Report pages 74–93: 444 claims on pp. 74–92 (fact 290, statement 45, evidence 11, conclusion 11, conjecture 20, definition 67).
The interventions and supports assigned by BTAM teams in response to concerning behavior should be tailored to the specific needs of a student identified by a team as posing a risk of harm to self or others.
BTAM is a proactive approach to identifying, assessing, and providing appropriate interventions and supports for students who display a behavior that elicits concerns about their own safety or the safety of others.
we analyzed principals’ reports about the types of issues their BTAM teams are involved in, how teams assess risk, and the types of interventions they use to respond to incidents.
Before principals answered any detailed questions about their BTAM team and program, we presented them with a series of scenarios describing distinct school safety incidents and then asked three questions about how they would respond to each specific incident.
our survey sought to understand whether BTAM is working as intended at schools around the country
Through these scenario-based questions, we sought to elicit information that was as close to practice as possible about situations that principals may have encountered and had to address in their own schools.
All principals received three different scenarios: (1) one scenario capturing a low-level behavioral incident that would typically fall outside the scope of a BTAM team, (2) one scenario capturing a high-risk incident that would fall within the scope of a BTAM team, and (3) one medium-level scenario falling somewhere in between.
For the medium-level scenarios, we expected more variation in principals’ responses about whether they would refer such incidents to their school’s BTAM team and the types of interventions that might be implemented in response to the student’s behavior.
These scenario-based questions allowed us to examine in more depth how schools are determining the boundaries and criteria for their BTAM programs.
We administered a total of 16 different scenarios, eight of which focused on situations occurring in elementary schools and eight on incidents more relevant to secondary schools.
Principals were randomly assigned scenarios conditional on their school grade level.
We purposely included a higher number of medium-level scenarios.
In Appendix B, Table B.1, we provide the full wording for all 16 scenarios presented to respondents.
Note that this chapter also only presents results for schools that had official BTAM teams.
Schools that had other school-based BTAM-like behavior teams or no BTAM teams also answered questions about these scenarios, as described in Appendix B.
These schools are omitted from our analyses here.
Previous chapters have presented data that frame how BTAM teams and programs function at schools across the country.
This chapter also includes boxes with scenario descriptions where specific scenarios appear in the text.
For ease of interpretation, we extracted key behavioral elements captured in each scenario and summarize them in
Why inferred The sentence crosses a page break: this quote is the page 74 part and the sentence continues on page 75. Full sentence (pages 74–75): “For ease of interpretation, we extracted key behavioral elements captured in each scenario and summarize them in Table 11.1.”
The box below (“Identifying Behavior Elements in Scenarios”) also uses Scenario E as an illustrative example of how we collapsed the scenarios down to the key behavioral elements they contained.
We completed this process for all 16 scenarios.
Note that these fictitious incidents are not meant to be an exhaustive representation of the types of safety-related incidents occurring in schools but rather an illustration of what schools are likely addressing.
We also note that some of these categorizations may be ambiguous or open to interpretation, which we believe also accurately reflects the experiences of today’s schools.
we also include a shortened description of these key details in parentheses as a reminder for the reader.
We first use principals’ responses to scenarios to discern what sorts of incidents involve school BTAM teams and how they are involved.
We also consider when the BTAM team is identified as most likely to make the initial decision about how to respond to a student’s behavior in response to an incident and, if not the BTAM team, who else in the school makes initial decisions about how to respond to that type of incident.
After presenting each behavioral scenario, we asked respondents who would make the initial decision about how to respond to the behavior.
Given different circumstances across the schools in our sample, we expected that the person or group making that initial decision could differ from scenario to scenario and school to school.
Therefore, we listed up to 12 options, including the BTAM team and a teacher or school administrator (e.g., principal or assistant principal); a counselor, nurse, social worker, or psychologist; an SRO (or other school-based law enforcement officer), non-school-based law enforcement officer, security officer or guard;
Scenario E: In a drawing assignment that asked students to visualize different ways to solve problems, a student draws a graphic picture of someone shooting at a group of people, including details like bleeding and other physical injuries.
The teacher mentions previous unsuccessful attempts to contact the student’s family about their academic progress, and that the student had recently appeared withdrawn and sad in class.
fixation on violence (graphic picture of someone shooting at a group of people)
concerning home context (previous unsuccessful attempts to contact the student’s family)
history of academic issues (academic progress)
withdrawal or depression (appeared withdrawn and sad in class).
Table 11.1 also shows the total number of respondents who answered questions about each scenario during the survey (denoted by n).
Note that existing guidance around BTAM, including NTAC guidance, does not expect BTAM teams to be the first line of response for all incidents.
However, guidance does expect these teams to be notified of and to assess situations that present a higher risk of harm.
Severity level | Low | Low | Med. | Med. | Med. | Med. | Med. | High | Low | Med. | Med. | Med. | Med. | Med. | Med. | High
Expected BTAM? | No | No | Maybe | Maybe | Maybe | Maybe | Maybe | Yes | No | Maybe | Maybe | Maybe | Maybe | Maybe | Maybe | Yes
n | 353 | 335 | 131 | 148 | 137 | 137 | 133 | 687 | 734 | 139 | 128 | 103 | 134 | 126 | 107 | 734
History of misbehavior | X | X | | | | X | X | X | X | X | | | X | | |
Physical altercation | | X | X | | | | | X | | | X | | | | | X
Explicit threat | | | | X | | X | | X | | | | | | | X | X
Fixation on violence | | | | | X | | X | | | | | | | X | X |
History of violence | | | | | | X | | X | | | | | X | | |
History of academic issues | | | | X | X | | | | X | X | | | X | | X |
Suspected substance use | | | X | | | | | | | X | | | | | |
Bullying | | | | | | | | X | | | | | | | | X
Weapon (use and/or access) | | | | | | X | | X | | | | X | | | | X
Withdrawal or depression | | | | X | X | | | | | | | | | X | X |
Special education context | | X | | | | | | | | | | | X | | |
Concerning home context | | | | | X | X | X | | | | | | | | | X
an outside BTAM team; or a MTSS, PBIS, or other behavioral support team.
Principals could select only one response option.
Principals rarely identified the BTAM team as the party making the initial decision in response to an incident, even for the most serious types of incidents.
