State-level BTAM policies are likely helping schools implement BTAM
State-level policies related to BTAM, whether through legislation or non-codified policy, are likely helping schools implement BTAM.
NCIER®
State Policy Mandates
117 claims on pp. 6–160 (fact 57, statement 9, evidence 26, conclusion 5, conjecture 15, definition 5).
Claims about State Policy Mandates
Schools in states with early mandates or encouragement are further along, with more standardized mee
Schools in states with early mandates or policy encouragement for BTAM are further along in implementation, with more standardized meeting schedules and written procedures.
Progress may be due to earlier access to training and funding
This progress may be due to earlier access to training and funding.
State-level support appears to play a key role in advancing BTAM practices
State-level support appears to play a key role in advancing BTAM practices.
State laws mandating BTAM teams helped advance BTAM implementation at various points
The passage of laws across various states mandating BTAM teams in K–12 schools also helped advance BTAM implementation at various points in time.
Florida and other states passed threat assessment mandates after the 2018 Parkland shooting
states, including Florida, passed mandates related to threat assessments in response to the 2018 Parkland shooting (Blad, 2023).
Footnote 2: other states with mandates: Maryland (2018), Texas (2019), Illinois (2019), Kentucky (20
Other states in this group include Maryland (2018), Texas (2019), Illinois (2019), and Kentucky (2019).
Differences also examined by BTAM state policy context in 2019
Where appropriate, we also examined differences in educators’ responses according to the BTAM state policy context in 2019.
State groups drawn from 2021 Child Trends and NASBE analysis of state laws and policies
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.
States divided into three groups by their 2019 policy context
We used these data to divide states into three groups, roughly corresponding to their policy context at the time of the review (2019):
Early legislation states (18 states): 2019 requirements to adopt threat assessment
Early legislation states (18 states), including states where, in 2019, state legal requirements, regulations or district policy required school districts to adopt threat assessment as a safety measure.
Early legislation category could include states with explicit laws or training or assessment policie
This category could include states that had explicit laws about schools using the practice, or policies requiring training or mandating assessment processes as part of their response to violent incidents (sometimes in the broader context of bullying and violence response).
Early legislation states: CT, FL, GA, IL, KY, MD, MI, MS, NV, NH, NY, OH, OR, PA, RI, TX, VA, WA
These states were Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Virginia, and Washington.
States that encouraged BTAM (20 states): encouraged in 2019 or covered in non-codified policy
States that encouraged schools to use BTAM (20 states), combining states where, in 2019, state law, regulation, or district policy encourage[d] districts to adopt threat assessment policies and states where BTAM was not addressed in state law or regulations, but was covered in non-codified policy.
Encouraged states: AR, CO, DE, ID, IN, KS, MA, MO, MT, NE, NJ, NM, NC, ND, OK, SC, TN, UT, VT, WV
States in this group consisted of Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, and West Virginia.
Other states (13 states): BTAM not addressed in state law or regulation as of 2019
Other states (13 states), which included those where BTAM was not addressed in state law or regulation as of 2019.
Other states: AL, AK, AZ, CA, DC, HI, IA, LA, ME, MN, SD, WI, WY (Child Trends and NASBE, 2021)
These states were Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming (Child Trends and NASBE, 2021).
Footnote 6: 2019 compilation was the most up-to-date comprehensive source on BTAM requirements
The 2019 compilation of law and policy was the most up-to-date source of comprehensive information on BTAM requirements nationally at the time of survey sampling and planning.
2019 data used as a reference point for the existing BTAM implementation landscape
We used the 2019 data as a reference point for understanding the existing BTAM implementation landscape as reported through the eyes of our survey respondents.
Three state categories help show whether early encouragement might relate to practices and outcomes
Grouping states into the three aforementioned categories allowed us to understand whether early encouragement or legislation by states to implement BTAM in schools (potentially associated with stronger funding, training, or other support for BTAM) might be related to the practices and outcomes reported by principals today.
Specific policies differ across states, even within each category
Importantly, specific policies across states differ, even within each category.
Maryland and Texas both require BTAM teams but with different emphases (Texas SSC; MCSS)
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).
Kentucky, Nevada, and Oregon required BTAM by 2019 and stress multidisciplinary teams
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.
Early-requirement states provide training to school staff via state agencies or education department
These states also provide training to school staff through either state-level school safety agencies or state departments of education.
Between 2019 and 2025 several states changed BTAM law or policy
It should be noted that in the intervening years (i.e., between 2019 and the writing of this report in 2025), several states have made changes in law or policy regarding BTAM.
New laws requiring BTAM enacted during study (NJ, TN, IA) and earlier (VT)
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).
