School safety is a concern and a priority for families, educators, and communities across the country. We all strive to keep our students safe and get them the help they need when they struggle, but we need to go beyond hardening schools to the root of the problem by identifying potential threats and intervening with appropriate support. Behavioral threat assessment and management (BTAM) not only allows districts to investigate, assess, and manage threatening behaviors, but also allows them to do so in alignment with existing support structures.

A recent 2025 research report by the U.S. Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center looked at the current state of BTAM practices in school. Jason Matlock, Senior Learning & Professional Development Specialist explains, “By speaking directly to the leaders in school buildings the report gives voice to the positive impact and the struggles that district leaders and national experts have been pointing to for the decades since this work began.” Here’s what they found:

1. Most schools have adopted a BTAM framework, but the models vary widely and lack consistency. Teams blend national guidance with local practices. While this flexibility can be helpful, it can also create inconsistency, “Even the best educators need systems and structures in place to make sure that all students are seeing the benefits of the supports that are at the heart of an effective BTAM program,” notes Jason.
2. Training isn’t consistently integrated into policy — and it shows. Nationally, fewer than half of BTAM teams receive annual training. Educators’ time is a limited resource and it is difficult to take teachers out of classrooms to do additional training. Matlock reflects this is why “district leaders need to find creative ways to keep teams informed and aligned with the ultimate goal of supporting students.”
3. Most schools don’t have standardized BTAM processes. Whether it is frequency of meetings, how case workflows are managed or internal communication processes, at least half of BTAM teams have not developed formal standard operating procedures.
4. Interventions vary widely from school to school. Two students with similar concerns can receive completely different responses depending on:
   • Who attends the meeting
   • Which resources are available
   • How tools are used
   • How decisions are documented

   This variability impacts quality, fairness, and follow-through of BTAM assessments.

5. Continuous improvement is more talk than practice. Most schools perform some kind of program review, but few analyze data systematically or validate interventions with trained staff. Many rely on a single review method (or none at all), but you can’t improve what you can’t measure.

 
PCG’s BTAM experts can help fill these gaps with affordable, expert-led training rooted in deep K-12 experience. Multi-disciplinary teams will implement a consistent, structured approach to identifying and supporting students who present a potential risk of violence/aggression, self-harm, or other concerning behaviors. Our approach helps school personnel to identify students who are exhibiting behaviors along the pathway to violence and intervene with supports designed to de-escalate those behaviors and mitigate risk.