Report pages 40–51: 207 claims on pp. 40–50 (fact 143, statement 24, evidence 10, conclusion 10, conjecture 14, definition 6).
We examine the policies and procedures schools have in place that are specific to BTAM, the membership structure of school BTAM teams, the training that team members receive, how often these teams meet, and how they are funded.
Sample (n = 1408 of 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
To do so, we focus on the 82 percent of schools in our sample (n = 1,408) that had an official BTAM team.
Throughout our analysis, we consider how and to what extent differences in the operation of BTAM programs may be related to factors such as BTAM team size, team level (school-level only, district-level only, or both), and other school characteristics.
At the end of this chapter, we explore how BTAM operations differ across schools in states with different BTAM policy contexts in 2019.
Policies and procedures specific to BTAM help ensure that the overall process is implemented with fidelity across individual cases and that policies help provide structure, consistency, and accountability.
Procedures provide clear guidelines, such as step-by-step instructions for implementing specific components of BTAM (e.g., conducting behavioral threat assessments, assigning supports and interventions).
Clear procedures for assessment and management help improve the reliability of BTAM outcomes at both the individual student level and broader school level.
Policies can touch on various BTAM topics; some policies, for instance, will specify the composition of BTAM teams to ensure that multiple perspectives and experiences provide input into the various BTAM steps.
Having policies specific to the BTAM team can also add a degree of formality by specifying leadership roles, details about meeting structure and regularity, and training requirements for team members.
Some policies related to BTAM also mandate the collection of specific types of data about individual cases, allowing schools to analyze trends and improve their practices over time.
Sample (N = 1441) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
The majority of principals (71 percent) said they are extremely familiar with BTAM (e.g., they are a member of the team or lead it or otherwise have detailed knowledge).
Sample (N = 1441) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Another 25 percent said they were at least somewhat familiar (e.g., “you have referred students and/or have knowledge of the team’s processes”).
Principals’ overwhelming familiarity with BTAM increases our confidence about the accuracy of the responses they provided to our survey.
At the onset of this project, we were concerned that principals may not always be familiar enough with their school- or district-level BTAM teams to be able to answer detailed questions about how these teams operate. Therefore, we confirmed principals' familiarity in our survey (see Appendix A, Table A.8).
Implementing BTAM with fidelity means consistently following established protocols and best practices for BTAM, ensuring that each step of the process is carried out as intended by the chosen model or guidelines, whether a school has chosen to adopt an existing, named model or developed its own model to meet its needs.
In this chapter, we investigate how public schools are operationalizing BTAM as part of their school safety efforts.
Sample (N = 1401) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
A slight majority of schools (53 percent) with BTAM teams have an explicit policy document that establishes and defines their BTAM program.
Principals in schools in large districts and in schools serving a majority of students of color were more likely than their counterparts to indicate their BTAM program had defining policy documents.
Schools with larger BTAM teams and with teams spanning both the school and district levels—perhaps a proxy for the formality of a BTAM program—were also more likely to have defining policy documents.
Sample (N = 1401) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
However, 23 percent of principals did not know whether their school’s BTAM program had a defining policy document.
This is somewhat concerning; if these schools do have policies in place related to BTAM, principals’ responses suggest that the school leader is often not aware of the policy document’s content.
Principals in schools with only a district-level BTAM team were especially likely to report being unsure about whether the program had a defining policy document.
Sample (N = 1400) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
About half of schools with BTAM teams (49 percent) have written standard operating procedures (SOPs) that guide team functions.
Similar to the patterns we observed around the existence of defining policy documents, SOPs were more common in schools serving a majority of students of color, in large districts, and in support of large teams and schools with teams at both the school and district levels.
Sample (N = 1400) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
One in five principals were not sure whether their school or district had established SOPs for how their BTAM team regularly functions.
Principals in schools that had only district-level BTAM teams were especially unsure about whether these teams functioned according to established SOPs.
The BTAM process relies on a multidisciplinary team of individuals to assess the level of concern appropriate to specific behaviors or threats and make decisions about how to respond.
