Sample (N = 1404 | 423 | 481 | 842 by column) · Table 6.1 columns: All, Not Addressed (other states), States That Encouraged BTAM Use, Early Legislation States
Named models | 20 | 22 | 13 | 23
Sample (N = 1404 | 423 | 481 | 842 by column) · Table 6.1 columns: All, Not Addressed (other states), States That Encouraged BTAM Use, Early Legislation States
“Other” program | 11 | 8 | 9 | 12
Sample (N = 1404 | 423 | 481 | 842 by column) · Table 6.1 columns: All, Not Addressed (other states), States That Encouraged BTAM Use, Early Legislation States
Locally developed program | 30 | 26 | 33 | 30
Sample (N = 1404 | 423 | 481 | 842 by column) · Table 6.1 columns: All, Not Addressed (other states), States That Encouraged BTAM Use, Early Legislation States
No defined program | 18 | 19 | 19 | 17
Sample (N = 1404 | 423 | 481 | 842 by column) · Table 6.1 columns: All, Not Addressed (other states), States That Encouraged BTAM Use, Early Legislation States
Don’t know | 22 | 24 | 27 | 18
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).
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
Sample (no n: a percentage change, not a share of a sample) · a percentage that is not a share of a sample (e.g. a percentage-point change or a weighted estimate of the population)
Rows may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
developed frameworks referenced above, most often the Florida Harm Prevention and Threat Management Model, Texas School Safety Center Threat Assessment Guidelines, and Wisconsin School Threat Assessment and Management Protocol (Florida Department of Education, 2025; Texas School Safety Center, undated; Wisconsin Department of Justice Office of School Safety, 2025).
Why inferred The sentence crosses a page break: this quote is the page 53 part and the sentence begins on page 52. Full sentence (pages 52–53): “In free-text responses, some of these principals mentioned using the state-developed frameworks referenced above, most often the Florida Harm Prevention and Threat Management Model, Texas School Safety Center Threat Assessment Guidelines, and Wisconsin School Threat Assessment and Management Protocol (Florida Department of Education, 2025; Texas School Safety Center, undated; Wisconsin Department of Justice Office of School Safety, 2025).”
These frameworks largely align with best practices identified by the U.S. Secret Service’s NTAC.
Sample (N = 1404) · Teams answering which program the team uses to structure its BTAM approach (Table 6.1)
Meanwhile, 18 percent of principals responded that they do not use a defined model as part of the approach to BTAM, and 22 percent were not sure what BTAM model their school or district was using.
Schools’ likelihood of using named models depended on various factors, most notably their state policy context.
Unsurprisingly, schools in states that already had legislation in 2019 were the most likely to use named models (some states with early legislation included states where named models were developed in their state—e.g., Virginia).
However, the use of named models was still relatively uncommon even in these states and equal to the likelihood of schools in states that did not address BTAM in 2019 policy.
Schools in the group of states that encouraged but did not mandate BTAM use in 2019 were the least likely to use named BTAM models.
Our results also show that schools with smaller BTAM teams, those located in large school districts, and those that only have district-level teams are the least likely to adopt named models.
Find the Perfect Training Class For You
