The panels are a member of AAPOR's Transparency Initiative
The panels are a proud member of the American Association for Public Opinion Research’s Transparency Initiative.
NCIER®
Survey Methodology
297 claims on pp. 4–163 (fact 169, statement 80, conclusion 2, conjecture 1, definition 45).
Claims about Survey Methodology
HSOAC thanks the participating educators
The HSOAC team is extremely grateful to the educators who agreed to participate in this panel.
Educators' time and willingness to share experiences were invaluable
Their time and willingness to share their experiences were invaluable for this effort and for helping the team understand how to better support their hard work in schools.
Thanks to Dopp, Wagner, Kim, Lu and Colvin for design, management, data and programming help
The HSOAC team thanks RAND colleagues Alex Dopp for consultation on implementation science during survey design; Lisa Wagner and Brian Kim for assisting with survey management; Ruolin Lu for serving as the data manager for this survey; and Tim Colvin for programming the survey.
Thanks to Tina Petrossian and David Grant for support and AEP management
HSOAC greatly appreciates the administrative support provided by Tina Petrossian and AEP management provided by David Grant.
Thanks to Meagan Cahill and Andrea Phillips for review and feedback
The HSOAC team also thanks Meagan Cahill and Andrea Phillips for their review and feedback, which helped improve this work.
Thanks to Cindy Lyons and Maria Vega for overseeing publication
Finally, HSOAC is grateful for the efforts of Cindy Lyons and Maria Vega in overseeing the publication of this report.
Joint effort included a nationally representative survey of 1,746 principals
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.
Survey asked about implementation, team composition, incidents referred, and operating, sustaining a
Survey respondents were asked questions about the initial implementation of their school’s BTAM program, the composition of their BTAM team, and the types of incidents referred to and addressed by their BTAM team, as well as a broad set of questions about operating, sustaining, and improving BTAM practices at their schools.
Each respondent also answered scenario-based questions
Each survey respondent also answered a set of scenario-based questions representative of incidents they might experience at their schools, for more insight into how their schools use BTAM as a violence prevention tool.
Report gives a picture of the state of BTAM in K–12 public schools in 2025
This report takes an in-depth look at the results of that survey, providing a picture of the state of BTAM in K–12 public schools across the country in 2025.
The first-of-its-kind survey revealed the following key highlights
This first-of-its-kind survey revealed the following key highlights:
Survey data collected from K–12 public school principals February 5–24, 2025
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.
Principals received detailed questions about their school's BTAM program
Participating principals received detailed questions about their school’s BTAM program—ranging from which school and outside personnel are on their BTAM team, what specific BTAM models they are using, and the steps they took during the initial program implementation phase to perceptions of BTAM’s impact
Footnote 3: Appendix A lists all survey items and response frequencies
A complete list of the survey items administered to principals and the response frequencies is available in Appendix A.
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.
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.
Figure 2.1 note: survey item on having a BTAM team or other formal group at school or district
“During this school year (2024–2025), does your school or school district have a behavioral threat assessment and management (BTAM) team or any other formal group of persons tasked with identifying and assessing students who might be at risk for violent or harmful behavior (toward themselves or others)?”
Figure 2.1 note: survey item on whether the BTAM team is housed at school or district level
“Is the BTAM team(s) housed at the school or district level, or both?”
Figure 2.1 note: survey item on whether an outside BTAM team serves the school
“Some schools are served by BTAM teams external to a school or district. These teams may be managed by a community organization; a local, county, state, or federal government entity; a law enforcement agency; or other organizations. Is your school served by an outside BTAM team?”
Figure 2.1 note: survey item on a school-based team not called BTAM; N = 1,746
“Does your school have a school-based team that makes decisions regarding serious student behavioral concerns that is not referred to as a behavioral threat assessment and management (BTAM) team? This could be a team associated with a multi-tiered system of support (MTSS) or positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) that makes decisions about individualized interventions for serious behavioral concerns” (N = 1,746)
Figure 2.1 note: principals answering Don’t know were counted as a no
For principals who responded to the above items with “Don’t know,” we counted their school as a “no.”
Principals were asked to consider teams managed by community, government, or law enforcement bodies
We asked principals to consider teams managed by a community organization; a local, county, state, or federal government entity; a law enforcement agency; or other organizations.
Figure 2.2 note: survey item on having a BTAM team or other formal group at school or district
“During this school year (2024–2025), does your school or school district have a behavioral threat assessment and management (BTAM) team or any other formal group of persons tasked with identifying and assessing students who might be at risk for violent or harmful behavior (toward themselves or others)?”
Figure 2.2 note: survey item on whether the BTAM team is housed at school or district level
“Is the BTAM team(s) housed at the school or district level, or both?”
Figure 2.2 note: survey item on whether an outside BTAM team serves the school
“Some schools are served by BTAM teams external to a school or district. These teams may be managed by a community organization; a local, county, state, or federal government entity; a law enforcement agency; or other organizations. Is your school served by an outside BTAM team?”
Figure 2.2 note: survey item on a school-based team not called BTAM; N = 1,746
“Does your school have a school-based team that makes decisions regarding serious student behavioral concerns that is not referred to as a behavioral threat assessment and management (BTAM) team? This could be a team associated with a multi-tiered system of support (MTSS) or positive behavioral intervention system (PBIS) that makes decisions about individualized interventions for serious behavioral concerns” (N = 1,746)
Figure 2.2 note: principals answering Don’t know were counted as a no
For principals who responded to the above items, “Don’t know,” we counted their school as a “no.”
Figure 2.3 note: survey item on having a BTAM team or other formal group at school or district
“During this school year (2024–2025), does your school or school district have a behavioral threat assessment and management (BTAM) team or any other formal group of persons tasked with identifying and assessing students who might be at risk for violent or harmful behavior (toward themselves or others)?”
Figure 2.3 note: survey item on a school-based team not called BTAM; N = 1,746
“Does your school have a school-based team that makes decisions regarding serious student behavioral concerns that is not referred to as a behavioral threat assessment and management (BTAM) team? This could be a team associated with a multi-tiered system of support (MTSS) or positive behavioral intervention system (PBIS) that makes decisions about individualized interventions for serious behavioral concerns” (N = 1,746)
Principals asked in January 2025 when their BTAM or similar team was formed
We asked principals in January 2025 when their school’s BTAM team (or alternative school-based team that functions similarly to a BTAM team) was formed.
Figure 3.1 survey question: how many school years the BTAM team has been in place (n = 1,505)
This figure depicts response data from the following survey question: “Approximately how many school years has this BTAM team been in place?” (n = 1,505).
Only principals with a school- or district-level BTAM or equivalent team received the question
Only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team (or another team not called a BTAM team that functions as a BTAM team) received this question.
