The Intersection of Social Work and Behavioral Threat Assessment and Management for Schools

Headnote

Behavioral threat assessment and management (BTAM) is recognized as an evidence-based approach designed to prevent targeted school violence. Although empirical evidence supports the efficacy of BTAM, its limitations and the potential for more inclusive and innovative practices must be explored. Currently there is a lack of research on the role of social workers within BTAM. This conceptual article aims to bridge this gap by incorporating social work theories such as the person-in-environment perspective, strengths-based perspective, and intersectionality. Integration of these theories can enhance BTAM with culturally sensitive and trauma-informed applications. Such an integrated approach is essential for guiding scholarship and practice in preventing targeted school violence and supporting at-risk students.

Keywords: behavioral threat assessment and management, ecological systems theory, intersectionality, person-in-environment, school safety, school social work, strengths perspective, targeted school violence

School communities nationwide have legitimate questions and concerns regarding the safety of public schools in America. Due to mass murders that occur throughout our nation, the fear of violent attacks against students and faculty is a significant school safety concern. In 2018, Education Week journalists began tracking school shootings that resulted in firearm-related injuries or deaths on K-12 school property. In 2022, forty-seven school shootings resulted in injuries or deaths, the most in a single year since 2018 ("School shootings this year," 2022). The recent mass shooting (three or more killings in a single incident, as defined by US Statute 1793) at Apalachee High School in Winder, Georgia, on September 4, 2024, is yet another poignant reminder of the substantial work needed to prevent acts of targeted school violence.

The term targeted violence was coined by the US Secret Service (National Threat Assessment Center [NTAC], 2021) to refer to an incident of violence in which an attacker selects a particular target prior to an attack. Applying this definition to schools raises much debate about the underlying causes and the best responses. Often the debate becomes conflated with accusatory and shifting dialogue, which deflects from fundamental propositions aimed at better understanding the phenomenon. During the last fifty years, a wide range of information has become available to assist in understanding how violence, bullying, and crime impact school communities, as well as the federal legislation and executive policies intended to avert school violence.

Since the school shootings in the 1990s, social scientists have been researching and developing intervention models aimed at averting targeted school violence. The US Department of Education, Department of Justice, Secret Service, and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), school safety experts, and law enforcement officials have all cited research indicating that warning signs are usually evident before a student commits an act of targeted violence on a school campus. This validates the importance of behavioral threat assessment as a critical intervention (Blair & Schweit, 2014; Cornell, 2021; Dahlberg & Krug, 2002; Jackson & Viljoen, 2024; National Association of School Psychologists [NASP], 2021; NTAC, 2018, 2021; Reeves, 2021). Over the past two decades, a school-based behavioral threat assessment model has been introduced and implemented across K-12 public schools nationwide.

The National Association of School Psychologists (2021) defined BTAM as a systematic, fact-based, and multidisciplinary process aimed at identifying, assessing, and managing potentially dangerous or violent situations. As shown in figure 1, the BTAM model, adapted from the US Secret Service NTAC (2021), incorporates the pathway to violence framework, which helps identify and elucidate the gradual nature of actions and behaviors individuals often follow before initiating targeted violence (New York State Targeted Violence Prevention Group, 2023). Figure 1 underscores that violent behavior does not typically occur suddenly. Rather, individuals generally move through distinct stages before engaging in an attack.

This model aims to identify, evaluate, and address potential threats, enabling schools to differentiate between a transient threat (unsustained intent to harm) and a substantive/credible threat of targeted violence (NASP, 2021; New York State Targeted Violence Prevention Working Group, 2023). Years of research affirm this model's effectiveness in preventing immediate risks of targeted violence and supporting individuals of concern. The rise in awareness of the behavioral threat assessment process has led to an increased multidisciplinary participation of trained professionals-school administrators, law enforcement officials, and mental health practitioners. However, when school social workers are included within the multidisciplinary team, their role is often restricted to that of mental health practitioners. Consequently their scope is limited and their significant contributions to this violence intervention model remain underexplored and unclear.

