Report title: The State of Behavioral Threat Assessment and Management in K–12 Public Schools
The State of Behavioral Threat Assessment and Management in K–12 Public Schools
NCIER®
Fact claims
Every claim in the map classified as fact, in report order.
Claims
Report subtitle: Findings from a 2025 American School Leader Panel Survey
Findings from a 2025 American School Leader Panel Survey
Authors (first line): Melissa Kay Diliberti, Pauline Moore, Brian A. Jackson
MELISSA KAY DILIBERTI, PAULINE MOORE, BRIAN A. JACKSON,
Authors (second line): Kelsey Morris, Wade Buckland, Lina Alathari
KELSEY MORRIS, WADE BUCKLAND, LINA ALATHARI,
Authors (third line): Steven Driscoll, Diana Drysdale, Jacquelyn Glidden
STEVEN DRISCOLL, DIANA DRYSDALE, JACQUELYN GLIDDEN
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
In 2024 NTAC tasked HSOAC with a study of BTAM practices in K–12 schools
In 2024, the U.S. Secret Service’s National Threat Assessment Center (NTAC) tasked the Homeland Security Operational Analysis Center (HSOAC) with conducting a study to advance the field’s understanding of behavioral threat assessment and management practices in K–12 schools.
Report examines K–12 BTAM implementation using a survey of 1,746 school leaders
In this co-branded HSOAC-NTAC report, we take a comprehensive look at how K–12 schools are implementing and using behavioral threat assessment and management programs as part of their violence prevention efforts, using data from a survey administered to a nationally representative sample of 1,746 school leaders.
Primary audiences: school and district administrators, school safety partners, community organizatio
The primary audiences for this research include school- and district-level administrators, school safety partners, and community-based organizations (such as local law enforcement).
Research sponsored by the U.S. Secret Service; conducted in RAND HSRD's Infrastructure, Immigration,
This research was sponsored by the U.S. Secret Service and conducted in the Infrastructure, Immigration, & Security Operations Program of the RAND Homeland Security Research Division (HSRD), which operates the Homeland Security Operational Analysis Center (HSOAC).
The panels are a member of AAPOR's Transparency Initiative
The panels are a proud member of the American Association for Public Opinion Research’s Transparency Initiative.
RAND operates HSOAC for DHS under contract 70RSAT22D00000001
RAND operates the Homeland Security Operational Analysis Center (HSOAC) as an FFRDC for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under contract 70RSAT22D00000001.
HSOAC also supports other federal, state, local, tribal, public and private organizations
HSOAC also works with and supports other federal, state, local, tribal, and public- and private-sector organizations that make up the homeland security enterprise.
HSOAC research is undertaken by mutual consent with DHS and organized as discrete tasks
HSOAC’s research is undertaken by mutual consent with DHS and organized as a set of discrete tasks.
Report presents research under task 70US0924F1DHS2132, BTAM Implementation Research
This report presents the results of research and analysis conducted under 70US0924F1DHS2132, “Behavioral Threat Assessment and Management Implementation Research.”
Publication URL: www.rand.org/t/RRA3658-1
For more information on this publication, see www.rand.org/t/RRA3658-1.
NTAC was established in 1998 as a component of the U.S. Secret Service
The National Threat Assessment Center (NTAC) was established as a component of the U.S. Secret Service in 1998 to provide research and guidance in direct support of the Secret Service’s protective mission and to others with public safety responsibilities.
AEP survey panels: more information at www.rand.org/aep
For more information about any one of the survey panels, visit www.rand.org/aep.
HSRD information: www.rand.org/hsrd
For more information on HSRD, see www.rand.org/hsrd.
NTAC authorized to train, facilitate information-sharing, consult on cases, and promote standardizat
provide training on threat assessment and violence prevention; facilitate information-sharing among agencies with protective and public safety responsibilities; provide case consultation on threat assessment investigations and for agencies building threat assessment units; and develop programs to promote standardization of federal, state, and local threat assessment processes.
Why inferred The sentence crosses a page break: this quote is the page 5 part and the sentence begins on page 4 (claim p004-17). Full sentence (pages 4–5): “Through the Presidential Threat Protection Act of 2000, Congress formally authorized NTAC to conduct research on threat assessment and various types of targeted violence; provide training on threat assessment and violence prevention; facilitate information-sharing among agencies with protective and public safety responsibilities; provide case consultation on threat assessment investigations and for agencies building threat assessment units; and develop programs to promote standardization of federal, state, and local threat assessment processes.”
NTAC staff: multidisciplinary social science researchers and regional program managers
NTAC’s staff is composed of a multidisciplinary team of social science researchers and regional program managers who support partners in law enforcement, schools, government, and other organizations to combat targeted violence impacting communities across the United States.
HSOAC thanks the participating educators
The HSOAC team is extremely grateful to the educators who agreed to participate in this panel.
Educators' time and willingness to share experiences were invaluable
Their time and willingness to share their experiences were invaluable for this effort and for helping the team understand how to better support their hard work in schools.
Thanks to Dopp, Wagner, Kim, Lu and Colvin for design, management, data and programming help
The HSOAC team thanks RAND colleagues Alex Dopp for consultation on implementation science during survey design; Lisa Wagner and Brian Kim for assisting with survey management; Ruolin Lu for serving as the data manager for this survey; and Tim Colvin for programming the survey.
Thanks to Dorothy Seaman for sampling and weighting
The HSOAC team also thanks Dorothy Seaman for producing the sampling and weighting for these analyses.
Thanks to Tina Petrossian and David Grant for support and AEP management
HSOAC greatly appreciates the administrative support provided by Tina Petrossian and AEP management provided by David Grant.
Thanks to Meagan Cahill and Andrea Phillips for review and feedback
The HSOAC team also thanks Meagan Cahill and Andrea Phillips for their review and feedback, which helped improve this work.
Thanks to Cindy Lyons and Maria Vega for overseeing publication
Finally, HSOAC is grateful for the efforts of Cindy Lyons and Maria Vega in overseeing the publication of this report.
NTAC information: www.secretservice.gov/ntac
For more information on NTAC, see www.secretservice.gov/ntac.
School violence and threats remain a significant concern in K–12 education
School violence and threats remain a significant concern in K–12 education.
NTAC sponsored a multiyear HSOAC research effort on BTAM practices and implementation in K–12 school
As part of its long-standing effort to improve and foster the adoption of BTAM as a strategy to prevent targeted violence, the National Threat Assessment Center (NTAC) has sponsored a multiyear research effort carried out by the Homeland Security Operational Analysis Center (HSOAC) that is focused on BTAM practices and their implementation in K–12 schools.
Joint effort included a nationally representative survey of 1,746 principals
To provide a comprehensive picture of BTAM implementation, the practices that schools are using to identify and manage potential threats to schools, and the potential solutions to strengthen BTAM across the United States, the joint HSOAC-NTAC research effort included a nationally representative survey of 1,746 principals across the country implementing BTAM practices at their schools.
Survey asked about implementation, team composition, incidents referred, and operating, sustaining a
Survey respondents were asked questions about the initial implementation of their school’s BTAM program, the composition of their BTAM team, and the types of incidents referred to and addressed by their BTAM team, as well as a broad set of questions about operating, sustaining, and improving BTAM practices at their schools.
Each respondent also answered scenario-based questions
Each survey respondent also answered a set of scenario-based questions representative of incidents they might experience at their schools, for more insight into how their schools use BTAM as a violence prevention tool.
Survey data are the first of their kind to look comprehensively at BTAM operationalization
The data collected in this survey are the first of their kind to look comprehensively at how BTAM is being operationalized in schools across the country.
Schools in states with early mandates or encouragement are further along, with more standardized mee
Schools in states with early mandates or policy encouragement for BTAM are further along in implementation, with more standardized meeting schedules and written procedures.
Report gives a picture of the state of BTAM in K–12 public schools in 2025
This report takes an in-depth look at the results of that survey, providing a picture of the state of BTAM in K–12 public schools across the country in 2025.
The first-of-its-kind survey revealed the following key highlights
This first-of-its-kind survey revealed the following key highlights:
Concerns about BTAM use for minor behavioral issues have not materialized, per principal reports
behavioral issues have not materialized, at least according to our principal reports.
Why inferred The sentence crosses a page break: this quote is the page 7 part and the sentence begins on page 6. Full sentence (pages 6–7): “Concerns that BTAM might be used for minor behavioral issues have not materialized, at least according to our principal reports.”
Schools maintain clear referral thresholds focused on serious safety concerns
Schools are maintaining clear thresholds for referring cases to BTAM teams, focusing on serious safety concerns.
Most schools incorporate individualized interventions into threat management plans
Most schools are incorporating individualized interventions into plans developed as part of the threat management process, tailoring supports to meet the specific needs and circumstances of students.
Schools use a variety of interventions to address underlying causes
Schools are using a variety of interventions to address underlying causes of student behavior rather than relying on a single solution.
Scenario responses show interventions matched to case complexity
Scenario-based responses show that interventions are matched to the complexity of each case.
Schools prioritize counseling, trusted relationships and skill-building over restrictive measures
Survey results show that schools prioritize such interventions as mental health counseling, building trusted relationships with adults, and skill-building services over restrictive measures.
Even in the most severe scenarios, supportive interventions were the largest share of responses
Even in the most severe scenarios presented to principals, supportive interventions consistently composed the largest share of response strategies.
Over 75 percent rarely or never use exclusionary discipline; 80 percent rarely or never arrest or pr
Sample (N = 1379) · Teams answering exclusionary discipline and arrest/prosecution questions (Figure 9.2)
Over 75 percent said they rarely or never use exclusionary discipline, and 80 percent rarely or never arrest or prosecute students referred to BTAM teams.
Only 20 percent of schools directly involve parents in intervention planning; most consult them
Sample (N = 1379) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Although only 20 percent of schools directly involve parents in intervention planning, most consult with them during the process.
One-third of schools identify lack of parent participation as a significant challenge
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering the BTAM program challenges question (Figure 13.3; Table A.56)
Parent engagement is seen as crucial to the success of intervention plans, with one-third of schools identifying a lack of parent participation as a significant challenge.
Principals believe BTAM has a net positive impact on safety and school climate
Principals around the country believe that BTAM is having a net positive impact on improving safety at their schools and also helping to create more positive school climates.
Principals report reductions in crime, violence and self-harm and view BTAM as preferable to exclusi
Principals report reductions in crime, violence, and self-harm and view BTAM as preferable to exclusionary discipline.
Many principals believe BTAM contributes to a safer, more supportive school environment
Many said they believe that BTAM contributes to a safer and more supportive school environment.
Principals identified five key challenges
In particular, principals identified the following five key challenges:
Most schools have adopted BTAM but there is considerable variability in models used
Even though most schools have adopted BTAM practices, there is still considerable variability in the models they use.
Schools often blend national programs with local practices, leading to differences in implementation
Schools often blend elements from national programs with local practices, leading to significant differences in implementation.
Considerable variability in BTAM member training across schools
There is considerable variability in training for BTAM members across schools.
Fewer than half of schools provide annual training; many offer it only as needed
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering the BTAM training-frequency question (Figure 5.4)
Fewer than half of schools provide annual training, and many only offer it as needed, which may limit team members’ skills in such key areas as risk assessment and bias mitigation.
Training gaps are especially pronounced in urban and high-poverty schools
Training gaps are especially pronounced in urban and high-poverty schools.
Lack of standardization across critical BTAM team functions and operations
There is a lack of standardization across critical BTAM team functions and operations.
Significant variability in team structure, meeting frequency, information-gathering, case reviews an
There is significant variability in how BTAM teams are structured; how often they meet; and how they conduct information-gathering, case reviews, and program evaluations.
Most schools rely on informal approaches; about half lack formal policies or SOPs
Sample (N = 1400) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Although some schools use structured processes, most rely on informal approaches, and about half lack formal policies or standard
Why inferred The sentence crosses a page break: this quote is the page 7 part and the sentence continues on page 8. Full sentence (pages 7–8): “Although some schools use structured processes, most rely on informal approaches, and about half lack formal policies or standard operating procedures.”
Considerable variation in how teams deliver interventions and develop management plans
There is considerable variation in how BTAM teams deliver interventions and develop management plans for students.
Most teams focus on individualized interventions; wide differences in decisionmaking, resource use a
Although most teams focus on individualized interventions, there are wide differences in decisionmaking processes, resource use, and application of decision support tools.
Most schools conduct some review, but many lack deep or systematic continuous improvement
Although most schools conduct some form of review or reflection process to understand the impact that BTAM is having on such student- and school-level outcomes as violence rates and the use of exclusionary discipline, many lack deep or systematic approaches to continuous improvement.
Few schools use systematic data analysis or validate interventions with trained staff
Few schools use systematic data analysis or validate interventions with trained staff.
Introduction: school violence and threats remain a significant concern in K–12 education
Incidents of school violence and threats—whether directed at students, staff, or the broader school community—remain a significant concern in K–12 education.
School leaders must determine an appropriate response to student behavior raising alarms
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.
Most threats are found not to be credible; removal can sometimes increase risk of harm
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.
Schools increasingly seek alternatives that balance safety with students' well-being and rights
As a result, schools increasingly seek alternatives that balance safety with the well-being and rights of all students.
Federal data: as many as 85 percent of schools had a BTAM team in place as of 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)
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
BTAM teams are at the core of school- or district-level BTAM programs
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.
Many schools and districts developed their own BTAM models besides private, federal, and state model
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.
Figure 1.1, Spring 2016: 42 percent of schools had a BTAM team (SSOCS)
Sample (n = undeterminable of undeterminable) · Federal SSOCS / School Pulse Panel national estimates of schools with a BTAM team
Spring 2016 | 42
Figure 1.1, Spring 2018: 44 percent of schools had a BTAM team (SSOCS)
Sample (n = undeterminable of undeterminable) · Federal SSOCS / School Pulse Panel national estimates of schools with a BTAM team
Spring 2018 | 44
Figure 1.1, Spring 2020: 64 percent of schools had a BTAM team (SSOCS)
Sample (n = undeterminable of undeterminable) · Federal SSOCS / School Pulse Panel national estimates of schools with a BTAM team
Spring 2020 | 64
Figure 1.1, Spring 2022: 65 percent of schools had a BTAM team (SSOCS)
Sample (n = undeterminable of undeterminable) · Federal SSOCS / School Pulse Panel national estimates of schools with a BTAM team
Spring 2022 | 65
Figure 1.1, Fall 2022: 82 percent of schools had a BTAM team (SPP)
Sample (n = undeterminable of undeterminable) · Federal SSOCS / School Pulse Panel national estimates of schools with a BTAM team
Fall 2022 | | 82
Figure 1.1, Spring 2024: 85 percent of schools had a BTAM team (SPP)
Sample (n = undeterminable of undeterminable) · Federal SSOCS / School Pulse Panel national estimates of schools with a BTAM team
Spring 2024 | | 85
BTAM teams at K–12 schools grew notably between 2016 and 2024 (Figure 1.1)
As Figure 1.1 shows, the existence of BTAM teams at K–12 schools grew notably between 2016 and 2024.
Survey data collected from K–12 public school principals February 5–24, 2025
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.
Survey administered to a nationally representative sample of RAND ASLP principals
The survey was administered to a nationally representative sample of principals who were members of RAND’s American School Leader Panel (ASLP).
Principals received detailed questions about their school's BTAM program
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
1,746 individuals completed the 20-minute survey, weighted to national principal population
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.
Responses examined by six school characteristics and state policy context
To answer our research questions, we investigated national patterns in educators’ survey responses based on school characteristics and state policy context related to BTAM.
Differences also examined by BTAM state policy context in 2019
Where appropriate, we also examined differences in educators’ responses according to the BTAM state policy context in 2019.
Early legislation states: CT, FL, GA, IL, KY, MD, MI, MS, NV, NH, NY, OH, OR, PA, RI, TX, VA, WA
These states were Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Virginia, and Washington.
Encouraged states: AR, CO, DE, ID, IN, KS, MA, MO, MT, NE, NJ, NM, NC, ND, OK, SC, TN, UT, VT, WV
States in this group consisted of Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, and West Virginia.
Other states: AL, AK, AZ, CA, DC, HI, IA, LA, ME, MN, SD, WI, WY (Child Trends and NASBE, 2021)
These states were Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming (Child Trends and NASBE, 2021).
Specific policies differ across states, even within each category
Importantly, specific policies across states differ, even within each category.
Between 2019 and 2025 several states changed BTAM law or policy
It should be noted that in the intervening years (i.e., between 2019 and the writing of this report in 2025), several states have made changes in law or policy regarding BTAM.
Current policies differ even among the 18 early legislation states
For example, among the 18 states in the early legislation category, current policies can look quite different.
This chapter uses data from 1,746 principals who completed the survey for their schools
In this chapter, we provide an overview of the BTAM landscape in K–12 public schools across the country using data from the 1,746 principals who completed our survey on behalf of their schools.
Figure 2.1 uses 100 boxes to represent the population of U.S. public schools
Figure 2.1 displays the national landscape of BTAM programs in K–12 schools, using 100 boxes to represent the population of U.S. public schools.
Virtually all public schools (97 percent) engaged in BTAM in some capacity in 2024–2025
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
As shown and according to the principals who took our survey, virtually all public schools (97 percent) engaged in BTAM in some capacity during the 2024–2025 school year.
Eighty-two percent of public schools have an official BTAM team
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
Eighty-two percent of public schools have a team that they explicitly call a BTAM team (for which we use the term official BTAM team).
More than 70,000 schools across the United States with BTAM teams
This translates to more than 70,000 schools across the United States with BTAM teams.
Official BTAM teams: 25 percent of schools school-level, 13 percent district-only, 43 percent both
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
This includes 25 percent of schools that have an official BTAM team housed at the school level, 13 percent of schools that only have a school district–level BTAM team, and 43 percent of schools that have both school- and district-level teams.
Another 14 percent of schools have an alternative team functionally similar to a BTAM team
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
Another 14 percent of schools have a team that was not formally identified as a BTAM team but was functionally similar to such teams in that it “makes decisions regarding serious student behavioral concerns” (those are represented by the light purple boxes in Figure 2.1).
In rare cases schools were also served by BTAM teams managed by external organizations
were also served by BTAM teams that were managed by organizations or government entities external to the school or district.
Nine percent of schools reported working with an external BTAM team
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
Nine percent of schools reported working with an
Why inferred The sentence crosses a page break: this quote is the page 26 part and the sentence continues on page 27. Full sentence (pages 26–27): “Nine percent of schools reported working with an external BTAM team, as represented by the superimposed orange box in Figure 2.1.”
Figure 2.1: Official BTAM team 82 percent
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
Official BTAM team | 82
Figure 2.1: School-level team only 25 percent
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
School-level team only | 25
Figure 2.1: District-level team only 13 percent
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
District-level team only | 13
Figure 2.1: Teams located at both levels 43 percent
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
Teams located at both levels | 43
Figure 2.1: Alternative team performing BTAM functions 14 percent
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
Alternative team performing BTAM functions | 14
Figure 2.1: No BTAM team 3 percent
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
No BTAM team | 3
Figure 2.1: Supported by BTAM team external to school district 9 percent
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
Supported by BTAM team external to school district | 9
Principals were asked to consider teams managed by community, government, or law enforcement bodies
We asked principals to consider teams managed by a community organization; a local, county, state, or federal government entity; a law enforcement agency; or other organizations.
Most principals were only “somewhat familiar” with outside BTAM teams’ operation and processes
Furthermore, most principals noted they were only “somewhat familiar” with the operation and processes of these outside BTAM teams.
Schools’ use of BTAM has increased over time (Figure 1.1)
As shown in Figure 1.1, schools’ use of BTAM has increased over time.
9 percent of schools (roughly 8,000) work with an external BTAM team
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
As shown in Figure 2.1, 9 percent of schools (or roughly 8,000 schools across the United States) work with an external BTAM team.
Of schools with external teams, 89 percent said they were community- or county-level teams
Sample (N = 174) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Of those schools supported by external teams, the vast majority (89 percent) said these were community- or county-level teams that respond to cases in local schools and in the broader community.
Only 5 percent received support from a state-level team; only 2 percent engaged a federal-agency tea
Sample (N = 174) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Only 5 percent of schools received support from a state-level team, and only 2 percent engaged with a team managed by a federal agency (such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI]) about specific cases.
55 percent of schools with external teams said the team is involved only when the school seeks assis
Sample (N = 122) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Most schools that worked with such teams (55 percent) said an outside BTAM team only becomes involved in a case when the school specifically seeks out its assistance.
8 percent said they engage an outside team only when the team approaches the school about a threat o
Sample (N = 122) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Conversely, a handful (8 percent) reported that the only time their school engages with an outside BTAM team is when the external team approaches the school about a specific threat or tip received that is relevant to the school.
Remaining schools gave mixed responses on who initiates engagement with the external team
The remaining schools provided mixed responses in terms of who initiates the engagement—the school or the external team.
Principals reported a mix of experiences working with external teams
The principals we surveyed reported a mix of experiences working with these external teams.
Thirty-eight percent said outside teams have access to more or different information than the school
Sample (N = 122) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Thirty-eight percent said outside BTAM teams have access to more or different information than the school or district does, including ready access to law enforcement data and other sources—a potential benefit.
Slightly more than half of schools engaged with external teams gained access to more service provide
Another potential benefit of external teams, which slightly more than half of schools that had engaged with these teams experienced, is access to a broader variety of service providers or providers with greater capacity to deliver intervention programming relative to what the school is able to provide.
25 percent said external teams know less about school environments and youth than school-based stake
Sample (N = 122) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
One-quarter (25 percent) of these respondents said that external teams do not know as much about school environments and/or youth populations relative to school-based stakeholders, which can be problematic when it comes to assessing the level of threat posed by student behavior.
20 percent of principals said outside teams do not know as much about the specific school community
Sample (N = 122) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Similarly, 20 percent of principals noted that outside teams do not know as much about the specific school community context.
High school principals: 48 percent said external teams do not know much about school environments or
Sample (column N undeterminable) · High school principals served by an external BTAM team
They were more likely than their elementary and middle school counterparts to believe that external teams do not know much about school environments and/or youth populations (48 percent said this) and also less likely than middle school principals to believe that these teams have access to a broader variety of service providers.
Some states provide no guidance and leave BTAM decisions to the school or district
Still other states do not provide any guidance and leave these decisions to the individual school or school district.
Some schools provided information on potential drawbacks of working with external teams
Some schools provided information on the potential drawbacks of working with external teams.
Authors explored how current BTAM landscape differed across the three 2019 state policy contexts
We explored to what extent the current (as of this writing) BTAM landscape in schools differed across these three early state policy contexts.
Figure 2.2 uses 100 boxes per 2019 state policy context
Figure 2.2 displays the existing landscape of BTAM program adoption in schools based on our survey data, again using 100 boxes to represent the population of public schools in each state policy context.
Very few schools in any state policy context do not engage in BTAM at all
Very few schools in any state policy context do not engage in BTAM at all.
Marginal differences across contexts, namely in the types of teams serving schools
However, there are marginal differences in specific elements of BTAM adoption across these contexts, namely in the types of teams serving schools.
Schools in states with no 2019 legislation or encouragement more likely to use a BTAM-like team
schools in these states are more likely than their counterparts in other policy contexts to use a BTAM-like team to perform threat assessment and management functions (e.g., an MTSS or PBIS team).
Official BTAM team: 90 percent early legislation states, 77 percent encouraged states, 73 percent no
Sample (N = 423 | 481 | 842 by column) · State-policy groups in column order: other states, encouraged BTAM use only, early legislation states
More specifically, 90 percent of schools in early legislation states have an official BTAM team today, compared with 77 percent of schools in states that only encouraged the practice in 2019 and 73 percent of schools in states where there was no mention of BTAM in state policy in 2019.
Early-legislation-state schools more likely than no-mention-state schools to have teams at both leve
Furthermore, schools in early legislation states are more likely today than those in states where BTAM was not addressed in 2019 to have teams at both the school and district levels.
Prevalence investigated by level, locale, poverty, racial/ethnic composition, and enrollment
We also investigated the prevalence of BTAM teams (including BTAM-like teams) across different school demographics, including school level, locale, poverty level, student racial/ethnic composition, and student enrollment size.
BTAM teams were common across all school types (Figure 2.3)
As shown in Figure 2.3, BTAM teams were common across all school types.
Large schools (450+ students) 85 percent vs small schools 79 percent reported official BTAM teams
Sample (column N undeterminable) · School enrollment-size subgroups (small, large)
Principals of large schools (those serving 450 students or more) were slightly more likely than their counterparts in small schools to report having official BTAM teams (85 percent versus 79 percent, respectively).
Footnote: some states with neither legislation nor encouragement in 2019 have since passed BTAM legi
Note that some of these states that had neither legislation nor encouraged BTAM as of 2019 have passed BTAM legislation as of this report’s publication.
Authors note some minor differences in BTAM team prevalence across school demographics
However, we do note some minor differences.
Fig 2.2: Official BTAM team: Other states 73 percent, encouraged in 2019 77 percent, early legislati
Sample (N = 423 | 481 | 842 by column) · State-policy groups in column order: other states, encouraged BTAM use only, early legislation states
Official BTAM team | 73 | 77 | 90
Fig 2.2: School-level team only: Other states 24 percent, encouraged in 2019 20 percent, early legis
Sample (N = 423 | 481 | 842 by column) · State-policy groups in column order: other states, encouraged BTAM use only, early legislation states
School-level team only | 24 | 20 | 29
Fig 2.2: District-level team only: Other states 16 percent, encouraged in 2019 18 percent, early leg
Sample (N = 423 | 481 | 842 by column) · State-policy groups in column order: other states, encouraged BTAM use only, early legislation states
District-level team only | 16 | 18 | 10
Fig 2.2: Teams located at both levels: Other states 33 percent, encouraged in 2019 39 percent, early
Sample (N = 423 | 481 | 842 by column) · State-policy groups in column order: other states, encouraged BTAM use only, early legislation states
Teams located at both levels | 33 | 39 | 50
Fig 2.2: Alternative team performing BTAM functions: Other states 23 percent, encouraged in 2019 16
Sample (N = 423 | 481 | 842 by column) · State-policy groups in column order: other states, encouraged BTAM use only, early legislation states
Alternative team performing BTAM functions | 23 | 16 | 9
Fig 2.2: No BTAM team: Other states 4 percent, encouraged in 2019 6 percent, early legislation 1 per
Sample (N = 423 | 481 | 842 by column) · State-policy groups in column order: other states, encouraged BTAM use only, early legislation states
No BTAM team | 4 | 6 | 1
Fig 2.2: Supported by BTAM team external to school district: Other states 11 percent, encouraged in
Sample (N = 423 | 481 | 842 by column) · State-policy groups in column order: other states, encouraged BTAM use only, early legislation states
Supported by BTAM team external to school district | 11 | 9 | 8
Fig 2.3: Total: official team 82 percent, alternative team 14 percent, total 97 percent
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
(none) | Total | 82 | 14 | 97
Fig 2.3: Level: Elementary: official team 81 percent, alternative team 16 percent, total 97 percent
Sample (column N undeterminable) · School-level subgroups (elementary, middle, high)
Level | Elementary | 81 | 16 | 97
Fig 2.3: Level: Middle: official team 86 percent, alternative team 11 percent, total 97 percent
Sample (column N undeterminable) · School-level subgroups (elementary, middle, high)
Level | Middle | 86 | 11 | 97
Fig 2.3: Level: High: official team 81 percent, alternative team 13 percent, total 94 percent
Sample (column N undeterminable) · School-level subgroups (elementary, middle, high)
Level | High | 81 | 13 | 94
Fig 2.3: Locale: Urban: official team 86 percent, alternative team 12 percent, total 98 percent
Sample (column N undeterminable) · School-locale subgroups (urban, suburban, rural)
Locale | Urban | 86 | 12 | 98
Fig 2.3: Locale: Suburban: official team 84 percent, alternative team 13 percent, total 97 percent
Sample (column N undeterminable) · School-locale subgroups (urban, suburban, rural)
Locale | Suburban | 84 | 13 | 97
Fig 2.3: Locale: Rural: official team 78 percent, alternative team 17 percent, total 95 percent
Sample (column N undeterminable) · School-locale subgroups (urban, suburban, rural)
Locale | Rural | 78 | 17 | 95
Fig 2.3 high neighborhood poverty: official 80 percent, alternative 16 percent, total 96 percent
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Neighborhood-poverty subgroups (high, middle, low)
Neighborhood poverty level | High | 80 | 16 | 96
Fig 2.3 middle neighborhood poverty: official 82 percent, alternative 14 percent, total 96 percent
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Neighborhood-poverty subgroups (high, middle, low)
Neighborhood poverty level | Middle | 82 | 14 | 96
Fig 2.3 low neighborhood poverty: official 85 percent, alternative 13 percent, total 98 percent
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Neighborhood-poverty subgroups (high, middle, low)
Neighborhood poverty level | Low | 85 | 13 | 98
Fig 2.3: Student racial/ethnic composition: Majority White students: official team 82 percent, alter
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Student racial/ethnic-composition subgroups
Student racial/ethnic composition | Majority White students | 82 | 15 | 97
Fig 2.3: Student racial/ethnic composition: Majority students of color: official team 82 percent, al
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Student racial/ethnic-composition subgroups
Student racial/ethnic composition | Majority students of color | 82 | 14 | 97
Fig 2.3: Enrollment size: Small: official team 79 percent, alternative team 17 percent, total 96 per
Sample (column N undeterminable) · School enrollment-size subgroups (small, large)
Enrollment size | Small | 79 | 17 | 96
Fig 2.3: Enrollment size: Large: official team 85 percent, alternative team 12 percent, total 97 per
Sample (column N undeterminable) · School enrollment-size subgroups (small, large)
Enrollment size | Large | 85 | 12 | 97
BTAM practice has grown significantly since data began in 2015–2016
the practice of BTAM has experienced significant growth at schools around the country since data on the topic first became available for the 2015–2016 school year
Timing analysis focuses on roughly 1,600 schools with official or BTAM-like team
we focus on the subset of roughly 1,600 schools in our survey sample that reported having an official BTAM team or a BTAM-like team.
Implementation analysis limited to principals present for initial implementation
We then focus in on what implementation looked like among the subset of principals who were around for the initial implementation of their school’s official BTAM program.
Mid-year asking makes team-duration responses slightly difficult to interpret
Note that we asked principals this question midway through the 2024–2025 school year, making it slightly difficult to interpret principals’ responses about how long their BTAM team had been in place.
A minority of principals reported teams formed five to eight years ago or earlier
As shown in Figure 3.1, a minority of principals reported having BTAM teams that were formed five to eight years ago, or even earlier.
53 percent of principals reported teams formed in the past two to four school years
Sample (N = 1505) · Schools with BTAM team, excluding principals who did not know how long the team had been in place
Most principals (53 percent) reported that their BTAM teams were formed in the past two to four school years.
Principal-recalled start dates largely align with federal trend data in Figure 1.1
results from our nationally representative sample of principals who were asked to recall when their BTAM programs began largely to align with federal trend data presented in Figure 1.1.
Figure 3.1 displays timing of BTAM team formation at all public schools
Nevertheless, Figure 3.1 uses principals’ responses to this question to display a representation of the timing of the formation of BTAM teams at all public schools across the country.
Figure 3.1: 9 or more years ago: 12 percent of teams formed
Sample (N = 1505) · Schools with BTAM team, excluding principals who did not know how long the team had been in place
9 or more years ago | 12 percent
Figure 3.1: 5 to 8 years ago: 21 percent of teams formed
Sample (N = 1505) · Schools with BTAM team, excluding principals who did not know how long the team had been in place
5 to 8 years ago | 21 percent
Figure 3.1: 2 to 4 years ago: 53 percent of teams formed
Sample (N = 1505) · Schools with BTAM team, excluding principals who did not know how long the team had been in place
2 to 4 years ago | 53 percent
Figure 3.1: in the past year: 14 percent of teams formed
Sample (N = 1505) · Schools with BTAM team, excluding principals who did not know how long the team had been in place
in the past year | 14 percent
Only principals with a school- or district-level BTAM or equivalent team received the question
Only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team (or another team not called a BTAM team that functions as a BTAM team) received this question.
Principals who did not know how long the team had been in place were excluded
We excluded principals who did not know how long the BTAM team had been in place at their school.
Arrow width is correlated with the share of teams formed in each period
The width of the arrows is correlated with the share of teams formed during this period.
Schools can encounter challenges running BTAM early and later
Schools can also encounter other challenges when running their BTAM programs, both early during initial implementation and also later on.
Most schools have already implemented BTAM (see Figure 2.1)
Although most schools around the country have already implemented a BTAM program (see Figure 2.1), we present data on initial implementation for two reasons.
Schools typically had positive experiences when first implementing their chosen BTAM approach
Schools typically had positive experiences when first implementing their chosen BTAM approach.
At least three-quarters of schools cited community support, easy adaptation, and no cost issues
Sample (N = 450) · Principals answering the implementation experience agreement statements
For example, at least three-quarters of schools said they believe that their school community was supportive of BTAM adoption; that it was relatively easy to adapt their selected BTAM approach and adjust associated school procedures to meet their needs; and that the financial costs of BTAM did not create issues (see Table 3.1).
52 percent of schools noted one or more initial implementation challenges
Sample (N = 450) · Principals answering the implementation experience agreement statements
That said, 52 percent of schools did note one or more challenges related to initial implementation.
Among schools with challenges, most reported only one or two
Among those schools that did experience challenges in this phase, most only reported one or two.
Three specific challenges rose to the top, yet relatively few schools experienced them
In reviewing principals’ responses, three specific challenges did rise to the top—even so, relatively few schools experienced them during the initial implementation stage.
A quarter of schools lacked staff time; one-fifth could not find service providers with capacity
Sample (N = 450) · Principals answering the implementation experience agreement statements
A quarter of schools struggled to find the staff time required to implement BTAM, and one-fifth could not identify school and local service providers that had enough capacity to support BTAM efforts (e.g., counselors, mental health treatment providers).
One-sixth of schools could not identify readily available training options
Sample (N = 450) · Principals answering the implementation experience agreement statements
One-sixth of schools could also not identify readily available training options.
Most said one to two years: 38 percent one year, 40 percent two, 11 percent three or four
Sample (N = 439) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Most principals said it took between one and two school years to get to that point, while 38 percent said it took one school year, 40 percent said it took two school years, and 11 percent said it took three or four school years.
Footnote: challenge questions asked only of those using a model and present at implementation
The questions on challenges experienced during the initial implementation phase were only asked to principals who said their team was using a named model that we listed, an “Other” model, or a locally created one and who said they were around for the initial implementation of this model.
Footnote: 11 percent were not sure how long it took their teams to become effective
Sample (N = 439) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Eleven percent were not sure how long it took for their teams to become effective.
Table 3.1: Enough staff time to implement BTAM: 24 / 20 / 55
Sample (N = 450) · Principals answering the implementation experience agreement statements
We had enough staff time to implement BTAM. | 24 | 20 | 55
Table 3.1: Service providers had enough capacity: 21 / 13 / 67
Sample (N = 450) · Principals answering the implementation experience agreement statements
Our school and local service providers had enough capacity to support our BTAM efforts (e.g., counselors, mental health treatment providers). | 21 | 13 | 67
Table 3.1: Training opportunities readily available: 16 / 19 / 66
Sample (N = 450) · Principals answering the implementation experience agreement statements
Training opportunities for BTAM team members were readily available. | 16 | 19 | 66
Table 3.1: Staged process integrated smoothly into school systems: 12 / 26 / 62
Sample (N = 450) · Principals answering the implementation experience agreement statements
We were able to use a staged process to implement BTAM so that it integrated smoothly into school systems broadly speaking. | 12 | 26 | 62
Table 3.1: Financial costs did not create any issues: 11 / 15 / 74
Sample (N = 450) · Principals answering the implementation experience agreement statements
The financial costs of implementing BTAM did not create any issues. | 11 | 15 | 74
Table 3.1: No issues sharing information among partners: 10 / 26 / 64
Sample (N = 450) · Principals answering the implementation experience agreement statements
We had no issues sharing information among partners for BTAM purposes (e.g., FERPA or HIPAA did not hinder information-sharing). | 10 | 26 | 64
Table 3.1: Easy to pick the BTAM program from options available: 10 / 40 / 50
Sample (N = 450) · Principals answering the implementation experience agreement statements
It was easy for us to pick the BTAM program we wanted to use from the options available. | 10 | 40 | 50
Table 3.1: Staff clearly understood goals and reasons for BTAM: 9 / 21 / 70
Sample (N = 450) · Principals answering the implementation experience agreement statements
Our instructional and other school staff clearly understood the goals and reasons for implementing BTAM. | 9 | 21 | 70
Table 3.1: Existing records and systems easy to use for BTAM: 9 / 17 / 74
Sample (N = 450) · Principals answering the implementation experience agreement statements
Our existing school records and other systems were easy to use in support of BTAM. | 9 | 17 | 74
Table 3.1: Easy to coordinate with outside partners: 8 / 16 / 75
Sample (N = 450) · Principals answering the implementation experience agreement statements
It was easy to coordinate with relevant outside partners while implementing BTAM (e.g., police, service providers). | 8 | 16 | 75
Table 3.1: Easy to adjust school procedures to integrate BTAM: 7 / 17 / 76
Sample (N = 450) · Principals answering the implementation experience agreement statements
It was easy to adjust school procedures to integrate BTAM into the way we dealt with student behavior and discipline issues previously. | 7 | 17 | 76
Table 3.1: BTAM program easy to adapt to local needs: 5 / 17 / 78
Sample (N = 450) · Principals answering the implementation experience agreement statements
The BTAM program we chose was easy to adapt to our local needs. | 5 | 17 | 78
Table 3.1: Clear BTAM was a better approach than previous ones: 3 / 21 / 76
Sample (N = 450) · Principals answering the implementation experience agreement statements
It was clear BTAM was a better approach to managing student behavior concerns relative to our previous approaches. | 3 | 21 | 76
Table 3.1: BTAM well-matched to culture and leader-staff relationships: 2 / 15 / 82
Sample (N = 450) · Principals answering the implementation experience agreement statements
BTAM was well-matched to our culture and relationships between school leaders and staff. | 2 | 15 | 82
Table 3.1: School community supportive of BTAM adoption: 2 / 35 / 63
Sample (N = 450) · Principals answering the implementation experience agreement statements
Our school community (e.g., parents, students) were supportive of our school’s adoption of BTAM. | 2 | 35 | 63
Table 3.1: School staff supportive of BTAM adoption: 1 / 14 / 85
Sample (N = 450) · Principals answering the implementation experience agreement statements
Our school staff was supportive of our school’s adoption of BTAM. | 1 | 14 | 85
Table 3.1 includes only schools with a BTAM team using a model and present at initial implementation
The table includes only those who said that their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team; their team was using a named model that we listed, an “Other” model, or a locally created one; and they were around for the initial implementation of this model.
Time to effectiveness examined for cohorts of adopters, as shown in Figure 3.2
That is, we examined the time to effectiveness for the different cohorts of BTAM adopters as shown in Figure 3.2.
93 percent of earliest adopters (9+ years ago) perceive their teams as somewhat or very effective
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Earliest adopters (BTAM team in place 9+ years)
Looking at the earliest adopters (those schools that adopted BTAM teams nine or more years ago), 93 percent perceive that their BTAM teams are at the point where they are somewhat or very effective at maintaining school safety.
Only 23 percent of earliest adopters reached effectiveness within the first school year
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Earliest adopters (BTAM team in place 9+ years)
Only 23 percent of these earliest adopters report that they had reached effectiveness within the first school year.
Within two school years, most early adopters felt teams were somewhat or very effective
Within two school years, most early adopters said they feel that their BTAM teams were somewhat or very effective at main-
Figure 3.2: Earliest adopters: [unlabeled] / 52 / 75 / 81
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Earliest adopters (BTAM team in place 9+ years)
Earliest adopters (9+ school years ago) | [unlabeled] | 52 | 75 | 81
Figure 3.2: Midtime adopters: 22 / 66 / 87 / 89
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Midtime adopters
Midtime adopters (5 to 8 school years ago) | 22 | 66 | 87 | 89
Figure 3.2: Recent adopters: 40 / 82 / 88 / N/A
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Recent adopters
Recent adopters (2 to 4 school years ago) | 40 | 82 | 88 | N/A
Figure 3.2: New adopters: 46 / 60 / N/A / N/A
Sample (column N undeterminable) · New adopters
New adopters (0 to 1 school years ago) | 46 | 60 | N/A | N/A
Only principals with a BTAM team who were present at initial implementation saw the question
Only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team and said they were around for the initial implementation of the BTAM program saw this question.
Within four school years, three-quarters of early adopters felt they had reached effectiveness
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Earliest adopters (BTAM team in place 9+ years)
taining school safety; within four school years, three-quarters said they feel they have reached effectiveness.
12 percent of early-adopter principals said team was effective but were not sure how long it took
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Earliest adopters (BTAM team in place 9+ years)
Among these early adopters, 12 percent of principals said they feel that their schools had reached the point where the BTAM team was somewhat or very effective at maintaining school safety but were not sure how long it took the team to get there.
60 percent of newest adopters perceive their teams as somewhat or very effective
Sample (column N undeterminable) · New adopters
Among the newest adopters, 60 percent of principals perceive that their BTAM teams have become somewhat or very effective at maintaining school safety.
Among remaining newest adopters, 15 percent feel teams not effective and 25 percent were not sure
Sample (column N undeterminable) · New adopters
Among the balance, 15 percent feel their teams are not currently effective, and 25 percent were not sure whether their BTAM teams were effective.
Authors examined time to perceived effectiveness based on when BTAM program was implemented
We also examined how long it took for principals to perceive that their schools’ BTAM teams were effective based on when their BTAM program was implemented.
Survey explored principals' descriptions of BTAM scope by incident and behavior types
In our survey, we explored how principals described the scope of their BTAM programs in terms of the types of incidents and behaviors that would be addressed by a BTAM team.
cite page 38 Ch 4: What Is the Scope of Schools' BTAM Programs?
Chapter 4 focuses on roughly 1,600 schools with an official or alternative team
In this chapter, we focus on the subset of roughly 1,600 schools in our survey sample who reported having an official BTAM team at their school or alternative school-based team that functions similarly to a BTAM team.
cite page 38 Ch 4: What Is the Scope of Schools' BTAM Programs?
Ninety-three percent of principals said official BTAM teams would respond to very serious behavior
Sample (N = 1401) · Schools with an official BTAM team (Figure 4.1 official-team column; N printed in Table A.35)
Ninety-three percent of principals indicated that their official BTAM teams would respond to very serious threatening or concerning behavior, such as students who directed threats toward other students or school staff, and students who made threats of or may be intending to commit mass violence against the school or school community.
cite page 38 Ch 4: What Is the Scope of Schools' BTAM Programs?
State law or local policy sometimes requires immediate law enforcement involvement in serious cases
Though such behaviors would appear to always fall within the remit of a BTAM team, state law or local policy sometimes requires schools to immediately involve law enforcement in some very serious situations.
cite page 38 Ch 4: What Is the Scope of Schools' BTAM Programs?
About 80 percent of principals said BTAM teams would respond to other serious concerns
Sample (N = 1401) · Schools with an official BTAM team (Figure 4.1 official-team column; N printed in Table A.35)
About 80 percent of principals responded that their
Why inferred The sentence crosses a page break: this quote is the page 38 part and the sentence continues on page 39 (claim p039-01). Full sentence (pages 38–39): “About 80 percent of principals responded that their schools’ BTAM teams would respond to other serious concerns, such as students at risk of self-harm or suicide or students with fixations on past school violence incidents or interest in violence or extremist movements.”
cite page 38 Ch 4: What Is the Scope of Schools' BTAM Programs?
BTAM teams would respond to serious concerns such as self-harm, suicide risk, violence fixations
schools’ BTAM teams would respond to other serious concerns, such as students at risk of self-harm or suicide or students with fixations on past school violence incidents or interest in violence or extremist movements.
cite page 39 Ch 4: What Is the Scope of Schools' BTAM Programs?
14 percent of schools have a school-based team for serious concerns not called a BTAM team
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
some schools (14 percent) have a school-based team that makes decisions about serious student behavioral concerns but is not referred to as a BTAM team (a BTAM-like team).
cite page 39 Ch 4: What Is the Scope of Schools' BTAM Programs?