Principals who did not know how long the team had been in place were excluded
We excluded principals who did not know how long the BTAM team had been in place at their school.
Survey asked how schools adjusted their selected BTAM models during initial implementation
We probed this process of adaptation in survey questions that asked about how schools had adjusted their selected BTAM models during the initial implementation phase.
"Working well" question asked of principals present at implementation who saw program as effective
We asked those principals involved in the initial implementation of a specific BTAM program and who perceived that the BTAM program was working effectively at their schools how long it took them to get the BTAM program to the point of “working well.”
Footnote: challenge questions asked only of those using a model and present at implementation
The questions on challenges experienced during the initial implementation phase were only asked to principals who said their team was using a named model that we listed, an “Other” model, or a locally created one and who said they were around for the initial implementation of this model.
Table 3.1 survey question: agreement with positive BTAM implementation statements (n = 450)
This table depicts response data from the following survey question: “The following table includes a number of positive statements that could describe the implementation of behavioral threat assessment and management (BTAM) in a school. Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each statement as a descriptor of your experience implementing BTAM in your school” (n = 450).
Table 3.1 includes only schools with a BTAM team using a model and present at initial implementation
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.
Figure 3.2 survey questions on effectiveness, time in place, and program use (n = 441)
This figure depicts response data from the following survey questions: “How effective do you believe this BTAM team is at maintaining school safety?” “Approximately how many school years has this BTAM team been in place?” and “How long has your school used [AUTOFILL] program?” (n = 441).
Only principals with a BTAM team who were present at initial implementation saw the question
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.
Survey explored principals' descriptions of BTAM scope by incident and behavior types
In our survey, we explored how principals described the scope of their BTAM programs in terms of the types of incidents and behaviors that would be addressed by a BTAM team.
cite page 38 Ch 4: What Is the Scope of Schools' BTAM Programs?
Survey item: scope of threatening or concerning behavior the BTAM team responds to
We asked principals, “What is the scope of the threatening or concerning behavior to which your school or district’s BTAM team responds?”
cite page 38 Ch 4: What Is the Scope of Schools' BTAM Programs?
Principals chose among eight example behaviors which, if any, would be referred to their BTAM team
We listed eight examples of threatening or concerning behavior that a student might exhibit and asked principals to select which, if any, would be referred to their school’s BTAM team.
cite page 38 Ch 4: What Is the Scope of Schools' BTAM Programs?
Footnote: respondents also saw behavioral scenarios and follow-up questions on BTAM roles
We also presented survey respondents with a set of behavioral scenarios and associated follow up questions to explore how they viewed the role of their BTAM teams in response to different types of incidents.
cite page 38 Ch 4: What Is the Scope of Schools' BTAM Programs?
Figure 4.1 source item and n: scope of behavior to which the BTAM team responds (n = 1,635)
This figure depicts response data from the following survey questions: “What is the scope of the threatening or concerning behavior to which your school or district's BTAM team responds?” (n = 1,635).
cite page 39 Ch 4: What Is the Scope of Schools' BTAM Programs?
Figure 4.1: respondents were instructed to select all that apply
Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
cite page 39 Ch 4: What Is the Scope of Schools' BTAM Programs?
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).
Number and types of specialists can drive BTAM team performance, so composition was a focus of the s
Because the number and types of specialists that are part of the team can drive the performance of BTAM teams, team composition and roles that different individuals play on the team were significant focuses of the survey.
Survey asked principals which people were BTAM team members from a list of ten roles
Our survey asked principals to indicate which people were members of their BTAM team based on a list of ten different types of roles.
Figure 5.1 note: survey question 'Which person(s) are regular members of this BTAM team?' (n = 1,408
This figure depicts response data from the following survey question: “Which person(s) are regular members of this BTAM team?” (n = 1,408).
Note: principals were asked which staff they have at school (Table A.5)
In another survey item, we asked principals which types of staff members they have at their school, including counselors, nurses, social workers, psychologists, and law enforcement officers (see Appendix A, Table A.5).
Table 5.1 note: survey question 'Which of the following staff members do you have at your school, ei
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).
Figure 5.2 note: survey question 'Which person(s) are regular members of this BTAM team?' (n = 1,408
This figure depicts response data from the following survey question: “Which person(s) are regular members of this BTAM team?” (n = 1,408).
Figure 5.3 note: survey question 'Which person(s) are regular members of this BTAM team?' (n = 1,408
This figure depicts response data from the following survey question: “Which person(s) are regular members of this BTAM team?” (n = 1,408).
Figure 5.3 note: principals directed to include school-based and external psychologists, counselors,
For psychologists, counselors, and social workers, we directed principals to include both school-based and external personnel.
Survey asked about officers' role on team and frequency of criminal justice outcomes
In our survey, we explored the involvement of law enforcement in BTAM by asking respondents about officers’ role on the team and assessing the frequency of criminal justice–related outcomes in the BTAM process (we discuss the latter in more detail in Chapters 8, 10, and 11).
Principals with law enforcement on team were asked the officers' role; five options, up to two
We listed five options and asked respondents to select up to two responses that best capture law enforcement’s involvement on their specific school teams.
Forced choice intended to focus on most important roles police play, in respondents' view
The intent in forcing a choice was to focus on the most important roles police play on these teams, in the view of respondents.
Note: 4 percent of respondents ignored instructions and selected more than two roles
Sample (N = 854) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
A handful of respondents (4 percent) ignored the instructions and selected more than two roles.
Fig 5.4 survey item: how often BTAM team members receive training (n = 1,376)
This figure depicts response data from the following survey question: “How often do the members of your BTAM team receive training and/or professional development related to BTAM?” (n = 1,376).
Fig 5.4 note: bars may not sum to totals because of rounding
Bars may not sum to totals because of rounding.
Survey asked principals whether the school or district budget includes dedicated BTAM funding
We asked principals whether their school or district budget includes dedicated funding to support their BTAM program.
Fig 5.5 survey items and n = 1,408
This figure depicts response data from the following survey questions: “Does your school or district budget include dedicated funding to support your BTAM program?” “How often does your BTAM team meet?” “How often do the members of your BTAM team receive training and/or professional development related to BTAM?” “Has your school or district established written standard operating procedures (SOPs) for how your BTAM team functions on a day-to-day basis?” “Does your school or district have an explicit policy document that establishes and defines your BTAM program?” and “Which person(s) are regular members of this BTAM team?” (n = 1,408).
Survey item on model use: five named models, a model not listed, or a locally developed model
We asked schools whether they used a named model to structure their approach to BTAM, allowing them to select among a list of five named models; specify the name of a model not included in the response options; or indicate that they used a locally developed model that draws on other models and resources to fit their needs.
Table 6.1 source item: program the team uses to structure its BTAM approach (n = 1,404)
This table depicts response data from the following survey question: “What program does this team currently use to structure its approach to BTAM?” (n = 1,404).