The social work profession has a long-standing fundamental commitment to promoting human well-being, which drives social workers' pragmatic approach to ameliorating violence and its consequences (Marsh, 2003). Furthermore, critical analysis and research regarding the application of social work theory and practice can provide evidence to support the unique role and contribution of social work to averting acts of targeted school violence. This conceptual article expands upon existing knowledge by analyzing social work's opportunity for inclusion within the standard BTAM model used by schools. It explores the implementation of a behavioral threat assessment model that applies trauma-informed and culturally sensitive approaches to students at risk for violence. This exploration is grounded in ecological systems theory and the strengths perspective, aiming to provide a comprehensive framework for effective intervention.

Theoretical Application

This conceptual article integrates social work theory concepts to promote culturally sensitive and trauma-informed application of the BTAM process. Historically, society has struggled to understand the complexities of school violence; therefore, to address these challenges more effectively, it is crucial that BTAM be implemented in a trauma-informed manner. In response to the national focus on preventing school violence before it starts, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has adopted a four-level social-ecological model. This model, developed by Dahlberg and Krug (2002), helps to elucidate the dynamics of violence and identify effective prevention strategies. As CDC's research study concluded, an ideal behavioral threat assessment model must comprehensively address risk and protective factors at each of multiple levels with substantial empirical support. Additionally, it should incorporate a comprehensive program evaluation strategy and employ effective techniques across various levels of prevention. Therefore, BTAM teams must understand their power in this process and the tremendous positive or negative impact of their decisions on the lives of students and their selective environments.

Ecological Systems Theory: Person-in-Environment Perspective

Ecological systems theory, formulated by Urie Bronfenbrenner (Bronfenbrenner & Evans, 2000), offers a robust framework for understanding the reciprocal relationships between individuals and their environments. Central to this theory is the principle of reciprocity, which posits that neither individuals nor their environments can be fully understood without considering their interrelation (Pardeck & Yuen, Chapter 4, 2006). This theory highlights the balance between individuals and their surroundings, emphasizing the dynamic nature of these interactions. Key assumptions within the ecological systems theory include the following:

* human beings act within physical, social, and cultural environments that are reciprocal in relationships and interactions;

* each human being's developmental pathway is infinitely varied by life experiences, life course, and timing (Gitterman & Germain, 2008; Kondrat, 2013; Rotabi, 2007; Ungar, 2002; Wakefield, 1996).

Ecological systems theory is particularly relevant to research on school-based violence as it underscores the need for a supportive environment to prevent such violence. As shown in figure 2, the stressorstress-coping paradigm (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) is often used in applying this theory to school violence. This paradigm outlines how individuals perceive and respond to stress through three components:

* stressor: An event or situation perceived as challenging or threatening, which can be external (e.g., environmental or social) or internal (e.g., thoughts or emotions).

* stress: The emotional and physiological response to the stressor, which may include feelings like anxiety or frustration, depending on the individual's perception.

* coping: The strategies used to manage the stressor and emotional response, which can be problem focused (addressing the cause) or emotion focused (managing feelings).

This framework highlights the effect of external factors on stressors and coping abilities, which in turn affect emotional and behavioral responses.

The stressor-stress-coping paradigm has been pivotal in research concerning school violence, especially in studies focusing on bullying, a key risk factor for student-based violence. Downes and Cefai (2019) expanded on this paradigm by developing a theoretical framework based on social-ecological systems theory, specifically targeting prevention strategies for school bullying and violence. Consequently, if schools focus on creating a safe and supportive environment, it is plausible to suggest that student-based violence will decrease.

Ecological systems theory guides the study of how environments influence behavior and the importance of creating positive settings to foster safer school communities. Saleebey (2001) emphasized that the ecological framework values abundant high-quality resources that foster the safety, growth, development, and health of individuals and families. Gitterman and Germain (2008), Rotabi (2007), and Ungar (2002) further asserted that individuals continuously adapt and improve their environmental fit, thereby enhancing their potential for growth, health, and satisfaction. By integrating ecological systems theory into assessments and case management plans, schools can significantly improve the efficacy of interventions, leading to better outcomes for all at-risk students.