Few official BTAM teams deal with low-level behavior such as classroom disruption
As shown in Figure 4.1, few official BTAM teams deal with low-level concerning behavior, such as regular classroom disruption and disrespect of school staff.
cite page 39 Ch 4: What Is the Scope of Schools' BTAM Programs?
BTAM-like teams responded more often to low-level incidents and less serious behavior
Principals also reported that such teams as the ones described above responded more often to low-level incidents and less serious behavior.
cite page 39 Ch 4: What Is the Scope of Schools' BTAM Programs?
Fig 4.1 Serious: threats at/violent toward other students: official 93 pct, alternative team 69 pct
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 4.1 columns: official-team schools and alternative-team schools
Serious: Students who have directed threats at or may be violent toward other individual students* | 93 | 69
cite page 39 Ch 4: What Is the Scope of Schools' BTAM Programs?
Fig 4.1 Serious: threats/violent toward school staff: official 92 pct, alternative team 68 pct
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 4.1 columns: official-team schools and alternative-team schools
Serious: Students who have made threats or may be violent toward school staff*a | 92 | 68
cite page 39 Ch 4: What Is the Scope of Schools' BTAM Programs?
Fig 4.1 Serious: mass violence threats/intent: official 88 pct, alternative team 55 pct
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 4.1 columns: official-team schools and alternative-team schools
Serious: Students who have made threats of or may be intending to commit mass violence against the school or school community* | 88 | 55
cite page 39 Ch 4: What Is the Scope of Schools' BTAM Programs?
Fig 4.1 Serious: self-harm or suicide risk: official 83 pct, alternative team 74 pct
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 4.1 columns: official-team schools and alternative-team schools
Serious: Students who may be at risk of self-harm or suicide* | 83 | 74
cite page 39 Ch 4: What Is the Scope of Schools' BTAM Programs?
Fig 4.1 Serious: fixations on past violence/extremism: official 81 pct, alternative team 54 pct
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 4.1 columns: official-team schools and alternative-team schools
Serious: Students with fixations on past school violence incidents, interest in violence or extremist movements*b | 81 | 54
cite page 39 Ch 4: What Is the Scope of Schools' BTAM Programs?
Fig 4.1 Serious: regular aggression toward peers: official 69 pct, alternative team 78 pct
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 4.1 columns: official-team schools and alternative-team schools
Serious: Students who are regularly involved in aggressive behavior towards peers*c | 69 | 78
cite page 39 Ch 4: What Is the Scope of Schools' BTAM Programs?
Fig 4.1 Lower-level: regularly disruptive to instruction: official 27 pct, alternative team 71 pct
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 4.1 columns: official-team schools and alternative-team schools
Lower-level: Students whose behavior is regularly disruptive to instruction* | 27 | 71
cite page 39 Ch 4: What Is the Scope of Schools' BTAM Programs?
Fig 4.1 Lower-level: disrespectful to staff: official 20 pct, alternative team 54 pct
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 4.1 columns: official-team schools and alternative-team schools
Lower-level: Students who are disrespectful or argumentative with teachers or other school staff* | 20 | 54
cite page 39 Ch 4: What Is the Scope of Schools' BTAM Programs?
Figure 4.1 asterisk marks statistically significant official versus unofficial team differences
An asterisk (*) indicates that the percentage of principals in schools with official BTAM teams who reported their team responded to that type of student behavior was statistically significantly different from the percentage of principals in schools with unofficial BTAM teams who said similarly.
cite page 39 Ch 4: What Is the Scope of Schools' BTAM Programs?
Analysis covers the 82 percent of schools with an official BTAM team (n = 1,408)
Sample (n = 1408 of 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
To do so, we focus on the 82 percent of schools in our sample (n = 1,408) that had an official BTAM team.
Note: 71 percent of principals extremely familiar with BTAM
Sample (N = 1441) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
The majority of principals (71 percent) said they are extremely familiar with BTAM (e.g., they are a member of the team or lead it or otherwise have detailed knowledge).
Note: another 25 percent of principals at least somewhat familiar with BTAM
Sample (N = 1441) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Another 25 percent said they were at least somewhat familiar (e.g., “you have referred students and/or have knowledge of the team’s processes”).
Note: authors confirmed principals' familiarity in the survey (Table A.8)
At the onset of this project, we were concerned that principals may not always be familiar enough with their school- or district-level BTAM teams to be able to answer detailed questions about how these teams operate. Therefore, we confirmed principals' familiarity in our survey (see Appendix A, Table A.8).
53 percent of schools with BTAM teams have an explicit policy document defining their BTAM program
Sample (N = 1401) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
A slight majority of schools (53 percent) with BTAM teams have an explicit policy document that establishes and defines their BTAM program.
Principals in large districts and majority-students-of-color schools more likely to report defining
Principals in schools in large districts and in schools serving a majority of students of color were more likely than their counterparts to indicate their BTAM program had defining policy documents.
Larger BTAM teams and teams spanning school and district levels more likely to have defining policy
Schools with larger BTAM teams and with teams spanning both the school and district levels—perhaps a proxy for the formality of a BTAM program—were also more likely to have defining policy documents.
23 percent of principals did not know whether their school's BTAM program had a defining policy docu
Sample (N = 1401) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
However, 23 percent of principals did not know whether their school’s BTAM program had a defining policy document.
Principals in schools with only a district-level BTAM team especially likely to be unsure about a po
Principals in schools with only a district-level BTAM team were especially likely to report being unsure about whether the program had a defining policy document.
49 percent of schools with BTAM teams have written standard operating procedures guiding team functi
Sample (N = 1400) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
About half of schools with BTAM teams (49 percent) have written standard operating procedures (SOPs) that guide team functions.
SOPs more common in majority-students-of-color schools, large districts, large teams, and school-and
Similar to the patterns we observed around the existence of defining policy documents, SOPs were more common in schools serving a majority of students of color, in large districts, and in support of large teams and schools with teams at both the school and district levels.
One in five principals unsure whether school or district had established SOPs for BTAM team
Sample (N = 1400) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
One in five principals were not sure whether their school or district had established SOPs for how their BTAM team regularly functions.
Principals with only district-level BTAM teams especially unsure whether teams followed established
Principals in schools that had only district-level BTAM teams were especially unsure about whether these teams functioned according to established SOPs.
Number and types of specialists can drive BTAM team performance, so composition was a focus of the s
Because the number and types of specialists that are part of the team can drive the performance of BTAM teams, team composition and roles that different individuals play on the team were significant focuses of the survey.
Figure 5.1: principals name varied school, district and outside individuals as team members
As shown in Figure 5.1, principals indicated that a variety of school- or district-based individuals (and outside individuals) from administrators to mental health providers are part of these
Why inferred The sentence crosses a page break: this quote is the page 41 part and the sentence continues on page 42. Full sentence (pages 41–42): “As shown in Figure 5.1, principals indicated that a variety of school- or district-based individuals (and outside individuals) from administrators to mental health providers are part of these teams.”
Fig 5.1 Principal: internal 84, external none, total 84
Sample (N = 1408) · Schools with an official BTAM team (82 percent of sample)
Principal | 84 | | 84
Fig 5.1 Other school administrators: internal 69, external none, total 69
Sample (N = 1408) · Schools with an official BTAM team (82 percent of sample)
Other school administrators | 69 | | 69
Fig 5.1 District administrators: internal 36, external none, total 36
Sample (N = 1408) · Schools with an official BTAM team (82 percent of sample)
District administrators | 36 | | 36
Fig 5.1 School-based law enforcement: internal 45, external 7, total 53
Sample (N = 1408) · Schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team answering the Figure 5.1 team-membership question
School-based law enforcement | 45 | 7 | 53
Fig 5.1 Non-school-based law enforcement: internal none, external 13, total 13
Sample (N = 1408) · Schools with an official BTAM team (82 percent of sample)
Non-school-based law enforcement | | 13 | 13
Fig 5.1 Counselor: internal 82, external 3, total 84
Sample (N = 1408) · Schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team answering the Figure 5.1 team-membership question
Counselor | 82 | 3 | 84
Fig 5.1 Social worker: internal 44, external 6, total 50
Sample (N = 1408) · Schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team answering the Figure 5.1 team-membership question
Social worker | 44 | 6 | 50
Fig 5.1 Psychologist: internal 43, external 6, total 49
Sample (N = 1408) · Schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team answering the Figure 5.1 team-membership question
Psychologist | 43 | 6 | 49
Fig 5.1 Instructional staff: internal 45, external none, total 45
Sample (N = 1408) · Schools with an official BTAM team (82 percent of sample)
Instructional staff | 45 | | 45
Fig 5.1 Special education specialist: internal 43, external none, total 43
Sample (N = 1408) · Schools with an official BTAM team (82 percent of sample)
Special education specialist | 43 | | 43
Figure 5.1 note: includes only schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
Figure 5.1 note: bars may not sum to totals because of rounding
Bars may not sum to totals because of rounding.
Principals and counselors were the two most common BTAM team members (both 84 percent)
Sample (N = 1408) · Schools with an official BTAM team (82 percent of sample)
By far, the two most common members were principals and counselors (both 84 percent).
Majorities of teams included other administrators (69 percent), school-based law enforcement (53 per
Sample (N = 1408) · Schools with an official BTAM team (82 percent of sample)
However, majorities of school BTAM teams also included other school administrators (69 percent), school-based law enforcement (53 percent), and social workers (50 percent).
Psychologists on 49 percent, instructional staff 45 percent, special education specialists 43 percen
Sample (N = 1408) · Schools with an official BTAM team (82 percent of sample)
Other individuals were also commonly included on BTAM teams, such as school psychologists (49 percent), instructional staff (45 percent), and special education specialists (43 percent).
District administrators on BTAM teams at 36 percent of schools; non-school-based law enforcement at
Sample (N = 1408) · Schools with an official BTAM team (82 percent of sample)
District administrators were included on BTAM teams at 36 percent of schools, and 13 percent of schools included non-school-based law enforcement on their teams.
BTAM teams are overwhelmingly composed of individuals internal to the school, per principals
Principals’ responses indicate that BTAM teams are overwhelmingly composed of individuals internal to the school (i.e., who are on staff or are located at the school).
49 percent of schools had a psychologist on their BTAM teams
Sample (N = 1408) · Schools with an official BTAM team (82 percent of sample)
For example, 49 percent of schools had a psychologist on their BTAM teams.
Majority of schools with a psychologist on team had one on staff full or part time (43 percent of sc
Sample (N = 1408) · Schools with an official BTAM team (82 percent of sample)
The majority of schools with a psychologist on their teams indicated they had a psychologist on staff at school either full time or part time (43 percent of schools overall)
Note: staff present at school assumed to be those serving on the BTAM team
If schools had these personnel on staff either part time or full time, we assumed that it was these internal personnel who would be those serving on the BTAM team.
Note: roles on team but not on staff presumed to be played by outside individuals
In cases where schools told us that they did not have these individuals at their school but did have that role represented on their BTAM team, we presumed that role was played by individuals from outside the school.
Note: administrators, instructional staff, education specialists assumed internal; non-school law en
We also assumed that some positions (e.g., school and district administrators, instructional staff, education specialists) are always internal to the school and that, by definition, non-school-based law enforcement personnel are always external to the school.
Only 6 percent of schools had a psychologist on their BTAM team but not on staff at their school
Sample (N = 1408) · Schools with an official BTAM team (82 percent of sample)
Only 6 percent of schools noted that they had a psychologist on their BTAM teams but not on staff at their schools
Team personnel was highly related to school context
Which specific personnel were included on schools’ BTAM teams was also highly related to the school context (although this is intertwined with which types of schools tend to have which staff, as discussed in the “Differential Access to School Personnel Likely Shapes the Composition of BTAM Teams” box).
Secondary schools more likely than elementary to have more varied personnel on BTAM teams
For example, secondary (middle and high) schools were more likely to have a greater variety of personnel on their teams—including other school administrators beyond the principal, school-based law enforcement, counselors, and social workers—than their elementary counterparts.
Schools in small districts (<10,000 students) especially likely to include principals and district a
Schools in small districts (those serving fewer than 10,000 students) were especially likely to directly include school principals and district administrators on their BTAM teams.
In large districts, other school administrators such as assistant principals more likely involved
Conversely, in large districts, other school administrators, such as assistant principals, were more likely to be involved.
Team composition differed by school poverty level
We also observed some differences in school BTAM team composition by school poverty level.
Schools in higher-income neighborhoods more likely to have school psychologists than lower-income ne
For example, schools in higher-income neighborhoods were more likely to have school psychologists than schools serving lower-income neighborhoods.
Team size inferred from roles selected by principals, assuming one person per role
We also used principals’ responses to our question about which personnel were represented on their school’s BTAM team to infer how many people were on the team overall, assuming one person per role.
Nearly all principals selected between three and eight personnel from the list provided
we found that nearly all principals selected between three and eight personnel from the list provided (see Figure 5.2).
The typical (median) principal selected five distinct roles
The typical (median) principal selected five distinct roles.
Analysis examined likelihood of personnel types on BTAM teams given team size
To understand how BTAM team membership changes as these teams increase in size (i.e., which types of personnel are added as teams grow), we investigated the likelihood of various types of personnel being on a BTAM teams given team size.
Analysis focuses on schools with three to eight team members because few teams fall outside
We focus on schools with between three and eight team members because there are very few schools with BTAM teams that fall outside this range.
Schools with regular access to specialized staff are more likely to include them on BTAM teams
That is, schools with regular access to specialized staff are more likely to include these staff on their BTAM teams, compared with schools that lack such regular access.
Staff at school full/part time: counselor 89 percent, nurse 89 percent, psychologist 67 percent, swo
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals, staff available at school question
Unsurprisingly, we found that some types of staff were much more common than others, with principals reporting as follows: school counselor (89 percent), school nurse (89 percent), school psychologist (67 percent), sworn law enforcement officer (58 percent), social worker (56 percent), and security guard (22 percent).
Middle and high schools more likely to have school-based law enforcement and other security staff
For example, middle and high schools were more likely to have school-based law enforcement officers and other security staff who are not law enforcement officers present at school.
Low-poverty schools more likely than middle- and especially high-poverty schools to have social work
Meanwhile, low-poverty schools were more likely than their middle- and especially high-poverty counterparts to have social workers and school psychologists.
Rural schools less likely to have mental health personnel but more likely to have sworn law enforcem
Rural schools were also less likely to have mental health personnel available, but they were more likely to have sworn law enforcement officers (including SROs).
Table 5.1 Total: couns 89, nurse 89, SW 56, psych 67, SBLE 58, guard 22
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals, staff available at school question
Total | 89 | 89 | 56 | 67 | 58 | 22
Table 5.1 Elementary: couns 84, nurse 90, SW 51, psych 68, SBLE 47, guard 16
Sample (N = 1746 total; column N not printed) · All principals, staff available at school question
Elementary | 84 | 90 | 51 | 68 | 47 | 16
Table 5.1 Middle: couns 96, nurse 91, SW 63, psych 72, SBLE 74, guard 26
Sample (N = 1746 total; column N not printed) · All principals, staff available at school question
Middle | 96 | 91 | 63 | 72 | 74 | 26
Table 5.1 High: couns 97, nurse 86, SW 63, psych 62, SBLE 73, guard 34
Sample (N = 1746 total; column N not printed) · All principals, staff available at school question
High | 97 | 86 | 63 | 62 | 73 | 34
Table 5.1 Urban: couns 87, nurse 88, SW 60, psych 72, SBLE 41, guard 32
Sample (N = 1746 total; column N not printed) · All principals, staff available at school question
Urban | 87 | 88 | 60 | 72 | 41 | 32
Table 5.1 Suburban: couns 88, nurse 91, SW 66, psych 82, SBLE 61, guard 25
Sample (N = 1746 total; column N not printed) · All principals, staff available at school question
Suburban | 88 | 91 | 66 | 82 | 61 | 25
Table 5.1 Rural: couns 92, nurse 88, SW 46, psych 53, SBLE 67, guard 13
Sample (N = 1746 total; column N not printed) · All principals, staff available at school question
Rural | 92 | 88 | 46 | 53 | 67 | 13
Table 5.1 High neighborhood poverty: couns 92, nurse 89, SW 51, psych 55, SBLE 53, guard 28
Sample (N = 1746 total; column N not printed) · All principals, staff available at school question
High | 92 | 89 | 51 | 55 | 53 | 28
Table 5.1 Middle neighborhood poverty: couns 90, nurse 88, SW 55, psych 65, SBLE 61, guard 20
Sample (N = 1746 total; column N not printed) · All principals, staff available at school question
Middle | 90 | 88 | 55 | 65 | 61 | 20
Table 5.1 Low neighborhood poverty: couns 84, nurse 92, SW 63, psych 84, SBLE 51, guard 24
Sample (N = 1746 total; column N not printed) · All principals, staff available at school question
Low | 84 | 92 | 63 | 84 | 51 | 24
Table 5.1 Small district: couns 88, nurse 88, SW 51, psych 63, SBLE 62, guard 15
Sample (N = 1746 total; column N not printed) · All principals, staff available at school question
Small | 88 | 88 | 51 | 63 | 62 | 15
Table 5.1 Large district: couns 90, nurse 91, SW 62, psych 74, SBLE 52, guard 31
Sample (N = 1746 total; column N not printed) · All principals, staff available at school question
Large | 90 | 91 | 62 | 74 | 52 | 31
Principals confirmed which specialized staff are present at school full or part time (Table 5.1)
We confirmed with principals what types of specialized staff—counselors, nurses, social workers, psychologists, sworn law enforcement officers, and security guards—are present at their schools either full time or part time (see Table 5.1).
Some types of schools much more likely than others to have these personnel available
Importantly, some types of schools were much more likely to have these personnel available than others.
Fig 5.2: 1 role represented on BTAM team, 1 percent of schools
Sample (N = 1408) · Schools with an official BTAM team (82 percent of sample)
| 1 | 1 |
Fig 5.2: 2 roles represented on BTAM team, 3 percent of schools
Sample (N = 1408) · Schools with an official BTAM team (82 percent of sample)
| 1 | 1 | | 2 | 3 |
Fig 5.2: 3 roles represented on BTAM team, 9 percent of schools
Sample (N = 1408) · Schools with an official BTAM team (82 percent of sample)
| 1 | 1 | | 2 | 3 | | 3 | 9 |
Fig 5.2: 4 roles represented on BTAM team, 18 percent of schools
Sample (N = 1408) · Schools with an official BTAM team (82 percent of sample)
| 2 | 3 | | 3 | 9 | | 4 | 18 |
Fig 5.2: 5 roles represented on BTAM team, 24 percent of schools
Sample (N = 1408) · Schools with an official BTAM team (82 percent of sample)
| 3 | 9 | | 4 | 18 | | 5 | 24 |
Fig 5.2: 6 roles represented on BTAM team, 22 percent of schools
Sample (N = 1408) · Schools with an official BTAM team (82 percent of sample)
| 4 | 18 | | 5 | 24 | | 6 | 22 |
Fig 5.2: 7 roles represented on BTAM team, 14 percent of schools
Sample (N = 1408) · Schools with an official BTAM team (82 percent of sample)
| 5 | 24 | | 6 | 22 | | 7 | 14 |
Fig 5.2: 8 roles represented on BTAM team, 7 percent of schools
Sample (N = 1408) · Schools with an official BTAM team (82 percent of sample)
| 6 | 22 | | 7 | 14 | | 8 | 7 |
Fig 5.2: 9 roles represented on BTAM team, 1 percent of schools
Sample (N = 1408) · Schools with an official BTAM team (82 percent of sample)
| 7 | 14 | | 8 | 7 | | 9 | 1 |
Fig 5.2: 10 roles represented on BTAM team, 0 percent of schools
Sample (N = 1408) · Schools with an official BTAM team (82 percent of sample)
| 8 | 7 | | 9 | 1 | | 10 | 0 |
Figure 5.2 note: includes only schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
Figure 5.2 note: percentages may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding
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)
Percentages may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
Principals and counselors likely involved in even smallest teams and in virtually all teams with mor
likely to be involved in even the smallest BTAM teams and are regular members of virtually all BTAM teams with more than four or five members.
Why inferred The sentence crosses a page break: this quote is the page 45 part and the sentence begins on page 43. Full sentence (pages 43–45): “Principals and counselors are highly likely to be involved in even the smallest BTAM teams and are regular members of virtually all BTAM teams with more than four or five members.” Page 44 holds a callout and Table 5.1; the paragraph resumes on page 45.
Other school administrators such as assistant principals not typically on very small teams but first
Other school-level administrators, such as assistant principals, are not typically involved in very small BTAM teams but appear to be the first member added as team size increases.
With five or more members, specialized roles are next to be added to teams
When teams have five or more members, personnel in more specialized roles (e.g., special education professionals, school-based law enforcement, school social workers, instructional staff, or school psychologists) are next to be added to BTAM teams.
Specialized personnel rarely on small teams but typically all present once teams have more than five
These personnel are rarely present on small teams but are typically all present once teams have more than five or six members.
District administrators tend to be involved only in especially large teams, present about half the t
Meanwhile, district administrators only tend to be involved in especially large teams; even among schools with larger BTAM teams, these personnel are only present about half of the time.
District administrators disproportionately present on district-level teams, not on school-only teams
Unsurprisingly, district administrators are disproportionately present on district-level BTAM teams and do not tend to be involved in teams that exist only at the school level.
Figure 5.3 annotation: very few schools had teams with fewer than three people
Very few schools had teams with fewer than three people
Figure 5.3 note: includes only schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
Figure 5.3 note: teams with fewer than three members omitted because results are not reliable
We omit results for teams with less than three members; very few schools had BTAM teams with fewer than three members, so results are not reliable.
82 percent of respondents selected two roles, 14 percent selected only one
Sample (N = 854) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
The vast majority of respondents (82 percent) selected two roles, while 14 percent selected only one.
Note: 4 percent of respondents ignored instructions and selected more than two roles
Sample (N = 854) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
A handful of respondents (4 percent) ignored the instructions and selected more than two roles.
Authors first examined how many principals said law enforcement play listed roles on BTAM teams
We first examined how many principals responded that law enforcement personnel play the following role(s) on their school BTAM teams:
Law enforcement help decide when safety actions are necessary (64 percent)
Sample (N = 854) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
help with decisions about when safety- and security-related actions are necessary (e.g., searching student belongings, implementing schoolwide lock down) (64 percent)
Law enforcement provide a public safety perspective (58 percent)
Sample (N = 854) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
provide a public safety perspective about school dynamics and student behavior to help assess and manage behavioral concerns (58 percent)
Law enforcement participate to initiate public safety responses (33 percent)
Sample (N = 854) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
participate to initiate public safety responses when necessary (e.g., arrest or other criminal justice intervention) (33 percent)
Law enforcement consult on legal repercussions (19 percent)
Sample (N = 854) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
consult on the potential legal repercussions of student behavior (19 percent)
Law enforcement provide police and court records (18 percent)
Sample (N = 854) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
provide information from police and court records so the team can understand past student behavior (18 percent).
Two predominant law enforcement roles: security decisions (64 percent), public safety (58 percent)
Sample (N = 854) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Two responsibilities were clearly predominant: helping with security-related decisions (64 percent) and providing a public safety perspective to the BTAM process (58 percent).
Forty-two percent of schools: law enforcement only performed one or both predominant roles
Sample (N = 854) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Forty-two percent of schools said their law enforcement personnel only performed one or both of these actions.
46 percent of schools: predominant roles plus a less common role
Sample (N = 854) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Another 46 percent of schools said their law enforcement personnel performed at least one of these roles on their BTAM team but also identified law enforcement as performing one of the less common roles: initiating public safety responses, consulting on legal repercussions, or providing information from police or court records.
12 percent of schools included law enforcement exclusively for the three less common functions
Sample (N = 854) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Only a small minority of schools (12 percent) responded that they included law enforcement on their BTAM team exclusively to perform at least one of these previous three functions.
48 percent of schools with BTAM teams provide BTAM training annually
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
According to principals’ responses, about half of schools (48 percent) with BTAM teams provide training or professional development related to BTAM to their team members annually (see Figure 5.4).
36 percent train once per school year; 12 percent train multiple times in a single school year
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
This includes 36 percent of schools that train their BTAM members once per school year and 12 percent that train multiple times in a single school year.
23 percent of schools provide training on an as-needed basis
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering the BTAM training-frequency question (Figure 5.4)
Meanwhile, 23 percent of schools provide training on an as-needed basis
Fig 5.4 Total: once 36, twice+ 12, as-needed 23, at start 16, none 13
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
Total | 36 | 12 | 23 | 16 | 13
Fig 5.4 School level: once 31, twice+ 10, as-needed 22, at start 21, none 16
Sample (n = undeterminable of 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
School level | 31 | 10 | 22 | 21 | 16
Fig 5.4 District level: once 27, twice+ 12, as-needed 34, at start 9, none 18
Sample (n = undeterminable of 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
District level | 27 | 12 | 34 | 9 | 18
Fig 5.4 Both: once 41, twice+ 14, as-needed 21, at start 16, none 9
Sample (n = undeterminable of 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
Both | 41 | 14 | 21 | 16 | 9
Fig 5.4 includes only schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
Fig 5.4 note: bars may not sum to totals because of rounding
Bars may not sum to totals because of rounding.
16 percent train members only at the beginning of tenure on the team
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering the BTAM training-frequency question (Figure 5.4)
16 percent train members only at the beginning of one’s tenure on the team.
About one in six schools (13 percent) provide no training
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
About one in six schools (13 percent) do not provide any training.
Training frequency is related to team level
The frequency at which schools provide training to their BTAM members is related to team level, as shown in Figure 5.4.
Annual training: 55 percent both-level teams, 39 percent district-only, 41 percent school-only
Sample (n = undeterminable of 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
That is, 55 percent of schools served by both types of teams train annually, compared with 39 percent of schools with district-only teams and 41 percent with school-only teams.
Survey did not ask about format, conductor, length, topics, or yearly variation of trainings
Our survey did not ask questions about—and we therefore cannot report on—the format of these trainings, who conducts them, how long they are, what topics they cover, or whether they vary from year to year.
Schools with both school- and district-level BTAM teams especially likely to receive annual training
Schools where the principals reported that they had both a school- and district-level BTAM team are especially likely to receive annual training.
Forty-three percent of schools have a standard meeting schedule for BTAM teams
Sample (N = 1401) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Forty-three percent of schools have a standard meeting schedule for their BTAM teams.
No convergence: 9 percent weekly, 8 biweekly, 19 monthly, 6 percent every two to three months
Sample (N = 1401) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
However, there was no convergence among these schools about how often meetings occurred: 9 percent met once per week, 8 percent met once every two weeks, 19 percent met once per month, and 6 percent met every two to three months.
The remaining 57 percent of schools met irregularly on an as-needed basis
Sample (N = 1401) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
The remaining 57 percent of schools met irregularly on an as-needed basis depending on their case load.
Urban, large, large-district and majority-students-of-color schools more likely to have a standard s
Principals in urban schools, large schools, large districts, and schools serving a majority of students of color—categories that are highly overlapping—were particularly likely to report having a standard meeting schedule.
BTAM funding varies significantly across U.S. states and school districts
Funding for school BTAM teams and programs varies significantly across U.S. states and individual school districts.
BTAM funding is typically used for training, conferences, or case management software
Funding for BTAM programs is typically used to support annual and other training for BTAM team members, BTAM conference attendance, or the purchase of case management software.
Forming a BTAM team does not require funding beyond total school or district program funding
Forming a BTAM team per se does not require funding outside total program funding for a school or district, which already covers the salaries of such key BTAM team personnel as administrators and counselors.
Most schools (57 percent) implement BTAM without dedicated staff or additional funds
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
Most schools (57 percent) said their BTAM programs are implemented without dedicated staff or additional funds beyond the levels already available.
Schools in large districts especially likely to have dedicated funds for BTAM
Schools in large districts were especially likely to have dedicated funds for BTAM activities.
District-only teams and school teams working with a district team more likely to have dedicated fund
Teams housed only at the district level and those housed at the school level that worked alongside a district-level team were also more likely to have dedicated funds.
BTAM funding comes from various sources including school or district general fund budgets
Funding for school BTAM programs comes from various sources, including through aforementioned school or district general fund budgets that also fund the positions of key team members.
About one-quarter of principals (23 percent) reported dedicated BTAM funding in budget
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
Only about one-quarter of principals (23 percent) said their BTAM teams were supported with dedicated funding in their school or district budget.
19 percent of schools did not know how their BTAM programs were funded
Sample (N = 1376) · Official BTAM teams answering Table A.53 (program funding)
Nineteen percent of schools did not know how their BTAM programs were funded.
No information about the amounts of dedicated funds
We do not have information about the amounts of dedicated funds.
Schools in 2019-legislation states more likely to have multiple organizational and procedural compon
As shown in Figure 5.5, schools in states with specific BTAM legislation in 2019 were more likely to have multiple organizational and procedural components in place for the operation of their BTAM team at the time of our survey.
Components include defining policy documents, written SOPs, and a standard meeting schedule
This includes having defining policy documents, written SOPs, and a standard meeting schedule for their BTAM teams.
Schools in 2019-legislation states also more likely to have larger teams, though difference very sma
These schools were also more likely to have larger BTAM teams compared with schools in states that did not address BTAM at all in 2019, though the difference was substantively very small.
They are also ahead of schools in states where BTAM was only encouraged, though not to the same degr
They are also ahead of schools in states where BTAM was only encouraged in 2019, though not to the same degree.
Schools in 2019-legislation states were not ahead on funding and training
We did identify two areas where schools in states with BTAM legislation in 2019 were not ahead of others that did not: funding and training.
2019-legislation states neither more nor less likely to dedicate funding or annual training
That is, schools in states that included BTAM in legislation in 2019 were neither more nor less likely to dedicate funding or annual training to BTAM than other schools at the time of our survey.
Fig 5.5 Dedicated funding: other states 20, encouraged states 25, early legislation states [unlabele
Sample (N = 423 | 481 | 842 by column) · Figure 5.5 columns: other states, states that encouraged BTAM use only, early legislation states (state policy context 2019)
Dedicated funding | 20 | 25 | [unlabeled]
Fig 5.5 Standard meeting schedule: other states 37, encouraged states [unlabeled], early legislation
Sample (N = 423 | 481 | 842 by column) · Figure 5.5 columns: other states, states that encouraged BTAM use only, early legislation states (state policy context 2019)
Standard meeting schedule | 37 | [unlabeled] | 48
Fig 5.5 Annual training: other states 43, encouraged states 49, early legislation states [unlabeled]
Sample (N = 423 | 481 | 842 by column) · Figure 5.5 columns: other states, states that encouraged BTAM use only, early legislation states (state policy context 2019)
Annual training | 43 | 49 | [unlabeled]
Fig 5.5 Written SOPs: other states 38, encouraged states 46, early legislation states 55
Sample (N = 423 | 481 | 842 by column) · Figure 5.5 columns: other states, states that encouraged BTAM use only, early legislation states (state policy context 2019)
Written SOPs | 38 | 46 | 55
Fig 5.5 Defining policy document: other states 37, encouraged states 46, early legislation states 62
Sample (N = 423 | 481 | 842 by column) · Figure 5.5 columns: other states, states that encouraged BTAM use only, early legislation states (state policy context 2019)
Defining policy document | 37 | 46 | 62
Fig 5.5 Team composition (average team members): other states 4.9, encouraged states 5.2, early legi
Team composition (average number of team members) | 4.9 | 5.2 | 5.4
Fig 5.5 includes only schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
BTAM has been recommended for more than two decades; a variety of frameworks have been developed
Because BTAM has been a recommended school safety practice for more than two decades, a variety of different frameworks have been developed to support schools when it comes to implementing BTAM.
Frameworks range from overarching guidance to named models with road maps and rubrics
Frameworks range from overarching guidance for schools to develop their own processes (e.g., from such federal government agencies as the U.S. Secret Service, or state-level school safety agencies) to more specific named models that provide explicit road maps paired with such resources as worksheets and assessment rubrics.
Many named models define in detail each BTAM stage, from assessing risk to student safety plans
Many named models also define in detail how to carry out each stage of the BTAM process, from assessing risk to developing student safety plans.
Private experts and organizations have designed and published their own BTAM models
Private experts and organizations have also contributed to the field by designing and publishing their own models.
School districts have designed their own individual BTAM models to fit their contexts and needs
Importantly, school districts across the country have also designed their own individual BTAM models to fit their unique contexts and needs.
As in the previous chapter, analysis stays on the 82 percent of schools with an official BTAM team
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
As in the previous chapter, we remain focused on the 82 percent of schools that told us they had an official BTAM team.
A minority of schools (20 pct) reported using an available named BTAM model
Sample (N = 1404) · Teams answering which program the team uses to structure its BTAM approach (Table 6.1)
As shown in Table 6.1, a minority of schools (20 percent) reported using an available named BTAM model.
There was no convergence around any particular BTAM model
There was no convergence around any particular model.
30 percent used a locally developed BTAM model, possibly drawing on other models
Sample (N = 1404) · Teams answering which program the team uses to structure its BTAM approach (Table 6.1)
Specifically, 30 percent said they were using a BTAM model developed locally, potentially drawing on other models and resources to craft a process for use by their specific school or school district.
Another 11 pct reported using a BTAM model not listed in the response options
Sample (N = 1404) · Teams answering which program the team uses to structure its BTAM approach (Table 6.1)
Another 11 percent reported using a BTAM model not listed in the response options.
Footnote: no additional information was requested about locally developed programs
We did not ask for additional information about these locally developed programs.
The chapter investigates which BTAM frameworks or models schools are using
In this chapter, we investigate which BTAM frameworks or models schools are using.
Most principals reported their schools used locally developed BTAM models
Instead, most principals reported their schools were using locally developed models.
Table 6.1 Named models: All 20 pct, Not Addressed 22 pct, Encouraged 13 pct, Early Legis. 23 pct
Sample (N = 1404 | 423 | 481 | 842 by column) · Table 6.1 columns: All, Not Addressed (other states), States That Encouraged BTAM Use, Early Legislation States
Named models | 20 | 22 | 13 | 23
Table 6.1 "Other" program: All 11 pct, Not Addressed 8 pct, Encouraged 9 pct, Early Legis. 12 pct
Sample (N = 1404 | 423 | 481 | 842 by column) · Table 6.1 columns: All, Not Addressed (other states), States That Encouraged BTAM Use, Early Legislation States
“Other” program | 11 | 8 | 9 | 12
Table 6.1 Locally developed: all 30 pct, not addressed 26, encouraged 33, early legislation 30
Sample (N = 1404 | 423 | 481 | 842 by column) · Table 6.1 columns: All, Not Addressed (other states), States That Encouraged BTAM Use, Early Legislation States
Locally developed program | 30 | 26 | 33 | 30
Table 6.1 No defined program: all 18 pct, not addressed 19, encouraged 19, early legislation 17
Sample (N = 1404 | 423 | 481 | 842 by column) · Table 6.1 columns: All, Not Addressed (other states), States That Encouraged BTAM Use, Early Legislation States
No defined program | 18 | 19 | 19 | 17
Table 6.1 Don't know: All 22 pct, Not Addressed 24 pct, Encouraged 27 pct, Early Legis. 18 pct
Sample (N = 1404 | 423 | 481 | 842 by column) · Table 6.1 columns: All, Not Addressed (other states), States That Encouraged BTAM Use, Early Legislation States
Don’t know | 22 | 24 | 27 | 18
Table 6.1 includes only respondents whose school has a school- or district-level BTAM team
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
State-developed frameworks most often cited: Florida, Texas, and Wisconsin models
developed frameworks referenced above, most often the Florida Harm Prevention and Threat Management Model, Texas School Safety Center Threat Assessment Guidelines, and Wisconsin School Threat Assessment and Management Protocol (Florida Department of Education, 2025; Texas School Safety Center, undated; Wisconsin Department of Justice Office of School Safety, 2025).
Why inferred The sentence crosses a page break: this quote is the page 53 part and the sentence begins on page 52. Full sentence (pages 52–53): “In free-text responses, some of these principals mentioned using the state-developed frameworks referenced above, most often the Florida Harm Prevention and Threat Management Model, Texas School Safety Center Threat Assessment Guidelines, and Wisconsin School Threat Assessment and Management Protocol (Florida Department of Education, 2025; Texas School Safety Center, undated; Wisconsin Department of Justice Office of School Safety, 2025).”
18 percent of principals use no defined BTAM model; 22 percent were not sure which model is used
Sample (N = 1404) · Teams answering which program the team uses to structure its BTAM approach (Table 6.1)
Meanwhile, 18 percent of principals responded that they do not use a defined model as part of the approach to BTAM, and 22 percent were not sure what BTAM model their school or district was using.
Likelihood of using named models depended on various factors, most notably state policy context
Schools’ likelihood of using named models depended on various factors, most notably their state policy context.
Schools in states with 2019 legislation were the most likely to use named models
Unsurprisingly, schools in states that already had legislation in 2019 were the most likely to use named models (some states with early legislation included states where named models were developed in their state—e.g., Virginia).
Named model use still relatively uncommon in early-legislation states, equal to not-addressed states
However, the use of named models was still relatively uncommon even in these states and equal to the likelihood of schools in states that did not address BTAM in 2019 policy.
States that encouraged but did not mandate BTAM in 2019 were least likely to use named models
Schools in the group of states that encouraged but did not mandate BTAM use in 2019 were the least likely to use named BTAM models.
Schools with smaller teams, large districts or district-only teams least likely to use named models
Our results also show that schools with smaller BTAM teams, those located in large school districts, and those that only have district-level teams are the least likely to adopt named models.
Adoption analysis covers 50 percent of principals (n = 866) present at initial implementation
Sample (n = 866 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 50 percent of principals in our sample (n = 866) who said they were at their current school for that school’s initial implementation of BTAM
cite page 54 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
Of respondents naming drivers, 40 percent picked one reason, 29 percent two, 26 percent three
Sample (N = 452) · Principals answering the implementation drivers question
(Forty percent picked one reason, 29 percent picked two, and 26 percent picked three.)
cite page 54 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
59 percent of principals selected best practice for violence prevention as a main driver of adoption
Sample (N = 452) · Principals answering the implementation drivers question
The perception that BTAM is a best practice for violence prevention topped the list of reasons why schools implemented BTAM in the first place: 59 percent of principals selected this option as a main driver.
cite page 54 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
Next most common driver was school- or district-level policy requirements
The next most common driver was policy requirements set at either the school or district level, which we discuss in more detail below.
cite page 54 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
Other drivers: liability 11 percent, outside organizations 8 percent, school community 5 percent
Sample (N = 452) · Principals answering the implementation drivers question
Few respondents selected other reasons as main drivers: Only 11 percent of principals reported that their school had concerns about being held liable in cases of school violence; 8 percent said that other organizations on which their school depends (e.g., local law enforcement) encouraged them to adopt a BTAM program; and 5 percent said their school community wanted them to adopt a BTAM program.
cite page 54 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
5 percent of principals said BTAM was implemented directly in response to a violent incident
Sample (N = 452) · Principals answering the implementation drivers question
Notably, 5 percent of principals reported that their school implemented BTAM directly in response to a violent incident in their school or district.
cite page 54 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
Principals in early-mandate or early-encouragement states saw policy as a driver
Sample (N = 452 total; column N not printed) · Principals answering the implementation drivers question
Interestingly, principals in states that mandated BTAM early (i.e., in 2019) or strongly encouraged its adoption early (also in 2019) perceived that such policies were a driver for BTAM adoption at their schools (e.g., half of the principals in states with early legislation said that state or local law was a main driver in their decision to implement BTAM) (see the purple box in Figure 7.1).
cite page 54 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
Nearly all respondents identified between one and three main drivers
Excluding those respondents who said they did not know about the main drivers for implementation, nearly all respondents identified between one and three reasons as main drivers.
cite page 54 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
Best practice for violence prevention: other states 61, encouraged 59, early legislation 58 (%)
Sample (N = 452 total; column N not printed) · Principals answering the implementation drivers question
Behavioral assessment and management is a best practice for violence prevention | 61 | 59 | 58
cite page 55 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
Required by state or local law: other states 13, encouraged 45*, early legislation 53* (%)
Sample (N = 452 total; column N not printed) · Principals answering the implementation drivers question
We were required to by state or local law | 13 | 45* | 53*
cite page 55 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
Required by district policy: other states 28, encouraged 41, early legislation 48* (%)
Sample (N = 452 total; column N not printed) · Principals answering the implementation drivers question
We were required to by school district policy | 28 | 41 | 48*
cite page 55 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
Liability concerns: other states 11, encouraged states 16, early legislation states 9 (%)
Sample (N = 452 total; column N not printed) · Principals answering the implementation drivers question
We had concerns about being held liable in cases of school violence | 11 | 16 | 9
cite page 55 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
Other organizations encouraged adoption: other states 8, encouraged 10, early legislation 8 (%)
Sample (N = 452 total; column N not printed) · Principals answering the implementation drivers question
Other organizations we depend on (e.g., our local law enforcement department) encouraged us to adopt a BTAM program | 8 | 10 | 8
cite page 55 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
School community wanted BTAM: other states 8, encouraged states 9, early legislation states 3 (%)
Sample (N = 452 total; column N not printed) · Principals answering the implementation drivers question
Our school community wanted us to have a BTAM program | 8 | 9 | 3
cite page 55 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
Violent incident response: other states 9, encouraged states 6, early legislation states 4 (%)
Sample (N = 452 total; column N not printed) · Principals answering the implementation drivers question
We had a violent incident in our school or district and we implemented the program as part of our response | 9 | 6 | 4
cite page 55 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
Figure 7.1 note: Other 7 percent, Don’t know 3 percent, None of these 2 percent
Sample (N = 452) · Principals answering the implementation drivers question
Respondents were also given an “Other” option, selected by 7 percent of respondents; a “Don’t know” option, selected by 3 percent of respondents; and a “None of these were main drivers” option, selected by 2 percent of respondents.
cite page 55 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
Figure 7.1 includes only respondents with a team and model present at initial implementation
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team; that their team was using a named model that we listed, an “Other” model, or a locally created one; and that they were around for the initial implementation of this model.
cite page 55 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
Figure 7.1 asterisk marks a statistically significant difference from other states
An asterisk (*) indicates that the percentage of schools in states that had early legislation or in states that encouraged BTAM use is statistically significantly different from the percentage of schools in other states.
cite page 55 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
Principals in early-mandate or early-encouragement states still cited best practice as a main reason
still saw BTAM as a best practice for violence prevention as a main reason for adoption.