If grouped by mid-2025 policy, more states would be in the legislation category
If states were to be grouped according to policies in place as of this writing in mid-2025, more would be included in the “legislation” category.
2019 grouping still useful to show how early state support may have affected BTAM implementation
Nevertheless, understanding the implementation of early legislation by some states in 2019 is still useful for the purposes of this current analysis, insofar as it helps demonstrate how early state support in 2019 may have affected BTAM implementation over time across different state policy contexts.
Third limitation: report does not fully explore state policy details or give an up-to-date state ana
Moreover, although the report highlights high-level differences in state-level policies and context specific to BTAM, it does not fully explore the details of such policies
Why inferred The sentence crosses a page break: this quote is the page 24 part and the sentence continues on page 25. Full sentence (pages 24–25): “Moreover, although the report highlights high-level differences in state-level policies and context specific to BTAM, it does not fully explore the details of such policies and does not provide an up-to-date analysis of state policies as of this report’s publication date.”
Current policies differ even among the 18 early legislation states
For example, among the 18 states in the early legislation category, current policies can look quite different.
Chapter examines which school types have BTAM programs and the link to 2019 policy context
We then examine what types of schools are likely to have BTAM programs and to what extent the prevalence of BTAM programs today is at all related to what the policy context looked like in 2019.
Differences explored by whether states required, encouraged, or did not address BTAM in 2019
Specifically, we explore any potential differences in schools’ implementation of BTAM today based on whether their states required, encouraged, or did not address BTAM in the 2019 policy.
State policy context likely affects whether and how rapidly schools implement new practices
Although individual schools may adopt new school safety approaches individually or at the district level, the state policy context—that is, whether schools are subject to legal requirements or receive incentives to adopt BTAM—likely affects the extent to which and how rapidly schools implement new practices.
States mandating BTAM might fund state agencies for training or publish guidelines
States that mandate BTAM in schools, for example, might fund their state-level school agencies to provide BTAM-specific training to schools at no cost, or publish guidelines to aid implementation.
Virginia’s BTAM law was enacted in 2013; Florida and New Jersey mandates are more recent
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 encouraged adoption through guidance without a legislative mandate
Other states took steps to encourage adoption, for example, by publishing guidance and recommendations without a legislative mandate
Some states provide no guidance and leave BTAM decisions to the school or district
Still other states do not provide any guidance and leave these decisions to the individual school or school district.
State policy is not expected to be the primary determinant, but encouragement or funding could promo
Although we do not expect state policy context to be the primary determinant of schools’ decisions about which safety measures to implement (see Chapter 7 for a discussion of the primary drivers for initial BTAM implementation in schools), encouraging the use of BTAM or providing other supports, such as funding to state-level school safety agencies specifically for BTAM could promote adoption or influence how schools form BTAM teams and scope their responsibilities.
Schools in early-legislation or early-encouraging states might be further along in refining practice
As a result, schools in states with early BTAM-specific legislation or in states that encouraged BTAM earlier than others might be further along today in refining their practices for their specific school context.
Drew on a Child Trends and NASBE systematic analysis of state-level threat assessment laws and polic
we drew on a systematic analysis of state-level laws and policies related to threat assessment and completed by Child Trends and NASBE
Child Trends and NASBE (2021) divided states into three 2019 categories
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.
Authors explored how current BTAM landscape differed across the three 2019 state policy contexts
We explored to what extent the current (as of this writing) BTAM landscape in schools differed across these three early state policy contexts.
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.
Marginal differences across contexts, namely in the types of teams serving schools
However, there are marginal differences in specific elements of BTAM adoption across these contexts, namely in the types of teams serving schools.
Schools in states with no 2019 legislation or encouragement more likely to use a BTAM-like team
schools in these states are more likely than their counterparts in other policy contexts to use a BTAM-like team to perform threat assessment and management functions (e.g., an MTSS or PBIS team).
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.
Early-legislation-state schools more likely than no-mention-state schools to have teams at both leve
Furthermore, schools in early legislation states are more likely today than those in states where BTAM was not addressed in 2019 to have teams at both the school and district levels.
Footnote: 2019 compilation was the most up-to-date comprehensive source at sampling time
The 2019 compilation of law and policy was the most up-to-date source of comprehensive information on BTAM requirements nationally at the time of survey sampling and planning
Footnote: a state could be coded as requiring threat assessment without a multidisciplinary team
For example, a state might be categorized by these authors as having a law, regulation, or policy requiring threat assessment even if the requirement did not involve that threat assessment being done by a multidisciplinary team (which is core to virtually all framings of behavioral threat assessment).
