Report pages 20–25: 98 claims on pp. 20–25 (fact 26, statement 33, evidence 18, conclusion 2, conjecture 7, definition 12).
“A behavioral threat assessment is a proactive approach to identify, assess, and provide appropriate interventions and resources for students who display a behavior that elicits concern for the safety of themselves or others”
Incidents of school violence and threats—whether directed at students, staff, or the broader school community—remain a significant concern in K–12 education.
When a student’s behavior raises alarms about potential harm to themselves or others, school leaders face the complex task of determining an appropriate response.
Although it may seem that removing the student from school is the safest option, research has shown that exclusionary discipline, such as a suspension or an expulsion, can have lasting negative effects on students and may not effectively reduce risk.
Most threats are ultimately found not to be credible, and removing students from the school environment can sometimes increase the risk of harm by severing connections to support and oversight.
As a result, schools increasingly seek alternatives that balance safety with the well-being and rights of all students.
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
The BTAM approach involves a multidisciplinary team—often including school administrators, counselors, and public safety professionals—systematically evaluating and responding to concerning student behaviors or threats.
These teams are at the core of school- or district-level BTAM programs, which schools and districts often implement as part of their broader school safety efforts.
The BTAM process typically includes three stages: referral of a student based on observed behaviors or reported concerns, assessment of whether a student poses a risk of harm, and management of the situation through tailored interventions.
The BTAM approach aims to identify concerning behavior early, enabling schools to respond proportionately and provide support where needed.
This approach not only helps prevent violence but also reduces reliance on exclusionary discipline, promoting a safer school environment.
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.
In this report, we focus on BTAM implementation at the level of K–12 schools and school districts.
Sample (n = undeterminable of undeterminable) · Federal SSOCS / School Pulse Panel national estimates of schools with a BTAM team
Spring 2016 | 42
Sample (n = undeterminable of undeterminable) · Federal SSOCS / School Pulse Panel national estimates of schools with a BTAM team
Spring 2018 | 44
Sample (n = undeterminable of undeterminable) · Federal SSOCS / School Pulse Panel national estimates of schools with a BTAM team
Spring 2020 | 64
Sample (n = undeterminable of undeterminable) · Federal SSOCS / School Pulse Panel national estimates of schools with a BTAM team
Spring 2022 | 65
Sample (n = undeterminable of undeterminable) · Federal SSOCS / School Pulse Panel national estimates of schools with a BTAM team
Fall 2022 | | 82
Sample (n = undeterminable of undeterminable) · Federal SSOCS / School Pulse Panel national estimates of schools with a BTAM team
Spring 2024 | | 85
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).
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).”
SSOCS = School Survey on Crime and Safety; SPP = School Pulse Panel.
The impetus for early adoption of the BTAM model dates back to the joint U.S. Secret Service and U.S. Department of Education’s Safe School Initiative, which examined 37 incidents of targeted school attacks between 1974 and 2000 following the 1999 Columbine High School shooting in Colorado (Vossekuil et al., 2004).
The initiative introduced BTAM as a violence prevention model for schools, emphasizing the importance of identifying students who display behavior that elicits safety concerns, assessing the behaviors and their context, and managing any potential risk of harm through interventions and supports.
It also stressed the importance of multidisciplinary teams to assess concerning behaviors and efforts to foster positive school climates that encourage reporting of concerns.
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).
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 2021–2022 school year, 65 percent of public schools reported having such teams, in which threat assessment was defined as “a formalized process of identifying, assessing, and managing students who may pose a threat of targeted violence in schools” (Burr et al., 2024, p. 13).
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).
As Figure 1.1 shows, the existence of BTAM teams at K–12 schools grew notably between 2016 and 2024.
During this time frame, the Secret Service continued to publish updated research on targeted school violence and guidance for the implementation of BTAM programs in K–12 schools (see, e.g., NTAC, 2018; NTAC, 2019; and NTAC, 2021), and there was increasing research into—and focus on—approaches for preventing violence in K–12 schools more broadly.
The passage of laws across various states mandating BTAM teams in K–12 schools also helped advance BTAM implementation at various points in time.
include a review of how federal law or policy, or any changes therein, might affect BTAM implementation at K–12 schools.
states, including Florida, passed mandates related to threat assessments in response to the 2018 Parkland shooting (Blad, 2023).
Despite clear growth in schools’ adoption of BTAM programs, more than 20 years after the publication of findings from the joint U.S. Secret Service and U.S. Department of Education report on the Safe School Initiative (Fein et al., 2002; Vossekuil et al., 2004), we still have little systematic data on what BTAM actually looks like in schools across the United States.
Although several studies have sought to understand the impact of threat assessment programs on various school-level outcomes, including violence prevention, these reports are (1) specific to a single threat assessment model, (2) confined to understanding trends in single states, or (3) based on interviews and surveys of small samples of individuals (see, e.g., Ross et al., 2022; Cornell et al., 2018; Crepeau-Hobson and Leech, 2022; Jackson and Viljoen, 2024).
