Report page 61

Only 14 percent of principals said teams review students' public social media for every case

Sample (N = 1395) · Teams answering sources-of-information question

Somewhat surprisingly, only 14 percent of principals said their BTAM teams review students’ publicly available social media accounts or online footprint for every case.

• Information Gathering
• Outside Data Sources

cite page 61 Ch 8: How Do BTAM Teams Assess Risk of Harm?

The vast majority of schools check social media accounts at least sometimes

The vast majority of schools check these accounts at least sometimes, though not in all cases.

• Information Gathering
• Outside Data Sources

cite page 61 Ch 8: How Do BTAM Teams Assess Risk of Harm?

High school principals review social media at roughly twice the rate of elementary and middle school

High school principals said they review a student’s publicly available social media or online footprint at roughly twice the rate of their elementary and middle school counterparts.

• Outside Data Sources
• Subgroup Differences

cite page 61 Ch 8: How Do BTAM Teams Assess Risk of Harm?

Threats against K–12 schools via social media have risen (Moore et al., 2024)

This is somewhat surprising, given the rise of threats made against K–12 schools via social media (see, e.g., Moore et al., 2024).

• Outside Data Sources
• Prior Research

cite page 61 Ch 8: How Do BTAM Teams Assess Risk of Harm?

BTAM decisions are high stakes, so questions may arise about correctness and fairness

Because the decisions made by BTAM teams can be high stakes for both the students involved and individuals concerned by student behavior and those potentially affected by any threats, questions may arise about whether decisions made by the team are correct and whether they appropriately and fairly balance student and school community safety needs.

• Risk Assessment
• Threat Assessment Transparency

cite page 61 Ch 8: How Do BTAM Teams Assess Risk of Harm?

Given data sensitivity, it can be difficult for the process to be transparent enough to satisfy ever

Given the sensitivity of the data and decisionmaking involved in behavioral threat assessment, it can be difficult for the process to be transparent enough to satisfy everyone in all cases.

• Privacy Information Sharing
• Threat Assessment Transparency

cite page 61 Ch 8: How Do BTAM Teams Assess Risk of Harm?

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.

• Survey Methodology
• Threat Assessment Transparency

cite page 61 Ch 8: How Do BTAM Teams Assess Risk of Harm?

Sixty percent of principals said it would be feasible to justify decisions to concerned individuals

Sample (N = 1392) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)

Sixty percent of principals said they believe it would be feasible for their BTAM teams to justify their decisions about a specific case to concerned individuals outside the teams.

• Threat Assessment Transparency

cite page 61 Ch 8: How Do BTAM Teams Assess Risk of Harm?

Feasible means teams could explain the rationale to a parent, guardian, or other concerned individua

In other words, if asked, BTAM teams would be able to explain the rationale behind an assessment decision to a parent, guardian, or other concerned individual (i.e., why a student was determined to pose or not pose a threat).

• Key Terms
• Threat Assessment Transparency

cite page 61 Ch 8: How Do BTAM Teams Assess Risk of Harm?

Principals said explanations are possible because the process captures detailed rationale and data

Principals indicated that such explanations would be possible because their BTAM process captures detailed information about both the rationale and data behind an assessment.

• Data And Records
• Threat Assessment Transparency

cite page 61 Ch 8: How Do BTAM Teams Assess Risk of Harm?

Another 32 percent of principals said their team could potentially justify an outcome

Sample (N = 1392) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)

Another 32 percent of principals said they believe their BTAM team could potentially justify an outcome.

• Threat Assessment Transparency

cite page 61 Ch 8: How Do BTAM Teams Assess Risk of Harm?

Principals were evenly split: half cite case-to-case variation, half cite verbal deliberations

Principals were evenly split over why this might be difficult: Half of this group noted that explaining an outcome would be difficult because of how much their process differs from case to case (i.e., their team does not use a standardized process for assessment), and the other half felt it would be difficult because assessments are the result of verbal deliberations among BTAM team members (i.e., there is no documentation that could serve as the basis for explanation).

• Standardization Gaps
• Threat Assessment Transparency

cite page 61 Ch 8: How Do BTAM Teams Assess Risk of Harm?

7 percent of principals said their team could not explain the rationale because files and deliberati

Sample (N = 1392) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)

The remaining 7 percent of principals said their BTAM team would not be able to explain the rationale behind the outcome of their threat assessment process of a student because their BTAM files and deliberations are closed.

• Privacy Information Sharing
• Threat Assessment Transparency

cite page 61 Ch 8: How Do BTAM Teams Assess Risk of Harm?

Principals with more standardized, well-documented processes were most likely to say they could expl

Principals in schools with more standardized and well-documented BTAM processes—often schools with large BTAM teams (meaning teams with more roles represented) and those served by both school-level and district-level BTAM teams—were most likely to indicate that their teams would be able explain the rationale behind an assessment decision to concerned individuals (e.g., parents or other community members), highlighting a key advantage of consistency in assessment procedures.

• Subgroup Differences
• Threat Assessment Transparency

cite page 61 Ch 8: How Do BTAM Teams Assess Risk of Harm?