Every claim in the map classified as evidence, in report order.
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296, § 305, as codified at 6 U.S.C. § 185) authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting through the Under Secretary for Science and Technology, to establish one or more federally funded research and development centers (FFRDCs) to provide independent analysis of homeland security issues.
Through the Presidential Threat Protection Act of 2000, Congress formally authorized NTAC to conduct research on threat assessment and various types of targeted violence;
By appropriately assessing risk of harm and providing tailored interventions, BTAM helps schools manage safety risks while supporting student well-being and reducing reliance on suspensions or expulsions, which research shows can have lasting negative effects and may not effectively reduce the risk of school violence.
Although several studies have sought to understand the impact of threat assessment programs on various school-level outcomes, including violence prevention, to date these reports have been specific to a single threat assessment model; confined to understanding trends in single states; or based on interviews or surveys of a small number of individuals.
Sample (n = undeterminable of undeterminable) · Federal SSOCS / School Pulse Panel national estimates of schools with a BTAM team
This level of effort marks a dramatic increase from a decade ago, when fewer than half of schools had BTAM teams.
Although it may seem that removing the student from school is the safest option, research has shown that exclusionary discipline, such as a suspension or an expulsion, can have lasting negative effects on students and may not effectively reduce risk.
SOURCE: Features data from the U.S. Department of Education’s School Survey on Crime and Safety (Burr et al., 2024) and its School Pulse Panel (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2025).
The impetus for early adoption of the BTAM model dates back to the joint U.S. Secret Service and U.S. Department of Education’s Safe School Initiative, which examined 37 incidents of targeted school attacks between 1974 and 2000 following the 1999 Columbine High School shooting in Colorado (Vossekuil et al., 2004).
The initiative introduced BTAM as a violence prevention model for schools, emphasizing the importance of identifying students who display behavior that elicits safety concerns, assessing the behaviors and their context, and managing any potential risk of harm through interventions and supports.
It also stressed the importance of multidisciplinary teams to assess concerning behaviors and efforts to foster positive school climates that encourage reporting of concerns.
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)
By the 2015–2016 school year (the earliest national estimate available), 42 percent of a national sample of K–12 public school principals reported having threat assessment teams (Diliberti et al., 2017).
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)
By the 2021–2022 school year, 65 percent of public schools reported having such teams, in which threat assessment was defined as “a formalized process of identifying, assessing, and managing students who may pose a threat of targeted violence in schools” (Burr et al., 2024, p. 13).
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)
As noted above, more recent federal data show that this rate had increased to 85 percent of all public schools by 2024 (NCES, 2025).
During this time frame, the Secret Service continued to publish updated research on targeted school violence and guidance for the implementation of BTAM programs in K–12 schools (see, e.g., NTAC, 2018; NTAC, 2019; and NTAC, 2021), and there was increasing research into—and focus on—approaches for preventing violence in K–12 schools more broadly.
The passage of laws across various states mandating BTAM teams in K–12 schools also helped advance BTAM implementation at various points in time.
states, including Florida, passed mandates related to threat assessments in response to the 2018 Parkland shooting (Blad, 2023).
Although several studies have sought to understand the impact of threat assessment programs on various school-level outcomes, including violence prevention, these reports are (1) specific to a single threat assessment model, (2) confined to understanding trends in single states, or (3) based on interviews and surveys of small samples of individuals (see, e.g., Ross et al., 2022; Cornell et al., 2018; Crepeau-Hobson and Leech, 2022; Jackson and Viljoen, 2024).
Other states in this group include Maryland (2018), Texas (2019), Illinois (2019), and Kentucky (2019).
Specifically, we drew on a systematic analysis of state-level laws and policies related to threat assessment completed by Child Trends and the National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE) and published in 2021.
Although both Maryland and Texas require schools to have BTAM teams, Texas explicitly requires that members of teams have a range of specific types of expertise “to the greatest extent practicable” (Texas School Safety Center, undated), and Maryland emphasizes coordination with the Maryland Center for School Safety (MCSS), which provides training and other resources to K–12 schools in this area (MCSS, undated).
Other states that required BTAM in schools as early as 2019, such as Kentucky, Nevada, and Oregon, also specifically stress the importance of multidisciplinary teams in the threat assessment process, with added emphasis on the role of mental health professionals.
