Vape Guardian Impact Report 2025

15-School Pilot - Measured Reduction in Vaping Incidents Over Five Weeks

This 2025 impact study builds on a repeated evaluation first conducted in 2023/2024 using the same recorded methodology, reinforcing our latest results and demonstrating the added effect of Vape Guardian’s new hardware, enhanced staff training and broader whole-school efforts to discourage vaping.

1. Executive Summary

Between August and October 2025, Vape Guardian was piloted across 15 UK secondary and specialist schools to tackle hidden student vaping, particularly in toilets and changing rooms.

To understand the true scale of the problem and the impact of the system, each school participated in:

• 1 covert baseline week (Week 0): sensors installed and active, but in complete “silent mode” – no signage, no communication, and no staff action on alerts.
• 5 intervention weeks (Weeks 1–5): Vape Guardian visible and active, with alerts going to staff, clear policies in place, and pastoral support for pupils.

Headline Results

• Covert baseline (Week 0):100 anonymous vape alerts across 15 schools in one week.No pupils or staff were aware the system was running.
• Week 5 (end of pilot):3 verified vaping incidents across all schools.Approximate 97% reduction in on-site vaping incidents compared with the covert baseline.

Over the five weeks, schools:

• Identified a small group of repeat vapers (“capers”) responsible for a large share of early alerts.
• Used alerts to engage those pupils, involve parents, and offer support where nicotine dependence was suspected.
• Saw vaping in toilets and changing rooms largely disappear; in the very rare cases where behaviour persisted, it tended to move into more visible areas where staff could see and address it directly.

2. Background & Objectives

2.1 The Challenge

Before the pilot, leaders in all 15 schools reported that:

• Vaping was concentrated in toilets, changing rooms and tucked-away areas.
• Staff often arrived too late – aerosol had cleared, pupils had left.
• Non-vaping pupils frequently complained about smells, “clouds”, and feeling uncomfortable using toilets.
• Staff spent a disproportionate amount of time patrolling toilets and corridors, usually with little to show for it.

Existing measures – assemblies, posters, bag checks, occasional toilet “sweeps” – helped at the margins but did not solve the underlying problem:

Schools had no objective, real-time data on where and when vaping was happening.

2.2 Pilot Objectives

The pilot aimed to:

1. Quantify the real level of vaping on school premises through a covert baseline.
2. Assess the impact of Vape Guardian on vaping incidents over a five-week period.
3. Understand how schools used the data – both for behaviour management and pupil support.
4. Capture staff and pupil feedback on changes to the school environment.

3. Pilot Design & Methodology

3.1 Participating Schools

• Total schools: 15
• Types:12 mainstream secondary schools (11–16 / 11–18)3 specialist / alternative provision settings
• Location: Mixed urban and semi-rural areas in England
• Schools are anonymised as School A–O for safeguarding and confidentiality.

3.2 Deployment

Across the 15 schools:

• Total devices installed: 92 Vape Guardian sensors
• Average per school: 6–7 devices
• Placement focus:Boys’, girls’ and gender-neutral toiletsPE changing roomsKnown “hotspots” in 4 schools (e.g. sheltered outdoor areas, behind bike sheds)

All devices were connected to Vape Guardian’s cloud platform for central logging and analytics.

3.3 Covert Baseline Week (Week 0)

To establish a realistic baseline, the system ran in silent mode for one full school week:

• Devices were fully active but:No signage was displayed.No communication was made to pupils, parents or most staff.No action was taken in response to alerts.

All alerts were:

• Logged centrally.
• Kept anonymous – no attempt was made to identify individual pupils at this stage.
• Used only to set a baseline and calibrate sensitivity.

Outcome of Week 0:

• Vape Guardian recorded 100 vape alerts across all 15 schools.
• The pattern showed that vaping was frequent and widespread, particularly in toilets and changing rooms, when pupils believed there was no monitoring.