Survey gave principals seven possible adoption reasons and asked them to select up to three
Our survey provided principals a list of seven possible reasons for the initial adoption of BTAM at their school and asked them to select up to three that best explain their context.
cite page 54 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
Figure 7.1 note: main-drivers question (n = 452), select up to three
Sample (N = 452) · Principals answering the implementation drivers question
This figure depicts response data from the following survey question: “What were the main drivers for the implementation of your BTAM program?” (n = 452). Respondents were instructed to select up to three responses.
cite page 55 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
Figure 7.1 note: Other 7 percent, Don’t know 3 percent, None of these 2 percent
Sample (N = 452) · Principals answering the implementation drivers question
Respondents were also given an “Other” option, selected by 7 percent of respondents; a “Don’t know” option, selected by 3 percent of respondents; and a “None of these were main drivers” option, selected by 2 percent of respondents.
cite page 55 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
Principals were given a list of planning actions drawn from the literature on implementation
Drawing on the published literature describing how schools plan and prepare for the implementation of new programs, and the types of activities that are recommended as part of implementation efforts, we provided principals with a list of actions their school or district administrators may have taken as part of this process
cite page 55 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
Principals selected which listed actions applied to their school or district BTAM implementation
and asked them to select which, if any, were applicable to their school or district BTAM implementation process.
cite page 56 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
Figure 7.2 note: actions-before-implementation question (n = 451), select all that apply
This figure depicts response data from the following survey question: “Which of the following actions do you know your school took before implementing its BTAM program?” (n = 451). Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
cite page 56 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
Table 8.1 presents four operational types and the percentage of principals choosing each
Table 8.1 presents the four operational types included in a survey question focused on the assessment process and the percentage of principals who indicated that the option best described the structure and processes of their BTAM teams.
Table 8.1 survey question on how team operates when assessing seriousness (n = 1,394)
NOTE: This table depicts response data from the following survey question: “Which of the following statements best describes how your BTAM team operates when it is assessing the seriousness of a particular student’s behavior or potential threat during a team meeting?” (n = 1,394).
The table includes only respondents whose school has a school- or district-level BTAM team
This table includes only those who said that their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
Principals were given a list of 14 potential data sources
We provided principals with a list of 14 potential data sources in our survey, ranging from interviews with students, school staff, and parents to reviewing discipline, academic, and other school records; law enforcement records; and social media accounts for referred students.
Principals were asked which sources their teams rely on and how often
We asked principals which sources their BTAM teams rely on to conduct behavioral threat assessments and how often they use these sources.
Figure 8.1 survey question on how often the team uses each source (n = 1,395)
NOTE: This figure depicts response data from the following survey question: “When a student is referred to your BTAM team for concerning behavior, how often does your team use the following sources of information to assess the level of risk posed by the student?” (n = 1,395).
Figure 8.1 includes only respondents whose school has a school- or district-level BTAM team
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
Rows 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)
Rows may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
Footnote d: Sometimes includes rarely, sometimes, or frequently, collapsed for readability
Including respondents who selected “rarely,” “sometimes,” or “frequently.” We collapsed these three categories into one for readability.
Principals were asked whether it would be feasible to transparently explain the outcome of their thr
To probe these issues, we asked principals whether they thought it would be feasible for their BTAM team to transparently explain the outcome of their threat assessment process.
Principals were given four options for how their BTAM team decides on an intervention plan
We presented principals with four options for how their BTAM team might decide on an intervention or safety plan for a student assessed as posing a risk of harm and asked them to select which statement best describes their team’s process.
cite page 62 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Figure 9.1 note: survey question on use of options in intervention plans (n = 1,384)
NOTE: This figure depicts response data from the following survey question: “When your BTAM team intervenes with a student who is assessed as being at some risk of causing harm to themselves or others, how commonly are the following options part of the resulting intervention or safety plan?” (n = 1,384).
cite page 65 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Figure 9.2 note: survey questions on expulsion, school change, long suspension, and arrest or prosec
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?
Survey asked about four services provided at no cost, inside or outside school
We asked whether schools provide four different types of services at no cost to students’ families either inside school or outside school through an external service provider: skill-building services, mental health counseling or care, substance use treatment, and family support and intervention programming.
cite page 67 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Four services chosen because they often require licensed professionals and are more likely offered o
We specifically selected these four intervention options because they often require licensed clinicians, therapists, or other professionals, and are more likely to be offered outside school, relative to such options as peer mentoring programs or extra academic support.
cite page 67 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Fig 10.1 survey question on what the team does after a plan is implemented (n = 1,379)
This figure depicts response data from the following survey question: “Which of the following statements best describes what your BTAM team does after a student’s behavioral intervention or safety plan has been implemented?” (n = 1,379).
cite page 71 Ch 10: How Do BTAM Teams Monitor Intervention Plans?
Principals asked what BTAM teams do as part of active monitoring of student cases (Figure 10.2)
We also asked principals what their BTAM teams are doing as part of their active monitoring of student cases (see Figure 10.2).
cite page 71 Ch 10: How Do BTAM Teams Monitor Intervention Plans?
Fig 10.2 survey question on how team monitors progress against a plan (n = 984)
This figure depicts response data from the following survey question: “How does your school or district BTAM team monitor progress against a student intervention/safety plan?” (n = 984).
cite page 72 Ch 10: How Do BTAM Teams Monitor Intervention Plans?
Prior chapters analyzed principals' reports on BTAM issues, risk assessment and interventions
we analyzed principals’ reports about the types of issues their BTAM teams are involved in, how teams assess risk, and the types of interventions they use to respond to incidents.
cite page 74 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Survey presented scenarios and asked three questions about responses before detailed BTAM questions
Before principals answered any detailed questions about their BTAM team and program, we presented them with a series of scenarios describing distinct school safety incidents and then asked three questions about how they would respond to each specific incident.
cite page 74 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Principals were randomly assigned scenarios conditional on school grade level
Principals were randomly assigned scenarios conditional on their school grade level.
cite page 74 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
After each scenario, respondents were asked who would make the initial response decision
After presenting each behavioral scenario, we asked respondents who would make the initial decision about how to respond to the behavior.
cite page 75 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Up to 12 options listed for initial decisionmaker, including BTAM team and administrators
Therefore, we listed up to 12 options, including the BTAM team and a teacher or school administrator (e.g., principal or assistant principal); a counselor, nurse, social worker, or psychologist; an SRO (or other school-based law enforcement officer), non-school-based law enforcement officer, security officer or guard;
cite page 75 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Principals could select only one initial-decisionmaker response option
Principals could select only one response option.
cite page 77 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Respondents saw some initial-decisionmaker options only if their school had such personnel
With the exceptions of teacher; school administrator; non-school-based law enforcement; and MTSS, PBIS, or other behavioral support team, respondents only saw each potential initial decisionmaker if they responded previously that they had such personnel at their school.
cite page 77 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Select initial-decisionmaker results presented; Tables A.14 and A.15 give additional information
We present select results here, but see Tables A.14 and A.15 in Appendix A for additional information.
cite page 77 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
When BTAM team was not initial decisionmaker, respondents were asked if it would be made aware
to an incident, as was the case for most respondents, we asked whether the BTAM team would be made aware of the incident.
cite page 79 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.6 note: survey questions and n = 1,420 / 1,420 / 1,417 observations
(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 88 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.6 includes only respondents whose school has a school- or district-level BTAM team
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?