That is, a BTAM team should bring together individuals with different but complementary expertise to best assess and respond to individual referred cases and student needs.
Most named BTAM frameworks and even some laws or regulations in states requiring or supporting BTAM implementation specify minimum team sizes and specific disciplines that must or should be represented (see, e.g., NTAC, 2018; National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments, undated).
Most commonly, BTAM models or implementation guidance recommend including individuals from school administration (e.g., a principal or assistant principal), mental health services (e.g., a counselor or school psychologist), and public safety (e.g., a school resource officer [SRO] or another individual with security expertise).
That said, a wide variety of other specialists and individuals with community or other knowledge are often flagged as additional potential team members (e.g., instructional staff, special education professionals, among others).
Because the number and types of specialists that are part of the team can drive the performance of BTAM teams, team composition and roles that different individuals play on the team were significant focuses of the survey.
Our survey asked principals to indicate which people were members of their BTAM team based on a list of ten different types of roles.
As shown in Figure 5.1, principals indicated that a variety of school- or district-based individuals (and outside individuals) from administrators to mental health providers are part of these
Why inferred The sentence crosses a page break: this quote is the page 41 part and the sentence continues on page 42. Full sentence (pages 41–42): “As shown in Figure 5.1, principals indicated that a variety of school- or district-based individuals (and outside individuals) from administrators to mental health providers are part of these teams.”
Sample (N = 1408) · Schools with an official BTAM team (82 percent of sample)
Principal | 84 | | 84
Sample (N = 1408) · Schools with an official BTAM team (82 percent of sample)
Other school administrators | 69 | | 69
Sample (N = 1408) · Schools with an official BTAM team (82 percent of sample)
District administrators | 36 | | 36
Sample (N = 1408) · Schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team answering the Figure 5.1 team-membership question
School-based law enforcement | 45 | 7 | 53
Sample (N = 1408) · Schools with an official BTAM team (82 percent of sample)
Non-school-based law enforcement | | 13 | 13
Sample (N = 1408) · Schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team answering the Figure 5.1 team-membership question
Counselor | 82 | 3 | 84
Sample (N = 1408) · Schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team answering the Figure 5.1 team-membership question
Social worker | 44 | 6 | 50
Sample (N = 1408) · Schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team answering the Figure 5.1 team-membership question
Psychologist | 43 | 6 | 49
Sample (N = 1408) · Schools with an official BTAM team (82 percent of sample)
Instructional staff | 45 | | 45
Sample (N = 1408) · Schools with an official BTAM team (82 percent of sample)
Special education specialist | 43 | | 43
This figure depicts response data from the following survey question: “Which person(s) are regular members of this BTAM team?” (n = 1,408).
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
Bars may not sum to totals because of rounding.
Sample (N = 1408) · Schools with an official BTAM team (82 percent of sample)
By far, the two most common members were principals and counselors (both 84 percent).
Sample (N = 1408) · Schools with an official BTAM team (82 percent of sample)
However, majorities of school BTAM teams also included other school administrators (69 percent), school-based law enforcement (53 percent), and social workers (50 percent).
Sample (N = 1408) · Schools with an official BTAM team (82 percent of sample)
Other individuals were also commonly included on BTAM teams, such as school psychologists (49 percent), instructional staff (45 percent), and special education specialists (43 percent).
Sample (N = 1408) · Schools with an official BTAM team (82 percent of sample)
District administrators were included on BTAM teams at 36 percent of schools, and 13 percent of schools included non-school-based law enforcement on their teams.
Principals’ responses indicate that BTAM teams are overwhelmingly composed of individuals internal to the school (i.e., who are on staff or are located at the school).
Sample (N = 1408) · Schools with an official BTAM team (82 percent of sample)
For example, 49 percent of schools had a psychologist on their BTAM teams.
Sample (N = 1408) · Schools with an official BTAM team (82 percent of sample)
The majority of schools with a psychologist on their teams indicated they had a psychologist on staff at school either full time or part time (43 percent of schools overall)
In another survey item, we asked principals which types of staff members they have at their school, including counselors, nurses, social workers, psychologists, and law enforcement officers (see Appendix A, Table A.5).
