Most schools have adopted BTAM but there is considerable variability in models used
Even though most schools have adopted BTAM practices, there is still considerable variability in the models they use.
57 claims on pp. 7–124 (fact 44, statement 5, evidence 7, definition 1).
Even though most schools have adopted BTAM practices, there is still considerable variability in the models they use.
Although several entities, such as private organizations, federal government agencies, and U.S. states, have developed BTAM models and frameworks for use by K–12 schools, many schools and districts across the country have also developed their own models and approaches, as this report discusses.
Do schools use named BTAM models, to what extent do they modify them, or are they building their own models?
During implementation efforts, such changes are often labeled “adaptation”—adjusting a named model to match local needs.
Sample (N = 450) · Principals answering the implementation experience agreement statements
It was easy for us to pick the BTAM program we wanted to use from the options available. | 10 | 40 | 50
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).
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).
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.
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).
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)
Another 11 percent reported using a BTAM model not listed in the response options.
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
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).
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).”
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.
We asked all principals whether they were personally involved in the initial implementation of their school’s BTAM model and whether they reported using a named BTAM model or one that was locally created for their context.
cite page 54 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
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.
Many BTAM models differ in the specificity of their guidance for management and support strategies, leaving schools and their safety partners to develop their own approaches.
cite page 62 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
According to principals’ reports, schools often borrow selectively from nationally recognized, named programs and blend elements from these programs with locally developed practices.
Schools rely on named programs with modifications tailored to their specific needs, while others opt for fully localized approaches.
Sample (N = 1640 | 1404 by column) · Table A.24 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Salem-Kaiser | 1.8 | 2.0
Sample (N = 1640 | 1404 by column) · Table A.24 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
USSS NTAC (U.S. Secret Service/National Threat Assessment Center) | 4.0 | 4.6
Sample (N = 1640 | 1404 by column) · Table A.24 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
V/CSTAG (Virginia/Comprehensive School Threat Assessment Guidelines) | 7.5 | 8.5
Sample (N = 1640 | 1404 by column) · Table A.24 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
VA DCJS (Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services) | 1.2 | 1.4
Sample (N = 1640 | 1404 by column) · Table A.24 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
VTRA (Violence Threat Risk Assessment) | 3.2 | 3.6
Sample (N = 1640 | 1404 by column) · Table A.24 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
We use a named program not included here (please specify): | 10.2 | 10.6
Sample (N = 1640 | 1404 by column) · Table A.24 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
We use a BTAM program developed locally, drawing on other models and resources to craft a process for our specific school or school district | 27.4 | 30.1
Sample (N = 1640 | 1404 by column) · Table A.24 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
We do not use a defined program as part of our BTAM process | 24.0 | 17.6
Sample (N = 1640 | 1404 by column) · Table A.24 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Don’t know | 20.7 | 21.6
N | 1,640 | 1,404 |
Sample (N = 162 | 153 by column) · Table A.27 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only (N row printed on p124, continuation page)
We changed the program’s recommended procedures for collecting information to assess threats | 10.7 | 10.7
Sample (N = 162 | 153 by column) · Table A.27 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only (N row printed on p124, continuation page)
We adjusted the types of data used to assess threats because we were unable to access or use some types of data recommended by the program | 16.5 | 16.0
Sample (N = 162 | 153 by column) · Table A.27 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only (N row printed on p124, continuation page)
We use additional data to assess threats and concerning student behavior beyond what the program recommends, in addition to using the data recommended by the program | 25.1 | 25.8
Sample (N = 162 | 153 by column) · Table A.27 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only (N row printed on p124, continuation page)
We modified (or don’t use) worksheets, checklists or other tools that come with the program | 34.4 | 35.1
Sample (N = 162 | 153 by column) · Table A.27 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only (N row printed on p124, continuation page)
We created worksheets, checklists or other tools that didn’t originally come with the program | 25.2 | 23.3
Sample (N = 162 | 153 by column) · Table A.27 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only (N row printed on p124, continuation page)
We changed the way the program recommends assessing whether a student poses a threat to themselves or others | 3.1 | 3.3
Sample (N = 162 | 153 by column) · Table A.27 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only (N row printed on p124, continuation page)
We don’t use some of the intervention options recommended by the program because of access issues or resource constraints | 17.4 | 17.4
Sample (N = 162 | 153 by column) · Table A.27 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only (N row printed on p124, continuation page)
We added intervention options beyond those recommended by the program to meet our local needs | 21.1 | 20.8
Sample (N = 162 | 153 by column) · Table A.27 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only (N row printed on p124, continuation page)
Other changes (please specify): | 3.5 | 3.2
Find the Perfect Training Class For You