These states also provide training to school staff through either state-level school safety agencies or state departments of education.
For example, as our study was underway, some states enacted new laws requiring that schools use BTAM or establish BTAM teams (e.g., New Jersey, Tennessee, Iowa); others have also done so since the 2019 analysis but prior to the start of our study (e.g., Vermont).
For example, in some areas, teams managed by a local community or health care organization carry out BTAM for youth and adults referred to them through different pathways.
Some states took definitive steps to push their schools to implement BTAM relatively early (e.g., Virginia’s law relating to BTAM was enacted in 2013), while others have established legislative mandates more recently (e.g., Florida, New Jersey).
Other states took steps to encourage adoption, for example, by publishing guidance and recommendations without a legislative mandate
we drew on a systematic analysis of state-level laws and policies related to threat assessment and completed by Child Trends and NASBE
The Child Trends and NASBE analysis (2021) divided states into three categories: (1) states that mandated behavioral threat assessment in K–12 schools through legislation or specific state policy in 2019; (2) states that encouraged the implementation of behavioral threat assessment in K–12 schools or addressed it via non-codified policy in 2019; and (3) states that made no mention of behavioral threat assessment in 2019.
Federal data on school safety measures from the 2021–2022 school year also show that schools located in rural locales were less likely to have threat assessment teams, compared with schools located in city, suburban, and town locales (Burr et al., 2024).
During that school year, schools located in urban areas were also most likely to have threat assessment teams.
NTAC guidance for defining the types of behaviors that might be referred to a BTAM team includes objectively concerning behaviors, such as “threatening or engaging in violence, bringing a weapon to school, bullying or harassing others, and criminal behaviors” (NTAC, 2018, p. 4).
cite page 38 Ch 4: What Is the Scope of Schools' BTAM Programs?
NTAC guidance also identifies a constellation of “other concerning behavior” that may warrant an assessment and response by the BTAM team, including a variety of indicators of stress, inappropriate interest in violent topics (e.g., past school attackers, weapons), interpersonal conflicts, suicidality, or other concerns that might lead to a potential harmful outcome if not addressed.
cite page 38 Ch 4: What Is the Scope of Schools' BTAM Programs?
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).
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).
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).
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.
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).
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).
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).
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).
NTAC guidance for effective BTAM implementation in K–12 schools emphasizes standardization across cases, through the establishment of “clearly defined processes and procedures to guide assessments” (NTAC, 2018, p. 7).
Different BTAM models recommend collecting and using different types of information, but virtually all recommend broad data collection and integrating information from many sources to build the best understanding of student behavior.
This list is based on guidance provided by existing BTAM frameworks, such as guidance provided by NTAC and such named models as the Comprehensive School Threat Assessment Guidelines (CSTAG).
This is somewhat surprising, given the rise of threats made against K–12 schools via social media (see, e.g., Moore et al., 2024).
BTAM models emphasize individualized responses and recommend a variety of intervention options, such as academic or social/emotional supportive services, monitoring, counseling, and safety planning tailored to the assessed needs of the individual and the situation at hand (see, e.g., Jackson et al., 2025).
cite page 62 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Ensuring that this happens is a strong driver behind recommendations or even requirements for BTAM teams to be multidisciplinary (see, e.g., NTAC, 2018).
cite page 63 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Building such an inventory is a recommended practice in some BTAM models and in other models for school-based behavioral management (e.g., PBIS or MTSS).
cite page 63 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
BTAM in K–12 schools is framed as an alternative to exclusionary school discipline, which has been recognized as risking long-term harms to students and causing other damage to a school’s community (Huang and Cornell, 2021; Cornell et al., 2018; Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports, 2023).
cite page 66 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
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)
Federal government data for the 2023–2024 school year show that 84 percent of public schools provided mental health interventions for students, and 63 percent of schools used district or school funding to support these mental health services.
cite page 68 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
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)
However, only 9 percent of schools “strongly agree” that they are able to effectively provide these services for all students in need (NCES, 2025).
cite page 68 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Such monitoring should ideally continue until the BTAM “team is no longer concerned about the student or [their potential] risk for violence” (NTAC, 2018).
cite page 70 Ch 10: How Do BTAM Teams Monitor Intervention Plans?
