Page 31 | The State of BTAM in K–12 Public Schools: NCIER Claim Map

Fact [V] p031-01

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

p. 31 · NCIER Claim Map

cite page 31 Ch 2: Which Schools Have Implemented BTAM?

Fact [V] p031-02

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

p. 31 · NCIER Claim Map

cite page 31 Ch 2: Which Schools Have Implemented BTAM?

Fact [V] p031-03

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

p. 31 · NCIER Claim Map

cite page 31 Ch 2: Which Schools Have Implemented BTAM?

Fact [V] p031-04

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

p. 31 · NCIER Claim Map

cite page 31 Ch 2: Which Schools Have Implemented BTAM?

Fact [V] p031-05

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

p. 31 · NCIER Claim Map

cite page 31 Ch 2: Which Schools Have Implemented BTAM?

Fact [V] p031-06

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

p. 31 · NCIER Claim Map

cite page 31 Ch 2: Which Schools Have Implemented BTAM?

Fact [V] p031-07

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

p. 31 · NCIER Claim Map

cite page 31 Ch 2: Which Schools Have Implemented BTAM?

Fact [V] p031-08

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

p. 31 · NCIER Claim Map

cite page 31 Ch 2: Which Schools Have Implemented BTAM?

Fact [V] p031-09

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

p. 31 · NCIER Claim Map

cite page 31 Ch 2: Which Schools Have Implemented BTAM?

Fact [V] p031-10

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

p. 31 · NCIER Claim Map

cite page 31 Ch 2: Which Schools Have Implemented BTAM?

Fact [V] p031-11

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

p. 31 · NCIER Claim Map

cite page 31 Ch 2: Which Schools Have Implemented BTAM?

Fact [V] p031-12

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

p. 31 · NCIER Claim Map

cite page 31 Ch 2: Which Schools Have Implemented BTAM?

Fact [V] p031-13

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

p. 31 · NCIER Claim Map

cite page 31 Ch 2: Which Schools Have Implemented BTAM?

Fact [V] p031-14

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

p. 31 · NCIER Claim Map

cite page 31 Ch 2: Which Schools Have Implemented BTAM?

Statement [V] p031-15

Figure 2.3 note: survey item on having a BTAM team or other formal group at school or district

“During this school year (2024–2025), does your school or school district have a behavioral threat assessment and management (BTAM) team or any other formal group of persons tasked with identifying and assessing students who might be at risk for violent or harmful behavior (toward themselves or others)?”

p. 31 · NCIER Claim Map

cite page 31 Ch 2: Which Schools Have Implemented BTAM?

Statement [V] p031-16

Figure 2.3 note: survey item on a school-based team not called BTAM; N = 1,746

“Does your school have a school-based team that makes decisions regarding serious student behavioral concerns that is not referred to as a behavioral threat assessment and management (BTAM) team? This could be a team associated with a multi-tiered system of support (MTSS) or positive behavioral intervention system (PBIS) that makes decisions about individualized interventions for serious behavioral concerns” (N = 1,746)

p. 31 · NCIER Claim Map

cite page 31 Ch 2: Which Schools Have Implemented BTAM?

Statement [V] p031-17

Figure 2.3 note: bars may not sum to totals because of rounding

Bars may not sum to totals because of rounding.

p. 31 · NCIER Claim Map

Methodology

cite page 31 Ch 2: Which Schools Have Implemented BTAM?

Every Workplace Attacker Was Known: What the Secret Service Found in 50 Workplace Attacks

Ep 140: Part 2 - What a Teacher Learned from the Marjory Stoneman Douglas / Parkland School Shooting

Active Shooter Incident Management

School Safety and Violent Event Incident Management

For Agencies

Logistics

Publications

Data & Standards

Operational Tools

Library

Report page 31

Claims on this page

Fig 2.3: Total: official team 82 percent, alternative team 14 percent, total 97 percent

Fig 2.3: Level: Elementary: official team 81 percent, alternative team 16 percent, total 97 percent

Fig 2.3: Level: Middle: official team 86 percent, alternative team 11 percent, total 97 percent

Fig 2.3: Level: High: official team 81 percent, alternative team 13 percent, total 94 percent

Fig 2.3: Locale: Urban: official team 86 percent, alternative team 12 percent, total 98 percent

Fig 2.3: Locale: Suburban: official team 84 percent, alternative team 13 percent, total 97 percent

Fig 2.3: Locale: Rural: official team 78 percent, alternative team 17 percent, total 95 percent

Fig 2.3 high neighborhood poverty: official 80 percent, alternative 16 percent, total 96 percent

Fig 2.3 middle neighborhood poverty: official 82 percent, alternative 14 percent, total 96 percent

Fig 2.3 low neighborhood poverty: official 85 percent, alternative 13 percent, total 98 percent

Fig 2.3: Student racial/ethnic composition: Majority White students: official team 82 percent, alter

Fig 2.3: Student racial/ethnic composition: Majority students of color: official team 82 percent, al

Fig 2.3: Enrollment size: Small: official team 79 percent, alternative team 17 percent, total 96 per

Fig 2.3: Enrollment size: Large: official team 85 percent, alternative team 12 percent, total 97 per

Figure 2.3 note: survey item on having a BTAM team or other formal group at school or district

Figure 2.3 note: survey item on a school-based team not called BTAM; N = 1,746

Figure 2.3 note: bars may not sum to totals because of rounding