Figure 11.7 note: survey question on options schools can use to respond, n = 1,420 / 1,420 / 1,419
(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 90 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.7: respondents instructed to select all that apply
Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
cite page 90 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.8 note: survey question on options schools can use, n = 1,420 / 1,420 / 1,419
(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 92 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.8: respondents instructed to select all that apply
Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
cite page 92 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 12.1 survey question: how effective is this BTAM team at maintaining safety (n = 1,406)
This figure depicts response data from the following survey question: “How effective do you believe this BTAM team is at maintaining school safety?” (n = 1,406).
cite page 94 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Figure 12.1 includes only principals whose school has a school- or district-level BTAM team
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
cite page 94 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Figure 12.2 survey question: impact of BTAM program on outcomes at school (n = 1,377)
This figure depicts response data from the following survey question: “What impact do you think your BTAM program has had on the following outcomes at your school?” (n = 1,377).
cite page 95 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Figure 12.2 includes only principals whose school has a school- or district-level BTAM team
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
cite page 95 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Figure 12.3 survey question: impact of BTAM program on school climate (n = 1,377)
This figure depicts response data from the following survey question: “What impact do you think your school or district’s BTAM program has had on school climate at your school?” (n = 1,377).
cite page 96 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Figure 12.3 includes only principals whose school has a school- or district-level BTAM team
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
cite page 96 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Figure 12.3 bar does 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)
Bar does not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
cite page 96 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Figure 12.3 note: some data labels removed for readability
Some data labels have been removed for readability.
cite page 96 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Figure 12.4 survey question: impact of BTAM program on outcomes at school (n = 1,377)
This figure depicts response data from the following survey question: “What impact do you think your BTAM program has had on the following outcomes at your school?” (n = 1,377).
cite page 97 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Figure 12.4 includes only principals whose school has a school- or district-level BTAM team
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
cite page 97 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Figure 12.4 bars may not sum to totals because of rounding
Bars may not sum to totals because of rounding.
cite page 97 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Figure 12.4 asterisk marks significant difference of secondary vs. elementary principals
An asterisk (*) indicates that the percentage of principals in secondary schools who said decreased or significantly decreased was statistically significantly different from the percentage of principals in elementary schools who said similarly.
cite page 97 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Figure 12.5 survey question: impact of BTAM program on outcomes at school (n = 1,377)
This figure depicts response data from the following survey question: “What impact do you think your BTAM program has had on the following outcomes at your school?” (n = 1,377).
cite page 98 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Figure 12.5 includes only principals whose school has a school- or district-level BTAM team
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
cite page 98 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Figure 12.5 bars may not sum to totals because of rounding
Bars may not sum to totals because of rounding.
cite page 98 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Figure 12.5 some data labels removed for readability
Some data labels have been removed for readability.
cite page 98 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Figure 12.5 collapses significantly decreased/decreased and significantly increased/increased
We collapsed “significantly decreased” and “decreased” as well as “significantly increased” and “increased” for readability purposes.
cite page 98 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Figure 13.1 survey item: How supportive is your school community of BTAM? (n = 1,376)
This figure depicts response data from the following survey question: “How supportive is your school community of BTAM as a school safety approach?” (n = 1,376).
cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Leadership-change question is a proxy measure of program resilience to staffing changes
As a proxy measure to capture the resilience of a school’s BTAM program to changes in staffing, we asked principals whether they perceived that a leadership change (for instance, were they to vacate their position) would result in changes to their school’s use of or approach to BTAM.
cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Figure 13.2 survey item: Would a leadership change result in changes to BTAM use or approach? (n = 1
This figure depicts response data from the following survey question: “Would a leadership change at your school (e.g., were you to vacate your position) result in changes to your school's use of or approach to BTAM?” (n = 1,376).
cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Survey offered 13 challenge options for schools to flag as current concerns (Figure 13.3)
To assess what challenges schools’ BTAM programs are facing now, we gave survey respondents a menu of 13 options they could flag as current concerns (Figure 13.3).
cite page 103 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Figure 13.3 survey item: challenges in operating BTAM program (n = 1,376)
This figure depicts response data from the following survey question: “Is your school experiencing or has it experienced any of the following challenges when it comes to operating its BTAM program?” (n = 1,376).
cite page 103 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Principals were asked whether BTAM teams engaged in activities from after-action reviews to feedback
In our survey, we asked principals if their schools’ BTAM teams engaged in any such activities, ranging from after-action reviews of past cases to systematic data analyses across cases and gathering feedback from program participants.
cite page 104 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Figure 13.4 survey item: processes that are part of how BTAM program operates (n = 1,376)
This figure depicts response data from the following survey question: “Which of the following processes are part of how your BTAM program operates?” (n = 1,376).
cite page 105 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Figure 13.4 respondents instructed to select all that apply
Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
cite page 105 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Figure 13.5 survey item: processes that are part of how BTAM program operates (n = 1,376)
This figure depicts response data from the following survey question: “Which of the following processes are part of how your BTAM program operates?” (n = 1,376).
cite page 106 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Figure 13.5 respondents instructed to select all that apply
Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
cite page 106 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Survey fielded to a nationally representative sample of school administrators in January 2025
To do so, we drew on data collected via a survey fielded to a nationally representative sample of school administrators in January 2025.
Report took an in-depth look at the state of BTAM in K–12 public schools
In this report, we took an in-depth look at the state of BTAM in K–12 public schools across the country.
Appendix A gives basic frequency tabulations for the survey items analyzed in the report
In this appendix, we provide basic frequency tabulations for survey items included on the survey that we analyze in this report.
Items administered in eight modules; not all respondents received each module (A.1-A.65)
Our survey items were administered as part of eight different modules, and not all respondents received each module (Tables A.1–A.13 in Module 1; Tables A.14–A.19 in Module 2; Tables A.20–A.30 in Module 3; Tables A.31–A.32 in Module 4; Tables A.33–A.50 in Module 5; Tables A.51–A.57 in Module 6; Tables A.58–A.60 in Module 7; and Tables A.61–A.65 in Module 8).
