Report pages 62–69: 105 claims on pp. 62–68 (fact 66, statement 9, evidence 6, conclusion 6, conjecture 12, definition 6).
The management and support component of BTAM focuses on identifying appropriate interventions and supportive programming for students who have been assessed by the BTAM team as posing a potential risk to themselves or others.
BTAM models emphasize individualized responses and recommend a variety of intervention options, such as academic or social/emotional supportive services, monitoring, counseling, and safety planning tailored to the assessed needs of the individual and the situation at hand (see, e.g., Jackson et al., 2025).
The goal of intervention planning is to identify the right composition of resources and supports that can prompt and sustain positive behavioral change for the student involved while also ensuring the safety of the broader school community.
Many BTAM models differ in the specificity of their guidance for management and support strategies, leaving schools and their safety partners to develop their own approaches.
Sample (n = 1408 of 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
We focus on the 82 percent of schools in our survey that told us they had an official BTAM team.
We presented principals with four options for how their BTAM team might decide on an intervention or safety plan for a student assessed as posing a risk of harm and asked them to select which statement best describes their team’s process.
Sample (N = 1380) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Our BTAM team has a standard set of actions that it takes for every student assessed as a potential school safety concern (16 percent).
Sample (N = 1380) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Our BTAM team members recommend elements to add to each intervention plan based on their professional expertise and services from their discipline (e.g., a counselor identifies the types of counseling that should be included in the plan) (33 percent).
Sample (N = 1380) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Our BTAM team draws on an inventory of resources available across the school and community to collaboratively choose interventions for an intervention or safety plan (28 percent).
Sample (N = 1380) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Our BTAM team draws on an inventory of resources and decision support tools that help guide choices among intervention options and match interventions to individual student needs (23 percent).
In this chapter, we discuss how schools with official BTAM programs are approaching the behavioral threat management and support component of BTAM, reviewing responses about the decisionmaking process for selecting interventions and supports and the types of interventions schools are offering, both at the school and through referral to outside services.
The intent of BTAM is to use information about the student and their behavior to determine the right types of interventions that will simultaneously benefit the student (address the concerning behavior to decrease the risk of harm) and also ensure the safety of the school community.
BTAM teams using a standard set of actions for every student they assess (our first response option) is counter to this goal.
Sample (N = 1380) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
This was least commonly selected by principals, with only 16 percent indicating that their BTAM responded the same way in every case referred.
The other three responses described programs that customized intervention planning in different ways and reflected increasingly robust implementation of BTAM practices.
Sample (N = 1380) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
The most common approach or option, selected by one-third of respondents, was that BTAM teams rely on their members to “bring intervention options from their individual professional disciplines to the table” during intervention planning.
Ensuring that this happens is a strong driver behind recommendations or even requirements for BTAM teams to be multidisciplinary (see, e.g., NTAC, 2018).
Notably, such practice also relies heavily on having the right people “at the table” for every case; if key BTAM team members are regularly absent from meetings or team meetings are unplanned or a team is affected by frequent staff turnover, a school’s BTAM program might reach inconsistent decisions about which interventions to use from case to case.
The other two approaches/options include building systems and decision aids that help teams design intervention plans, essentially providing a “support system for the team” to build a strong and consistent process for selecting interventions across different students assessed by the team while still developing plans that are consistent for students’ needs.
Both include building an inventory of interventions that are available to the school, so the team is not reliant on the memory and attendance of individual team members to be aware of what intervention options are available to meet a student’s needs.
Building such an inventory is a recommended practice in some BTAM models and in other models for school-based behavioral management (e.g., PBIS or MTSS).
Sample (N = 1380) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Twenty-eight percent of respondents indicated that their teams used such an inventory but did not have additional decision support tools to help them do so.
The most robust approach/option supplements the intervention inventory with structured decision support tools that help teams select interventions tailored to the student’s needs.
Sample (N = 1380) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Just under a quarter of respondents (23 percent) indicated that their BTAM team had both an intervention inventory and decision support tool that helped them as they designed intervention plans.
Compared with more ad hoc approaches, structured intervention planning—supported by tools and inventories—may help ensure airer and more consistent outcomes across students.
Sample (N = 1380) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Because both of these response options included having an intervention inventory available, taken together they indicate that more than half of schools (51 percent) support intervention planning with an inventory of available intervention options.