3.4 Intervention (Weeks 1–5)

From Week 1 onwards:

• Vape Guardian was brought out of silent mode.
• Schools implemented a consistent framework:

Communication

• Assemblies to explain:Health risks of vaping.That toilets, changing rooms and certain hotspots were now monitored by Vape Guardian.
• Letters/emails to parents outlining:The school’s position on vaping.The role of Vape Guardian as a safeguarding tool, not just a disciplinary one.

Operational Use

• Alerts sent in real time (via app/email/SMS) to:Pastoral leadsBehaviour/on-call staffDesignated SLT members
• Each alert included time, location and severity, allowing staff to prioritise responses.

Recording & Support

• Staff logged incidents when pupils were:Caught vaping.Found in areas triggering repeated alerts.
• Sanctions followed school policies, but repeat vapers were also offered support, including:Conversations with pastoral staff.Meetings with parents.Signposting to health or smoking cessation resources where needed.

3.5 Data Sources

During Weeks 1–5, analysis drew on:

• Vape Guardian alert data (counts, locations, times).
• Incident logs and behaviour records.
• Confiscation records (vapes taken from pupils).
• Short surveys and informal feedback from staff and pupils.

4. Quantitative Results

4.1 Week-by-Week Trend

The combined data from all 15 schools showed a clear downward trend in incidents:

WeekDescriptionTotal incidents/alerts*Week 0 – Covert BaselineSensors in silent mode, no one informed100 alertsWeek 1 – System Announced & LiveSignage, assemblies, staff act on alerts70 incidentsWeek 2Repeat vapers (“capers”) identified & managed35 incidentsWeek 3Behaviour change consolidates15 incidentsWeek 4Vaping rare, mostly isolated7 incidentsWeek 5Vaping highly exceptional3 incidents

*Week 0 counts are anonymous alerts; Weeks 1–5 are verified vaping incidents based on alerts + staff confirmation.

From Week 0 to Week 5:

• Vaping incidents fell from 100 to 3 – an approximate 97% reduction across all schools.

4.2 Location of Incidents

During the covert baseline week:

• Toilets: ~80 alerts (80%)
• Changing rooms: ~12 alerts (12%)
• Outdoor hotspots / other: ~8 alerts (8%)

By Week 5:

• Toilets: 1 incident recorded across all 15 schools.
• Changing rooms: 1 incident.
• Outdoor/other: 1 incident.

This equates to:

• ~99% reduction in toilet-related vaping.
• ~90%+ reduction in changing-room vaping.
• A similar 90%+ reduction in outdoor hotspot vaping.

4.3 Confiscations & Sanctions

Confiscation and behaviour data followed a typical curve:

• Week 0: Very low confiscations – because no action was taken despite 100 alerts.
• Weeks 1–2: Confiscations increased as staff began responding to alerts:Approx. 30–35 vapes confiscated across all schools in Week 1.Around 25 in Week 2.
• Weeks 3–5: Confiscations fell as behaviour changed:Week 3: ~12 confiscationsWeek 4: ~6 confiscationsWeek 5: 3 confiscations (roughly one per 5 schools)

Sanctions (detentions, internal exclusions) followed a similar pattern: an initial rise as policies were enforced consistently, followed by a steady decline as fewer incidents occurred in the first place.

5. How Schools Used the Data

5.1 Identifying the “Capers”

Analysis of early weeks showed that:

• A small group of repeat vapers accounted for a large proportion of incidents.
• Vape Guardian data helped staff see:The same names appearing repeatedly in logs.The same locations and time slots triggering alerts.

Schools typically:

1. Met with those pupils individually.
2. Involved parents or carers.
3. Escalated through stepped sanctions if behaviour continued.
4. Offered pastoral or health support, recognising that some pupils were already nicotine-dependent.

Once this group was identified and actively managed, both alerts and incidents fell sharply.

5.2 Behaviour Moving into Visible Areas

In a small minority of cases, pupils who persisted in vaping shifted from hidden toilets into:

• External areas
• Semi-open spaces closer to staff presence

While still a concern, schools reported that this change made behaviour:

• Easier to see, challenge and record.
• Less risky than vaping in enclosed toilets and changing rooms surrounded by non-smoking peers.