Therefore, the primary goal of this report is to draw on a nationally representative sample of school administrators to understand how BTAM is being implemented and operationalized across the country.
More specifically, we aim to answer 12 questions about the state of BTAM in K–12 public schools as of the 2024–2025 school year:
What schools have implemented BTAM?
When did schools establish BTAM teams?
What is the scope of schools’ BTAM programs?
How are schools operationalizing BTAM?
Do schools use named BTAM models, to what extent do they modify them, or are they building their own models?
Why did schools adopt specific BTAM models (or develop their own), and how did they go about it?
How do BTAM teams assess level of risk for referred cases?
How do BTAM teams develop intervention plans for at-risk students, and what do these plans look like?
How do BTAM teams monitor intervention plans?
Is BTAM working as intended?
What do principals think are the effects of their BTAM programs?
What do principals think about sustaining and improving their BTAM programs over time?
To address these research questions, we relied on survey data collected from K–12 public school principals between February 5, 2025, and February 24, 2025.
The survey was administered to a nationally representative sample of principals who were members of RAND’s American School Leader Panel (ASLP).
Participating principals received detailed questions about their school’s BTAM program—ranging from which school and outside personnel are on their BTAM team, what specific BTAM models they are using, and the steps they took during the initial program implementation phase to perceptions of BTAM’s impact
Other states in this group include Maryland (2018), Texas (2019), Illinois (2019), and Kentucky (2019).
Although survey invitations were directed solely to school principals, we assume that these principals responded to our survey on behalf of their schools and interpret their data accordingly.
In total, 1,746 individuals completed our 20-minute survey, and we weighted their responses to be representative of the national population of K–12 public school principals and the schools in which they serve.
To answer our research questions, we investigated national patterns in educators’ survey responses based on school characteristics and state policy context related to BTAM.
More specifically, we examined differences in educators’ responses based on six school characteristics: (1) grade levels served, (2) school locale, (3) school neighborhood poverty status, (4) student racial/ethnic composition, (5) school enrollment size, and (6) district enrollment size.
Where appropriate, we also examined differences in educators’ responses according to the BTAM state policy context in 2019.
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.
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), including states where, in 2019, state legal requirements, regulations or district policy required school districts to adopt threat assessment as a safety measure.
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).
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 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.
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), which included those where BTAM was not addressed in state law or regulation as of 2019.
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).
We interpret principals’ responses as speaking on behalf of their schools and therefore often report results using the school as the unit of analysis (e.g., “percent of schools who said X”).
However, for survey items that ask about principals’ perceptions, we report using the principal (e.g., “percent of principals who said Y”). These terms can be interpreted interchangeably.
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.
A complete list of the survey items administered to principals and the response frequencies is available in Appendix A.
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.
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.
Importantly, specific policies across states differ, even within each category.
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).
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.
These states also provide training to school staff through either state-level school safety agencies or state departments of education.
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.
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 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.
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.
We also considered to what extent certain aspects of a BTAM program (e.g., the number of people on a BTAM team, whether BTAM is housed at the school or district level) matter for its operations.
As it is infeasible to consider all subgroup differences for all survey items in this report, we present subgroup differences in the text where they were particularly notable or interesting and where they provide helpful context to understand national patterns.
Unless otherwise noted, we only call out subgroup differences in the text that are statistically significant at the p < 0.05 level.
We hope the findings presented in this report will shed new light on how BTAM is being implemented in K–12 schools through a much-needed, deeper understanding of nationally representative trends.
First, as is true of any survey that relies on self-reported data, certain biases—such as social desirability bias—may influence results, should respondents provide answers that they believe are more socially acceptable or favorable.
Biases can affect data accuracy, especially in areas related to such sensitive topics as school behavioral threat assessment.
Second, although our survey aimed to be representative of administrators in K–12 public schools across the country, our findings may still not fully capture the variety of experiences across different school sizes, geographical regions, and student and community demographics.
Differences in local policies (below the state level), available resources, and community factors can also influence safety practices, potentially limiting the generalizability of our results to all schools across the United States.
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.”
For example, among the 18 states in the early legislation category, current policies can look quite different.
We also hope that our findings provoke new ideas about how to better ensure the safety and well-being of individual students and entire school communities across the country.
Finally, our survey about BTAM practices provides a snapshot of perceptions and practices at a specific point in time and reflects neither changes over time nor how recent events might affect these perceptions and practices.
This report is organized such that each of its 12 main chapters corresponds to one of the research questions listed above.
Chapter 11 is unique insofar as we examine principals’ responses to a set of hypothetical scenarios about student behaviors; the goal of these scenarios is to understand whether schools’ BTAM programs are working as intended and whether principals’ reports of what their BTAM team does matches with how they respond to hypothetical scenarios.
In Chapter 12, we examine principals’ perceptions of the impacts that their BTAM program is having on a variety of outcomes, including school safety; climate; violence rates; and the use of exclusionary discipline and law enforcement involvement.
With an eye toward the future, in Chapter 13, we explore principals’ perceptions of how schools’ BTAM programs can be sustained and improved.
Find the Perfect Training Class For You
