Report pages 52–53: 33 claims on pp. 52–53 (fact 26, statement 3, evidence 2, conclusion 1, definition 1).
Because BTAM has been a recommended school safety practice for more than two decades, a variety of different frameworks have been developed to support schools when it comes to implementing BTAM.
Frameworks range from overarching guidance for schools to develop their own processes (e.g., from such federal government agencies as the U.S. Secret Service, or state-level school safety agencies) to more specific named models that provide explicit road maps paired with such resources as worksheets and assessment rubrics.
Many named models also define in detail how to carry out each stage of the BTAM process, from assessing risk to developing student safety plans.
Several states have developed their own guidelines for BTAM at K–12 schools (e.g., Florida Department of Education, 2025; State of South Carolina, 2023; Texas School Safety Center, undated; Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services, 2023; Wisconsin Department of Justice Office of School Safety, 2025).
Private experts and organizations have also contributed to the field by designing and publishing their own models.
Additionally, prominent and widely used frameworks for establishing BTAM in schools include those created by U.S. federal government agencies, such as the U.S. Secret Service’s NTAC (NTAC, 2018).
Importantly, school districts across the country have also designed their own individual BTAM models to fit their unique contexts and needs.
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
As in the previous chapter, we remain focused on the 82 percent of schools that told us they had an official BTAM team.
We asked schools whether they used a named model to structure their approach to BTAM, allowing them to select among a list of five named models; specify the name of a model not included in the response options; or indicate that they used a locally developed model that draws on other models and resources to fit their needs.
Sample (N = 1404) · Teams answering which program the team uses to structure its BTAM approach (Table 6.1)
As shown in Table 6.1, a minority of schools (20 percent) reported using an available named BTAM model.
There was no convergence around any particular model.
Sample (N = 1404) · Teams answering which program the team uses to structure its BTAM approach (Table 6.1)
Specifically, 30 percent said they were using a BTAM model developed locally, potentially drawing on other models and resources to craft a process for use by their specific school or school district.
Sample (N = 1404) · Teams answering which program the team uses to structure its BTAM approach (Table 6.1)
Another 11 percent reported using a BTAM model not listed in the response options.
We did not ask for additional information about these locally developed programs.
In this chapter, we investigate which BTAM frameworks or models schools are using.
Respondents could also indicate that their school did not use a defined model as part of their approach to BTAM or that they did not know.
Instead, most principals reported their schools were using locally developed models.
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
