BTAM adoption is becoming a nearly ubiquitous practice across U.S. schools
Adoption of BTAM as part of school safety efforts is becoming a nearly ubiquitous practice across U.S. schools.
NCIER®
BTAM Adoption Prevalence
103 claims on pp. 6–152 (fact 88, statement 3, evidence 4, conclusion 6, conjecture 2).
Claims about BTAM Adoption Prevalence
A decade ago fewer than half of schools had BTAM teams
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.
Report gives a picture of the state of BTAM in K–12 public schools in 2025
This report takes an in-depth look at the results of that survey, providing a picture of the state of BTAM in K–12 public schools across the country in 2025.
Findings underscore remarkable progress: near-universal implementation and focus on serious concerns
Findings from this nationally representative survey of K–12 principals underscore the remarkable progress schools have made in adopting BTAM programs, with near-universal implementation and a clear focus on addressing the most serious safety concerns through individualized, supportive interventions.
Schools increasingly seek alternatives that balance safety with students' well-being and rights
As a result, schools increasingly seek alternatives that balance safety with the well-being and rights of all students.
Federal data: as many as 85 percent of schools had a BTAM team in place as of 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)
BTAM has emerged as a widely adopted approach to address these challenges in K–12 schools across the United States, with federal data showing that as many as 85 percent of schools nationwide had a BTAM team in place as of 2024
Figure 1.1, Spring 2016: 42 percent of schools had a BTAM team (SSOCS)
Sample (n = undeterminable of undeterminable) · Federal SSOCS / School Pulse Panel national estimates of schools with a BTAM team
Spring 2016 | 42
Figure 1.1, Spring 2018: 44 percent of schools had a BTAM team (SSOCS)
Sample (n = undeterminable of undeterminable) · Federal SSOCS / School Pulse Panel national estimates of schools with a BTAM team
Spring 2018 | 44
Figure 1.1, Spring 2020: 64 percent of schools had a BTAM team (SSOCS)
Sample (n = undeterminable of undeterminable) · Federal SSOCS / School Pulse Panel national estimates of schools with a BTAM team
Spring 2020 | 64
Figure 1.1, Spring 2022: 65 percent of schools had a BTAM team (SSOCS)
Sample (n = undeterminable of undeterminable) · Federal SSOCS / School Pulse Panel national estimates of schools with a BTAM team
Spring 2022 | 65
Figure 1.1, Fall 2022: 82 percent of schools had a BTAM team (SPP)
Sample (n = undeterminable of undeterminable) · Federal SSOCS / School Pulse Panel national estimates of schools with a BTAM team
Fall 2022 | | 82
Figure 1.1, Spring 2024: 85 percent of schools had a BTAM team (SPP)
Sample (n = undeterminable of undeterminable) · Federal SSOCS / School Pulse Panel national estimates of schools with a BTAM team
Spring 2024 | | 85
Figure 1.1 source: SSOCS (Burr et al., 2024) and School Pulse Panel (NCES, 2025)
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).
Figure 1.1 note: principals asked about a BTAM team or other formal group to identify at-risk studen
NOTE: Both data collections asked principals whether their school had a behavioral threat assessment team or “any other formal group of persons to identify students who might be a potential risk for violent or harmful behavior (toward themselves or others).”
2015–2016: 42 percent of a national sample of K–12 public school principals had threat assessment te
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).
More recent federal data: 85 percent of all public schools had a team by 2024 (NCES, 2025)
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).
BTAM teams at K–12 schools grew notably between 2016 and 2024 (Figure 1.1)
As Figure 1.1 shows, the existence of BTAM teams at K–12 schools grew notably between 2016 and 2024.
Research question 1: What schools have implemented BTAM?
What schools have implemented BTAM?
This chapter uses data from 1,746 principals who completed the survey for their schools
In this chapter, we provide an overview of the BTAM landscape in K–12 public schools across the country using data from the 1,746 principals who completed our survey on behalf of their schools.
Survey results used to investigate how many schools had BTAM programs as of 2024–2025
We first use our survey results to investigate how many schools nationally had BTAM programs in place as of the 2024–2025 school year
Figure 2.1 uses 100 boxes to represent the population of U.S. public schools
Figure 2.1 displays the national landscape of BTAM programs in K–12 schools, using 100 boxes to represent the population of U.S. public schools.
Virtually all public schools (97 percent) engaged in BTAM in some capacity in 2024–2025
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
As shown and according to the principals who took our survey, virtually all public schools (97 percent) engaged in BTAM in some capacity during the 2024–2025 school year.
