K-12 AI Gun Detection: The 2026 Sector Playbook for Schools and Districts
K-12 AI gun detection has moved from optional to expected. Three numbers reset the buying calculus.
The K-12 AI gun detection conversation has matured past the alarm phase. School boards and safety directors are no longer asking whether to invest in detection technology. They are asking which technology actually compresses time-to-response, which integrates with the systems they already own, and which produces a defensible record under post-incident review. The cost of that decision is no longer measured only in lives. It is also measured in litigation, federal grant compliance, and the political viability of the next bond referendum.
This IntelliGence sector playbook is for K-12 superintendents, school safety directors, school resource officers, district CIOs, and school board members underwriting the 2026-2027 capital plan. It covers what the primary-source data says about K-12 active-threat frequency, why the existing camera plus PA plus lockdown architecture leaves a structural detection gap, where AI gun detection earns its return inside an integrated response framework, and how districts are sequencing investments alongside SAFETY Act-designated technologies, Alyssa’s Law panic alarms, and STOP School Violence and BSCA funding. It is not a pitch for cameras over SROs. SROs, counselors, threat-assessment teams, and trained school staff are the system. The role of AI gun detection is to give that system the seconds it does not have.
What the primary sources actually say about K-12 active threats
K-12 violence statistics get badly mangled in popular reporting because three different definitions of “school shooting” circulate simultaneously, and choosing between them changes the headline by an order of magnitude.
The most rigorous open-source dataset is the K-12 School Shooting Database (K-12 SSDB) maintained by David Riedman in collaboration with the Naval Postgraduate School Center for Homeland Defense and Security (CHDS). The K-12 SSDB defines an incident as any time a gun is brandished, fired, or a bullet hits school property, regardless of victim count or time of day. Under that definition, the database recorded 332 incidents in 2024, a record annual count, after 349 in 2023 and 308 in 2022. CHDS records show K-12 incidents climbing roughly fourfold between the 2018-19 and 2022-23 school years.
The narrower federal benchmark is the FBI’s active shooter incident series. The Bureau defines an active shooter as “an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area.” Under that definition, FBI Active Shooter Incidents in the United States annual reports identified 48 incidents in 2024 (across all sectors), 50 in 2023, and 50 in 2022, with K-12 environments representing a consistent share. The FBI series is the right number for federal threat-environment work. The K-12 SSDB is the right number for the frequency at which a gun appears in a school camera frame.
The largest federally-funded study of school-targeted attacks is the U.S. Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center (NTAC) report “Protecting America’s Schools,” which analyzed 41 incidents at K-12 schools between 2008 and 2017. NTAC’s findings reframe the prevention conversation: every attacker exhibited concerning behaviors before the attack, most communicated the threat in advance to peers or online, nearly half experienced a major life stressor before the attack, and most attacks lasted under five minutes, with many under two. Those findings underpin the modern layered architecture: behavioral threat-assessment teams upstream, hardened access and detection technology downstream, and SROs plus mass notification linking the two.
The structural detection gap inside the existing K-12 architecture
Most U.S. K-12 districts have already deployed the visible layer of school security. The 2021-22 NCES School Survey on Crime and Safety found 91 percent of public schools controlled access by locking or monitoring exterior doors, 88 percent had a written active-shooter response plan, 83 percent used security cameras, 67 percent required ID badges or visitor sign-ins, and 47 percent had an SRO on site at least once a week. The hardening layer is broadly in place. The detection-and-response layer is the gap.
The gap shows up in three sequential breakdowns that post-incident reviews keep returning to.
The witness gap. A school camera can record a firearm in a hallway and route the footage into the VMS for later review without ever notifying a human in time to act. The 2018 attack at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida is the canonical study. The Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Commission documented that the school’s 70-camera system was, at multiple critical moments, on a delayed playback feed rather than a live feed, that staff and SROs experienced confusion about whether a shooting was occurring or had already concluded, and that the lockdown announcement was delayed because no one had a confirmed live picture of the gunman. The hardware was deployed. The detection architecture was not.
The 911 gap. Once a witness sees a gun, the witness has to dial. Dispatch has to triage and route. The unit has to arrive. The Bureau of Justice Statistics’ LEMAS series and FBI LEOKA data put U.S. average law enforcement response time for emergency calls in the three-to-five-minute range nationally, with significant variance by jurisdiction. The Secret Service NTAC analysis found most school-targeted attacks resolve in under five minutes, many under two. The arithmetic does not work: a two-minute attack against a four-minute response leaves the school inside the attacker’s decision loop for the entire incident.
