Report pages 100–107: 147 claims on pp. 100–106 (fact 103, statement 4, evidence 4, conclusion 3, conjecture 12, definition 21).
the policy challenge going forward is less about advancing adoption of BTAM as a component of schools safety efforts—the vast majority of schools already have done so—and more about how to improve existing programs.
We present the data in this chapter with an eye toward continuous improvement, focusing again on those schools with official BTAM teams.
Studies of program implementation in many areas have identified many risks to program sustainment, including resource constraints that force the closure of good programs; “drifting” away from careful program delivery so that over time a program morphs into something different than originally intended; and staff turnover or changes in leadership that remove the program’s “champion,” meaning no one is there to ensure continued quality and performance (see Lane et al., 2019, for a review).
Several factors must be in place to ensure the sustainability of BTAM programs.
Buy-in and ongoing support from the school community, belief across multiple groups—leaders, staff, parents, and students—that the program is working to improve school safety, and resilience to staff turnover are especially critical.
As we discuss in this section, our data suggest that many schools already have some of the suitable factors in place to support the continued operation of their BTAM programs into the future, but there are areas where additional support could strengthen BTAM sustainability and continuous improvement.
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
As shown in Figure 13.1, 71 percent of principals overall, across all school characteristics, believe that their school community is supportive of BTAM.
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
This includes 43 percent who perceive their school community as supportive and 27 percent who perceive their community as somewhat supportive.
Sample (N = 1376 total; column N not printed) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
Principals of large schools were slightly more likely than principals of small schools to view their community as supportive of BTAM (74 versus 67 percent, respectively).
In this chapter, we look toward the future to discuss what principals told us about what they think could help strengthen BTAM in K–12 schools and how their programs incorporate processes and activities focused on improving program effectiveness over time.
Even when schools adopt valuable programs that help students and lead to better outcomes—not just for school safety but also for academic, school climate, and other goals—there is no guarantee that these programs will be successfully sustained over time.
Principals who serve in a variety of school settings perceive that their school community is supportive of BTAM as a school safety approach.
We observed only one statistically significant difference when it comes to school characteristics
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
Total | 43 | 27 | 71
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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).
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
Bars may not sum to totals because of rounding.
Principals who did not see their school communities as supportive of BTAM said they believe that their communities were neutral on the topic.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Two-thirds of principals said they believe their school’s BTAM program would withstand leadership change (see Figure 13.2).
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.
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).
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.
We identified one notable difference by school characteristics.
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
Total | 28 | 34 | 63
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.2 subgroup bars; each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Level | Elementary | 25 | 36 | 61
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.2 subgroup bars; each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Level | Middle | 33 | 31 | 64
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.2 subgroup bars; each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Level | High | 32 | 33 | 65
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.2 subgroup bars; each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Locale | Urban | 27 | 35 | 62
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.2 subgroup bars; each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Locale | Suburban | 33 | 36 | 69
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.2 subgroup bars; each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Locale | Rural | 25 | 33 | 58
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.2 subgroup bars; each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Neighborhood poverty level | High | 24 | 31 | 55
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.2 subgroup bars; each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Neighborhood poverty level | Middle | 29 | 33 | 62
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.2 subgroup bars; each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Neighborhood poverty level | Low | 29 | 40 | 69
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.2 subgroup bars; each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Student racial/ethnic composition | Majority White students | 29 | 34 | 63
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.2 subgroup bars; each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Student racial/ethnic composition | Majority students of color | 27 | 35 | 62
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.2 subgroup bars; each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Enrollment size | Small | 27 | 32 | 59
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.2 subgroup bars; each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Enrollment size | Large | 29 | 37 | 66
This figure depicts response data from the following survey question: “Would a leadership change at your school (e.g., were you to vacate your position) result in changes to your school's use of or approach to BTAM?” (n = 1,376).
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
Bars may not sum to totals because of rounding.
A key element of BTAM program effectiveness over the long term is incorporating processes to identify challenges and take steps to address challenges and improve performance over time.
Approximately four in ten schools reported that their BTAM process has been generally stable, using established approaches for assessing cases and planning interventions.
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
However, the other 60 percent reported that they have made one or more changes to the program since its initial implementation.
Sample (n = undeterminable of 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
Most commonly, principals indicated that their BTAM process changed as they aimed to make it more effective at protecting the school and students (30 percent) or adjustments were needed for BTAM to better fit their school’s needs (24 percent).
Sample (n = undeterminable of 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
Few schools reported making changes in response to specific problems, such as resource or other constraints that limited the capacity of BTAM (12 percent) or concerns in the community about how BTAM would affect students (3 percent).