Research supports implementing the BTAM process fairly and equitably, emphasizing the importance of incorporating a biopsychosocial person-in-environment perspective (Reeves, 2021). This perspective enriches ecological systems theory by holistically integrating biological, psychological, sociological, and environmental contexts, thereby providing a comprehensive understanding of individuals within their environments. Such an approach is crucial for the equitable application of the BTAM model.

By leveraging the principles of ecological systems theory and integrating the person-in-environment perspective, schools can significantly enhance their ability to minimize punitive and potentially biased outcomes during the threat assessment process. By acknowledging the multiple layers of environmental influence, this approach helps in understanding the complex web of factors that shape individuals' lives and behaviors, particularly in school settings where safety and support are critical.

Strengths Perspective

Another critical ecological consideration is the strengths perspective, which emphasizes the human capacity for resilience, resistance, courage, thriving, and ingenuity. This social work perspective places strengths and resources of people and their environments, rather than an individual's problems and pathologies, at the center of the helping process (Kondrat, 2013; Saleebey, 2013; University of Kansas School of Social Welfare, n.d.). Resilience and protective factors are reflexive within the complex person-in-environment transactions in schools. A safe and supportive school climate can serve as a protective factor for resilient students when faced with interpersonal challenges.

For instance, in the face of adversity, a resilient person can lose strength and ability yet recover and return to a prior level of adaptation when protective factors are well established. Behavioral threat assessment and management teams must recognize that many individuals not only survive but are primed to thrive due to a variety of protective factors. These protective factors are biological, psychological, and/or environmental processes (i.e., genetic predispositions, coping skills, and social supports) that mitigate or ameliorate the impact of a stressor or prevent it entirely (Kondrat, 2013; Saleebey, 201 3; University of Kansas School of Social Welfare, n.d.). Resilience and protective factors have long been studied and applied to understanding social problems such as violence and victimization.

Bullying, for example, has been analyzed by many scholars using a social-ecological theory perspective aimed at developing intervention programs that consider both universal and unique strategies explicitly targeted at youth who are victims (Guo, 2021; Guo et al., 2021; Hong & Garbarino, 2012). Likewise, Cramer and Kapusta (2017) articulated a social-ecological suicide prevention model that integrates general and population-specific risk and protective factors. The research study concluded that an ideal behavioral threat assessment model must address risk and protective factors with the strongest degree of empirical support at each of the levels of ecological systems. It should also incorporate a comprehensive program evaluation strategy and utilize a variety of techniques across various levels of prevention. Therefore, resilience and protective factors are central to the principles of an effective BTAM model.

One of the significant challenges facing the BTAM model is its potential adverse effect as a mechanism for enacting predominant practices and policies that reduce individuals to their deficits, pathologies, problems, and dysfunctions. For this reason, the strengths perspective should be integral to the design and modality of the standard BTAM model. The Social Work Program at the University of Kansas (n.d.) emphasizes that the strengths perspective acknowledges individual challenges, such as trauma, illness, or adversity, not as limitations but as opportunities for growth and motivation for change. Social workers engage in collaborative efforts with students, families, and communities to identify and foster hope and opportunities. This involves mobilizing both personal and environmental strengths and resources. The helping relationship that forms as a result is characterized by a strong alliance, empathy, and a focused commitment to the clients' aspirations and goals.

The inclusion of the strengths perspective within the implementation of the standard BTAM model has immense potential for supporting individuals subjected to the assessment process. The strengths perspective also provides a genuine foundation for the strategies and practices of the case management component of the BTAM model. It is important to note that not all individuals who undergo threat assessment are considered substantive threats. On the contrary, most threats are deemed transient, not viable, or a manifestation of an underlying mental health condition. According to the NTAC (2018), most threats and concerns regarding school safety can be handled by school personnel using school or community resources. As a result, most students will remain in general education settings or, if suspended, expelled, or institutionalized, will most likely return to a school setting upon completion of rehabilitation. For these reasons, it is significant to include strengths-based case management focused on individualized goals to achieve positive outcomes.