The notification gap. Even when staff see the threat in time, the message has to travel. Alyssa’s Law, named for Alyssa Alhadeff, who was killed at Parkland, requires public schools to install silent panic alarms directly linked to law enforcement. New Jersey passed Alyssa’s Law in 2019, Florida followed in 2020, New York adopted it in 2022, Texas codified the equivalent under SB 838 in 2023, and Tennessee, Georgia, and Oregon have followed. The law addresses the notification step but assumes a human has already detected the threat and pressed the button. It does not close the detection step.
Why hardening alone does not produce response time
The post-Sandy Hook generation of school security investment has been weighted toward hardening: locked doors, vestibules, ID badges, visitor sign-in software, fencing, bollards, and ballistic film on glass. Hardening reduces the probability that an attacker reaches the interior. It does not reduce time-to-response if an attacker is already inside. Mass notification reduces time-to-warn once a human has detected. It does not reduce time-to-detect. The variable hardening and notification leave open is the seconds between the firearm becoming visible on a camera and a human being aware of it. That gap is the operational lever AI gun detection is designed to close, and the reason the standard of care is shifting from harden-and-hope-someone-sees to detect-then-notify.
AI gun detection: what it is, what it is not, and where it fits
The category is called AI gun detection, AI weapons detection, or visual gun detection depending on the vendor. All three describe the same outcome: a computer vision model running against an existing IP-camera feed identifies a firearm in the scene and routes an alert in a fraction of the time a human witness would.
What it is. The platform takes camera frames, classifies whether a firearm is present, computes a confidence score, and emits an alert when the score exceeds a tuned threshold. The model runs against a feed the district already operates through an existing VMS such as Milestone XProtect, Genetec Security Center, Avigilon, or Verkada. The detection layer adds capability to the camera infrastructure rather than replacing it.
What it is not. It is not metal detection, facial recognition, behavioral prediction, or “pre-crime” profiling. It is not a substitute for an SRO, a counselor, a threat assessment team, or a 911 call. It does not detect concealed weapons not visible on camera. It does not eliminate the need for hardened doors, vestibules, lockdown drills, or trained staff. It compresses one leveraged variable: the time between a firearm being visible to a camera and a human being aware of it.
Where it fits. AI gun detection lives inside a layered K-12 framework. Upstream sits prevention: the threat assessment team, the safe school climate, the trusted-adult relationship that lets a student report a peer’s concerning communications. Detection sits at the moment the threat becomes visible in physical space. Downstream sits notification: the SRO console, the lockdown announcement, the Alyssa’s Law panic alarm, mass communication to staff and parents, and law enforcement dispatch. The platform is one layer, not the strategy.
The pipeline below shows the operational sequence in a typical K-12 deployment. The pattern is structurally similar to the workplace violence pipeline used in the Healthcare Workplace Violence AI Detection Playbook, tuned to the K-12 target signature: a visible firearm in a hallway, vestibule, parking lot, or athletic facility, on a camera the district already owns.
From firearm visible on camera to lockdown initiated and law enforcement en route
What happens when a gun appears in a school camera frame at 9:47 a.m. on a Tuesday.
Existing district IP camera in a vestibule, parking lot, or interior corridor captures the scene where the firearm becomes visible.
Detection appliance in the district MDF or campus IDF runs the firearm classifier against the live feed. Video stays inside the district network.
Bounding box and confidence score computed. Threshold tuned for the deployment so weapon-shaped artifacts do not produce alerts at low confidence.
SRO console, principal mobile, district safety operations channel, mass-notification trigger, and silent panic-alarm bridge all engage in parallel.
Lockdown initiated, doors latch, mass notification fires, 911 receives the alert with camera ID, and law enforcement is en route with the live picture in hand.
The K-12 weapons detection landscape: visual versus physical screening
Two structurally different K-12 weapons detection categories compete for the same line item, and the difference matters because they answer different questions.
The first is physical-screening systems, sometimes called walk-through weapons detection or AI-powered metal detection. They use millimeter-wave or ferromagnetic sensors students walk through at entry. These systems answer “is a weapon entering this entrance right now,” produce a chokepoint, and require students to walk through a defined corridor with their bags. The throughput, false-alarm rate, and operational tax of running screening at the start of the day are real, and the U.S. Government Accountability Office has flagged operational and contractual concerns about specific physical-screening deployments in K-12 settings.