Why inferred The sentence crosses a page break: this quote is the page 55 part and the sentence begins on page 54. Full sentence (pages 54–55): “However, a greater percentage of these principals still saw BTAM as a best practice for violence prevention as a main reason for adoption.” “These principals” are those in states that mandated BTAM early or strongly encouraged its adoption early (in 2019), per the preceding sentence on page 54.
cite page 55 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
Small-district principals more likely to consult local law enforcement (48 versus 33 percent)
Sample (n = undeterminable of 451) · Principals answering the pre-implementation actions question
For example, principals of schools in small districts were more likely to report consulting with local law enforcement agencies (48 versus 33 percent, respectively).
cite page 56 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
Large-district principals more likely to survey or meet students, parents, community
Conversely, principals in large districts were more likely to indicate that school or district administrators surveyed or met with students, parents, and/or the larger school community.
cite page 56 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
Large districts more likely to have estimated funding and resource needs and ensured availability
Large districts were also more likely to have spent time estimating funding and other resource levels necessary to implement BTAM and ensuring their availability.
cite page 56 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
Small districts more outward-facing; large districts more inward-facing in planning
More small districts also engaged in outward-facing activities (e.g., discussing participation with community providers, consulting with law enforcement), whereas more large districts engaged in inward-facing activities (e.g., surveying their [larger population] of school staff
cite page 56 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
Surveyed or met with school staff: small district 29, large district 34 (%)
Sample (N = 451 total; column N not printed) · Principals answering the pre-implementation actions question
Surveyed or met with school staff | 29 | 34
cite page 56 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
Surveyed or met with students, parents, community: small district 14, large district 24 (%)
Sample (N = 451 total; column N not printed) · Principals answering the pre-implementation actions question
Surveyed or met with students, parents, and/or the larger school community* | 14 | 24
cite page 56 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
Estimated funding and resources: small district 14, large district 24 (%)
Sample (N = 451 total; column N not printed) · Principals answering the pre-implementation actions question
Estimated funding and other resource levels necessary to implement the program and ensured they were available* | 14 | 24
cite page 56 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
Consulted local law enforcement: small district 48, large district 33 (%)
Sample (N = 451 total; column N not printed) · Principals answering the pre-implementation actions question
Consulted with our local law enforcement organization* | 48 | 33
cite page 56 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
Inventoried intervention programs: small district 34, large district 27 (%)
Sample (N = 451 total; column N not printed) · Principals answering the pre-implementation actions question
Inventoried what intervention programs we had available | 34 | 27
cite page 56 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
Discussed participation with community and service providers: small district 38, large 28 (%)
Sample (N = 451 total; column N not printed) · Principals answering the pre-implementation actions question
Identified and discussed participation in BTAM with relevant community and service provider organizations (e.g., mental health providers, social service agencies, non-governmental service providers) | 38 | 28
cite page 56 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
Figure 7.2: 22 percent did not know of actions; 5 percent said none were completed
Sample (N = 451) · Principals answering the pre-implementation actions question
Respondents were also given the following reply options: “I don't know whether any of these actions were taken” (selected by 22 percent of respondents); and “Our school or district administrators did not complete any of these actions” (selected by 5 percent of respondents).
cite page 56 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
Figure 7.2 includes only respondents with a team and model present at initial implementation
This figure includes only those who said that their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team; that their team was using a named model that we listed, an “other” model, or a locally created one; and that they were around for the initial implementation of this model.
cite page 56 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
Figure 7.2 asterisk marks significant small versus large district difference
An asterisk (*) indicates that the percentage of principals in small districts who said their school or district administrators took a specific action before implementing its BTAM program was statistically significantly different from the percentage of principals in large districts who said similarly.
cite page 56 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
Most schools did not carry out many recommended planning activities; none done by over half
Sample (N = 451) · Principals answering the pre-implementation actions question
Although only 5 percent of respondents overall said that their school or district administrators engaged in none of the activities we listed, no one option was implemented by more than half of represented schools.
cite page 57 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
Most common planning activity was consulting local law enforcement (just over 42 percent)
Sample (N = 451) · Principals answering the pre-implementation actions question
The most common planning activity across schools was to consult with local law enforcement (just over 42 percent of schools did that).
cite page 57 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
Surveying students or parents and estimating funding needs least common (more than 17 percent)
Sample (N = 451) · Principals answering the pre-implementation actions question
Across the other options, surveying or meeting with students or parents and estimating funding needs were the least common (more than 17 percent reported doing each of those).
cite page 57 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
About 30 percent of schools implemented each of the other three planning activities
Sample (N = 451) · Principals answering the pre-implementation actions question
Only about 30 percent of schools implemented one of each of the other three types of planning activities (surveying or meeting with staff, inventorying intervention programs, and discussing participation with community organizations and service providers).
cite page 57 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
Most schools did not carry out many recommended planning activities for BTAM adoption
Despite these differences, most schools did not carry out many of these recommended activities when planning for BTAM adoption.
cite page 57 Ch 7: Why Did Schools Adopt Specific BTAM Models?
Chapter focuses on the 82 percent of schools with an official BTAM team
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
In this chapter, we focus on the 82 percent of schools that told us they had an official BTAM team.
Authors hypothesized BTAM teams could structure assessment in four overarching ways
we hypothesized that BTAM teams could structure their processes and deliberations in four overarching ways when assessing the seriousness of a particular student’s behavior or the potential risk of harm they posed.
Teams are spread across the four operational types
As shown in Table 8.1, BTAM teams at schools across the country are spread across the four different operational types.
Only 31 percent of teams use highly standardized approaches
Sample (N = 1394) · Teams answering how the team assesses seriousness during meetings
Only 31 percent of teams are using what we labeled as highly standardized approaches—that is, applying common structures and processes in meetings and both collecting consistent data and using a standardized process for threat assessment across referred cases.
79 percent of teams use a common meeting structure (sum of bottom three rows of Table 8.1)
Sample (N = 1394) · Teams answering how the team assesses seriousness during meetings
However, 79 percent of teams are using a common meeting structure (the sum of the bottom three rows in Table 8.1)
Unstructured BTAM: 21 percent of schools; common structure No, similar data No, standardized process
Sample (N = 1394) · Teams answering how the team assesses seriousness during meetings
Unstructured BTAM | No | No | No | 21
Individualized threat assessment: 28 percent of schools; common structure Yes, similar data No, stan
Sample (N = 1394) · Teams answering how the team assesses seriousness during meetings
Individualized threat assessment | Yes | No | No | 28
Threat assessment with standardized data: 20 percent of schools; common structure Yes, similar data
Sample (N = 1394) · Teams answering how the team assesses seriousness during meetings
Threat assessment with standardized data | Yes | Yes | No | 20
Highly standardized BTAM: 31 percent of schools; common structure Yes, similar data Yes, standardize
Sample (N = 1394) · Teams answering how the team assesses seriousness during meetings
Highly standardized BTAM | Yes | Yes | Yes | 31
51 percent of teams collect common data across all cases (sum of the bottom two rows of Table 8.1)
Sample (N = 1394) · Teams answering how the team assesses seriousness during meetings
common data across all cases (the sum of the bottom two rows).
Why inferred The sentence crosses a page break: this quote is the page 59 part and the sentence begins on page 58 (claim p058-12). Full sentence (pages 58–59): “However, 79 percent of teams are using a common meeting structure (the sum of the bottom three rows in Table 8.1), and 51 percent are collecting common data across all cases (the sum of the bottom two rows).”
Large teams and teams also supported by district-level teams were more likely to use an entirely sta
Large teams (meaning teams with more roles represented) and teams in schools that were also supported by district-level BTAM teams were more likely to apply an entirely standardized process to the behavioral threat assessment process.
Going down Table 8.1, teams and processes become more structured and consistent
Going down the table, teams and their processes become more structured and more consistent in how they operate—collect data, apply assessment practices, and respond to cases that may pose risk to their school.
Teams also use many of those sources frequently
Teams also use many of those sources frequently.
73 percent of principals said teams interview the referred student every time a student is referred
Sample (N = 1395) · Teams answering sources-of-information question
School BTAM teams rely first and foremost on interviews with the referred student to make decisions about potential risk of harm: 73 percent of principals indicated that their BTAM teams use this specific information source every time a student is referred to the BTAM process.
Interviews with student: every time 73 percent, sometimes 26 percent, never 1 percent
Sample (N = 1395) · Teams answering sources-of-information question
Interviews with . . . Student | 73 | 26 | 1
Interviews with witnesses: every time 64 percent, sometimes 34 percent, never 1 percent
Sample (N = 1395) · Teams answering sources-of-information question
Witnesses^a | 64 | 34 | 1
Interviews with teacher/staff knowledgeable about student: every time 57 percent, sometimes 43 perce
Sample (N = 1395) · Teams answering sources-of-information question
Teacher/school staff knowledgeable about student | 57 | 43 | 0
Interviews with parents or guardians: every time 55 percent, sometimes 44 percent, never 1 percent
Sample (N = 1395) · Teams answering sources-of-information question
Parents or guardians | 55 | 44 | 1
Interviews with potential target of a threat: every time 53 percent, sometimes 45 percent, never 2 p
Sample (N = 1395) · Teams answering sources-of-information question
Potential target of a threat | 53 | 45 | 2
Discipline records: every time 60 percent, sometimes 40 percent, never 0 percent
Sample (N = 1395) · Teams answering sources-of-information question
Records: Discipline records^b | 60 | 40 | 0
Special education records: every time 58 percent, sometimes 41 percent, never 1 percent
Sample (N = 1395) · Teams answering sources-of-information question
Special education records | 58 | 41 | 1
Academic records: every time 43 percent, sometimes 55 percent, never 2 percent
Sample (N = 1395) · Teams answering sources-of-information question
Academic records | 43 | 55 | 2
Records from other in-district schools a student attended: every time 38 percent, sometimes 59 perce
Sample (N = 1395) · Teams answering sources-of-information question
Other in-district schools a student attended | 38 | 59 | 2
Records from other out-of-district schools a student attended: every time 29 percent, sometimes 68 p
Sample (N = 1395) · Teams answering sources-of-information question
Other out-of-district schools a student attended | 29 | 68 | 3
Outside medical organizations: every time 20 percent, sometimes 75 percent, never 5 percent
Sample (N = 1395) · Teams answering sources-of-information question
Outside medical organizations | 20 | 75 | 5
Law enforcement records: every time 17 percent, sometimes 64 percent, never 19 percent
Sample (N = 1395) · Teams answering sources-of-information question
Law enforcement records | 17 | 64 | 19
Outside governmental organizations: every time 15 percent, sometimes 74 percent, never 11 percent
Sample (N = 1395) · Teams answering sources-of-information question
Outside governmental organizations | 15 | 74 | 11
Student’s social media/online footprint: every time 15 percent, sometimes 77 percent, never 8 percen
Sample (N = 1395) · Teams answering sources-of-information question
Student’s social media/online footprint^c | 15 | 77 | 8
Half or more of principals report teams use interviews with other people every time
Sample (N = 1395) · Teams answering sources-of-information question
victims—every time they assess a student’s risk.
Why inferred The sentence crosses a page break: this quote is the page 60 part and the sentence begins on page 59. Full sentence (pages 59–60): “Half (or more) of principals also reported their teams use interviews with other people—witnesses, teachers, parents or guardians, and potential victims—every time they assess a student’s risk.”
Fewer principals use records in every assessment; discipline, special education, and academic record
Fewer principals indicated that their teams use various types of records in every threat assessment, but when they do, discipline records, special education records, and academic records top the list of records BTAM teams use most often.
64 percent of principals said teams sometimes use law enforcement records; 17 percent use them in ev
Sample (N = 1395) · Teams answering sources-of-information question
For example, 64 percent of principals said their teams sometimes use law enforcement records, but only 17 percent of principals said they use these types of records in every case, likely because few students have law enforcement records.
Consistent with only 18 percent naming police and court records a top-two officer-member role
Sample (N = 854) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
with survey responses that examined the role of law enforcement officers who were members of BTAM teams discussed previously, in which only 18 percent indicated that providing information from police and court records was one of the officer-member’s two most important roles.
Why inferred The sentence crosses a page break: this quote is the page 61 part and the sentence begins on page 60. Full sentence (pages 60–61): “Note that this finding is consistent with survey responses that examined the role of law enforcement officers who were members of BTAM teams discussed previously, in which only 18 percent indicated that providing information from police and court records was one of the officer-member’s two most important roles.”
Only 14 percent of principals said teams review students' public social media for every case
Sample (N = 1395) · Teams answering sources-of-information question
Somewhat surprisingly, only 14 percent of principals said their BTAM teams review students’ publicly available social media accounts or online footprint for every case.
The vast majority of schools check social media accounts at least sometimes
The vast majority of schools check these accounts at least sometimes, though not in all cases.
High school principals review social media at roughly twice the rate of elementary and middle school
High school principals said they review a student’s publicly available social media or online footprint at roughly twice the rate of their elementary and middle school counterparts.
Sixty percent of principals said it would be feasible to justify decisions to concerned individuals
Sample (N = 1392) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Sixty percent of principals said they believe it would be feasible for their BTAM teams to justify their decisions about a specific case to concerned individuals outside the teams.
Principals said explanations are possible because the process captures detailed rationale and data
Principals indicated that such explanations would be possible because their BTAM process captures detailed information about both the rationale and data behind an assessment.
Another 32 percent of principals said their team could potentially justify an outcome
Sample (N = 1392) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Another 32 percent of principals said they believe their BTAM team could potentially justify an outcome.
Principals were evenly split: half cite case-to-case variation, half cite verbal deliberations
Principals were evenly split over why this might be difficult: Half of this group noted that explaining an outcome would be difficult because of how much their process differs from case to case (i.e., their team does not use a standardized process for assessment), and the other half felt it would be difficult because assessments are the result of verbal deliberations among BTAM team members (i.e., there is no documentation that could serve as the basis for explanation).
7 percent of principals said their team could not explain the rationale because files and deliberati
Sample (N = 1392) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
The remaining 7 percent of principals said their BTAM team would not be able to explain the rationale behind the outcome of their threat assessment process of a student because their BTAM files and deliberations are closed.
Principals with more standardized, well-documented processes were most likely to say they could expl
Principals in schools with more standardized and well-documented BTAM processes—often schools with large BTAM teams (meaning teams with more roles represented) and those served by both school-level and district-level BTAM teams—were most likely to indicate that their teams would be able explain the rationale behind an assessment decision to concerned individuals (e.g., parents or other community members), highlighting a key advantage of consistency in assessment procedures.
Many BTAM models differ in specificity of management and support guidance
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.
cite page 62 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Chapter focuses on the 82 percent of surveyed schools with an official BTAM team
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.
cite page 62 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
16 percent of principals: team has a standard set of actions for every assessed student
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).
cite page 62 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
33 percent of principals: team members add elements based on professional expertise and discipline
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).
cite page 62 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
28 percent of principals: team draws on an inventory of school and community resources
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).
cite page 62 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
23 percent of principals: team uses an inventory plus decision support tools
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).
cite page 62 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Standard-set option least commonly selected: only 16 percent of principals
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.
cite page 63 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Most common approach, chosen by one-third: members bring options from their disciplines
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.
cite page 63 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Both include an intervention inventory so teams need not rely on individual members' memory and atte
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.
cite page 63 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Twenty-eight percent of respondents used an inventory without additional decision support tools
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.
cite page 63 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Just under a quarter (23 percent) had both an intervention inventory and decision support tool
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.
cite page 63 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
More than half of schools (51 percent) support intervention planning with an inventory
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.
cite page 63 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
91 percent of BTAM teams involve parents or guardians; 84 percent involve the referred student
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.
cite page 63 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Parents and students were generally consulted rather than directly participating in decisions
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.
cite page 63 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
72 percent of schools consulted with parents or guardians; only 19 percent allowed direct participat
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.
cite page 63 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
BTAM teams almost universally have a variety of intervention options available
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.
cite page 64 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Substance use treatment is the only option not universally available: 79 percent of schools have it
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.
cite page 64 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Virtually all schools use trusted-adult programming: 53 percent often, 42 percent sometimes, 4 perce
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.
cite page 64 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
91 percent have the option to permanently remove students, yet 30 percent of schools never use it
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.
cite page 64 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
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
For example, 47 percent of schools said their BTAM teams often refer students to mental health counseling or care.
cite page 64 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Only 17 percent often use special education supports and 5 percent often refer to substance use trea
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.
cite page 64 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Restrictive interventions, such as removal from school or law enforcement referral, are implemented
Restrictive interventions—such as temporary or permanent removal from school or referral to law enforcement—are implemented less frequently.
cite page 64 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Intervention options vary: skill-building, trusted adults, special education, counseling, removal
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).
cite page 64 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Schools use many available intervention options with some regularity
Schools use many of their available intervention options with some regularity as part of their behavioral threat management process.
cite page 64 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
A small number of available interventions are not employed as widely as expected given availability
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.
cite page 64 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
School BTAM teams use some intervention options more often than others
School BTAM teams use some intervention options more often than others.
cite page 64 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Supports and safety interventions for the targets or victims of threats: never 1, rarely 5, sometime
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
cite page 65 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Programming to build relationships with trusted adults: never 1, rarely 4, sometimes 42, often 53, n
Sample (N = 1384) · Teams answering intervention/safety plan components question
Programming to build relationships with trusted adults | 1 | 4 | 42 | 53 | 1 | 99 | 99
cite page 65 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Mental health counseling or care: never 1, rarely 3, sometimes 46, often 47, no option 2, available
Sample (N = 1384) · Teams answering intervention/safety plan components question
Mental health counseling or care | 1 | 3 | 46 | 47 | 2 | 98 | 97
cite page 65 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Skill-building services or programs: never 2, rarely 13, sometimes 49, often 34, no option 3, availa
Sample (N = 1384) · Teams answering intervention/safety plan components question
Skill-building services or programs | 2 | 13 | 49 | 34 | 3 | 97 | 96
cite page 65 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Behavioral or movement controls in school: never 2, rarely 14, sometimes 51, often 31, no option 2,
Sample (N = 1384) · Teams answering intervention/safety plan components question
Behavioral or movement controls in school | 2 | 14 | 51 | 31 | 2 | 98 | 96
cite page 65 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Behavioral corrections or discipline: never 2, rarely 7, sometimes 42, often 46, no option 2, availa
Sample (N = 1384) · Teams answering intervention/safety plan components question
Behavioral corrections or discipline | 2 | 7 | 42 | 46 | 2 | 98 | 96
cite page 65 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Programming to build peer relationships and engagement: never 3, rarely 18, sometimes 49, often 27,
Sample (N = 1384) · Teams answering intervention/safety plan components question
Programming to build peer relationships and engagement | 3 | 18 | 49 | 27 | 3 | 97 | 94
cite page 65 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Special education or disability supports: never 3, rarely 16, sometimes 63, often 17, no option 1, a
Sample (N = 1384) · Teams answering intervention/safety plan components question
Special education or disability supports | 3 | 16 | 63 | 17 | 1 | 99 | 96
cite page 65 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Temporary removal from school (suspension): never 3, rarely 20, sometimes 55, often 20, no option 2,
Sample (N = 1384) · Teams answering intervention/safety plan components question
Temporary removal from school (suspension) | 3 | 20 | 55 | 20 | 2 | 98 | 95
cite page 65 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Family support and intervention programming: never 4, rarely 21, sometimes 49, often 17, no option 8
Sample (N = 1384) · Teams answering intervention/safety plan components question
Family support and intervention programming | 4 | 21 | 49 | 17 | 8 | 92 | 88
cite page 65 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Academic or vocational programming: never 6, rarely 30, sometimes 40, often 9, no option 15, availab
Sample (N = 1384) · Teams answering intervention/safety plan components question
Academic or vocational programming | 6 | 30 | 40 | 9 | 15 | 85 | 79
cite page 65 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Law enforcement action or criminal justice action: never 17, rarely 37, sometimes 36, often 7, no op
Sample (N = 1384) · Teams answering intervention/safety plan components question
Law enforcement action or criminal justice action | 17 | 37 | 36 | 7 | 4 | 96 | 80
cite page 65 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Substance use treatment: never 18, rarely 30, sometimes 25, often 5, no option 21, available 79, use
Sample (N = 1384) · Teams answering intervention/safety plan components question
Substance use treatment | 18 | 30 | 25 | 5 | 21 | 79 | 61
cite page 65 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Permanent removal from school (expulsion or relocation): never 30, rarely 38, sometimes 19, often 3,
Sample (N = 1384) · Teams answering intervention/safety plan components question
Permanent removal from school (expulsion or relocation) | 30 | 38 | 19 | 3 | 9 | 91 | 61
cite page 65 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Figure 9.1 includes only schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
cite page 65 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Figure 9.1 bars may not sum to totals because of rounding
Bars may not sum to totals because of rounding.
cite page 65 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Thirty percent of principals said their BTAM teams never use exclusionary discipline
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).
cite page 66 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Exclusionary discipline use: rarely 46 percent, sometimes 21 percent, frequently 3 percent, always 1
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.
cite page 66 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Forty percent never refer students to law enforcement for arrest or prosecution; another 40 percent
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.
cite page 66 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Law enforcement referral: sometimes sixteen percent, frequently 4 percent, always 1 percent
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.
cite page 66 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Elementary schools were particularly likely to say they never use exclusionary discipline
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.
cite page 66 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Elementary principals significantly more likely to say they never refer students to law enforcement
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.
cite page 66 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Some elementary schools said their teams have expelled or referred students to law enforcement with
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.
cite page 66 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Excl. discipline, Total: never 30, rarely 46, sometimes 21; frequently and every time unlabeled
Sample (N = 1379) · Teams answering exclusionary discipline and arrest/prosecution questions (Figure 9.2)
Total | 30 | 46 | 21 | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
cite page 67 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Excl. discipline, Elementary: never 43, rarely 42, sometimes 13; frequently/every time unlabeled
Sample (n = undeterminable of 1379) · Teams answering exclusionary discipline and arrest/prosecution questions (Figure 9.2)
Elementary | 43 | 42 | 13 | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
cite page 67 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Excl. discipline, Middle: never 13, rarely 52, sometimes 30, frequently 4; every time unlabeled
Sample (n = undeterminable of 1379) · Teams answering exclusionary discipline and arrest/prosecution questions (Figure 9.2)
Middle | 13 | 52 | 30 | 4 | [unlabeled]
cite page 67 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Excl. discipline, High: never 11, rarely 52, sometimes 32, frequently 4; every time unlabeled
Sample (n = undeterminable of 1379) · Teams answering exclusionary discipline and arrest/prosecution questions (Figure 9.2)
High | 11 | 52 | 32 | 4 | [unlabeled]
cite page 67 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Arrest or prosecution, Total: never 40, rarely 40, sometimes 16, frequently 4; every time unlabeled
Sample (N = 1379) · Teams answering exclusionary discipline and arrest/prosecution questions (Figure 9.2)
Total | 40 | 40 | 16 | 4 | [unlabeled]
cite page 67 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Arrest/prosecution, Elementary: never 56, rarely 30, sometimes 10; frequently/every time unlabeled
Sample (n = undeterminable of 1379) · Teams answering exclusionary discipline and arrest/prosecution questions (Figure 9.2)
Elementary | 56 | 30 | 10 | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
cite page 67 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Arrest or prosecution, Middle: never 21, rarely 52, sometimes 21, frequently 6; every time unlabeled
Sample (n = undeterminable of 1379) · Teams answering exclusionary discipline and arrest/prosecution questions (Figure 9.2)
Middle | 21 | 52 | 21 | 6 | [unlabeled]
cite page 67 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Arrest or prosecution, High: never 15, rarely 56, sometimes 24, frequently 4; every time unlabeled
Sample (n = undeterminable of 1379) · Teams answering exclusionary discipline and arrest/prosecution questions (Figure 9.2)
High | 15 | 56 | 24 | 4 | [unlabeled]
cite page 67 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Figure 9.2 includes only schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
cite page 67 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Figure 9.2 bars may not sum to totals because of rounding; some labels removed
Bars may not sum to totals because of rounding. Some data labels have been removed for readability.
cite page 67 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Many interventions BTAM teams could recommend cost money to provide
Many interventions that BTAM teams could recommend for students assessed as being at risk of harming themselves or others cost money to provide.
cite page 67 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Private-provider mental health counseling has a cost depending on means or insurance
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.
cite page 67 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Four services chosen because they often require licensed professionals and are more likely offered o
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.
cite page 67 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Mental health counseling is described as the most frequently used intervention and potentially highe
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.
cite page 67 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Three-quarters of principals: BTAM program provides free mental health counseling or care
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.”
cite page 68 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
70 percent provided free skill-building services; 58 percent free family support and intervention pr
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).
cite page 68 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Only 37 percent of schools provided free substance use treatment to students referred to BTAM
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).
cite page 68 Ch 9: How Do BTAM Teams Develop Intervention Plans?
Chapter focuses on the 82 percent of schools with official BTAM teams
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 that stated in the survey they had official BTAM teams.
cite page 70 Ch 10: How Do BTAM Teams Monitor Intervention Plans?
96 percent of schools engage in some monitoring after a plan is implemented
Sample (N = 1379) · Teams answering exclusionary discipline and arrest/prosecution questions (Figure 9.2)
As shown in Figure 10.1, virtually all schools (96 percent) said they engage in some sort of monitoring after a student’s behavioral intervention or safety plan has been implemented.
cite page 70 Ch 10: How Do BTAM Teams Monitor Intervention Plans?
Active monitoring is usually a direct responsibility of the BTAM team
Usually, this active monitoring is a direct responsibility of the BTAM team.
cite page 70 Ch 10: How Do BTAM Teams Monitor Intervention Plans?
Half of schools: BTAM team monitors all cases with a plan and adjusts as needed
Sample (N = 1379) · Teams answering what the BTAM team does after an intervention or safety plan is implemented (Figure 10.1)
Half of schools said their BTAM team actively manages and monitors the progress of all cases where a behavioral or safety plan has been implemented and adjusted as needed.
cite page 70 Ch 10: How Do BTAM Teams Monitor Intervention Plans?
Another 23 percent of schools: BTAM team monitors only some students
Sample (N = 1379) · Teams answering exclusionary discipline and arrest/prosecution questions (Figure 9.2)
Another 23 percent said their BTAM team does this only for some students during the implementation of a behavioral or safety plan.
cite page 70 Ch 10: How Do BTAM Teams Monitor Intervention Plans?
Twenty-five percent of schools rely on teachers, counselors and others without the BTAM team
Sample (N = 1379) · Teams answering what the BTAM team does after an intervention or safety plan is implemented (Figure 10.1)
Twenty-five percent of schools reported that they rely on teachers, counselors, and others to monitor progress and adjust interventions without directly involving the BTAM team.
cite page 70 Ch 10: How Do BTAM Teams Monitor Intervention Plans?
37 percent of principals with only a district-level BTAM program rely exclusively on other staff
Sample (n = undeterminable of 1379) · Teams answering exclusionary discipline and arrest/prosecution questions (Figure 9.2)
As shown in Figure 10.1, 37 percent of principals with only a district-level BTAM program said they rely exclusively on other staff for monitoring.
cite page 70 Ch 10: How Do BTAM Teams Monitor Intervention Plans?
Large teams with more roles more likely to monitor all students; smaller teams rely on others
Large BTAM teams that include representation of more roles are also more likely to actively monitor all students’ progress, while smaller teams are more likely to rely on teachers, counselors, and others to monitor progress and make adjustments.
cite page 70 Ch 10: How Do BTAM Teams Monitor Intervention Plans?
Forty percent of schools lack measurable goals; 60 percent integrate them via active monitoring
Sample (N = 984) · Teams that monitor some or all students progress after intervention plans
Forty percent of schools are not integrating such measurable goals, and 60 percent did report that their BTAM teams engage in some level of active monitoring to integrate measurable goals into intervention
cite page 70 Ch 10: How Do BTAM Teams Monitor Intervention Plans?
Fig 10.1 Total: all 49, some 23, reliance on others 25, total 96
Sample (N = 1379) · Teams answering exclusionary discipline and arrest/prosecution questions (Figure 9.2)
Total | 49 | 23 | 25 | 96
cite page 71 Ch 10: How Do BTAM Teams Monitor Intervention Plans?
Fig 10.1 School level: all 43, some 27, reliance on others 28, total 98
Sample (n = undeterminable of 1379) · Teams answering exclusionary discipline and arrest/prosecution questions (Figure 9.2)
School level | 43 | 27 | 28 | 98
cite page 71 Ch 10: How Do BTAM Teams Monitor Intervention Plans?
Fig 10.1 District level: all 38, some 16, reliance on others 37, total 91
Sample (n = undeterminable of 1379) · Teams answering exclusionary discipline and arrest/prosecution questions (Figure 9.2)
District level | 38 | 16 | 37 | 91
cite page 71 Ch 10: How Do BTAM Teams Monitor Intervention Plans?
Fig 10.1 Both: all 56, some 22, reliance on others 19, total 97
Sample (n = undeterminable of 1379) · Teams answering exclusionary discipline and arrest/prosecution questions (Figure 9.2)
Both | 56 | 22 | 19 | 97
cite page 71 Ch 10: How Do BTAM Teams Monitor Intervention Plans?
Fig 10.1 includes only schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
cite page 71 Ch 10: How Do BTAM Teams Monitor Intervention Plans?
Fig 10.1 bars may not sum to totals because of rounding
Bars may not sum to totals because of rounding.
cite page 71 Ch 10: How Do BTAM Teams Monitor Intervention Plans?
No significant differences in developing measurable goals, except schools in large districts
We did not observe significant differences in schools’ likelihood of developing measurable goals across school characteristics, with one exception: schools in large districts were more likely to develop such goals, compared with schools in small districts.
cite page 71 Ch 10: How Do BTAM Teams Monitor Intervention Plans?
Most schools rely on periodic reports; two-thirds get reports from designated teachers
Sample (N = 984) · Teams that monitor some or all students progress after intervention plans
Most schools rely on periodic reports and updates, including two-thirds that receive periodic reports from designated teachers who have direct contact with the student and regularly speak with the student as part of the plan (e.g., check-in, check-out programs).
cite page 71 Ch 10: How Do BTAM Teams Monitor Intervention Plans?
A majority of schools receive periodic updates from other school staff such as counselors
Fewer—though still a majority—of schools receive periodic updates from other school staff, such as school counselors.
cite page 71 Ch 10: How Do BTAM Teams Monitor Intervention Plans?
60 percent of BTAM teams revisit cases during meetings, regularly, by event, or both
Sample (N = 984) · Teams that monitor some or all students progress after intervention plans
In total, 60 percent of BTAM teams revisit cases during their meetings, although schools were split over whether their teams revisited cases at regular time intervals, only when specific events warranted (e.g., when a student returns to school after an absence), or some combination.
cite page 71 Ch 10: How Do BTAM Teams Monitor Intervention Plans?
Forty percent of schools reported not revisiting cases at all
Sample (N = 984) · Teams that monitor some or all students progress after intervention plans
Forty percent of schools reported not revisiting cases at all.
cite page 71 Ch 10: How Do BTAM Teams Monitor Intervention Plans?
One-third of principals analyzed data and tracked progress, e.g., behavioral graphs
Sample (N = 984) · Teams that monitor some or all students progress after intervention plans
Meanwhile, one-third of principals reported that they analyzed data and tracked progress as part of their BTAM programs (e.g., they use behavioral graphs to visualize improvements in student behavior).
cite page 71 Ch 10: How Do BTAM Teams Monitor Intervention Plans?
Slightly more than 15 percent of schools use a formal case management system
Sample (N = 984) · Teams that monitor some or all students progress after intervention plans
Only slightly more than 15 percent of schools reported using a formal case management system that tracks data on the cases monitored by the BTAM team.
cite page 71 Ch 10: How Do BTAM Teams Monitor Intervention Plans?
Fig 10.2 Periodic reports from teachers who have direct contact with the student: 65 percent
Sample (N = 984) · Teams that monitor some or all students progress after intervention plans
Periodic reports on progress from . . . | Teachers who have direct contact with the student | 65
cite page 72 Ch 10: How Do BTAM Teams Monitor Intervention Plans?
Fig 10.2 Periodic reports from staff designated to speak with the student regularly: 65 percent
Sample (N = 984) · Teams that monitor some or all students progress after intervention plans
Periodic reports on progress from . . . | Staff designated to speak with the student regularly as part of the plan | 65
cite page 72 Ch 10: How Do BTAM Teams Monitor Intervention Plans?
Fig 10.2 Periodic reports from other school staff: 59 percent
Sample (N = 984) · Teams that monitor some or all students progress after intervention plans
Periodic reports on progress from . . . | Other school staff^a | 59
cite page 72 Ch 10: How Do BTAM Teams Monitor Intervention Plans?
Fig 10.2 Periodic reports from outside providers: 32 percent
Sample (N = 984) · Teams that monitor some or all students progress after intervention plans
Periodic reports on progress from . . . | Outside providers^b | 32
cite page 72 Ch 10: How Do BTAM Teams Monitor Intervention Plans?
Fig 10.2 Revisiting cases when specific events occur: 39 percent
Sample (N = 984) · Teams that monitor some or all students progress after intervention plans
Revisiting cases during regular BTAM meetings . . . | When specific events occur^c | 39
cite page 72 Ch 10: How Do BTAM Teams Monitor Intervention Plans?
Fig 10.2 Revisiting cases at regular time intervals: 38 percent
Sample (N = 984) · Teams that monitor some or all students progress after intervention plans
Revisiting cases during regular BTAM meetings . . . | At regular time intervals | 38
cite page 72 Ch 10: How Do BTAM Teams Monitor Intervention Plans?
Fig 10.2 Manually analyze data and track progress: 31 percent
Sample (N = 984) · Teams that monitor some or all students progress after intervention plans
Manually analyze data and track progress^d | 31
cite page 72 Ch 10: How Do BTAM Teams Monitor Intervention Plans?
Fig 10.2 Specific information/case management system: 15 percent
Sample (N = 984) · Teams that monitor some or all students progress after intervention plans
Specific information/case management system | 15
cite page 72 Ch 10: How Do BTAM Teams Monitor Intervention Plans?
Fig 10.2 includes only schools whose teams actively monitor some or all students
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team and that their team engages in active monitoring of some or all students’ progress.
cite page 72 Ch 10: How Do BTAM Teams Monitor Intervention Plans?
Fig 10.2 response options have been truncated for readability
Response options have been truncated for readability.
cite page 72 Ch 10: How Do BTAM Teams Monitor Intervention Plans?
Prior chapters analyzed principals' reports on BTAM issues, risk assessment and interventions
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.
cite page 74 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Survey presented scenarios and asked three questions about responses before detailed BTAM questions
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.
cite page 74 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Scenario questions aimed to elicit information close to practice on situations principals faced
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.
cite page 74 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
All principals received three scenarios: one low, one high-risk, one medium level
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.
cite page 74 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
16 scenarios administered: eight elementary and eight secondary
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.
cite page 74 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Principals were randomly assigned scenarios conditional on school grade level
Principals were randomly assigned scenarios conditional on their school grade level.
cite page 74 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Higher number of medium-level scenarios purposely included
We purposely included a higher number of medium-level scenarios.
cite page 74 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Table B.1 gives the full wording for all 16 scenarios
In Appendix B, Table B.1, we provide the full wording for all 16 scenarios presented to respondents.
cite page 74 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
This chapter covers only schools with official BTAM teams
Note that this chapter also only presents results for schools that had official BTAM teams.
cite page 74 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Schools with other BTAM-like teams or none also answered scenarios but are omitted
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.
cite page 74 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Schools with other BTAM-like teams or no teams are omitted from this chapter's analyses
These schools are omitted from our analyses here.
cite page 74 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Previous chapters presented data framing how BTAM teams and programs function nationwide
Previous chapters have presented data that frame how BTAM teams and programs function at schools across the country.
cite page 74 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Chapter includes boxes with scenario descriptions where scenarios appear in the text
This chapter also includes boxes with scenario descriptions where specific scenarios appear in the text.
cite page 74 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Key behavioral elements were extracted from each scenario and summarized for ease of interpretation
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.”
cite page 74 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Authors collapsed all 16 scenarios into key behavioral elements, using Scenario E as example
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.
cite page 75 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
The process of identifying behavior elements was completed for all 16 scenarios
We completed this process for all 16 scenarios.
cite page 75 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Shortened descriptions of key details appear in parentheses when scenarios are discussed
we also include a shortened description of these key details in parentheses as a reminder for the reader.
cite page 75 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Principals' scenario responses used to see which incidents involve BTAM teams and how
We first use principals’ responses to scenarios to discern what sorts of incidents involve school BTAM teams and how they are involved.
cite page 75 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Analysis also considers who makes the initial decision when it is not the BTAM team
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.
cite page 75 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
After each scenario, respondents were asked who would make the initial response decision
After presenting each behavioral scenario, we asked respondents who would make the initial decision about how to respond to the behavior.
cite page 75 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Up to 12 options listed for initial decisionmaker, including BTAM team and administrators
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;
cite page 75 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Table 11.1 also shows the number of respondents per scenario (n)
Table 11.1 also shows the total number of respondents who answered questions about each scenario during the survey (denoted by n).
cite page 75 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
T11.1 Severity A-P: Low,Low,Med.,Med.,Med.,Med.,Med.,High,Low,Med.,Med.,Med.,Med.,Med.,Med.,High
Severity level | Low | Low | Med. | Med. | Med. | Med. | Med. | High | Low | Med. | Med. | Med. | Med. | Med. | Med. | High
cite page 76 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
T11.1 Expected BTAM?: Yes for Scenarios H and P; No for A, B, I; Maybe for the rest
Expected BTAM? | No | No | Maybe | Maybe | Maybe | Maybe | Maybe | Yes | No | Maybe | Maybe | Maybe | Maybe | Maybe | Maybe | Yes
cite page 76 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
T11.1 n A-P: 353 335 131 148 137 137 133 687 734 139 128 103 134 126 107 734
n | 353 | 335 | 131 | 148 | 137 | 137 | 133 | 687 | 734 | 139 | 128 | 103 | 134 | 126 | 107 | 734
cite page 76 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Table 11.1 History of misbehavior: scenarios A, B, F, G, H, I, J, M
History of misbehavior | X | X | | | | X | X | X | X | X | | | X | | |
cite page 76 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Table 11.1 Physical altercation: scenarios B, C, H, K, P
Physical altercation | | X | X | | | | | X | | | X | | | | | X
cite page 76 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Table 11.1 Explicit threat: scenarios D, F, H, O, P
Explicit threat | | | | X | | X | | X | | | | | | | X | X
cite page 76 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Table 11.1 Fixation on violence: scenarios E, G, N, O
Fixation on violence | | | | | X | | X | | | | | | | X | X |
cite page 76 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Table 11.1 History of violence: scenarios F, H, M
History of violence | | | | | | X | | X | | | | | X | | |
cite page 76 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Table 11.1 History of academic issues: scenarios D, E, I, J, M, O
History of academic issues | | | | X | X | | | | X | X | | | X | | X |
cite page 76 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Table 11.1 Suspected substance use: scenarios C, J
Suspected substance use | | | X | | | | | | | X | | | | | |
cite page 76 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Table 11.1 Bullying: scenarios H, P
Bullying | | | | | | | | X | | | | | | | | X
cite page 76 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Table 11.1 Weapon (use and/or access): scenarios F, H, L, P
Weapon (use and/or access) | | | | | | X | | X | | | | X | | | | X
cite page 76 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Table 11.1 Withdrawal or depression: scenarios D, E, N, O
Withdrawal or depression | | | | X | X | | | | | | | | | X | X |
cite page 76 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Table 11.1 Special education context: scenarios B, M
Special education context | | X | | | | | | | | | | | X | | |
cite page 76 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Table 11.1 Concerning home context: scenarios E, F, G, P
Concerning home context | | | | | X | X | X | | | | | | | | | X
cite page 76 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Initial decisionmaker options also included an outside BTAM team and MTSS, PBIS or similar team
an outside BTAM team; or a MTSS, PBIS, or other behavioral support team.
cite page 77 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Principals could select only one initial-decisionmaker response option
Principals could select only one response option.
cite page 77 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Principals rarely identified the BTAM team as initial decisionmaker, even for most serious incidents
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.
cite page 77 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Principals identified teacher, principal or counselor as making initial judgments
Instead, principals identified three other individuals as making these initial judgments: a teacher, principal, or counselor.
cite page 77 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.1 shows share of schools listing these personnel as first decisionmaker per scenario
Figure 11.1 shows the percentage of schools that listed these personnel as the first decisionmaker for each of the scenarios.
cite page 77 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Chapter also includes boxes with brief examples of each scenario
Also, throughout this chapter, we have boxes with brief examples of each scenario.
cite page 77 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Teachers typically first decide on lowest-level incidents, though administrators also play this role
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.
cite page 77 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Principals overwhelmingly identified a school administrator as first decisionmaker in most scenarios
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).
cite page 77 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
About a quarter of principals named counselors as first decisionmaker in elementary Scenarios D, E
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.
cite page 77 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Secondary principals most often named an administrator, then a teacher (Scenarios I and K)
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]).
cite page 77 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Only secondary scenario with counselor as initial decisionmaker was Scenario N (22 percent)
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).
cite page 77 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Respondents saw some initial-decisionmaker options only if their school had such personnel
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.
cite page 77 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Select initial-decisionmaker results presented; Tables A.14 and A.15 give additional information
We present select results here, but see Tables A.14 and A.15 in Appendix A for additional information.
cite page 77 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.1 Scenario A: Teacher 58*, Counselor 6, School administrator 29, BTAM team 0
Sample (n = 353 of 353) · Scenario A respondents (observations)
A | 58 (ringed) | 6 | 29 | 0
cite page 78 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.1 Scenario B: Teacher 20, Counselor unlabeled, School administrator 64*, BTAM team 3
Sample (n = 335 of 335) · Scenario B respondents (observations)
B | 20 | [unlabeled] | 64 (ringed) | 3
cite page 78 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.1 Scenario C: Teacher unlabeled, Counselor 2, School administrator 84*, BTAM team 4
Sample (n = 131 of 131) · Scenario C respondents (observations)
C | [unlabeled] | 2 | 84 (ringed) | 4
cite page 78 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.1 Scenario D: Teacher 13, Counselor 22, School administrator 53*, BTAM team 4
Sample (n = 148 of 148) · Scenario D respondents (observations)
D | 13 | 22 | 53 (ringed) | 4
cite page 78 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.1 Scenario E: Teacher 25, Counselor 27, School administrator 34*, BTAM team 5
Sample (n = 137 of 137) · Scenario E respondents (observations)
E | 25 | 27 | 34 (ringed) | 5
cite page 78 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.1 Scenario F: Teacher 19, Counselor 3, School administrator 58*, BTAM team 15
Sample (n = 137 of 137) · Scenario F respondents (observations)
F | 19 | 3 | 58 (ringed) | 15
cite page 78 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.1 Scenario G: Teacher 14, Counselor 5, School administrator 59*, BTAM team 12
Sample (n = 133 of 133) · Scenario G respondents (observations)
G | 14 | 5 | 59 (ringed) | 12
cite page 78 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.1 Scenario H: Teacher 8, Counselor 0, School administrator 68*, BTAM team 15
Sample (n = 687 of 687) · Scenario H respondents (observations)
H | 8 | 0 | 68 (ringed) | 15
cite page 78 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.1 Scenario I: Teacher 56*, Counselor 9, School administrator 23, BTAM team 1
Sample (n = 734 of 734) · Scenario I respondents (observations)
I | 56 (ringed) | 9 | 23 | 1
cite page 78 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.1 Scenario J: Teacher 5, Counselor unlabeled, School administrator 85*, BTAM team 2
Sample (n = 139 of 139) · Scenario J respondents (observations)
J | 5 | [unlabeled] | 85 (ringed) | 2
cite page 78 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.1 Scenario K: Teacher 51*, Counselor 9, School administrator 35, BTAM team 0
Sample (n = 128 of 128) · Scenario K respondents (observations)
K | 51 (ringed) | 9 | 35 | 0
cite page 78 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.1 Scenario L: Teacher 15, Counselor 0, School administrator 76*, BTAM team 4
Sample (n = 103 of 103) · Scenario L respondents (observations)
L | 15 | 0 | 76 (ringed) | 4
cite page 78 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.1 Scenario M: Teacher 11, Counselor 1, School administrator 80*, BTAM team 2
Sample (n = 134 of 134) · Scenario M respondents (observations)
M | 11 | 1 | 80 (ringed) | 2
cite page 78 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.1 Scenario N: Teacher 18, Counselor 22, School administrator 44*, BTAM team 12
Sample (n = 126 of 126) · Scenario N respondents (observations)
N | 18 | 22 | 44 (ringed) | 12
cite page 78 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.1 Scenario O: Teacher 0, Counselor unlabeled, School administrator 58*, BTAM team 13
Sample (n = 107 of 107) · Scenario O respondents (observations)
O | 0 | [unlabeled] | 58 (ringed) | 13
cite page 78 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.1 Scenario P: Teacher unlabeled, Counselor 1, School administrator 77*, BTAM team 12
Sample (n = 734 of 734) · Scenario P respondents (observations)
P | [unlabeled] | 1 | 77 (ringed) | 12
cite page 78 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.1 question wording; n = 1,422 low, 1,423 medium, 1,421 high-severity observations
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).
cite page 78 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.1 includes only respondents whose school has a school- or district-level BTAM team
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
cite page 78 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Some data labels were removed from Fig 11.1 for readability
Some data labels have been removed for readability.
cite page 78 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
When BTAM team was not initial decisionmaker, respondents were asked if it would be made aware
to an incident, as was the case for most respondents, we asked whether the BTAM team would be made aware of the incident.
cite page 79 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Except lowest-risk scenarios, most principals said BTAM team would be notified afterward
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.
cite page 79 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Notification least likely where teachers decide first: Scenarios A, I and K
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).
cite page 79 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Pattern held for all scenarios, even most serious ones, per Figure 11.2
As shown in Figure 11.2, this pattern held for all scenarios in the survey—even the most serious ones.
cite page 79 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Scenario N: 94 percent of secondary BTAM teams involved (12 percent decide, 82 percent made aware)
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).
cite page 79 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
BTAM chosen as initial decisionmaker more often as scenarios get more serious
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.
cite page 79 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Under 1 percent of principals named BTAM team initial decisionmaker in Scenario I
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.
cite page 79 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Scenario P: 12 percent of principals named BTAM team initial decisionmaker
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.