Overall, the data suggests that Vape Guardian did not simply push the problem out of view; if anything, it brought hidden behaviour into view first, then helped reduce it.

6. Qualitative Feedback

6.1 Staff Feedback (n ≈ 140 respondents)

Across teaching, pastoral and site staff:

• 87% agreed that Vape Guardian made it easier to tackle vaping.
• 81% felt pupils were vaping less on site by Week 5.
• 76% reported spending less time patrolling toilets and corridors, freeing them to focus on teaching and targeted support.

Comments highlighted:

• Greater confidence challenging pupils, backed by objective data.
• Fewer “blind” toilet sweeps, replaced by targeted responses when alerts fired.
• A perception that vaping had moved from being “constant and uncontrollable” to “occasional and manageable”.

6.2 Pupil Feedback (Non-Vaping Peers)

Three schools carried out short pupil surveys (Years 7–11):

• Over 60% of respondents said toilets “smelled better” or felt “less smoky” by the end of the pilot.
• Many non-vaping pupils, particularly girls, reported feeling more comfortable using toilets at break and lunch, where previously they had avoided certain blocks due to vaping.

7. Illustrative Case Examples

7.1 School C – Large Urban Secondary (1,400 Pupils)

Starting Position

• Regular reports of vaping in boys’ toilets near the canteen.
• Staff believed incidents were happening multiple times per break, but rarely caught anyone.

Deployment

• 8 Vape Guardian devices (6 toilets, 2 sheltered external areas).
• Alerts routed to the on-call behaviour team and a member of SLT.

Impact

• Week 0 (covert): 18 alerts in the main boys’ toilet alone.
• Week 1: 20 incidents logged, 9 vapes confiscated.
• Weeks 2–3:Repeat vapers identified (6 pupils responsible for most incidents).Parents invited in; behaviour contracts and support agreed.
• Week 5:Zero incidents in the previously problematic toilet.One isolated incident elsewhere on site.

The Deputy Head reported a “noticeable shift” from constant low-level vaping to “very occasional, visible behaviour that we can now manage.”

7.2 School L – Small Rural Secondary (600 Pupils)

Starting Position

• Very few recorded vaping incidents; leadership believed it was a minor issue.
• Pupil feedback (school council) suggested more frequent vaping in changing rooms and a quiet stairwell.

Deployment

• 4 devices (boys’ toilets, girls’ toilets, changing rooms, stairwell).

Impact

• Week 0 (covert): 7 alerts in the changing rooms, 5 on the stairwell.
• Week 1 (live): 9 incidents logged, 5 vapes confiscated – far higher than staff anticipated.
• Weeks 2–3: Assemblies, parent letters and stepped sanctions brought incidents down steadily.
• Weeks 4–5: Zero recorded incidents; staff felt they finally had a realistic picture of what was happening.

8. Limitations

To keep the findings realistic, it is important to acknowledge limitations:

• No formal control group: All 15 schools used Vape Guardian; there was no comparison group without the system.
• Short timeframe: The pilot ran for five weeks after the covert baseline; longer-term monitoring across terms and academic years would strengthen conclusions.
• External displacement not measured: The pilot focused on on-site behaviour. It did not track whether some pupils continued to vape off-site or outside school hours.

Despite these limitations, the consistency between:

• Sensor data,
• Staff incident logs,
• Confiscation records, and
• Staff/pupil feedback

all points towards a genuine, substantial reduction in on-site vaping.

9. Conclusions & Next Steps

The 2024 Vape Guardian pilot demonstrates that:

• Hidden vaping in toilets and changing rooms can be measured accurately using a short covert baseline week.
• Once made visible and acted on, on-site vaping can be reduced by around 97% within five weeks.
• The key drivers of change are:Real-time detection and alertsClear policies and consistent enforcementIdentification and support for repeat vapers
• Where behaviour does persist, it tends to move into more visible spaces, making it easier and safer to address.

For school and trust leaders, the implication is clear:

Vaping in toilets and changing rooms is not inevitable. With the right technology, data and approach, it becomes a controllable, manageable behaviour issue rather than a hidden safeguarding risk.