The second is visual gun detection, the category IntelliSee occupies. It answers a different question: “is a weapon visible anywhere on a camera in this building or campus right now.” That includes the entrance, but also parking lots before the school day starts, athletic facilities at night, exterior approaches, and interior hallways during the school day. There is no chokepoint and no throughput tax. The platform layers on top of the IP-camera infrastructure the district already owns.
The honest comparison sits below. None of these are bad technologies in isolation. The question for a 2026 capital plan is which earns priority placement and which become complements.
K-12 Weapons Detection Modalities Compared
| Modality | How it works | Where it wins | Where it breaks down |
|---|---|---|---|
| Walk-through weapons detection | Sensor portal at entrances detects ferromagnetic or other weapon-like signatures as students pass through. | Single-entrance, high-throughput environments where every entrant can be funneled through a single chokepoint and the operational cost of staffing that chokepoint is acceptable. | Multi-entrance K-12 buildings, athletic and after-school events with side entrances, exterior approaches, and any time of day the portal is not staffed. Bag-screening false alarm rates have drawn GAO scrutiny in school deployments. |
| Traditional metal detectors | Magnetometer arch students pass through one at a time. Requires staff to wand on alarm. | Targeted use at high-risk events, controlled-perimeter venues, and short-duration deployments where a clear chokepoint already exists. | Throughput is the structural problem. Running 1,500 students through a metal detector before first bell adds 30-plus minutes to the school day in many configurations and shifts the labor burden onto staff who are not security-trained. |
| Visual gun detection (CV) | Computer vision model runs against existing IP-camera feeds, classifies firearms in scene, alerts on confidence threshold. | Multi-entrance K-12 buildings, athletic facilities, parking lots, exterior approaches, and any environment where the camera infrastructure already exists. No throughput tax. Coverage extends to before-school and after-school hours. | Detection requires the firearm to be visible on camera. A weapon concealed in a bag and not displayed will not be detected by visual CV alone. The platform is a complement to upstream prevention and downstream physical screening, not a substitute. |
| Concealed-weapon imaging (mmWave) | Walk-by or mounted millimeter-wave sensors generate an image showing concealed metallic objects. | Specialty deployments at controlled high-value venues. Useful where every entrant can be funneled past a sensor. | Cost, staff training, false-alarm rate, and throughput remain limiting factors for general K-12 deployment. Privacy and procedural questions also remain unresolved at scale. |
| Behavioral threat assessment | Multidisciplinary school team evaluates a student of concern using a structured framework such as CSTAG (Comprehensive School Threat Assessment Guidelines). | Upstream prevention. The Secret Service NTAC analysis found that nearly all attackers exhibited concerning pre-attack behaviors. A working threat-assessment team is the most leveraged prevention investment a district makes. | Threat assessment is upstream of detection by days, weeks, or months. It does not address the moment a weapon appears on a camera in real time. The two are complements, not substitutes. |
Federal funding posture: STOP School Violence, BSCA, and the SAFETY Act
The K-12 buying calculus in 2026 sits inside a federal funding architecture that has moved meaningfully in the past three fiscal years. Three programs interact, and a district that does not understand the interaction is leaving capacity on the table.
STOP School Violence Act funding (DOJ BJA). The DOJ Bureau of Justice Assistance administers grants under the STOP School Violence Act of 2018. The program funds threat-assessment training, anonymous-reporting systems, and technology that improves school security including “technology for expedited notification of local law enforcement during an emergency.” That is the operational case AI gun detection is built around. Districts should read the current Notice of Funding Opportunity carefully because eligibility and matching requirements update each cycle.
Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA). Signed in June 2022, BSCA expanded mental-health and school-safety funding through several pathways including the Stronger Connections Grant Program administered by the U.S. Department of Education, and additional STOP School Violence funding under DOJ. Most districts use BSCA to layer prevention and detection investments together rather than treating them as competing budget lines.
SAFETY Act designation and certification (DHS). The Support Anti-Terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies (SAFETY) Act of 2002 provides liability protections to sellers of qualified anti-terrorism technologies. Districts increasingly evaluate vendors on whether the technology has SAFETY Act Designation or Certification from DHS. SAFETY Act status does not by itself guarantee performance, but it is the closest thing to a government-affirmed standard for anti-terrorism technology. The full vendor view sits in The DHS SAFETY Act in AI Security: Designation, Certification, and What It Actually Means.