cite page 79 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Low end (Scenarios A, I, K): teacher-handled class disruption or athletic-activity fight
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.
cite page 79 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Low-end scenarios: 26 to 28 percent would inform BTAM team; 72 to 73 percent would not
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.
cite page 79 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Middle scenarios: administrator decides first; BTAM team much more likely to be made aware
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
cite page 79 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.2 Scenario A: total 27, be made aware 27, make initial decision unlabeled
Sample (n = 353 of 353) · Scenario A respondents (observations)
A | 27 | 27 | [unlabeled]
cite page 80 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.2 Scenario B: total 56, be made aware 53, make initial decision unlabeled
Sample (n = 335 of 335) · Scenario B respondents (observations)
B | 56 | 53 | [unlabeled]
cite page 80 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.2 Scenario C: total 57, be made aware 53, make initial decision unlabeled
Sample (n = 131 of 131) · Scenario C respondents (observations)
C | 57 | 53 | [unlabeled]
cite page 80 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.2 Scenario D: total 79, be made aware 75, make initial decision unlabeled
Sample (n = 148 of 148) · Scenario D respondents (observations)
D | 79 | 75 | [unlabeled]
cite page 80 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.2 Scenario E: total 86, be made aware 81, make initial decision unlabeled
Sample (n = 137 of 137) · Scenario E respondents (observations)
E | 86 | 81 | [unlabeled]
cite page 80 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.2 Scenario F: total 93, be made aware 77, make initial decision 15
Sample (N = 137) · Scenario F respondents (observations)
| F | 93 | 77 | 15 |
cite page 80 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.2 Scenario G: total 88, be made aware 76, make initial decision 12
Sample (N = 133) · Scenario G respondents (observations)
| G | 88 | 76 | 12 |
cite page 80 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.2 Scenario H: total 96, be made aware 81, make initial decision 15
Sample (N = 687) · Scenario H respondents (observations)
| H | 96 | 81 | 15 |
cite page 80 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.2 Scenario I: total 27, be made aware 26, make initial decision unlabeled
Sample (N = 734) · Scenario I respondents (observations)
| I | 27 | 26 | [unlabeled] |
cite page 80 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.2 Scenario J: total 63, be made aware 62, make initial decision unlabeled
Sample (N = 139) · Scenario J respondents (observations)
| J | 63 | 62 | [unlabeled] |
cite page 80 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.2 Scenario K: total 28, be made aware 28, make initial decision unlabeled
Sample (N = 128) · Scenario K respondents (observations)
| K | 28 | 28 | [unlabeled] |
cite page 80 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.2 Scenario L: total 76, be made aware 72, make initial decision unlabeled
Sample (N = 103) · Scenario L respondents (observations)
| L | 76 | 72 | [unlabeled] |
cite page 80 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.2 Scenario M: total 69, be made aware 67, make initial decision unlabeled
Sample (N = 134) · Scenario M respondents (observations)
| M | 69 | 67 | [unlabeled] |
cite page 80 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.2 Scenario N: total 94, be made aware 83, make initial decision 12
Sample (N = 126) · Scenario N respondents (observations)
| N | 94 | 83 | 12 |
cite page 80 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.2 Scenario O: total 95, be made aware 82, make initial decision 13
Sample (N = 107) · Scenario O respondents (observations)
| O | 95 | 82 | 13 |
cite page 80 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.2 Scenario P: total 95, be made aware 84, make initial decision 12
Sample (N = 734) · Scenario P respondents (observations)
| P | 95 | 84 | 12 |
cite page 80 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.2 questions; n = 1,420 low, 1,420 medium, 1,417 high-severity observations
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).
cite page 80 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.2 includes only respondents whose school has a school- or district-level BTAM team
Includes only those who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
cite page 80 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Some data labels were removed from Fig 11.2 for readability
Some data labels have been removed for readability.
cite page 80 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Middle scenarios at elementary level: B and C, physical altercations with other risk factors
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.
cite page 80 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Middle scenarios, secondary: J, L, M mix risk factors, usually one violence-suggestive element
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.
cite page 80 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Middle scenarios: 53 percent to 72 percent of principals said BTAM team would be notified
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.
cite page 80 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
High end: greater likelihood BTAM decides initially, across grade levels
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.
cite page 80 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
High end: near-universal BTAM involvement when BTAM team was not initial decisionmaker
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.
cite page 80 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
High-end scenarios: F, G, H at elementary level and N, O, P at secondary level
These included Scenarios F, G, and H at the elementary level and Scenarios N, O, and P at the secondary level.
cite page 80 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
High-end scenarios included explicit references to violence paired with other concerning behaviors
Across both sets, these scenarios included explicit references to violence paired with other concerning behaviors, such as withdrawal or depression.
cite page 80 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Share saying BTAM team makes the initial decision in high-end scenarios never exceeded 15 percent
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.
cite page 80 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Scenario L fell between the middle group and the higher-level scenarios
Scenario L fell somewhere in between this middle group and the higher-level scenarios.
cite page 80 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Interventions spanned warnings to parent consultation, substance use assessment and removal
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.
cite page 81 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Across every scenario, each displayed intervention was selected by at least half of respondents
Across every scenario, each displayed intervention was selected by at least half of our respondents.
cite page 81 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.3 Scenario A (elementary): 1st verbal warning; 2nd parent consultation; 3rd disciplinary
Scenario A | Elementary | Warning or verbal correction of behavior | Parent consultation or home visit | Disciplinary measures
cite page 82 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.3 Scenario B (elementary): 1st parent consultation; 2nd disciplinary; 3rd skill-building
Scenario B | Elementary | Parent consultation or home visit | Disciplinary measures | Skill-building services
cite page 82 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.3 Scenario C (elementary): 1st parent consultation; 2nd disciplinary; 3rd substance use
Scenario C | Elementary | Parent consultation or home visit | Disciplinary measures | Substance use treatment
cite page 82 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.3 Scenario D (elementary): 1st parent consultation; 2nd mental health; 3rd disciplinary
Scenario D | Elementary | Parent consultation or home visit | Mental health counseling or care | Disciplinary measures
cite page 82 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.3 Scenario E (elementary): 1st parent consultation; 2nd mental health; 3rd trusted adults
Scenario E | Elementary | Parent consultation or home visit | Mental health counseling or care | Programming for relationships with trusted adults
cite page 82 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.3 Scenario F (elementary): 1st parent consultation; 2nd disciplinary; 3rd mental health
Scenario F | Elementary | Parent consultation or home visit | Disciplinary measures | Mental health counseling or care
cite page 82 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.3 Scenario G (elementary): 1st parent consultation; 2nd mental health; 3rd disciplinary
Scenario G | Elementary | Parent consultation or home visit | Mental health counseling or care | Disciplinary measures
cite page 82 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.3 Scenario H (elementary): 1st Parent consultation; 2nd Suspension; 3rd Mental health care
Scenario H | Elementary | Parent consultation or home visit | Temporary removal from school (suspension) | Mental health counseling or care
cite page 82 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.3 Scenario I (secondary): 1st parent consultation; 2nd verbal warning; 3rd disciplinary
Scenario I | Secondary | Parent consultation or home visit | Warning or verbal correction of behavior | Disciplinary measures
cite page 82 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.3 Scenario J (secondary): 1st parent consultation; 2nd disciplinary; 3rd mental health
Scenario J | Secondary | Parent consultation or home visit | Disciplinary measures | Mental health counseling or care
cite page 82 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.3 Scenario K (secondary): 1st verbal warning; 2nd parent consultation; 3rd disciplinary
Scenario K | Secondary | Warning or verbal correction of behavior | Parent consultation or home visit | Disciplinary measures
cite page 82 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.3 Scenario L (secondary): 1st Parent consultation; 2nd Disciplinary measures; 3rd Suspension
Scenario L | Secondary | Parent consultation or home visit | Disciplinary measures | Temporary removal from school (suspension)
cite page 82 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.3 Scenario M (secondary): 1st disciplinary; 2nd parent consultation; 3rd mental health
Scenario M | Secondary | Disciplinary measures | Parent consultation or home visit | Mental health counseling or care
cite page 82 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.3 Scenario N (secondary): 1st parent consultation; 2nd mental health; 3rd trusted adults
Scenario N | Secondary | Parent consultation or home visit | Mental health counseling or care | Programming for relationships with trusted adults
cite page 82 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.3 Scenario O (secondary): 1st parent consultation; 2nd mental health; 3rd trusted adults
Scenario O | Secondary | Parent consultation or home visit | Mental health counseling or care | Programming for relationships with trusted adults
cite page 82 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.3 Scenario P (secondary): 1st Parent consultation; 2nd Suspension; 3rd Disciplinary measures
Scenario P | Secondary | Parent consultation or home visit | Temporary removal from school (suspension) | Disciplinary measures
cite page 82 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.3 n = 1,420 low-severity, 1,420 medium-severity, 1,419 high-severity observations
(n = 1,420 observations for low-severity scenarios; n = 1,420 observations for medium-severity scenarios; 1,419 for high-severity scenarios)
cite page 82 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Many top interventions were selected by large majorities of respondents
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).”
cite page 82 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Parent consultation or home visit most common in 13 of 16 scenarios, second in the other three
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.
cite page 82 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Mental health counseling or care was a top intervention choice across most scenarios
Similarly, assessing the need for or starting mental health counseling and care was a top intervention choice for principals across most scenarios.
cite page 83 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Scenario C (altercation, suspected substance use): principals would assess or start treatment
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.
cite page 83 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Scenario E: principals would assess need for or start programming on trusted-adult relationships
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).
cite page 83 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Principals choosing disciplinary measures opted for supportive discipline, not suspension/expulsion
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.
cite page 83 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Law enforcement referral and permanent removal not among top interventions, even in severe scenarios
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).
cite page 83 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
At least 80 percent of schools consult parents or visit homes regardless of severity or grade level
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.
cite page 84 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
About two-thirds of schools selected supportive discipline regardless of incident level
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.
cite page 84 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
About 60 percent would warn potential victims in severe cases; under 10 percent in low-level cases
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.
cite page 84 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Verbal warnings common for lower-level incidents but much less common in more severe cases
By contrast, use of verbal warnings was common for lower-level incidents but much less common in more severe cases.
cite page 84 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Only very few principals would use restrictive measures for least severe incident
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.
cite page 84 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Notable shares of schools said they use restrictive actions in the most severe cases
However, notable shares of schools said that they use such actions in the most severe cases.
cite page 84 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.4 Elementary, Parent consultation or home visit: Scn A 85 (overlap); Scn H 85 (overlap)
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]
cite page 85 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.4 Elementary, Warning to named targets or victims of t: Scn A 6; Scn H 62
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
cite page 85 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.4 Elementary, Warning or verbal correction of behavior: Scn A 86; Scn H 23
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
cite page 85 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.4 Elementary, Disciplinary measures: low-severity (Scn A) unlabeled; high-severity (Scn H) 70
Sample (N = 1085 | 1419 by column) · Figure 11.4 columns: low-severity observations | high-severity observations
Supportive discipline | Disciplinary measures | [unlabeled] | 70
cite page 85 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.4 Elementary, behavioral or movement controls: low-severity (A) 17; high-severity (H) 45
Sample (N = 1085 | 1419 by column) · Figure 11.4 columns: low-severity observations | high-severity observations
Supportive discipline | Behavioral or movement controls | 17 | 45
cite page 85 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.4 Elementary, Programming to build relationships with : Scn A 43; Scn H 52
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
cite page 85 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.4 Elementary, skill-building services: low-severity (A) unlabeled; high-severity (H) 41
Sample (N = 1085 | 1419 by column) · Figure 11.4 columns: low-severity observations | high-severity observations
Support-focused | Skill-building services | [unlabeled] | 41
cite page 85 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.4 Elementary, Programming to build peer relationships: Scn A 28; Scn H 40
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
cite page 85 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.4 Elementary, Individualized academic or vocational pr: Scn A unlabeled; Scn H 9
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
cite page 85 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.4 Elementary, Special education or disability supports: Scn A 23; Scn H 13
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
cite page 85 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.4 Elementary, mental health counseling or care: low-severity (A) 33; high-severity (H) 70
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
cite page 85 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.4 Elementary, substance use treatment: low-severity (A) unlabeled; high-severity (H) 4
Sample (N = 1085 | 1419 by column) · Figure 11.4 columns: low-severity observations | high-severity observations
Support-focused | Substance use treatment | [unlabeled] | 4
cite page 85 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.4 Elementary, Family support and intervention programm: Scn A 14; Scn H 46
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
cite page 85 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.4 Elementary, temporary removal from school: low-severity (A) 11; high-severity (H) 70
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
cite page 85 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.4 Elementary, Permanent removal from school: low-severity (Scn A) 2; high-severity (Scn H) 15
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
cite page 85 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.4 Elementary, Law enforcement action: low-severity (Scn A) 3; high-severity (Scn H) 41
Sample (N = 351) · Scenario A respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.16
Restrictive | Law enforcement action | 3 | 41
cite page 85 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.4 Secondary, parent consultation or home visit: low-severity (I) 83; high-severity (P) 88
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
cite page 85 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.4 Secondary, Warning to named targets or victims of t: Scn I 7; Scn P 58
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
cite page 85 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.4 Secondary, Warning or verbal correction of behavior: Scn I 72; Scn P 19
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
cite page 85 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.4 Secondary, Disciplinary measures: low-severity (Scn I) 60; high-severity (Scn P) 68
Sample (N = 734) · Scenario I respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.17
Supportive discipline | Disciplinary measures | 60 | 68
cite page 85 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.4 Secondary, behavioral or movement controls: low-severity (I) 11; high-severity (P) 56
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
cite page 85 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.4 Secondary, Programming to build relationships with : Scn I 30; Scn P 44
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
cite page 85 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.4 Secondary, Skill-building services: low-severity (Scn I) 26; high-severity (Scn P) 31
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
cite page 85 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.4 Secondary, programming for peer relationships: low-severity (I) 16; high-severity (P) 32
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
cite page 85 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.4 Secondary, Individualized academic or vocational pr: Scn I 37; Scn P 8
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
cite page 85 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.4 Secondary, Special education or disability supports: Scn I 34; Scn P 13
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
cite page 85 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.4 Secondary, mental health counseling or care: low-severity (I) 21; high-severity (P) 62
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
cite page 85 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.4 Secondary, Substance use treatment: low-severity (Scn I) 4; high-severity (Scn P) 9
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
cite page 85 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.4 Secondary, Family support and intervention programm: Scn I 12; Scn P 38
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
cite page 85 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.4 Secondary, Temporary removal from school: low-severity (Scn I) 8; high-severity (Scn P) 73
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
cite page 85 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.4 Secondary, Permanent removal from school: low-severity (Scn I) 3; high-severity (Scn P) 19
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
cite page 85 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.4 Secondary, Law enforcement action: low-severity (Scn I) 5; high-severity (Scn P) 53
Sample (N = 734) · Scenario I respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.17
Restrictive | Law enforcement action | 5 | 53
cite page 85 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.4 n = 1,085 observations low-severity; n = 1,419 high-severity
(n = 1,085 observations for low-severity scenarios and n = 1,419 for high-severity scenarios)
cite page 85 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Scenario P: schools selected one to 16 interventions, most four to nine, median six
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.
cite page 86 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Vast majority of schools responded to all scenarios using multiple interventions
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.
cite page 86 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
General trend: schools respond with more interventions as incidents become more severe
Furthermore, we noticed a general trend of schools responding with a higher number of intervention options as incidents become more severe.
cite page 86 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Elementary median: four interventions for Scenario A, five for Scenario B
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).
cite page 86 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Typical school responded to most severe Scenario H with seven interventions
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.
cite page 86 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Except a few schools, schools respond with a handful of interventions, usually three to eight
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).
cite page 86 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.5 Elementary Scenario A (low): range 1-10, middle half 3-6, median 4
Elementary | A | Low | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
cite page 87 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.5 Elementary Scenario B (low): range 1-13, middle half 3-7, median 5
Elementary | B | Low | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
cite page 87 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.5 Elementary Scenario C (medium): range 1-13, middle half 3-7, median 5
Elementary | C | Medium | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
cite page 87 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.5 Elementary Scenario D (medium): range 1-13, middle half 3-7, median 5
Elementary | D | Medium | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
cite page 87 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.5 Elementary Scenario E (medium): range 1-13, middle half 3-7, median 5
Elementary | E | Medium | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
cite page 87 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.5 Elementary Scenario F (medium): range 1-12, middle half 5-8, median 6
Elementary | F | Medium | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
cite page 87 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.5 Elementary Scenario G (medium): range 1-12, middle half 5-8, median 6
Elementary | G | Medium | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
cite page 87 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.5 Elementary Scenario H (high): range 1-15, middle half 5-9, median 7
Elementary | H | High | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
cite page 87 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.5 Secondary Scenario I (low): range 1-8, middle half 3-5, median 4
Secondary | I | Low | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
cite page 87 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.5 Secondary Scenario J (medium): range 1-14, middle half 4-8, median 6
Secondary | J | Medium | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
cite page 87 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.5 Secondary Scenario K (medium): range 1-7, middle half 2-4, median 3
Secondary | K | Medium | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
cite page 87 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.5 Secondary Scenario L (medium): range 1-8, middle half 3-5, median 3
Secondary | L | Medium | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
cite page 87 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.5 Secondary Scenario M (medium): range 1-11, middle half 4-7, median 5
Secondary | M | Medium | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
cite page 87 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.5 Secondary Scenario N (medium): range 1-11, middle half 4-7, median 5
Secondary | N | Medium | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
cite page 87 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.5 Secondary Scenario O (medium): range 1-16, middle half 4-9, median 6
Secondary | O | Medium | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
cite page 87 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Fig 11.5 Secondary Scenario P (high): range 1-16, middle half 4-9, median 6
Secondary | P | High | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
cite page 87 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.5 n = 1,420 low-severity, 1,420 medium-severity, 1,419 high-severity observations
(n = 1,420 observations for low-severity scenarios; n = 1,420 observations for medium-severity scenarios; n = 1,419 for high-severity scenarios)
cite page 87 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Elementary principals: Scenario H (most severe) averages seven interventions
elementary school principals told us they would respond to Scenario H (the most severe incident) with an average of seven interventions
cite page 88 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Average elementary school Scenario H: one target/victim support, one supportive discipline, one...
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.
cite page 88 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Schools use a mix of approaches in responses to all scenarios
First, schools are using a mix of approaches in their responses to all scenarios.
cite page 88 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Intervention composition changes somewhat as incidents become more severe, though not overwhelmingly
However, the composition of interventions changes to some degree as incidents become more severe, though not overwhelmingly.
cite page 88 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Share of restrictive interventions grows as scenarios become more severe
Most notably, the share of restrictive interventions grows as the scenarios become more severe.
cite page 88 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Share of support-focused interventions remains large across all scenarios
Second, the share of support-focused interventions remains large across all scenarios.
cite page 88 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Even medium- and high-severity scenarios include a significant share of support-focused...
even for medium- and high-severity scenarios, a significant share of the intervention plans designed for at-risk students includes support-focused interventions.
cite page 88 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Support-focused share exceeds supportive discipline and restrictive shares for nearly all scenarios
The share of support-focused interventions exceeds the share of supportive discipline and restrictive interventions for nearly all scenarios.
cite page 88 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.6, Elementary Scenario A: total mean number of interventions 5 (segments unlabeled)
Elementary | A | 5 | [unlabeled]
cite page 88 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.6, Elementary Scenario B: total mean number of interventions 6 (segments unlabeled)
Elementary | B | 6 | [unlabeled]
cite page 88 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.6, Elementary Scenario C: total mean number of interventions 5 (segments unlabeled)
Elementary | C | 5 | [unlabeled]
cite page 88 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.6, Elementary Scenario D: total mean number of interventions 6 (segments unlabeled)
Elementary | D | 6 | [unlabeled]
cite page 88 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.6, Elementary Scenario E: total mean number of interventions 5 (segments unlabeled)
Elementary | E | 5 | [unlabeled]
cite page 88 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.6, Elementary Scenario F: total mean number of interventions 7 (segments unlabeled)
Elementary | F | 7 | [unlabeled]
cite page 88 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.6, Elementary Scenario G: total mean number of interventions 7 (segments unlabeled)
Elementary | G | 7 | [unlabeled]
cite page 88 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.6, Elementary Scenario H: total mean number of interventions 7 (segments unlabeled)
Elementary | H | 7 | [unlabeled]
cite page 88 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.6, Secondary Scenario I: total mean number of interventions 4 (segments unlabeled)
Secondary | I | 4 | [unlabeled]
cite page 88 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.6, Secondary Scenario J: total mean number of interventions 6 (segments unlabeled)
Secondary | J | 6 | [unlabeled]
cite page 88 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.6, Secondary Scenario K: total mean number of interventions 4 (segments unlabeled)
Secondary | K | 4 | [unlabeled]
cite page 88 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.6, Secondary Scenario L: total mean number of interventions 4 (segments unlabeled)
Secondary | L | 4 | [unlabeled]
cite page 88 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.6, Secondary Scenario M: total mean number of interventions 6 (segments unlabeled)
Secondary | M | 6 | [unlabeled]
cite page 88 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.6, Secondary Scenario N: total mean number of interventions 6 (segments unlabeled)
Secondary | N | 6 | [unlabeled]
cite page 88 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.6, Secondary Scenario O: total mean number of interventions 6 (segments unlabeled)
Secondary | O | 6 | [unlabeled]
cite page 88 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.6, Secondary Scenario P: total mean number of interventions 7 (segments unlabeled)
Secondary | P | 7 | [unlabeled]
cite page 88 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Footnote on support-focused share: support-focused share partly reflects more support-focused...
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.
cite page 88 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Schools do not respond to some incident types with only one intervention type
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.
cite page 88 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Schools respond to all scenarios with a mixed strategy of different intervention types
Instead, they are responding to all scenarios with a mixed strategy that employs different intervention types.
cite page 88 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Suspensions, longer separations and expulsions are all used; shorter suspensions are more frequent
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.
cite page 89 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Authors examined how often principals reported using restrictive interventions across scenarios
To probe these issues, we specifically examined the frequency with which principals reported using restrictive interventions across the different scenarios.
cite page 89 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
At least some schools would take or recommend restrictive actions in response to scenario behavior
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.
cite page 89 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Likelihood of considering exclusionary discipline tended to increase with severity, with exceptions
Principals’ likelihood of indicating they would consider exclusionary discipline tended to increase along with incident severity level, though there were exceptions.
cite page 89 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Very few schools would remove a student or refer to law enforcement for least severe scenarios
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.
cite page 89 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Most severe scenarios: around 70 percent would suspend; one in five to one in six permanent removal
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.
cite page 89 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Approximately half of respondents would refer the student to law enforcement for the most severe...
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.
cite page 89 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
A smaller subset of schools would suspend students in middle-level scenarios
Importantly, schools in a smaller subset indicated that they would suspend students in response to behavior depicted in middle-level scenarios
cite page 89 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
A surprising number of principals might refer students in middle-level scenarios to law...
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.
cite page 89 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
In the survey, schools appeared more likely to use exclusionary measures at the secondary level...
In our survey, schools also appeared more likely to use these types of measures at the secondary level, compared with the elementary level.
cite page 89 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
BTAM policy debate focuses on whether the approach increases removal, arrest and prosecution of...
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.
cite page 89 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.7, Scenario A (Elementary): temporary removal 11, permanent removal 2 (percent of schools)
Sample (N = 351) · Scenario A respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.16
A (Elementary) | 11 | 2
cite page 90 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.7, Scenario B (Elementary): temporary removal 30, permanent removal 2 (percent of schools)
Sample (N = 335) · Scenario B respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.16
B (Elementary) | 30 | 2
cite page 90 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.7, Scenario C (Elementary): temporary removal 32, permanent removal 1 (percent of schools)
Sample (N = 131) · Scenario C respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.16
C (Elementary) | 32 | 1
cite page 90 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.7, Scenario D (Elementary): temporary removal 21, permanent removal 3 (percent of schools)
Sample (N = 148) · Scenario D respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.16
D (Elementary) | 21 | 3
cite page 90 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.7, Scenario E (Elementary): temporary removal 16, permanent removal 0 (percent of schools)
Sample (N = 136) · Scenario E respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.16
E (Elementary) | 16 | 0
cite page 90 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.7, Scenario F (Elementary): temporary removal 45, permanent removal 7 (percent of schools)
Sample (N = 137) · Scenario F respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.16
F (Elementary) | 45 | 7
cite page 90 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.7, Scenario G (Elementary): temporary removal 29, permanent removal 5 (percent of schools)
Sample (N = 133) · Scenario G respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.16
G (Elementary) | 29 | 5
cite page 90 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.7, Scenario H (Elementary): temporary removal 70, permanent removal 15 (percent of...
Sample (N = 1419) · Scenario observations, high severity: actions taken or recommended (p082, p087, p090, p092)
H (Elementary) | 70 | 15
cite page 90 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.7, Scenario I (Secondary): temporary removal 8, permanent removal 3 (percent of schools)
Sample (N = 734) · Scenario I respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.17
I (Secondary) | 8 | 3
cite page 90 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.7, Scenario J (Secondary): temporary removal 60, permanent removal 12 (percent of schools)
Sample (N = 139) · Scenario J respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.17
J (Secondary) | 60 | 12
cite page 90 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.7, Scenario K (Secondary): temporary removal 9, permanent removal 3 (percent of schools)
Sample (N = 128) · Scenario K respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.17
K (Secondary) | 9 | 3
cite page 90 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.7, Scenario L (Secondary): temporary removal 56, permanent removal 11 (percent of schools)
Sample (N = 103) · Scenario L respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.17
L (Secondary) | 56 | 11
cite page 90 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.7, Scenario M (Secondary): temporary removal 48, permanent removal 8 (percent of schools)
Sample (N = 134) · Scenario M respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.17
M (Secondary) | 48 | 8
cite page 90 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.7, Scenario N (Secondary): temporary removal 27, permanent removal 12 (percent of schools)
Sample (N = 126) · Scenario N respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.17
N (Secondary) | 27 | 12
cite page 90 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.7, Scenario O (Secondary): temporary removal 52, permanent removal 24 (percent of schools)
Sample (N = 105) · Scenario O respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.17
O (Secondary) | 52 | 24
cite page 90 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.7, Scenario P (Secondary): temporary removal 73, permanent removal 19 (percent of schools)
Sample (N = 1419) · Scenario observations, high severity: actions taken or recommended (p082, p087, p090, p092)
P (Secondary) | 73 | 19
cite page 90 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.7, Scenario A (Elementary): law enforcement action 3 (percent of schools)
Sample (N = 351) · Scenario A respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.16
A (Elementary) | 3
cite page 90 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.7, Scenario B (Elementary): law enforcement action 3 (percent of schools)
Sample (N = 335) · Scenario B respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.16
B (Elementary) | 3
cite page 90 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.7, Scenario C (Elementary): law enforcement action 15 (percent of schools)
Sample (N = 131) · Scenario C respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.16
C (Elementary) | 15
cite page 90 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.7, Scenario D (Elementary): law enforcement action 3 (percent of schools)
Sample (N = 148) · Scenario D respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.16
D (Elementary) | 3
cite page 90 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.7, Scenario E (Elementary): law enforcement action 9 (percent of schools)
Sample (N = 136) · Scenario E respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.16
E (Elementary) | 9
cite page 90 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.7, Scenario F (Elementary): law enforcement action 22 (percent of schools)
Sample (N = 137) · Scenario F respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.16
F (Elementary) | 22
cite page 90 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.7, Scenario G (Elementary): law enforcement action 17 (percent of schools)
Sample (N = 133) · Scenario G respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.16
G (Elementary) | 17
cite page 90 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.7, Scenario H (Elementary): law enforcement action 41 (percent of schools)
Sample (N = 1419) · Scenario observations, high severity: actions taken or recommended (p082, p087, p090, p092)
H (Elementary) | 41
cite page 90 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.7, Scenario I (Secondary): law enforcement action 5 (percent of schools)
Sample (N = 734) · Scenario I respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.17
I (Secondary) | 5
cite page 90 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.7, Scenario J (Secondary): law enforcement action 32 (percent of schools)
Sample (N = 139) · Scenario J respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.17
J (Secondary) | 32
cite page 90 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.7, Scenario K (Secondary): law enforcement action 4 (percent of schools)
Sample (N = 128) · Scenario K respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.17
K (Secondary) | 4
cite page 90 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.7, Scenario L (Secondary): law enforcement action 26 (percent of schools)
Sample (N = 103) · Scenario L respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.17
L (Secondary) | 26
cite page 90 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.7, Scenario M (Secondary): law enforcement action 13 (percent of schools)
Sample (N = 134) · Scenario M respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.17
M (Secondary) | 13
cite page 90 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.7, Scenario N (Secondary): law enforcement action 25 (percent of schools)
Sample (N = 126) · Scenario N respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.17
N (Secondary) | 25
cite page 90 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.7, Scenario O (Secondary): law enforcement action 52 (percent of schools)
Sample (N = 105) · Scenario O respondents (schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team), Table A.17
O (Secondary) | 52
cite page 90 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.7, Scenario P (Secondary): law enforcement action 53 (percent of schools)
Sample (N = 1419) · Scenario observations, high severity: actions taken or recommended (p082, p087, p090, p092)
P (Secondary) | 53
cite page 90 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Principals selected different intervention options based on scenario nature (Figure 11.3)
Principals selected different intervention options based on the nature of the scenario (Figure 11.3)
cite page 91 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
As situations move from low risk to much more serious, principals selected very different...
As situations move from relatively low risk to much more serious, they selected very different responses (Figure 11.4).
cite page 91 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
As complexity and risk rise, schools tend to respond with additional interventions (Figure 11.5)
Moreover, as the complexity of a situation and risk level rise, schools tend to respond with additional interventions (Figure 11.5).
cite page 91 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Across all scenarios each set of interventions consistently includes a strong support component...
Across the full spectrum of scenarios, however, each set of interventions consistently includes a strong support component (Figure 11.6).
cite page 91 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Schools rely on restrictive measures but not as first choices (Figure 11.3); use is correlated...
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).
cite page 91 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.8 shows heavy weight of parental involvement and situational relevance of target or...
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).
cite page 91 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Weight of supportive disciplinary approaches indicates a component of most responses
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.
cite page 91 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Support-focused strategies are a component of almost all plans; restrictive options lightly...
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.
cite page 91 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.8, Parent consultation or home visit (Notification): cell values for Scenarios A-P shown o
Parent consultation or home visit | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
cite page 92 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.8, Warning to named targets or victims of threats (Target/victim support): cell values for
Warning to named targets or victims of threats | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
cite page 92 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.8, Warning or verbal correction of behavior (Supportive discipline): cell values for Scena
Warning or verbal correction of behavior | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
cite page 92 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.8, Disciplinary measures (Supportive discipline): cell values for Scenarios A-P shown only
Disciplinary measures | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
cite page 92 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.8, Behavioral or movement controls (Supportive discipline): cell values for Scenarios A-P
Behavioral or movement controls | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
cite page 92 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.8, Programming to build relationships with trusted adults (Support-focused): cell values f
Programming to build relationships with trusted adults | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
cite page 92 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.8, Skill-building services (Support-focused): cell values for Scenarios A-P shown only by
Skill-building services | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
cite page 92 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.8, Programming to build peer relationships (Support-focused): cell values for Scenarios A-
Programming to build peer relationships | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
cite page 92 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.8, Individualized academic or vocational programming (Support-focused): cell values for Sc
Individualized academic or vocational programming | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
cite page 92 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.8, Special education or disability supports (Support-focused): cell values for Scenarios A
Special education or disability supports | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
cite page 92 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.8, Mental health counseling or care (Support-focused): cell values for Scenarios A-P shown
Mental health counseling or care | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
cite page 92 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.8, Substance use treatment (Support-focused): cell values for Scenarios A-P shown only by
Substance use treatment | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
cite page 92 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.8, Family support and intervention programming (Support-focused): cell values for Scenario
Family support and intervention programming | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
cite page 92 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.8, Temporary removal from school (Restrictive): cell values for Scenarios A-P shown only b
Temporary removal from school | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
cite page 92 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.8, Permanent removal from school (Restrictive): cell values for Scenarios A-P shown only b
Permanent removal from school | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
cite page 92 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
Figure 11.8, Law enforcement action (Restrictive): cell values for Scenarios A-P shown only by shadi
Law enforcement action | [unlabeled] | [unlabeled]
cite page 92 Ch 11: How Are Schools Using BTAM to Respond to Student Behavior?
82 percent of schools have an official BTAM team; chapter covers these schools
Sample (N = 1408) · Schools with an official BTAM team (82 percent of sample)
This chapter includes the 82 percent of schools that have an official BTAM team, regardless of whether this team is housed at the school level, district level, or both.
cite page 94 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
88 percent of principals positive on BTAM safety effectiveness: 51 percent very, 37 percent somewhat
Sample (N = 1406) · Teams answering effectiveness at maintaining safety
Nine in ten principals (88 percent) had positive perceptions, including 51 percent who said their team was very effective at maintaining school safety and 37 percent who said BTAM was somewhat effective.
cite page 94 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Figure 12.1: Very ineffective, 5 percent of principals
Sample (N = 1406) · Teams answering effectiveness at maintaining safety
Very ineffective | 5
cite page 94 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Figure 12.1: Somewhat ineffective, 5 percent of principals
Sample (N = 1406) · Teams answering effectiveness at maintaining safety
Somewhat ineffective | 5
cite page 94 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Figure 12.1: Somewhat effective, 37 percent of principals
Sample (N = 1406) · Teams answering effectiveness at maintaining safety
Somewhat effective | 37
cite page 94 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Figure 12.1: Very effective, 51 percent of principals
Sample (N = 1406) · Teams answering effectiveness at maintaining safety
Very effective | 51
cite page 94 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Figure 12.1: Don’t know, 2 percent of principals
Sample (N = 1406) · Teams answering effectiveness at maintaining safety
Don’t know | 2
cite page 94 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Principals had a very positive overall perception of BTAM effectiveness at keeping schools safe
Principals had a very positive overall perception about the effectiveness of their school BTAM program when it came to keeping their schools safe (see Figure 12.1).
cite page 94 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
5 percent somewhat ineffective and another 5 percent very ineffective at maintaining school safety
Sample (N = 1406) · Teams answering effectiveness at maintaining safety
principals said they believe that BTAM was somewhat ineffective at maintaining school safety, and another 5 percent believe it to be very ineffective.
Why inferred The sentence crosses a page break: this quote is the page 95 part and the sentence begins on page 94. Full sentence (pages 94–95): “Meanwhile, only 5 percent of principals said they believe that BTAM was somewhat ineffective at maintaining school safety, and another 5 percent believe it to be very ineffective.”
cite page 95 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Two percent of principals were not sure about the impact of BTAM on school safety
Sample (N = 1406) · Teams answering effectiveness at maintaining safety
Two percent of principals were not sure about the impact of BTAM on school safety.
cite page 95 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Positive safety perceptions held across school characteristics, from large urban to small rural
Principals’ positive perceptions about their BTAM programs’ contributions to maintaining a safe school environment held across various school characteristics.
cite page 95 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
District-only or small-team principals slightly lower, but eight in ten still said BTAM effective
Principals who only had a district-level team or whose school only had a small BTAM team had slightly lower perceptions of those teams’ effectiveness.
cite page 95 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Roughly 90 percent of principals saw BTAM as effective at safety regardless of school crime level
Sample (n = undeterminable of 1406) · Teams answering effectiveness at maintaining safety
Said another way, regardless of the crime level in their school, roughly 90 percent of principals felt that their BTAM team was effective at maintaining school safety.
cite page 95 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Most principals believe BTAM raised student and staff safety feelings, by an intermediate amount
Most principals believe that their school’s BTAM program positively affected both student and staff feelings of safety (see Figure 12.2).
cite page 95 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
66 percent: BTAM increased students' safety feelings (7 percent significantly); staff 70 percent (8)
Sample (N = 1377) · Teams answering program impact questions
More specifically, 66 percent of principals reported that their BTAM program increased students’ feelings of safety (including 7 percent who said BTAM significantly increased feelings of safety), and 70 percent believe that BTAM is increasing staff feelings of safety (including 8 percent who said they believe that BTAM is significantly increasing perceptions of safety).
cite page 95 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Figure 12.2 Student: sig. decreased 3, decreased 8, no impact 24, increased 58, sig. increased 7
Sample (N = 1377) · Teams answering program impact questions
Student | 3 | 8 | 24 | 58 | 7
cite page 95 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Figure 12.2 Staff: sig. decreased 3, decreased 7, no impact 20, increased 62, sig. increased 8
Sample (N = 1377) · Teams answering program impact questions
Staff (administrators, teachers, etc.) | 3 | 7 | 20 | 62 | 8
cite page 95 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Principals in all school settings, large urban or small rural, believe BTAM helps keep school safe
That is, principals in all types of school settings—whether in a large, urban school or a small, rural school—said they believe that their BTAM program effectively helps keep their school safe.
cite page 95 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Eight in ten district-only or small-team principals said BTAM program was effective
Sample (N = 1406 total; column N not printed) · Teams answering effectiveness at maintaining safety
Nevertheless, eight in ten of those principals said they believe that their BTAM program was effective.
cite page 95 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Principals' positive views of BTAM effectiveness did not depend on school crime level
Furthermore, principals’ positive feelings about the effectiveness of the BTAM team also did not depend on the level of crime in the school.
cite page 95 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Principals in higher violent-crime schools as likely as those with few or no violent crimes to see B
That is, principals in schools that reported having higher levels of violent crime were just as likely as their counterparts in schools that reported that they had no or only a few violent crimes to feel that their BTAM team was effective in maintaining school safety.
cite page 95 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Principals viewed BTAM effect on safety feelings as intermediate: increased, but not significantly
However, principals tended to view this relationship as intermediate in size—that is, principals felt that their BTAM program increased, but not significantly, feelings of safety.
cite page 95 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
At worst principals perceived BTAM as neutral on safety feelings; few reported negative impacts
At worst, principals in our survey perceived that BTAM was neutral (i.e., did not have an impact on student or staff feelings of safety); few reported that the BTAM program was having negative impacts on these perceptions.
cite page 96 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Perceived safety-feelings impact was unrelated to crime level in the school
Interestingly, principals’ perceptions of the positive impact that their BTAM program was having on student and staff feelings of safety at school were unrelated to the crime level in the school.
cite page 96 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
70 percent say BTAM improved climate: 11 percent significantly, 59 percent improved
Sample (N = 1377) · Teams answering program impact questions
In addition to principals’ positive feelings about their BTAM program’s contributions to school safety, most principals (70 percent) said they believe that BTAM has improved school climate overall, including 11 percent of principals who believe that BTAM has significantly improved school climate and 59 percent who believe that BTAM has improved climate (see Figure 12.3).
cite page 96 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Less than 1 percent of principals felt BTAM worsened school climate
Sample (N = 1377) · Teams answering program impact questions
Virtually no principals (less than 1 percent) felt that BTAM worsened school climate.
cite page 96 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Five percent of principals were not sure of BTAM's impact on school climate
Sample (N = 1377) · Teams answering the school-climate impact question (Figure 12.3)
Five percent of principals were not sure of BTAM’s impact on school climate.
cite page 96 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Elementary, suburban, low/middle-poverty principals less likely to say BTAM contributed to climate
Specifically, principals in elementary schools, suburban schools, and low- or middle-poverty schools were less likely to report that BTAM contributed positively to school climate.
cite page 96 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Small-team principals slightly less likely to say BTAM improved climate; most still see net positive
Moreover, principals whose schools had only had small BTAM teams were slightly less likely to indicate that BTAM improved school climate; even in these cases, however, most principals still believe that BTAM had a net positive impact on school climate.
cite page 96 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Figure 12.3: Has had no impact, 24 percent of principals
Sample (N = 1377) · Teams answering program impact questions
Has had no impact | 24
cite page 96 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Figure 12.3: Improved, 59 percent of principals
Sample (N = 1377) · Teams answering program impact questions
Improved | 59
cite page 96 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Figure 12.3: Significantly improved, 11 percent of principals
Sample (N = 1377) · Teams answering program impact questions
Significantly improved | 11
cite page 96 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Figure 12.3: Don’t know, 5 percent of principals
Sample (N = 1377) · Teams answering program impact questions
Don’t know | 5
cite page 96 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Figure 12.3 bar does not sum to 100 percent because of rounding
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)
Bar does not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
cite page 96 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
High-crime schools' principals as likely as others to see an intermediate effect on safety feelings
That is, principals in schools who reported higher numbers of violent incidents were just as likely as those in schools with few to no violent incidents to perceive that their BTAM team had an intermediately sized, though positive, impact on feelings of safety.
cite page 96 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
At worst, principals felt BTAM had no impact on school climate (24 percent)
Sample (N = 1377) · Teams answering program impact questions
At worst, principals felt that their BTAM program had no impact on school climate (24 percent).
cite page 96 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Larger variation in principals' climate perceptions observed across school characteristics
We did observe larger variation in principals’ perceptions of BTAM’s impact on school climate across school characteristics.
cite page 96 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
60 percent say BTAM decreased violence or significantly so; 57 percent suicidality or self-harm
Sample (N = 1377) · Teams answering program impact questions
As shown in Figure 12.4, 60 percent of principals said they felt that BTAM decreased or significantly decreased violence rates, and 57 percent believe that BTAM decreased or significantly decreased rates of suicidality or self-harm.
cite page 97 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Principals who did not perceive decreased violence said BTAM had no impact
The principals who did not perceive that BTAM decreased rates of violence said they believe that the program was having no impact.
cite page 97 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Only 2 percent of principals believe BTAM increased or significantly increased the level of violence
Sample (N = 1377) · Teams answering program impact questions
Only 2 percent of principals believe that BTAM increased or significantly increased the level of violence.
cite page 97 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Principals tended to say BTAM 'decreased' rather than 'significantly decreased' violence or suicides
Notably, principals tended to respond that BTAM “decreased,” as opposed to “significantly decreased,” levels of violence or suicides at their schools.
cite page 97 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Figure 12.4 Violence rates – Total: sig. decreased 10, decreased 49, total 60
Sample (N = 1377) · Teams answering program impact questions
Violence rates – Total | 10 | 49 | 60
cite page 97 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Figure 12.4 Violence rates – Elementary (reference group): sig. decreased 11, decreased 45, total 56
Sample (n = undeterminable of 1377) · Teams answering program impact questions
Violence rates – Elementary (reference group) | 11 | 45 | 56
cite page 97 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Figure 12.4 Violence rates – Middle: sig. decreased 12, decreased 54, total 66*
Sample (n = undeterminable of 1377) · Teams answering program impact questions
Violence rates – Middle | 12 | 54 | 66*
cite page 97 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Figure 12.4 Violence rates – High: sig. decreased 9, decreased 56, total 65*
Sample (n = undeterminable of 1377) · Teams answering program impact questions
Violence rates – High | 9 | 56 | 65*
cite page 97 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Figure 12.4 Rates of suicidality or self-harm – Total: sig. decreased 11, decreased 46, total 57
Sample (N = 1377) · Teams answering program impact questions
Rates of suicidality or self-harm – Total | 11 | 46 | 57
cite page 97 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Fig 12.4 Suicidality or self-harm, Elementary (ref): sig. decreased 13, decreased 41, total 54
Sample (n = undeterminable of 1377) · Teams answering program impact questions
Rates of suicidality or self-harm – Elementary (reference group) | 13 | 41 | 54
cite page 97 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Figure 12.4 Rates of suicidality or self-harm – Middle: sig. decreased 10, decreased 50, total 60
Sample (n = undeterminable of 1377) · Teams answering program impact questions
Rates of suicidality or self-harm – Middle | 10 | 50 | 60
cite page 97 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Figure 12.4 Rates of suicidality or self-harm – High: sig. decreased 10, decreased 55, total 65*
Sample (n = undeterminable of 1377) · Teams answering program impact questions
Rates of suicidality or self-harm – High | 10 | 55 | 65*
cite page 97 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Most principals perceived their BTAM program was having some impact on violence levels
Most principals perceived that their school’s BTAM program was having some impact on levels of violence at their school.
cite page 97 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
7 percent of principals said BTAM leads to increased use of exclusionary discipline
Sample (N = 1377) · Teams answering program impact questions
Few principals (7 percent) said they believe that BTAM programs are leading to increased use of exclusionary discipline practices.
cite page 98 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Principals were split over whether BTAM decreased exclusionary discipline or had no impact
As shown in Figure 12.5, principals were split over whether their BTAM program decreased their use of exclusionary discipline practices or had no impact in this area.
cite page 98 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Most principals believe BTAM did not contribute to disparities in exclusionary discipline
Most principals also believe that their BTAM programs did not contribute to disparities in the use of exclusionary discipline practices across different groups of students.
cite page 98 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Figure 12.5 Suspension and expulsion rates overall: decreased 53, no impact 40, increase 7
Sample (N = 1377) · Teams answering program impact questions
Suspension and expulsion rates overall | 53 | 40 | 7
cite page 98 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Figure 12.5 Disparities by race: decreased 40, no impact 58 (increase label removed)
Sample (N = 1377) · Teams answering program impact questions
Race | 40 | 58 | [unlabeled]
cite page 98 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Figure 12.5 Disparities by gender: decreased 35, no impact 63 (increase label removed)
Sample (N = 1377) · Teams answering program impact questions
Gender | 35 | 63
cite page 98 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
Fig 12.5 Disparities by special education status: decreased 43, no impact 54 (increase unlabeled)
Sample (N = 1377) · Teams answering program impact questions
Special education status | 43 | 54
cite page 98 Ch 12: What Do Principals Think Are the Effects of Their BTAM Programs?