If schools had these personnel on staff either part time or full time, we assumed that it was these internal personnel who would be those serving on the BTAM team.
In cases where schools told us that they did not have these individuals at their school but did have that role represented on their BTAM team, we presumed that role was played by individuals from outside the school.
We also assumed that some positions (e.g., school and district administrators, instructional staff, education specialists) are always internal to the school and that, by definition, non-school-based law enforcement personnel are always external to the school.
Sample (N = 1408) · Schools with an official BTAM team (82 percent of sample)
Only 6 percent of schools noted that they had a psychologist on their BTAM teams but not on staff at their schools
this indicates that these schools made the extra effort to ensure that these disciplines were represented on the team, even though it required them to draw personnel from outside their current staffing.
We saw this same pattern with all the health professional positions we asked about, suggesting that schools’ access to school-based mental and physical health staff usually shapes whether their BTAM team includes such personnel.
This is noteworthy because schools have differential access to various types of school-based personnel, and accessing those disciplines from outside the school can be challenging, especially when it comes to individuals with specialized expertise.
Which specific personnel were included on schools’ BTAM teams was also highly related to the school context (although this is intertwined with which types of schools tend to have which staff, as discussed in the “Differential Access to School Personnel Likely Shapes the Composition of BTAM Teams” box).
For example, secondary (middle and high) schools were more likely to have a greater variety of personnel on their teams—including other school administrators beyond the principal, school-based law enforcement, counselors, and social workers—than their elementary counterparts.
Schools in small districts (those serving fewer than 10,000 students) were especially likely to directly include school principals and district administrators on their BTAM teams.
Conversely, in large districts, other school administrators, such as assistant principals, were more likely to be involved.
We infer from these patterns that larger districts might have greater capacity for specialized roles or delegation of specific individuals to be involved in BTAM, given they tend to employ more school- and district-level administrators.
We also observed some differences in school BTAM team composition by school poverty level.
For example, schools in higher-income neighborhoods were more likely to have school psychologists than schools serving lower-income neighborhoods.
We also used principals’ responses to our question about which personnel were represented on their school’s BTAM team to infer how many people were on the team overall, assuming one person per role.
We acknowledge that some schools may involve multiple people in the same role: For example, a BTAM team might include several instructional staff.
we found that nearly all principals selected between three and eight personnel from the list provided (see Figure 5.2).
The typical (median) principal selected five distinct roles.
To understand how BTAM team membership changes as these teams increase in size (i.e., which types of personnel are added as teams grow), we investigated the likelihood of various types of personnel being on a BTAM teams given team size.
We focus on schools with between three and eight team members because there are very few schools with BTAM teams that fall outside this range.
Principals’ reports suggest that they and their school counselors are the most commonly represented roles on school BTAM teams.
Federal government data from the 2021–2022 school year paint a somewhat different picture, showing that high-poverty schools were actually more likely than low-poverty schools to have both diagnostic mental health assessment services and mental health treatment services (NCES, 2024).
The composition of schools’ BTAM teams is likely related to which personnel are present at school—either employed directly by the district or as part of a contract agreement.
That is, schools with regular access to specialized staff are more likely to include these staff on their BTAM teams, compared with schools that lack such regular access.
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals, staff available at school question
Unsurprisingly, we found that some types of staff were much more common than others, with principals reporting as follows: school counselor (89 percent), school nurse (89 percent), school psychologist (67 percent), sworn law enforcement officer (58 percent), social worker (56 percent), and security guard (22 percent).
For example, middle and high schools were more likely to have school-based law enforcement officers and other security staff who are not law enforcement officers present at school.
Meanwhile, low-poverty schools were more likely than their middle- and especially high-poverty counterparts to have social workers and school psychologists.
Rural schools were also less likely to have mental health personnel available, but they were more likely to have sworn law enforcement officers (including SROs).