This was expected, given that a BTAM team typically receives reports of behavior and then moves forward with response rather than making the initial decision in response to an incident.
Instead, principals identified three other individuals as making these initial judgments: a teacher, principal, or counselor.
Figure 11.1 shows the percentage of schools that listed these personnel as the first decisionmaker for each of the scenarios.
Also, throughout this chapter, we have boxes with brief examples of each scenario.
As shown in Figure 11.1, teachers are typically the first to make decisions in response to the lowest-level incidents—although even in these cases, the principal or another school administrator also plays this role.
Overall, however, principals overwhelmingly identified a school administrator as the first decisionmaker for most of the scenarios in the survey (see purple circles in Figure 11.1).
Sample (N = 148 total; column N not printed) · Scenario D respondents (observations)
For certain scenarios (such as Scenario D [explicit threat, history of academic issues, withdrawal or depression] and Scenario E [violence fixation, history of academic issues, withdrawal or depression, concerning home context] at the elementary school level), about a quarter of principals identified school counselors as the first decisionmaker.
Secondary school principals most commonly identified a school administrator as the initial decisionmaker; the second most commonly selected option was a teacher (e.g., in Scenario I [history of misbehavior and academic issues] and Scenario K [physical altercation]).
Sample (n = 126 of 126) · Scenario N respondents (observations)
The only secondary school scenario where principals selected the school counselor as the initial decisionmaker (22 percent of respondents) was Scenario N (violence fixation, withdrawal or depression).
Scenario D: A student has an intense verbal confrontation with another student at school, shouting, “I am going to kill you for that.” The student has no history of fighting or disruptive behavior but has had academic problems. A teacher who spoke with the student does not believe the threat was serious but does note that the student started crying during their conversation and would not share why they were so upset.
Scenario I: A student is repeatedly disruptive in their biology class, talking with other students or playing on their phone. Though in a course normally taken by students one grade below theirs, the student still appears to be struggling with the material. The teacher has made attempts to correct or redirect the behavior but has been unsuccessful and reached a point where frustration is affecting the entire class.
Scenario K: During P.E., two students begin pushing each other during a soccer activity. When the P.E. teacher approaches and tells them to stop, both back off and apologize to varying degrees. The teacher notices and is concerned that one of the students still appears angry and agitated after the fight.
With the exceptions of teacher; school administrator; non-school-based law enforcement; and MTSS, PBIS, or other behavioral support team, respondents only saw each potential initial decisionmaker if they responded previously that they had such personnel at their school.
We present select results here, but see Tables A.14 and A.15 in Appendix A for additional information.
Sample (n = 353 of 353) · Scenario A respondents (observations)
A | 58 (ringed) | 6 | 29 | 0
Sample (n = 335 of 335) · Scenario B respondents (observations)
B | 20 | [unlabeled] | 64 (ringed) | 3
Sample (n = 131 of 131) · Scenario C respondents (observations)
C | [unlabeled] | 2 | 84 (ringed) | 4
Sample (n = 148 of 148) · Scenario D respondents (observations)
D | 13 | 22 | 53 (ringed) | 4
Sample (n = 137 of 137) · Scenario E respondents (observations)
E | 25 | 27 | 34 (ringed) | 5
Sample (n = 137 of 137) · Scenario F respondents (observations)
F | 19 | 3 | 58 (ringed) | 15
Sample (n = 133 of 133) · Scenario G respondents (observations)
G | 14 | 5 | 59 (ringed) | 12
Sample (n = 687 of 687) · Scenario H respondents (observations)
H | 8 | 0 | 68 (ringed) | 15
Sample (n = 734 of 734) · Scenario I respondents (observations)
I | 56 (ringed) | 9 | 23 | 1
Sample (n = 139 of 139) · Scenario J respondents (observations)
J | 5 | [unlabeled] | 85 (ringed) | 2
Sample (n = 128 of 128) · Scenario K respondents (observations)
K | 51 (ringed) | 9 | 35 | 0
Sample (n = 103 of 103) · Scenario L respondents (observations)
L | 15 | 0 | 76 (ringed) | 4
Sample (n = 134 of 134) · Scenario M respondents (observations)
M | 11 | 1 | 80 (ringed) | 2
Sample (n = 126 of 126) · Scenario N respondents (observations)
N | 18 | 22 | 44 (ringed) | 12
Sample (n = 107 of 107) · Scenario O respondents (observations)
O | 0 | [unlabeled] | 58 (ringed) | 13
Sample (n = 734 of 734) · Scenario P respondents (observations)
P | [unlabeled] | 1 | 77 (ringed) | 12
NOTE: This figure depicts response data from the following survey question: “Which person or group is most likely to make the initial decision about how to respond to this student’s behavior?” (n = 1,422 observations for low-severity scenarios; n = 1,423 observations for medium-severity scenarios; n = 1,421 observations for high-severity scenarios).
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
Some data labels have been removed for readability.
to an incident, as was the case for most respondents, we asked whether the BTAM team would be made aware of the incident.
With the exception of the lowest-risk scenarios, most principals indicated that their BTAM team would be notified of the student’s behavior after the initial response decision.
Scenarios where this was least likely to happen corresponded to those where teachers were identified as most likely to make the initial decision about how to respond (Scenario A [history of misbehavior] at the elementary school level, and Scenarios I [history of misbehavior and academic issues] and K [physical altercation] at the secondary school level).
As shown in Figure 11.2, this pattern held for all scenarios in the survey—even the most serious ones.
Sample (n = 126 of 126) · Scenario N respondents (observations)
In this situation, 94 percent of secondary schools reported that their BTAM teams would be involved somehow, either as the party making the initial decision about how to respond to an incident (12 percent of respondents) or by being made aware of the incident later (82 percent of respondents).
The likelihood that principals selected the BTAM team as the party responsible for making the initial decision about how to respond to an incident does increase as the scenarios get more serious.
Sample (n = 734 of 734) · Scenario I respondents (observations)
Less than 1 percent of principals identified the school BTAM team as the party making the initial decision about how to respond to behavior depicted in Scenario I (history of misbehavior and academic issues), our lowest-level scenario for secondary schools.
