Introduction

While K-12 schools are safe places and have become even safer in recent years (Musu-Gillette et al., 2017), incidents of targeted violence continue to attract widespread attention and concern across communities.

In this context, districts and states have increasingly turned to the use of behavioral threat assessment and management (BTAM) to assess concerning or threatening behaviors and provide appropriate interventions and supports to reduce the risk of harm.

Across the United States, 38 states require using BTAM by law or encourage it by policy (National Association of State Boards of Education, n.d.).

Current data indicate that 85% of public schools in the United States report having a behavioral threat assessment team in place (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.) whether or not their state requires it.

The U.S. Secret Service pioneered BTAM in the early 1990s to protect prominent public officials and persons.

Since then, it has been adapted to prevent acts of targeted violence that impact other areas of the community, such as schools

Following the tragedy at Columbine High School in 1999, the Secret Service developed the field of BTAM in schools through a partnership with the Department of Education to examine targeted violence in K-12 schools and create protocols to help prevent future tragedies (Vossekuil et al., 2002).

Over the years, research has demonstrated positive school safety outcomes when BTAM is implemented with fidelity (Cornell et al., 2012; Nekvasil & Cornell, 2015).

BTAM is a proactive approach to identifying students whose behavior elicits concern for their safety or the safety of others, assessing the concerning behavior in context, and providing appropriate interventions and resources to manage the risk of harm while also supporting the student (National Threat Assessment Center, 2022).

Successful implementation requires coordinated effort among various stakeholders, including administrators, teachers, counselors, psychologists, families, and community partners, along with expertise in assessment and interventions that are both student-centered and evidence-based and which promote connection and belonging while minimizing student time away from learning.

In an attempt to follow prescribed models and/or state mandates, schools and districts occasionally establish school safety and other prevention efforts (e.g., school climate, BTAM) separate from broader prevention systems, other existing student support programs, and, in some communities, separate from the district itself.

Siloed implementation like this can strain limited resources and may result in less effective and less efficient supports for students.

Common barriers to integration include lack of cross-team coordination, limited professional development, and challenges in aligning different data systems and intervention approaches.

In instances of siloed implementation, school safety and prevention efforts may not be adequately monitored for effectiveness, fidelity, or impartiality in either referrals or outcomes.

Consistent implementation and balanced outcomes across all student groups are of paramount importance for behavioral threat assessment.

While most research has not identified disparities across student groups in how threats were classified or disciplined (e.g., Cornell et al., 2018; Crepeau-Hobson & Leech, 2022), research on disparities for students with disabilities is more mixed (e.g., Cornell et al., 2018; Crepeau-Hobson & Leech, 2022; Maeng et al., 2020, 2023).

Consistent implementation and balanced outcomes across all student groups are of paramount importance for behavioral threat assessment.

Achieving these efforts is more challenging in siloed systems.

BTAM is intended to support student needs before they escalate into acts of school violence or crisis requiring intervention by law enforcement or medical personnel.

Multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) like Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) can provide a framework for a BTAM team to extend options for prevention and intervention by working in conjunction with a broader system designed to provide access to proactive and early intervention for students needing support.

The PBIS framework can help enhance efficiencies, address inequalities, and improve the effectiveness of behavior support and violence prevention efforts by using data to guide decision-making and systems to monitor and support implementation fidelity and effectiveness.

Likewise, implementation of BTAM can support MTSS/PBIS implementation through enhanced processes and procedures for intensive interventions.

While MTSS/PBIS or BTAM can each be effectively implemented alone, for schools that are implementing either MTSS/PBIS or BTAM, the integration of the two frameworks offers several possible advantages: • Streamlined systems and processes • More efficient resource utilization • Enhanced communication and collaboration • Improved data collection and analysis of implementation and effectiveness • Better outcomes for students and staff • More comprehensive prevention and intervention strategies BTAM is

Aligning BTAM and MTSS/PBIS implementation is mutually beneficial for the enhancement of school climate, student well-being, and safety.

In order to support teams in achieving these valued outcomes, the U.S. Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center (NTAC) and the Center on PBIS have partnered to develop this joint document intended for school and district leaders as well as members of both BTAM and MTSS/PBIS teams.

This document begins with a description of the critical features of BTAM and best practices for BTAM implementation, then describes the essential elements of PBIS.

Recognizing that each school’s journey will be unique, it then provides considerations for aligning and integrating BTAM and the MTSS/PBIS framework and supporting students with disabilities throughout the BTAM process.