Evidence claims

Through the Presidential Threat Protection Act of 2000, Congress formally authorized NTAC to conduct research on threat assessment and other types of targeted violence; provide training on threat assessment and targeted violence; facilitate information-sharing among agencies with protective and/or public safety responsibilities; provide case consultation on individual threat assessment investigations and for agencies building threat assessment units; and develop programs to promote the standardization of federal, state, and local threat assessment processes and investigations.

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).

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).

For over twenty years, NTAC’s research on both school attacks (2019) and averted attacks (2021) has shown that there is no accurate or useful profile of the type of individual who will carry out or plan an attack.

Rather, research shows that students display a variety of observable, concerning behaviors as they escalate toward violence.

Research has shown there is no accurate or useful profile of a student who will engage in targeted violence, but they often display concerning behaviors before perpetrating an attack (NTAC, 2019, 2021).

A behavioral threat assessment approach complements existing, related student support programs (e.g., MTSS/PBIS). This combination of approaches promotes successful outcomes for all students and decreases the risk of harm to the school community (NTAC, 2021).

That year, the NTAC released Enhancing School Safety Using a Threat Assessment Model (2018), which provides actionable guidance for schools on creating a targeted violence prevention plan to decrease the risk of students engaging in harm to themselves or the school community.

For strategies and guidance on creating and enhancing a central reporting system, see Improving School Safety Through Bystander Reporting: A Toolkit for Strengthening K-12 Reporting Programs (Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency & U.S. Secret Service, 2023).

For more information on these eight best practices, see Enhancing School Safety Using a Threat Assessment Model (National Threat Assessment Center, 2018).

Recent research demonstrates that when schools implement PBIS with fidelity, they see significant improvements in behavior, well-being, attendance, and academic performance, while experiencing reductions in harassment, bullying, and disciplinary actions that exclude students from learning opportunities (Santiago-Rosario et al., 2023).

Teaming is essential for implementing BTAM and multi-tiered frameworks such as PBIS (Eber et al., 2019).

In PBIS, the leadership team guides implementation, monitors effectiveness, and provides continuity across contexts (Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, 2023).

For more information on effective teaming, see Enhancing Team Functioning in Schools’ Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (Splett et al., 2023)

Common misperceptions and “myths” include (a) believing that Tier 3 is special education and (b) that students in special education need only Tier 3 supports to be successful (Simonsen et al., 2020).

In actuality, students with disabilities are best supported when they are meaningfully included and receive supports across all tiers (Cheney et al., 2004; Grasley-Boy et al., 2019; Tobin et al., 2012).

For strategies and guidance on creating and enhancing a central reporting system, see Improving School Safety Through Bystander Reporting: A Toolkit for Strengthening K-12 Reporting Programs (Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency & U.S. Secret Service, 2023).

Additionally, like all students, students with disabilities may have targeted and intensive needs that can be supported by Tier 2 and Tier 3 programming (Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, 2023).

SWD are afforded special protections under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and school teams must ensure these protections are afforded to SWD or those in the special education referral process during and following BTAM.

SWD are entitled to a free appropriate public education (FAPE). FAPE is supported through a team-based program development process, and programming must be designed to enable academic and behavioral progress in light of the student’s circumstances.

When a student’s behavior interferes with their learning or the learning of others, the team must meet to “consider positive behavioral interventions and supports and other strategies to address the behavior” (34 C.F.R. § 300.324(a)(2), 2024, Development, review, and revision of IEP).

SWD are also entitled to disciplinary protections in cases where they are removed from school, or their placement is changed.

However, it is also important to recognize that SWD, especially those of color, are more likely to be referred for concerning behavior (Burnette et al., 2020; Cornell et al., 2018).

Additionally, under Child Find, a part of the IDEA, schools are responsible for identifying and evaluating students needing specialized services and supports.

SWD can benefit from function-based assessments which can be used to better understand the purpose of behaviors interfering with their educational performance and identify any relevant contributing factors. The information gained can help establish function-based supports, interventions, and behaviorial plans to mitigate or eliminate the interfering behavior (Office of Special Eduction and Rehabilitative Services, 2024).

If the student is removed from the learning environment for an extended time, IEP services must continue to be delivered.

Further, when a SWD’s behavior results in suspension for more than 10 days (cumulatively or consecutively), the full IEP team must meet to determine if the behavior is directly related to (i.e., a manifestation of) the student’s disability and if a change of placement is appropriate.

In cases where the behavior is deemed a manifestation of a disability, there are procedural safeguards in IDEA that must be followed for students with disabilities.

Additionally, in cases where a student’s behavior results in a change of placement or is determined to be a manifestation of their disability, SWD have a right to a function-based assessment and a behavior intervention plan designed to address the behavior (34 C.F.R. § 300.530(d)(1)(ii) and (f)(1)(i), 2024, Authority of School Personnel; 34 C.F.R. § 300.534, 2024, Protections for children not determined eligible for special education and related services).

Such approaches that promote successful outcomes for all students can decrease the risk of harm to the school community (National Threat Assessment Center, 2021).