Sample (n = 734 of 734) · Scenario P respondents (observations)
For Scenario P (physical altercation, explicit threat, bullying, weapon, concerning home context), however, the highest-level scenario set in a secondary school environment, 12 percent of principals identified the BTAM team as the party making the initial decision about how to respond to an incident.
Even in these very serious scenarios, principals still rarely identified their BTAM team as the entity making the initial response decision.
Across both elementary and secondary schools, our scenario data point to three types of situations that depict how schools are using BTAM teams:
At the low end of the spectrum are situations that might simply be dealt with by a teacher (Scenarios A, I, and K). These scenarios involved disruptive student behavior during class (e.g., interrupting lessons by talking with other students) or a fight between two students during an athletic activity.
Sample (N = 353 total; column N not printed) · Scenario A respondents (observations)
About one-quarter of respondents (26 percent to 28 percent) indicated that their school would inform their BTAM team of these types of incidents, but in the majority of cases (72 percent to 73 percent), the BTAM team would not be notified the incident occurred.
In the middle are scenarios in which principals overwhelmingly identified a school administrator as the party making the initial decision about how to respond to an incident; in these situations, schools were much more likely to make their BTAM team aware of the incident, although they still did not reach the level
Scenario A: A student is repeatedly disruptive in class, wandering the classroom, interrupting the lesson by talking to other students, and sometimes shouting loudly to get attention. The student does not respond to multiple teacher requests to stop their behavior.
Scenario N: A student notices that another student in class is especially interested in the details of the Columbine High School shooting and the personal history of the students involved. The student repeatedly brings up the attackers by name during discussions with peers and has been searching for information about the incident on their school laptop. The teacher has also noticed that the student has become increasingly withdrawn in class.
Scenario P: A fight breaks out in the hallway during passing time, and student witnesses reported hearing one of the aggressors shout, “see you tomorrow for another round,” and the bullied student replying, “Fine. This ends tomorrow.” The incident involves a student who has a history of being bullied and was caught brandishing a knife (which they said they needed “to try to get all of them to stop”) last school year. An investigation determined that there were unsecured firearms in the family home.
Sample (n = 353 of 353) · Scenario A respondents (observations)
A | 27 | 27 | [unlabeled]
Sample (n = 335 of 335) · Scenario B respondents (observations)
B | 56 | 53 | [unlabeled]
Sample (n = 131 of 131) · Scenario C respondents (observations)
C | 57 | 53 | [unlabeled]
Sample (n = 148 of 148) · Scenario D respondents (observations)
D | 79 | 75 | [unlabeled]
Sample (n = 137 of 137) · Scenario E respondents (observations)
E | 86 | 81 | [unlabeled]
Sample (N = 137) · Scenario F respondents (observations)
| F | 93 | 77 | 15 |
Sample (N = 133) · Scenario G respondents (observations)
| G | 88 | 76 | 12 |
Sample (N = 687) · Scenario H respondents (observations)
| H | 96 | 81 | 15 |
Sample (N = 734) · Scenario I respondents (observations)
| I | 27 | 26 | [unlabeled] |
Sample (N = 139) · Scenario J respondents (observations)
| J | 63 | 62 | [unlabeled] |
Sample (N = 128) · Scenario K respondents (observations)
| K | 28 | 28 | [unlabeled] |
Sample (N = 103) · Scenario L respondents (observations)
| L | 76 | 72 | [unlabeled] |
Sample (N = 134) · Scenario M respondents (observations)
| M | 69 | 67 | [unlabeled] |
Sample (N = 126) · Scenario N respondents (observations)
| N | 94 | 83 | 12 |
Sample (N = 107) · Scenario O respondents (observations)
| O | 95 | 82 | 13 |
Sample (N = 734) · Scenario P respondents (observations)
| P | 95 | 84 | 12 |
NOTE: This figure depicts response data from the following survey questions: “Which person or group is most likely to make the initial decision about how to respond to this student’s behavior?” and “Would the BTAM team(s) serving your school be made aware of this student’s behavior?” (n = 1,420 observations for low-severity scenarios; n = 1,420 observations for medium-severity scenarios; n = 1,417 for high-severity scenarios).
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
Some data labels have been removed for readability.
At the elementary level, these situations included Scenario B and Scenario C, which depicted physical altercations paired with other potential risk factors, such as substance use or parental refusal to allow their student to participate in supports for neurodiverse learners.
At the secondary level, they included Scenarios J, L, and M, depicting incidents integrating a mix of risk factors, with usually only one element suggestive of potential violence.
Sample (N = 335 total; column N not printed) · Scenario B respondents (observations)
In these elementary and secondary scenarios, between 53 percent and 72 percent of principals noted that the school BTAM team would be notified of such incidents.
At the high end of the spectrum are those scenarios in which there was a greater likelihood for principals to identify the BTAM team as the party making the initial decision about how to respond to an incident, across grade levels.
And in cases in which the BTAM team was not the initial decisionmaker, principals reported near-universal involvement of their BTAM team in response to the scenario.
These included Scenarios F, G, and H at the elementary level and Scenarios N, O, and P at the secondary level.
Across both sets, these scenarios included explicit references to violence paired with other concerning behaviors, such as withdrawal or depression.
Sample (N = 137 total; column N not printed) · Scenario F respondents (observations)
Nevertheless, the percentage of respondents who said that their BTAM team would make the initial decision about how to respond in these scenarios never exceeded 15 percent.
Scenario C: A student gets into a pushing altercation with another student on the bus. After the altercation is broken up by the bus driver, the student says they were responding to having been tripped while they were walking down the aisle. During the discussion with the student, the bus driver believes he smells alcohol on the student’s breath. The parents of the other student involved in the altercation call the school the next day concerned for their child’s safety on the bus.
Scenario L fell somewhere in between this middle group and the higher-level scenarios.
After presenting respondents with each scenario, the survey presented a set of possible intervention options (see Table 11.2).
The interventions spanned a variety of options, from warnings or verbal corrections of behavior to parent consultation and assessment for substance use treatment to temporary removal from school.
Not all interventions are appropriate for every incident.
For example, we might expect a BTAM team to only recommend substance use treatment in cases in which they know or suspect that a student is using or abusing alcohol or drugs.
