33 claims on pp. 7–135 (fact 22, statement 4, evidence 2, conclusion 2, conjecture 2, definition 1).
Sample (N = 1379) · Teams answering exclusionary discipline and arrest/prosecution questions (Figure 9.2)
Over 75 percent said they rarely or never use exclusionary discipline, and 80 percent rarely or never arrest or prosecute students referred to BTAM teams.
Police involvement in BTAM has been controversial for some individuals and civil society groups, driven by concern that their involvement will increase the chance that students will end up in the justice system—i.e., that the outcome of threat assessment and management will increase the likelihood of arrest and prosecution for student behavior at school.
Our survey results indicate otherwise, given how principals described the role of law enforcement on their school BTAM teams.
The findings also are counter to concerns that schools treat law enforcement involvement in BTAM as a direct link to the criminal justice system (i.e., concerns that the presence of police in schools is leading to more arrests; see, e.g., Theriot, 2009; Meiners, 2011).
Restrictive interventions—such as temporary or permanent removal from school or referral to law enforcement—are implemented less frequently.
cite page 64 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Sample (N = 1384) · Teams answering intervention/safety plan components question
Law enforcement action or criminal justice action | 17 | 37 | 36 | 7 | 4 | 96 | 80
cite page 65 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Our survey provides insight into whether and how schools with BTAM programs in place report that they use exclusionary practices such as suspension, expulsion, and referral to law enforcement as part of their threat management processes.
cite page 66 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Our results also suggest that exclusionary discipline practices are more common than referrals to law enforcement (i.e., arresting or prosecuting students for their threatening or concerning behavior).
cite page 66 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Sample (N = 1379) · Teams answering exclusionary discipline and arrest/prosecution questions (Figure 9.2)
Forty percent of principals said their BTAM teams never refer students to law enforcement for arrest or prosecution, and another 40 percent said they rarely make such referrals.
cite page 66 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Sample (N = 1379) · Teams answering exclusionary discipline and arrest/prosecution questions (Figure 9.2)
Sixteen percent said they sometimes did so, and 4 percent and 1 percent said they either frequently or always referred cases to law enforcement for arrest or prosecution, respectively.
cite page 66 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Elementary school principals were also significantly more likely to say they never refer students to law enforcement for arrest or prosecution, as shown in Figure 9.2.
cite page 66 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
However, although these practices are less common in elementary schools compared with middle and high schools, some elementary schools said that their BTAM teams have expelled or referred students to law enforcement with some regularity.
cite page 66 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Sample (N = 1379) · Teams answering exclusionary discipline and arrest/prosecution questions (Figure 9.2)
Total | 40 | 40 | 16 | 4 | [unlabeled]
cite page 67 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Sample (n = undeterminable of 1379) · Teams answering exclusionary discipline and arrest/prosecution questions (Figure 9.2)
Elementary | 56 | 30 | 10 | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
cite page 67 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Sample (n = undeterminable of 1379) · Teams answering exclusionary discipline and arrest/prosecution questions (Figure 9.2)
Middle | 21 | 52 | 21 | 6 | [unlabeled]
cite page 67 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Sample (n = undeterminable of 1379) · Teams answering exclusionary discipline and arrest/prosecution questions (Figure 9.2)
High | 15 | 56 | 24 | 4 | [unlabeled]
cite page 67 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
NOTE: This figure depicts response data from the following survey questions: “When your BTAM team assesses students, how frequently are students expelled, placed in a different school, or suspended for one month or more for their threatening or concerning behavior?” and “When your BTAM team assesses students, how frequently are students arrested or prosecuted for their threatening or concerning behavior?” (n = 1,379).
cite page 67 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
the possibility that BTAM could increase the use of either exclusionary discipline or criminal justice approaches in responding to student behavior has been a concern for civil society groups and a focus of policy debate around BTAM as a school safety practice.
cite page 89 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Policy debate around BTAM generally focuses on whether the approach increases the likelihood of students being removed from school or arrested and prosecuted, because the debate is framed around potential threats posed by students, because law enforcement can be involved in assessing and framing responses to student behavior, or for other reasons.
cite page 89 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
The response to these critiques is that such outcomes are counter to what
cite page 89 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
For example, arrest, civil, or criminal legal proceedings.
cite page 90 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Naturally, how much criminal justice involvement is “too much” in any particular case is fundamentally a policy question and also must be determined individually on a case-by-case basis.
cite page 91 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Although keeping students in school has substantial educational benefits and is likely more cost-effective than criminal justice involvement overall, some situations could be so serious that leaving student behavior management exclusively to the school would be impossible and inappropriate.
cite page 91 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Sample (N = 1379) · Teams answering exclusionary discipline and arrest/prosecution questions (Figure 9.2)
Over 75 percent said they rarely or never use exclusionary discipline, and 80 percent rarely or never arrest or prosecute students referred to BTAM teams.
Sample (N = 1384) · Principals at schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team answering Table A.40 (intervention/safety plan components)
Law enforcement action (for example, arrest) or criminal justice action | 3.7 | 16.6 | 36.8 | 36.0 | 6.8
Sample (N = 1607 | 1378 by column) · Table A.47 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Never | 42.4 | 39.8
Sample (N = 1607 | 1378 by column) · Table A.47 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Rarely | 38.6 | 40.0
Sample (N = 1607 | 1378 by column) · Table A.47 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Sometimes | 14.7 | 15.6
Sample (N = 1607 | 1378 by column) · Table A.47 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Frequently | 3.7 | 3.9
Sample (N = 1607 | 1378 by column) · Table A.47 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Every time | 0.7 | 0.8
Sample (no n: a percentage change, not a share of a sample) · a percentage that is not a share of a sample (e.g. a percentage-point change or a weighted estimate of the population)
Columns may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions) saw this question.
Find the Perfect Training Class For You
