Results do not necessarily reflect official DHS opinion or policy
The results presented in this report do not necessarily reflect official DHS opinion or policy.
NCIER®
Limitations
54 claims on pp. 4–155 (fact 21, statement 13, evidence 4, conclusion 2, conjecture 13, definition 1).
Claims about Limitations
Prior studies were specific to one model, confined to single states, or based on small interview or
Although several studies have sought to understand the impact of threat assessment programs on various school-level outcomes, including violence prevention, to date these reports have been specific to a single threat assessment model; confined to understanding trends in single states; or based on interviews or surveys of a small number of individuals.
Footnote continued: the report does not review how federal law or policy might affect BTAM
include a review of how federal law or policy, or any changes therein, might affect BTAM implementation at K–12 schools.
Prior studies are single-model, single-state, or based on small interview and survey samples
Although several studies have sought to understand the impact of threat assessment programs on various school-level outcomes, including violence prevention, these reports are (1) specific to a single threat assessment model, (2) confined to understanding trends in single states, or (3) based on interviews and surveys of small samples of individuals (see, e.g., Ross et al., 2022; Cornell et al., 2018; Crepeau-Hobson and Leech, 2022; Jackson and Viljoen, 2024).
Principals are assumed to have responded on behalf of their schools
Although survey invitations were directed solely to school principals, we assume that these principals responded to our survey on behalf of their schools and interpret their data accordingly.
Between 2019 and 2025 several states changed BTAM law or policy
It should be noted that in the intervening years (i.e., between 2019 and the writing of this report in 2025), several states have made changes in law or policy regarding BTAM.
New laws requiring BTAM enacted during study (NJ, TN, IA) and earlier (VT)
For example, as our study was underway, some states enacted new laws requiring that schools use BTAM or establish BTAM teams (e.g., New Jersey, Tennessee, Iowa); others have also done so since the 2019 analysis but prior to the start of our study (e.g., Vermont).
If grouped by mid-2025 policy, more states would be in the legislation category
If states were to be grouped according to policies in place as of this writing in mid-2025, more would be included in the “legislation” category.
Authors hope findings shed new light on how BTAM is being implemented in K–12 schools
We hope the findings presented in this report will shed new light on how BTAM is being implemented in K–12 schools through a much-needed, deeper understanding of nationally representative trends.
First limitation: self-reported data may be affected by social desirability bias
First, as is true of any survey that relies on self-reported data, certain biases—such as social desirability bias—may influence results, should respondents provide answers that they believe are more socially acceptable or favorable.
Biases can affect data accuracy, especially on sensitive topics like behavioral threat assessment
Biases can affect data accuracy, especially in areas related to such sensitive topics as school behavioral threat assessment.
Second limitation: findings may not fully capture variety across sizes, regions, and demographics
Second, although our survey aimed to be representative of administrators in K–12 public schools across the country, our findings may still not fully capture the variety of experiences across different school sizes, geographical regions, and student and community demographics.
Local policies, resources, and community factors can limit generalizability to all U.S. schools
Differences in local policies (below the state level), available resources, and community factors can also influence safety practices, potentially limiting the generalizability of our results to all schools across the United States.
Third limitation: report does not fully explore state policy details or give an up-to-date state ana
Moreover, although the report highlights high-level differences in state-level policies and context specific to BTAM, it does not fully explore the details of such policies
Why inferred The sentence crosses a page break: this quote is the page 24 part and the sentence continues on page 25. Full sentence (pages 24–25): “Moreover, although the report highlights high-level differences in state-level policies and context specific to BTAM, it does not fully explore the details of such policies and does not provide an up-to-date analysis of state policies as of this report’s publication date.”
Authors hope findings provoke ideas to better ensure student and school-community safety
We also hope that our findings provoke new ideas about how to better ensure the safety and well-being of individual students and entire school communities across the country.
Final limitation: the survey is a snapshot in time and does not reflect change or recent events
Finally, our survey about BTAM practices provides a snapshot of perceptions and practices at a specific point in time and reflects neither changes over time nor how recent events might affect these perceptions and practices.
External BTAM teams are not a primary focus, so limited information is available
Because these external BTAM teams are not a primary focus of this report, we have limited information available about them and how schools engage with them.
Most principals were only “somewhat familiar” with outside BTAM teams’ operation and processes
Furthermore, most principals noted they were only “somewhat familiar” with the operation and processes of these outside BTAM teams.
Footnote: the Child Trends/NASBE authors focused on threat assessment, a broader category than BTAM
Note that the authors of this study were focused on threat assessment, which is a somewhat broader category than behavioral threat assessment and management as currently defined.
Footnote: a state could be coded as requiring threat assessment without a multidisciplinary team
For example, a state might be categorized by these authors as having a law, regulation, or policy requiring threat assessment even if the requirement did not involve that threat assessment being done by a multidisciplinary team (which is core to virtually all framings of behavioral threat assessment).
Footnote: some states with neither legislation nor encouragement in 2019 have since passed BTAM legi
Note that some of these states that had neither legislation nor encouraged BTAM as of 2019 have passed BTAM legislation as of this report’s publication.
Mid-year asking makes team-duration responses slightly difficult to interpret
Note that we asked principals this question midway through the 2024–2025 school year, making it slightly difficult to interpret principals’ responses about how long their BTAM team had been in place.
Some respondents may have viewed criminal-nexus cases as outside their BTAM team's jurisdiction
As a result, some of our respondents may have viewed such cases as outside the “jurisdiction” of their BTAM team and overall program because of their criminal nexus.
cite page 38 Ch 4: What Is the Scope of Schools' BTAM Programs?
Note: 71 percent of principals extremely familiar with BTAM
Sample (N = 1441) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
The majority of principals (71 percent) said they are extremely familiar with BTAM (e.g., they are a member of the team or lead it or otherwise have detailed knowledge).
Note: another 25 percent of principals at least somewhat familiar with BTAM
Sample (N = 1441) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Another 25 percent said they were at least somewhat familiar (e.g., “you have referred students and/or have knowledge of the team’s processes”).
Note: principals' familiarity increases confidence in accuracy of survey responses
Principals’ overwhelming familiarity with BTAM increases our confidence about the accuracy of the responses they provided to our survey.
Note: authors confirmed principals' familiarity in the survey (Table A.8)
At the onset of this project, we were concerned that principals may not always be familiar enough with their school- or district-level BTAM teams to be able to answer detailed questions about how these teams operate. Therefore, we confirmed principals' familiarity in our survey (see Appendix A, Table A.8).
23 percent of principals did not know whether their school's BTAM program had a defining policy docu
Sample (N = 1401) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
However, 23 percent of principals did not know whether their school’s BTAM program had a defining policy document.
One in five principals unsure whether school or district had established SOPs for BTAM team
Sample (N = 1400) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
One in five principals were not sure whether their school or district had established SOPs for how their BTAM team regularly functions.
Figure 5.1 note: bars may not sum to totals because of rounding
Bars may not sum to totals because of rounding.
Note: staff present at school assumed to be those serving on the BTAM team
If schools had these personnel on staff either part time or full time, we assumed that it was these internal personnel who would be those serving on the BTAM team.
Note: roles on team but not on staff presumed to be played by outside individuals
In cases where schools told us that they did not have these individuals at their school but did have that role represented on their BTAM team, we presumed that role was played by individuals from outside the school.
Note: administrators, instructional staff, education specialists assumed internal; non-school law en
We also assumed that some positions (e.g., school and district administrators, instructional staff, education specialists) are always internal to the school and that, by definition, non-school-based law enforcement personnel are always external to the school.
Caveat: some schools may involve multiple people in the same role
We acknowledge that some schools may involve multiple people in the same role: For example, a BTAM team might include several instructional staff.
Figure 5.2 note: percentages may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding
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)
Percentages may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
Figure 5.3 note: teams with fewer than three members omitted because results are not reliable
We omit results for teams with less than three members; very few schools had BTAM teams with fewer than three members, so results are not reliable.
Survey did not ask about format, conductor, length, topics, or yearly variation of trainings
Our survey did not ask questions about—and we therefore cannot report on—the format of these trainings, who conducts them, how long they are, what topics they cover, or whether they vary from year to year.
No information about the amounts of dedicated funds
We do not have information about the amounts of dedicated funds.
Footnote: no additional information was requested about locally developed programs
We did not ask for additional information about these locally developed programs.
Authors lack data on caseload size or case nature behind frequent exclusionary or arrest use
Although it is concerning that a handful of schools reported engaging in such practices frequently or every time a case is referred to the BTAM team, we do not have information about the size of teams’ caseloads or about the nature of specific cases.
cite page 66 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Fictitious incidents are not exhaustive; an illustration of what schools are likely addressing
Note that these fictitious incidents are not meant to be an exhaustive representation of the types of safety-related incidents occurring in schools but rather an illustration of what schools are likely addressing.
cite page 75 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Some scenario categorizations may be ambiguous or open to interpretation
We also note that some of these categorizations may be ambiguous or open to interpretation, which we believe also accurately reflects the experiences of today’s schools.
cite page 75 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.5: outliers were removed for readability
Outliers were removed for readability.
cite page 87 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Footnote on support-focused share: support-focused share partly reflects more support-focused...
In some ways, this is a function of the data because we presented respondents with more support-focused interventions than interventions in any other category and they therefore had more such options to choose from.
cite page 88 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Footnote on support-focused share: authors expect respondents would not select options their...
Nevertheless, our expectation is that if their schools did not have or use the options presented, respondents would not have selected them.
cite page 88 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Answering whether BTAM achieves its dual goals requires hard data on post-BTAM outcomes and...
Definitively answering questions about such outcomes and determining whether BTAM is achieving its dual goals of keeping schools safe while also using supportive intervention to change student behavior and reducing the need for suspension, expulsion, and criminal justice action requires hard data (on both student outcomes post-BTAM and what response would have looked like in the absence of a BTAM at school).
cite page 91 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Existing analyses usually focus narrowly on single states or single BTAM models (Cornell, Allen,...
Although some studies have conducted such analyses, the fact that data across schools and across the country are difficult to collect means existing analyses have usually focused more narrowly: either on single states or on the implementation of single BTAM models (e.g., Cornell, Allen, and Fan, 2012; Maeng, Cornell, and Huang, 2020; Cornell et al., 2025).
cite page 91 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Survey captured only principals' perceptions, not actual effects on crime or violence
Note that our survey did not attempt to capture actual effects on such outcomes as school crime or violence rates and only captures principals’ perceptions of these issues.
cite page 94 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Positive relationships could reflect differing safety perceptions of principals, students, staff
Positive relationships could also be attributable to other factors, such as differing perceptions of safety between principals and students, between principals and staff, or between stakeholder groups.
cite page 96 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Survey question did not define a specific threshold across response options
Setting aside that our survey question did not define a specific threshold across response options
cite page 97 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Unknown what informs neutral views; communities may lack knowledge or BTAM may not be pervasive
We do not know what informs these perspectives—it could be that school communities do not know enough about school BTAM programs to have an opinion either way or that the application of BTAM is not pervasive enough to make an impression.
cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Each principal's school belongs to multiple of the subgroup categories
It is important to keep in mind that each principal who took our survey is in a school that belongs to multiple of these categories—for example, a principal in a small, rural elementary school in a small district that serves majority White students in a relatively lower-income neighborhood in a state that does not address BTAM in state policy.
Patterns across school contexts might be driven by principals sharing multiple characteristics
Thus, any patterns observed across multiple school contexts might be driven by principals in the schools that share multiple of these characteristics.
No multiple hypothesis test corrections applied because the study is exploratory
Because of the exploratory nature of this study, we did not apply multiple hypothesis test corrections.
Top
Find the Perfect Training Class For You