We acknowledged this in our instructions to principals and asked them to indicate which intervention(s) the primary decisionmaker (whether or not it is the BTAM team) would likely take or recommend in response to the behavior depicted in each scenario.
In this section, we focus on high-level patterns in principals’ responses.
Across every scenario, each displayed intervention was selected by at least half of our respondents.
Warning to named targets or victims of threats and safety planning to protect targets/victims | Target/victim support
Parent consultation or home visit | Notification
Warning or verbal correction of behavior | Supportive discipline
Disciplinary measures (e.g., in-school detention; removal of privileges) | Supportive discipline
Behavioral or movement controls (e.g., changes to arrival time or passing times) | Supportive discipline
Programming to help the student build relationships with trusted adults (e.g., regular check-ins; adult mentoring) | Support-focused
Skill-building services (e.g., social skills- or leadership skills-building program) | Support-focused
Programming to help the student build peer relationships and engagement (e.g., friend or peer mentor groups) | Support-focused
Individualized academic or vocational programming | Support-focused
Special education or disability supports | Support-focused
Mental health counseling or care | Support-focused
Substance use treatment | Support-focused
Family support and intervention programming for the student and their family | Support-focused
Temporary removal from school (suspension) | Restrictive
Permanent removal from school (e.g., expulsion, transfer to an alternative school) | Restrictive
Law enforcement action (for example, arrest), civil or criminal legal proceedings | Restrictive
Interventions are grouped into categories based on Jackson et al., 2025.
Figure 11.3 displays the top three most commonly selected interventions for each of our 16 scenarios.
Column header: Most commonly used interventions. Columns: 1st, 2nd, 3rd. Row groups (vertical labels): Elementary (Scenarios A–H), Secondary (Scenarios I–P).
Assess need for or start mental health counseling or care
Scenario A | Elementary | Warning or verbal correction of behavior | Parent consultation or home visit | Disciplinary measures
Scenario B | Elementary | Parent consultation or home visit | Disciplinary measures | Skill-building services
Scenario C | Elementary | Parent consultation or home visit | Disciplinary measures | Substance use treatment
Scenario D | Elementary | Parent consultation or home visit | Mental health counseling or care | Disciplinary measures
Scenario E | Elementary | Parent consultation or home visit | Mental health counseling or care | Programming for relationships with trusted adults
Scenario F | Elementary | Parent consultation or home visit | Disciplinary measures | Mental health counseling or care
Scenario G | Elementary | Parent consultation or home visit | Mental health counseling or care | Disciplinary measures
Scenario H | Elementary | Parent consultation or home visit | Temporary removal from school (suspension) | Mental health counseling or care
Scenario I | Secondary | Parent consultation or home visit | Warning or verbal correction of behavior | Disciplinary measures
Scenario J | Secondary | Parent consultation or home visit | Disciplinary measures | Mental health counseling or care
Scenario K | Secondary | Warning or verbal correction of behavior | Parent consultation or home visit | Disciplinary measures
Scenario L | Secondary | Parent consultation or home visit | Disciplinary measures | Temporary removal from school (suspension)
Scenario M | Secondary | Disciplinary measures | Parent consultation or home visit | Mental health counseling or care
Scenario N | Secondary | Parent consultation or home visit | Mental health counseling or care | Programming for relationships with trusted adults
Scenario O | Secondary | Parent consultation or home visit | Mental health counseling or care | Programming for relationships with trusted adults
Scenario P | Secondary | Parent consultation or home visit | Temporary removal from school (suspension) | Disciplinary measures
What action(s) would this person or group at your school likely take or recommend in response to this student’s behavior?
(n = 1,420 observations for low-severity scenarios; n = 1,420 observations for medium-severity scenarios; 1,419 for high-severity scenarios)
Respondents were instructed to select all that apply out of a list of interventions presented, and we display the top three most commonly selected interventions.
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
selected by large majorities of respondents (keeping in mind that principals could—and would be expected to—select multiple interventions that could be part of a holistic intervention plan in response to a particular incident).
Why inferred The sentence crosses a page break: this quote is the page 82 part and the sentence begins on page 81. Full sentence (pages 81–82): “Many were selected by large majorities of respondents (keeping in mind that principals could—and would be expected to—select multiple interventions that could be part of a holistic intervention plan in response to a particular incident).”
in the vast majority of scenarios (13 out of 16 scenarios), a parent consultation or home visit was the most commonly selected intervention; it was the second most common intervention in the remaining three scenarios.
This suggests that bringing parents into the process of responding to student behavioral concerns is the number one action schools take in response to any type of incident, whether it be low-level behavior issues or very serious threats.
The function of a home visit and who performs that visit may differ across incident types.
For lower-risk incidents with limited indicators of potential violence and no concern about weapon access, parental consultation might be a phone call made by the principal.
In high-risk incidents with substantial concerns about violence, a home visit might be made by a law enforcement officer to assess whether the student has access to firearms or other weapons in the home.
Similarly, assessing the need for or starting mental health counseling and care was a top intervention choice for principals across most scenarios.
This is somewhat unsurprising given heightened rates of depression and anxiety among youth following the COVID-19 pandemic and the associated rise in students seeking mental health services (Mahnken, 2023).
Second, despite some commonalities in the most frequently chosen options, there is clear evidence that schools selected different intervention options based on the specific information presented in the scenario.
For example, in Scenario C (physical altercation, suspected substance use), principals report that they would respond in part by assessing the need for or starting substance use treatment.
In Scenario E (violence fixation, history of academic issues, withdrawal or depression, concerning home context), principals indicated they would assess the need for or start programming to help the student build relationships with trusted adults (for example, through regular check-ins or adult mentoring programs).
Broadly, these patterns suggest that schools are tailoring interventions and supports based on specific information about the student and the incident.
Scenario E: In a drawing assignment that asked students to visualize different ways to solve problems, a student draws a graphic picture of someone shooting at a group of people, including details like bleeding and other physical injuries.
The teacher mentions previous unsuccessful attempts to contact the student’s family about their academic progress, and that the student had recently appeared withdrawn and sad in class.
Third, schools appear to be focused on more supportive interventions, as opposed to restrictive measures, including exclusionary discipline, at least as the most frequently chosen steps in responding to incidents.