The practical layering pattern: STOP School Violence funding underwrites threat assessment training, anonymous reporting, and detection technology with documented expedited-notification capability; BSCA underwrites the mental-health and prevention layer upstream of detection; and SAFETY Act status becomes a preferred attribute during competitive procurement, particularly when legal counsel is reviewing post-incident liability exposure.
State-level mandates: Alyssa’s Law, panic alarms, and the legislative trajectory
The state legislative trajectory has moved faster than the federal trajectory on K-12 detection-and-notification mandates.
Alyssa’s Law and silent panic alarms. Alyssa’s Law mandates that public schools install silent panic alarms that notify law enforcement directly. New Jersey enacted the original Alyssa’s Law in 2019, Florida followed in 2020, New York adopted it in 2022, Texas codified an equivalent under SB 838 in 2023, and Tennessee followed under TN HB 322 in 2023. Georgia, Oregon, Utah, and several other states have enacted or are advancing similar legislation. The silent-panic notification layer is increasingly mandatory rather than optional, and districts plan AI detection investments around the assumption that the panic-alarm bridge will be required.
School hardening grants and AI-detection appropriations. Several states have established line-item school-hardening funding that AI detection is eligible against. Texas allocated significant school-hardening dollars under HB 3 (2023) and successor appropriations. Florida appropriates Safe Schools Allocation funding annually. Indiana’s Secured School Safety Grant program is similar. Districts in those states stack state hardening dollars on top of federal STOP and BSCA funding to assemble multi-year programs without needing a single bond cycle.
The full state-by-state map sits in our State-by-State AI Security Legislation: Q2 2026 Tracker. The pattern at the K-12 level: mandates accumulate in the notification layer, discretionary funding accumulates in the detection layer, and litigation pressure accumulates around documented response time. The three reinforce each other.
Why the strongest 2026 K-12 programs sequence prevention, detection, and notification together
The districts producing the strongest school-safety outcomes in 2026 are not the districts that bought the most technology. They are the districts that sequenced investments in a layered framework: a working behavioral threat-assessment team funded through BSCA and trained on CSTAG, an anonymous-reporting system that lets students report a peer’s concerning communications, AI gun detection on the existing camera network funded through STOP School Violence and state hardening grants, an Alyssa’s Law silent-panic alarm bridge tied into the same notification chain, and a documented incident-command relationship with local law enforcement through tabletop exercises run twice annually. Single-layer investments produce theatre. Sequenced investments produce time-to-response.
Privacy by design: what AI gun detection in K-12 must not do
K-12 detection technology operates inside the strictest privacy and civil rights framework of any U.S. operating environment. FERPA, COPPA, the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment, and an accumulating layer of state biometric privacy law including Illinois BIPA, Texas CUBI, and Washington’s biometric law all impose constraints that K-12 leaders are right to take seriously.
The privacy-by-design rules that distinguish ethically deployable AI gun detection from products that should not be deployed in schools are direct.
No facial recognition. Detection identifies what is happening in the scene (a firearm visible in a corridor) rather than who is in the scene. This is the design choice that makes the platform compatible with state biometric privacy law and deployable in environments where facial recognition is legally prohibited. IntelliSee does not perform facial recognition.
No video stored or transmitted off the district network for detection. Inference happens on a detection appliance inside the district network. Frames are evaluated locally and discarded after the inference window. The district’s existing VMS retention policy is the only policy governing the underlying recordings.
No PHI, no FERPA-protected records, no behavioral profiling. The detection layer does not ingest student records, attendance data, discipline data, or any FERPA-covered information. It does not score, profile, or rank students. It does not predict who might commit an attack. It detects the moment a firearm becomes visible on a camera the district already operates.
No bedrooms, no bathrooms, no locker rooms. Cameras are not deployed in spaces where camera deployment would be ethically or legally untenable. The detection layer covers the spaces the district’s existing cameras cover and no others.
The companion technical reference at How Computer Vision Models Handle Occlusion, Low Light, and Adversarial Conditions covers the model-design questions districts surface during procurement. The Four-Variable ROI Framework covers the financial-modeling questions that surface during board review.