71 percent of principals believe their school community is supportive of BTAM
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
As shown in Figure 13.1, 71 percent of principals overall, across all school characteristics, believe that their school community is supportive of BTAM.
cite page 100 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
43 percent of principals perceive their school community as supportive; 27 percent as somewhat suppo
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
This includes 43 percent who perceive their school community as supportive and 27 percent who perceive their community as somewhat supportive.
cite page 100 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Large-school principals slightly likelier than small-school to see community supportive (74 vs 67%)
Sample (N = 1376 total; column N not printed) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
Principals of large schools were slightly more likely than principals of small schools to view their community as supportive of BTAM (74 versus 67 percent, respectively).
cite page 100 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
No guarantee that valuable programs will be successfully sustained over time
Even when schools adopt valuable programs that help students and lead to better outcomes—not just for school safety but also for academic, school climate, and other goals—there is no guarantee that these programs will be successfully sustained over time.
cite page 100 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Principals in varied school settings perceive their school community as supportive of BTAM
Principals who serve in a variety of school settings perceive that their school community is supportive of BTAM as a school safety approach.
cite page 100 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Only one statistically significant difference in community support by school characteristics
We observed only one statistically significant difference when it comes to school characteristics
cite page 100 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Total: supportive 43 percent, somewhat supportive 27 percent, total 71 percent
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
Total | 43 | 27 | 71
cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Level: Elementary: supportive 44 percent, somewhat supportive 26 percent, total 70 percent
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.1 subgroup bars (school level, locale, poverty, race/ethnicity, enrollment); each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Level | Elementary | 44 | 26 | 70
cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Level: Middle: supportive 42 percent, somewhat supportive 29 percent, total 71 percent
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.1 subgroup bars (school level, locale, poverty, race/ethnicity, enrollment); each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Level | Middle | 42 | 29 | 71
cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Level: High: supportive 45 percent, somewhat supportive 28 percent, total 73 percent
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.1 subgroup bars (school level, locale, poverty, race/ethnicity, enrollment); each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Level | High | 45 | 28 | 73
cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Locale: Urban: supportive 42 percent, somewhat supportive 30 percent, total 71 percent
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.1 subgroup bars (school level, locale, poverty, race/ethnicity, enrollment); each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Locale | Urban | 42 | 30 | 71
cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Locale: Suburban: supportive 42 percent, somewhat supportive 26 percent, total 68 percent
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.1 subgroup bars (school level, locale, poverty, race/ethnicity, enrollment); each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Locale | Suburban | 42 | 26 | 68
cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Locale: Rural: supportive 46 percent, somewhat supportive 26 percent, total 72 percent
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.1 subgroup bars (school level, locale, poverty, race/ethnicity, enrollment); each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Locale | Rural | 46 | 26 | 72
cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Neighborhood poverty level: High: supportive 47 percent, somewhat supportive 25 percent, total 72 pe
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.1 subgroup bars (school level, locale, poverty, race/ethnicity, enrollment); each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Neighborhood poverty level | High | 47 | 25 | 72
cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Neighborhood poverty level: Middle: supportive 42 percent, somewhat supportive 28 percent, total 70
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.1 subgroup bars (school level, locale, poverty, race/ethnicity, enrollment); each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Neighborhood poverty level | Middle | 42 | 28 | 70
cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Neighborhood poverty level: Low: supportive 43 percent, somewhat supportive 27 percent, total 70 per
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.1 subgroup bars (school level, locale, poverty, race/ethnicity, enrollment); each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Neighborhood poverty level | Low | 43 | 27 | 70
cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Student racial/ethnic composition: Majority White students: supportive 46 percent, somewhat supporti
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.1 subgroup bars (school level, locale, poverty, race/ethnicity, enrollment); each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Student racial/ethnic composition | Majority White students | 46 | 26 | 72
cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Student racial/ethnic composition: Majority students of color: supportive 41 percent, somewhat suppo
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.1 subgroup bars (school level, locale, poverty, race/ethnicity, enrollment); each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Student racial/ethnic composition | Majority students of color | 41 | 28 | 69
cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Enrollment size: Small: supportive 44 percent, somewhat supportive 24 percent, total 67 percent
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.1 subgroup bars (school level, locale, poverty, race/ethnicity, enrollment); each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Enrollment size | Small | 44 | 24 | 67
cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Enrollment size: Large: supportive 43 percent, somewhat supportive 31 percent, total 74 percent
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.1 subgroup bars (school level, locale, poverty, race/ethnicity, enrollment); each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Enrollment size | Large | 43 | 31 | 74
cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Figure 13.1 bars may not sum to totals because of rounding
Bars may not sum to totals because of rounding.
cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Principals not seeing community as supportive said it was neutral
Principals who did not see their school communities as supportive of BTAM said they believe that their communities were neutral on the topic.
cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Only 2 percent of principals said their school communities were not supportive of their BTAM program
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
Only 2 percent of principals said they perceive that their school communities were not supportive of their BTAM program.
cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Two-thirds of principals believe their BTAM program would withstand leadership change
Two-thirds of principals said they believe their school’s BTAM program would withstand leadership change (see Figure 13.2).
cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
One notable difference by school characteristics was identified
We identified one notable difference by school characteristics.
cite page 101 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Total: very unlikely 28 percent, unlikely 34 percent, total 63 percent
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
Total | 28 | 34 | 63
cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Level: Elementary: very unlikely 25 percent, unlikely 36 percent, total 61 percent
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.2 subgroup bars; each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Level | Elementary | 25 | 36 | 61
cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Level: Middle: very unlikely 33 percent, unlikely 31 percent, total 64 percent
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.2 subgroup bars; each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Level | Middle | 33 | 31 | 64
cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Level: High: very unlikely 32 percent, unlikely 33 percent, total 65 percent
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.2 subgroup bars; each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Level | High | 32 | 33 | 65
cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Locale: Urban: very unlikely 27 percent, unlikely 35 percent, total 62 percent
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.2 subgroup bars; each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Locale | Urban | 27 | 35 | 62
cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Locale: Suburban: very unlikely 33 percent, unlikely 36 percent, total 69 percent
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.2 subgroup bars; each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Locale | Suburban | 33 | 36 | 69
cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Locale: Rural: very unlikely 25 percent, unlikely 33 percent, total 58 percent
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.2 subgroup bars; each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Locale | Rural | 25 | 33 | 58
cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Neighborhood poverty level: High: very unlikely 24 percent, unlikely 31 percent, total 55 percent
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.2 subgroup bars; each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Neighborhood poverty level | High | 24 | 31 | 55
cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Neighborhood poverty level: Middle: very unlikely 29 percent, unlikely 33 percent, total 62 percent
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.2 subgroup bars; each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Neighborhood poverty level | Middle | 29 | 33 | 62
cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Neighborhood poverty level: Low: very unlikely 29 percent, unlikely 40 percent, total 69 percent
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.2 subgroup bars; each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Neighborhood poverty level | Low | 29 | 40 | 69
cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Student racial/ethnic composition: Majority White students: very unlikely 29 percent, unlikely 34 pe
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.2 subgroup bars; each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Student racial/ethnic composition | Majority White students | 29 | 34 | 63
cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Student racial/ethnic composition: Majority students of color: very unlikely 27 percent, unlikely 35
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.2 subgroup bars; each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Student racial/ethnic composition | Majority students of color | 27 | 35 | 62
cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Enrollment size: Small: very unlikely 27 percent, unlikely 32 percent, total 59 percent
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.2 subgroup bars; each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Enrollment size | Small | 27 | 32 | 59
cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Enrollment size: Large: very unlikely 29 percent, unlikely 37 percent, total 66 percent
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.2 subgroup bars; each bar is a share of its own subgroup
Enrollment size | Large | 29 | 37 | 66
cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Figure 13.2 bars may not sum to totals because of rounding
Bars may not sum to totals because of rounding.
cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Approximately four in ten schools reported a generally stable BTAM process
Approximately four in ten schools reported that their BTAM process has been generally stable, using established approaches for assessing cases and planning interventions.
cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
The other 60 percent of schools made one or more changes to BTAM since initial implementation
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
However, the other 60 percent reported that they have made one or more changes to the program since its initial implementation.
cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Principals changed BTAM to be more effective (30 percent) or to better fit school needs (24 percent)
Sample (n = undeterminable of 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
Most commonly, principals indicated that their BTAM process changed as they aimed to make it more effective at protecting the school and students (30 percent) or adjustments were needed for BTAM to better fit their school’s needs (24 percent).
cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Few schools changed BTAM due to resource constraints (12 percent) or community concerns about studen
Sample (n = undeterminable of 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
Few schools reported making changes in response to specific problems, such as resource or other constraints that limited the capacity of BTAM (12 percent) or concerns in the community about how BTAM would affect students (3 percent).
cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
14 percent of schools changed their BTAM process in response to changes to state law or policy
Sample (N = 1376) · Official BTAM teams only answering Table A.51
That said, 14 percent of schools did change their BTAM process in response to changes to state law or policy regarding BTAM.
cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Schools in 2019 early-legislation states most likely to change processes in response to state law or
Schools located in our group of states with early legislation in 2019 (see Chapter 1) were most likely to indicate that their processes had changed in response to such shifts in state law or policy.
cite page 102 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
A slight majority of schools (56 percent) report currently experiencing one or more of the 13 challe
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
A slight majority of schools (56 percent) said their school’s BTAM program is currently experiencing (or has experienced) one or more of the 13 challenges.
cite page 103 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Among schools with challenges, half identified one or two
Among those who were experiencing current challenges, half of schools identified one or two.
cite page 103 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Very few schools identified more than five challenges
Very few schools identified more than five challenges.
cite page 103 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Most common challenge, 30 percent of schools: parents unwilling to implement or participate in inter
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
The most common challenge, selected by 30 percent of schools, relates to the unwillingness of parents when it comes to implementing or participating in recommended interventions.
cite page 103 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Second most common challenge, 21 percent of schools: service provider capacity limits on students se
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
The second most commonly identified challenge, selected by 21 percent of schools, relates to service provider capacity limits over how many students they are able to serve.
cite page 103 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Parents unwilling to implement or participate in recommended interventions: 30 percent
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
Parents unwilling to implement or participate in recommended interventions | 30
cite page 103 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Service provider capacity limits for how many students each can serve: 21 percent
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
Service provider capacity limits for how many students each can serve | 21
cite page 103 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Staffing constraints make BTAM difficult to maintain: 16 percent
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
Staffing constraints make BTAM difficult to maintain | 16
cite page 103 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Problems maintaining connections to outside service providers for intervention: 16 percent
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
Problems maintaining connections to outside service providers for intervention | 16
cite page 103 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Parents unable to support individual intervention efforts: 15 percent
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
Parents unable to support individual intervention efforts
cite page 103 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Staff or district leaders concerned that BTAM is too complex: 9 percent
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
Staff or district leaders concerned that BTAM is too complex | 9
cite page 103 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Concerns about BTAM effectiveness in reducing school violence: 9 percent
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
Concerns about BTAM effectiveness in reducing school violence | 9
cite page 103 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Problems getting data from outside organizations: 8 percent
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
Problems getting data from outside organizations
cite page 103 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Can't get needed training for BTAM team members: 7 percent
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
Can't get needed training for BTAM team members | 7
cite page 103 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Difficulty funding continued BTAM operation: 7 percent
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
Difficulty funding continued BTAM operation | 7
cite page 103 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Reduction in school staff support for the BTAM program: 7 percent
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
Reduction in school staff support for the BTAM program | 7
cite page 103 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Difficulties adapting BTAM to local needs: 5 percent
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
Difficulties adapting BTAM to local needs | 5
cite page 103 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Reduction in community support for the BTAM program: 2 percent
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
Reduction in community support for the BTAM program | 2
cite page 103 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Staffing constraints top internal challenge: 16 percent of schools say it makes BTAM difficult to ma
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
Staffing constraints were identified as the top internal challenge related to BTAM; 16 percent of schools reported that staffing constraints can make BTAM difficult to maintain.
cite page 104 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
7 percent of schools could not access necessary training; another 7 percent had difficulty funding B
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
Seven percent of schools also reported not being able to access necessary training, and another 7 percent reported difficulty funding continued BTAM operations.
cite page 104 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Staff time was also top concern for principals asked about BTAM initial implementation
Notably, sufficient staff time was also the top concern identified by principals who were asked questions about their experiences during BTAM’s initial implementation phase.
cite page 104 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Outside provider capacity was a top concern during initial implementation and remains a top ongoing
The capacity of outside providers (presumably to accommodate students referred by the BTAM team) was also a top concern identified by principals during the initial implementation phase, and it remains as a top ongoing challenge.
cite page 104 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Schools selected a variety of challenges, none coalescing around a single systemic problem
Importantly, even though schools selected a variety of challenges, they did not coalesce around any single challenge that might indicate more systemic problems operating a BTAM program.
cite page 104 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
At most, only a minority of schools experienced any one challenge
At most, only a minority of schools experienced any one challenge.
cite page 104 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Limited evidence, small differences, for training and staff-support challenges by school characteris
Although the differences were small, we found some limited evidence for two challenges in particular: (1) training for BTAM team members and (2) reduction in school staff support for a BTAM program.
cite page 104 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Urban, high-poverty, majority-students-of-color school principals especially likely to report these
Principals of urban schools, high-poverty schools, and schools serving a majority of students of color (highly overlapping categories) were especially likely to report experiencing these two challenges.
cite page 104 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
10 percent of urban, 7 percent of suburban, 5 percent of rural principals struggled to get needed BT
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Locale groups (urban, suburban, rural) among schools with a BTAM team; each figure is a share of its own locale group
For example, 10 percent of urban school principals said they struggled to get needed BTAM training, as did 7 percent of suburban school principals and 5 percent of rural school principals.
cite page 104 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
87 percent of principals reported their BTAM team engaged in one or more review or continuous improv
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
Overall, 87 percent of principals reported that their school’s BTAM team engaged in one or more of the review or continuous improvement processes included as survey response options.
cite page 104 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Responses clustered around a handful of processes; very few schools did all or most activities
As shown in Figure 13.4, responses clustered around a handful of review or continuous improvement processes; very few schools engaged in all or even most of the activities we asked about.
cite page 104 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
For any one review activity, only a minority of schools engaged in it
only a minority of schools reported engaging in each action.
cite page 104 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Most common activity: after-action reviews of individual cases, reported by 48 percent of principals
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
Principals most commonly reported conducting after-action reviews of individual cases (48 percent reported doing so).
cite page 104 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Schools with large BTAM teams (more roles) engaged in more review activities than schools with small
Perhaps unsurprisingly, schools with large BTAM teams (meaning teams with more roles represented) engaged in more review and continuous improvement activities, compared with schools with smaller teams (see Figure 13.5).
cite page 104 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
38 percent of schools with large BTAM teams validate intervention options are delivered as designed
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Schools with large BTAM teams
For example, 38 percent of schools with large BTAM teams validate that specific
Why inferred The sentence crosses a page break: this quote is the page 104 part and the sentence continues on page 105. Full sentence (pages 104–105): “For example, 38 percent of schools with large BTAM teams validate that specific intervention options are being delivered as designed, by appropriately trained staff, and for the amount of time recommended in an intervention plan.”
cite page 104 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
0 review or continuous improvement processes: 13 percent of schools
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
| 0 | 13 |
cite page 105 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
1 review or continuous improvement processes: 21 percent of schools
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
| 1 | 21 |
cite page 105 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
2 review or continuous improvement processes: 16 percent of schools
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
| 2 | 16 |
cite page 105 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
3 review or continuous improvement processes: 15 percent of schools
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
| 3 | 15 |
cite page 105 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
4 review or continuous improvement processes: 13 percent of schools
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
| 4 | 13 |
cite page 105 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
5 review or continuous improvement processes: 6 percent of schools
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
| 5 | 6 |
cite page 105 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
6 review or continuous improvement processes: 5 percent of schools
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
| 6 | 5 |
cite page 105 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
7 review or continuous improvement processes: 4 percent of schools
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
| 7 | 4 |
cite page 105 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
8 review or continuous improvement processes: 2 percent of schools
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
| 8 | 2 |
cite page 105 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
9 review or continuous improvement processes: 1 percent of schools
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
| 9 | 1 |
cite page 105 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
10 review or continuous improvement processes: 2 percent of schools
Sample (N = 1376) · Teams answering community support / challenges / processes / training questions
| 10 | 2 |
cite page 105 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Figure 13.4 percentages do not sum to 100 percent because of rounding
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)
Percentages do not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
cite page 105 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Only 22 percent of schools with small BTAM teams validate intervention delivery as designed
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Schools with small BTAM teams
In comparison, only 22 percent of schools with small BTAM teams engaged in these types of activities.
cite page 105 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Larger teams more likely to reassess intervention menus, analyze outcome data, and collect feedback
Schools with larger teams were also more likely to engage in other activities, such as periodic reassessments of the menu of BTAM intervention options, analysis of student outcome data, and collecting feedback from students and parents or guardians at case closure.
cite page 105 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
We conduct after-action reviews of individual cases: small team 41 percent, large team 49 percent
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.5 columns: schools with small BTAM teams; schools with large BTAM teams
We conduct after-action reviews of individual cases | 41 | 49
cite page 106 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
We collect and analyze data about how specific intervention options are influencing student-level ou
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.5 columns: schools with small BTAM teams; schools with large BTAM teams
We collect and analyze data about how specific intervention options are influencing student-level outcomes | 35 | 41
cite page 106 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
We validate that specific intervention options are being delivered as designed, by appropriately tra
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.5 columns: schools with small BTAM teams; schools with large BTAM teams
We validate that specific intervention options are being delivered as designed, by appropriately trained staff, and for the recommended amount of time* | 22 | 38
cite page 106 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
We collect feedback from school staff who have been directly involved in implementing BTAM intervent
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.5 columns: schools with small BTAM teams; schools with large BTAM teams
We collect feedback from school staff who have been directly involved in implementing BTAM interventions* | 25 | 33
cite page 106 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
We periodically assess and revise the menu of interventions available to the BTAM team*: small team
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.5 columns: schools with small BTAM teams; schools with large BTAM teams
We periodically assess and revise the menu of interventions available to the BTAM team* | 23 | 31
cite page 106 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
We collect and analyze data on student outcomes across all students served by the program to monitor
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.5 columns: schools with small BTAM teams; schools with large BTAM teams
We collect and analyze data on student outcomes across all students served by the program to monitor the overall effectiveness of our BTAM efforts* | 17 | 30
cite page 106 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
We carry out training and outreach for the school staff and students to maintain knowledge of BTAM a
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.5 columns: schools with small BTAM teams; schools with large BTAM teams
We carry out training and outreach for the school staff and students to maintain knowledge of BTAM and how to refer individuals of concern* | 15 | 24
cite page 106 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
We collect feedback from students and/or parents/guardians of students once their BTAM intervention
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.5 columns: schools with small BTAM teams; schools with large BTAM teams
We collect feedback from students and/or parents/guardians of students once their BTAM intervention is complete* | 13 | 20
cite page 106 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
We collect feedback from students, parents/guardians, and/or staff who were the targets or victims o
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.5 columns: schools with small BTAM teams; schools with large BTAM teams
We collect feedback from students, parents/guardians, and/or staff who were the targets or victims of threatening behavior | 18 | 19
cite page 106 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
We collect and analyze data on student outcomes for different student populations to assess the fair
Sample (column N undeterminable) · Figure 13.5 columns: schools with small BTAM teams; schools with large BTAM teams
We collect and analyze data on student outcomes for different student populations to assess the fairness of our BTAM efforts*
cite page 106 Ch 13: Sustaining and Improving BTAM Programs over Time
Survey fielded to a nationally representative sample of school administrators in January 2025
To do so, we drew on data collected via a survey fielded to a nationally representative sample of school administrators in January 2025.
Ten years ago, fewer than half of schools had BTAM teams in place
This is a significant shift relative to ten years ago, when fewer than half of schools had BTAM teams in place.
Most principals said initial implementation was relatively smooth and became effective quickly
When we asked principals who had played a role in establishing their school’s BTAM program questions about the initial implementation phase, most indicated it was relatively smooth and that their program became an effective contributor to safety at their school relatively quickly.
Schools in states with 2019 mandate or encouragement via non-codified policy are ahead
Our analyses show that schools in states that mandated or otherwise encouraged BTAM implementation at K–12 schools through non-codified policy in 2019 are ahead in terms of their BTAM implementation.
Those states’ schools more likely to have standard meeting schedules, written SOPs and policies
Today, schools in these states are more likely to have standardized meeting schedules for their BTAM teams, as well as written SOPs and defining policy documents for their BTAM programs.
A main concern is that schools may cast an overly wide net to low-level incidents
One of the main concerns about BTAM is the possibility that schools may cast an overly wide net, such that their BTAM program addresses low-level behavioral incidents (e.g., talking back to a teacher or other disruptive classroom behavior) best suited for other school behavioral management and student support systems.
Descriptive and scenario results show BTAM teams rarely made the initial decision on incidents
We saw this both in descriptive survey results and in principals’ responses to scenario-based survey items, where principals identified that BTAM teams rarely made the initial decision in response to incidents.
Report took an in-depth look at the state of BTAM in K–12 public schools
In this report, we took an in-depth look at the state of BTAM in K–12 public schools across the country.
Schools mostly use distinct thresholds to decide which incidents are referred to BTAM teams
distinct thresholds to determine which incidents warrant referral to BTAM teams, particularly in cases of significant concern.
Why inferred The sentence crosses a page break: this quote is the page 109 part and the sentence begins on page 108. Full sentence (pages 108–109): “Both analyses revealed that schools mostly use distinct thresholds to determine which incidents warrant referral to BTAM teams, particularly in cases of significant concern.”
Most schools incorporate individualized interventions, tailoring supports to student needs
Most schools are incorporating individualized interventions into plans developed as part of the threat management process, often tailoring supports to meet the specific needs and circumstances of students.
Principals’ responses show schools use a variety of interventions addressing root causes
Principals’ responses demonstrate that schools are using a variety of interventions to address the root cause of student behaviors and treat a broad range of student needs.
Scenario responses reveal schools are not overly relying on any single intervention
Responses to scenario-based questions in particular reveal that schools are not overly relying on any single intervention to address student needs, which is appropriate for the types of complex cases often referred to BTAM teams.
Discussion: schools prioritize counseling, trusted relationships, skill-building over restriction
Survey results show that schools prioritize interventions, such as counseling with mental health professionals, building trusted relationships with adults, and skill-building services over restrictive measures.
Discussion: even in the most severe scenarios, supportive interventions were the largest share
Even in the most severe scenarios presented to principals, supportive interventions consistently composed the largest share of response strategies.
Over 75 percent rarely or never use exclusionary discipline; 80 percent rarely or never arrest
Sample (N = 1379) · Teams answering exclusionary discipline and arrest/prosecution questions (Figure 9.2)
Over 75 percent said they rarely or never use exclusionary discipline, and 80 percent rarely or never arrest or prosecute students referred to BTAM teams.
Only 20 percent of schools directly involve parents in planning; most consult them
Sample (n = undeterminable of 1384) · Teams answering intervention/safety plan components question
Though our survey results show that only 20 percent of schools directly involve parents in the intervention and support planning process, an overwhelming majority consult parents as part of this process.
One-third of schools believe parents’ unwillingness to implement or participate is a key challenge
In fact, one-third of schools believe that parents’ unwillingness to implement or participate in recommended interventions is a key challenge to operating their BTAM program.
Discussion: principals believe BTAM has a net positive impact on safety and school climate
Principals around the country believe that BTAM is having a net positive impact on improving safety at their schools and also helping to create more positive school climates.
Principals think BTAM is decreasing rates of crime, violence and self-harm
Survey responses show that principals think BTAM is decreasing rates of crime and violence at school, as well as rates of self-harm.
Many principals strongly agree BTM is preferred over exclusionary discipline approaches
Many also strongly agree that BTM is a preferred approach to managing student behavior concerns, compared with previous approaches that relied primarily on exclusionary discipline measures.
Even though most schools adopted BTAM, there is considerable variability in approaches
Even though most schools have adopted BTAM, there is still considerable variability in the approaches they use.
Schools often borrow selectively from named programs and blend them with local practices
According to principals’ reports, schools often borrow selectively from nationally recognized, named programs and blend elements from these programs with locally developed practices.
Some schools rely on modified named programs while others opt for fully localized approaches
Schools rely on named programs with modifications tailored to their specific needs, while others opt for fully localized approaches.
There is considerable variability in training for BTAM members across schools
There is considerable variability in training for BTAM members across schools.
Fewer than half of schools provide annual training; about one-quarter only as needed
Fewer than half of schools provide BTAM team members with annual training, and approximately one-quarter of schools only provide training on an as-needed basis.
Urban and high-poverty schools particularly likely to report challenges accessing training
Schools located in urban and high-poverty areas are particularly likely to report challenges accessing training, highlighting obstacles that additional funding sources and support could help address.
Little standardization in team structure, meetings, information gathering, case review, evaluation
There is little standardization in the way of BTAM team structure and meeting frequency, information-gathering and case review processes, and program evaluation.
Principals presented a mixed picture: some structured processes, most less formalized deliberations
Principals presented a mixed picture of how their BTAM teams approach these various elements, with some schools following structured processes but most relying on less formalized deliberations.
Half of schools do not have formal policies guiding their BTAM program and half do not have SOPs
The reality is that half of schools do not have formal policies guiding their BTAM program and half do not have SOPs.
Discussion: considerable variation in how teams deliver interventions and management plans
There is also considerable variation in how BTAM teams deliver interventions and develop management plans for students.
Most teams emphasize individualized interventions but differ in decisionmaking and tools
Although most teams emphasize individualized interventions tailored to student needs, there are wide differences in how teams structure their decisionmaking, draw on inventory resources, and use decision support tools.
Most schools conduct some review or reflection, but many lack systematic continuous improvement
Although most schools conduct some form of review or reflection process to understand the impact that BTAM is having on student- and school-level outcomes, many lack deep or systematic approaches to continuous improvement.
Only a small percentage used systematic data analysis or validation of intervention delivery
Only a small percentage of schools reported that they engaged in review processes that included systematic data analysis or validation of intervention delivery by appropriately trained staff.
Items administered in eight modules; not all respondents received each module (A.1-A.65)
Our survey items were administered as part of eight different modules, and not all respondents received each module (Tables A.1–A.13 in Module 1; Tables A.14–A.19 in Module 2; Tables A.20–A.30 in Module 3; Tables A.31–A.32 in Module 4; Tables A.33–A.50 in Module 5; Tables A.51–A.57 in Module 6; Tables A.58–A.60 in Module 7; and Tables A.61–A.65 in Module 8).
All appendix estimates are weighted to represent national K–12 public school principals and their sc
All survey estimates presented below have been weighted to be representative of the national population of K–12 public school principals and the schools in which they serve.
Table A.1: No, 77.7 weighted percent
Sample (N = 1746) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
| No | 77.7 |
Table A.1: Yes, 22.3 weighted percent
Sample (N = 1746) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
| Yes | 22.3 |
Table A.1 note: This question was taken from the American Teacher Panel Omnibus survey (see Jackson
This question was taken from the American Teacher Panel Omnibus survey (see Jackson et al., 2023).
Table A.2: No, 59.7 weighted percent
Sample (N = 1745) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
| No | 59.7 |
Table A.2: Yes, 40.3 weighted percent
Sample (N = 1745) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
No | 59.7 | | Yes | 40.3 |
Table A.2 note: This question was taken from the American Teacher Panel Omnibus survey (see Jackson
This question was taken from the American Teacher Panel Omnibus survey (see Jackson et al., 2023).
Table A.3: 0, 33.5 weighted percent
Sample (N = 1745) · Respondents answering Table A.3 (n = 1,745)
| 0 | 33.5 |
Table A.3: 1 to 4, 38.0 weighted percent
Sample (N = 1745) · Respondents answering Table A.3 (n = 1,745)
| 1 to 4 | 38.0 |
Table A.3: 5 to 10, 15.2 weighted percent
Sample (N = 1745) · Respondents answering Table A.3 (n = 1,745)
| 5 to 10 | 15.2 |
Table A.3: 11 to 20, 7.8 weighted percent
Sample (N = 1745) · Respondents answering Table A.3 (n = 1,745)
| 11 to 20 | 7.8 |
Table A.3: 21 or more, 4.6 weighted percent
Sample (N = 1745) · Respondents answering Table A.3 (n = 1,745)
| 21 or more | 4.6 |
Table A.3: Don’t know, 0.9 weighted percent
Sample (N = 1745) · Respondents answering Table A.3 (n = 1,745)
| Don’t know | 0.9 |
Table A.3 note: This question was adapted from NCES’s School Survey on Crime and Safety (Burr et al.
This question was adapted from NCES’s School Survey on Crime and Safety (Burr et al., 2024).
Table A.4: Very confident, 46.1 weighted percent
Sample (N = 1746) · Respondents answering Tables A.4 and A.5 (N = 1,746)
Very confident | 46.1
Table A.4: Confident, 38.9 weighted percent
Sample (N = 1746) · Respondents answering Tables A.4 and A.5 (N = 1,746)
| Confident | 38.9 |
Table A.4: Somewhat confident, 13.7 weighted percent
Sample (N = 1746) · Respondents answering Tables A.4 and A.5 (N = 1,746)
Somewhat confident | 13.7
Table A.4: Not confident, 1.3 weighted percent
Sample (N = 1746) · Respondents answering Tables A.4 and A.5 (N = 1,746)
Not confident | 1.3
Table A.4 note: This question was adapted from the American Teacher Panel Omnibus survey (see Jackso
This question was adapted from the American Teacher Panel Omnibus survey (see Jackson et al., 2023).
Table A.5: School counselor, 89.0 weighted percent
Sample (N = 1746) · Respondents answering Tables A.4 and A.5 (N = 1,746)
School counselor | 89.0
Table A.5: School nurse, 89.1 weighted percent
Sample (N = 1746) · Respondents answering Tables A.4 and A.5 (N = 1,746)
School nurse | 89.1
Table A.5: School social worker, 56.0 weighted percent
Sample (N = 1746) · Respondents answering Tables A.4 and A.5 (N = 1,746)
School social worker | 56.0
Table A.5: School psychologist, 67.3 weighted percent
Sample (N = 1746) · Respondents answering Tables A.4 and A.5 (N = 1,746)
School psychologist | 67.3
Table A.5: School resource officer/school-based law enforcement officer, 57.6 weighted percent
Sample (N = 1746) · Respondents answering Tables A.4 and A.5 (N = 1,746)
School resource officer/school-based law enforcement officer | 57.6
Table A.5: Non-law enforcement school security officer or guard, 22.1 weighted percent
Sample (N = 1746) · Respondents answering Tables A.4 and A.5 (N = 1,746)
Non-law enforcement school security officer or guard | 22.1
Table A.5: We do not have any of these types of staff members at our school, 0.8 weighted percent
Sample (N = 1746) · Respondents answering Tables A.4 and A.5 (N = 1,746)
We do not have any of these types of staff members at our school | 0.8
Table A.5 note: Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
Table A.6: No, 15.0 weighted percent
Sample (N = 1746) · Respondents answering Table A.6 (N = 1,746; screener question)
| No | 15.0 |
Table A.6: Yes, 82.2 weighted percent
Sample (N = 1746) · Respondents answering Table A.6 (N = 1,746; screener question)
No | 15.0 | | Yes | 82.2 |
Table A.6: Don’t know, 2.8 weighted percent
Sample (N = 1746) · Respondents answering Table A.6 (N = 1,746; screener question)
Yes | 82.2 | | Don’t know | 2.8 |
Table A.6 note: Table A.6 was a screener question used to direct appropriate modules to survey respo
This was a screener question used to direct appropriate modules to survey respondents.
Table A.7: School level, 31.0 weighted percent
Sample (N = 1441) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
School level | 31.0
Table A.7: District level, 16.4 weighted percent
Sample (N = 1441) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
District level | 16.4
Table A.7: We have both school- and district-level teams, 52.2 weighted percent
Sample (N = 1441) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
We have both school- and district-level teams | 52.2
Table A.7: Don’t know, 0.3 weighted percent
Sample (N = 1441) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
We have both school- and district-level teams | 52.2 | | Don’t know | 0.3 |
Table A.7 note: Column does not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
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)
Column does not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
Table A.7 note: Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team saw
Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team saw this question.
Table A.8: Not very familiar (e.g., you may have referred students, but are not extremely knowledgea
Sample (N = 1441) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Not very familiar (e.g., you may have referred students, but are not extremely knowledgeable about its processes) | 4.2
Table A.8: Somewhat familiar (e.g., you have referred students and/or have knowledge of the team’s p
Sample (N = 1441) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Somewhat familiar (e.g., you have referred students and/or have knowledge of the team’s processes) | 24.9
Table A.8: Extremely familiar (e.g., you are a member of the team or lead it, or otherwise have deta
Sample (N = 1441) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Extremely familiar (e.g., you are a member of the team or lead it, or otherwise have detailed knowledge) | 70.9
Table A.8 note: Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team saw
Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team saw this question.
Table A.8 note: The question stem autofilled with “your school BTAM team” if respondents said they h
The question stem autofilled with “your school BTAM team” if respondents said they had a school-level BTAM team or that they have both school- and district-level teams.
Table A.8 note: The question stem autofilled with “your district BTAM team” if respondents said they
The question stem autofilled with “your district BTAM team” if respondents said they had a district-level BTAM team.
Table A.8 note: The question stem autofilled with “this BTAM team” if the respondent said they did n
The question stem autofilled with “this BTAM team” if the respondent said they did not know the level of the team.
Table A.9: No, 81.5 weighted percent
Sample (N = 1743) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
| No | 81.5 |
Table A.9: Yes, 9.1 weighted percent
Sample (N = 1743) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
No | 81.5 | | Yes | 9.1 |
Table A.9: Don’t know, 9.3 weighted percent
Sample (N = 1743) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Yes | 9.1 | | Don’t know | 9.3 |
Table A.9 note: Column does not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
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)
Column does not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
Table A.9 note: Table A.9 was a screener question used to direct appropriate modules to survey respo
This was a screener question used to direct appropriate modules to survey respondents.
Table A.10: A community- or county-level team that responds to cases in schools and in the broader c
Sample (N = 174) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
A community- or county-level team that responds to cases in schools and in the broader community | 89.1
Table A.10: A state-level team that responds to cases as needed across the state, 5.4 weighted perce
Sample (N = 174) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
A state-level team that responds to cases as needed across the state | 5.4
Table A.10: A team managed by a federal agency (e.g., FBI) that addresses referred cases, 2.2 weight
Sample (N = 174) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
A team managed by a federal agency (e.g., FBI) that addresses referred cases | 2.2
Table A.10: A different type of team not specified here, 8.3 weighted percent
Sample (N = 174) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
A different type of team not specified here | 8.3
Table A.10 note: Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
Table A.10 note: Only respondents who said their school is served by an outside BTAM team saw this q
Only respondents who said their school is served by an outside BTAM team saw this question.
Table A.11: Not very familiar, 27.6 weighted percent
Sample (N = 174) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Not very familiar | 27.6
Table A.11: Somewhat familiar, 56.7 weighted percent
Sample (N = 174) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Somewhat familiar | 56.7
Table A.11: Extremely familiar, 15.7 weighted percent
Sample (N = 174) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Extremely familiar | 15.7
Table A.11 note: Only respondents who said their school is served by an outside BTAM team saw this q
Only respondents who said their school is served by an outside BTAM team saw this question.
Table A.12: No, 18.2 weighted percent
Sample (N = 305) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
| No | 18.2 |
Table A.12: Yes, 81.0 weighted percent
Sample (N = 305) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
No | 18.2 | | Yes | 81.0 |
Table A.12: Don’t know, 0.8 weighted percent
Sample (N = 305) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Yes | 81.0 | | Don’t know | 0.8 |
Table A.12 note: This could be a team associated with a multi-tiered system of support (MTSS) or pos
This could be a team associated with a multi-tiered system of support (MTSS) or positive behavioral intervention system (PBIS) that makes decisions about individualized interventions for serious behavioral concerns.
Table A.12 note: Table A.12 was a screener question used to direct appropriate modules to survey res
This was a screener question used to direct appropriate modules to survey respondents.
Table A.12 note: Only respondents who said their school does not have (or does not know that their s
Only respondents who said their school does not have (or does not know that their school has) a school- or district-level BTAM team saw this question.
Table A.13: Not very familiar: 11.7
Sample (N = 247) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Not very familiar (e.g., you may have referred students, but are not extremely knowledgeable about its processes) | 11.7
Table A.13: Somewhat familiar: 21.8
Sample (N = 247) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Somewhat familiar (e.g., you have referred students and/or have knowledge of the team’s processes) | 21.8
Table A.13: Extremely familiar: 66.5
Sample (N = 247) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Extremely familiar (e.g., you are a member of the team or lead it, or otherwise have detailed knowledge) | 66.5
Table A.13 note: n = 247. Only respondents who said their school has a school-based team that makes
n = 247. Only respondents who said their school has a school-based team that makes decisions regarding serious student behavioral concerns that is not referred to as a behavioral assessment and management (BTAM) team saw this question.
Table A.14 Elementary, Classroom/di…: A 57.8, B 20.2, C 1.9, D 13.2, E 25.1, F 18.7, G 13.6, H 8.3
Sample (N = 353 | 335 | 131 | 148 | 137 | 137 | 133 | 687 by column) · Table A.14 scenario columns A-H (elementary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
Classroom/direct contact teacher | 57.8 | 20.2 | 1.9 | 13.2 | 25.1 | 18.7 | 13.6 | 8.3
Table A.14 Elementary, School admin…: A 29.4, B 63.5, C 84.2, D 53.1, E 33.8, F 57.8, G 58.9, H 67.8
Sample (N = 353 | 335 | 131 | 148 | 137 | 137 | 133 | 687 by column) · Table A.14 scenario columns A-H (elementary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
School administrator (for example, principal or assistant principal) | 29.4 | 63.5 | 84.2 | 53.1 | 33.8 | 57.8 | 58.9 | 67.8
Table A.14 Elementary, School counselor: A 6.3, B 3.5, C 1.9, D 21.6, E 26.6, F 2.6, G 4.7, H 0.3
Sample (N = 353 | 335 | 131 | 148 | 137 | 137 | 133 | 687 by column) · Table A.14 scenario columns A-H (elementary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
School counselor[^a] | 6.3 | 3.5 | 1.9 | 21.6 | 26.6 | 2.6 | 4.7 | 0.3
Table A.14 Elementary, School nurse: A 0.0, B 0.0, C 0.0, D 0.0, E 0.0, F 0.0, G 0.0, H 0.0
Sample (N = 353 | 335 | 131 | 148 | 137 | 137 | 133 | 687 by column) · Table A.14 scenario columns A-H (elementary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
School nurse[^a] | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0
Table A.14 Elementary, School social worker: A 0.5, B 0.3, C 0.0, D 4.1, E 6.3, F 0.4, G 1.9, H 0.7
Sample (N = 353 | 335 | 131 | 148 | 137 | 137 | 133 | 687 by column) · Table A.14 scenario columns A-H (elementary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
School social worker[^a] | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 4.1 | 6.3 | 0.4 | 1.9 | 0.7
Table A.14 Elementary, School psychologist: A 0.1, B 0.4, C 0.0, D 0.4, E 0.7, F 1.6, G 1.7, H 0.2
Sample (N = 353 | 335 | 131 | 148 | 137 | 137 | 133 | 687 by column) · Table A.14 scenario columns A-H (elementary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
School psychologist[^a] | 0.1 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.7 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 0.2
Table A.14 Elementary, SRO or school-based…: A 0.0, B 0.1, C 0.5, D 0.0, E 0.8, F 0.0, G 0.0, H 3.1
Sample (N = 353 | 335 | 131 | 148 | 137 | 137 | 133 | 687 by column) · Table A.14 scenario columns A-H (elementary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
SRO or school-based law enforcement officer[^a] | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 3.1
Table A.14 Elementary, Law enforcement: A 0.0, B 0.0, C 0.0, D 0.0, E 0.0, F 1.2, G 0.8, H 2.0
Sample (N = 353 | 335 | 131 | 148 | 137 | 137 | 133 | 687 by column) · Table A.14 scenario columns A-H (elementary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
Law enforcement (not school-based) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.2 | 0.8 | 2.0
Table A.14 Elementary, Non-law enforcement…: A 0.0, B 0.0, C 0.0, D 0.0, E 0.0, F 0.0, G 0.0, H 0.1
Sample (N = 353 | 335 | 131 | 148 | 137 | 137 | 133 | 687 by column) · Table A.14 scenario columns A-H (elementary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
Non-law enforcement security officer or guard[^a] | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1
Table A.14 Elementary, School- or distri…: A 0.3, B 2.6, C 4.2, D 3.9, E 4.8, F 15.3, G 11.8, H 14.6
Sample (N = 353 | 335 | 131 | 148 | 137 | 137 | 133 | 687 by column) · Table A.14 scenario columns A-H (elementary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
School- or district-level multi-person BTAM team[^a] | 0.3 | 2.6 | 4.2 | 3.9 | 4.8 | 15.3 | 11.8 | 14.6
Table A.14 Elementary, Outside BTAM team se…: A 0.0, B 0.0, C 0.0, D 0.0, E 0.0, F 0.0, G 0.0, H 0.0
Sample (N = 353 | 335 | 131 | 148 | 137 | 137 | 133 | 687 by column) · Table A.14 scenario columns A-H (elementary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
Outside BTAM team serving our school[^a] | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0
Table A.14 Elementary, MTSS, PBIS, or othe…: A 3.4, B 8.5, C 1.1, D 3.1, E 0.8, F 2.4, G 4.2, H 1.6
Sample (N = 353 | 335 | 131 | 148 | 137 | 137 | 133 | 687 by column) · Table A.14 scenario columns A-H (elementary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
MTSS, PBIS, or other behavioral support team[^a] | 3.4 | 8.5 | 1.1 | 3.1 | 0.8 | 2.4 | 4.2 | 1.6
Table A.14 Elementary, Other: A 2.1, B 0.7, C 6.1, D 0.8, E 1.1, F 0.0, G 2.3, H 1.3
Sample (N = 353 | 335 | 131 | 148 | 137 | 137 | 133 | 687 by column) · Table A.14 scenario columns A-H (elementary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
Other (please specify) | 2.1 | 0.7 | 6.1 | 0.8 | 1.1 | 0.0 | 2.3 | 1.3
Table A.14 Elementary: N by scenario: A 353, B 335, C 131, D 148, E 137, F 137, G 133, H 687
N | 353 | 335 | 131 | 148 | 137 | 137 | 133 | 687
Table A.14 note: Principals were randomly assigned specific scenarios (see Appendix B).
Principals were randomly assigned specific scenarios (see Appendix B).
Table A.14 note: Columns may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
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)
Columns may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
Table A.14 note: This table includes only respondents who said their school has a school- or distric
This table includes only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
Footnote a (p. 97): response option shown only to respondents whose school had such staff
Respondents saw this response option only if they indicated previously that their school had such staff.