When principals did select the use of disciplinary measures in response to behavior included in a scenario, they opted for supportive discipline measures, such as in-school detentions and removing privileges—versus outright exclusionary discipline, such as out-of-school suspension or expulsion.
Even for the most serious scenarios, referral to law enforcement and permanent removal from school did not make principals’ lists of top interventions (although principals did frequently select temporary removal from school for a few scenarios).
This finding does not indicate that schools are avoiding exclusionary discipline practices altogether; indeed, our results indicate that schools are still turning to such practices, some frequently (see more on this point below).
However, the patterns in Figure 11.3 suggest that exclusionary discipline and referral to law enforcement are not the most common way that schools address the behaviors and situations depicted across our scenarios.
We expected to observe the greatest divergence in responses across the least severe and most severe scenarios.
Comparing and contrasting how schools respond to the least and most severe incidents help illuminate how schools’ responses change as incidents become more serious and concerns about the safety of the student and school community also therefore increase.
In Figure 11.4, we present the percentage of schools that selected specific intervention options in response to the most severe and least severe scenarios, by grade level
Figure 11.4 draws a contrast between the similarities and differences across school responses to different situations.
Sample (N = None) · Figure 11.4 columns: low-severity observations | high-severity observations
regardless of incident severity or grade level, at least 80 percent of schools consult with parents or guardians or conduct a home visit.
Sample (N = None) · Figure 11.4 columns: low-severity observations | high-severity observations
Furthermore, it is common for schools to address both low- and high-level incidents using supportive disciplinary measures, such as detention or removal of privileges; about two-thirds of schools selected these options regardless of incident level.
Our data also show that schools respond differently to more-severe incidents than they do to lower-level ones, as shown in Figure 11.4.
Sample (N = None) · Figure 11.4 columns: low-severity observations | high-severity observations
For example, about 60 percent of schools said they would warn potential victims in the most severe situations, but less than 10 percent focused on warning potential victims in response to low-level incidents.
By contrast, use of verbal warnings was common for lower-level incidents but much less common in more severe cases.
Only very few principals said they would use restrictive measures—such as law enforcement action or permanent removal from school—in response to the least severe incident we presented.
However, notable shares of schools said that they use such actions in the most severe cases.
Altogether, these findings suggest that there is widespread agreement over how to respond to the lowest-level and most severe incidents and that schools are delineating in their responses to low-level versus severe incidents.
Schools are responding to low-level incidents with support-focused intervention options and reserving restrictive practices for more severe incidents.
Scenario A: A student is repeatedly disruptive in class, wandering the classroom, interrupting the lesson by talking to other students, and sometimes shouting loudly to get attention.
The student does not respond to multiple teacher requests to stop their behavior.
Scenario H: A student has a history of getting into fights with other students at school and being generally disruptive in the classroom.
Earlier this year, the student complained about being singled out and bullied by many other members of the class.
The student was later caught bringing a knife to school, explaining it was “for protection,” and an investigation determined that there were firearms in the family home.
After a fight on the playground with a classmate, the student yells that “he’d be sorry” and warned another classmate that “they shouldn’t come to school tomorrow.”
Scenario I: A student is repeatedly disruptive in their biology class, talking with other students or playing on their phone.
Though in a course normally taken by students one grade below theirs, the student still appears to be struggling with the material.
The teacher has made attempts to correct or redirect the behavior but has been unsuccessful, and reached a point where frustration is affecting the entire class.
Scenario P: A fight breaks out in the hallway during passing time, and student witnesses reported hearing one of the aggressors shout, “see you tomorrow for another round,” and the bullied student replying, “Fine. This ends tomorrow.”
The incident involves a student who has a history of being bullied and was caught brandishing a knife (which they said they needed “to try to get all of them to stop”) last school year.
An investigation determined that there were unsecured firearms in the family home.
As mentioned above, what that consultation or home visit is intended to accomplish may be different in different scenarios.
This could very likely be because lower-level incidents depicted in our scenarios, such as disruptive classroom behavior, do not involve targets or victims of threats or actual violence.
Horizontal axis: Percentage of schools, ticks 0, 20, 40, 60, 80, 100.
Legend, Elementary panel: Low-severity incident (Scenario A) (blue diamond); High-severity incident (Scenario H) (orange diamond).
Sample (N = 1085 | 1419 by column) · Figure 11.4 columns: low-severity observations | high-severity observations
Notification | Parent consultation or home visit | 85 [markers overlap; single label 85] | 85 [markers overlap; single label 85]
Sample (N = 1085 | 1419 by column) · Figure 11.4 columns: low-severity observations | high-severity observations
Target/victim support | Warning to named targets or victims of threats | 6 | 62
Sample (N = 1085 | 1419 by column) · Figure 11.4 columns: low-severity observations | high-severity observations
Supportive discipline | Warning or verbal correction of behavior | 86 | 23
Sample (N = 1085 | 1419 by column) · Figure 11.4 columns: low-severity observations | high-severity observations
Supportive discipline | Disciplinary measures | [unlabeled] | 70
Sample (N = 1085 | 1419 by column) · Figure 11.4 columns: low-severity observations | high-severity observations
Supportive discipline | Behavioral or movement controls | 17 | 45
Sample (N = 1085 | 1419 by column) · Figure 11.4 columns: low-severity observations | high-severity observations
Support-focused | Programming to build relationships with trusted adults | 43 | 52
Sample (N = 1085 | 1419 by column) · Figure 11.4 columns: low-severity observations | high-severity observations
Support-focused | Skill-building services | [unlabeled] | 41
Sample (N = 1085 | 1419 by column) · Figure 11.4 columns: low-severity observations | high-severity observations
Support-focused | Programming to build peer relationships | 28 | 40
Sample (N = 1085 | 1419 by column) · Figure 11.4 columns: low-severity observations | high-severity observations
Support-focused | Individualized academic or vocational programming | [unlabeled] | 9
Sample (N = 1085 | 1419 by column) · Figure 11.4 columns: low-severity observations | high-severity observations
Support-focused | Special education or disability supports | 23 | 13
Sample (N = 1085 | 1419 by column) · Figure 11.4 columns: low-severity observations | high-severity observations
Support-focused | Mental health counseling or care | 33 | 70
Sample (N = 1085 | 1419 by column) · Figure 11.4 columns: low-severity observations | high-severity observations
Support-focused | Substance use treatment | [unlabeled] | 4
Sample (N = 1085 | 1419 by column) · Figure 11.4 columns: low-severity observations | high-severity observations
Support-focused | Family support and intervention programming | 14 | 46
Sample (N = 351) · Scenario A respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.16
Restrictive | Temporary removal from school | 11 | 70
Sample (N = 351) · Scenario A respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.16
Restrictive | Permanent removal from school | 2 | 15
Sample (N = 351) · Scenario A respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.16