The 90-day K-12 implementation pattern
Districts that move from contract to operational deployment in 90 days share a common sequencing pattern. Districts that take 12 months or more usually skipped one of the early steps and had to backtrack. The pattern below assumes an existing IP-camera network, an existing VMS, an existing incident-response team, and an existing relationship with local law enforcement.
Days 0-30: Scope and survey
Safety director and IT lead conduct a camera-network survey: which cameras, which buildings, which VMS, which retention policy. Detection vendor produces a candidate-camera report identifying which cameras support gun detection (resolution, lighting, scene geometry). Deliverable at day 30 is a written scope of detection coverage tied to specific camera IDs and a privacy-by-design statement signed by general counsel.
Days 30-60: Install and integrate
Detection appliance installed in the district MDF or campus IDF on a network segment that has access to the camera feeds and notification systems but is not internet-exposed. Alert routing configured into the existing chain: SRO console, principal mobile, safety operations channel, mass-notification trigger, and Alyssa’s Law panic-alarm bridge if the state requires one. SROs and incident-response team trained on the console and procedure.
Days 60-75: Tabletop and tune
District runs a tabletop with local law enforcement, school administrators, SROs, and detection vendor present. Exercise traces a simulated detection from camera frame to lockdown initiation. Detection thresholds tuned: confidence thresholds, scene exclusions for staff carrying SRO-issued duty firearms, after-hours coverage profile, and local nuance.
Days 75-90: Operational handoff
Detection moves to standard operational status. Safety director receives weekly operational reports, confidence-threshold adjustments reviewed monthly, quarterly review with vendor and law enforcement updates the threat-environment posture. The first building-level incident-response drill is run with the detection layer live and outcomes feed back into threshold tuning and EOP documentation.
What the school board will ask, and what the answer should be
Most K-12 AI detection investments live or die on a school board vote. The pattern of board questions is consistent across districts that have run this procurement, and a safety director with answers ready compresses the procurement cycle by months.
Will this lead to over-policing of students. Detection identifies firearms in scenes, not students by identity. Over-policing concerns are real and they are about the policy and procedure layer that wraps the detection layer. The platform’s output is “a gun is visible on this camera right now.” What happens next is governed by the district’s response procedure, SRO training, and the law enforcement relationship. Districts that handle this well write the response procedure with civil rights, student-rights, and disability-rights groups in the room before the technology goes live.
Is this AI replacing human judgment. The platform compresses the time between the firearm becoming visible and a human being aware of it. Every consequential decision after detection is made by humans: the SRO who confirms, the principal who initiates lockdown, the dispatcher, the officers on scene. The platform expands human decision-making time. It does not remove humans from the decision.
What about false alarms. A tuned production deployment operates at a confidence threshold that produces a manageable false-alarm rate, and the alert console gives the SRO a live picture of the camera scene to confirm before lockdown is initiated. False alarms lead to a brief verification step, not an automatic lockdown of 1,500 students.
What does this cost relative to other safety investments. AI gun detection is most often funded through STOP School Violence, BSCA, state hardening grants, and operational budgets, and the financial case rests on a reduction in time-to-response rather than on incident-prevention savings. The detailed economic model lives in our Four-Variable ROI Framework.
What happens when this is wrong. No detection technology is perfect. The architecture is layered specifically because no single layer can carry the full load. The question is not whether the technology is wrong sometimes but whether it is right more often than the alternative, which is a witness-and-911 chain the post-incident reviews keep showing failing under time pressure.
Frequently asked questions from K-12 superintendents and safety directors
Does AI gun detection in K-12 require replacing existing camera infrastructure or VMS?
No. The platform layers on top of the existing IP camera network and integrates with the district’s VMS, typically Milestone XProtect, Genetec Security Center, Avigilon, or Verkada. A 1U or 2U rack-mounted detection appliance is installed in the district MDF or campus IDF. No camera replacement, cabling change, or network re-architecture is required, which is what makes the deployment economic for districts that already have a substantial camera installed base.
Is AI gun detection compatible with FERPA, COPPA, and state biometric privacy law?
As IntelliSee implements it, yes. The platform performs object detection, not facial recognition. No student is identified by the detection layer. No FERPA-protected record is ingested. No biometric template is created, stored, or transmitted, which is the operative test under Illinois BIPA, Texas CUBI, and Washington biometric law. The district’s existing VMS retention policy continues to govern the underlying camera recordings exactly as it did before. Districts should still review the deployment with their general counsel and document the privacy-by-design statement before going live.