Eighty-two percent of public schools have an official BTAM team
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
Eighty-two percent of public schools have a team that they explicitly call a BTAM team (for which we use the term official BTAM team).
More than 70,000 schools across the United States with BTAM teams
This translates to more than 70,000 schools across the United States with BTAM teams.
Official BTAM teams: 25 percent of schools school-level, 13 percent district-only, 43 percent both
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
This includes 25 percent of schools that have an official BTAM team housed at the school level, 13 percent of schools that only have a school district–level BTAM team, and 43 percent of schools that have both school- and district-level teams.
Another 14 percent of schools have an alternative team functionally similar to a BTAM team
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
Another 14 percent of schools have a team that was not formally identified as a BTAM team but was functionally similar to such teams in that it “makes decisions regarding serious student behavioral concerns” (those are represented by the light purple boxes in Figure 2.1).
Figure 2.1: Official BTAM team 82 percent
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
Official BTAM team | 82
Figure 2.1: School-level team only 25 percent
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
School-level team only | 25
Figure 2.1: District-level team only 13 percent
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
District-level team only | 13
Figure 2.1: Teams located at both levels 43 percent
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
Teams located at both levels | 43
Figure 2.1: Alternative team performing BTAM functions 14 percent
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
Alternative team performing BTAM functions | 14
Figure 2.1: No BTAM team 3 percent
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
No BTAM team | 3
Figure 2.1: Supported by BTAM team external to school district 9 percent
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
Supported by BTAM team external to school district | 9
Figure 2.2 uses 100 boxes per 2019 state policy context
Figure 2.2 displays the existing landscape of BTAM program adoption in schools based on our survey data, again using 100 boxes to represent the population of public schools in each state policy context.
BTAM is very common in schools across all 2019 state policy contexts
The three breakdowns demonstrate that BTAM is very common in schools across all 2019 state policy contexts.
Very few schools in any state policy context do not engage in BTAM at all
Very few schools in any state policy context do not engage in BTAM at all.
Official BTAM team: 90 percent early legislation states, 77 percent encouraged states, 73 percent no
Sample (N = 423 | 481 | 842 by column) · State-policy groups in column order: other states, encouraged BTAM use only, early legislation states
More specifically, 90 percent of schools in early legislation states have an official BTAM team today, compared with 77 percent of schools in states that only encouraged the practice in 2019 and 73 percent of schools in states where there was no mention of BTAM in state policy in 2019.
BTAM teams were common across all school types (Figure 2.3)
As shown in Figure 2.3, BTAM teams were common across all school types.
Large schools (450+ students) 85 percent vs small schools 79 percent reported official BTAM teams
Sample (column N undeterminable) · School enrollment-size subgroups (small, large)
Principals of large schools (those serving 450 students or more) were slightly more likely than their counterparts in small schools to report having official BTAM teams (85 percent versus 79 percent, respectively).
Rural schools 78 percent official BTAM teams vs 84 percent suburban and 86 percent urban
Sample (column N undeterminable) · School-locale subgroups (urban, suburban, rural)
BTAM teams may also be slightly less common in rural settings: 78 percent of rural schools reported having official BTAM teams compared with 84 percent of suburban schools and 86 percent of urban schools.