Sample (N = 1379) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
According to principals’ reports, 91 percent of school BTAM teams typically involve parents or guardians of the referred student in the intervention and safety planning process; 84 percent also noted involving the referred student in the process.
Principals indicated that parents and students were generally consulted to provide information that informs the team’s decisions, as opposed to directly participating in planning decisions.
Sample (N = 1379) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
For example, 72 percent of schools consulted with parents or guardians, but only 19 percent allowed parents to directly participate in planning decisions.
In short, although parents provide added value to the intervention planning process thanks to their knowledge, awareness, and buy-in, principals confirmed that trained BTAM team members are responsible for ultimately selecting appropriate interventions and supports.
Schools’ BTAM teams almost universally have a variety of intervention options available to them when it comes to intervening with a student assessed as posing a risk of harm to themself or others.
Sample (N = 1384) · Teams answering intervention/safety plan components question
The only intervention not universally available across responding schools—but still widely available—is substance use treatment; 79 percent of schools have this intervention as an available option.
Unsurprisingly, more secondary schools have access to substance use treatment options than elementary schools, likely because the percentage of youth reporting they use any illicit substance increases with age (National Institute on Drug Abuse [NIDA], 2023).
Sample (N = 1384) · Teams answering intervention/safety plan components question
For example, virtually all schools use programming to build trusted relationships with adults, but the frequency they use these interventions varies: 53 percent report using this often; 42 percent report sometimes; and 4 percent report rarely using it as an option.
Sample (N = 1384) · Teams answering intervention/safety plan components question
As an example, while 91 percent of principals indicate that their BTAM team has the option to permanently remove students from school via expulsion or relocation, 30 percent of schools report never using this option.
Sample (N = 1384) · Teams answering intervention/safety plan components question
For example, 47 percent of schools said their BTAM teams often refer students to mental health counseling or care.
Sample (N = 1384) · Teams answering intervention/safety plan components question
By contrast, only 17 percent report that they often use special education supports, and 5 percent report that they often refer students to substance use treatment.
These differences in frequency with which schools use specific interventions are likely related to the types of cases referred to BTAM teams—that is, incidents that involve substance use may be rarer as part of the case types referred to BTAM teams, therefore leading schools to only rarely include such treatment as part of an intervention plan.
Similarly, special education supports are only appropriate for some students, explaining why schools tend to report using them only sometimes as an intervention.
could be considered support-focused or supportive discipline interventions meant to modify student behavior (see, e.g., Jackson et al., 2025).
Restrictive interventions—such as temporary or permanent removal from school or referral to law enforcement—are implemented less frequently.
Safety interventions can include a range of protective measures to ensure the safety of the at-risk individual, the target of a threat, and members of the school community more broadly.
Specific examples include daily backpack searches or changes to class schedules.
As shown in Figure 9.1, these options vary and can include skill-building services, programs geared toward building relationships with trusted adults, special education supports, mental health counseling, or temporary removal from school (e.g., suspension).
Schools use many of their available intervention options with some regularity as part of their behavioral threat management process.
Our results also highlight a small number of interventions that are available to school BTAM teams but not employed as widely as expected given the availability.
School BTAM teams use some intervention options more often than others.