Table A.15 Secondary, Classroom/direct…: I 55.6, J 5.1, K 50.8, L 15.3, M 11.1, N 17.8, O 0.3, P 1.3
Sample (N = 734 | 139 | 128 | 103 | 134 | 126 | 107 | 734 by column) · Table A.15 scenario columns I-P (secondary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
Classroom/direct contact teacher | 55.6 | 5.1 | 50.8 | 15.3 | 11.1 | 17.8 | 0.3 | 1.3
Table A.15 Secondary, School admin…: I 23.0, J 85.1, K 35.4, L 76.5, M 80.3, N 44.0, O 58.1, P 77.1
Sample (N = 734 | 139 | 128 | 103 | 134 | 126 | 107 | 734 by column) · Table A.15 scenario columns I-P (secondary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
School administrator (for example, principal or assistant principal) | 23.0 | 85.1 | 35.4 | 76.5 | 80.3 | 44.0 | 58.1 | 77.1
Table A.15 Secondary, School counselor: I 8.8, J 3.9, K 9.3, L 0.0, M 0.9, N 21.9, O 11.3, P 0.8
Sample (N = 734 | 139 | 128 | 103 | 134 | 126 | 107 | 734 by column) · Table A.15 scenario columns I-P (secondary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
School counselor[^a] | 8.8 | 3.9 | 9.3 | 0.0 | 0.9 | 21.9 | 11.3 | 0.8
Table A.15 Secondary, School nurse: I 0.0, J 0.0, K 0.0, L 0.0, M 0.6, N 0.0, O 0.0, P 0.0
Sample (N = 734 | 139 | 128 | 103 | 134 | 126 | 107 | 734 by column) · Table A.15 scenario columns I-P (secondary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
School nurse[^a] | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0
Table A.15 Secondary, School social worker: I 0.4, J 0.0, K 0.0, L 0.0, M 0.0, N 2.1, O 3.0, P 0.0
Sample (N = 734 | 139 | 128 | 103 | 134 | 126 | 107 | 734 by column) · Table A.15 scenario columns I-P (secondary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
School social worker[^a] | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.1 | 3.0 | 0.0
Table A.15 Secondary, School psychologist: I 0.1, J 0.0, K 0.0, L 0.0, M 0.0, N 1.1, O 0.0, P 0.0
Sample (N = 734 | 139 | 128 | 103 | 134 | 126 | 107 | 734 by column) · Table A.15 scenario columns I-P (secondary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
School psychologist[^a] | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.1 | 0.0 | 0.0
Table A.15 Secondary, SRO or school-based…: I 0.1, J 0.0, K 0.0, L 0.6, M 0.0, N 0.0, O 6.3, P 4.5
Sample (N = 734 | 139 | 128 | 103 | 134 | 126 | 107 | 734 by column) · Table A.15 scenario columns I-P (secondary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
SRO or school-based law enforcement officer[^a] | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 6.3 | 4.5
Table A.15 Secondary, Law enforcement: I 0.0, J 0.0, K 0.0, L 0.0, M 0.0, N 0.0, O 4.9, P 1.8
Sample (N = 734 | 139 | 128 | 103 | 134 | 126 | 107 | 734 by column) · Table A.15 scenario columns I-P (secondary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
Law enforcement (not school-based) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 4.9 | 1.8
Table A.15 Secondary, Non-law enforcement…: I 0.2, J 1.7, K 0.0, L 0.0, M 0.0, N 0.0, O 0.0, P 0.5
Sample (N = 734 | 139 | 128 | 103 | 134 | 126 | 107 | 734 by column) · Table A.15 scenario columns I-P (secondary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
Non-law enforcement security officer or guard[^a] | 0.2 | 1.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.5
Table A.15 Secondary, School- or distri…: I 1.0, J 1.7, K 0.5, L 4.0, M 2.3, N 11.9, O 12.8, P 11.9
Sample (N = 734 | 139 | 128 | 103 | 134 | 126 | 107 | 734 by column) · Table A.15 scenario columns I-P (secondary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
School- or district-level multi-person BTAM team[^a] | 1.0 | 1.7 | 0.5 | 4.0 | 2.3 | 11.9 | 12.8 | 11.9
Table A.15 Secondary, Outside BTAM team se…: I 0.0, J 0.0, K 0.0, L 0.0, M 0.0, N 0.0, O 0.0, P 0.1
Sample (N = 734 | 139 | 128 | 103 | 134 | 126 | 107 | 734 by column) · Table A.15 scenario columns I-P (secondary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
Outside BTAM team serving our school[^a] | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1
Table A.15 Secondary, MTSS, PBIS, or othe…: I 9.7, J 0.5, K 3.7, L 2.4, M 3.2, N 1.2, O 0.9, P 0.3
Sample (N = 734 | 139 | 128 | 103 | 134 | 126 | 107 | 734 by column) · Table A.15 scenario columns I-P (secondary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
MTSS, PBIS, or other behavioral support team[^a] | 9.7 | 0.5 | 3.7 | 2.4 | 3.2 | 1.2 | 0.9 | 0.3
Table A.15 Secondary, Other: I 1.1, J 1.9, K 0.4, L 1.3, M 1.6, N 0.0, O 2.5, P 1.8
Sample (N = 734 | 139 | 128 | 103 | 134 | 126 | 107 | 734 by column) · Table A.15 scenario columns I-P (secondary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
Other (please specify) | 1.1 | 1.9 | 0.4 | 1.3 | 1.6 | 0.0 | 2.5 | 1.8
Table A.15 Secondary: N by scenario: I 734, J 139, K 128, L 103, M 134, N 126, O 107, P 734
N | 734 | 139 | 128 | 103 | 134 | 126 | 107 | 734
Table A.15 note: Principals were randomly assigned specific scenarios (see Appendix B).
Principals were randomly assigned specific scenarios (see Appendix B).
Table A.15 note: Columns may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
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)
Columns may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
Table A.15 note: This table includes only respondents who said their school has a school- or distric
This table includes only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
Footnote a (p. 98): response option shown only to respondents whose school had such staff
Respondents saw this response option only if they indicated previously that their school had such staff.
Table A.16 Elementary, Warning or…: A 86.4, B 48.0, C 33.2, D 54.0, E 37.8, F 40.2, G 55.0, H 23.1
Sample (N = 351 | 335 | 131 | 148 | 136 | 137 | 133 | 686 by column) · Table A.16 scenario columns A-H (elementary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
Warning or verbal correction of behavior | 86.4 | 48.0 | 33.2 | 54.0 | 37.8 | 40.2 | 55.0 | 23.1
Table A.16 Elementary, Disciplinary…: A 67.7, B 78.4, C 73.5, D 59.7, E 23.9, F 78.5, G 71.3, H 69.8
Sample (N = 351 | 335 | 131 | 148 | 136 | 137 | 133 | 686 by column) · Table A.16 scenario columns A-H (elementary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
Disciplinary measures (for example, in-school detention; removal of privileges) | 67.7 | 78.4 | 73.5 | 59.7 | 23.9 | 78.5 | 71.3 | 69.8
Table A.16 Elementary, Parent co…: A 86.0, B 83.7, C 87.8, D 88.8, E 90.4, F 92.8, G 90.9, H 85.3
Sample (N = 351 | 335 | 131 | 148 | 136 | 137 | 133 | 686 by column) · Table A.16 scenario columns A-H (elementary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
Parent consultation or home visit | 86.0 | 83.7 | 87.8 | 88.8 | 90.4 | 92.8 | 90.9 | 85.3
Table A.16 Elementary, Warning to n…: A 5.9, B 20.4, C 19.1, D 44.0, E 24.8, F 36.8, G 46.1, H 61.7
Sample (N = 351 | 335 | 131 | 148 | 136 | 137 | 133 | 686 by column) · Table A.16 scenario columns A-H (elementary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
Warning to named targets or victims of threats and safety planning to protect targets/victims | 5.9 | 20.4 | 19.1 | 44.0 | 24.8 | 36.8 | 46.1 | 61.7
Table A.16 Elementary, Behaviora…: A 17.1, B 29.3, C 18.6, D 18.8, E 21.8, F 31.8, G 47.4, H 45.2
Sample (N = 351 | 335 | 131 | 148 | 136 | 137 | 133 | 686 by column) · Table A.16 scenario columns A-H (elementary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
Behavioral or movement controls (for example, changes to arrival time or passing times) | 17.1 | 29.3 | 18.6 | 18.8 | 21.8 | 31.8 | 47.4 | 45.2
Table A.16 Elementary, Assess nee…: A 43.0, B 50.0, C 27.6, D 59.1, E 64.6, F 63.1, G 63.3, H 51.8
Sample (N = 351 | 335 | 131 | 148 | 136 | 137 | 133 | 686 by column) · Table A.16 scenario columns A-H (elementary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
Assess need for or start programming to help the student build relationships with trusted adults (for example, regular check-ins; adult mentoring) | 43.0 | 50.0 | 27.6 | 59.1 | 64.6 | 63.1 | 63.3 | 51.8
Table A.16 Elementary, Assess nee…: A 42.4, B 51.7, C 23.6, D 46.2, E 47.6, F 57.4, G 53.4, H 40.6
Sample (N = 351 | 335 | 131 | 148 | 136 | 137 | 133 | 686 by column) · Table A.16 scenario columns A-H (elementary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
Assess need for or start skill-building services (e.g., social skills- or leadership skills-building program) | 42.4 | 51.7 | 23.6 | 46.2 | 47.6 | 57.4 | 53.4 | 40.6
Table A.16 Elementary, Assess nee…: A 27.6, B 42.0, C 20.3, D 49.2, E 42.6, F 31.6, G 44.9, H 40.0
Sample (N = 351 | 335 | 131 | 148 | 136 | 137 | 133 | 686 by column) · Table A.16 scenario columns A-H (elementary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
Assess need for or start programming to help the student build peer relationships and engagement (for example, friend or peer mentor groups) | 27.6 | 42.0 | 20.3 | 49.2 | 42.6 | 31.6 | 44.9 | 40.0
Table A.16 Elementary, Assess need fo…: A 11.3, B 9.4, C 2.1, D 15.4, E 7.9, F 14.9, G 4.5, H 8.8
Sample (N = 351 | 335 | 131 | 148 | 136 | 137 | 133 | 686 by column) · Table A.16 scenario columns A-H (elementary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
Assess need for or start individualized academic or vocational programming | 11.3 | 9.4 | 2.1 | 15.4 | 7.9 | 14.9 | 4.5 | 8.8
Table A.16 Elementary, Assess need…: A 22.6, B 30.7, C 3.5, D 13.0, E 7.7, F 22.8, G 14.8, H 13.5
Sample (N = 351 | 335 | 131 | 148 | 136 | 137 | 133 | 686 by column) · Table A.16 scenario columns A-H (elementary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
Assess need for or start special education or disability supports | 22.6 | 30.7 | 3.5 | 13.0 | 7.7 | 22.8 | 14.8 | 13.5
Table A.16 Elementary, Assess nee…: A 33.3, B 45.7, C 43.4, D 62.7, E 77.1, F 65.1, G 71.7, H 70.1
Sample (N = 351 | 335 | 131 | 148 | 136 | 137 | 133 | 686 by column) · Table A.16 scenario columns A-H (elementary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
Assess need for or start mental health counseling or care | 33.3 | 45.7 | 43.4 | 62.7 | 77.1 | 65.1 | 71.7 | 70.1
Table A.16 Elementary, Assess need for…: A 2.2, B 2.8, C 71.3, D 4.7, E 4.0, F 4.8, G 0.8, H 4.2
Sample (N = 351 | 335 | 131 | 148 | 136 | 137 | 133 | 686 by column) · Table A.16 scenario columns A-H (elementary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
Assess need for or start substance use treatment | 2.2 | 2.8 | 71.3 | 4.7 | 4.0 | 4.8 | 0.8 | 4.2
Table A.16 Elementary, Assess nee…: A 14.3, B 26.9, C 39.6, D 27.5, E 52.0, F 40.7, G 46.3, H 45.8
Sample (N = 351 | 335 | 131 | 148 | 136 | 137 | 133 | 686 by column) · Table A.16 scenario columns A-H (elementary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
Assess need for or start family support and intervention programming for the student and their family | 14.3 | 26.9 | 39.6 | 27.5 | 52.0 | 40.7 | 46.3 | 45.8
Table A.16 Elementary, Temporary…: A 11.3, B 29.7, C 31.7, D 20.8, E 15.6, F 44.9, G 29.5, H 70.4
Sample (N = 351 | 335 | 131 | 148 | 136 | 137 | 133 | 686 by column) · Table A.16 scenario columns A-H (elementary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
Temporary removal from school (suspension) | 11.3 | 29.7 | 31.7 | 20.8 | 15.6 | 44.9 | 29.5 | 70.4
Table A.16 Elementary, Law enforcemen…: A 3.0, B 3.1, C 15.2, D 3.5, E 9.1, F 22.4, G 17.5, H 41.1
Sample (N = 351 | 335 | 131 | 148 | 136 | 137 | 133 | 686 by column) · Table A.16 scenario columns A-H (elementary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
Law enforcement action (for example, arrest), civil or criminal legal proceedings | 3.0 | 3.1 | 15.2 | 3.5 | 9.1 | 22.4 | 17.5 | 41.1
Table A.16 Elementary, Permanent removal…: A 1.6, B 2.2, C 1.0, D 2.5, E 0.0, F 6.8, G 5.0, H 15.0
Sample (N = 351 | 335 | 131 | 148 | 136 | 137 | 133 | 686 by column) · Table A.16 scenario columns A-H (elementary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
Permanent removal from school (expulsion, transfer to an alternative school) | 1.6 | 2.2 | 1.0 | 2.5 | 0.0 | 6.8 | 5.0 | 15.0
Table A.16 Elementary: N by scenario: A 351, B 335, C 131, D 148, E 136, F 137, G 133, H 686
N | 351 | 335 | 131 | 148 | 136 | 137 | 133 | 686
Table A.16 note: Principals were randomly assigned specific scenarios (see Appendix B).
Principals were randomly assigned specific scenarios (see Appendix B).
Table A.16 note: Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
Table A.16 note: This table includes only respondents who said their school has a school- or distric
This table includes only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
Table A.17 Secondary, Warning or…: I 72.5, J 25.5, K 85.5, L 34.9, M 41.7, N 32.5, O 15.4, P 18.8
Sample (N = 734 | 139 | 128 | 103 | 134 | 126 | 105 | 733 by column) · Table A.17 scenario columns I-P (secondary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
Warning or verbal correction of behavior | 72.5 | 25.5 | 85.5 | 34.9 | 41.7 | 32.5 | 15.4 | 18.8
Table A.17 Secondary, Disciplinary…: I 59.8, J 79.1, K 52.9, L 74.6, M 87.3, N 32.3, O 36.0, P 67.7
Sample (N = 734 | 139 | 128 | 103 | 134 | 126 | 105 | 733 by column) · Table A.17 scenario columns I-P (secondary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
Disciplinary measures (for example, in-school detention; removal of privileges) | 59.8 | 79.1 | 52.9 | 74.6 | 87.3 | 32.3 | 36.0 | 67.7
Table A.17 Secondary, Parent consul…: I 83.4, J 92.1, K 67.1, L 80.7, M 87.1, N 89.4, O 88.1, P 87.5
Sample (N = 734 | 139 | 128 | 103 | 134 | 126 | 105 | 733 by column) · Table A.17 scenario columns I-P (secondary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
Parent consultation or home visit | 83.4 | 92.1 | 67.1 | 80.7 | 87.1 | 89.4 | 88.1 | 87.5
Table A.17 Secondary, Warning to named…: I 7.3, J 9.8, K 18.1, L 9.5, M 13.1, N 24.1, O 46.8, P 57.7
Sample (N = 734 | 139 | 128 | 103 | 134 | 126 | 105 | 733 by column) · Table A.17 scenario columns I-P (secondary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
Warning to named targets or victims of threats and safety planning to protect targets/victims | 7.3 | 9.8 | 18.1 | 9.5 | 13.1 | 24.1 | 46.8 | 57.7
Table A.17 Secondary, Behavioral or…: I 11.2, J 34.2, K 18.1, L 11.6, M 26.8, N 28.6, O 34.9, P 56.3
Sample (N = 734 | 139 | 128 | 103 | 134 | 126 | 105 | 733 by column) · Table A.17 scenario columns I-P (secondary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
Behavioral or movement controls (for example, changes to arrival time or passing times) | 11.2 | 34.2 | 18.1 | 11.6 | 26.8 | 28.6 | 34.9 | 56.3
Table A.17 Secondary, Assess nee…: I 30.3, J 47.3, K 24.4, L 16.5, M 48.4, N 61.1, O 58.3, P 44.0
Sample (N = 734 | 139 | 128 | 103 | 134 | 126 | 105 | 733 by column) · Table A.17 scenario columns I-P (secondary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
Assess need for or start programming to help the student build relationships with trusted adults (for example, regular check-ins; adult mentoring) | 30.3 | 47.3 | 24.4 | 16.5 | 48.4 | 61.1 | 58.3 | 44.0
Table A.17 Secondary, Assess nee…: I 25.8, J 25.8, K 18.7, L 12.2, M 36.1, N 44.2, O 33.4, P 31.0
Sample (N = 734 | 139 | 128 | 103 | 134 | 126 | 105 | 733 by column) · Table A.17 scenario columns I-P (secondary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
Assess need for or start skill-building services (e.g., social skills- or leadership skills-building program) | 25.8 | 25.8 | 18.7 | 12.2 | 36.1 | 44.2 | 33.4 | 31.0
Table A.17 Secondary, Assess nee…: I 16.4, J 21.3, K 23.1, L 12.4, M 20.4, N 46.4, O 31.5, P 32.4
Sample (N = 734 | 139 | 128 | 103 | 134 | 126 | 105 | 733 by column) · Table A.17 scenario columns I-P (secondary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
Assess need for or start programming to help the student build peer relationships and engagement (for example, friend or peer mentor groups) | 16.4 | 21.3 | 23.1 | 12.4 | 20.4 | 46.4 | 31.5 | 32.4
Table A.17 Secondary, Assess need for or…: I 37.2, J 9.9, K 2.2, L 1.8, M 8.3, N 11.5, O 12.0, P 8.2
Sample (N = 734 | 139 | 128 | 103 | 134 | 126 | 105 | 733 by column) · Table A.17 scenario columns I-P (secondary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
Assess need for or start individualized academic or vocational programming | 37.2 | 9.9 | 2.2 | 1.8 | 8.3 | 11.5 | 12.0 | 8.2
Table A.17 Secondary, Assess need for…: I 33.7, J 8.0, K 2.3, L 3.7, M 29.2, N 13.9, O 14.2, P 12.7
Sample (N = 734 | 139 | 128 | 103 | 134 | 126 | 105 | 733 by column) · Table A.17 scenario columns I-P (secondary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
Assess need for or start special education or disability supports | 33.7 | 8.0 | 2.3 | 3.7 | 29.2 | 13.9 | 14.2 | 12.7
Table A.17 Secondary, Assess nee…: I 21.4, J 68.1, K 18.2, L 20.8, M 56.1, N 81.9, O 70.6, P 61.8
Sample (N = 734 | 139 | 128 | 103 | 134 | 126 | 105 | 733 by column) · Table A.17 scenario columns I-P (secondary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
Assess need for or start mental health counseling or care | 21.4 | 68.1 | 18.2 | 20.8 | 56.1 | 81.9 | 70.6 | 61.8
Table A.17 Secondary, Assess need for…: I 4.1, J 68.1, K 2.0, L 4.6, M 6.5, N 13.4, O 16.0, P 8.8
Sample (N = 734 | 139 | 128 | 103 | 134 | 126 | 105 | 733 by column) · Table A.17 scenario columns I-P (secondary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
Assess need for or start substance use treatment | 4.1 | 68.1 | 2.0 | 4.6 | 6.5 | 13.4 | 16.0 | 8.8
Table A.17 Secondary, Assess need fo…: I 12.3, J 40.9, K 4.5, L 12.3, M 27.3, N 49.6, O 46.0, P 37.6
Sample (N = 734 | 139 | 128 | 103 | 134 | 126 | 105 | 733 by column) · Table A.17 scenario columns I-P (secondary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
Assess need for or start family support and intervention programming for the student and their family | 12.3 | 40.9 | 4.5 | 12.3 | 27.3 | 49.6 | 46.0 | 37.6
Table A.17 Secondary, Temporary rem…: I 7.9, J 60.3, K 9.2, L 56.1, M 48.0, N 26.6, O 51.7, P 72.9
Sample (N = 734 | 139 | 128 | 103 | 134 | 126 | 105 | 733 by column) · Table A.17 scenario columns I-P (secondary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
Temporary removal from school (suspension) | 7.9 | 60.3 | 9.2 | 56.1 | 48.0 | 26.6 | 51.7 | 72.9
Table A.17 Secondary, Law enforcemen…: I 4.7, J 32.4, K 3.8, L 26.4, M 12.8, N 25.4, O 51.7, P 52.7
Sample (N = 734 | 139 | 128 | 103 | 134 | 126 | 105 | 733 by column) · Table A.17 scenario columns I-P (secondary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
Law enforcement action (for example, arrest), civil or criminal legal proceedings | 4.7 | 32.4 | 3.8 | 26.4 | 12.8 | 25.4 | 51.7 | 52.7
Table A.17 Secondary, Permanent rem…: I 3.0, J 12.2, K 3.3, L 11.1, M 8.2, N 12.0, O 23.9, P 18.6
Sample (N = 734 | 139 | 128 | 103 | 134 | 126 | 105 | 733 by column) · Table A.17 scenario columns I-P (secondary), schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team
Permanent removal from school (expulsion, transfer to an alternative school) | 3.0 | 12.2 | 3.3 | 11.1 | 8.2 | 12.0 | 23.9 | 18.6
Table A.17 Secondary: N by scenario: I 734, J 139, K 128, L 103, M 134, N 126, O 105, P 733
N | 734 | 139 | 128 | 103 | 134 | 126 | 105 | 733
Table A.17 note: Principals were randomly assigned specific scenarios (see Appendix B).
Principals were randomly assigned specific scenarios (see Appendix B).
Table A.17 note: Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
Table A.17 note: Includes only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTA
Includes only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
Table A.18 Elementary, No: A 72.8, B 45.4, C 44.8, D 22.2, E 15.0, F 8.6, G 13.4, H 4.7
Sample (N = 350 | 326 | 126 | 142 | 130 | 114 | 119 | 589 by column) · Principals at schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team whose multi-person team would not make the initial decision (Table A.18 scenario columns A-H)
No | 72.8 | 45.4 | 44.8 | 22.2 | 15.0 | 8.6 | 13.4 | 4.7
Table A.18 Elementary, Yes: A 27.2, B 54.6, C 55.2, D 77.8, E 85.0, F 91.4, G 86.6, H 95.3
Sample (N = 350 | 326 | 126 | 142 | 130 | 114 | 119 | 589 by column) · Principals at schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team whose multi-person team would not make the initial decision (Table A.18 scenario columns A-H)
Yes | 27.2 | 54.6 | 55.2 | 77.8 | 85.0 | 91.4 | 86.6 | 95.3
Table A.18 Elementary: N by scenario: A 350, B 326, C 126, D 142, E 130, F 114, G 119, H 589
N | 350 | 326 | 126 | 142 | 130 | 114 | 119 | 589
Table A.18 note: Principals were randomly assigned specific scenarios (see Appendix B).
Principals were randomly assigned specific scenarios (see Appendix B).
Table A.18 note: This table includes only respondents who said their school has a school- or distric
This table includes only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
Table A.18 note: Only respondents who said their school- or district-level multi-person BTAM team wo
Only respondents who said their school- or district-level multi-person BTAM team would not make the initial decision about how to respond to a student’s behavior saw this question.
Table A.19 No (secondary): I 74.2, J 37.3, K 72.2, L 24.7, M 31.3, N 6.3, O 6.1, P 5.1
Sample (N = 727 | 138 | 127 | 101 | 131 | 110 | 92 | 646 by column) · Table A.19 columns: scenarios I through P (secondary), in column order
No | 74.2 | 37.3 | 72.2 | 24.7 | 31.3 | 6.3 | 6.1 | 5.1
Table A.19 Yes (secondary): I 25.8, J 62.7, K 27.8, L 75.3, M 68.7, N 93.7, O 93.9, P 94.9
Sample (N = 727 | 138 | 127 | 101 | 131 | 110 | 92 | 646 by column) · Table A.19 columns: scenarios I through P (secondary), in column order
Yes | 25.8 | 62.7 | 27.8 | 75.3 | 68.7 | 93.7 | 93.9 | 94.9
Table A.19 N by scenario: I 727, J 138, K 127, L 101, M 131, N 110, O 92, P 646
N | 727 | 138 | 127 | 101 | 131 | 110 | 92 | 646
Table A.19 note: Principals were randomly assigned specific scenarios (see Appendix B).
Principals were randomly assigned specific scenarios (see Appendix B).
Table A.19 note: Table includes only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-...
Table includes only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team.
Table A.19 note: Only respondents who said their school- or district-level multi-person BTAM team...
Only respondents who said their school- or district-level multi-person BTAM team would not make the initial decision about how to respond to a student’s behavior saw this question.
Module routing: respondents with a BTAM team or other school-based team received it
Respondents who indicated that their school had a school- or district-level BTAM team (or another school-based team that makes decisions regarding serious student behavioral concerns that is not referred to as a BTAM team) received this module.
Official-BTAM-team respondents told to answer from knowledge of their team
At the beginning of the module, respondents that indicated they had an official BTAM team received the following instructions, “You indicated that your [AUTOFILL] has a BTAM team. Please answer the following questions based on your knowledge of that team.”
Instructions autofilled with "school" for school-level or both-level teams
The instructions autofilled with “school” if respondents said that they had a school level BTAM team or that they had both school- and district-level teams.
Instructions autofilled with "district" for district-level teams
The instructions autofilled with “district” if respondents said that they had a district-level BTAM team.
Question stem autofilled "school or district" if team level unknown
The question stem autofilled with “school or district” if the respondent said that they did not know the level of the team.
Unofficial-team respondents told to answer about their team's practices
Respondents who indicated they had an unofficial BTAM team received the following instructions: “You indicated your school has a school-based team that makes decisions regarding student behavioral and other concerns. This team is not explicitly considered a behavioral threat assessment and management team. Please answer the following questions based on your knowledge of that team’s practices (although the questions will refer to it as a BTAM team).”
Table A.20 0 to 1 school year(s): 12.3 (official + other teams); 12.2 (official only)
Sample (N = 1646 | 1408 by column) · Table A.20 columns: official BTAM teams and other school-based teams; official BTAM teams only
0 to 1 school year(s) (newly implemented) | 12.3 | 12.2
Table A.20 2 to 4 school years: 48.3 (official + other teams); 51.1 (official only)
Sample (N = 1646 | 1408 by column) · Table A.20 columns: official BTAM teams and other school-based teams; official BTAM teams only
2 to 4 school years | 48.3 | 51.1
Table A.20 5 to 8 school years: 19.4 (official + other teams); 19.2 (official only)
Sample (N = 1646 | 1408 by column) · Table A.20 columns: official BTAM teams and other school-based teams; official BTAM teams only
5 to 8 school years | 19.4 | 19.2
Table A.20 9 or more school years: 10.9 (official + other teams); 9.7 (official only)
Sample (N = 1646 | 1408 by column) · Table A.20 columns: official BTAM teams and other school-based teams; official BTAM teams only
9 or more school years | 10.9 | 9.7
Table A.20 Don’t know: 9.0 (official + other teams); 7.7 (official only)
Sample (N = 1646 | 1408 by column) · Table A.20 columns: official BTAM teams and other school-based teams; official BTAM teams only
Don’t know | 9.0 | 7.7
Table A.20 N: 1,646 (official + other teams); 1,408 (official only)
N | 1,646 | 1,408
Table A.20 note: Columns may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
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)
Columns may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
Table A.20 note: Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team...
Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions) saw this question.
Table A.21 You (school leader): 84.5 (official + other teams); 84.0 (official only)
Sample (N = 1646 | 1408 by column) · Table A.21 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
You (school leader) | 84.5 | 84.0
Table A.21 District administrators: 33.6 (official + other teams); 36.4 (official only)
Sample (N = 1646 | 1408 by column) · Table A.21 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
District administrators | 33.6 | 36.4
Table A.21 Other school administrators besides you: 66.7 (official + other teams); 68.7 (official...
Sample (N = 1646 | 1408 by column) · Table A.21 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Other school administrators besides you (for example, assistant principal, other senior administrator) | 66.7 | 68.7
Table A.21 School-based law enforcement: 47.6 (official + other teams); 52.6 (official only)
Sample (N = 1646 | 1408 by column) · Table A.21 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
School-based law enforcement (for example, school resource officer) | 47.6 | 52.6
Table A.21 Non-school-based law enforcement: 12.5 (official + other teams); 13.3 (official only)
Sample (N = 1646 | 1408 by column) · Table A.21 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Non-school-based law enforcement (for example, police officer from local department who is not regularly in the school) | 12.5 | 13.3
Table A.21 Psychologist, whether school-based or external: 46.8 (official + other teams); 48.5 (o...
Sample (N = 1646 | 1408 by column) · Table A.21 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Psychologist, whether school-based or external | 46.8 | 48.5
Table A.21 Counselor, whether school-based or external: 82.4 (official + other teams); 84.2 (offi...
Sample (N = 1646 | 1408 by column) · Table A.21 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Counselor, whether school-based or external | 82.4 | 84.2
Table A.21 Social worker, whether school-based or external: 48.2 (official + other teams); 50.2 (...
Sample (N = 1646 | 1408 by column) · Table A.21 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Social worker, whether school-based or external | 48.2 | 50.2
Table A.21 General instructional staff: 47.5 (official + other teams); 45.2 (official only)
Sample (N = 1646 | 1408 by column) · Table A.21 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
General instructional staff (for example, teacher) | 47.5 | 45.2
Table A.21 Special education specialist: 44.4 (official + other teams); 42.5 (official only)
Sample (N = 1646 | 1408 by column) · Table A.21 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Special education specialist | 44.4 | 42.5
Table A.21 Other (please specify): 13.7 (official + other teams); 13.6 (official only)
Sample (N = 1646 | 1408 by column) · Table A.21 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Other (please specify) | 13.7 | 13.6
Table A.21 None of these personnel are members: 0.4 (official + other teams); 0.2 (official only)
Sample (N = 1646 | 1408 by column) · Table A.21 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
None of these personnel are members | 0.4 | 0.2
Table A.21 N: 1,646 (official + other teams); 1,408 (official only)
N | 1,646 | 1,408 |
Table A.21 note: Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
Table A.21 note: Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team...
Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions) saw this question.
Table A.22 LE provides public safety perspective: 57.8 (official + other teams); 57.5 (official o...
Sample (N = 914 | 854 by column) · Table A.22 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Law enforcement provides a public safety perspective about school dynamics and student behavior to help assess and manage behavioral concerns | 57.8 | 57.5
Table A.22 LE provides police/court records information: 17.5 (official + other teams); 17.5 (off...
Sample (N = 914 | 854 by column) · Table A.22 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Law enforcement provides information from police and court records so the team can understand past student behavior | 17.5 | 17.5
Table A.22 LE helps decide safety/security actions: 64.3 (official + other teams); 64.3 (official...
Sample (N = 914 | 854 by column) · Table A.22 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Law enforcement helps with decisions about when safety- and security-related actions are necessary (e.g., searching student belongings, implementing schoolwide lock down) | 64.3 | 64.3
Table A.22 LE consults on legal repercussions: 18.9 (official + other teams); 18.8 (official only)
Sample (N = 914 | 854 by column) · Table A.22 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Law enforcement consults on the potential legal repercussions of student behavior | 18.9 | 18.8
Table A.22 LE initiates public safety responses: 32.4 (official + other teams); 33.2 (official only)
Sample (N = 914 | 854 by column) · Table A.22 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Law enforcement participates to initiate public safety responses when necessary (e.g., arrest or other criminal justice intervention) | 32.4 | 33.2
Table A.22 note: Respondents were instructed to select up to two responses that best capture law ...
Respondents were instructed to select up to two responses that best capture law enforcement’s most important roles on the team.
Table A.22 note: Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team...
Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions) and that this team includes school-based or non-school-based law enforcement saw this question.
Table A.23 Very ineffective: 4.9 (official + other teams); 4.9 (official only)
Sample (N = 1644 | 1406 by column) · Table A.23 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Very ineffective | 4.9 | 4.9
Table A.23 Somewhat ineffective: 5.3 (official + other teams); 4.9 (official only)
Sample (N = 1644 | 1406 by column) · Table A.23 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Somewhat ineffective | 5.3 | 4.9
Table A.23 Somewhat effective: 38.8 (official + other teams); 37.3 (official only)
Sample (N = 1644 | 1406 by column) · Table A.23 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Somewhat effective | 38.8 | 37.3
Table A.23 Very effective: 48.3 (official + other teams); 50.7 (official only)
Sample (N = 1644 | 1406 by column) · Table A.23 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Very effective | 48.3 | 50.7
Table A.23 Don’t know: 2.7 (official + other teams); 2.2 (official only)
Sample (N = 1644 | 1406 by column) · Table A.23 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Don’t know | 2.7 | 2.2
Table A.23 N: 1,644 (official + other teams); 1,406 (official only)
N | 1,644 | 1,406 |
Table A.23 note: Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team...
Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions) saw this question.
Table A.24 Salem-Kaiser: 1.8 (official + other teams); 2.0 (official only)
Sample (N = 1640 | 1404 by column) · Table A.24 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Salem-Kaiser | 1.8 | 2.0
Table A.24 USSS NTAC (U.S. Secret Service/National Threat Assessment Center): 4.0 (official + oth...
Sample (N = 1640 | 1404 by column) · Table A.24 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
USSS NTAC (U.S. Secret Service/National Threat Assessment Center) | 4.0 | 4.6
Table A.24 V/CSTAG (Virginia/Comprehensive School Threat Assessment Guidelines): 7.5 (official + ...
Sample (N = 1640 | 1404 by column) · Table A.24 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
V/CSTAG (Virginia/Comprehensive School Threat Assessment Guidelines) | 7.5 | 8.5
Table A.24 VA DCJS (Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services): 1.2 (official + other team...
Sample (N = 1640 | 1404 by column) · Table A.24 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
VA DCJS (Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services) | 1.2 | 1.4
Table A.24 VTRA (Violence Threat Risk Assessment): 3.2 (official + other teams); 3.6 (official only)
Sample (N = 1640 | 1404 by column) · Table A.24 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
VTRA (Violence Threat Risk Assessment) | 3.2 | 3.6
Table A.24 Named program not listed (please specify): 10.2 (official + other teams); 10.6 (offici...
Sample (N = 1640 | 1404 by column) · Table A.24 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
We use a named program not included here (please specify): | 10.2 | 10.6
Table A.24 Locally developed BTAM program: 27.4 (official + other teams); 30.1 (official only)
Sample (N = 1640 | 1404 by column) · Table A.24 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
We use a BTAM program developed locally, drawing on other models and resources to craft a process for our specific school or school district | 27.4 | 30.1
Table A.24 No defined program used: 24.0 (official + other teams); 17.6 (official only)
Sample (N = 1640 | 1404 by column) · Table A.24 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
We do not use a defined program as part of our BTAM process | 24.0 | 17.6
Table A.24 Don’t know: 20.7 (official + other teams); 21.6 (official only)
Sample (N = 1640 | 1404 by column) · Table A.24 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Don’t know | 20.7 | 21.6
Table A.24 N: 1,640 (official + other teams); 1,404 (official only)
N | 1,640 | 1,404 |
Table A.24 note: Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team...
Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions) saw this question.
Table A.25 0 to 1 school year(s): 13.0 (official + other teams); 12.8 (official only)
Sample (N = 919 | 867 by column) · Table A.25 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
0 to 1 school year(s) (newly implemented) | 13.0 | 12.8
Table A.25 2 to 4 school years: 52.9 (official + other teams); 53.8 (official only)
Sample (N = 919 | 867 by column) · Table A.25 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
2 to 4 school years | 52.9 | 53.8
Table A.25 5 to 8 school years: 21.4 (official + other teams); 21.5 (official only)
Sample (N = 919 | 867 by column) · Table A.25 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
5 to 8 school years | 21.4 | 21.5
Table A.25 9 to 12 school years: 6.5 (official + other teams); 5.7 (official only)
Sample (N = 919 | 867 by column) · Table A.25 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
9 to 12 school years | 6.5 | 5.7
Table A.25 Don’t know: 6.2 (official + other teams); 6.2 (official only)
Sample (N = 919 | 867 by column) · Table A.25 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Don’t know | 6.2 | 6.2
Table A.25 note: Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team...
Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions) and that their team was using (1) a named model that we listed, (2) an “Other” model, or (3) a locally developed model saw this question.
Table A.25 note: The question stem was autofilled based on the respondent’s answer to the questio...
The question stem was autofilled based on the respondent’s answer to the question about what specific BTAM program they were using.
Table A.26 Implemented as originally designed: 47.4 (official + other teams); 47.3 (official only)
Sample (N = 468 | 445 by column) · Table A.26 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
We have implemented the program as it was originally designed and specified by the developers | 47.4 | 47.3
Table A.26 Changed form, kept core functions: 33.0 (official + other teams); 32.7 (official only)
Sample (N = 468 | 445 by column) · Table A.26 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
We have made changes to the program’s form (e.g., related to materials, staffing, specification of protocols, etc.), while maintaining its core functions related to assessing and managing threats | 33.0 | 32.7
Table A.26 Changed core functions: 1.3 (official + other teams); 1.3 (official only)
Sample (N = 468 | 445 by column) · Table A.26 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
We have made changes that directly modified the program’s core functions related to assessing and managing threats | 1.3 | 1.3
Table A.26 I don’t know if we have made changes: 18.3 (official + other teams); 18.7 (official only)
Sample (N = 468 | 445 by column) · Table A.26 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
I don’t know if we have made changes | 18.3 | 18.7
Table A.26 note: Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team...
Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions) and that their team was using (1) a named model that we listed or (2) an “Other” model saw this question.
Table A.26 note: The question stem was auto-filled based on the respondent’s answer to the questi...
The question stem was auto-filled based on the respondent’s answer to the question about what specific BTAM program they were using.
Table A.27 Reduced recommended personnel (resource/staff constraints): 39.5 (official + other tea...
Sample (N = 162 | 153 by column) · Table A.27 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only (N row printed on p124, continuation page)
We reduced the number of recommended personnel serving on the team due to resource or staff constraints | 39.5 | 40.4
Table A.27 Reduced recommended personnel (community concerns/context): 6.5 (official + other team...
Sample (N = 162 | 153 by column) · Table A.27 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only (N row printed on p124, continuation page)
We reduced the number of recommended personnel serving on the team due to community concerns or context | 6.5 | 5.3
Table A.27 Added personnel beyond recommended: 29.2 (official + other teams); 29.6 (official only)
Sample (N = 162 | 153 by column) · Table A.27 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only (N row printed on p124, continuation page)
We added personnel to our team beyond the recommended personnel | 29.2 | 29.6
Table A.27: We changed the program’s recommended procedures for collecting informatio… - 10.7 / 10.7
Sample (N = 162 | 153 by column) · Table A.27 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only (N row printed on p124, continuation page)
We changed the program’s recommended procedures for collecting information to assess threats | 10.7 | 10.7
Table A.27: We adjusted the types of data used to assess threats because we were unab… - 16.5 / 16.0
Sample (N = 162 | 153 by column) · Table A.27 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only (N row printed on p124, continuation page)
We adjusted the types of data used to assess threats because we were unable to access or use some types of data recommended by the program | 16.5 | 16.0
Table A.27: We use additional data to assess threats and concerning student behavior… - 25.1 / 25.8
Sample (N = 162 | 153 by column) · Table A.27 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only (N row printed on p124, continuation page)
We use additional data to assess threats and concerning student behavior beyond what the program recommends, in addition to using the data recommended by the program | 25.1 | 25.8
Table A.27: We modified (or don’t use) worksheets, checklists or other tools that com… - 34.4 / 35.1
Sample (N = 162 | 153 by column) · Table A.27 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only (N row printed on p124, continuation page)
We modified (or don’t use) worksheets, checklists or other tools that come with the program | 34.4 | 35.1
Table A.27: We created worksheets, checklists or other tools that didn’t originally c… - 25.2 / 23.3
Sample (N = 162 | 153 by column) · Table A.27 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only (N row printed on p124, continuation page)
We created worksheets, checklists or other tools that didn’t originally come with the program | 25.2 | 23.3
Table A.27: We changed the way the program recommends assessing whether a student poses… - 3.1 / 3.3
Sample (N = 162 | 153 by column) · Table A.27 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only (N row printed on p124, continuation page)
We changed the way the program recommends assessing whether a student poses a threat to themselves or others | 3.1 | 3.3
Table A.27: We don’t use some of the intervention options recommended by the program… - 17.4 / 17.4
Sample (N = 162 | 153 by column) · Table A.27 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only (N row printed on p124, continuation page)
We don’t use some of the intervention options recommended by the program because of access issues or resource constraints | 17.4 | 17.4
Table A.27: We added intervention options beyond those recommended by the program to… - 21.1 / 20.8
Sample (N = 162 | 153 by column) · Table A.27 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only (N row printed on p124, continuation page)
We added intervention options beyond those recommended by the program to meet our local needs | 21.1 | 20.8
Table A.27: Other changes (please specify): - 3.5 / 3.2
Sample (N = 162 | 153 by column) · Table A.27 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only (N row printed on p124, continuation page)
Other changes (please specify): | 3.5 | 3.2
Table A.27 note: Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
Table A.27 note: Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM
Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions), that their team was using (1) a named model that we listed or (2) an “Other” model saw this question, and that said their school has made changes to the model saw this question.
Table A.27 note: The question stem was autofilled based on the respondent’s answer to the qu
The question stem was autofilled based on the respondent’s answer to the question about what specific BTAM program they were using.
Table A.28: No - 49.5 / 49.0
Sample (N = 918 | 866 by column) · Table A.28 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
No | 49.5 | 49.0
Table A.28: Yes - 50.5 / 51.0
Sample (N = 918 | 866 by column) · Table A.28 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Yes | 50.5 | 51.0
Table A.28 note: Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM
Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions) and that their team was using (1) a named model that we listed, (2) an “Other” model, or (3) a locally developed model saw this question.
Table A.29: N/A; None of these were main drivers - 2.7 / 2.0
Sample (N = 475 | 452 by column) · Table A.29 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
N/A; None of these were main drivers | 2.7 | 2.0
Table A.29: We had a violent incident in our school or district and we implemented the… - 5.3 / 5.4
Sample (N = 475 | 452 by column) · Table A.29 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
We had a violent incident in our school or district and we implemented the program as part of our response | 5.3 | 5.4
Table A.29: We were required to by state or local law - 42.8 / 44.3
Sample (N = 475 | 452 by column) · Table A.29 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
We were required to by state or local law | 42.8 | 44.3
Table A.29: We were required to by school district policy - 41.7 / 42.7
Sample (N = 475 | 452 by column) · Table A.29 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
We were required to by school district policy | 41.7 | 42.7
Table A.29: We had concerns about being held liable in cases of school violence - 10.2 / 10.8
Sample (N = 475 | 452 by column) · Table A.29 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
We had concerns about being held liable in cases of school violence | 10.2 | 10.8
Table A.29: Behavioral assessment and management is a best practice for violence prev… - 58.2 / 59.1
Sample (N = 475 | 452 by column) · Table A.29 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Behavioral assessment and management is a best practice for violence prevention | 58.2 | 59.1
Table A.29: Our school community wanted us to have a BTAM program - 5.2 / 5.2
Sample (N = 475 | 452 by column) · Table A.29 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Our school community wanted us to have a BTAM program | 5.2 | 5.2
Table A.29: Other organizations we depend on (e.g., our local law enforcement departmen… - 8.3 / 8.2
Sample (N = 475 | 452 by column) · Table A.29 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Other organizations we depend on (e.g., our local law enforcement department) encouraged us to adopt a BTAM program | 8.3 | 8.2
Table A.29: Other (please specify) - 7.6 / 7.0
Sample (N = 475 | 452 by column) · Table A.29 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Other (please specify) | 7.6 | 7.0
Table A.29: Don’t know - 2.8 / 3.0
Sample (N = 475 | 452 by column) · Table A.29 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Don’t know | 2.8 | 3.0
Table A.29 note: Respondents were instructed to select up to three responses.
Respondents were instructed to select up to three responses.
Table A.29 note: Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM
Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions); that their team was using (1) a named model that we listed, (2) an “Other” model, or (3) a locally developed model; and that said they were around for the initial implementation of this model saw this question.
