Report page 101

Total: supportive 43 percent, somewhat supportive 27 percent, total 71 percent

Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions

Total | 43 | 27 | 71

• School Community Support

cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time

Level: Elementary: supportive 44 percent, somewhat supportive 26 percent, total 70 percent

Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.1 subgroup bars (school level, locale, poverty, race/ethnicity, enrollment); each bar is a share of its own subgroup

Level | Elementary | 44 | 26 | 70

• School Community Support
• Subgroup Differences

cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time

Level: Middle: supportive 42 percent, somewhat supportive 29 percent, total 71 percent

Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.1 subgroup bars (school level, locale, poverty, race/ethnicity, enrollment); each bar is a share of its own subgroup

Level | Middle | 42 | 29 | 71

• School Community Support
• Subgroup Differences

cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time

Level: High: supportive 45 percent, somewhat supportive 28 percent, total 73 percent

Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.1 subgroup bars (school level, locale, poverty, race/ethnicity, enrollment); each bar is a share of its own subgroup

Level | High | 45 | 28 | 73

• School Community Support
• Subgroup Differences

cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time

Locale: Urban: supportive 42 percent, somewhat supportive 30 percent, total 71 percent

Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.1 subgroup bars (school level, locale, poverty, race/ethnicity, enrollment); each bar is a share of its own subgroup

Locale | Urban | 42 | 30 | 71

• School Community Support
• Subgroup Differences

cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time

Locale: Suburban: supportive 42 percent, somewhat supportive 26 percent, total 68 percent

Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.1 subgroup bars (school level, locale, poverty, race/ethnicity, enrollment); each bar is a share of its own subgroup

Locale | Suburban | 42 | 26 | 68

• School Community Support
• Subgroup Differences

cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time

Locale: Rural: supportive 46 percent, somewhat supportive 26 percent, total 72 percent

Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.1 subgroup bars (school level, locale, poverty, race/ethnicity, enrollment); each bar is a share of its own subgroup

Locale | Rural | 46 | 26 | 72

• School Community Support
• Subgroup Differences

cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time

Neighborhood poverty level: High: supportive 47 percent, somewhat supportive 25 percent, total 72 pe

Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.1 subgroup bars (school level, locale, poverty, race/ethnicity, enrollment); each bar is a share of its own subgroup

Neighborhood poverty level | High | 47 | 25 | 72

• School Community Support
• Subgroup Differences

cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time

Neighborhood poverty level: Middle: supportive 42 percent, somewhat supportive 28 percent, total 70

Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.1 subgroup bars (school level, locale, poverty, race/ethnicity, enrollment); each bar is a share of its own subgroup

Neighborhood poverty level | Middle | 42 | 28 | 70

• School Community Support
• Subgroup Differences

cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time

Neighborhood poverty level: Low: supportive 43 percent, somewhat supportive 27 percent, total 70 per

Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.1 subgroup bars (school level, locale, poverty, race/ethnicity, enrollment); each bar is a share of its own subgroup

Neighborhood poverty level | Low | 43 | 27 | 70

• School Community Support
• Subgroup Differences

cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time

Student racial/ethnic composition: Majority White students: supportive 46 percent, somewhat supporti

Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.1 subgroup bars (school level, locale, poverty, race/ethnicity, enrollment); each bar is a share of its own subgroup

Student racial/ethnic composition | Majority White students | 46 | 26 | 72

• School Community Support
• Subgroup Differences

cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time

Student racial/ethnic composition: Majority students of color: supportive 41 percent, somewhat suppo

Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.1 subgroup bars (school level, locale, poverty, race/ethnicity, enrollment); each bar is a share of its own subgroup

Student racial/ethnic composition | Majority students of color | 41 | 28 | 69

• School Community Support
• Subgroup Differences

cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time

Enrollment size: Small: supportive 44 percent, somewhat supportive 24 percent, total 67 percent

Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.1 subgroup bars (school level, locale, poverty, race/ethnicity, enrollment); each bar is a share of its own subgroup

Enrollment size | Small | 44 | 24 | 67

• School Community Support
• Subgroup Differences

cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time

Enrollment size: Large: supportive 43 percent, somewhat supportive 31 percent, total 74 percent

Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.1 subgroup bars (school level, locale, poverty, race/ethnicity, enrollment); each bar is a share of its own subgroup

Enrollment size | Large | 43 | 31 | 74

• School Community Support
• Subgroup Differences

cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time

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).

• School Community Support
• Survey Methodology

cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time

Figure 13.1 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.

• Methodology
• Sample

cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time

Figure 13.1 bars may not sum to totals because of rounding

Bars may not sum to totals because of rounding.

• Methodology

cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time

Principals not seeing community as supportive said it was neutral

Principals who did not see their school communities as supportive of BTAM said they believe that their communities were neutral on the topic.

• School Community Support

cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time

Unknown what informs neutral views; communities may lack knowledge or BTAM may not be pervasive

We do not know what informs these perspectives—it could be that school communities do not know enough about school BTAM programs to have an opinion either way or that the application of BTAM is not pervasive enough to make an impression.

• Limitations
• School Community Support

cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time

Only 2 percent of principals said their school communities were not supportive of their BTAM program

Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions

Only 2 percent of principals said they perceive that their school communities were not supportive of their BTAM program.

• School Community Support

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.

• Leadership Turnover
• Survey Methodology

cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time

Prior studies: dynamic, supportive school leader often important for BTAM effectiveness (Jackson et

The question was informed by other studies on program sustainability and on BTAM program implementation specifically that drew on the expertise of school safety staff across the country who indicated that a dynamic and supportive school leader was often important for school BTAM program effectiveness (see, e.g., Jackson et al., 2025).

• Leadership Turnover
• Prior Research

cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time

Two-thirds of principals believe their BTAM program would withstand leadership change

Two-thirds of principals said they believe their school’s BTAM program would withstand leadership change (see Figure 13.2).

• Leadership Turnover
• Sustainability

cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time

Highest-poverty school principals least likely to believe program withstands leadership change

Specifically, principals in the highest poverty schools were least likely to believe their BTAM program would withstand a leadership change, suggesting that BTAM sustainability in those schools may be more vulnerable.

• Leadership Turnover
• Subgroup Differences

cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time

High-poverty schools have historically had higher staff turnover than lower-poverty schools

This is notable because high-poverty schools have historically had higher levels of staff turnover, compared with lower-poverty schools (Education Resource Strategies [ERS], 2025; Carver-Thomas and Darling-Hammond, 2019).

• Leadership Turnover
• Prior Research

cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time

Additional support may be needed for institutional memory and leadership pipelines in high-poverty s

Findings therefore suggest additional support may be needed to build institutional memory and leadership pipelines in high-poverty schools, where BTAM program stability may be more fragile.

• Implications Recommendations
• Leadership Turnover

cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time

One notable difference by school characteristics was identified

We identified one notable difference by school characteristics.

• Leadership Turnover
• Subgroup Differences

cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time