Fig 2.2: Official BTAM team: Other states 73 percent, encouraged in 2019 77 percent, early legislati
Sample (N = 423 | 481 | 842 by column) · State-policy groups in column order: other states, encouraged BTAM use only, early legislation states
Official BTAM team | 73 | 77 | 90
Fig 2.2: School-level team only: Other states 24 percent, encouraged in 2019 20 percent, early legis
Sample (N = 423 | 481 | 842 by column) · State-policy groups in column order: other states, encouraged BTAM use only, early legislation states
School-level team only | 24 | 20 | 29
Fig 2.2: No BTAM team: Other states 4 percent, encouraged in 2019 6 percent, early legislation 1 per
Sample (N = 423 | 481 | 842 by column) · State-policy groups in column order: other states, encouraged BTAM use only, early legislation states
No BTAM team | 4 | 6 | 1
Fig 2.3: Total: official team 82 percent, alternative team 14 percent, total 97 percent
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
(none) | Total | 82 | 14 | 97
Fig 2.3: Level: Elementary: official team 81 percent, alternative team 16 percent, total 97 percent
Sample (column N undeterminable) · School-level subgroups (elementary, middle, high)
Level | Elementary | 81 | 16 | 97
Fig 2.3: Level: Middle: official team 86 percent, alternative team 11 percent, total 97 percent
Sample (column N undeterminable) · School-level subgroups (elementary, middle, high)
Level | Middle | 86 | 11 | 97
Fig 2.3: Level: High: official team 81 percent, alternative team 13 percent, total 94 percent
Sample (column N undeterminable) · School-level subgroups (elementary, middle, high)
Level | High | 81 | 13 | 94
Fig 2.3: Locale: Urban: official team 86 percent, alternative team 12 percent, total 98 percent
Sample (column N undeterminable) · School-locale subgroups (urban, suburban, rural)
Locale | Urban | 86 | 12 | 98
Fig 2.3: Locale: Suburban: official team 84 percent, alternative team 13 percent, total 97 percent
Sample (column N undeterminable) · School-locale subgroups (urban, suburban, rural)
Locale | Suburban | 84 | 13 | 97
Fig 2.3: Locale: Rural: official team 78 percent, alternative team 17 percent, total 95 percent
Sample (column N undeterminable) · School-locale subgroups (urban, suburban, rural)
Locale | Rural | 78 | 17 | 95
Fig 2.3 high neighborhood poverty: official 80 percent, alternative 16 percent, total 96 percent
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Neighborhood-poverty subgroups (high, middle, low)
Neighborhood poverty level | High | 80 | 16 | 96
Fig 2.3 middle neighborhood poverty: official 82 percent, alternative 14 percent, total 96 percent
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Neighborhood-poverty subgroups (high, middle, low)
Neighborhood poverty level | Middle | 82 | 14 | 96
Fig 2.3 low neighborhood poverty: official 85 percent, alternative 13 percent, total 98 percent
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Neighborhood-poverty subgroups (high, middle, low)
Neighborhood poverty level | Low | 85 | 13 | 98
Fig 2.3: Student racial/ethnic composition: Majority White students: official team 82 percent, alter
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Student racial/ethnic-composition subgroups
Student racial/ethnic composition | Majority White students | 82 | 15 | 97
Fig 2.3: Student racial/ethnic composition: Majority students of color: official team 82 percent, al
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Student racial/ethnic-composition subgroups
Student racial/ethnic composition | Majority students of color | 82 | 14 | 97
Fig 2.3: Enrollment size: Small: official team 79 percent, alternative team 17 percent, total 96 per
Sample (column N undeterminable) · School enrollment-size subgroups (small, large)
Enrollment size | Small | 79 | 17 | 96
Fig 2.3: Enrollment size: Large: official team 85 percent, alternative team 12 percent, total 97 per
Sample (column N undeterminable) · School enrollment-size subgroups (small, large)
Enrollment size | Large | 85 | 12 | 97
Most schools have already implemented BTAM (see Figure 2.1)
Although most schools around the country have already implemented a BTAM program (see Figure 2.1), we present data on initial implementation for two reasons.
Data could help the roughly one in five schools that might still adopt avoid past challenges
First, these data could help the roughly one in five schools that might still adopt and implement an official BTAM program avoid challenges schools have experienced in the past.
14 percent of schools have a school-based team for serious concerns not called a BTAM team
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
some schools (14 percent) have a school-based team that makes decisions about serious student behavioral concerns but is not referred to as a BTAM team (a BTAM-like team).
cite page 39 Ch 4: What Is the Scope of Schools' BTAM Programs?
Analysis covers the 82 percent of schools with an official BTAM team (n = 1,408)
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.
As in the previous chapter, analysis stays on the 82 percent of schools with an official BTAM team
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.
Chapter focuses on the 82 percent of schools with an official BTAM team
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
In this chapter, we focus on the 82 percent of schools that told us they had an official BTAM team.
Chapter focuses on the 82 percent of surveyed schools with an official BTAM team
Sample (n = 1408 of 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
We focus on the 82 percent of schools in our survey that told us they had an official BTAM team.
cite page 62 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Chapter focuses on the 82 percent of schools with official BTAM teams
Sample (n = 1408 of 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
We focus on the 82 percent of schools that stated in the survey they had official BTAM teams.
cite page 70 Ch 10: How Do BTAM Teams Monitor Intervention Plans?
Results suggest the policy challenge is improving existing BTAM programs, not advancing adoption
the policy challenge going forward is less about advancing adoption of BTAM as a component of schools safety efforts—the vast majority of schools already have done so—and more about how to improve existing programs.
cite page 100 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
BTAM adoption or an alternative BTAM-like team is nearly ubiquitous across U.S. schools
Adoption of BTAM as part of school safety efforts—or the existence of an alternative BTAM-like team—has become a nearly ubiquitous practice across U.S. schools.