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals, staff available at school question
Total | 89 | 89 | 56 | 67 | 58 | 22
Sample (N = 1746 total; column N not printed) · All principals, staff available at school question
Elementary | 84 | 90 | 51 | 68 | 47 | 16
Sample (N = 1746 total; column N not printed) · All principals, staff available at school question
Middle | 96 | 91 | 63 | 72 | 74 | 26
Sample (N = 1746 total; column N not printed) · All principals, staff available at school question
High | 97 | 86 | 63 | 62 | 73 | 34
Sample (N = 1746 total; column N not printed) · All principals, staff available at school question
Urban | 87 | 88 | 60 | 72 | 41 | 32
Sample (N = 1746 total; column N not printed) · All principals, staff available at school question
Suburban | 88 | 91 | 66 | 82 | 61 | 25
Sample (N = 1746 total; column N not printed) · All principals, staff available at school question
Rural | 92 | 88 | 46 | 53 | 67 | 13
Sample (N = 1746 total; column N not printed) · All principals, staff available at school question
High | 92 | 89 | 51 | 55 | 53 | 28
Sample (N = 1746 total; column N not printed) · All principals, staff available at school question
Middle | 90 | 88 | 55 | 65 | 61 | 20
Sample (N = 1746 total; column N not printed) · All principals, staff available at school question
Low | 84 | 92 | 63 | 84 | 51 | 24
Sample (N = 1746 total; column N not printed) · All principals, staff available at school question
Small | 88 | 88 | 51 | 63 | 62 | 15
Sample (N = 1746 total; column N not printed) · All principals, staff available at school question
Large | 90 | 91 | 62 | 74 | 52 | 31
This table presents response data from the following survey question: “Which of the following staff members do you have at your school, either full or part time?” (N = 1,746).
We confirmed with principals what types of specialized staff—counselors, nurses, social workers, psychologists, sworn law enforcement officers, and security guards—are present at their schools either full time or part time (see Table 5.1).
Importantly, some types of schools were much more likely to have these personnel available than others.
Sample (N = 1408) · Schools with an official BTAM team (82 percent of sample)
| 1 | 1 |
Sample (N = 1408) · Schools with an official BTAM team (82 percent of sample)
| 1 | 1 | | 2 | 3 |
Sample (N = 1408) · Schools with an official BTAM team (82 percent of sample)
| 1 | 1 | | 2 | 3 | | 3 | 9 |
Sample (N = 1408) · Schools with an official BTAM team (82 percent of sample)
| 2 | 3 | | 3 | 9 | | 4 | 18 |
Sample (N = 1408) · Schools with an official BTAM team (82 percent of sample)
| 3 | 9 | | 4 | 18 | | 5 | 24 |
Sample (N = 1408) · Schools with an official BTAM team (82 percent of sample)
| 4 | 18 | | 5 | 24 | | 6 | 22 |
Sample (N = 1408) · Schools with an official BTAM team (82 percent of sample)
| 5 | 24 | | 6 | 22 | | 7 | 14 |
Sample (N = 1408) · Schools with an official BTAM team (82 percent of sample)
| 6 | 22 | | 7 | 14 | | 8 | 7 |
Sample (N = 1408) · Schools with an official BTAM team (82 percent of sample)
| 7 | 14 | | 8 | 7 | | 9 | 1 |
Sample (N = 1408) · Schools with an official BTAM team (82 percent of sample)
| 8 | 7 | | 9 | 1 | | 10 | 0 |
This figure depicts response data from the following survey question: “Which person(s) are regular members of this BTAM team?” (n = 1,408).
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 may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
likely to be involved in even the smallest BTAM teams and are regular members of virtually all BTAM teams with more than four or five members.
Why inferred The sentence crosses a page break: this quote is the page 45 part and the sentence begins on page 43. Full sentence (pages 43–45): “Principals and counselors are highly likely to be involved in even the smallest BTAM teams and are regular members of virtually all BTAM teams with more than four or five members.” Page 44 holds a callout and Table 5.1; the paragraph resumes on page 45.
Other school-level administrators, such as assistant principals, are not typically involved in very small BTAM teams but appear to be the first member added as team size increases.