All appendix estimates are weighted to represent national K–12 public school principals and their sc
All survey estimates presented below have been weighted to be representative of the national population of K–12 public school principals and the schools in which they serve.
Table A.1: No, 77.7 weighted percent
Sample (N = 1746) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
| No | 77.7 |
Table A.1: Yes, 22.3 weighted percent
Sample (N = 1746) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
| Yes | 22.3 |
Table A.1 note: This question was taken from the American Teacher Panel Omnibus survey (see Jackson
This question was taken from the American Teacher Panel Omnibus survey (see Jackson et al., 2023).
Table A.2: No, 59.7 weighted percent
Sample (N = 1745) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
| No | 59.7 |
Table A.2: Yes, 40.3 weighted percent
Sample (N = 1745) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
No | 59.7 | | Yes | 40.3 |
Table A.2 note: This question was taken from the American Teacher Panel Omnibus survey (see Jackson
This question was taken from the American Teacher Panel Omnibus survey (see Jackson et al., 2023).
Table A.3: 0, 33.5 weighted percent
Sample (N = 1745) · Respondents answering Table A.3 (n = 1,745)
| 0 | 33.5 |
Table A.3: 1 to 4, 38.0 weighted percent
Sample (N = 1745) · Respondents answering Table A.3 (n = 1,745)
| 1 to 4 | 38.0 |
Table A.3: 5 to 10, 15.2 weighted percent
Sample (N = 1745) · Respondents answering Table A.3 (n = 1,745)
| 5 to 10 | 15.2 |
Table A.3: 11 to 20, 7.8 weighted percent
Sample (N = 1745) · Respondents answering Table A.3 (n = 1,745)
| 11 to 20 | 7.8 |
Table A.3: 21 or more, 4.6 weighted percent
Sample (N = 1745) · Respondents answering Table A.3 (n = 1,745)
| 21 or more | 4.6 |
Table A.3: Don’t know, 0.9 weighted percent
Sample (N = 1745) · Respondents answering Table A.3 (n = 1,745)
| Don’t know | 0.9 |
Table A.3 note: According to the U.S. Department of Education’s definition, violent incidents includ
According to the U.S. Department of Education’s definition, violent incidents include rape or attempted rape, sexual assault other than rape, physical attacks or fights with or without a weapon, threat of physical attacks with or without a weapon, and robbery with or without a weapon (Burr et al., 2024, p. 3).
Table A.3 note: This question was adapted from NCES’s School Survey on Crime and Safety (Burr et al.
This question was adapted from NCES’s School Survey on Crime and Safety (Burr et al., 2024).
Table A.8: Not very familiar (e.g., you may have referred students, but are not extremely knowledgea
Sample (N = 1441) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Not very familiar (e.g., you may have referred students, but are not extremely knowledgeable about its processes) | 4.2
Table A.8: Somewhat familiar (e.g., you have referred students and/or have knowledge of the team’s p
Sample (N = 1441) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Somewhat familiar (e.g., you have referred students and/or have knowledge of the team’s processes) | 24.9
Table A.8: Extremely familiar (e.g., you are a member of the team or lead it, or otherwise have deta
Sample (N = 1441) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Extremely familiar (e.g., you are a member of the team or lead it, or otherwise have detailed knowledge) | 70.9
Table A.8 note: Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team saw
Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team saw this question.
Table A.8 note: The question stem autofilled with “your school BTAM team” if respondents said they h
The question stem autofilled with “your school BTAM team” if respondents said they had a school-level BTAM team or that they have both school- and district-level teams.
Table A.8 note: The question stem autofilled with “your district BTAM team” if respondents said they
The question stem autofilled with “your district BTAM team” if respondents said they had a district-level BTAM team.
Table A.8 note: The question stem autofilled with “this BTAM team” if the respondent said they did n
The question stem autofilled with “this BTAM team” if the respondent said they did not know the level of the team.
Table A.13: Not very familiar: 11.7
Sample (N = 247) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Not very familiar (e.g., you may have referred students, but are not extremely knowledgeable about its processes) | 11.7
Table A.13: Somewhat familiar: 21.8
Sample (N = 247) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Somewhat familiar (e.g., you have referred students and/or have knowledge of the team’s processes) | 21.8
Table A.13: Extremely familiar: 66.5
Sample (N = 247) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Extremely familiar (e.g., you are a member of the team or lead it, or otherwise have detailed knowledge) | 66.5
Table A.13 note: n = 247. Only respondents who said their school has a school-based team that makes
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.
Table A.14 note: Principals were randomly assigned specific scenarios (see Appendix B).
Principals were randomly assigned specific scenarios (see Appendix B).
Table A.14 note: Columns 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)
Columns may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
Table A.14 note: This table includes only respondents who said their school has a school- or distric
This table includes only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
Footnote a (p. 97): response option shown only to respondents whose school had such staff
Respondents saw this response option only if they indicated previously that their school had such staff.
Table A.15 note: Principals were randomly assigned specific scenarios (see Appendix B).
Principals were randomly assigned specific scenarios (see Appendix B).
Table A.15 note: Columns 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)
Columns may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
Table A.15 note: This table includes only respondents who said their school has a school- or distric
This table includes only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
Footnote a (p. 98): response option shown only to respondents whose school had such staff
Respondents saw this response option only if they indicated previously that their school had such staff.
Table A.16 note: Principals were randomly assigned specific scenarios (see Appendix B).
Principals were randomly assigned specific scenarios (see Appendix B).
Table A.16 note: Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
Table A.16 note: This table includes only respondents who said their school has a school- or distric
This table includes only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
Table A.17 note: Principals were randomly assigned specific scenarios (see Appendix B).
Principals were randomly assigned specific scenarios (see Appendix B).
Table A.17 note: Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
Table A.17 note: Includes only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTA
Includes only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
Table A.18 note: Principals were randomly assigned specific scenarios (see Appendix B).
Principals were randomly assigned specific scenarios (see Appendix B).
Table A.18 note: This table includes only respondents who said their school has a school- or distric
This table includes only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
Table A.18 note: Only respondents who said their school- or district-level multi-person BTAM team wo
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.
Table A.19 note: Principals were randomly assigned specific scenarios (see Appendix B).
Principals were randomly assigned specific scenarios (see Appendix B).
Table A.19 note: Table includes only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-...
Table includes only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
Table A.19 note: Only respondents who said their school- or district-level multi-person 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.
Module routing: respondents with a BTAM team or other school-based team received it
Respondents who indicated that their school had a school- or district-level BTAM team (or another school-based team that makes decisions regarding serious student behavioral concerns that is not referred to as a BTAM team) received this module.
Official-BTAM-team respondents told to answer from knowledge of their team
At the beginning of the module, respondents that indicated they had an official BTAM team received the following instructions, “You indicated that your [AUTOFILL] has a BTAM team. Please answer the following questions based on your knowledge of that team.”