Note that existing guidance around BTAM, including NTAC guidance, does not expect BTAM teams to be the first line of response for all incidents.
cite page 75 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
However, guidance does expect these teams to be notified of and to assess situations that present a higher risk of harm.
cite page 75 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Interventions are grouped into categories based on Jackson et al., 2025.
cite page 81 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
This is somewhat unsurprising given heightened rates of depression and anxiety among youth following the COVID-19 pandemic and the associated rise in students seeking mental health services (Mahnken, 2023).
cite page 83 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Layering multiple interventions (mental health, academic, and behavioral supports) is consistent with behavioral threat management best practice (Jackson et al., 2025).
cite page 87 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
the possibility that BTAM could increase the use of either exclusionary discipline or criminal justice approaches in responding to student behavior has been a concern for civil society groups and a focus of policy debate around BTAM as a school safety practice.
cite page 89 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
this is somewhat in line with findings from previous studies of behavioral threat management in schools, which suggest that many schools implement short-term suspensions as an immediate response to some student behavior to give their BTAM team time to complete a behavioral threat assessment and decide on appropriate longer-term interventions, including support-focused interventions (Jackson et al., 2025).
cite page 89 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
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)
Although other studies show that most K–12 principals do not believe that exclusionary discipline measures teach students valuable lessons and help avoid future behavior incidents, 12 percent nationally still do believe that suspensions and expulsions give students the opportunity to learn from their behavior (Perera and Diliberti, 2023).
cite page 89 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Although some studies have conducted such analyses, the fact that data across schools and across the country are difficult to collect means existing analyses have usually focused more narrowly: either on single states or on the implementation of single BTAM models (e.g., Cornell, Allen, and Fan, 2012; Maeng, Cornell, and Huang, 2020; Cornell et al., 2025).
cite page 91 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
in some states, laws or regulations require schools to involve police when responding to specific incidents of student behavior (e.g., threats of violence or weapons).
cite page 91 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
many schools employ temporary suspension as an immediate response to an incident to ensure the safety of the individual student and broader school community, while a BTAM team conducts its threat assessment and determines the best path forward (Jackson et al., 2025).
cite page 91 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
The widespread adoption of BTAM at schools across the United States has raised concerns about its impact and perceived impact on a variety of school-specific outcomes, such as safety, crime, fairness of school discipline across all students, and school climate more broadly (see, e.g., Cornell et al., 2025; Cornell, 2020; Nekvasil and Cornell, 2015).
cite page 94 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
indeed, data show that many schools only experience one or two violent incidents per year, leaving very little room for improvement (Burr et al., 2024).
cite page 97 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
As noted above, one concern around the use of BTAM at schools across the country is the potential for its impact on schools’ use of exclusionary discipline practices overall and whether exclusionary discipline is used fairly across the student population (for a review, see Cornell et al., 2025).
cite page 98 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
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).
cite page 100 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
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).
cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
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).
cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
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).
cite page 103 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
SOURCE: Features data compiled in 2019 by Child Trends and NASBE (2021).
American Association for Public Opinion Research, Standard Definition: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys, 2023.
Blad, Evie, “A State Mandated School Threat Assessment. Here’s What It Meant for Students,”
Bohanon, Hank, Lisa Caputo Love, and Kelly Morrissey, Implementing Systematic Interventions: A Guide for Secondary School Teams, Routledge, 2020.
Burr, Riley, Jana Kemp, Ke Wang, and Deanne Swan, Crime, Violence, Discipline, and Safety in U.S. Public Schools: Findings from the School Survey on Crime and Safety: 2021–2022, U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, NCES 2024-043, January 2024.
Carver-Thomas, Desiree, and Linda Darling-Hammond, Teacher Turnover: Why It Matters and What We Can Do About It, Learning Policy Institute, August 2017.
Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports, Instructional and Restorative Alternatives to Exclusionary Discipline: A Guide to Implementing the Five Components of the Inclusive Skill-Building Learning Approach (ISLA), July 2023.
Child Trends and NASBE—See Child Trends and National Association of State Boards of Education.