When teams have five or more members, personnel in more specialized roles (e.g., special education professionals, school-based law enforcement, school social workers, instructional staff, or school psychologists) are next to be added to BTAM teams.
These personnel are rarely present on small teams but are typically all present once teams have more than five or six members.
Principals’ responses suggest that these personnel are not added to teams in any obvious order.
Meanwhile, district administrators only tend to be involved in especially large teams; even among schools with larger BTAM teams, these personnel are only present about half of the time.
Unsurprisingly, district administrators are disproportionately present on district-level BTAM teams and do not tend to be involved in teams that exist only at the school level.
Our survey results also suggest that non-school-based law enforcement is rarely present on school BTAM teams, regardless of size.
Many named BTAM models specific to the K–12 school context recommend involving school-based law enforcement, local police, or other individuals with public safety expertise as team members.
The rationale is that law enforcement officers can assist with decisions about keeping a school safe and secure in the event of a threat or provide access to knowledge that other school-focused professionals do not have (e.g., if a student has a prior criminal record).
They may also be able to provide police or criminal justice information as part of assessments (e.g., knowledge about resources available, if appropriate, through the juvenile justice system)
Counselor | | | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
Very few schools had teams with fewer than three people
This figure depicts response data from the following survey question: “Which person(s) are regular members of this BTAM team?” (n = 1,408).
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
We omit results for teams with less than three members; very few schools had BTAM teams with fewer than three members, so results are not reliable.
For psychologists, counselors, and social workers, we directed principals to include both school-based and external personnel.
and can coordinate with their agencies if immediate action is needed to ensure the safety of the school community (e.g., conducting searches of a student’s home for weapons, if permissible).
Police involvement in BTAM has been controversial for some individuals and civil society groups, driven by concern that their involvement will increase the chance that students will end up in the justice system—i.e., that the outcome of threat assessment and management will increase the likelihood of arrest and prosecution for student behavior at school.
Our survey results indicate otherwise, given how principals described the role of law enforcement on their school BTAM teams.
In our survey, we explored the involvement of law enforcement in BTAM by asking respondents about officers’ role on the team and assessing the frequency of criminal justice–related outcomes in the BTAM process (we discuss the latter in more detail in Chapters 8, 10, and 11).
We listed five options and asked respondents to select up to two responses that best capture law enforcement’s involvement on their specific school teams.
Sample (N = 854) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
The vast majority of respondents (82 percent) selected two roles, while 14 percent selected only one.
The intent in forcing a choice was to focus on the most important roles police play on these teams, in the view of respondents.
Sample (N = 854) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
A handful of respondents (4 percent) ignored the instructions and selected more than two roles.
Specifically, we asked those principals who included either school-based or non-school-based law enforcement on their school’s BTAM team what role these individuals played on the team.
We first examined how many principals responded that law enforcement personnel play the following role(s) on their school BTAM teams:
Sample (N = 854) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
help with decisions about when safety- and security-related actions are necessary (e.g., searching student belongings, implementing schoolwide lock down) (64 percent)
Sample (N = 854) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
provide a public safety perspective about school dynamics and student behavior to help assess and manage behavioral concerns (58 percent)
Sample (N = 854) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
participate to initiate public safety responses when necessary (e.g., arrest or other criminal justice intervention) (33 percent)
Sample (N = 854) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
consult on the potential legal repercussions of student behavior (19 percent)
Sample (N = 854) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
provide information from police and court records so the team can understand past student behavior (18 percent).
Sample (N = 854) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Two responsibilities were clearly predominant: helping with security-related decisions (64 percent) and providing a public safety perspective to the BTAM process (58 percent).
Sample (N = 854) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Forty-two percent of schools said their law enforcement personnel only performed one or both of these actions.
Sample (N = 854) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Another 46 percent of schools said their law enforcement personnel performed at least one of these roles on their BTAM team but also identified law enforcement as performing one of the less common roles: initiating public safety responses, consulting on legal repercussions, or providing information from police or court records.