Sample (N = 1384) · Teams answering intervention/safety plan components question
Supports and safety interventions for the targets or victims of threats | 1 | 5 | 39 | 55 | 1 | 99 | 99
Sample (N = 1384) · Teams answering intervention/safety plan components question
Programming to build relationships with trusted adults | 1 | 4 | 42 | 53 | 1 | 99 | 99
Sample (N = 1384) · Teams answering intervention/safety plan components question
Mental health counseling or care | 1 | 3 | 46 | 47 | 2 | 98 | 97
Sample (N = 1384) · Teams answering intervention/safety plan components question
Skill-building services or programs | 2 | 13 | 49 | 34 | 3 | 97 | 96
Sample (N = 1384) · Teams answering intervention/safety plan components question
Behavioral or movement controls in school | 2 | 14 | 51 | 31 | 2 | 98 | 96
Sample (N = 1384) · Teams answering intervention/safety plan components question
Behavioral corrections or discipline | 2 | 7 | 42 | 46 | 2 | 98 | 96
Sample (N = 1384) · Teams answering intervention/safety plan components question
Programming to build peer relationships and engagement | 3 | 18 | 49 | 27 | 3 | 97 | 94
Sample (N = 1384) · Teams answering intervention/safety plan components question
Special education or disability supports | 3 | 16 | 63 | 17 | 1 | 99 | 96
Sample (N = 1384) · Teams answering intervention/safety plan components question
Temporary removal from school (suspension) | 3 | 20 | 55 | 20 | 2 | 98 | 95
Sample (N = 1384) · Teams answering intervention/safety plan components question
Family support and intervention programming | 4 | 21 | 49 | 17 | 8 | 92 | 88
Sample (N = 1384) · Teams answering intervention/safety plan components question
Academic or vocational programming | 6 | 30 | 40 | 9 | 15 | 85 | 79
Sample (N = 1384) · Teams answering intervention/safety plan components question
Law enforcement action or criminal justice action | 17 | 37 | 36 | 7 | 4 | 96 | 80
Sample (N = 1384) · Teams answering intervention/safety plan components question
Substance use treatment | 18 | 30 | 25 | 5 | 21 | 79 | 61
Sample (N = 1384) · Teams answering intervention/safety plan components question
Permanent removal from school (expulsion or relocation) | 30 | 38 | 19 | 3 | 9 | 91 | 61
NOTE: This figure depicts response data from the following survey question: “When your BTAM team intervenes with a student who is assessed as being at some risk of causing harm to themselves or others, how commonly are the following options part of the resulting intervention or safety plan?” (n = 1,384).
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
Bars may not sum to totals because of rounding.
confidence that schools are scaling their interventions to the types and severity of incidents under the purview of their BTAM teams.
BTAM in K–12 schools is framed as an alternative to exclusionary school discipline, which has been recognized as risking long-term harms to students and causing other damage to a school’s community (Huang and Cornell, 2021; Cornell et al., 2018; Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports, 2023).
Our survey provides insight into whether and how schools with BTAM programs in place report that they use exclusionary practices such as suspension, expulsion, and referral to law enforcement as part of their threat management processes.
Although principals’ survey responses suggest that BTAM teams rarely use exclusionary discipline measures—especially at the elementary level—they show that teams do still use these options (see Figure 9.1).
Sample (N = 1379) · Teams answering exclusionary discipline and arrest/prosecution questions (Figure 9.2)
Thirty percent of principals reported their BTAM teams never use exclusionary discipline (i.e., they never expel students, place them in different schools, or suspend them for a month or more).
Sample (N = 1379) · Teams answering exclusionary discipline and arrest/prosecution questions (Figure 9.2)
Meanwhile, 46 percent of principals said their BTAM teams rarely use exclusionary discipline; 21 percent reported doing so sometimes; 3 percent reported frequently turning to exclusionary discipline; and 1 percent said they always employ such measures.
Our results also suggest that exclusionary discipline practices are more common than referrals to law enforcement (i.e., arresting or prosecuting students for their threatening or concerning behavior).
Sample (N = 1379) · Teams answering exclusionary discipline and arrest/prosecution questions (Figure 9.2)
Forty percent of principals said their BTAM teams never refer students to law enforcement for arrest or prosecution, and another 40 percent said they rarely make such referrals.
Sample (N = 1379) · Teams answering exclusionary discipline and arrest/prosecution questions (Figure 9.2)
Sixteen percent said they sometimes did so, and 4 percent and 1 percent said they either frequently or always referred cases to law enforcement for arrest or prosecution, respectively.
Although it is concerning that a handful of schools reported engaging in such practices frequently or every time a case is referred to the BTAM team, we do not have information about the size of teams’ caseloads or about the nature of specific cases.
Overall, our data demonstrate that BTAM teams do not commonly rely on exclusionary practices as the means of intervening with students who display behaviors that elicit concerns for the safety of themselves and others.
Our data also show that elementary schools—whose BTAM teams likely deal with relatively less serious student behavior compared with secondary schools—were particularly likely to say they never use exclusionary discipline for students referred to a BTAM team.
Elementary school principals were also significantly more likely to say they never refer students to law enforcement for arrest or prosecution, as shown in Figure 9.2.
However, although these practices are less common in elementary schools compared with middle and high schools, some elementary schools said that their BTAM teams have expelled or referred students to law enforcement with some regularity.
See Chapter 11 for additional analyses about whether BTAM assessments and interventions are working as expected in practice.
