School districts across the country are investing in Behavioral Threat Assessment and Management (BTAM) programs to strengthen student safety—yet many districts continue to struggle with consistency, implementation, and long-term sustainability of these programs.

PCG’s new white paper, “Beyond Compliance: Building the System Capacity Schools Need for Sustainable Behavioral Threat Assessment & Management Programs,” authored by Jillian Haring, argues that many school systems have not built the organizational capacity necessary to support effective BTAM practices over time.

For years, the focus of BTAM implementation has centered on training, model adoption, and compliance requirements. While those elements remain important, Haring writes that training alone cannot sustain high-quality threat assessment practices when districts lack the operational structures, policies, documentation systems, and collaboration needed to support teams.

“Sustainable BTAM implementation is not simply a matter of training teams to follow a process. Districts achieve the strongest outcomes when they build the organizational capacity needed to support consistent decision-making, collaboration, documentation, and intervention,” explained Jillian Haring, Senior Advisor at PCG. “School safety is strengthened when BTAM is embedded within a broader system designed to support both prevention and student well-being.”

Drawing on feedback from school districts actively implementing BTAM processes, the paper synthesizes real-world experiences from administrators, school psychologists, special education leaders, and threat assessment specialists. Haring highlights the practical barriers schools encounter every day, identifying four recurring challenges:

• Insufficient operational capacity, including lack of protected time, staffing, and coordination roles
• Unclear policy and legal guidance
• Fragmented documentation systems that weaken continuity of care
• Misalignment between BTAM processes and special education requirements

These recurring challenges emphasize that BTAM breakdowns are often system failures, showing that even highly trained teams can struggle when they work within systems that lack the infrastructure necessary to support consistent implementation.

“The work of school BTAM teams is more important than ever. The complex needs today’s students bring to school each day require educators to be organized with their approach,” said Dana Kozak, Supervisor of Instruction for Special Education, Hamilton Schools, New Jersey. “The multi-disciplinary team framework is at the core and requires protection of time educators have to devote their energy to it.”

Rethinking the Relationship Between BTAM and Special Education

The paper also tackles one of the most challenging issues facing school teams: the intersection of BTAM and special education.

Many districts reported delaying threat assessment processes out of concern for disability protections and compliance requirements. Haring proposes a concurrent model, allowing BTAM and special education processes to proceed simultaneously while maintaining legal compliance and protecting student rights. This approach helps reduce delays, improve collaboration, and develop more effective safety plans that account for disability-related needs from the outset.

“Sustainable BTAM cannot depend on one person, one training, or a team that only comes together when there is a crisis. Districts need clear processes for what happens before, during, and after an assessment, including who owns the follow-up and how information moves across the systems supporting a student,” said Dr. Cheri Woodall, Supervisor of Health and Wellness for the Colonial School District, Delaware. “When BTAM is connected to a district’s broader student support and safety systems, it becomes more than a compliance process; it becomes part of how we identify concerns early, respond effectively, and support students over time.”

Another standout challenge noted by districts less discussed in school safety was student mobility. According to district feedback featured in the paper, student transfers often disrupt continuity of care because critical safety information fails to follow students between schools and districts. To address this challenge, Haring introduces the concept of a Student Safety Packet, a structured approach designed to help districts maintain critical safety information while respecting privacy requirements.

“In my experience, one of the most important questions in BTAM is, ‘Who is making sure the plan is still working for this student?’ Once the immediate concern settles, the need for support and follow-through continues,” noted Julie Schwab, School Psychologist and District Behavioral Threat Assessment Coordinator in Edmonds Schools, Washington. “Districts build lasting capacity when they make it routine for teams to reconnect, notice changes, and adjust supports, including when a student moves to a new school. That ongoing attention is where a plan on paper becomes meaningful prevention.”

The BTAM Capacity Framework

At the center of the white paper is the introduction of the BTAM Capacity Framework (BCF), a systems-level model designed to help districts build sustainable and trauma-informed BTAM programs. The framework organizes implementation around five interconnected domains:

1. Operational Capacity
2. Technical and Documentation Capacity
3. Relational Capacity
4. Policy and Legal Capacity
5. Instructional Capacity

Together, these domains challenge leaders to think beyond individual cases and instead evaluate whether their systems are designed to support prevention, collaboration, and informed decision-making.

“BTAM is most effective when it is supported by the systems around it. Schools can provide excellent training, but long-term success depends on clear processes, strong collaboration, consistent documentation, and leadership support,” highlights Kristie Russell Coleman, Executive Director of School Safety and Student Support Services, Bristol City Schools, Tennessee. “When districts invest in building that capacity, teams are better equipped to make informed decisions and create safer, more supportive environments for students.”

The Bottom Line

Behavioral Threat Assessment and Management is no longer simply a compliance requirement. It has become a critical component of how schools support safety, student well-being, and early intervention.

“Beyond Compliance: Building the System Capacity Schools Need for Sustainable Behavioral Threat Assessment & Management Programs,” challenges leaders to rethink how BTAM is designed, supported, and sustained. Offering more than just recommendations, Haring provides a roadmap for building systems capable of supporting both student safety and student success for years to come.

Read the full white paper to explore the BTAM Capacity Framework and learn how districts across the country are moving beyond compliance.

Learn more about PCG’s School Safety Solutions here.

Jillian L. Haring, M.S., is a nationally recognized consultant and subject-matter expert in violence prevention, behavioral threat assessment, and school- and community-based safety systems. She brings over twenty years of public-sector experience, including service as a district administrator, behavior specialist, special education teacher, and intervention specialist within one of the nation’s largest public-school systems. Jillian has extensive hands-on experience as a member and leader of Behavioral Threat Assessment and Management (BTAM) teams, overseeing complex cases involving risk to self and others and supporting multidisciplinary decision-making across education, mental health, and law enforcement partners.

The white paper was strengthened through the insight and practical expertise of district leaders and practitioners who reviewed early drafts and provided candid feedback based on real world implementation experience. Their perspectives helped ensure that the findings and recommendations reflect the operational realities schools face when implementing Behavioral Threat Assessment and Management systems. Participation in the review process does not imply endorsement of the conclusions or recommendations presented. All final analysis and interpretation remain the responsibility of the author.