Foremost challenge is not schools’ initial adoption of BTAM
Even for the few schools that have not yet adopted BTAM—or that might move from using an alternative team to a dedicated multidisciplinary BTAM team—our results indicate that the foremost challenge is not schools’ initial adoption of BTAM.
Report took an in-depth look at the state of BTAM in K–12 public schools
In this report, we took an in-depth look at the state of BTAM in K–12 public schools across the country.
Table A.6: No, 15.0 weighted percent
Sample (N = 1746) · Respondents answering Table A.6 (N = 1,746; screener question)
| No | 15.0 |
Table A.6: Yes, 82.2 weighted percent
Sample (N = 1746) · Respondents answering Table A.6 (N = 1,746; screener question)
No | 15.0 | | Yes | 82.2 |
Table A.6: Don’t know, 2.8 weighted percent
Sample (N = 1746) · Respondents answering Table A.6 (N = 1,746; screener question)
Yes | 82.2 | | Don’t know | 2.8 |
Table A.6 note: Table A.6 was a screener question used to direct appropriate modules to survey respo
This was a screener question used to direct appropriate modules to survey respondents.
We had a BTAM team previously, but it was discontinued.: 0.0 (weighted pct)
Sample (N = 47) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
We had a BTAM team previously, but it was discontinued. | 0.0
We have considered starting a BTAM team but have not done so: 12.4 (weighted pct)
Sample (N = 47) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
We have considered starting a BTAM team but have not done so | 12.4
We have not considered starting a BTAM team: 66.0 (weighted pct)
Sample (N = 47) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
We have not considered starting a BTAM team | 66.0
Don’t know: 21.5 (weighted pct)
Sample (N = 47) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Don’t know | 21.5
Table A.61 note: Column does not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
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)
Column does not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
Table A.61 note: Only respondents who said their school does not have a school- or district-leve…
Only respondents who said their school does not have a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions) saw this question.
None of these reasons were important: X (weighted pct)
None of these reasons were important | X
Concerns about BTAM effectiveness in reducing school violence: X (weighted pct)
Concerns about BTAM effectiveness in reducing school violence | X
Staff or district leader concerns about BTAM being too complex: X (weighted pct)
Staff or district leader concerns about BTAM being too complex | X
Difficulties adapting BTAM to our local needs: X (weighted pct)
Difficulties adapting BTAM to our local needs | X
Our local community did not support our use of BTAM: X (weighted pct)
Our local community did not support our use of BTAM | X
Problems maintaining connections to outside service providers for intervention: X (weighted pct)
Problems maintaining connections to outside service providers for intervention | X
Service provider capacity limits for how many students they could serve: X (weighted pct)
Service provider capacity limits for how many students they could serve | X
Parents unable to support individual intervention efforts (e.g., due to costs): X (weighted pct)
Parents unable to support individual intervention efforts (e.g., due to costs) | X
Parents unwilling to implement or participate in recommended interventions: X (weighted pct)
Parents unwilling to implement or participate in recommended interventions | X
Staffing constraints making BTAM difficult to maintain: X (weighted pct)
Staffing constraints making BTAM difficult to maintain | X
Reduction in school staff support for the program: X (weighted pct)
Reduction in school staff support for the program | X
Couldn’t get needed training for BTAM team members: X (weighted pct)
Couldn’t get needed training for BTAM team members | X
Problems getting data from outside organizations (e.g., law enforcement, medica…: X (weighted pct)
Problems getting data from outside organizations (e.g., law enforcement, medical providers) | X
I don’t know why we discontinued the program: X (weighted pct)
I don’t know why we discontinued the program | X
Table A.62 note: Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
Table A.62 note: Only respondents who said their school did have a school- or district-level BTA…
Only respondents who said their school did have a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions) and that this was discontinued would have seen this question, but none did.
Table A.62 note: X = Response suppressed because of the small sample size.
X = Response suppressed because of the small sample size.
First consideration: enough sample given uncertainty about how many schools had BTAM programs as of
The first consideration was researchers needed to ensure sufficient sample to unpack differences in schools’ BTAM programs with some uncertainty about how many schools nationally had BTAM programs as of January 2025.
Using April 2024 School Pulse Panel data, estimated about eight in ten sampled schools would have a
Using data collected from the Department of Education’s School Pulse Panel in April 2024, we estimated that about eight in ten sampled schools would have a BTAM team (NCES, 2025).
Top
Find the Perfect Training Class For You