Child Trends and National Association of State Boards of Education, “State Policies That Support Healthy Schools,”
Cook, Clayton R., Aaron R. Lyon, Jill Locke, Thomas Waltz, and Byron J. Powell, “Adapting a Compilation of Implementation Strategies to Advance School-Based Implementation Research and Practice,”
Cornell, Dewey G., “Threat Assessment as a School Violence Prevention Strategy,”
Cornell, Dewey G., Korrie Allen, and Xitao Fan, “A Randomized Controlled Study of the Virginia Student Threat Assessment Guidelines in Kindergarten Through Grade 12,”
Cornell, Dewey, Jennifer L. Maeng, Anna Grace Burnette, Yuane Jia, Francis Huang, Timothy Konold, Pooja Datta, Marisa Malone, and Patrick Meyer, “Student Threat Assessment as a Standard School Safety Practice: Results from a Statewide Implementation Study,”
Cornell, Dewey G., Jennifer Maeng, Sonja Winter, Francis Huang, Tim G. Konold, Jordan Kerere, Kelvin Afolabi, and Deanne Cowley, “Behavioral Threat Assessment and Equity in Exclusionary School Discipline,”
Crepeau-Hobson, Franci, and Nancy Leech, “Disciplinary and Nondisciplinary Outcomes of School-Based Threat Assessment in Colorado Schools,”
Diliberti, Melissa, Michael Jackson, Jana Kemp, and Rachel Hansen, Crime, Violence, Discipline, and Safety in U.S. Public Schools: Findings from the School Survey on Crime and Safety: 2015–16, National Center for Education Statistics, NCES 2017-122, July 2017.
Education Resource Strategies, “Examining School-Level Teacher Turnover Trends (2021–2024): A New Angle on a Pervasive Issue,”
Fein, Robert A., Bryan Vossekuil, William S. Pollack, Randy Borum, William Modzeleski, and Marisa Reddy, Threat Assessment in Schools: A Guide to Managing Threatening Situations and to Creating Safe School Climates, U.S. Secret Service and U.S. Department of Education, May 2002.
Florida Department of Education, Florida Harm Prevention and Threat Management Manual, Florida Administrative Code 6A-1.0019, August 19, 2025.
Higgins, Lori, “Whitmer Signs School Safety Legislation into Law,”
Huang, Francis L., and Dewey G. Cornell, “Teacher Support for Zero Tolerance Is Associated with Higher Suspension Rates and Lower Feelings of Safety,”
Jackson, Brian A., Melissa Kay Diliberti, Pauline Moore, and Heather L. Schwartz, Teachers’ Views on School Safety: Consensus on Many Security Measures, but Stark Division About Arming Teachers, RAND Corporation, RR-A2641-1, 2023. As of August 10, 2025:
Jackson, Brian A., Pauline Moore, Jennifer T. Leschitz, Benjamin Boudreaux, Jo Caulkins, and Shoshana R. Shelton, Strengthening School Violence Prevention: Expanding Intervention Options and Supporting K–12 School Efforts in Behavioral Threat Assessment and Management, Homeland Security Operational Analysis Center operated by the RAND Corporation, RR-A2966-1, 2025. As of August 10, 2025:
Jackson, Jourdan R., and Jodi L. Viljoen, “Preventing School Violence A Review of School Threat Assessment Models,”
Jackson, Jourdan R., and Jodi L. Viljoen, “Preventing School Violence: A Survey of School Threat Assessment Practices, Perceived Impact, and Challenges,”
Lane, Kathleen Lynne, Holly Mariah Menzies, Wendy Peia Oakes, and Jemma Robertson Kalberg, Developing a Schoolwide Framework to Prevent and Manage Learning and Behavior Problems, 2nd ed., Guilford Press, 2019.
Maeng, Jennifer L., Dewey Cornell, and Francis Huang, “Student Threat Assessment as an Alternative to Exclusionary Discipline,”
Mahnken, Kevin, “COVID’s ‘Complicated Picture:’ Mental Health Worse, Staffing Tight, Enrollment Frozen at Nation’s Schools,”
Maryland Center for School Safety, “Behavioral Threat Assessment (BTA),”
McKenna, Joseph M., and Shawna R. White, “Examining the Use of Police in Schools: How Roles May Impact Responses to Student Misconduct,”
MCSS—See Maryland Center for School Safety.
