The concept of Behavioral Threat Assessment and Management (BTAM) has been around for almost 30 years, but the practice of supporting the work in a K-12 environment still is only beginning to become widespread across the United States. Identifying students who may be on the pathway to violent behavior or self-harm and developing effective strategies to move them off those pathways and keep them and their peers safe, is vitally important and challenging work for school superintendents, principals, teachers, and district staff.

In a school context, it’s crucial to stress what BTAM is and is not. For starters, it is not a disciplinary process, and it must not be used to profile students unfairly or exacerbate the disparity of negative outcomes for students. Designed and implemented effectively, BTAM has been clinically documented not to increase disciplinary actions. This is because it is a systematic and clinical process based on supporting an individual at various milestones that, addressed effectively, may prevent them from embarking on a pathway to violence.

All BTAM models currently recognized in the U.S. have their roots in research studies performed by the U.S. Secret Service and the FBI. The SK-Cascade Model, developed by John Van Dreal while he was working for the Salem-Keiser Schools District in Oregon, is the only model developed by educators, with the priority of making it understandable and actionable for school districts. SK-Cascade is also distinguished by its explicit focus on involving mental-health professionals, law enforcement, juvenile justice, and other outside agencies to evaluate a threat and provide individualized support to students who display a range of behaviors, from explicitly making a threat, to presenting concerning behaviors that in others have been warning signs for violence.

While thousands of schools currently use some form of the SK-Cascade Model, PCG and John Van Dreal together have the opportunity to bring this work to an even broader audience. PCG will now offer direct consultation to districts as they build well-rounded violence prevention programs through the implementation and maintenance of a long-term sustainable approach. In the interview that follows, John talks about designing and implementing the most effective BTAM programs for school districts and beyond.

1. Since you were first asked to set up a BTAM program, what have you learned that you wish you’d known then?

I was volunteered by the director of my school district where I was working as a school psychologist back in 1999. Prior to that, I worked with the district’s most aggressive and behaviorally challenging students (both in regular and special education). I’ve learned a lot about the diplomacy necessary to navigate territorialism, silos, and even egos, all of which can be hurdles to the successful implementation of a comprehensive system that involves all youth-serving agencies along with K-12 districts. I’ve also learned that the system is only as good as its weakest link, so routine maintenance, coaching, handholding, and considerable patience are absolutely required by anyone leading the implementation and sustainability process. As I moved the system forward, I confirmed my previous belief that rageful thinking and behavior, violent behavior, and dehumanizing behavior are not black and white or good and evil issues. They often fall within a value scale that is more in the gray tones, which requires an objective approach that does not personalize or assume . . . and teaching this to other professionals is the most difficult part of the job. Finally, I learned that the systems that function the best are stitched together with relationships, networking, boundary spanning, and silo deconstruction, not rules or policy.

2. How is BTAM different/separate from traditional discipline processes, and why is that important?

BTAM, or preventive behavioral threat assessment and management (I like to add “preventive” so there is no mistake about our approach), is based on the goal of preventing targeted violence by interrupting individuals’ behavior while they are still on the pathway to the violent act. But “preventing” also means prevention, so BTAM is also about identifying people who are or may be considering violence as a solution and turning them back down the pathway to acceptable behavioral solutions, positive alternatives, and connections with prosocial adults and other students. This method of prevention is actually discipline in its truest sense—that of making a better “disciple,” or follower of the rules, but generally not the same as what many districts consider “discipline,” which leans to punitive approaches that tend to disconnect and marginalize students. While many students will respond to discipline and correct their behavior, a small number of students don’t care about consequences and resent the education institution and its rules, so disciplinary approaches fall short of motivating them to embrace more acceptable behaviors. The research tells us that students who are moving down the pathway toward a targeted violent attack often fall within this subset, so punitive measures don’t affect them and can even further alienate and humiliate them, inspiring their motivation to hurt others as a solution to their problems.

3. While the original work of the Secret Service is at the core of a majority of BTAM systems, what sets SK Cascade apart from others?

The SK Cascade model addresses targeted violence, as noted in my response above, but it also addresses reactive aggression that escalates to a level of serious or lethal harm and bullying. Furthermore, it is a process that can illuminate and explain the normative aggressive behavior that occurs with youth and thus explain what is actually worrisome and, equally important, what is less so. This part of the assessment can help establish what types of aggression can be addressed through the typical behavioral modification approaches historically used to de-escalate young people who are passionate, angry, and reactive (a normal part of growing up). In this way, the assessment process can protect students who are being pipelined to exclusion or who are being viewed with bias because they are loud and angry. The SK Cascade is also protocol-driven and establishes a system that can be leaned on to provide expertise within the procedures, which means that less expertise is required of those who do the assessments. Finally, the model incorporates a community team, called a Level 2 Team (composed of law enforcement, juvenile justice, the district attorney or county prosecutor, and public youth mental health departments) that provides in-depth assessment and management strategies to support schools with the most serious cases. One other point I’d stress is not only the differences in approach and emphasis of the models, but how they are implemented. Something I think we uniquely understand is how much help and direct support school districts need in implementing whichever BTAM model they choose to adopt. I don’t know anyone who chose to become a teacher, principal, or school administrator because they wanted to conduct threat assessments. What drew them to the field was the love of education and helping kids learn and grow. Recognizing that reality is at the heart of how we work with school districts and others on BTAM and help make the SK Cascade model as usable and useful for them as possible.

4. Who are the primary stakeholders in the SK Cascade model and who else in the community needs to be communicated with around an effective BTAM process?

The primary stakeholders are school districts and educational service districts, intermediate school districts, and boards of cooperative educational services, as well as public mental health, law enforcement, juvenile justice services, the DA, the State youth authority, and any other public youth-serving agencies available and willing to assist with violence prevention. One of the three primary goals of the SK Cascade Model is establishing and maintaining psychological safety, so as school districts and stakeholders implement and sustain the system, they should use school information systems, social and mainstream media, listening sessions, and other available outreach outlets to communicate with neighborhood associations, civic leadership, parents, students, and other members of the community to assure them that the district is using an evidence-based violence prevention program that keeps students and faculty safe while intervening with students who are at-risk to help them navigate their lives back to a safe and constructive place.

5. Obviously, your focus has been on the K-12 environment, but where else is the SK Cascade model applicable?

I have adapted it for small private schools and higher education as well as coauthored an adaptation for adult BTAM in the workplace, at non-profit social service agencies, and elsewhere. When communities are committed to violence prevention, using all these protocols allows a seamless approach to preventive behavioral threat assessment and management by examining and managing all threats, regardless of age. This works especially well when district staff members or board members are the recipients of threats from adults in the community, and when a district has a partnership with a community college or university that serves students of all ages and/or has a partnership with a law enforcement agency that addresses domestic violence and threats to community members.