These patterns suggest that schools made changes to BTAM processes to help improve how BTAM worked in their specific school or community context, rather than in response to challenges that might otherwise jeopardize the effective functioning of a school BTAM program.
Sample (N = 1376) · Official BTAM teams only answering Table A.51
That said, 14 percent of schools did change their BTAM process in response to changes to state law or policy regarding BTAM.
Schools located in our group of states with early legislation in 2019 (see Chapter 1) were most likely to indicate that their processes had changed in response to such shifts in state law or policy.
Given that that group of states put prescriptive policies in place early regarding local use of BTAM, it is perhaps unsurprising that principals in those states told us they were affected by changes in those policies
since the 2019 study that provides the basis for the grouping of the states, some of those states—including Georgia and Michigan—have gone from strong encouragement of BTAM through policy or regulation to enacting laws covering school BTAM adoption) (Child Trends and the NASBE, 2021).
To assess what challenges schools’ BTAM programs are facing now, we gave survey respondents a menu of 13 options they could flag as current concerns (Figure 13.3).
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
A slight majority of schools (56 percent) said their school’s BTAM program is currently experiencing (or has experienced) one or more of the 13 challenges.
Among those who were experiencing current challenges, half of schools identified one or two.
Very few schools identified more than five challenges.
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
The most common challenge, selected by 30 percent of schools, relates to the unwillingness of parents when it comes to implementing or participating in recommended interventions.
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
The second most commonly identified challenge, selected by 21 percent of schools, relates to service provider capacity limits over how many students they are able to serve.
Importantly, these top two challenges relate to external factors
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
Parents unwilling to implement or participate in recommended interventions | 30
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
Service provider capacity limits for how many students each can serve | 21
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
Staffing constraints make BTAM difficult to maintain | 16
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
Problems maintaining connections to outside service providers for intervention | 16
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
Parents unable to support individual intervention efforts
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
Staff or district leaders concerned that BTAM is too complex | 9
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
Concerns about BTAM effectiveness in reducing school violence | 9
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
Problems getting data from outside organizations
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
Can't get needed training for BTAM team members | 7
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
Difficulty funding continued BTAM operation | 7
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
Reduction in school staff support for the BTAM program | 7
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
Difficulties adapting BTAM to local needs | 5
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
Reduction in community support for the BTAM program | 2
This figure depicts response data from the following survey question: “Is your school experiencing or has it experienced any of the following challenges when it comes to operating its BTAM program?” (n = 1,376).
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
For example, because of costs.
For example, law enforcement, medical providers.
rather than issues directly under the control of a school BTAM team or the school more generally, potentially explaining why they may be especially difficult to resolve.
Why inferred The sentence crosses a page break: this quote is the page 104 part and the sentence begins on page 103 (claim p103-08). Full sentence (pages 103–104): “Importantly, these top two challenges relate to external factors rather than issues directly under the control of a school BTAM team or the school more generally, potentially explaining why they may be especially difficult to resolve.”
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
Staffing constraints were identified as the top internal challenge related to BTAM; 16 percent of schools reported that staffing constraints can make BTAM difficult to maintain.
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
Seven percent of schools also reported not being able to access necessary training, and another 7 percent reported difficulty funding continued BTAM operations.
Notably, sufficient staff time was also the top concern identified by principals who were asked questions about their experiences during BTAM’s initial implementation phase.
This suggests that staff capacity is likely a perennial concern for schools asked to do increasingly more to support students.
The capacity of outside providers (presumably to accommodate students referred by the BTAM team) was also a top concern identified by principals during the initial implementation phase, and it remains as a top ongoing challenge.
Importantly, even though schools selected a variety of challenges, they did not coalesce around any single challenge that might indicate more systemic problems operating a BTAM program.
At most, only a minority of schools experienced any one challenge.
This could imply that school characteristics might be significant in determining the types of challenges schools experience when it comes to operating BTAM programs.
Although the differences were small, we found some limited evidence for two challenges in particular: (1) training for BTAM team members and (2) reduction in school staff support for a BTAM program.
Principals of urban schools, high-poverty schools, and schools serving a majority of students of color (highly overlapping categories) were especially likely to report experiencing these two challenges.
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Locale groups (urban, suburban, rural) among schools with a BTAM team; each figure is a share of its own locale group
For example, 10 percent of urban school principals said they struggled to get needed BTAM training, as did 7 percent of suburban school principals and 5 percent of rural school principals.
Schools in states that did not promote BTAM via legislation or non-codified policy in 2019 were also more likely to identify training gaps as an issue, suggesting that some state policies related to BTAM may specifically include providing training to schools at no or reduced cost.