Footnote: some states with neither legislation nor encouragement in 2019 have since passed BTAM legi
Note that some of these states that had neither legislation nor encouraged BTAM as of 2019 have passed BTAM legislation as of this report’s publication.
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: District-level team only: Other states 16 percent, encouraged in 2019 18 percent, early leg
Sample (N = 423 | 481 | 842 by column) · State-policy groups in column order: other states, encouraged BTAM use only, early legislation states
District-level team only | 16 | 18 | 10
Fig 2.2: Teams located at both levels: Other states 33 percent, encouraged in 2019 39 percent, early
Sample (N = 423 | 481 | 842 by column) · State-policy groups in column order: other states, encouraged BTAM use only, early legislation states
Teams located at both levels | 33 | 39 | 50
Fig 2.2: Alternative team performing BTAM functions: Other states 23 percent, encouraged in 2019 16
Sample (N = 423 | 481 | 842 by column) · State-policy groups in column order: other states, encouraged BTAM use only, early legislation states
Alternative team performing BTAM functions | 23 | 16 | 9
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 2.2: Supported by BTAM team external to school district: Other states 11 percent, encouraged in
Sample (N = 423 | 481 | 842 by column) · State-policy groups in column order: other states, encouraged BTAM use only, early legislation states
Supported by BTAM team external to school district | 11 | 9 | 8
Figure 2.2 note: one hundred boxes represent the schools in each state policy context
One hundred boxes are used to represent the population of public schools in each state policy context.
Timing corresponds with post-COVID behavior spikes and high-profile school shootings
This timing corresponds with at least two notable trends: (1) the return to in-person schooling after the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and associated spikes in student behavior problems, such as minor classroom disruptions and student fights (NCES, 2022; Peetz, 2025); and (2) high-profile school shootings throughout the country, which spurred renewed attention to behavioral threat assessment in schools and led directly to changes in state policy (WFTS Webteam, 2018; Higgins, 2025).
State law or local policy sometimes requires immediate law enforcement involvement in serious cases
Though such behaviors would appear to always fall within the remit of a BTAM team, state law or local policy sometimes requires schools to immediately involve law enforcement in some very serious situations.
cite page 38 Ch 4: What Is the Scope of Schools' BTAM Programs?
Chapter closes by comparing BTAM operations across states with different 2019 policy contexts
At the end of this chapter, we explore how BTAM operations differ across schools in states with different BTAM policy contexts in 2019.
Most named BTAM frameworks and some state laws specify minimum team sizes and required disciplines
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).
Schools in states with 2019 BTAM legislation appear ahead in operating BTAM programs in 2025, in som
schools in states that had already implemented legislation related to BTAM in 2019 appear to be ahead in terms of operating their BTAM programs in 2025, at least in some respects.
Schools in 2019-legislation states more likely to have multiple organizational and procedural compon
As shown in Figure 5.5, schools in states with specific BTAM legislation in 2019 were more likely to have multiple organizational and procedural components in place for the operation of their BTAM team at the time of our survey.
Components include defining policy documents, written SOPs, and a standard meeting schedule
This includes having defining policy documents, written SOPs, and a standard meeting schedule for their BTAM teams.
Schools in 2019-legislation states also more likely to have larger teams, though difference very sma
These schools were also more likely to have larger BTAM teams compared with schools in states that did not address BTAM at all in 2019, though the difference was substantively very small.
Schools in 2019-legislation states are out in front of schools where adoption was not promoted
Schools in states that included BTAM in legislation 2019 are now out in front compared with schools in states where adoption of BTAM was not promoted in 2019.
They are also ahead of schools in states where BTAM was only encouraged, though not to the same degr
They are also ahead of schools in states where BTAM was only encouraged in 2019, though not to the same degree.
Schools in 2019-legislation states were not ahead on funding and training
We did identify two areas where schools in states with BTAM legislation in 2019 were not ahead of others that did not: funding and training.
2019-legislation states neither more nor less likely to dedicate funding or annual training
That is, schools in states that included BTAM in legislation in 2019 were neither more nor less likely to dedicate funding or annual training to BTAM than other schools at the time of our survey.