Meiners, Erica R., “Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline/Building Abolition Futures,”
Moore, Pauline, Brian A. Jackson, Jennifer T. Leschitz, Nazia Wolters, Thomas Goode, Melissa Kay Diliberti, and Phoebe Felicia Pham, Developing Practical Responses to Social Media Threats Against K–12 Schools: An Overview of Trends, Challenges, and Current Approaches, Homeland Security Operational Analysis Center operated by the RAND Corporation, RR-A1077-5, 2024. As of August 10, 2025:
NABITA—See National Association for Behavioral Intervention and Threat Assessment.
National Association for Behavioral Intervention and Threat Assessment, NABITA Standards for School-Based Behavioral Threat Assessment and Management in K–12 Education, white paper, 2024.
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)
National Center for Education Statistics, “More Than 80 Percent of U.S. Public Schools Report Pandemic Has Negatively Impacted Student Behavior and Socio-Emotional Development,”
National Center for Education Statistics, “Prevalence of Mental Health Services Provided by Public Schools and Limitations in Schools’ Efforts to Provide Mental Health Services,”
National Center for Education Statistics, “School Pulse Panel: Surveying High-Priority, Education-Related Topics: Interactive Results,”
National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments, “Texas School Discipline Laws & Regulations: Threat Assessment Protocols,”
National Institute on Drug Abuse, “Reported Drug Use Among Adolescents Continued to Hold Below Pre-Pandemic Levels in 2023,”
National Institute on Drug Abuse, “Residential Addiction Treatment for Adolescents Is Scarce and Expensive,”
National Threat Assessment Center, Enhancing School Safety Using a Threat Assessment Model: An Operational Guide for Prevention Targeted School Violence, U.S. Secret Service, 2018.
National Threat Assessment Center, Protecting America’s Schools: A U.S. Secret Service Analysis of Targeted School Violence, U.S. Secret Service, 2019.
National Threat Assessment Center, Averting Targeted School Violence: A U.S. Secret Service Analysis of Plots Against Schools, U.S. Secret Service, 2021.
National Threat Assessment Center, “What Is a Behavioral Threat Assessment in School?”
NCES—See National Center for Education Statistics.
Nekvasil, Erin K., and Dewey G. Cornell, “Student Threat Assessment Associated with Safety in Middle Schools,”
NIDA—See National Institute on Drug Abuse.
NTAC—See National Threat Assessment Center.
Peetz, Caitlynn, “Is Student Behavior Getting Any Better? What a New Survey Says,”
Perera, Rachel, and Melissa Kay Diliberti, “Survey: What Purpose to Suspensions Serve? Principals Don’t Seem Quite Sure,”
Ross, Dorie, Nathaniel von der Embse, Jessica L. Andrews, Mollie McCullough Headley, and Caroline Mierzwa, “A Systematic Review of Threat Assessment in K–12 Schools: Adult and Child Outcomes,”
State of South Carolina, Department of Education, School-Based Behavioral Threat Assessment and Management: Best Practices Guide for South Carolina K–12 Schools, 2nd ed., October 2023.
Texas School Safety Center, “School Behavioral Threat Assessment Toolkit: 2.0 Legal Requirements and Guidelines,”
Theriot, Matthew T., “School Resource Officers and the Criminalization of Student Behavior,”
Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services, Threat Assessment and Management in Virginia Public Schools: Model Policies, Procedures, and Guidelines, 5th ed., Commonwealth of Virginia, July 2023.
Vossekuil, Bryan, Robert A. Fein, Marisa Reddy, Randy Borum, and William Modzelski, The Final Report and Findings of the Safe School Initiative: Implications for the Prevention of School Attacks in the United States, U.S. Secret Service and U.S. Department of Education, July 2004.
WFTS Webteam, “Florida Senate Passes Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act,”
Wisconsin Department of Justice Office of School Safety, Wisconsin School Threat Assessment and Management Protocol (WSTAMP-R 24): A Guide for Multidisciplinary Threat Assessment Teams, April 2025.
Cover adapted from images by monkeybusinessimages/Getty Images, Kristen Prahl/Getty Images and Thomas/Adobe Stock
Find the Perfect Training Class For You