Instructions autofilled with "school" for school-level or both-level teams
The instructions autofilled with “school” if respondents said that they had a school level BTAM team or that they had both school- and district-level teams.
Instructions autofilled with "district" for district-level teams
The instructions autofilled with “district” if respondents said that they had a district-level BTAM team.
Question stem autofilled "school or district" if team level unknown
The question stem autofilled with “school or district” if the respondent said that they did not know the level of the team.
Unofficial-team respondents told to answer about their team's practices
Respondents who indicated they had an unofficial BTAM team received the following instructions: “You indicated your school has a school-based team that makes decisions regarding student behavioral and other concerns. This team is not explicitly considered a behavioral threat assessment and management team. Please answer the following questions based on your knowledge of that team’s practices (although the questions will refer to it as a BTAM team).”
Table A.20 note: Columns 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)
Columns may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
Table A.20 note: Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team...
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.
Table A.21 note: Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
Table A.21 note: Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team...
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.
Table A.22 note: Respondents were instructed to select up to two responses that best capture law ...
Respondents were instructed to select up to two responses that best capture law enforcement’s most important roles on the team.
Table A.22 note: Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team...
Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions) and that this team includes school-based or non-school-based law enforcement saw this question.
Table A.23 note: Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team...
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.
Table A.24 note: Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team...
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.
Table A.25 note: Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team...
Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions) and that their team was using (1) a named model that we listed, (2) an “Other” model, or (3) a locally developed model saw this question.
Table A.25 note: The question stem was autofilled based on the respondent’s answer to the questio...
The question stem was autofilled based on the respondent’s answer to the question about what specific BTAM program they were using.
Table A.26 note: Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team...
Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions) and that their team was using (1) a named model that we listed or (2) an “Other” model saw this question.
Table A.26 note: The question stem was auto-filled based on the respondent’s answer to the questi...
The question stem was auto-filled based on the respondent’s answer to the question about what specific BTAM program they were using.
Table A.27 note: Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
Table A.27 note: Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM
Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions), that their team was using (1) a named model that we listed or (2) an “Other” model saw this question, and that said their school has made changes to the model saw this question.
Table A.27 note: The question stem was autofilled based on the respondent’s answer to the qu
The question stem was autofilled based on the respondent’s answer to the question about what specific BTAM program they were using.
Table A.28 note: Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM
Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions) and that their team was using (1) a named model that we listed, (2) an “Other” model, or (3) a locally developed model saw this question.
Table A.29 note: Respondents were instructed to select up to three responses.
Respondents were instructed to select up to three responses.
Table A.29 note: Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM
Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions); that their team was using (1) a named model that we listed, (2) an “Other” model, or (3) a locally developed model; and that said they were around for the initial implementation of this model saw this question.
Table A.30 note: Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
Table A.30 note: Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM
Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions); that their team was using (1) a named model that we listed, (2) an “other” model, or (3) a locally developed model; and that said they were around for the initial implementation of this model saw this question.
Table A.31 note: Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM
Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions); that their team was using (1) a named model that we listed, (2) an “Other” model, or (3) a locally developed model; that they were around for the initial implementation of this model; and that their BTAM team is somewhat or very effective at maintaining school safety saw this question.
Table A.32 note: Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM
Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions); that their team was using (1) a named model that we listed, (2) an “Other” model, or (3) a locally developed model; and that said they were around for the initial implementation of this model saw this question.
Table A.32 note: Table only includes data from respondents who said their school has a schoo
Table only includes data from respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team, not respondents who said they have an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions.
Table A.32 note: Rows 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)
Rows may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
Table A.32 note: FERPA = Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act; HIPAA = Health Insurance
FERPA = Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act; HIPAA = Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.
Appendix B describes survey of nationally representative K-12 principals via ASLP
In this appendix, we describe our methods for administering a survey to a nationally representative sample of K–12 public school principals via RAND’s American School Leader Panel (ASLP) and for analyzing the results of that survey.
Survey items designed in-house by RAND researchers, shaped by prior work on school safety
Survey items were designed in-house by RAND researchers and shaped by prior work on school safety and security.
Sponsor gave feedback; RAND kept editorial control and handled IRB review
Although the survey sponsor provided feedback on survey items, RAND researchers maintained editorial control and were responsible for institutional review board review and approval of the final survey.
Survey designed for principals in schools with and without BTAM teams, with different pathways
The survey was intentionally designed to gather information from both principals in schools with and without BTAM teams. More specifically, the survey was designed to allow respondents to progress through different pathways depending on their specific school context, as shown in Figure B.1.
Respondents were sorted onto pathways by initial screener items
Respondents were sorted onto one of the pathways depending on their responses to some initial screener items.
Main (longer) pathway for schools with BTAM teams, anticipated 20 minutes
The main (longer) pathway was designed to collect detailed information from respondents in schools with BTAM teams. It was anticipated that this pathway would take respondents 20 minutes to complete.
Schools without BTAM teams (or only an external team) got a shorter survey, at most 15 minutes
Respondents in schools that did not have BTAM teams (or had only an external team) progressed through a shorter survey, designed to take at the most 15 minutes to complete. These participants received more scenarios about discipline incidents at their schools.
Module 1: Introduction, screening: official BTAM team or school-based BTAM-like team? Leads to Modul
1 | Introduction (screening questions) | Module 2 (Yes / No / Don’t know)
Module 2: Scenarios (n = 3 / n = 5 / n = 5) leads to Module 3; Module 8 or 7; Module 7 or END
2 | Scenarios (n = 3 / n = 5 / n = 5) | Module 3; Module 8 or Module 7; Module 7 or END
Module 3: Inside BTAM; Module 4 if involved in initial implementation, else Module 5
3 | Inside BTAM | Module 4 if involved in initial implementation (Yes), else Module 5 (No)
Module 6: BTAM Sustainability; END if Outside BTAM = no; Module 7 if yes
6 | BTAM Sustainability | END if “Outside BTAM” = no; Module 7 if “Outside BTAM” = yes
In Module 2 respondents received scenarios describing a behavioral incident at school
In the second module of the survey, respondents received scenarios that described a behavioral incident that might occur at school.
Respondents read the scenario and were asked questions about how their school would respond
Respondents were asked to read the scenario and then were asked the following questions about how their school would respond to such an incident:
Scenario question 1: who is most likely to make the initial decision about responding
Which person or group is most likely to make the initial decision about how to respond to this student’s behavior?
Scenario question 2: what actions would this person or group likely take or recommend
Below is a list containing a wide variety of options schools can use to respond to concerning student behaviors, depending on their seriousness. Most incidents would involve only a subset of these options. What action(s) would this person or group at your school likely take or recommend in response to this student’s behavior?
Scenario question 3: would the BTAM team(s) serving your school be made aware
Would the BTAM team(s) serving your school be made aware of this student’s behavior?
Follow-up questions were tailored to the school's situation
The follow-up questions were tailored depending on the school’s situation. For example, schools that reported not having a BTAM team did not receive the third question asking whether their BTAM team would be made aware of the incident.
Personnel shown as possible responders reflected only personnel respondents said they had
The personnel (e.g., nurses, social workers, school-based law enforcement) that respondents saw who might respond to an incident reflected only those personnel that respondents said they had at their school.
Table B.1 lists the 16 scenarios; all were randomly assigned
Table B.1 lists the 16 scenarios used in the survey. All scenarios were randomly assigned.
BTAM-intensive pathway got three scenarios; shorter pathway got five
As shown in Figure B.1, the respondents on the BTAM-intensive survey pathway received three scenarios, while those on the shorter survey pathway received five scenarios.
Scenarios mixed severity (low, medium, high) and student populations affected
The scenarios were designed to include a mix of things, including severity of the incident (low, medium, or high) and student populations affected (e.g., special education student, general education student).
Low-severity scenarios: incidents in which BTAM teams likely should not be involved
Low-severity scenarios described incidents in which BTAM teams likely should not be involved (e.g., low-level discipline incidents, such as classroom misbehavior).
High-severity scenarios: BTAM teams definitely should be involved, e.g., direct threats
High-severity scenarios described incidents in which BTAM teams definitely should be involved, such as students making direct threats to themselves or others.
Medium-severity scenarios: borderline cases with more school discretion over BTAM involvement
Medium-severity scenarios were designed to describe borderline cases, in which schools might have more discretion over whether BTAM teams can or should be involved.
All respondents got one low and one high scenario; most got one medium, some three
All respondents received one low-severity scenario and one high-severity scenario. Most respondents then received one medium-severity scenario, although some respondents received three.
Respondents saw scenarios and follow-up questions in random order
Respondents saw their scenarios (and the associated follow-up questions) in a random order.
Scenarios were scaled to the grade level of students the school serves
The scenarios were scaled to the grade level of students in the schools that principals reported serving.
Principals categorized into grade levels from reported grades served that school year
Principals were first categorized into school grade levels based on their reports of the grade levels of students their schools served in that school year.
Middle grades: school contained grades 7 or 8
Principals were categorized as primarily serving middle grades if their school contained grades 7 or 8.
Elementary: school contained any grades from kindergarten through 6
Principals were categorized as serving primarily elementary grades if their school contained any grades from kindergarten through 6.
High school: school contained any grades from 9 through 12
Principals were categorized as serving primarily high school grades if their school contained any grades from 9 through 12.
Schools serving both elementary and high grades were randomly assigned elementary or high
If principals were in a school that served both elementary and high school grades, they were randomly assigned to be elementary or high.
Mostly elementary schools got elementary scenarios; mostly middle or high got secondary scenarios
Principals in schools serving mostly elementary grades were assigned the elementary scenarios, while principals in schools serving mostly middle or high school grades were assigned the secondary scenarios.
Grade scaling ensured scenarios felt plausible for incidents schools might encounter
This was to ensure that respondents received scenarios that felt more plausible for the type of incidents their schools might actually encounter in their jobs.
Scene A | Low | Elementary: a student repeatedly disruptive in class, wandering, interrupting, and s
A | Low | Elementary | A student is repeatedly disruptive in class, wandering the classroom, interrupting the lesson by talking to other students, and sometimes shouting loudly to get attention. The student does not respond to multiple teacher requests to stop their behavior.
Scene B | Low | Elementary: a student who regularly disrupts class (not considered threatening by te
B | Low | Elementary | A student regularly engages in disruptive behavior during class, but their teachers do not consider their behavior threatening. Last school year, the family declined staff suggestions that the student might benefit from supports for neurodiverse learners. This school year, the student’s behavior has escalated, and the student is involved in a physical altercation with another student that does not result in injuries.
Scene C | Medium | Elementary: a pushing altercation on the bus, the student saying they were trippe
C | Medium | Elementary | A student gets into a pushing altercation with another student on the bus. After the altercation is broken up by the bus driver, the student says they were responding to having been tripped while they were walking down the aisle. During the discussion with the student, the bus driver believes they smell alcohol on the student’s breath. The parents of the other student involved in the altercation call the school the next day concerned for their child’s safety on the bus.
Scene D | Medium | Elementary: a student shouting “I am going to kill you for that” at another stude
D | Medium | Elementary | A student has an intense verbal confrontation with another student at school, shouting, “I am going to kill you for that.” The student has no history of fighting or disruptive behavior but has had academic problems. A teacher who spoke with the student does not believe the threat was serious but does note that the student started crying during their conversation and would not share why they were so upset.
Scene E | Medium | Elementary: a student's drawing assignment depicting someone shooting at a group
E | Medium | Elementary | In a drawing assignment that asked students to visualize different ways to solve problems, a student draws a graphic picture of someone shooting at a group of people, including details like bleeding and other physical injuries. The teacher mentions previous unsuccessful attempts to contact the student’s family about their academic progress, and that the student had recently appeared withdrawn and sad in class.
Scene F | Medium | Elementary: a student with a history of emotional outbursts, non-compliance and d
F | Medium | Elementary | A student has a history of emotional outbursts and non-compliance with directions, including behaviors involving misuse of and damage to school property (e.g., pushing books off shelves, throwing objects). After a teacher attempts to redirect the behavior and takes their materials away, the student shouts, “You will be sorry tomorrow you did that.” The school established there were firearms in the home when responding to past behavioral incidents involving same student.
Scene G | Medium | Elementary: a peer reporting a student repeatedly writing disturbing notes, incre
G | Medium | Elementary | A peer reports that a fellow student has been repeatedly writing them disturbing notes. The student continues to send the notes after having been asked to stop and does not seem concerned about the effects they have been having on the other student. The notes have become more concerning over time, including descriptions of inappropriate contact, but do not include any explicit threats. The student is known to come from an unstable home environment, and the school became aware last year that the student was making repeated comments to their peers about a recent school shooting.
Scene H | High | Elementary: a student with a history of fights and disruption who complained of bei
H | High | Elementary | A student has a history of getting into fights with other students at school and being generally disruptive in the classroom. Earlier this year, the student complained about being singled out and bullied by many other members of the class. The student was later caught bringing a knife to school, explaining it was “for protection,” and an investigation determined that there were firearms in the family home. After a fight on the playground with a classmate, the student yells that “he’d be sorry” and warned another classmate that “they shouldn’t come to school tomorrow.”
Scene I | Low | Secondary: a student repeatedly disruptive in biology class, talking or playing on t
I | Low | Secondary | A student is repeatedly disruptive in their biology class, talking with other students or playing on their phone. Though in a course normally taken by students one grade below theirs, the student still appears to be struggling with the material. The teacher has made attempts to correct or redirect the behavior but has been unsuccessful and reached a point where frustration is affecting the entire class.
