

As for why schools, universities and hospitals are equipping themselves with weapon detection systems, there is good news, but also bad news. The good news is that a significant percentage of survey participants are proactive and follow trends happening in other parts of the country to determine whether they should make purchases or upgrades.

Nearly one in three respondents (30%) answered: “Nothing special. We just want to improve safety and security on campus” was the reason for their recent purchase of a weapon detection solution. When broken down by industry type, colleges, universities and hospitals were the most proactive, with 34% indicating it was a motivator for their organization. K-12 respondents were six percentage points behind their higher education and health care counterparts, at 28%.

Additionally, 24% of all respondents said recent incidents in other parts of the country were their motivation. With this question, higher education and health care survey participants indicated that their organizations were, once again, more proactive than K-12 schools and school districts (30% vs. just 17 %).

And now the bad news: 28% of all respondents said, “We need to adopt gun detection or improve what we have, but we’re not taking steps to do so.” » At 30%, K-12 and higher education respondents were most likely to check this option, compared to just 14% of hospital respondents.

Where do schools, colleges and hospitals deploy metal detectors?

Although 39% of all respondents said their weapons or metal detecting equipment were deployed at certain entrances, responses varied significantly by area type. At 48%, healthcare industry respondents were most likely to say their metal detection machines are deployed at certain entrances, compared to 44% of K-12 survey participants and just 26 % of respondents from colleges and universities. Only 11% of all respondents said they deploy gun controls at all entrances.

For equipment deployed in arenas and stadiums, answers also vary by campus type. Forty-three percent of college respondents reported deploying weapon detection systems at these sites, compared to just 21 percent of elementary and secondary schools and school districts.

Six in ten hospital investigators said they deploy weapon detectors in their emergency departments. Other deployment locations for all campus types include reentry offices, discipline offices, special events, and parking areas.

Related article: 7 signs that a weapon is concealed

Overall, at 68%, guns and firearms are the threat items respondents search for most often, but, again, when broken down by industry type, there are differences significant. Nearly three in four respondents at colleges and hospitals (73%) said their equipment can detect firearms and weapons, compared to 63% of survey respondents at elementary and secondary schools and school districts. Sixty-two percent of colleges and hospitals conduct knife screening, compared to only 35 percent of K-12 campuses or districts.

The same difference in responses applies to screening for other weapons or materials that could be used as weapons: 39% of those surveyed in higher education and health care settings said their organization screens for them , compared to only 18% of schools and school districts. Additionally, more universities and hospitals than K-12 schools control bombs: 23% and 10% respectively.

One in five respondents said they do not check for weapons at all.

Nearly half of all respondents (49%) who own some type of gun or metal detecting equipment use it daily. However, at over 80%, hospitals are the most likely respondents to use this technology on a daily basis, compared to just 45% of K-12 respondents and 24% of college and university respondents.

One in four respondents (25%) said they only use their equipment during special events or when there is high risk (18%) or randomly (7%). One in five respondents say they never use their equipment.

Staffing is the biggest challenge to effective campus gun control

Nearly three in five (59%) respondents said they were very or somewhat satisfied with their weapon detection systems. When broken down by industry, 77% of hospital respondents said they were very or somewhat satisfied with their solutions, compared to 59% of higher education respondents and 51% of K-12 respondents.

However, equipment and usage problems persist. By far the biggest challenge those surveyed face with their weapon detection systems is personnel. Nearly one in three survey participants (32%) said they frequently or consistently do not have enough staff to operate their equipment efficiently. This is not surprising given the current labor shortage.

Related article: How to get pay raises for your public safety officers

“Ineffective access control throughout the rest of the building allows people to bypass the gun control process” was the second most important challenge for respondents: 23% said they frequently or constantly encounter this problem.

More than one in five (21%) respondents said their systems frequently or constantly emit false alarms.

“With standard settings, it will not detect knives and vapes. On high settings, it detects glasses cases, laptops, keys, binders, umbrellas, metal lunch boxes, etc. All false alarms,” said one survey participant.

The staffing issue relates to the time required to train security personnel to use the technology. Nineteen percent said they often or consistently do not have sufficient time or resources to train staff on the use of their gun control equipment. However, the vast majority of survey participants (74%) indicated that their detection devices are user-friendly.

Throughput is a challenge for some respondents, with 16% saying they frequently or consistently find that screening students, employees, patients and visitors takes too long.

READ THE FULL REPORT.

Campus Safety thanks the more than 200 school, university and health protection professionals who participated in our survey. We really appreciate your contribution!

Sponsored by: