100 claims on pp. 4–163 (fact 83, statement 3, conclusion 1, conjecture 1, definition 12).
In this co-branded HSOAC-NTAC report, we take a comprehensive look at how K–12 schools are implementing and using behavioral threat assessment and management programs as part of their violence prevention efforts, using data from a survey administered to a nationally representative sample of 1,746 school leaders.
The HSOAC team also thanks Dorothy Seaman for producing the sampling and weighting for these analyses.
To provide a comprehensive picture of BTAM implementation, the practices that schools are using to identify and manage potential threats to schools, and the potential solutions to strengthen BTAM across the United States, the joint HSOAC-NTAC research effort included a nationally representative survey of 1,746 principals across the country implementing BTAM practices at their schools.
Therefore, the primary goal of this report is to draw on a nationally representative sample of school administrators to understand how BTAM is being implemented and operationalized across the country.
Therefore, the primary goal of this report is to draw on a nationally representative sample of school administrators to understand how BTAM is being implemented and operationalized across the country.
To address these research questions, we relied on survey data collected from K–12 public school principals between February 5, 2025, and February 24, 2025.
The survey was administered to a nationally representative sample of principals who were members of RAND’s American School Leader Panel (ASLP).
In total, 1,746 individuals completed our 20-minute survey, and we weighted their responses to be representative of the national population of K–12 public school principals and the schools in which they serve.
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.
In this chapter, we provide an overview of the BTAM landscape in K–12 public schools across the country using data from the 1,746 principals who completed our survey on behalf of their schools.
The 2019 compilation of law and policy was the most up-to-date source of comprehensive information on BTAM requirements nationally at the time of survey sampling and planning
we focus on the subset of roughly 1,600 schools in our survey sample that reported having an official BTAM team or a BTAM-like team.
The table includes only those who said that their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team; their team was using a named model that we listed, an “Other” model, or a locally created one; and they were around for the initial implementation of this model.
Only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team and said they were around for the initial implementation of the BTAM program saw this question.
In this chapter, we focus on the subset of roughly 1,600 schools in our survey sample who reported having an official BTAM team at their school or alternative school-based team that functions similarly to a BTAM team.
cite page 38 Ch 4: What Is the Scope of Schools' BTAM Programs?
Sample (n = 1408 of 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
To do so, we focus on the 82 percent of schools in our sample (n = 1,408) that had an official BTAM team.
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
This table presents response data from the following survey question: “Which of the following staff members do you have at your school, either full or part time?” (N = 1,746).
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
Sample (n = 866 of 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
we focus on the 50 percent of principals in our sample (n = 866) who said they were at their current school for that school’s initial implementation of BTAM
cite page 54 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team; that their team was using a named model that we listed, an “Other” model, or a locally created one; and that they were around for the initial implementation of this model.
cite page 55 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
This figure includes only those who said that their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team; that their team was using a named model that we listed, an “other” model, or a locally created one; and that they were around for the initial implementation of this model.
cite page 56 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
Table 11.1 also shows the total number of respondents who answered questions about each scenario during the survey (denoted by n).
cite page 75 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
NOTE: This figure depicts response data from the following survey question: “Which person or group is most likely to make the initial decision about how to respond to this student’s behavior?” (n = 1,422 observations for low-severity scenarios; n = 1,423 observations for medium-severity scenarios; n = 1,421 observations for high-severity scenarios).
cite page 78 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
NOTE: This figure depicts response data from the following survey questions: “Which person or group is most likely to make the initial decision about how to respond to this student’s behavior?” and “Would the BTAM team(s) serving your school be made aware of this student’s behavior?” (n = 1,420 observations for low-severity scenarios; n = 1,420 observations for medium-severity scenarios; n = 1,417 for high-severity scenarios).
cite page 80 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
(n = 1,420 observations for low-severity scenarios; n = 1,420 observations for medium-severity scenarios; 1,419 for high-severity scenarios)
cite page 82 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
cite page 82 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
(n = 1,085 observations for low-severity scenarios and n = 1,419 for high-severity scenarios)
cite page 85 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
cite page 85 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
(n = 1,420 observations for low-severity scenarios; n = 1,420 observations for medium-severity scenarios; n = 1,419 for high-severity scenarios)
cite page 87 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
cite page 87 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
cite page 88 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
cite page 90 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
cite page 92 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
cite page 103 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
cite page 105 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
cite page 106 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
To do so, we drew on data collected via a survey fielded to a nationally representative sample of school administrators in January 2025.
n = 247. Only respondents who said their school has a school-based team that makes decisions regarding serious student behavioral concerns that is not referred to as a behavioral assessment and management (BTAM) team saw this question.
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.
This table includes only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
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.
This table includes only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
This table includes only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
Includes only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
This table includes only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
Only respondents who said their school- or district-level multi-person BTAM team would not make the initial decision about how to respond to a student’s behavior saw this question.
It was designed to produce national estimates from the perspective of public school principals, as well as subgroup estimates by respondent and school characteristics.
Principals are recruited into the ASLP using probability-based sampling methods.
The sampling frame for the ASLP is a list of U.S. public school principals purchased from Market Data Retrieval (MDR), a market-research firm specializing in education.
The ASLP currently includes about 8,000 principals.
After being recruited into the ASLP, panelists are then invited to participate in specific ASLP surveys using probability-based sampling methods.
Before going into the field, researchers identified two main goals for analysis. The first goal was to produce estimates that generalize to the national population of U.S. public school principals and the schools in which they serve.