Scene J | Medium | Secondary: a student who regularly misses and is late to class, talks back aggres
J | Medium | Secondary | A student regularly misses classes and is repeatedly late to class. The student talks back to teachers in an aggressive tone when they are confronted about their tardiness and absences. After hearing breaking glass in a school bathroom, a hall monitor checks in to find a broken beer bottle on the bathroom floor; the student had just been seen exiting the bathroom.
Scene K | Medium | Secondary: two students pushing each other during a P.E. soccer activity who back
K | Medium | Secondary | During P.E., two students begin pushing each other during a soccer activity. When the P.E. teacher approaches and tells them to stop, both back off and apologize to varying degrees. The teacher notices and is concerned that one of the students still appears angry and agitated after the fight.
Scene L | Medium | Secondary: a student showing a pocketknife to other students in the hallway, sayi
L | Medium | Secondary | A teacher observes a student in the hallway between classes showing off a pocketknife to a group of other students. When questioned, the student replies they only wanted to show their new knife to their friends. No other students present at the time report that the student made threats or engaged in other concerning behavior. The student voluntary relinquishes the knife to the teacher when asked.
Scene M | Medium | Secondary: a student with a 504 plan who distracts peers and rarely completes ass
M | Medium | Secondary | A student regularly distracts peers with side conversations during class and rarely completes assignments despite having a 504 plan for additional academic support. After sustained disruptive behavior, the teacher moves the student to another seat in the classroom, which causes the student to complain they were treated unfairly. The teacher is asked to come to the office to discuss the situation with the student and school staff, at which point the student begins yelling profanities at the teacher. Last year, the student needed to be restrained after becoming violent with a teacher during a school field trip.
Scene N | Medium | Secondary: a student noticing another student especially interested in the Columb
N | Medium | Secondary | A student notices that another student in class is especially interested in the details of the Columbine High School shooting and the personal history of the students involved. The student repeatedly brings up the attackers by name during discussions with peers and has been searching for information about the incident on their school laptop. The teacher has also noticed that the student has become increasingly withdrawn in class.
Scene O | Medium | Secondary: a classmate reporting that a student is connected to a social media ac
O | Medium | Secondary | A classmate reports that another student at school is connected to a social media account that has posted threats targeting the school. A review of the account finds posts with pictures of weapons, discussions of grievances justifying violence, and indicators the author may be suicidal. The posts do not include specific details of planned violence but do carry an increasingly urgent and desperate tone. The student has also become increasingly isolated at school, and their grades have dropped. No information other than the classmate’s word connects the student to the account.
Scene P | High | Secondary: a hallway fight where an aggressor shouted “see you tomorrow for another
P | High | Secondary | A fight breaks out in the hallway during passing time, and student witnesses reported hearing one of the aggressors shout, “see you tomorrow for another round,” and the bullied student replying, “Fine. This ends tomorrow.” The incident involves a student who has a history of being bullied and was caught brandishing a knife (which they said they needed “to try to get all of them to stop”) last school year. An investigation determined that there were unsecured firearms in the family home.
Principal survey administered online in English Feb 5 to Feb 24, 2025
Our principal survey was administered online in English between February 5, 2025, and February 24, 2025.
Invited principals received multiple reminder emails
Invited principals received multiple reminder emails to participate.
Incentive scaled to survey length ($1 per minute)
Participants received an incentive upon completion of the survey, which was scaled to correspond to the length of the survey ($1 per minute).
Longer survey received a $20 incentive; shorter version $15
That is, those who received the longer survey received a $20 incentive, while those who received the shorter version received $15.
Respondents not told their pathway or which items triggered each pathway
To minimize the likelihood that respondents would change their survey answers to receive the higher incentive, respondents were not told which pathway they were on or which survey items triggered each pathway.
Two analysis goals set before fielding; first: national estimates for principals and schools
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.
Anticipated about 80 percent of 1,650 completes (n = 1,320) on full survey, 20 percent (n = 330) on
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).
Underestimated principals reporting another school-based team that is not called a BTAM team
However, we underestimated the number of principals who would indicate that their school had another “school-based team that makes decisions regarding serious student behavioral concerns that is not referred to as a behavioral assessment and management (BTAM) team” and receive the longer survey pathway.
Virtually all schools got the longer survey; only about 50 got the shorter pathway
This means that virtually all schools received the longer survey, and only about 50 schools received the shorter pathway intended to accommodate schools that were not doing BTAM.
Responses weighted to represent the national population of public school principals
Principals’ survey responses have been weighted to be representative of the national population of public school principals at the time the survey was administered.
Sampling weights created so the weighted sample resembles K–12 public school principals
To provide a weighted sample similar to the population of K–12 public school principals in the United States, we created sampling weights.
Weighting accounts for selection probability and response likelihood, then calibrates to the populat
The weighting process accounts for the probability of selection into the survey from the panel and the likelihood an invited principal completes the survey (the response weight), and these likelihoods are combined and calibrated to reproduce the population distribution of K–12 educators.
Final analysis weights are the product of three interim weights
More specifically, the final analysis weights used in our analyses are the product of the following three interim weights:
Interim weight 1: calibrated weight of the sampling frame, matched to NTPS national characteristics
calibrated weight of the sampling frame (a calibration weight that assigns a weight for each panelist based on individual- and school-level characteristics so that the sum of the weights along the calibration factors closely match the national characteristics of the national population of public school principals based on the NCES’s National Teacher and Principal Survey)
Interim weight 2: sample selection weight, inverse of probability of selection from the panel
sample selection weight (the inverse of the probability of selection into the survey sample using the panel as the frame)
Interim weight 3: survey response weight, inverse of modeled probability of completing the survey
survey response weight (the inverse of modeled probability of a principal completing the survey. The response adjustment is important to eliminate observed sources of response bias).
Products of the weights were recalibrated and trimmed if necessary
The products of these weights were subsequently recalibrated and trimmed if necessary.
Table B.3: respondents similar to the population before and after weighting
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.
Research effort included a nationally representative survey of principals
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.
Survey data are the first of their kind on how BTAM is operationalized
These novel data are the first of their kind to collect comprehensive data on how BTAM is being operationalized in schools across the country.
Report examines survey results on state of BTAM in K–12 public schools in 2025
This report takes an in-depth look at the results of that survey, providing a picture of the state of behavioral threat assessment and management (BTAM) in K–12 public schools across the country in 2025.
Back cover: survey was fielded in January 2025
The survey was fielded in January 2025.
Survey sought to understand how BTAM is implemented and operationalized at K–12 schools
The survey sought to understand how BTAM is being implemented and operationalized at K–12 schools.
Top
Find the Perfect Training Class For You