Metal detectors impose substantial equipment, personnel, training and time costs on schools¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · reviewr2·q1
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q1 i? Equipment costs range from $1,000 to $30,000 or more per unit, with devices best suited for schools at $4,000 to $5,000. → Schildkraut 2019
q1 i? Each scanning station typically requires multiple people, and screening is slow enough that some schools use staggered or delayed start times. → Schildkraut 2019 (2)
Evidence¶
Schildkraut 2019¶
Schildkraut, J., & Grogan, K. (2019). Are metal detectors effective at making schools safer? San Francisco, CA: WestEd. https://www.wested.org/resources/are-metal-detectors-effective-at-making-schools-safer
q1 · i? · review · r2
The brief's cost synthesis reports purchase costs of "$1,000 to $30,000 or more per unit," with school-appropriate devices at $4,000-$5,000, excluding maintenance, repairs and replacement.
"the cost may range from $1,000 to $30,000 or more per unit for the initial purchase, though devices best suited for schools fall in the range of $4,000 to $5,000"
Schildkraut 2019 (2)¶
Schildkraut, J., & Grogan, K. (2019). Are metal detectors effective at making schools safer? San Francisco, CA: WestEd. https://www.wested.org/resources/are-metal-detectors-effective-at-making-schools-safer
q1 · i? · review · r2
The brief describes staffing needs: multiple people per station including screeners, backup screeners, bag checkers and an overseeing guard, plus ongoing training. Slow screening can force staggered first periods, as in NYC where over 91,000 students daily pass through detectors in 68 buildings.
"Each individual scanning station typically requires multiple people: One person acts as the screener on the initial check; another is responsible for performing backup screens"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Metal detector effectiveness depends heavily on the human element: training, correct operation and functioning equipment — related
- Available data suggest schools with metal detectors identify more weapons through searches without scanning devices than through scanning — related
- Students report feeling less safe and more likely to perceive violence and disorder in schools with metal detectors — related
- Two mass shootings exemplify how metal detectors can be insufficient at stopping such attacks — related
- Metal detector use disproportionately affects students of color, who are more likely to pass through detectors daily — related
- Metal detector use in US schools has held steady or slightly decreased since the 1990s despite renewed calls after the Parkland shooting — related
- Common physical and exclusionary safety measures can cause harm to the very students schools are trying to protect — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
metal-detector-costs-equipment-personnel-time |
title |
Metal detectors impose substantial equipment, personnel, training and time costs on schools |
description |
Metal detectors impose substantial equipment, personnel, training and time costs on schools |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2019 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-09 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
2 — schildkraut-2019, schildkraut-2019-2 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.