The second goal was to facilitate comparisons in how schools operationalized their BTAM programs across three state policy contexts: (1) states that had early legislation (as of 2019), (2) states that encouraged BTAM use, and (3) other states.
Our sample was designed to support these two main goals while considering several other factors.
The first consideration was researchers needed to ensure sufficient sample to unpack differences in schools’ BTAM programs with some uncertainty about how many schools nationally had BTAM programs as of January 2025.
Using data collected from the Department of Education’s School Pulse Panel in April 2024, we estimated that about eight in ten sampled schools would have a BTAM team (NCES, 2025).
A second consideration was ensuring sufficient sample size to estimate means and proportions across the three state policy contexts of interest without substantially increasing the survey design effect.
A final consideration was the availability of panelists across state policy contexts within the ASLP to be sampled. There were about 6,000 active panelists in the ASLP at the time of sampling.
The final sample was chosen to target 1,650 completed surveys distributed across the three state policy contexts.
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)
The initial goal was to sample 50 percent from the early legislation states (as it was anticipated that BTAM programs would be most common in these states), 25 percent from each of the other states, and 25 percent from the encouraged BTAM use only states.
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)
As shown in Table B.2, assuming a 30 percent response rate (which is in line with historical ASLP surveys), this would require sampling 1,375 principals in both the other states and encouraged BTAM use only states and 2,750 principals in early legislation states.
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)
There were not enough panelists in the other states in the ASLP at the time of sampling to meet the desired sample. Therefore, we sampled some additional principals from the encouraged BTAM use only states to maintain the 50 percent/50 percent distribution with principals from early legislation states.
RAND researchers used probability-based sampling to invite 5,500 ASLP members to complete the survey using the ASLP as the sampling frame.
Sample (n = 1320 of 1650) · Targeted number of completed surveys (design target)
We anticipated that about 80 percent of the 1,650 completes would receive the full survey and be asked detailed questions about their BTAM program (n = 1,320) and 20 percent would receive the shorter survey (n = 330).
Sample (n = 423 of 1307) · Table B.2 final sample, other states
Other states | 412 | 1,375 | 1,307 | 1,307 | 423 | 32.4
Sample (n = 481 of 1443) · Table B.2 final sample, encouraged BTAM use only states
Encouraged BTAM use only | 412 | 1,375 | 1,794 | 1,443 | 481 | 33.3
Sample (n = 842 of 2750) · Table B.2 final sample, early legislation states
Early legislation states | 826 | 2,750 | 3,219 | 2,750 | 842 | 30.6
Sample (n = 1746 of 5500) · Table B.2 final sample, all states
All | 1,650 | 5,500 | 6,320 | 5,500 | 1,746 | 31.7
As shown in Table B.3, both before and after weighting, survey respondents look similar to the population of U.S. public school principals on a variety of person-level and school-level characteristics.
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
Urban | 25.8 [23.8, 27.9] | 27.7 [25.4, 30.1] | 27.7
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
Suburban | 32.3 [30.1, 34.5] | 30.9 [28.5, 33.2] | 31.0
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
Town/rural | 41.9 [39.6, 44.2] | 41.4 [38.9, 43.9] | 41.3
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
Low (401 or more IPR) | 25.1 [23.1, 27.1] | 23.4 [21.3, 25.5] | 23.3
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
Medium (201 to 400 IPR) | 59.7 [57.4, 62.0] | 58.4 [55.9, 61.0] | 58.4
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
High (0 to 200 IPR) | 15.2 [13.5, 16.9] | 18.2 [16.1, 20.3] | 18.3
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
0%–50% | 55.8 [53.5, 58.1] | 51.0 [48.4, 53.6] | 50.8
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
50%–100% | 44.2 [41.9, 46.5] | 49.0 [46.4, 51.6] | 49.2
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
Elementary | 55.6 [53.3, 57.9] | 59.1 [56.6, 61.6] | 59.1
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
Middle | 22.3 [20.4, 24.3] | 17.9 [16.1, 19.8] | 17.8
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
High | 22.1 [20.1, 24.0] | 22.9 [20.7, 25.1] | 23.0
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
Small | 50.3 [48.0, 52.7] | 51.4 [48.8, 54.0] | 51.4
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
Large | 49.7 [47.3, 52.0] | 48.6 [46.0, 51.2] | 48.6
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
White | 79.4 [77.5, 81.3] | 78.3 [76.2, 80.5] | 78.2
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
Person of color | 20.6 [18.7, 22.5] | 21.7 [19.5, 23.8] | 21.8
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
Female | 49.7 [47.4, 52.1] | 55.5 [52.9, 58.0] | 55.5
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
Male | 50.3 [47.9, 52.6] | 44.5 [42.0, 47.1] | 44.5
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
Master’s or less | 47.8 [45.5, 50.2] | 63.4 [61.1, 65.7] | 63.6
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
Higher than master’s | 52.2 [49.8, 54.5] | 36.6 [34.3, 38.9] | 36.4
Population data for educator-level characteristics come from the National Teacher and Principal Survey, and school-level characteristics are from the CCD and the EDGE School Neighborhood Poverty Estimates.
To provide a comprehensive picture of BTAM implementation, the practices that schools are using to identify and manage potential threats to schools, and develop solutions to strengthen BTAM across the country, the research effort included a nationally representative survey of principals across the country exploring BTAM practices at their schools.
These novel data are the first of their kind to collect comprehensive data on how BTAM is being operationalized in schools across the country.
Find the Perfect Training Class For You