Table A.30: Our school or district administrators surveyed or met with school staff - 32.2 / 31.1
Sample (N = 475 | 452 by column) · Table A.30 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Our school or district administrators surveyed or met with school staff | 32.2 | 31.1
Table A.30: Our school or district administrators surveyed or met with students, pare… - 17.5 / 17.1
Sample (N = 475 | 452 by column) · Table A.30 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Our school or district administrators surveyed or met with students, parents, and/or the larger school community | 17.5 | 17.1
Table A.30: Our school or district administrators estimated funding and other resourc… - 18.5 / 17.5
Sample (N = 475 | 452 by column) · Table A.30 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Our school or district administrators estimated funding and other resource levels necessary to implement the program and ensured they were available | 18.5 | 17.5
Table A.30: Our school or district administrators consulted with our local law enforc… - 41.0 / 42.5
Sample (N = 475 | 452 by column) · Table A.30 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Our school or district administrators consulted with our local law enforcement organization | 41.0 | 42.5
Table A.30: Our school or district administrators inventoried what intervention progr… - 30.9 / 31.3
Sample (N = 475 | 452 by column) · Table A.30 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Our school or district administrators inventoried what intervention programs we had available | 30.9 | 31.3
Table A.30: Our school or district administrators identified and discussed participat… - 33.8 / 34.3
Sample (N = 475 | 452 by column) · Table A.30 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Our school or district administrators identified and discussed participation in BTAM with relevant community and service provider organizations (e.g., mental health providers, social service agencies, non-governmental service providers) | 33.8 | 34.3
Table A.30: I don’t know whether any of these actions were taken - 22.2 / 22.4
Sample (N = 475 | 452 by column) · Table A.30 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
I don’t know whether any of these actions were taken | 22.2 | 22.4
Table A.30: N/A; Our school or district administrators did not complete any of these ac… - 4.7 / 4.9
Sample (N = 475 | 452 by column) · Table A.30 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
N/A; Our school or district administrators did not complete any of these actions | 4.7 | 4.9
Table A.30 note: Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
Table A.30 note: Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM
Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions); that their team was using (1) a named model that we listed, (2) an “other” model, or (3) a locally developed model; and that said they were around for the initial implementation of this model saw this question.
Table A.31: 1 school year - 36.8 / 37.5
Sample (N = 439 | 420 by column) · Table A.31 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
1 school year | 36.8 | 37.5
Table A.31: 2 school years - 40.5 / 40.5
Sample (N = 439 | 420 by column) · Table A.31 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
2 school years | 40.5 | 40.5
Table A.31: 3 to 4 school years - 11.0 / 10.5
Sample (N = 439 | 420 by column) · Table A.31 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
3 to 4 school years | 11.0 | 10.5
Table A.31: 5+ school years - 1.2 / 0.9
Sample (N = 439 | 420 by column) · Table A.31 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
5+ school years | 1.2 | 0.9
Table A.31: Don’t know - 10.5 / 10.6
Sample (N = 439 | 420 by column) · Table A.31 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Don’t know | 10.5 | 10.6
Table A.31 note: Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM
Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions); that their team was using (1) a named model that we listed, (2) an “Other” model, or (3) a locally developed model; that they were around for the initial implementation of this model; and that their BTAM team is somewhat or very effective at maintaining school safety saw this question.
Table A.32: The financial costs of implementing BTAM… - SD/D/N/A/SA: 1.6 / 9.7 / 14.6 / 44.2 / 29.9
Sample (N = 450) · Principals answering the implementation experience agreement statements
The financial costs of implementing BTAM did not create any issues. | 1.6 | 9.7 | 14.6 | 44.2 | 29.9
Table A.32: It was clear BTAM was a better approach t… - SD/D/N/A/SA: 0.3 / 2.6 / 20.9 / 56.3 / 19.9
Sample (N = 450) · Principals answering the implementation experience agreement statements
It was clear BTAM was a better approach to managing student behavior concerns relative to our previous approaches. | 0.3 | 2.6 | 20.9 | 56.3 | 19.9
Table A.32: It was easy for us to pick the BTAM progr… - SD/D/N/A/SA: 2.7 / 7.5 / 39.5 / 37.9 / 12.4
Sample (N = 450) · Principals answering the implementation experience agreement statements
It was easy for us to pick the BTAM program we wanted to use from the options available. | 2.7 | 7.5 | 39.5 | 37.9 | 12.4
Table A.32: The BTAM program we chose was easy to ada… - SD/D/N/A/SA: 0.6 / 4.5 / 16.9 / 61.4 / 16.6
Sample (N = 450) · Principals at schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team who used a named, other or locally developed model and were present at initial implementation (Table A.32)
The BTAM program we chose was easy to adapt to our local needs. | 0.6 | 4.5 | 16.9 | 61.4 | 16.6
Table A.32: Our school community (e.g., parents, stud… - SD/D/N/A/SA: 0.2 / 1.6 / 35.1 / 45.7 / 17.5
Sample (N = 450) · Principals at schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team who used a named, other or locally developed model and were present at initial implementation (Table A.32)
Our school community (e.g., parents, students) were supportive of our school’s adoption of BTAM. | 0.2 | 1.6 | 35.1 | 45.7 | 17.5
Table A.32: It was easy to coordinate with relevant o… - SD/D/N/A/SA: 1.1 / 7.2 / 16.5 / 53.7 / 21.5
Sample (N = 450) · Principals at schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team who used a named, other or locally developed model and were present at initial implementation (Table A.32)
It was easy to coordinate with relevant outside partners while implementing BTAM (e.g., police, service providers). | 1.1 | 7.2 | 16.5 | 53.7 | 21.5
Table A.32: Our school and local service providers h… - SD/D/N/A/SA: 3.1 / 17.5 / 12.8 / 49.5 / 17.1
Sample (N = 450) · Principals at schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team who used a named, other or locally developed model and were present at initial implementation (Table A.32)
Our school and local service providers had enough capacity to support our BTAM efforts (e.g., counselors, mental health treatment providers). | 3.1 | 17.5 | 12.8 | 49.5 | 17.1
Table A.32: Our school staff was supportive of our sc… - SD/D/N/A/SA: 0.0 / 1.4 / 14.0 / 63.1 / 21.5
Sample (N = 450) · Principals at schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team who used a named, other or locally developed model and were present at initial implementation (Table A.32)
Our school staff was supportive of our school’s adoption of BTAM. | 0.0 | 1.4 | 14.0 | 63.1 | 21.5
Table A.32: BTAM was well-matched to our culture and… - SD/D/N/A/SA: 0.0 / 2.4 / 15.3 / 62.0 / 20.4
Sample (N = 450) · Principals at schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team who used a named, other or locally developed model and were present at initial implementation (Table A.32)
BTAM was well-matched to our culture and relationships between school leaders and staff. | 0.0 | 2.4 | 15.3 | 62.0 | 20.4
Table A.32: Our existing school records and other sys… - SD/D/N/A/SA: 0.9 / 7.7 / 17.2 / 57.9 / 16.2
Sample (N = 450) · Principals at schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team who used a named, other or locally developed model and were present at initial implementation (Table A.32)
Our existing school records and other systems were easy to use in support of BTAM. | 0.9 | 7.7 | 17.2 | 57.9 | 16.2
Table A.32: We had no issues sharing information amon… - SD/D/N/A/SA: 1.1 / 9.2 / 25.6 / 52.7 / 11.4
Sample (N = 450) · Principals at schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team who used a named, other or locally developed model and were present at initial implementation (Table A.32)
We had no issues sharing information among partners for BTAM purposes (e.g., FERPA or HIPAA did not hinder information sharing). | 1.1 | 9.2 | 25.6 | 52.7 | 11.4
Table A.32: We had enough staff time to implement BT… - SD/D/N/A/SA: 3.5 / 21.0 / 20.3 / 44.3 / 10.9
Sample (N = 450) · Principals at schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team who used a named, other or locally developed model and were present at initial implementation (Table A.32)
We had enough staff time to implement BTAM. | 3.5 | 21.0 | 20.3 | 44.3 | 10.9
Table A.32: Our instructional and other school staff… - SD/D/N/A/SA: 0.9 / 7.9 / 21.0 / 58.7 / 11.4
Sample (N = 450) · Principals at schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team who used a named, other or locally developed model and were present at initial implementation (Table A.32)
Our instructional and other school staff clearly understood the goals and reasons for implementing BTAM. | 0.9 | 7.9 | 21.0 | 58.7 | 11.4
Table A.32: Training opportunities for BTAM team mem… - SD/D/N/A/SA: 2.0 / 13.5 / 18.6 / 49.3 / 16.6
Sample (N = 450) · Principals at schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team who used a named, other or locally developed model and were present at initial implementation (Table A.32)
Training opportunities for BTAM team members were readily available. | 2.0 | 13.5 | 18.6 | 49.3 | 16.6
Table A.32: It was easy to adjust school procedures t… - SD/D/N/A/SA: 0.9 / 5.6 / 17.0 / 62.5 / 13.9
Sample (N = 450) · Principals at schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team who used a named, other or locally developed model and were present at initial implementation (Table A.32)
It was easy to adjust school procedures to integrate BTAM into the way we dealt with student behavior and discipline issues previously. | 0.9 | 5.6 | 17.0 | 62.5 | 13.9
Table A.32: We were able to use a staged process to i… - SD/D/N/A/SA: 1.7 / 10.3 / 25.8 / 53.4 / 8.8
Sample (N = 450) · Principals at schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team who used a named, other or locally developed model and were present at initial implementation (Table A.32)
We were able to use a staged process to implement BTAM so that it integrated smoothly into school systems broadly speaking. | 1.7 | 10.3 | 25.8 | 53.4 | 8.8
Table A.32 note: Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM
Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions); that their team was using (1) a named model that we listed, (2) an “Other” model, or (3) a locally developed model; and that said they were around for the initial implementation of this model saw this question.
Table A.32 note: Table only includes data from respondents who said their school has a schoo
Table only includes data from respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team, not respondents who said they have an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions.
Table A.32 note: Rows may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
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)
Rows may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
A.33 No: 29.5 (all teams incl. other school-based), 24.1 (official BTAM teams only)
Sample (N = 1636 | 1401 by column) · Table A.33 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
No | 29.5 | 24.1
A.33 Yes: 47.8 (all teams incl. other school-based), 52.7 (official BTAM teams only)
Sample (N = 1636 | 1401 by column) · Table A.33 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Yes | 47.8 | 52.7
A.33 Don’t know: 22.7 (all teams incl. other school-based), 23.2 (official BTAM teams only)
Sample (N = 1636 | 1401 by column) · Table A.33 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Don’t know | 22.7 | 23.2
A.33 N: all teams incl. other school-based: N=1,636; official BTAM teams only: N=1,401
N | 1,636 | 1,401
A.33 note: Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an a
Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions) saw this question.
A.34 No: 35.6 (all teams incl. other school-based), 31.0 (official BTAM teams only)
Sample (N = 1635 | 1400 by column) · Table A.34 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
No | 35.6 | 31.0
A.34 Yes: 44.3 (all teams incl. other school-based), 49.3 (official BTAM teams only)
Sample (N = 1635 | 1400 by column) · Table A.34 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Yes | 44.3 | 49.3
A.34 Don’t know: 20.1 (all teams incl. other school-based), 19.7 (official BTAM teams only)
Sample (N = 1635 | 1400 by column) · Table A.34 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Don’t know | 20.1 | 19.7
A.34 N: all teams incl. other school-based: N=1,635; official BTAM teams only: N=1,400
N | 1,635 | 1,400
A.34 note: Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an a
Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions) saw this question.
A.35 Students whose be…: 33.8 (all teams incl. other school-based), 27.5 (official BTAM teams only)
Sample (N = 1635 | 1401 by column) · Table A.35 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only (N row printed on p129, continuation page)
Students whose behavior is regularly disruptive to instruction | 33.8 | 27.5
A.35 Students who are…: 25.2 (all teams incl. other school-based), 20.3 (official BTAM teams only)
Sample (N = 1635 | 1401 by column) · Table A.35 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only (N row printed on p129, continuation page)
Students who are disrespectful or argumentative with teachers or other school staff | 25.2 | 20.3
A.35 Students who may…: 81.3 (all teams incl. other school-based), 82.5 (official BTAM teams only)
Sample (N = 1635 | 1401 by column) · Table A.35 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only (N row printed on p129, continuation page)
Students who may be at risk of self-harm or suicide | 81.3 | 82.5
A.35 Students who are…: 70.5 (all teams incl. other school-based), 69.2 (official BTAM teams only)
Sample (N = 1635 | 1401 by column) · Table A.35 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only (N row printed on p129, continuation page)
Students who are regularly involved in aggressive behavior toward peers (e.g., frequent verbal or limited physical conflicts without concerns about weapon use, bullying or fighting) | 70.5 | 69.2
A.35 Students with fix…: 76.7 (all teams incl. other school-based), 80.5 (official BTAM teams only)
Sample (N = 1635 | 1401 by column) · Table A.35 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only (N row printed on p129, continuation page)
Students with fixations on past school violence incidents, interest in violence or extremist movements (e.g., fixation on Columbine attacks, fixation on animal cruelty or abuse, viewing web sites with extremist or violent web content) | 76.7 | 80.5
A.35 Students who have…: 89.2 (all teams incl. other school-based), 92.6 (official BTAM teams only)
Sample (N = 1635 | 1401 by column) · Table A.35 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only (N row printed on p129, continuation page)
Students who have directed threats at or may be violent toward other individual students | 89.2 | 92.6
A.35 Students who have…: 88.4 (all teams incl. other school-based), 91.9 (official BTAM teams only)
Sample (N = 1635 | 1401 by column) · Table A.35 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only (N row printed on p129, continuation page)
Students who have made threats or may be violent toward school staff (e.g., threats against teachers) | 88.4 | 91.9
A.35 Students who have…: 82.8 (all teams incl. other school-based), 87.5 (official BTAM teams only)
Sample (N = 1635 | 1401 by column) · Table A.35 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only (N row printed on p129, continuation page)
Students who have made threats of or may be intending to commit mass violence against the school or school community | 82.8 | 87.5
A.35 N: all teams incl. other school-based: N=1,635; official BTAM teams only: N=1,401
N | 1,635 | 1,401
A.35 note: Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
A.35 note: Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an a
Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions) saw this question.
A.36 Once per week: 9.7 (all teams incl. other school-based), 9.0 (official BTAM teams only)
Sample (N = 1635 | 1401 by column) · Table A.36 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Once per week | 9.7 | 9.0
A.36 Once every two weeks: 9.2 (all teams incl. other school-based), 8.1 (official BTAM teams only)
Sample (N = 1635 | 1401 by column) · Table A.36 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Once every two weeks | 9.2 | 8.1
A.36 Once per month: 19.9 (all teams incl. other school-based), 19.5 (official BTAM teams only)
Sample (N = 1635 | 1401 by column) · Table A.36 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Once per month | 19.9 | 19.5
A.36 Every 2 to 3 months: 6.1 (all teams incl. other school-based), 6.2 (official BTAM teams only)
Sample (N = 1635 | 1401 by column) · Table A.36 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Every 2 to 3 months | 6.1 | 6.2
A.36 Irregularly or on…: 55.2 (all teams incl. other school-based), 57.2 (official BTAM teams only)
Sample (N = 1635 | 1401 by column) · Table A.36 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Irregularly or on an as-needed basis depending on case load | 55.2 | 57.2
A.36 N: all teams incl. other school-based: N=1,635; official BTAM teams only: N=1,401
N | 1,635 | 1,401
A.36 note: Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an a
Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions) saw this question.
A.37 Interview w…: 0.6 (Never), 2.0 (Rarely), 7.8 (Sometimes), 16.1 (Frequently), 73.4 (Every time)
Sample (N = 1395) · Teams answering sources-of-information question
Interview with the student | 0.6 | 2.0 | 7.8 | 16.1 | 73.4
A.37 Interview w…: 1.1 (Never), 1.6 (Rarely), 9.6 (Sometimes), 23.3 (Frequently), 64.5 (Every time)
Sample (N = 1395) · Teams answering sources-of-information question
Interview with witnesses (e.g., peers, staff who witnessed behavior) | 1.1 | 1.6 | 9.6 | 23.3 | 64.5
A.37 Interview…: 1.9 (Never), 3.1 (Rarely), 16.1 (Sometimes), 25.8 (Frequently), 53.1 (Every time)
Sample (N = 1395) · Teams answering sources-of-information question
Interview with potential target of a threat | 1.9 | 3.1 | 16.1 | 25.8 | 53.1
A.37 Interview…: 0.8 (Never), 2.3 (Rarely), 14.8 (Sometimes), 27.3 (Frequently), 54.7 (Every time)
Sample (N = 1395) · Teams answering sources-of-information question
Interview with parents or guardians | 0.8 | 2.3 | 14.8 | 27.3 | 54.7
A.37 Interview w…: 0.4 (Never), 1.6 (Rarely), 9.1 (Sometimes), 32.5 (Frequently), 56.5 (Every time)
Sample (N = 1395) · Teams answering sources-of-information question
Interview with teacher or other school staff knowledgeable about the student | 0.4 | 1.6 | 9.1 | 32.5 | 56.5
A.37 Review st…: 8.1 (Never), 18.7 (Rarely), 34.1 (Sometimes), 23.9 (Frequently), 15.3 (Every time)
Sample (N = 1395) · Teams answering sources-of-information question
Review student’s publicly available social media or online footprint | 8.1 | 18.7 | 34.1 | 23.9 | 15.3
A.37 Discipline…: 0.4 (Never), 1.7 (Rarely), 10.5 (Sometimes), 27.5 (Frequently), 59.8 (Every time)
Sample (N = 1395) · Teams answering sources-of-information question
Discipline records (including but not limited to history of prior threats) | 0.4 | 1.7 | 10.5 | 27.5 | 59.8
A.37 Academic r…: 1.6 (Never), 5.8 (Rarely), 21.9 (Sometimes), 27.7 (Frequently), 43.1 (Every time)
Sample (N = 1395) · Teams answering sources-of-information question
Academic records | 1.6 | 5.8 | 21.9 | 27.7 | 43.1
A.37 Special ed…: 0.8 (Never), 1.8 (Rarely), 14.9 (Sometimes), 24.1 (Frequently), 58.4 (Every time)
Sample (N = 1395) · Teams answering sources-of-information question
Special education records | 0.8 | 1.8 | 14.9 | 24.1 | 58.4
A.37 Records fr…: 2.2 (Never), 6.0 (Rarely), 26.2 (Sometimes), 27.1 (Frequently), 38.4 (Every time)
Sample (N = 1395) · Teams answering sources-of-information question
Records from other schools a student attended previously inside your school district | 2.2 | 6.0 | 26.2 | 27.1 | 38.4
A.37 Records f…: 3.1 (Never), 10.8 (Rarely), 30.5 (Sometimes), 26.6 (Frequently), 29.1 (Every time)
Sample (N = 1395) · Teams answering sources-of-information question
Records from other schools a student attended previously outside your school district | 3.1 | 10.8 | 30.5 | 26.6 | 29.1
A.37 Records f…: 5.4 (Never), 14.7 (Rarely), 37.2 (Sometimes), 22.8 (Frequently), 19.9 (Every time)
Sample (N = 1395) · Teams answering sources-of-information question
Records from outside medical organizations (e.g., mental health service providers) | 5.4 | 14.7 | 37.2 | 22.8 | 19.9
A.37 Records…: 10.9 (Never), 21.0 (Rarely), 34.0 (Sometimes), 18.6 (Frequently), 15.4 (Every time)
Sample (N = 1395) · Teams answering sources-of-information question
Records from outside governmental organizations (e.g., social services agencies; courts) | 10.9 | 21.0 | 34.0 | 18.6 | 15.4
A.37 Law enfo…: 19.2 (Never), 20.9 (Rarely), 28.1 (Sometimes), 15.2 (Frequently), 16.6 (Every time)
Sample (N = 1395) · Teams answering sources-of-information question
Law enforcement records | 19.2 | 20.9 | 28.1 | 15.2 | 16.6
A.37 Other (ple…: 55.9 (Never), 9.9 (Rarely), 13.3 (Sometimes), 9.1 (Frequently), 11.8 (Every time)
Sample (N = 1395) · Teams answering sources-of-information question
Other (please specify) | 55.9 | 9.9 | 13.3 | 9.1 | 11.8
A.37 note: Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an a
Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions) saw this question.
A.37 note: Table only includes data from respondents who said their school has a school- or district
Table only includes data from respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team, not respondents who said they have an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions.
A.37 note: Rows may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
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)
Rows may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
A.38 All BTAM activiti…: 23.5 (all teams incl. other school-based), 20.8 (official BTAM teams only)
Sample (N = 1626 | 1394 by column) · Table A.38 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
All BTAM activities from meeting structure to assessment processes differ across individual cases. | 23.5 | 20.8
A.38 BTAM meetings fol…: 28.1 (all teams incl. other school-based), 28.0 (official BTAM teams only)
Sample (N = 1626 | 1394 by column) · Table A.38 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
BTAM meetings follow a common structure and process, though the data sought and deliberations vary significantly from case to case. | 28.1 | 28.0
A.38 BTAM meetings fol…: 20.4 (all teams incl. other school-based), 20.3 (official BTAM teams only)
Sample (N = 1626 | 1394 by column) · Table A.38 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
BTAM meetings follow a common structure and process, and we collect similar data for each case considered by the team. | 20.4 | 20.3
A.38 BTAM meetings fol…: 28.0 (all teams incl. other school-based), 31.0 (official BTAM teams only)
Sample (N = 1626 | 1394 by column) · Table A.38 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
BTAM meetings follow a common structure and process, we collect similar data for each case considered by the team, and we have standardized processes that guide the application of structured tools for conducting our assessment. | 28.0 | 31.0
A.38 note: Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an a
Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions) saw this question.
A.38 note: Columns may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
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)
Columns may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
A.39 No, because our BTA…: 7.8 (all teams incl. other school-based), 7.4 (official BTAM teams only)
Sample (N = 1623 | 1392 by column) · Table A.39 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
No, because our BTAM files and deliberations are closed. We cannot share any information with parents, guardians, or other third-parties. | 7.8 | 7.4
A.39 Potentially, but…: 17.5 (all teams incl. other school-based), 16.1 (official BTAM teams only)
Sample (N = 1623 | 1392 by column) · Table A.39 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Potentially, but it would be difficult because of how much our process differs from case to case. | 17.5 | 16.1
A.39 Potentially, but…: 16.9 (all teams incl. other school-based), 15.9 (official BTAM teams only)
Sample (N = 1623 | 1392 by column) · Table A.39 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Potentially, but could be difficult because assessments are the result of verbal deliberations among our BTAM team members. | 16.9 | 15.9
A.39 Yes, because our…: 57.8 (all teams incl. other school-based), 60.6 (official BTAM teams only)
Sample (N = 1623 | 1392 by column) · Table A.39 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Yes, because our BTAM process captures detailed information on both the rationale and data behind an assessment that would provide a basis for explanation. | 57.8 | 60.6
A.39 note: Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an a
Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions) saw this question.
A.39 note: Columns may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
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)
Columns may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
A.40 Behav…: 1.7 (N/A; no option), 2.3 (never use), 7.3 (rarely use), 42.2 (sometimes use), 46.5 (of
Sample (N = 1384) · Teams answering intervention/safety plan components question
Behavioral corrections or discipline (for example, detention, removal of privileges) | 1.7 | 2.3 | 7.3 | 42.2 | 46.5
A.40 Suppo…: 0.7 (N/A; no option), 0.6 (never use), 4.6 (rarely use), 39.3 (sometimes use), 54.9 (of
Sample (N = 1384) · Teams answering intervention/safety plan components question
Supports and safety interventions for the targets or victims of threats (for example, class changes, other protective measures) | 0.7 | 0.6 | 4.6 | 39.3 | 54.9
A.40 Behav…: 2.2 (N/A; no option), 1.9 (never use), 13.9 (rarely use), 51.4 (sometimes use), 30.7 (o
Sample (N = 1384) · Teams answering intervention/safety plan components question
Behavioral or movement controls in school (for example, changes to arrival or passing times) | 2.2 | 1.9 | 13.9 | 51.4 | 30.7
A.40 Progr…: 0.5 (N/A; no option), 0.8 (never use), 3.9 (rarely use), 41.8 (sometimes use), 52.9 (of
Sample (N = 1384) · Teams answering intervention/safety plan components question
Programming to build relationships with trusted adults (for example, regular check-ins, adult mentoring) | 0.5 | 0.8 | 3.9 | 41.8 | 52.9
A.40 Skill…: 2.5 (N/A; no option), 1.6 (never use), 12.8 (rarely use), 49.4 (sometimes use), 33.7 (o
Sample (N = 1384) · Teams answering intervention/safety plan components question
Skill-building services or programs (for example, social skills or life-skills programming, leadership development) | 2.5 | 1.6 | 12.8 | 49.4 | 33.7
A.40 Progr…: 3.2 (N/A; no option), 2.9 (never use), 18.1 (rarely use), 49.1 (sometimes use), 26.7 (o
Sample (N = 1384) · Teams answering intervention/safety plan components question
Programming to build peer relationships and engagement (for example, peer mentor groups) | 3.2 | 2.9 | 18.1 | 49.1 | 26.7
A.40 Acade…: 15.2 (N/A; no option), 6.2 (never use), 30.0 (rarely use), 39.6 (sometimes use), 8.9 (o
Sample (N = 1384) · Teams answering intervention/safety plan components question
Academic or vocational programming | 15.2 | 6.2 | 30.0 | 39.6 | 8.9
A.40 Speci…: 1.2 (N/A; no option), 2.9 (never use), 16.5 (rarely use), 62.9 (sometimes use), 16.6 (o
Sample (N = 1384) · Teams answering intervention/safety plan components question
Special education or disability supports | 1.2 | 2.9 | 16.5 | 62.9 | 16.6
A.40 Mental health counseling or care: 1.9 / 1.0 / 3.5 / 46.5 / 47.1
Sample (N = 1384) · Principals at schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team answering Table A.40 (intervention/safety plan components)
Mental health counseling or care | 1.9 | 1.0 | 3.5 | 46.5 | 47.1
A.40 Substance use treatment: 21.3 / 18.0 / 29.8 / 25.4 / 5.5
Sample (N = 1384) · Principals at schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team answering Table A.40 (intervention/safety plan components)
Substance use treatment | 21.3 | 18.0 | 29.8 | 25.4 | 5.5
A.40 Family support and intervention programming: 8.2 / 4.2 / 21.5 / 49.5 / 16.7
Sample (N = 1384) · Principals at schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team answering Table A.40 (intervention/safety plan components)
Family support and intervention programming | 8.2 | 4.2 | 21.5 | 49.5 | 16.7
A.40 Temporary removal from school (suspension): 1.8 / 3.3 / 20.2 / 55.0 / 19.6
Sample (N = 1384) · Principals at schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team answering Table A.40 (intervention/safety plan components)
Temporary removal from school (suspension) | 1.8 | 3.3 | 20.2 | 55.0 | 19.6
A.40 Law enforcement action (for example, arrest) or criminal jus...: 3.7 / 16.6 / 36.8 / 36.0 / 6.8
Sample (N = 1384) · Principals at schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team answering Table A.40 (intervention/safety plan components)
Law enforcement action (for example, arrest) or criminal justice action | 3.7 | 16.6 | 36.8 | 36.0 | 6.8
A.40 Permanent removal from school (expulsion or relocation): 9.5 / 29.7 / 38.4 / 19.2 / 3.2
Sample (N = 1384) · Principals at schools with a school- or district-level BTAM team answering Table A.40 (intervention/safety plan components)
Permanent removal from school (expulsion or relocation) | 9.5 | 29.7 | 38.4 | 19.2 | 3.2
Table A.40 note: Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team...
Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions) saw this question.
Table A.40 note: Table only includes data from respondents who said their school has a school- or...
Table only includes data from respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team, not respondents who said they have an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions.
Table A.40 note: Rows may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
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)
Rows may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
A.41 Skill-building services or programs (e.g., social skills or life-skills program...: 70.2 / 70.0
Sample (N = 1601 | 1374 by column) · Table A.41 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Skill-building services or programs (e.g., social skills or life-skills programming, leadership development) | 70.2 | 70.0
A.41 Mental health counseling or care: 74.2 / 75.1
Sample (N = 1601 | 1374 by column) · Table A.41 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Mental health counseling or care | 74.2 | 75.1
A.41 Substance use treatment: 34.9 / 36.6
Sample (N = 1601 | 1374 by column) · Table A.41 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Substance use treatment | 34.9 | 36.6
A.41 Family support and intervention programming: 57.1 / 57.9
Sample (N = 1601 | 1374 by column) · Table A.41 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Family support and intervention programming | 57.1 | 57.9
A.41 N/A; When these services are recommended by the BTAM team, the student’s family...: 13.2 / 13.1
Sample (N = 1601 | 1374 by column) · Table A.41 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
N/A; When these services are recommended by the BTAM team, the student’s family must pay the costs or be reimbursed through their own insurance coverage | 13.2 | 13.1
Table A.41 note: Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
Table A.41 note: Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team...
Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions) saw this question.
Table A.41 note: Respondents only saw a response option if they indicated previously that this re...
Respondents only saw a response option if they indicated previously that this response option was used rarely, sometimes, or often.
A.42 Our BTAM team has a standard set of actions that it takes for every student ass...: 15.7 / 15.9
Sample (N = 1609 | 1380 by column) · Table A.42 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Our BTAM team has a standard set of actions that it takes for every student assessed as a potential school safety concern | 15.7 | 15.9
A.42 Our BTAM team members recommend elements to add to each intervention plan based...: 34.4 / 33.1
Sample (N = 1609 | 1380 by column) · Table A.42 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
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) | 34.4 | 33.1
A.42 Our BTAM team draws on an inventory of resources available across the school an...: 27.7 / 27.9
Sample (N = 1609 | 1380 by column) · Table A.42 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
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 | 27.7 | 27.9
A.42 Our BTAM team draws on an inventory of resources and decision support tools tha...: 22.1 / 23.1
Sample (N = 1609 | 1380 by column) · Table A.42 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
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 | 22.1 | 23.1
Table A.42 note: Columns may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
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)
Columns may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
Table A.42 note: Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team...
Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions) saw this question.
A.43 Parents/guardians of the student being assessed: 9.3 / 18.9 / 71.8
Sample (N = 1379) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Parents/guardians of the student being assessed | 9.3 | 18.9 | 71.8
A.43 Student being assessed: 16.0 / 17.7 / 66.2
Sample (N = 1379) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Student being assessed | 16.0 | 17.7 | 66.2
Table A.43 note: Rows may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
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)
Rows may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
Table A.43 note: Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team...
Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions) saw this question.
Table A.43 note: Table only includes data from respondents who said their school has a school- or...
Table only includes data from respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team, not respondents who said they have an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions.
A.44 We do not monitor the progress of intervention/safety plans after they are implem...: 1.8 / 2.0
Sample (N = 1608 | 1379 by column) · Table A.44 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
We do not monitor the progress of intervention/safety plans after they are implemented. | 1.8 | 2.0
A.44 We rely on teachers, counselors, and others to monitor progress and make adjust...: 25.1 / 24.6
Sample (N = 1608 | 1379 by column) · Table A.44 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
We rely on teachers, counselors, and others to monitor progress and make adjustments to interventions without directly involving the BTAM team. | 25.1 | 24.6
A.44 We actively manage and monitor the progress of some students’ progress and make...: 22.7 / 22.7
Sample (N = 1608 | 1379 by column) · Table A.44 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
We actively manage and monitor the progress of some students’ progress and make adjustments as needed. | 22.7 | 22.7
A.44 We actively manage and monitor the progress of all students’ progress and make ...: 48.1 / 48.9
Sample (N = 1608 | 1379 by column) · Table A.44 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
We actively manage and monitor the progress of all students’ progress and make adjustments as needed. | 48.1 | 48.9
A.44 I don’t know if we monitor intervention progress.: 2.3 / 1.8
Sample (N = 1608 | 1379 by column) · Table A.44 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
I don’t know if we monitor intervention progress. | 2.3 | 1.8
Table A.44 note: Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team...
Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions) saw this question.
A.45 We receive periodic reports on progress from teachers who have direct contact w...: 66.5 / 65.0
Sample (N = 1132 | 984 by column) · Table A.45 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
We receive periodic reports on progress from teachers who have direct contact with the student | 66.5 | 65.0
A.45 We receive periodic reports from staff designated to speak with the student reg...: 65.3 / 64.8
Sample (N = 1132 | 984 by column) · Table A.45 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
We receive periodic reports from staff designated to speak with the student regularly as part of the plan (e.g., check in, check out programs) | 65.3 | 64.8
A.45 We receive periodic reports from other school staff (e.g., counselors): 60.6 / 58.7
Sample (N = 1132 | 984 by column) · Table A.45 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
We receive periodic reports from other school staff (e.g., counselors) | 60.6 | 58.7
A.45 We receive periodic reports on treatment delivery and student progress from out...: 32.3 / 32.3
Sample (N = 1132 | 984 by column) · Table A.45 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
We receive periodic reports on treatment delivery and student progress from outside providers | 32.3 | 32.3
A.45 We revisit cases during our regular BTAM team meetings when specific events occ...: 40.4 / 39.4
Sample (N = 1132 | 984 by column) · Table A.45 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
We revisit cases during our regular BTAM team meetings when specific events occur (e.g., when a student returns to school after an absence) | 40.4 | 39.4
A.45 We revisit cases during our regular BTAM team meetings at regular time intervals: 38.1 / 37.7
Sample (N = 1132 | 984 by column) · Table A.45 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
We revisit cases during our regular BTAM team meetings at regular time intervals | 38.1 | 37.7
A.45 We manually analyze data and track progress (e.g., use behavioral graphs to vis...: 30.4 / 30.6
Sample (N = 1132 | 984 by column) · Table A.45 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
We manually analyze data and track progress (e.g., use behavioral graphs to visualize improvements in student behavior) | 30.4 | 30.6
A.45 We have a specific information/case management system that tracks data on the c...: 14.5 / 15.4
Sample (N = 1132 | 984 by column) · Table A.45 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
We have a specific information/case management system that tracks data on the cases we are monitoring | 14.5 | 15.4
A.45 Other (please specify):: 1.5 / 1.5
Sample (N = 1132 | 984 by column) · Table A.45 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Other (please specify): | 1.5 | 1.5
Table A.45 note: Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
Table A.45 note: Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team...
Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions) and one that monitors some or all students’ progress after a behavioral intervention or safety plan has been implemented saw this question.
A.46 No: 38.5 / 39.0
Sample (N = 1132 | 984 by column) · Table A.46 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
No | 38.5 | 39.0
A.46 Yes: 61.5 / 61.0
Sample (N = 1132 | 984 by column) · Table A.46 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Yes | 61.5 | 61.0
Table A.46 note: Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team...
Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions) and one that monitors some or all students’ progress after a behavioral intervention or safety plan has been implemented saw this question.
A.47 Never: 42.4 / 39.8
Sample (N = 1607 | 1378 by column) · Table A.47 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Never | 42.4 | 39.8
A.47 Rarely: 38.6 / 40.0
Sample (N = 1607 | 1378 by column) · Table A.47 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Rarely | 38.6 | 40.0
A.47 Sometimes: 14.7 / 15.6
Sample (N = 1607 | 1378 by column) · Table A.47 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Sometimes | 14.7 | 15.6
A.47 Frequently: 3.7 / 3.9
Sample (N = 1607 | 1378 by column) · Table A.47 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Frequently | 3.7 | 3.9
A.47 Every time: 0.7 / 0.8
Sample (N = 1607 | 1378 by column) · Table A.47 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
Every time | 0.7 | 0.8
Table A.47 note: Columns may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
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)
Columns may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
Table A.47 note: Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team...
Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions) saw this question.
Table A.48, Never: 31.0 / 29.7
Sample (N = 1608 | 1379 by column) · Table A.48 columns: official+other school-based teams (1,608); official teams only (1,379)
Never | 31.0 | 29.7
Table A.48, Rarely: 46.2 / 46.0
Sample (N = 1608 | 1379 by column) · Table A.48 columns: official+other school-based teams (1,608); official teams only (1,379)
Rarely | 46.2 | 46.0
Table A.48, Sometimes: 19.3 / 20.6
Sample (N = 1608 | 1379 by column) · Table A.48 columns: official+other school-based teams (1,608); official teams only (1,379)
Sometimes | 19.3 | 20.6
Table A.48, Frequently: 2.7 / 2.8
Sample (N = 1608 | 1379 by column) · Table A.48 columns: official+other school-based teams (1,608); official teams only (1,379)
Frequently | 2.7 | 2.8
Table A.48, Every time: 0.8 / 0.9
Sample (N = 1608 | 1379 by column) · Table A.48 columns: official+other school-based teams (1,608); official teams only (1,379)
Every time | 0.8 | 0.9
Table A.48 note: Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team
Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions) saw this question.
Table A.49, Violence rates: 10.5 / 49.1 / 38.6 / 1.4 / 0.4
Sample (N = 1377) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Violence rates | 10.5 | 49.1 | 38.6 | 1.4 | 0.4
Table A.49, Rates of suicidality or self-harm: 11.5 / 45.8 / 40.4 / 2.0 / 0.3
Sample (N = 1377) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Rates of suicidality or self-harm | 11.5 | 45.8 | 40.4 | 2.0 | 0.3
Table A.49, Suspension and expulsion rates overall: 12.5 / 41.0 / 39.8 / 6.4 / 0.3
Sample (N = 1377) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Suspension and expulsion rates overall | 12.5 | 41.0 | 39.8 | 6.4 | 0.3
Table A.49, Racial disparities in suspension and expulsion rates: 8.5 / 31.6 / 58.3 / 1.5 / 0.0
Sample (N = 1377) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Racial disparities in suspension and expulsion rates | 8.5 | 31.6 | 58.3 | 1.5 | 0.0
Table A.49, Gender disparities in suspension and expulsion rates: 7.9 / 27.1 / 63.5 / 1.5 / 0.0
Sample (N = 1377) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Gender disparities in suspension and expulsion rates | 7.9 | 27.1 | 63.5 | 1.5 | 0.0
Table A.49, Special and general education disparities in suspension …: 7.5 / 35.8 / 53.9 / 2.7 / 0.0
Sample (N = 1377) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Special and general education disparities in suspension and expulsion rates | 7.5 | 35.8 | 53.9 | 2.7 | 0.0
Table A.49, Student feelings of safety at school: 2.6 / 7.5 / 24.2 / 58.4 / 7.3
Sample (N = 1377) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Student feelings of safety at school | 2.6 | 7.5 | 24.2 | 58.4 | 7.3
Table A.49, Staff (administrators, teachers, etc.) feelings of safet…: 2.8 / 7.3 / 20.2 / 62.0 / 7.8
Sample (N = 1377) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Staff (administrators, teachers, etc.) feelings of safety school | 2.8 | 7.3 | 20.2 | 62.0 | 7.8
Table A.49 note: n = 1,377. Rows may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
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)
n = 1,377. Rows may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
Table A.49 note: Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team
Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions) saw this question.
Table A.49 note: Table only includes data from respondents who said their school has a school- or
Table only includes data from respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team, not respondents who said they have an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions.
Table A.50, Significantly worsened school climate: 0.2 / 0.1
Sample (N = 1604 | 1377 by column) · Table A.50 columns: official+other school-based teams (1,604); official teams only (1,377)
Significantly worsened school climate | 0.2 | 0.1
Table A.50, Worsened school climate: 0.3 / 0.3
Sample (N = 1604 | 1377 by column) · Table A.50 columns: official+other school-based teams (1,604); official teams only (1,377)
Worsened school climate | 0.3 | 0.3
Table A.50, Has had no impact on school climate: 23.2 / 23.9
Sample (N = 1604 | 1377 by column) · Table A.50 columns: official+other school-based teams (1,604); official teams only (1,377)
Has had no impact on school climate | 23.2 | 23.9
Table A.50, Improved school climate: 59.7 / 59.3
Sample (N = 1604 | 1377 by column) · Table A.50 columns: official+other school-based teams (1,604); official teams only (1,377)
Improved school climate | 59.7 | 59.3
Table A.50, Significantly improved school climate: 11.2 / 10.9
Sample (N = 1604 | 1377 by column) · Table A.50 columns: official+other school-based teams (1,604); official teams only (1,377)
Significantly improved school climate | 11.2 | 10.9
Table A.50, Don’t know: 5.4 / 5.4
Sample (N = 1604 | 1377 by column) · Table A.50 columns: official+other school-based teams (1,604); official teams only (1,377)
Don’t know | 5.4 | 5.4
Table A.50 note: Columns may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
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)
Columns may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
Table A.50 note: Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team
Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions) saw this question.
Table A.51, N/A; The process has been generally stable, using established approaches f…: 37.8 / 38.6
Sample (N = 1603 | 1376 by column) · Table A.51 columns: official+other school-based teams (1,603); official teams only (1,376)
N/A; The process has been generally stable, using established approaches for assessing cases and planning interventions | 37.8 | 38.6
Table A.51, The process has changed because we needed to make adjustments to better fi…: 25.7 / 24.2
Sample (N = 1603 | 1376 by column) · Table A.51 columns: official+other school-based teams (1,603); official teams only (1,376)
The process has changed because we needed to make adjustments to better fit our school’s needs | 25.7 | 24.2
Table A.51, The process has changed because we changed the staff on the team and made …: 19.5 / 18.4
Sample (N = 1603 | 1376 by column) · Table A.51 columns: official+other school-based teams (1,603); official teams only (1,376)
The process has changed because we changed the staff on the team and made changes to how the team functions | 19.5 | 18.4
Table A.51, The process has changed in response to resource or other constraints that …: 12.6 / 12.1
Sample (N = 1603 | 1376 by column) · Table A.51 columns: official+other school-based teams (1,603); official teams only (1,376)
The process has changed in response to resource or other constraints that limited our capacity | 12.6 | 12.1
Table A.51, The process has changed because of concerns in the community about how BTAM …: 3.0 / 3.1
Sample (N = 1603 | 1376 by column) · Table A.51 columns: official+other school-based teams (1,603); official teams only (1,376)
The process has changed because of concerns in the community about how BTAM affects students | 3.0 | 3.1
Table A.51, The process has changed because we aimed to make it more effective in prot…: 29.8 / 30.4
Sample (N = 1603 | 1376 by column) · Table A.51 columns: official+other school-based teams (1,603); official teams only (1,376)
The process has changed because we aimed to make it more effective in protecting our school and students | 29.8 | 30.4
Table A.51, The process changed because of changes to state law or policy about BTAM: 13.1 / 14.3
Sample (N = 1603 | 1376 by column) · Table A.51 columns: official+other school-based teams (1,603); official teams only (1,376)
The process changed because of changes to state law or policy about BTAM | 13.1 | 14.3
Table A.51 note: Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
Table A.51 note: Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team
Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions) saw this question.
Table A.52, Not supportive: 0.4 / 0.4
Sample (N = 1603 | 1376 by column) · Tables A.52-A.54 columns: official+other school-based teams (1,603); official teams only (1,376)
Not supportive | 0.4 | 0.4
Table A.52, Somewhat not supportive: 1.6 / 1.3
Sample (N = 1603 | 1376 by column) · Tables A.52-A.54 columns: official+other school-based teams (1,603); official teams only (1,376)
Somewhat not supportive | 1.6 | 1.3
Table A.52, Neutral: 28.2 / 27.8
Sample (N = 1603 | 1376 by column) · Tables A.52-A.54 columns: official+other school-based teams (1,603); official teams only (1,376)
Neutral | 28.2 | 27.8
Table A.52, Somewhat supportive: 28.0 / 27.2
Sample (N = 1603 | 1376 by column) · Tables A.52-A.54 columns: official+other school-based teams (1,603); official teams only (1,376)
Somewhat supportive | 28.0 | 27.2
Table A.52, Supportive: 41.8 / 43.4
Sample (N = 1603 | 1376 by column) · Tables A.52-A.54 columns: official+other school-based teams (1,603); official teams only (1,376)
Supportive | 41.8 | 43.4
Table A.52 note: Columns may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
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)
Columns may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
Table A.52 note: Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team
Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions) saw this question.
