Report page 24

We used the 2019 data as a reference point for understanding the existing BTAM implementation landscape as reported through the eyes of our survey respondents.

Grouping states into the three aforementioned categories allowed us to understand whether early encouragement or legislation by states to implement BTAM in schools (potentially associated with stronger funding, training, or other support for BTAM) might be related to the practices and outcomes reported by principals today.

Importantly, specific policies across states differ, even within each category.

Although both Maryland and Texas require schools to have BTAM teams, Texas explicitly requires that members of teams have a range of specific types of expertise “to the greatest extent practicable” (Texas School Safety Center, undated), and Maryland emphasizes coordination with the Maryland Center for School Safety (MCSS), which provides training and other resources to K–12 schools in this area (MCSS, undated).

Other states that required BTAM in schools as early as 2019, such as Kentucky, Nevada, and Oregon, also specifically stress the importance of multidisciplinary teams in the threat assessment process, with added emphasis on the role of mental health professionals.

These states also provide training to school staff through either state-level school safety agencies or state departments of education.

It should be noted that in the intervening years (i.e., between 2019 and the writing of this report in 2025), several states have made changes in law or policy regarding BTAM.

For example, as our study was underway, some states enacted new laws requiring that schools use BTAM or establish BTAM teams (e.g., New Jersey, Tennessee, Iowa); others have also done so since the 2019 analysis but prior to the start of our study (e.g., Vermont).

If states were to be grouped according to policies in place as of this writing in mid-2025, more would be included in the “legislation” category.

Nevertheless, understanding the implementation of early legislation by some states in 2019 is still useful for the purposes of this current analysis, insofar as it helps demonstrate how early state support in 2019 may have affected BTAM implementation over time across different state policy contexts.

We also considered to what extent certain aspects of a BTAM program (e.g., the number of people on a BTAM team, whether BTAM is housed at the school or district level) matter for its operations.

As it is infeasible to consider all subgroup differences for all survey items in this report, we present subgroup differences in the text where they were particularly notable or interesting and where they provide helpful context to understand national patterns.

Unless otherwise noted, we only call out subgroup differences in the text that are statistically significant at the p < 0.05 level.

We hope the findings presented in this report will shed new light on how BTAM is being implemented in K–12 schools through a much-needed, deeper understanding of nationally representative trends.

First, as is true of any survey that relies on self-reported data, certain biases—such as social desirability bias—may influence results, should respondents provide answers that they believe are more socially acceptable or favorable.

Biases can affect data accuracy, especially in areas related to such sensitive topics as school behavioral threat assessment.

Second, although our survey aimed to be representative of administrators in K–12 public schools across the country, our findings may still not fully capture the variety of experiences across different school sizes, geographical regions, and student and community demographics.

Differences in local policies (below the state level), available resources, and community factors can also influence safety practices, potentially limiting the generalizability of our results to all schools across the United States.

For example, among the 18 states in the early legislation category, current policies can look quite different.

We also hope that our findings provoke new ideas about how to better ensure the safety and well-being of individual students and entire school communities across the country.