Report page 110

Observing outcomes across BTAM programs will internalize and reflect that variability.

In this sense, our results highlight the need for greater coherence in guiding schools toward evidence-based practices that are adaptable to local contexts but maintain fidelity to proven frameworks.

There is considerable variability in training for BTAM members across schools.

Fewer than half of schools provide BTAM team members with annual training, and approximately one-quarter of schools only provide training on an as-needed basis.

This inconsistency in training may hinder the ability of BTAM teams to develop critical competencies, for instance related to assessing risk, mitigating biases, and appropriately matching interventions and supports to individual student needs—all of which are foundational to effective violence prevention.

Schools located in urban and high-poverty areas are particularly likely to report challenges accessing training, highlighting obstacles that additional funding sources and support could help address.

A related challenge is the lack of standardization across critical BTAM team functions and operations.

There is little standardization in the way of BTAM team structure and meeting frequency, information-gathering and case review processes, and program evaluation.

Principals presented a mixed picture of how their BTAM teams approach these various elements, with some schools following structured processes but most relying on less formalized deliberations.

The reality is that half of schools do not have formal policies guiding their BTAM program and half do not have SOPs.

This means that while many schools may have implemented a BTAM program, it is not fully integrated and institutionalized in their school or school district.

This inconsistency underscores the need for clearer tools and resources to help schools establish systematic and effective team operations.

There is also considerable variation in how BTAM teams deliver interventions and develop management plans for students.

Although most teams emphasize individualized interventions tailored to student needs, there are wide differences in how teams structure their decisionmaking, draw on inventory resources, and use decision support tools.

This lack of consistency can affect the quality and effectiveness of interventions.

Schools would benefit from clearer guidance and best practices to ensure that interventions are implemented effectively and fairly.

The need may be driven by the strong recent adoption of BTAM, with a large percentage of schools adopting the practice in the past five years.

Although most schools conduct some form of review or reflection process to understand the impact that BTAM is having on student- and school-level outcomes, many lack deep or systematic approaches to continuous improvement.

Only a small percentage of schools reported that they engaged in review processes that included systematic data analysis or validation of intervention delivery by appropriately trained staff.

Similarly, although many schools are engaging in one activity related to continuous improvement within their BTAM program, relying on a single method is unlikely to yield the kind and quantity of information schools need to ensure that their BTAM program is working well and will continue to do so into the future.

Without multiple robust mechanisms for gathering feedback and assessing outcomes across cases, schools risk missing opportunities to improve the effectiveness of their BTAM programs and ensure that both specific interventions and the program as a whole are yielding the intended impact.