BTAM teams need a process to identify ongoing issues or opportunities for change with an eye toward improving performance if they want to get better over time; teams that do not proactively seek out such issues or opportunities will likely miss chances to improve outcomes related to BTAM.
In our survey, we asked principals if their schools’ BTAM teams engaged in any such activities, ranging from after-action reviews of past cases to systematic data analyses across cases and gathering feedback from program participants.
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
Overall, 87 percent of principals reported that their school’s BTAM team engaged in one or more of the review or continuous improvement processes included as survey response options.
As shown in Figure 13.4, responses clustered around a handful of review or continuous improvement processes; very few schools engaged in all or even most of the activities we asked about.
only a minority of schools reported engaging in each action.
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
Principals most commonly reported conducting after-action reviews of individual cases (48 percent reported doing so).
Taken together, these data suggest that, though many schools are thinking about continuous improvement, too few are engaged in concrete activities to better understand how their BTAM teams are operating.
Providing more support to schools so that they can engage in more continuous improvement activities could help them achieve better school safety outcomes over time.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, schools with large BTAM teams (meaning teams with more roles represented) engaged in more review and continuous improvement activities, compared with schools with smaller teams (see Figure 13.5).
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Schools with large BTAM teams
For example, 38 percent of schools with large BTAM teams validate that specific
Why inferred The sentence crosses a page break: this quote is the page 104 part and the sentence continues on page 105. Full sentence (pages 104–105): “For example, 38 percent of schools with large BTAM teams validate that specific intervention options are being delivered as designed, by appropriately trained staff, and for the amount of time recommended in an intervention plan.”
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
| 0 | 13 |
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
| 1 | 21 |
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
| 2 | 16 |
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
| 3 | 15 |
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
| 4 | 13 |
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
| 5 | 6 |
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
| 6 | 5 |
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
| 7 | 4 |
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
| 8 | 2 |
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
| 9 | 1 |
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
| 10 | 2 |
This figure depicts response data from the following survey question: “Which of the following processes are part of how your BTAM program operates?” (n = 1,376).
Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
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)
Percentages do not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Schools with small BTAM teams
In comparison, only 22 percent of schools with small BTAM teams engaged in these types of activities.
Schools with larger teams were also more likely to engage in other activities, such as periodic reassessments of the menu of BTAM intervention options, analysis of student outcome data, and collecting feedback from students and parents or guardians at case closure.
We presume that because of their size, larger teams have more capacity to support these sorts of activities.
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.5 columns: schools with small BTAM teams; schools with large BTAM teams
We conduct after-action reviews of individual cases | 41 | 49
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.5 columns: schools with small BTAM teams; schools with large BTAM teams
We collect and analyze data about how specific intervention options are influencing student-level outcomes | 35 | 41
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.5 columns: schools with small BTAM teams; schools with large BTAM teams
We validate that specific intervention options are being delivered as designed, by appropriately trained staff, and for the recommended amount of time* | 22 | 38
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.5 columns: schools with small BTAM teams; schools with large BTAM teams
We collect feedback from school staff who have been directly involved in implementing BTAM interventions* | 25 | 33
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.5 columns: schools with small BTAM teams; schools with large BTAM teams
We periodically assess and revise the menu of interventions available to the BTAM team* | 23 | 31
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.5 columns: schools with small BTAM teams; schools with large BTAM teams
We collect and analyze data on student outcomes across all students served by the program to monitor the overall effectiveness of our BTAM efforts* | 17 | 30
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.5 columns: schools with small BTAM teams; schools with large BTAM teams
We carry out training and outreach for the school staff and students to maintain knowledge of BTAM and how to refer individuals of concern* | 15 | 24
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.5 columns: schools with small BTAM teams; schools with large BTAM teams
We collect feedback from students and/or parents/guardians of students once their BTAM intervention is complete* | 13 | 20
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.5 columns: schools with small BTAM teams; schools with large BTAM teams
We collect feedback from students, parents/guardians, and/or staff who were the targets or victims of threatening behavior | 18 | 19
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.5 columns: schools with small BTAM teams; schools with large BTAM teams
We collect and analyze data on student outcomes for different student populations to assess the fairness of our BTAM efforts*
This figure depicts response data from the following survey question: “Which of the following processes are part of how your BTAM program operates?” (n = 1,376).
Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
An asterisk (*) indicates that the percentage of principals in schools with small BTAM teams who said their team engages in a specific review and reflection process was statistically significantly different from the percentage of principals in schools with large BTAM teams who said similarly.
For example, special education students, neurodiverse students, race/ethnicity minority students, gender and sexual minority students, socioeconomically disadvantaged students.
Find the Perfect Training Class For You