However, schools might suspend students for shorter amounts of time that still might be considered exclusionary.
Sample (N = 1379) · Teams answering exclusionary discipline and arrest/prosecution questions (Figure 9.2)
Total | 30 | 46 | 21 | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
Sample (n = undeterminable of 1379) · Teams answering exclusionary discipline and arrest/prosecution questions (Figure 9.2)
Elementary | 43 | 42 | 13 | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
Sample (n = undeterminable of 1379) · Teams answering exclusionary discipline and arrest/prosecution questions (Figure 9.2)
Middle | 13 | 52 | 30 | 4 | [unlabeled]
Sample (n = undeterminable of 1379) · Teams answering exclusionary discipline and arrest/prosecution questions (Figure 9.2)
High | 11 | 52 | 32 | 4 | [unlabeled]
Sample (N = 1379) · Teams answering exclusionary discipline and arrest/prosecution questions (Figure 9.2)
Total | 40 | 40 | 16 | 4 | [unlabeled]
Sample (n = undeterminable of 1379) · Teams answering exclusionary discipline and arrest/prosecution questions (Figure 9.2)
Elementary | 56 | 30 | 10 | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
Sample (n = undeterminable of 1379) · Teams answering exclusionary discipline and arrest/prosecution questions (Figure 9.2)
Middle | 21 | 52 | 21 | 6 | [unlabeled]
Sample (n = undeterminable of 1379) · Teams answering exclusionary discipline and arrest/prosecution questions (Figure 9.2)
High | 15 | 56 | 24 | 4 | [unlabeled]
NOTE: This figure depicts response data from the following survey questions: “When your BTAM team assesses students, how frequently are students expelled, placed in a different school, or suspended for one month or more for their threatening or concerning behavior?” and “When your BTAM team assesses students, how frequently are students arrested or prosecuted for their threatening or concerning behavior?” (n = 1,379).
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
Bars may not sum to totals because of rounding. Some data labels have been removed for readability.
Includes expulsion, relocation (i.e., placed in a different school), and suspension for one month or more.
Many interventions that BTAM teams could recommend for students assessed as being at risk of harming themselves or others cost money to provide.
For example, mental health counseling through a private provider has a cost, and how much a family might have to pay to access such services will be determined by whether they have financial means or relevant medical insurance coverage.
Presumably, the cost of an intervention will influence the likelihood of a student receiving that intervention, especially if borne by the student and the student’s family, and could be an insurmountable barrier for some families.
If services are provided at no cost through the school or other community sources, student uptake may be higher, increasing the likelihood that intervention efforts will successfully meet their needs and school safety goals.
We asked whether schools provide four different types of services at no cost to students’ families either inside school or outside school through an external service provider: skill-building services, mental health counseling or care, substance use treatment, and family support and intervention programming.
We specifically selected these four intervention options because they often require licensed clinicians, therapists, or other professionals, and are more likely to be offered outside school, relative to such options as peer mentoring programs or extra academic support.
As shown in Figure 9.1 mental health counseling or care is the most frequently used intervention in the broader list of intervention options and also potentially one of the higher-cost intervention options recommended by a BTAM team.
Sample (N = 1374) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
mental health counseling or care to students free of charge, either at school or by placing the student in an outside program.
Why inferred The sentence crosses a page break: this quote is the page 68 part and the sentence begins on page 67. Full sentence (pages 67–68): “Three-quarters of principals indicated that their schools’ BTAM program provides mental health counseling or care to students free of charge, either at school or by placing the student in an outside program.”
Sample (N = 1374) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Additionally, 70 percent of schools provided skill-building services free of charge to students referred to BTAM, and 58 percent provided free family support and intervention programming (also either at schools or by placing the student in an outside program).
Sample (N = 1374) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Meanwhile, only 37 percent of schools provided free substance use treatment to students referred to BTAM; note that schools reported using this intervention option infrequently (as shown in Figure 9.1).
Relative to other intervention options, substance use treatment is also likely especially costly for students and their families (see, e.g., NIDA, 2024).
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)
Federal government data for the 2023–2024 school year show that 84 percent of public schools provided mental health interventions for students, and 63 percent of schools used district or school funding to support these mental health services.
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)
However, only 9 percent of schools “strongly agree” that they are able to effectively provide these services for all students in need (NCES, 2025).
Find the Perfect Training Class For You