Sample (N = 854) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Only a small minority of schools (12 percent) responded that they included law enforcement on their BTAM team exclusively to perform at least one of these previous three functions.
Altogether, these findings are counter to some perceptions of the roles that law enforcement personnel play as BTAM team members (i.e., they are exclusively there to provide information from police or court records, which was actually the role least selected by principals).
The findings also are counter to concerns that schools treat law enforcement involvement in BTAM as a direct link to the criminal justice system (i.e., concerns that the presence of police in schools is leading to more arrests; see, e.g., Theriot, 2009; Meiners, 2011).
Rather, the specific activities and responsibilities that principals see as most important for the law enforcement members of their BTAM team suggest they view them primarily as sources of expertise (see, e.g., McKenna and White, 2018).
Although BTAM teams are generally made up of experienced practitioners with field-specific expertise, individual members are not necessarily BTAM experts per se and are not necessarily experts at working effectively as part of a larger multidisciplinary team.
This finding means that BTAM-specific training may be important for providing a foundation of BTAM-specific knowledge across all members and as a mechanism for building working relationships within the team.
The National Association of Behavior Intervention and Threat Assessment (NABITA), for example, specifies that training for BTAM teams should target a broad variety of competencies (e.g., risk and threat assessment), mental health and cultural awareness, bias mitigation, effective team communication, intervention strategies, and community engagement (NABITA, 2024).
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
According to principals’ responses, about half of schools (48 percent) with BTAM teams provide training or professional development related to BTAM to their team members annually (see Figure 5.4).
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
This includes 36 percent of schools that train their BTAM members once per school year and 12 percent that train multiple times in a single school year.
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering the BTAM training-frequency question (Figure 5.4)
Meanwhile, 23 percent of schools provide training on an as-needed basis
This section discusses principals’ responses to questions exploring the training for members of their schools’ BTAM teams.
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
Total | 36 | 12 | 23 | 16 | 13
Sample (n = undeterminable of 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
School level | 31 | 10 | 22 | 21 | 16
Sample (n = undeterminable of 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
District level | 27 | 12 | 34 | 9 | 18
Sample (n = undeterminable of 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
Both | 41 | 14 | 21 | 16 | 9
This figure depicts response data from the following survey question: “How often do the members of your BTAM team receive training and/or professional development related 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.
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering the BTAM training-frequency question (Figure 5.4)
16 percent train members only at the beginning of one’s tenure on the team.
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
About one in six schools (13 percent) do not provide any training.
The frequency at which schools provide training to their BTAM members is related to team level, as shown in Figure 5.4.
Sample (n = undeterminable of 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
That is, 55 percent of schools served by both types of teams train annually, compared with 39 percent of schools with district-only teams and 41 percent with school-only teams.
We hypothesize that this difference might reflect the level of resources available in districts that maintain teams at multiple levels.
NTAC recommends that BTAM teams meet “on a regular basis” to provide time for the team to work together and learn their individual responsibilities so they are able to operate more readily as one cohesive unit (NTAC, 2018).
At the minimum, BTAM teams should meet whenever cases require assessment and intervention, but—even in the absence of new cases—regular meetings can provide teams opportunities for training, monitoring of ongoing interventions, and review of past cases to learn and improve over time.
Our survey did not ask questions about—and we therefore cannot report on—the format of these trainings, who conducts them, how long they are, what topics they cover, or whether they vary from year to year.
Schools where the principals reported that they had both a school- and district-level BTAM team are especially likely to receive annual training.
Sample (N = 1401) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Forty-three percent of schools have a standard meeting schedule for their BTAM teams.
Sample (N = 1401) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
However, there was no convergence among these schools about how often meetings occurred: 9 percent met once per week, 8 percent met once every two weeks, 19 percent met once per month, and 6 percent met every two to three months.
Sample (N = 1401) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
The remaining 57 percent of schools met irregularly on an as-needed basis depending on their case load.
Principals in urban schools, large schools, large districts, and schools serving a majority of students of color—categories that are highly overlapping—were particularly likely to report having a standard meeting schedule.