Restrictive | Law enforcement action | 3 | 41
Sample (N = 734) · Scenario I respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.17
Notification | Parent consultation or home visit | 83 | 88
Sample (N = 734) · Scenario I respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.17
Target/victim support | Warning to named targets or victims of threats | 7 | 58
Sample (N = 734) · Scenario I respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.17
Supportive discipline | Warning or verbal correction of behavior | 72 | 19
Sample (N = 734) · Scenario I respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.17
Supportive discipline | Disciplinary measures | 60 | 68
Sample (N = 734) · Scenario I respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.17
Supportive discipline | Behavioral or movement controls | 11 | 56
Sample (N = 734) · Scenario I respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.17
Support-focused | Programming to build relationships with trusted adults | 30 | 44
Sample (N = 734) · Scenario I respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.17
Support-focused | Skill-building services | 26 | 31
Sample (N = 734) · Scenario I respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.17
Support-focused | Programming to build peer relationships | 16 | 32
Sample (N = 734) · Scenario I respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.17
Support-focused | Individualized academic or vocational programming | 37 | 8
Sample (N = 734) · Scenario I respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.17
Support-focused | Special education or disability supports | 34 | 13
Sample (N = 734) · Scenario I respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.17
Support-focused | Mental health counseling or care | 21 | 62
Sample (N = 734) · Scenario I respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.17
Support-focused | Substance use treatment | 4 | 9
Sample (N = 734) · Scenario I respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.17
Support-focused | Family support and intervention programming | 12 | 38
Sample (N = 734) · Scenario I respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.17
Restrictive | Temporary removal from school | 8 | 73
Sample (N = 734) · Scenario I respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.17
Restrictive | Permanent removal from school | 3 | 19
Sample (N = 734) · Scenario I respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.17
Restrictive | Law enforcement action | 5 | 53
What action(s) would this person or group at your school likely take or recommend in response to this student’s behavior?
(n = 1,085 observations for low-severity scenarios and n = 1,419 for high-severity scenarios)
Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
Some data labels have been removed for readability.
Some response options have also been truncated for readability.
we examined how many interventions (out of the 16 total that we asked about) schools would use to address each scenario.
The typical, or median, number of interventions that schools said they would use to respond to a scenario is shown by a horizontal line.
The boxes show the number of interventions selected by most schools (i.e., those schools that fall in the middle of the distribution between the 25th and 75th percentile).
The vertical lines show the full range of the number of interventions chosen.
Schools selected between one and 16 interventions in response to the scenario, but most schools selected between four and nine, and the typical (median) school selected six.
we found that the vast majority of schools responded to all scenarios using multiple interventions, which is consistent with the practice of building an individualized intervention plan to respond to student behavior.
Furthermore, we noticed a general trend of schools responding with a higher number of intervention options as incidents become more severe.
the typical (median) school reported implementing four interventions in response to Scenario A (history of misbehavior) and five interventions in response in Scenario B (history of misbehavior, physical altercation).
At the other end of the spectrum, the typical school responded to Scenario H (history of misbehavior, physical altercation, explicit threat, history of violence, bullying, weapon), the most severe scenario, with seven interventions.
This pattern is not surprising, because we would expect schools to do more to intervene as student behavior becomes more concerning.
Figure 11.5 also shows that—with the exception of a small number of schools that responded to even low- or medium-level incidents with a large number of interventions—schools tend to respond to concerning situations with a handful of interventions (usually somewhere between three and eight, depending on the specific scenario).
The fact that principals did not report that their schools would respond to every incident with all 16 interventions provides further evidence that schools are tailoring their interventions to the specifics of indi-
Scenario B: A student regularly engages in disruptive behavior during class, but the student’s teachers do not consider the student’s behavior threatening.
Last school year, the family declined staff suggestions that the student might benefit from supports for neurodiverse learners.
This school year, the student’s behavior has escalated, and the student is involved in a physical altercation with another student that does not result in injuries.
Figure 11.5 shows the range of how many interventions schools selected to respond to each scenario.
Box plots carry no printed data values; the box/whisker positions are not labeled.
Annotation key at right: Range of number of interventions selected (whiskers); 75th percentile (top of box); Median (line in box); 25th percentile (bottom of box).
Low scenario; Medium scenario; High scenario
Elementary | A | Low | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
Elementary | B | Low | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
Elementary | C | Medium | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
Elementary | D | Medium | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
Elementary | E | Medium | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
Elementary | F | Medium | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
Elementary | G | Medium | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
Elementary | H | High | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
Secondary | I | Low | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
Secondary | J | Medium | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
Secondary | K | Medium | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
Secondary | L | Medium | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
Secondary | M | Medium | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
Secondary | N | Medium | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
Secondary | O | Medium | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
Secondary | P | High | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
What action(s) would this person or group at your school likely take or recommend in response to this student’s behavior?
(n = 1,420 observations for low-severity scenarios; n = 1,420 observations for medium-severity scenarios; n = 1,419 for high-severity scenarios)
Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
Outliers were removed for readability.
In other words, even though we know schools have many options available to them (see Figure 9.1), schools are not blindly responding to all scenarios by throwing all available tools at any particular case.
Because schools typically use multiple interventions to respond to an incident, this raises questions about what specific interventions tend to compose the list of actions that schools take in response to an incident.
We examined this question by sorting our 16 interventions into five mutually exclusive categories: (1) target/victim support, (2) supportive discipline, (3) notification, (4) support-focused, and (5) restrictive.
We then investigated what the distribution of interventions looks like across these categories and individually across each scenario.
This analysis allows one to consider the balance of interventions (e.g., between support-focused and restrictive options) and how that balance might differ across scenarios.