Fig 5.5 Dedicated funding: other states 20, encouraged states 25, early legislation states [unlabele
Sample (N = 423 | 481 | 842 by column) · Figure 5.5 columns: other states, states that encouraged BTAM use only, early legislation states (state policy context 2019)
Dedicated funding | 20 | 25 | [unlabeled]
Fig 5.5 Standard meeting schedule: other states 37, encouraged states [unlabeled], early legislation
Sample (N = 423 | 481 | 842 by column) · Figure 5.5 columns: other states, states that encouraged BTAM use only, early legislation states (state policy context 2019)
Standard meeting schedule | 37 | [unlabeled] | 48
Fig 5.5 Annual training: other states 43, encouraged states 49, early legislation states [unlabeled]
Sample (N = 423 | 481 | 842 by column) · Figure 5.5 columns: other states, states that encouraged BTAM use only, early legislation states (state policy context 2019)
Annual training | 43 | 49 | [unlabeled]
Fig 5.5 Written SOPs: other states 38, encouraged states 46, early legislation states 55
Sample (N = 423 | 481 | 842 by column) · Figure 5.5 columns: other states, states that encouraged BTAM use only, early legislation states (state policy context 2019)
Written SOPs | 38 | 46 | 55
Fig 5.5 Defining policy document: other states 37, encouraged states 46, early legislation states 62
Sample (N = 423 | 481 | 842 by column) · Figure 5.5 columns: other states, states that encouraged BTAM use only, early legislation states (state policy context 2019)
Defining policy document | 37 | 46 | 62
Fig 5.5 Team composition (average team members): other states 4.9, encouraged states 5.2, early legi
Team composition (average number of team members) | 4.9 | 5.2 | 5.4
Fig 5.5 survey items and n = 1,408
This figure depicts response data from the following survey questions: “Does your school or district budget include dedicated funding to support your BTAM program?” “How often does your BTAM team meet?” “How often do the members of your BTAM team receive training and/or professional development related to BTAM?” “Has your school or district established written standard operating procedures (SOPs) for how your BTAM team functions on a day-to-day basis?” “Does your school or district have an explicit policy document that establishes and defines your BTAM program?” and “Which person(s) are regular members of this BTAM team?” (n = 1,408).
Several states developed their own K-12 BTAM guidelines (FL, SC, TX, VA, WI)
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).
Likelihood of using named models depended on various factors, most notably state policy context
Schools’ likelihood of using named models depended on various factors, most notably their state policy context.
Schools in states with 2019 legislation were the most likely to use named models
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).
Named model use still relatively uncommon in early-legislation states, equal to not-addressed states
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.
States that encouraged but did not mandate BTAM in 2019 were least likely to use named models
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.
Next most common driver was school- or district-level policy requirements
The next most common driver was policy requirements set at either the school or district level, which we discuss in more detail below.
cite page 54 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
Principals in early-mandate or early-encouragement states saw policy as a driver
Sample (N = 452 total; column N not printed) · Principals answering the implementation drivers question
Interestingly, principals in states that mandated BTAM early (i.e., in 2019) or strongly encouraged its adoption early (also in 2019) perceived that such policies were a driver for BTAM adoption at their schools (e.g., half of the principals in states with early legislation said that state or local law was a main driver in their decision to implement BTAM) (see the purple box in Figure 7.1).
cite page 54 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
Required by state or local law: other states 13, encouraged 45*, early legislation 53* (%)
Sample (N = 452 total; column N not printed) · Principals answering the implementation drivers question
We were required to by state or local law | 13 | 45* | 53*
cite page 55 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
Figure 7.1 asterisk marks a statistically significant difference from other states
An asterisk (*) indicates that the percentage of schools in states that had early legislation or in states that encouraged BTAM use is statistically significantly different from the percentage of schools in other states.
cite page 55 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
State policy is not the determining factor in BTAM uptake by schools
The fact that BTAM programs are still very common even in those states where adoption of BTAM was neither mandated nor encouraged in 2019 further highlights the finding that state policy is not the determining factor in uptake of BTAM by schools.
cite page 55 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
Principals in early-mandate or early-encouragement states still cited best practice as a main reason
still saw BTAM as a best practice for violence prevention as a main reason for adoption.
Why inferred The sentence crosses a page break: this quote is the page 55 part and the sentence begins on page 54. Full sentence (pages 54–55): “However, a greater percentage of these principals still saw BTAM as a best practice for violence prevention as a main reason for adoption.” “These principals” are those in states that mandated BTAM early or strongly encouraged its adoption early (in 2019), per the preceding sentence on page 54.
cite page 55 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
In some states, laws or regulations require schools to involve police for specific incidents...
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?