Funding for school BTAM teams and programs varies significantly across U.S. states and individual school districts.
Whether a program has stable funding is often a driver for whether it can be sustained over time, because funding instability (and the competition of other priorities for funds) can put programs at risk.
Funding for BTAM programs is typically used to support annual and other training for BTAM team members, BTAM conference attendance, or the purchase of case management software.
Forming a BTAM team per se does not require funding outside total program funding for a school or district, which already covers the salaries of such key BTAM team personnel as administrators and counselors.
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
Most schools (57 percent) said their BTAM programs are implemented without dedicated staff or additional funds beyond the levels already available.
Schools in large districts were especially likely to have dedicated funds for BTAM activities.
Teams housed only at the district level and those housed at the school level that worked alongside a district-level team were also more likely to have dedicated funds.
Funding for school BTAM programs comes from various sources, including through aforementioned school or district general fund budgets that also fund the positions of key team members.
Some districts might also have a dedicated funding line in budget to support BTAM implementation.
Others might seek funds externally via grants.
We asked principals whether their school or district budget includes dedicated funding to support their BTAM program.
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
Only about one-quarter of principals (23 percent) said their BTAM teams were supported with dedicated funding in their school or district budget.
Sample (N = 1376) · Official BTAM teams answering Table A.53 (program funding)
Nineteen percent of schools did not know how their BTAM programs were funded.
We do not have information about the amounts of dedicated funds.
schools in states that had already implemented legislation related to BTAM in 2019 appear to be ahead in terms of operating their BTAM programs in 2025, at least in some respects.
As shown in Figure 5.5, schools in states with specific BTAM legislation in 2019 were more likely to have multiple organizational and procedural components in place for the operation of their BTAM team at the time of our survey.
This includes having defining policy documents, written SOPs, and a standard meeting schedule for their BTAM teams.
These schools were also more likely to have larger BTAM teams compared with schools in states that did not address BTAM at all in 2019, though the difference was substantively very small.
Schools in states that included BTAM in legislation 2019 are now out in front compared with schools in states where adoption of BTAM was not promoted in 2019.
They are also ahead of schools in states where BTAM was only encouraged in 2019, though not to the same degree.
We did identify two areas where schools in states with BTAM legislation in 2019 were not ahead of others that did not: funding and training.
That is, schools in states that included BTAM in legislation in 2019 were neither more nor less likely to dedicate funding or annual training to BTAM than other schools at the time of our survey.
Sample (N = 423 | 481 | 842 by column) · Figure 5.5 columns: other states, states that encouraged BTAM use only, early legislation states (state policy context 2019)
Dedicated funding | 20 | 25 | [unlabeled]
Sample (N = 423 | 481 | 842 by column) · Figure 5.5 columns: other states, states that encouraged BTAM use only, early legislation states (state policy context 2019)
Standard meeting schedule | 37 | [unlabeled] | 48
Sample (N = 423 | 481 | 842 by column) · Figure 5.5 columns: other states, states that encouraged BTAM use only, early legislation states (state policy context 2019)
Annual training | 43 | 49 | [unlabeled]
Sample (N = 423 | 481 | 842 by column) · Figure 5.5 columns: other states, states that encouraged BTAM use only, early legislation states (state policy context 2019)
Written SOPs | 38 | 46 | 55
Sample (N = 423 | 481 | 842 by column) · Figure 5.5 columns: other states, states that encouraged BTAM use only, early legislation states (state policy context 2019)
Defining policy document | 37 | 46 | 62
Team composition (average number of team members) | 4.9 | 5.2 | 5.4
This figure depicts response data from the following survey questions: “Does your school or district budget include dedicated funding to support your BTAM program?” “How often does your BTAM team meet?” “How often do the members of your BTAM team receive training and/or professional development related to BTAM?” “Has your school or district established written standard operating procedures (SOPs) for how your BTAM team functions on a day-to-day basis?” “Does your school or district have an explicit policy document that establishes and defines your BTAM program?” and “Which person(s) are regular members of this BTAM team?” (n = 1,408).
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
Find the Perfect Training Class For You