Table A.53, No, our BTAM program is implemented without dedicated staff or additional …: 58.2 / 56.6
Sample (N = 1603 | 1376 by column) · Tables A.52-A.54 columns: official+other school-based teams (1,603); official teams only (1,376)
No, our BTAM program is implemented without dedicated staff or additional funds for programs beyond what our school already had available. | 58.2 | 56.6
Table A.53, No, we fund our activities in other ways (please describe):: 2.0 / 1.9
Sample (N = 1603 | 1376 by column) · Tables A.52-A.54 columns: official+other school-based teams (1,603); official teams only (1,376)
No, we fund our activities in other ways (please describe): | 2.0 | 1.9
Table A.53, Yes, our program has dedicated funding in the school or district budget: 21.8 / 22.8
Sample (N = 1603 | 1376 by column) · Tables A.52-A.54 columns: official+other school-based teams (1,603); official teams only (1,376)
Yes, our program has dedicated funding in the school or district budget | 21.8 | 22.8
Table A.53, Don’t know: 17.9 / 18.7
Sample (N = 1603 | 1376 by column) · Tables A.52-A.54 columns: official+other school-based teams (1,603); official teams only (1,376)
Don’t know | 17.9 | 18.7
Table A.53 note: Columns may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
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)
Columns may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
Table A.53 note: Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team
Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions) saw this question.
Table A.54, N/A; Our team members do not receive BTAM-specific training: 16.1 / 12.6
Sample (N = 1603 | 1376 by column) · Tables A.52-A.54 columns: official+other school-based teams (1,603); official teams only (1,376)
N/A; Our team members do not receive BTAM-specific training | 16.1 | 12.6
Table A.54, Once at the beginning of their tenure on the team: 14.8 / 16.3
Sample (N = 1603 | 1376 by column) · Tables A.52-A.54 columns: official+other school-based teams (1,603); official teams only (1,376)
Once at the beginning of their tenure on the team | 14.8 | 16.3
Table A.54, Once per school year: 34.2 / 35.7
Sample (N = 1603 | 1376 by column) · Tables A.52-A.54 columns: official+other school-based teams (1,603); official teams only (1,376)
Once per school year | 34.2 | 35.7
Table A.54, At least twice per school year: 11.6 / 12.2
Sample (N = 1603 | 1376 by column) · Tables A.52-A.54 columns: official+other school-based teams (1,603); official teams only (1,376)
At least twice per school year | 11.6 | 12.2
Table A.54, On an as-needed basis: 23.3 / 23.3
Sample (N = 1603 | 1376 by column) · Tables A.52-A.54 columns: official+other school-based teams (1,603); official teams only (1,376)
On an as-needed basis | 23.3 | 23.3
Table A.54 note: Columns may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
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)
Columns may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
Table A.54 note: Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team
Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions) saw this question.
Table A.55, No, very unlikely: 25.9 / 28.2
Sample (N = 1603 | 1376 by column) · Tables A.55-A.56 columns: official+other school-based teams (1,603); official teams only (1,376)
No, very unlikely | 25.9 | 28.2
Table A.55, No, unlikely: 32.5 / 34.4
Sample (N = 1603 | 1376 by column) · Tables A.55-A.56 columns: official+other school-based teams (1,603); official teams only (1,376)
No, unlikely | 32.5 | 34.4
Table A.55, Unsure; maybe or maybe not: 28.9 / 26.1
Sample (N = 1603 | 1376 by column) · Tables A.55-A.56 columns: official+other school-based teams (1,603); official teams only (1,376)
Unsure; maybe or maybe not | 28.9 | 26.1
Table A.55, Yes, likely: 9.0 / 8.1
Sample (N = 1603 | 1376 by column) · Tables A.55-A.56 columns: official+other school-based teams (1,603); official teams only (1,376)
Yes, likely | 9.0 | 8.1
Table A.55, Yes, very likely: 3.7 / 3.1
Sample (N = 1603 | 1376 by column) · Tables A.55-A.56 columns: official+other school-based teams (1,603); official teams only (1,376)
Yes, very likely | 3.7 | 3.1
Table A.55 note: Columns may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
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)
Columns may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
Table A.55 note: Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team
Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions) saw this question.
Table A.56, N/A; we have not experienced any challenges when it comes to BTAM operatio…: 43.6 / 44.1
Sample (N = 1603 | 1376 by column) · Tables A.55-A.56 columns: official+other school-based teams (1,603); official teams only (1,376)
N/A; we have not experienced any challenges when it comes to BTAM operations | 43.6 | 44.1
Table A.56, Concerns about BTAM effectiveness in reducing school violence: 9.2 / 9.0
Sample (N = 1603 | 1376 by column) · Tables A.55-A.56 columns: official+other school-based teams (1,603); official teams only (1,376)
Concerns about BTAM effectiveness in reducing school violence | 9.2 | 9.0
Table A.56, Difficulty funding continued BTAM operation: 7.0 / 6.6
Sample (N = 1603 | 1376 by column) · Tables A.55-A.56 columns: official+other school-based teams (1,603); official teams only (1,376)
Difficulty funding continued BTAM operation | 7.0 | 6.6
Table A.56, Staff or district leaders concerned that BTAM is too complex: 9.2 / 9.5
Sample (N = 1603 | 1376 by column) · Tables A.55-A.56 columns: official+other school-based teams (1,603); official teams only (1,376)
Staff or district leaders concerned that BTAM is too complex | 9.2 | 9.5
Table A.56, Difficulties adapting BTAM to local needs: 4.7 / 4.6
Sample (N = 1603 | 1376 by column) · Tables A.55-A.56 columns: official+other school-based teams (1,603); official teams only (1,376)
Difficulties adapting BTAM to local needs | 4.7 | 4.6
Table A.56, Reduction in community support for the BTAM program: 2.2 / 2.2
Sample (N = 1603 | 1376 by column) · Tables A.55-A.56 columns: official+other school-based teams (1,603); official teams only (1,376)
Reduction in community support for the BTAM program | 2.2 | 2.2
Table A.56, Reduction in school staff support for the BTAM program: 6.9 / 6.6
Sample (N = 1603 | 1376 by column) · Tables A.55-A.56 columns: official+other school-based teams (1,603); official teams only (1,376)
Reduction in school staff support for the BTAM program | 6.9 | 6.6
Table A.56, Problems maintaining connections to outside service providers for interven…: 16.6 / 16.2
Sample (N = 1603 | 1376 by column) · Tables A.55-A.56 columns: official+other school-based teams (1,603); official teams only (1,376)
Problems maintaining connections to outside service providers for intervention | 16.6 | 16.2
Table A.56, Service provider capacity limits for how many students each can serve: 21.2 / 21.0
Sample (N = 1603 | 1376 by column) · Tables A.55-A.56 columns: official+other school-based teams (1,603); official teams only (1,376)
Service provider capacity limits for how many students each can serve | 21.2 | 21.0
Table A.56, Parents unable to support individual intervention efforts (e.g., due to co…: 14.7 / 14.9
Sample (N = 1603 | 1376 by column) · Tables A.55-A.56 columns: official+other school-based teams (1,603); official teams only (1,376)
Parents unable to support individual intervention efforts (e.g., due to costs) | 14.7 | 14.9
Table A.56, Parents unwilling to implement or participate in recommended interventions: 30.2 / 29.8
Sample (N = 1603 | 1376 by column) · Tables A.55-A.56 columns: official+other school-based teams (1,603); official teams only (1,376)
Parents unwilling to implement or participate in recommended interventions | 30.2 | 29.8
Table A.56, Staffing constraints make BTAM difficult to maintain: 17.9 / 16.4
Sample (N = 1603 | 1376 by column) · Tables A.55-A.56 columns: official+other school-based teams (1,603); official teams only (1,376)
Staffing constraints make BTAM difficult to maintain | 17.9 | 16.4
Table A.56, Can’t get needed training for BTAM team members: 8.3 / 7.3
Sample (N = 1603 | 1376 by column) · Tables A.55-A.56 columns: official+other school-based teams (1,603); official teams only (1,376)
Can’t get needed training for BTAM team members | 8.3 | 7.3
Table A.56, Problems getting data from outside organizations (e.g., law enforcement, med…: 8.4 / 8.4
Sample (N = 1603 | 1376 by column) · Tables A.55-A.56 columns: official+other school-based teams (1,603); official teams only (1,376)
Problems getting data from outside organizations (e.g., law enforcement, medical providers) | 8.4 | 8.4
Table A.56, Other (please specify):: 2.9 / 2.9
Sample (N = 1603 | 1376 by column) · Tables A.55-A.56 columns: official+other school-based teams (1,603); official teams only (1,376)
Other (please specify): | 2.9 | 2.9
Table A.56 note: Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
Table A.56 note: Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team
Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions) saw this question.
We conduct after-action reviews of individual cases: 46.4 / 48.1 (weighted pct)
Sample (N = 1602 | 1376 by column) · Table A.57 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
We conduct after-action reviews of individual cases | 46.4 | 48.1
We validate that specific intervention options are bein…: 36.4 / 36.2 (weighted pct)
Sample (N = 1602 | 1376 by column) · Table A.57 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
We validate that specific intervention options are being delivered as designed, by appropriately trained staff, and for the recommended amount of time. | 36.4 | 36.2
We collect and analyze data about how specific interven…: 39.7 / 39.9 (weighted pct)
Sample (N = 1602 | 1376 by column) · Table A.57 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
We collect and analyze data about how specific intervention options are influencing student-level outcomes | 39.7 | 39.9
We periodically assess and revise the menu of intervent…: 29.2 / 29.9 (weighted pct)
Sample (N = 1602 | 1376 by column) · Table A.57 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
We periodically assess and revise the menu of interventions available to the BTAM team | 29.2 | 29.9
We collect and analyze data on student outcomes across…: 27.3 / 28.0 (weighted pct)
Sample (N = 1602 | 1376 by column) · Table A.57 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
We collect and analyze data on student outcomes across all students served by the program to monitor the overall effectiveness of our BTAM efforts | 27.3 | 28.0
We collect and analyze data on student outcomes for dif…: 16.3 / 16.7 (weighted pct)
Sample (N = 1602 | 1376 by column) · Table A.57 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
We collect and analyze data on student outcomes for different student populations (e.g., special education students, neurodiverse students, racial/ethnic minority students, gender and sexual minority students, socioeconomically disadvantaged students) to assess the fairness of our BTAM efforts | 16.3 | 16.7
We collect feedback from students and/or parents/guardi…: 18.5 / 18.7 (weighted pct)
Sample (N = 1602 | 1376 by column) · Table A.57 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
We collect feedback from students and/or parents/guardians of students once their BTAM intervention is complete | 18.5 | 18.7
We collect feedback from students, parents/guardians, a…: 18.6 / 19.2 (weighted pct)
Sample (N = 1602 | 1376 by column) · Table A.57 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
We collect feedback from students, parents/guardians, and/or staff who were the targets or victims of threatening behavior | 18.6 | 19.2
We collect feedback from school staff who have been dir…: 32.2 / 31.8 (weighted pct)
Sample (N = 1602 | 1376 by column) · Table A.57 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
We collect feedback from school staff who have been directly involved in implementing BTAM interventions | 32.2 | 31.8
We carry out training and outreach for the school staff…: 21.9 / 22.8 (weighted pct)
Sample (N = 1602 | 1376 by column) · Table A.57 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
We carry out training and outreach for the school staff and students to maintain knowledge of BTAM and how to refer individuals of concern | 21.9 | 22.8
None of these processes are part of how our BTAM progra…: 14.5 / 13.5 (weighted pct)
Sample (N = 1602 | 1376 by column) · Table A.57 columns: Official BTAM teams and other school-based teams | Official BTAM teams only
None of these processes are part of how our BTAM program operates | 14.5 | 13.5
Table A.57 note: Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
NOTE: Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
Table A.57 note: Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM tea…
Only respondents who said their school has a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions) saw this question.
The outside BTAM team we work with only becomes involved in a case when we seek…: 54.8 (weighted pc…
Sample (N = 122) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
The outside BTAM team we work with only becomes involved in a case when we seek out their assistance | 54.8
We work with our outside BTAM team when we seek out their help AND when they ap…: 32.9 (weighted pc…
Sample (N = 122) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
We work with our outside BTAM team when we seek out their help AND when they approach us with information referred to them | 32.9
The only times we work with our outside BTAM team is when they approach us abou…: 8.2 (weighted pct)
Sample (N = 122) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
The only times we work with our outside BTAM team is when they approach us about a threat or tip reported to them | 8.2
Don’t know: 4.1 (weighted pct)
Sample (N = 122) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Don’t know | 4.1
Table A.58 note: Only respondents who said their school is served by a BTAM team external to the…
Only respondents who said their school is served by a BTAM team external to the school or district and that they were somewhat or extremely familiar with the operation and processes of this outside team saw this question.
Very rarely: 23.6 (weighted pct)
Sample (N = 122) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Very rarely | 23.6
Rarely: 23.2 (weighted pct)
Sample (N = 122) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Rarely | 23.2
Sometimes: 31.9 (weighted pct)
Sample (N = 122) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Sometimes | 31.9
Frequently: 17.9 (weighted pct)
Sample (N = 122) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Frequently | 17.9
Very frequently: 3.4 (weighted pct)
Sample (N = 122) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Very frequently | 3.4
Table A.59 note: Only respondents who said their school is served by a BTAM team external to the…
Only respondents who said their school is served by a BTAM team external to the school or district and that they were somewhat or extremely familiar with the operation and processes of this outside team saw this question.
Outside BTAM teams have access to more or different information than our school…: 38.4 (weighted pc…
Sample (N = 122) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Outside BTAM teams have access to more or different information than our school or district does, including ready access to law enforcement data and other sources | 38.4
Outside teams have access to a broader variety of service providers or provider…: 54.2 (weighted pc…
Sample (N = 122) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Outside teams have access to a broader variety of service providers or providers with greater capacity to deliver intervention programming than we do at the school- or district-level | 54.2
Outside teams don’t know as much about school environments and/or youth populat…: 25.2 (weighted pc…
Sample (N = 122) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Outside teams don’t know as much about school environments and/or youth populations, which can be problematic when it comes to assessing the level of threat posed by student behavior | 25.2
Outside teams don’t know as much about the community context of my school, whic…: 19.9 (weighted pc…
Sample (N = 122) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Outside teams don’t know as much about the community context of my school, which can be problematic in responding to student behavior in a practical way | 19.9
Table A.60 note: Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
Table A.60 note: Only respondents who said their school is served by a BTAM team external to the…
Only respondents who said their school is served by a BTAM team external to the school or district and that they were somewhat or extremely familiar with the operation and processes of this outside team saw this question.
We had a BTAM team previously, but it was discontinued.: 0.0 (weighted pct)
Sample (N = 47) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
We had a BTAM team previously, but it was discontinued. | 0.0
We have considered starting a BTAM team but have not done so: 12.4 (weighted pct)
Sample (N = 47) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
We have considered starting a BTAM team but have not done so | 12.4
We have not considered starting a BTAM team: 66.0 (weighted pct)
Sample (N = 47) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
We have not considered starting a BTAM team | 66.0
Don’t know: 21.5 (weighted pct)
Sample (N = 47) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Don’t know | 21.5
Table A.61 note: Column does not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
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)
Column does not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
Table A.61 note: Only respondents who said their school does not have a school- or district-leve…
Only respondents who said their school does not have a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions) saw this question.
None of these reasons were important: X (weighted pct)
None of these reasons were important | X
Concerns about BTAM effectiveness in reducing school violence: X (weighted pct)
Concerns about BTAM effectiveness in reducing school violence | X
Staff or district leader concerns about BTAM being too complex: X (weighted pct)
Staff or district leader concerns about BTAM being too complex | X
Difficulties adapting BTAM to our local needs: X (weighted pct)
Difficulties adapting BTAM to our local needs | X
Our local community did not support our use of BTAM: X (weighted pct)
Our local community did not support our use of BTAM | X
Problems maintaining connections to outside service providers for intervention: X (weighted pct)
Problems maintaining connections to outside service providers for intervention | X
Service provider capacity limits for how many students they could serve: X (weighted pct)
Service provider capacity limits for how many students they could serve | X
Parents unable to support individual intervention efforts (e.g., due to costs): X (weighted pct)
Parents unable to support individual intervention efforts (e.g., due to costs) | X
Parents unwilling to implement or participate in recommended interventions: X (weighted pct)
Parents unwilling to implement or participate in recommended interventions | X
Staffing constraints making BTAM difficult to maintain: X (weighted pct)
Staffing constraints making BTAM difficult to maintain | X
Reduction in school staff support for the program: X (weighted pct)
Reduction in school staff support for the program | X
Couldn’t get needed training for BTAM team members: X (weighted pct)
Couldn’t get needed training for BTAM team members | X
Problems getting data from outside organizations (e.g., law enforcement, medica…: X (weighted pct)
Problems getting data from outside organizations (e.g., law enforcement, medical providers) | X
I don’t know why we discontinued the program: X (weighted pct)
I don’t know why we discontinued the program | X
Table A.62 note: Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
Table A.62 note: Only respondents who said their school did have a school- or district-level BTA…
Only respondents who said their school did have a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions) and that this was discontinued would have seen this question, but none did.
Table A.62 note: X = Response suppressed because of the small sample size.
X = Response suppressed because of the small sample size.
I don’t know why we haven’t implemented a BTAM program: X (weighted pct)
I don’t know why we haven’t implemented a BTAM program | X
Our school safety concerns don’t justify implementing BTAM: X (weighted pct)
Our school safety concerns don’t justify implementing BTAM | X
BTAM is not mandated in our state: X (weighted pct)
BTAM is not mandated in our state | X
BTAM would not be accepted by our local community: X (weighted pct)
BTAM would not be accepted by our local community | X
BTAM would not work well in our school culture: X (weighted pct)
BTAM would not work well in our school culture | X
Our school staff would not support BTAM: X (weighted pct)
Our school staff would not support BTAM | X
Table A.63 note: Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
Table A.63 note: Only respondents who said their school does not have a school- or district-leve…
Only respondents who said their school does not have a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions) but that their school has considered starting one but has not yet done so saw this question.
Table A.63 note: X = Response suppressed because of the small sample size.
X = Response suppressed because of the small sample size.
I don’t know why we haven’t pursued implementing a BTAM program: 57.8 (weighted pct)
Sample (N = 32) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
I don’t know why we haven’t pursued implementing a BTAM program | 57.8
Our school safety concerns don’t justify implementing BTAM: 5.9 (weighted pct)
Sample (N = 32) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Our school safety concerns don’t justify implementing BTAM | 5.9
Funding constraints: 20.8 (weighted pct)
Sample (N = 32) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Funding constraints | 20.8
Staffing constraints: 30.9 (weighted pct)
Sample (N = 32) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Staffing constraints | 30.9
BTAM is not mandated in our state: 16.9 (weighted pct)
Sample (N = 32) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
BTAM is not mandated in our state | 16.9
BTAM would not be accepted by our local community: 1.8 (weighted pct)
Sample (N = 32) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
BTAM would not be accepted by our local community | 1.8
BTAM would not work well in our school culture: 0.0 (weighted pct)
Sample (N = 32) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
BTAM would not work well in our school culture | 0.0
Our school staff would not support BTAM: 0.0 (weighted pct)
Sample (N = 32) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Our school staff would not support BTAM | 0.0
Other (please specify): 5.0 (weighted pct)
Sample (N = 32) · Appendix A table base (respondents answering the table question; see note for tables)
Other (please specify) | 5.0
Table A.64 note: Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
Table A.64 note: Only respondents who said their school does not have a school- or district-leve…
Only respondents who said their school does not have a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions) and has not considered starting one saw this question.
If we had a violent incident in our school or district and BTAM implementation…: 52.1 (weighted pct)
Sample (N = 47) · Principals at schools with no school- or district-level BTAM team (or equivalent), Table A.65, n = 47
If we had a violent incident in our school or district and BTAM implementation became part of our response | 52.1
If state or local law changed and required us to implement: 60.1 (weighted pct)
Sample (N = 47) · Principals at schools with no school- or district-level BTAM team (or equivalent), Table A.65, n = 47
If state or local law changed and required us to implement | 60.1
If school district policy changed and required our school to implement: 58.5 (weighted pct)
Sample (N = 47) · Principals at schools with no school- or district-level BTAM team (or equivalent), Table A.65, n = 47
If school district policy changed and required our school to implement | 58.5
If concerns about liability for school violence were to increase: 36.3 (weighted pct)
Sample (N = 47) · Principals at schools with no school- or district-level BTAM team (or equivalent), Table A.65, n = 47
If concerns about liability for school violence were to increase | 36.3
If our community wanted us to adopt a BTAM program: 40.3 (weighted pct)
Sample (N = 47) · Principals at schools with no school- or district-level BTAM team (or equivalent), Table A.65, n = 47
If our community wanted us to adopt a BTAM program | 40.3
If other organizations we depend on (e.g., our local law enforcement department…: 34.1 (weighted pc…
Sample (N = 47) · Principals at schools with no school- or district-level BTAM team (or equivalent), Table A.65, n = 47
If other organizations we depend on (e.g., our local law enforcement department) encouraged us to adopt a BTAM program | 34.1
Other (please specify): 3.7 (weighted pct)
Sample (N = 47) · Principals at schools with no school- or district-level BTAM team (or equivalent), Table A.65, n = 47
Other (please specify) | 3.7
I do not think any factors would prompt my school or district to implement a BT…: 12.9 (weighted pc…
Sample (N = 47) · Principals at schools with no school- or district-level BTAM team (or equivalent), Table A.65, n = 47
I do not think any factors would prompt my school or district to implement a BTAM team | 12.9
Table A.65 note: Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
Respondents were instructed to select all that apply.
Table A.65 note: Only respondents who said their school does not have a school- or district-leve…
Only respondents who said their school does not have a school- or district-level BTAM team (or an alternative team that performs BTAM-like functions) saw this question.
Appendix B describes survey of nationally representative K-12 principals via ASLP
In this appendix, we describe our methods for administering a survey to a nationally representative sample of K–12 public school principals via RAND’s American School Leader Panel (ASLP) and for analyzing the results of that survey.
Methodology consistent across ASLP surveys; methods updated from Jackson et al., 2023
As our methodology for collecting and analyzing survey data remains relatively consistent across ASLP surveys, the description of our methods below is updated from a previous publication analyzing results from another ASLP survey focused on school safety (Jackson et al., 2023).
ASLP designed for national estimates and subgroup estimates by respondent and school characteristics
It was designed to produce national estimates from the perspective of public school principals, as well as subgroup estimates by respondent and school characteristics.
Principals are recruited into the ASLP using probability-based sampling methods
Principals are recruited into the ASLP using probability-based sampling methods.
ASLP sampling frame is a list of U.S. public school principals purchased from MDR
The sampling frame for the ASLP is a list of U.S. public school principals purchased from Market Data Retrieval (MDR), a market-research firm specializing in education.
The ASLP currently includes about 8,000 principals
The ASLP currently includes about 8,000 principals.
Panelists agreed to participate in surveys several times per year and receive incentives
Principals who have joined the panel have agreed to participate in surveys several times per year and receive incentives for completing surveys.
Panelists are invited to specific ASLP surveys using probability-based sampling
After being recruited into the ASLP, panelists are then invited to participate in specific ASLP surveys using probability-based sampling methods.
Survey items designed in-house by RAND researchers, shaped by prior work on school safety
Survey items were designed in-house by RAND researchers and shaped by prior work on school safety and security.
Sponsor gave feedback; RAND kept editorial control and handled IRB review
Although the survey sponsor provided feedback on survey items, RAND researchers maintained editorial control and were responsible for institutional review board review and approval of the final survey.
Survey designed for principals in schools with and without BTAM teams, with different pathways
The survey was intentionally designed to gather information from both principals in schools with and without BTAM teams. More specifically, the survey was designed to allow respondents to progress through different pathways depending on their specific school context, as shown in Figure B.1.
Respondents were sorted onto pathways by initial screener items
Respondents were sorted onto one of the pathways depending on their responses to some initial screener items.
Main (longer) pathway for schools with BTAM teams, anticipated 20 minutes
The main (longer) pathway was designed to collect detailed information from respondents in schools with BTAM teams. It was anticipated that this pathway would take respondents 20 minutes to complete.
Schools without BTAM teams (or only an external team) got a shorter survey, at most 15 minutes
Respondents in schools that did not have BTAM teams (or had only an external team) progressed through a shorter survey, designed to take at the most 15 minutes to complete. These participants received more scenarios about discipline incidents at their schools.
Module 1: Introduction, screening: official BTAM team or school-based BTAM-like team? Leads to Modul
1 | Introduction (screening questions) | Module 2 (Yes / No / Don’t know)
Module 2: Scenarios (n = 3 / n = 5 / n = 5) leads to Module 3; Module 8 or 7; Module 7 or END
2 | Scenarios (n = 3 / n = 5 / n = 5) | Module 3; Module 8 or Module 7; Module 7 or END
Module 3: Inside BTAM; Module 4 if involved in initial implementation, else Module 5
3 | Inside BTAM | Module 4 if involved in initial implementation (Yes), else Module 5 (No)
Module 6: BTAM Sustainability; END if Outside BTAM = no; Module 7 if yes
6 | BTAM Sustainability | END if “Outside BTAM” = no; Module 7 if “Outside BTAM” = yes
In Module 2 respondents received scenarios describing a behavioral incident at school
In the second module of the survey, respondents received scenarios that described a behavioral incident that might occur at school.
Respondents read the scenario and were asked questions about how their school would respond
Respondents were asked to read the scenario and then were asked the following questions about how their school would respond to such an incident:
Follow-up questions were tailored to the school's situation
The follow-up questions were tailored depending on the school’s situation. For example, schools that reported not having a BTAM team did not receive the third question asking whether their BTAM team would be made aware of the incident.
Personnel shown as possible responders reflected only personnel respondents said they had
The personnel (e.g., nurses, social workers, school-based law enforcement) that respondents saw who might respond to an incident reflected only those personnel that respondents said they had at their school.
Table B.1 lists the 16 scenarios; all were randomly assigned
Table B.1 lists the 16 scenarios used in the survey. All scenarios were randomly assigned.
BTAM-intensive pathway got three scenarios; shorter pathway got five
As shown in Figure B.1, the respondents on the BTAM-intensive survey pathway received three scenarios, while those on the shorter survey pathway received five scenarios.
Scenarios mixed severity (low, medium, high) and student populations affected
The scenarios were designed to include a mix of things, including severity of the incident (low, medium, or high) and student populations affected (e.g., special education student, general education student).
All respondents got one low and one high scenario; most got one medium, some three
All respondents received one low-severity scenario and one high-severity scenario. Most respondents then received one medium-severity scenario, although some respondents received three.
Respondents saw scenarios and follow-up questions in random order
Respondents saw their scenarios (and the associated follow-up questions) in a random order.
Scenarios were scaled to the grade level of students the school serves
The scenarios were scaled to the grade level of students in the schools that principals reported serving.
Principals categorized into grade levels from reported grades served that school year
Principals were first categorized into school grade levels based on their reports of the grade levels of students their schools served in that school year.
Schools serving both elementary and high grades were randomly assigned elementary or high
If principals were in a school that served both elementary and high school grades, they were randomly assigned to be elementary or high.
Mostly elementary schools got elementary scenarios; mostly middle or high got secondary scenarios
Principals in schools serving mostly elementary grades were assigned the elementary scenarios, while principals in schools serving mostly middle or high school grades were assigned the secondary scenarios.
Grade scaling ensured scenarios felt plausible for incidents schools might encounter
This was to ensure that respondents received scenarios that felt more plausible for the type of incidents their schools might actually encounter in their jobs.
Principal survey administered online in English Feb 5 to Feb 24, 2025
Our principal survey was administered online in English between February 5, 2025, and February 24, 2025.
Invited principals received multiple reminder emails
Invited principals received multiple reminder emails to participate.
Incentive scaled to survey length ($1 per minute)
Participants received an incentive upon completion of the survey, which was scaled to correspond to the length of the survey ($1 per minute).
Longer survey received a $20 incentive; shorter version $15
That is, those who received the longer survey received a $20 incentive, while those who received the shorter version received $15.
Respondents not told their pathway or which items triggered each pathway
To minimize the likelihood that respondents would change their survey answers to receive the higher incentive, respondents were not told which pathway they were on or which survey items triggered each pathway.
Two analysis goals set before fielding; first: national estimates for principals and schools
Before going into the field, researchers identified two main goals for analysis. The first goal was to produce estimates that generalize to the national population of U.S. public school principals and the schools in which they serve.
Second goal: compare BTAM operationalization across three state policy contexts
The second goal was to facilitate comparisons in how schools operationalized their BTAM programs across three state policy contexts: (1) states that had early legislation (as of 2019), (2) states that encouraged BTAM use, and (3) other states.
Early legislation states: WA, OR, NV, TX, MS, GA, FL, IL, MI, OH, PA, NY, CT, NH, KY, VA, MD, RI
Early legislation states (light blue) | WA, OR, NV, TX, MS, GA, FL, IL, MI, OH, PA, NY, CT, NH, KY, VA, MD, RI
States that encouraged BTAM use: MT, ID, ND, UT, CO, NE, KS, OK, NM, MO, AR, TN, IN, WV, NC, SC, VT,
States that encouraged BTAM use (purple) | MT, ID, ND, UT, CO, NE, KS, OK, NM, MO, AR, TN, IN, WV, NC, SC, VT, MA, NJ, DE
Other states: CA, AZ, WY, SD, MN, IA, WI, LA, AL, AK, HI, ME, DC
Other states (orange) | CA, AZ, WY, SD, MN, IA, WI, LA, AL, AK, HI, ME, DC
Sample designed to support the two goals while considering other factors
Our sample was designed to support these two main goals while considering several other factors.
First consideration: enough sample given uncertainty about how many schools had BTAM programs as of
The first consideration was researchers needed to ensure sufficient sample to unpack differences in schools’ BTAM programs with some uncertainty about how many schools nationally had BTAM programs as of January 2025.
Using April 2024 School Pulse Panel data, estimated about eight in ten sampled schools would have a
Using data collected from the Department of Education’s School Pulse Panel in April 2024, we estimated that about eight in ten sampled schools would have a BTAM team (NCES, 2025).
Second consideration: sample size to estimate means and proportions across three state policy contex
A second consideration was ensuring sufficient sample size to estimate means and proportions across the three state policy contexts of interest without substantially increasing the survey design effect.
Final consideration: availability of panelists across state policy contexts; about 6,000 active pane
A final consideration was the availability of panelists across state policy contexts within the ASLP to be sampled. There were about 6,000 active panelists in the ASLP at the time of sampling.
Target of 1,650 completed surveys across three state policy contexts
The final sample was chosen to target 1,650 completed surveys distributed across the three state policy contexts.
Initial goal: 50 percent early legislation, 25 percent other states, 25 percent encouraged-only
Sample (no n: a percentage change, not a share of a sample) · a percentage that is not a share of a sample (e.g. a percentage-point change or a weighted estimate of the population)
The initial goal was to sample 50 percent from the early legislation states (as it was anticipated that BTAM programs would be most common in these states), 25 percent from each of the other states, and 25 percent from the encouraged BTAM use only states.
At a 30 percent response rate, sample 1,375 in other and encouraged states and 2,750 in early legisl
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 shown in Table B.2, assuming a 30 percent response rate (which is in line with historical ASLP surveys), this would require sampling 1,375 principals in both the other states and encouraged BTAM use only states and 2,750 principals in early legislation states.
Too few panelists in other states; extra principals sampled from encouraged-only states
Sample (no n: a percentage change, not a share of a sample) · a percentage that is not a share of a sample (e.g. a percentage-point change or a weighted estimate of the population)
There were not enough panelists in the other states in the ASLP at the time of sampling to meet the desired sample. Therefore, we sampled some additional principals from the encouraged BTAM use only states to maintain the 50 percent/50 percent distribution with principals from early legislation states.
5,500 ASLP members invited using probability-based sampling
RAND researchers used probability-based sampling to invite 5,500 ASLP members to complete the survey using the ASLP as the sampling frame.
Of 5,500 sampled, 1,665 fully completed and 181 partially completed
Of the 5,500 members sampled, 1,665 principals fully completed the survey, and 181 principals partially completed the survey.
38 sampled principals were ineligible
Meanwhile, 38 sampled principals were determined ineligible for the survey.
1,746 cases received a weight, a 32.0 percent completion rate (AAPOR RR6)
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)
Excluding these 38 principals and the cases in which respondents did not complete a significant portion of the survey, a total of 1,746 cases received a weight. This corresponds to a 32.0 percent completion rate using the American Association for Public Opinion Research’s Response Rate 6 definition (American Association for Public Opinion Research, 2023).
Anticipated about 80 percent of 1,650 completes (n = 1,320) on full survey, 20 percent (n = 330) on
Sample (n = 1320 of 1650) · Targeted number of completed surveys (design target)
We anticipated that about 80 percent of the 1,650 completes would receive the full survey and be asked detailed questions about their BTAM program (n = 1,320) and 20 percent would receive the shorter survey (n = 330).
Underestimated principals reporting another school-based team that is not called a BTAM team
However, we underestimated the number of principals who would indicate that their school had another “school-based team that makes decisions regarding serious student behavioral concerns that is not referred to as a behavioral assessment and management (BTAM) team” and receive the longer survey pathway.
About 250 schools reported a school-based team not referred to as a BTAM team
About 250 schools told us that they have a school-based team that makes decisions regarding serious student behavioral concerns that is not referred to as a BTAM team.
Virtually all schools got the longer survey; only about 50 got the shorter pathway
This means that virtually all schools received the longer survey, and only about 50 schools received the shorter pathway intended to accommodate schools that were not doing BTAM.
Other states: desired completes 412, desired sample 1,375, panelists 1,307, final sample 1,307, fina
Sample (n = 423 of 1307) · Table B.2 final sample, other states
Other states | 412 | 1,375 | 1,307 | 1,307 | 423 | 32.4
Encouraged BTAM use only: desired completes 412, desired sample 1,375, panelists 1,794, final sample
Sample (n = 481 of 1443) · Table B.2 final sample, encouraged BTAM use only states
Encouraged BTAM use only | 412 | 1,375 | 1,794 | 1,443 | 481 | 33.3
Early legislation states: desired completes 826, desired sample 2,750, panelists 3,219, final sample
Sample (n = 842 of 2750) · Table B.2 final sample, early legislation states
Early legislation states | 826 | 2,750 | 3,219 | 2,750 | 842 | 30.6
All: desired completes 1,650, desired sample 5,500, panelists 6,320, final sample 5,500, final compl
Sample (n = 1746 of 5500) · Table B.2 final sample, all states
All | 1,650 | 5,500 | 6,320 | 5,500 | 1,746 | 31.7
Responses weighted to represent the national population of public school principals
Principals’ survey responses have been weighted to be representative of the national population of public school principals at the time the survey was administered.
Sampling weights created so the weighted sample resembles K–12 public school principals
To provide a weighted sample similar to the population of K–12 public school principals in the United States, we created sampling weights.
Weighting accounts for selection probability and response likelihood, then calibrates to the populat
The weighting process accounts for the probability of selection into the survey from the panel and the likelihood an invited principal completes the survey (the response weight), and these likelihoods are combined and calibrated to reproduce the population distribution of K–12 educators.
Final analysis weights are the product of three interim weights
More specifically, the final analysis weights used in our analyses are the product of the following three interim weights:
Products of the weights were recalibrated and trimmed if necessary
The products of these weights were subsequently recalibrated and trimmed if necessary.
Table B.3: respondents similar to the population before and after weighting
As shown in Table B.3, both before and after weighting, survey respondents look similar to the population of U.S. public school principals on a variety of person-level and school-level characteristics.
Samplewide and subgroup-specific means and proportions reported, weighted
We report samplewide and subgroup-specific means and proportions of variables of interest, weighted using the survey weights we describe in the previous section.
Principals' perceptions can vary by school context, so differences by school characteristics examine
Because principals’ perceptions and experiences can vary depending on their school context, we examined differences in educators’ responses by school characteristics (in addition to their state policy context).
Differences examined by grade level, school and district enrollment, locale, poverty, racial/ethnic
More specifically, we examined differences by school grade level, school and district enrollment size, locale, poverty status, and student racial/ethnic composition.
School and district demographics obtained by linking to CCD and EDGE poverty estimates
We obtained data on school and district demographics by linking survey data files to the Common Core of Data (CCD) and the Education Demographic and Geographic Estimates (EDGE) School Neighborhood Poverty Estimates, both issued by NCES.
School locale, Urban: 25.8 [23.8, 27.9] | 27.7 [25.4, 30.1] | 27.7
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
Urban | 25.8 [23.8, 27.9] | 27.7 [25.4, 30.1] | 27.7
School locale, Suburban: 32.3 [30.1, 34.5] | 30.9 [28.5, 33.2] | 31.0
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
Suburban | 32.3 [30.1, 34.5] | 30.9 [28.5, 33.2] | 31.0
School locale, Town/rural: 41.9 [39.6, 44.2] | 41.4 [38.9, 43.9] | 41.3
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
Town/rural | 41.9 [39.6, 44.2] | 41.4 [38.9, 43.9] | 41.3
School neighborhood poverty, Low (401 or more IPR): 25.1 [23.1, 27.1] | 23.4 [21.3, 25.5] | 23.3
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
Low (401 or more IPR) | 25.1 [23.1, 27.1] | 23.4 [21.3, 25.5] | 23.3
School neighborhood poverty, Medium (201 to 400 IPR): 59.7 [57.4, 62.0] | 58.4 [55.9, 61.0] | 58.4
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
Medium (201 to 400 IPR) | 59.7 [57.4, 62.0] | 58.4 [55.9, 61.0] | 58.4
School neighborhood poverty, High (0 to 200 IPR): 15.2 [13.5, 16.9] | 18.2 [16.1, 20.3] | 18.3
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
High (0 to 200 IPR) | 15.2 [13.5, 16.9] | 18.2 [16.1, 20.3] | 18.3
School percentage, minority, 0%–50%: 55.8 [53.5, 58.1] | 51.0 [48.4, 53.6] | 50.8
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
0%–50% | 55.8 [53.5, 58.1] | 51.0 [48.4, 53.6] | 50.8
School percentage, minority, 50%–100%: 44.2 [41.9, 46.5] | 49.0 [46.4, 51.6] | 49.2
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
50%–100% | 44.2 [41.9, 46.5] | 49.0 [46.4, 51.6] | 49.2
School level, Elementary: 55.6 [53.3, 57.9] | 59.1 [56.6, 61.6] | 59.1
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
Elementary | 55.6 [53.3, 57.9] | 59.1 [56.6, 61.6] | 59.1
School level, Middle: 22.3 [20.4, 24.3] | 17.9 [16.1, 19.8] | 17.8
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
Middle | 22.3 [20.4, 24.3] | 17.9 [16.1, 19.8] | 17.8
School level, High: 22.1 [20.1, 24.0] | 22.9 [20.7, 25.1] | 23.0
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
High | 22.1 [20.1, 24.0] | 22.9 [20.7, 25.1] | 23.0
School enrollment size, Small: 50.3 [48.0, 52.7] | 51.4 [48.8, 54.0] | 51.4
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
Small | 50.3 [48.0, 52.7] | 51.4 [48.8, 54.0] | 51.4
School enrollment size, Large: 49.7 [47.3, 52.0] | 48.6 [46.0, 51.2] | 48.6
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
Large | 49.7 [47.3, 52.0] | 48.6 [46.0, 51.2] | 48.6
Educator race/ethnicity, White: 79.4 [77.5, 81.3] | 78.3 [76.2, 80.5] | 78.2
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
White | 79.4 [77.5, 81.3] | 78.3 [76.2, 80.5] | 78.2
Educator race/ethnicity, Person of color: 20.6 [18.7, 22.5] | 21.7 [19.5, 23.8] | 21.8
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
Person of color | 20.6 [18.7, 22.5] | 21.7 [19.5, 23.8] | 21.8
Educator gender, Female: 49.7 [47.4, 52.1] | 55.5 [52.9, 58.0] | 55.5
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
Female | 49.7 [47.4, 52.1] | 55.5 [52.9, 58.0] | 55.5
Educator gender, Male: 50.3 [47.9, 52.6] | 44.5 [42.0, 47.1] | 44.5
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
Male | 50.3 [47.9, 52.6] | 44.5 [42.0, 47.1] | 44.5
Educator educational attainment, Master’s or less: 47.8 [45.5, 50.2] | 63.4 [61.1, 65.7] | 63.6
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
Master’s or less | 47.8 [45.5, 50.2] | 63.4 [61.1, 65.7] | 63.6
Educator educational attainment, Higher than master’s: 52.2 [49.8, 54.5] | 36.6 [34.3, 38.9] | 36.4
Sample (N = 1746) · All principals who completed the survey and received a weight (weighted to national K-12 public school principals/schools)
Higher than master’s | 52.2 [49.8, 54.5] | 36.6 [34.3, 38.9] | 36.4
Table B.3 note: population data sources (NTPS, CCD, EDGE)
Population data for educator-level characteristics come from the National Teacher and Principal Survey, and school-level characteristics are from the CCD and the EDGE School Neighborhood Poverty Estimates.
Each principal's school belongs to multiple of the subgroup categories
It is important to keep in mind that each principal who took our survey is in a school that belongs to multiple of these categories—for example, a principal in a small, rural elementary school in a small district that serves majority White students in a relatively lower-income neighborhood in a state that does not address BTAM in state policy.
Only subgroup differences significant at the 5 percent level described, unless otherwise noted
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)
In this report, we describe only those differences among principal subgroups that are statistically significant at the 5 percent level, unless otherwise noted.
No multiple hypothesis test corrections applied because the study is exploratory
Because of the exploratory nature of this study, we did not apply multiple hypothesis test corrections.
Melissa Kay Diliberti: author biography
Melissa Kay Diliberti is an associate policy researcher at RAND. Diliberti has a Ph.D. in policy analysis, a master of public policy, and a B.A. in political science and international studies.
Pauline Moore: author biography
Pauline Moore is a senior political scientist in the Defense and Political Sciences Department at RAND and a professor of policy analysis at Pardee RAND Pardee Graduate School. She has a Ph.D. in international relations.
Brian A. Jackson: author biography
Brian A. Jackson is a senior physical scientist at RAND. He holds a Ph.D. in bioinorganic chemistry and an M.A. in science, technology, and public policy.
Kelsey Morris: author biography
Kelsey Morris is an education program specialist for the U.S. Secret Service’s NTAC. He has an Ed.D. in educational leadership and an EdSp in PK–12 educational leadership and administration.
Wade Buckland: author biography
Wade Buckland is a researcher for the U.S. Secret Service’s NTAC. He holds a master of teaching in special education and a master’s degree in research methodology.
Lina Alathari: author biography
Lina Alathari is the chief of the U.S. Secret Service’s NTAC, where she oversees the center’s targeted violence behavioral research program. She has a Ph.D. in cognitive neuropsychology.
Steven Driscoll: author biography
Steven Driscoll is assistant chief (outreach) of the U.S. Secret Service’s NTAC. He has a master’s degree in education and a bachelor’s degree in criminology.
Diana Drysdale: author biography
Diana Drysdale is assistant chief (research) of the U.S. Secret Service’s NTAC. She has a master’s degree in international policy studies.
Jacquelyn Glidden: author biography
Jacquelyn Glidden is a social science research specialist at the U.S. Secret Service’s NTAC. She has a Ph.D. in human development and quantitative methodology.
NTAC sponsored a multi-year HSOAC research effort on BTAM in K-12 schools
As part of a longstanding effort to improve and foster the adoption of behavioral threat assessment and management (BTAM) as a strategy to prevent targeted violence, the National Threat Assessment Center (NTAC) has sponsored a multi-year research effort carried out by the Homeland Security Operational Analysis Center (HSOAC) focused on BTAM practices and their implementation in K-12 schools.
Research effort included a nationally representative survey of principals
To provide a comprehensive picture of BTAM implementation, the practices that schools are using to identify and manage potential threats to schools, and develop solutions to strengthen BTAM across the country, the research effort included a nationally representative survey of principals across the country exploring BTAM practices at their schools.
Report examines survey results on state of BTAM in K–12 public schools in 2025
This report takes an in-depth look at the results of that survey, providing a picture of the state of behavioral threat assessment and management (BTAM) in K–12 public schools across the country in 2025.
Back cover: survey was fielded in January 2025
The survey was fielded in January 2025.
Survey sought to understand how BTAM is implemented and operationalized at K–12 schools
The survey sought to understand how BTAM is being implemented and operationalized at K–12 schools.
Top
Find the Perfect Training Class For You