How does AI gun detection interact with Alyssa’s Law and silent panic alarm requirements?
The two are complements. Alyssa’s Law requires a silent panic alarm directly linked to law enforcement. The panic alarm assumes a human has already detected the threat and pressed the button. AI gun detection compresses the detection step that comes before the button press. A modern K-12 deployment ties the two together: the detection alert is one of the inputs that triggers the silent panic alarm bridge, and the SRO retains the manual button as a parallel input. The detection layer does not replace the legal requirement, it reduces the time between threat appearance and alarm activation.
Will AI gun detection cause over-policing or disproportionate impact on students of color?
The detection layer identifies firearms in camera scenes, not students by identity. The civil rights questions K-12 boards rightly ask are about the policy and procedure layer that wraps the detection layer: who is dispatched, what the SRO is trained to do, how the lockdown is communicated, and how the post-incident review is structured. Districts that handle this well co-author the response procedure with civil rights, student-rights, and disability-rights groups before the technology goes live, and they audit detection events quarterly with the same partners. The technology is not a substitute for that policy work.
Can AI gun detection be funded through STOP School Violence or BSCA grants?
Detection technology that supports expedited notification of local law enforcement is generally eligible under STOP School Violence Act funding administered by the DOJ Bureau of Justice Assistance, subject to the rules of the current Notice of Funding Opportunity. Bipartisan Safer Communities Act funding also supports the broader school-safety architecture in which detection sits. Districts should read the current NOFO carefully and work with their grants office to confirm the most recent eligibility and matching rules. Many districts stack state school-hardening dollars on top of federal STOP and BSCA funding.
What is the difference between AI gun detection and AI weapons screening systems like Evolv?
They are different categories. AI weapons screening systems such as walk-through portals require students to pass through a defined chokepoint at entry. They detect concealed weapons via sensor signatures and answer the question “is a weapon entering this entrance right now.” AI gun detection runs against the existing IP-camera network and answers a different question: “is a firearm visible anywhere on a camera in this building or campus right now.” Visual gun detection covers parking lots, athletic facilities, exterior approaches, and interior corridors during and after school hours, none of which a single-portal screening system covers. The two can coexist in a layered architecture, and the right answer for a given district depends on the building geometry, throughput, and budget constraints.
How does the detection model perform in low-light, after-hours, or athletic-event conditions?
Detection accuracy depends on camera resolution, lighting, scene geometry, and the angle at which the firearm is presented to the camera. Production deployments are configured with confidence thresholds tuned to the deployment’s lighting and scene profile, and the platform supports infrared and low-light camera feeds where the underlying camera supports them. The full technical reference is in How Computer Vision Models Handle Occlusion, Low Light, and Adversarial Conditions.
Continue the research
The K-12 active threat conversation does not end at detection. Companion publications cover the surrounding architecture.
- Perimeter Intrusion: The 90-Second Window That Defines Your Security Posture, the threat-intelligence reference for exterior approaches and parking lots.
- K-12 School Violence: A Threat Intelligence Briefing, the companion incident-pattern analysis covering the 332-incident 2024 baseline, pre-lockdown failure modes, and detection response timelines.
- The DHS SAFETY Act in AI Security, the standards-and-compliance reference districts should read before procurement.
- State-by-State AI Security Legislation: Q2 2026 Tracker, the legislative tracker mapping Alyssa’s Law and biometric privacy law by jurisdiction.
- The Four-Variable ROI Framework, the economic model for board-level financial review.
- How Computer Vision Models Handle Occlusion, Low Light, and Adversarial Conditions, the technical reference on model robustness.
- Healthcare Workplace Violence: The AI Detection Playbook, the adjacent sector playbook for hospital environments.
- Weapon Detection solution page, the technical reference for the IntelliSee weapon detection modality.
- K-12 Education industry overview, the IntelliSee industry page for school district decision-makers.
- Browse all IntelliGence reports, the full publication library.
More intelligence like this
New IntelliSee research drops monthly at most. Subscribe and get the next sector playbook, technology briefing, or threat intelligence report in your inbox the day it ships.
Explore what this means for your facility
Talk to an IntelliSee security specialist. No sales pitch — a structured conversation about your environment, your threat profile, and whether computer vision is the right fit.
Request a Risk Assessment