14 percent of schools changed their BTAM process in response to changes to state law or policy
Sample (N = 1376) · Official BTAM teams only answering Table A.51
That said, 14 percent of schools did change their BTAM process in response to changes to state law or policy regarding BTAM.
cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Schools in 2019 early-legislation states most likely to change processes in response to state law or
Schools located in our group of states with early legislation in 2019 (see Chapter 1) were most likely to indicate that their processes had changed in response to such shifts in state law or policy.
cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Perhaps unsurprising that early-policy states’ principals reported being affected by policy changes
Given that that group of states put prescriptive policies in place early regarding local use of BTAM, it is perhaps unsurprising that principals in those states told us they were affected by changes in those policies
cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Since the 2019 study, some states, including Georgia and Michigan, enacted laws covering school BTAM
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
Schools in states without 2019 BTAM legislation or policy more likely to cite training gaps
Schools in states that did not promote BTAM via legislation or non-codified policy in 2019 were also more likely to identify training gaps as an issue, suggesting that some state policies related to BTAM may specifically include providing training to schools at no or reduced cost.
cite page 104 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Discussion: state-level BTAM policies are likely helping schools implement BTAM
State-level policies related to BTAM, whether through legislation or non-codified policy, are likely helping schools implement BTAM.
Schools in states with 2019 mandate or encouragement via non-codified policy are ahead
Our analyses show that schools in states that mandated or otherwise encouraged BTAM implementation at K–12 schools through non-codified policy in 2019 are ahead in terms of their BTAM implementation.
Those states’ schools more likely to have standard meeting schedules, written SOPs and policies
Today, schools in these states are more likely to have standardized meeting schedules for their BTAM teams, as well as written SOPs and defining policy documents for their BTAM programs.
This could be because schools in these states received earlier training and/or funding
This could be because schools in these states received earlier support in the form of training and/or funding for their BTAM programs.
Second goal: compare BTAM operationalization across three state policy contexts
The second goal was to facilitate comparisons in how schools operationalized their BTAM programs across three state policy contexts: (1) states that had early legislation (as of 2019), (2) states that encouraged BTAM use, and (3) other states.
Early legislation states: WA, OR, NV, TX, MS, GA, FL, IL, MI, OH, PA, NY, CT, NH, KY, VA, MD, RI
Early legislation states (light blue) | WA, OR, NV, TX, MS, GA, FL, IL, MI, OH, PA, NY, CT, NH, KY, VA, MD, RI
States that encouraged BTAM use: MT, ID, ND, UT, CO, NE, KS, OK, NM, MO, AR, TN, IN, WV, NC, SC, VT,
States that encouraged BTAM use (purple) | MT, ID, ND, UT, CO, NE, KS, OK, NM, MO, AR, TN, IN, WV, NC, SC, VT, MA, NJ, DE
Other states: CA, AZ, WY, SD, MN, IA, WI, LA, AL, AK, HI, ME, DC
Other states (orange) | CA, AZ, WY, SD, MN, IA, WI, LA, AL, AK, HI, ME, DC
Figure B.2 source: features data compiled in 2019 by Child Trends and NASBE (2021)
SOURCE: Features data compiled in 2019 by Child Trends and NASBE (2021).
Second consideration: sample size to estimate means and proportions across three state policy contex
A second consideration was ensuring sufficient sample size to estimate means and proportions across the three state policy contexts of interest without substantially increasing the survey design effect.
Initial goal: 50 percent early legislation, 25 percent other states, 25 percent encouraged-only
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)
The initial goal was to sample 50 percent from the early legislation states (as it was anticipated that BTAM programs would be most common in these states), 25 percent from each of the other states, and 25 percent from the encouraged BTAM use only states.
Too few panelists in other states; extra principals sampled from encouraged-only states
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)
There were not enough panelists in the other states in the ASLP at the time of sampling to meet the desired sample. Therefore, we sampled some additional principals from the encouraged BTAM use only states to maintain the 50 percent/50 percent distribution with principals from early legislation states.
Florida Department of Education, Florida Harm Prevention and Threat Management Manual, Florida Admin
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,” Chalkbeat, January 22, 2025.
Higgins, Lori, “Whitmer Signs School Safety Legislation into Law,”
Maryland Center for School Safety, “Behavioral Threat Assessment (BTA),” webpage, undated. As of May
Maryland Center for School Safety, “Behavioral Threat Assessment (BTA),”
National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments, “Texas School Discipline Laws & Regulation
National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments, “Texas School Discipline Laws & Regulations: Threat Assessment Protocols,”
State of South Carolina, Department of Education, School-Based Behavioral Threat Assessment and Mana
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
Texas School Safety Center, “School Behavioral Threat Assessment Toolkit: 2.0 Legal Requirements and Guidelines,”
Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services, Threat Assessment and Management in Virginia Publi
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.
WFTS Webteam, “Florida Senate Passes Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act,” ABC Ac
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 Mana
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.
Top
Find the Perfect Training Class For You