Layering multiple interventions (mental health, academic, and behavioral supports) is consistent with behavioral threat management best practice (Jackson et al., 2025).
Table 11.2 shows which specific interventions are included in each category.
elementary school principals told us they would respond to Scenario H (the most severe incident) with an average of seven interventions
That is, the average elementary school would take one intervention focused on target/victim support, one intervention focused on supportive discipline, one intervention focused on notification, one restrictive intervention, and three support-focused interventions.
First, schools are using a mix of approaches in their responses to all scenarios.
However, the composition of interventions changes to some degree as incidents become more severe, though not overwhelmingly.
Most notably, the share of restrictive interventions grows as the scenarios become more severe.
Second, the share of support-focused interventions remains large across all scenarios.
even for medium- and high-severity scenarios, a significant share of the intervention plans designed for at-risk students includes support-focused interventions.
The share of support-focused interventions exceeds the share of supportive discipline and restrictive interventions for nearly all scenarios.
Elementary | A | 5 | [unlabeled]
Elementary | B | 6 | [unlabeled]
Elementary | C | 5 | [unlabeled]
Elementary | D | 6 | [unlabeled]
Elementary | E | 5 | [unlabeled]
Elementary | F | 7 | [unlabeled]
Elementary | G | 7 | [unlabeled]
Elementary | H | 7 | [unlabeled]
Secondary | I | 4 | [unlabeled]
Secondary | J | 6 | [unlabeled]
Secondary | K | 4 | [unlabeled]
Secondary | L | 4 | [unlabeled]
Secondary | M | 6 | [unlabeled]
Secondary | N | 6 | [unlabeled]
Secondary | O | 6 | [unlabeled]
Secondary | P | 7 | [unlabeled]
(n = 1,420 observations for low-severity scenarios; n = 1,420 observations for medium-severity scenarios; n = 1,417 for high-severity scenarios)
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
We discuss this in greater detail in Figure 11.6.
In some ways, this is a function of the data because we presented respondents with more support-focused interventions than interventions in any other category and they therefore had more such options to choose from.
Nevertheless, our expectation is that if their schools did not have or use the options presented, respondents would not have selected them.
The shading shows how these interventions are distributed across our five categories.
That is, they are not responding to certain types of incidents with only one type of intervention and to other types of incidents with a different type of intervention.
Instead, they are responding to all scenarios with a mixed strategy that employs different intervention types.
interventions that schools reported taking in response to each scenario presented.
Why inferred The sentence crosses a page break: this quote is the page 88 part and the sentence begins on page 87. Full sentence (pages 87–88): “Figure 11.6 shows the mean number of interventions that schools reported taking in response to each scenario presented.”
the desire to keep students in school means that there are appropriate reasons to limit the use of exclusionary discipline, unless removing a student from school is necessary to ensure the near-term safety, functioning, or well-being of the school community.
Temporary school suspensions, longer-term separations from school, and even expulsions are all tools available to and used by schools, although shorter suspensions are more frequently used compared with these other longer-term exclusionary actions.
the possibility that BTAM could increase the use of either exclusionary discipline or criminal justice approaches in responding to student behavior has been a concern for civil society groups and a focus of policy debate around BTAM as a school safety practice.
However, BTAM is not synonymous with discipline, and concerns about misuse are often more about implementation fidelity than about BTAM as a violence prevention approach more generally.
To probe these issues, we specifically examined the frequency with which principals reported using restrictive interventions across the different scenarios.
at least some schools said they would likely take or recommend these types of actions in response to examples of student behavior included in the scenarios.
Principals’ likelihood of indicating they would consider exclusionary discipline tended to increase along with incident severity level, though there were exceptions.
very few schools responded they would temporarily or permanently remove a student from school or refer them to law enforcement in response to the least severe scenarios.
Sample (N = 1419) · Scenario observations, high severity: actions taken or recommended (p082, p087, p090, p092)
For the most severe scenarios, around 70 percent of schools said they would likely suspend the involved student, and between one in five and one in six said they would permanently remove the student from school.
Sample (N = 1419) · Scenario observations, high severity: actions taken or recommended (Figure 11.7 note, p090)
Approximately half of respondents noted they would refer the student to law enforcement for the most severe scenarios.
Importantly, schools in a smaller subset indicated that they would suspend students in response to behavior depicted in middle-level scenarios
this is somewhat in line with findings from previous studies of behavioral threat management in schools, which suggest that many schools implement short-term suspensions as an immediate response to some student behavior to give their BTAM team time to complete a behavioral threat assessment and decide on appropriate longer-term interventions, including support-focused interventions (Jackson et al., 2025).
Short-term suspensions may also help ensure the immediate safety of the individual student and broader school community.
A surprising number of principals also responded that they might refer students involved in middle-level scenarios to law enforcement, in particular for Scenarios J (history of misbehavior, history of academic issues, suspected substance use) and L (use or access to a weapon) in secondary schools.
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)
Although other studies show that most K–12 principals do not believe that exclusionary discipline measures teach students valuable lessons and help avoid future behavior incidents, 12 percent nationally still do believe that suspensions and expulsions give students the opportunity to learn from their behavior (Perera and Diliberti, 2023).
In our survey, schools also appeared more likely to use these types of measures at the secondary level, compared with the elementary level.
Policy debate around BTAM generally focuses on whether the approach increases the likelihood of students being removed from school or arrested and prosecuted, because the debate is framed around potential threats posed by students, because law enforcement can be involved in assessing and framing responses to student behavior, or for other reasons.
The response to these critiques is that such outcomes are counter to what
Sample (N = 351) · Scenario A respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.16
A (Elementary) | 11 | 2
Sample (N = 335) · Scenario B respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.16
B (Elementary) | 30 | 2
Sample (N = 131) · Scenario C respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.16
C (Elementary) | 32 | 1
Sample (N = 148) · Scenario D respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.16
D (Elementary) | 21 | 3
Sample (N = 136) · Scenario E respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.16
E (Elementary) | 16 | 0
Sample (N = 137) · Scenario F respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.16
F (Elementary) | 45 | 7
Sample (N = 133) · Scenario G respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.16
G (Elementary) | 29 | 5
Sample (N = 1419) · Scenario observations, high severity: actions taken or recommended (p082, p087, p090, p092)
H (Elementary) | 70 | 15
Sample (N = 734) · Scenario I respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.17
I (Secondary) | 8 | 3
Sample (N = 139) · Scenario J respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.17
J (Secondary) | 60 | 12
Sample (N = 128) · Scenario K respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.17
K (Secondary) | 9 | 3
Sample (N = 103) · Scenario L respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.17
L (Secondary) | 56 | 11
Sample (N = 134) · Scenario M respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.17
M (Secondary) | 48 | 8
Sample (N = 126) · Scenario N respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.17
N (Secondary) | 27 | 12
Sample (N = 105) · Scenario O respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.17
O (Secondary) | 52 | 24
Sample (N = 1419) · Scenario observations, high severity: actions taken or recommended (p082, p087, p090, p092)
P (Secondary) | 73 | 19
Sample (N = 351) · Scenario A respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.16
A (Elementary) | 3
Sample (N = 335) · Scenario B respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.16
B (Elementary) | 3
Sample (N = 131) · Scenario C respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.16
C (Elementary) | 15
Sample (N = 148) · Scenario D respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.16
D (Elementary) | 3
Sample (N = 136) · Scenario E respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.16
E (Elementary) | 9
Sample (N = 137) · Scenario F respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.16
F (Elementary) | 22
Sample (N = 133) · Scenario G respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.16
G (Elementary) | 17
Sample (N = 1419) · Scenario observations, high severity: actions taken or recommended (p082, p087, p090, p092)
H (Elementary) | 41
Sample (N = 734) · Scenario I respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.17
I (Secondary) | 5
Sample (N = 139) · Scenario J respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.17
J (Secondary) | 32
Sample (N = 128) · Scenario K respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.17
K (Secondary) | 4
Sample (N = 103) · Scenario L respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.17
L (Secondary) | 26
Sample (N = 134) · Scenario M respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.17
M (Secondary) | 13
Sample (N = 126) · Scenario N respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.17
N (Secondary) | 25
Sample (N = 105) · Scenario O respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.17
O (Secondary) | 52
Sample (N = 1419) · Scenario observations, high severity: actions taken or recommended (p082, p087, p090, p092)
P (Secondary) | 53
(n = 1,420 observations for low-severity scenarios; n = 1,420 observations for medium-severity scenarios; n = 1,419 for high-severity scenarios)
Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
For example, suspension.
For example, expulsion or transfer to an alternative school.
For example, arrest, civil, or criminal legal proceedings.
In essence, a BTAM program that is leading to the increased use of exclusionary discipline or more student arrests is “doing BTAM wrong.”
Definitively answering questions about such outcomes and determining whether BTAM is achieving its dual goals of keeping schools safe while also using supportive intervention to change student behavior and reducing the need for suspension, expulsion, and criminal justice action requires hard data (on both student outcomes post-BTAM and what response would have looked like in the absence of a BTAM at school).
Although some studies have conducted such analyses, the fact that data across schools and across the country are difficult to collect means existing analyses have usually focused more narrowly: either on single states or on the implementation of single BTAM models (e.g., Cornell, Allen, and Fan, 2012; Maeng, Cornell, and Huang, 2020; Cornell et al., 2025).
Therefore, it is worthwhile to consider what our national-level survey data can say about whether schools are “doing BTAM right” as a complementary approach.
Results from our scenario analyses suggest that K–12 schools are generally using BTAM as intended.
Principals selected different intervention options based on the nature of the scenario (Figure 11.3)
As situations move from relatively low risk to much more serious, they selected very different responses (Figure 11.4).
Moreover, as the complexity of a situation and risk level rise, schools tend to respond with additional interventions (Figure 11.5).
Across the full spectrum of scenarios, however, each set of interventions consistently includes a strong support component (Figure 11.6).
Schools do rely on restrictive measures, but these are not their first choices (Figure 11.3); their use is correlated with the severity of the scenario (Figure 11.4).
with the darkness of shading showing the percentage of schools that indicated they would include a specific option in an intervention plan.
Grouped by intervention type, Figure 11.8 shows the heavy weight of parental involvement across situations and the situational relevance of target or victim support (because not all scenarios involved specifically identified targets of a threat).
The weight of supportive disciplinary approaches also indicates that this is a component of most responses, as would be expected for situations that could disrupt school functioning and make others feel unsafe.
However, the answer to the key question of whether schools are “doing BTAM right” appears in the previous two sections.
These simultaneously depict the importance of support-focused strategies as a component of almost all intervention plans (notably mental health counseling and care across many scenarios) and the relatively light weighting assigned to all restrictive intervention options with the exception of temporary school suspensions.
Although the balance between support-focused and restrictive interventions is encouraging, the number of scenarios in which at least some principals selected law enforcement involvement is likely cause for concern (Figure 11.7).
Naturally, how much criminal justice involvement is “too much” in any particular case is fundamentally a policy question and also must be determined individually on a case-by-case basis.
Although keeping students in school has substantial educational benefits and is likely more cost-effective than criminal justice involvement overall, some situations could be so serious that leaving student behavior management exclusively to the school would be impossible and inappropriate.
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).
For many of the schools included in our survey, police officers could become involved in responding to a subset of scenarios whether or not a BTAM team was in place.
many schools employ temporary suspension as an immediate response to an incident to ensure the safety of the individual student and broader school community, while a BTAM team conducts its threat assessment and determines the best path forward (Jackson et al., 2025).
(n = 1,420 observations for low-severity scenarios; n = 1,420 observations for medium-severity scenarios; n = 1,419 for high-severity scenarios)
Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
Percentage of Schools That Would Use Various Actions in Response to the Scenarios Provided
Parent consultation or home visit | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
Warning to named targets or victims of threats | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
Warning or verbal correction of behavior | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
Disciplinary measures | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
Behavioral or movement controls | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
Programming to build relationships with trusted adults | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
Skill-building services | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
Programming to build peer relationships | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
Individualized academic or vocational programming | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
Special education or disability supports | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
Mental health counseling or care | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
Substance use treatment | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
Family support and intervention programming | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
Temporary removal from school | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
Permanent removal from school | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
Law enforcement action | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
Find the Perfect Training Class For You