Intersectionality

Another significant challenge facing the standard BTAM model is the need for more consistency in coordinating case management plans. Findings from previous studies indicate the need for greater development and implementation of the case management component of the standard BTAM model (Cornell et al., 2017; Jackson & Viljoen, 2024; Mayer et al. 2021; Stohlman et al., 2020). Given this knowledge, the application of the theory of intersectionality has a key role within the design and implementation of the standard BTAM model.

The theory of intersectionality, as described by Collins (2019, p. 2), "bundles together ideas from disparate places, times, and perspectives, enabling people to share points of view that formerly were forbidden, outlawed, or simply obscured." This theory highlights the importance of establishing a multidisciplinary threat assessment team and acknowledges the benefits of professional diversity and practice. Nevertheless, social work is not explicitly included within the standard BTAM model. Due to the unique skill set that places them in a viable position for connecting a network of community resources and supports to help guide and facilitate case management plans, social workers are essential to the BTAM model. Numerous studies indicate the intersectionality of social work as a profession with agencies and systems dedicated to public service and safety (Ellis, 1981; Henderson, 1976; Hipple & Hipple, 1976; Michaels & Treger, 1973; Mizrahi, 2020; Schrager, 1964; Stephens, 1988; Treger, 1980; Woolf & Rudman, 1977). The growing focus on prevention of targeted school violence presents a critical opportunity to capitalize on the intersection of social work and school safety.

Theoretical Lens

The theoretical foundation of social work's influence is rooted in the profession's core belief in and application of ecological systems theory and the strengths perspective. As Mayer et al. (2021) determined, school safety stakeholders must understand the current state of knowledge regarding school safety through social-ecological perspectives. Although Barzman et al. (2018) pointed to the progress in school violence prevention, there is a need for additional research to establish a more sensitive and effective method for assessing school violence risk levels, risk factors, and protective factors. Likewise, Reeves (2021) concluded that students are more likely to experience positive outcomes when threat assessment teams are established and well trained and implement the process with fidelity. For instance, students are more likely to benefit from counseling services and a parent conference and less likely to benefit from long-term suspension or expulsion.

Social work focuses on both the causes and consequences of issues, aiming to improve maladaptive relationships between individuals and their environments. As a practical comprehensive approach to these ends, ecological thinking now pervades social work language, culture, education, systems of ideas, and practice research (Gitterman & Germain, 2008). The insight provided by ecological theory can empower agents of change to broaden policies and programming and advance research toward new understandings. This article aims to enhance school safety practices by highlighting the role and impact of social work in implementing a trauma-informed, culturally sensitive behavioral threat assessment model.

Literature Review

This literature review summarizes the background and development of the standard BTAM model. Additionally, it briefly presents the current challenges and concerns with implementation and fidelity, as well as the goals and objectives of the ideal BTAM model. A thorough review of the literature indicates the importance of behavioral and mental health resources as a vital component of an effective BTAM model. However, there is a significant gap in empirical research on the inclusion of social work within the standard BTAM model in the literature, thus providing evidence for this conceptual article and an opportunity for further research.

The Standard Behavioral Threat Assessment Model

Although there are various school-based threat assessment models, only a select few established models (e.g., the NTAC model) and the Comprehensive School Threat Assessment Guidelines (Cornell, 2020), as well as other emerging models based on the NTAC standard model), are considered empirically valid and have research supporting their effectiveness (Jackson & Viljoen, 2024). These well-known models conform to the fundamental recommendations set forth by research and data for a comprehensive targeted violence prevention plan and practice model aimed at identifying, assessing, and managing threats of violence in schools (NTAC, 2018; Virginia Center for School & Campus Safety, 2020). The primary purpose of school-based BTAM is to prevent violence and engage resources and support for the individual of concern.

Challenges of the Standard Behavioral Threat Assessment Model

Research has shown that when BTAM is utilized appropriately (1) threat assessment teams are established and well-trained, (2) the process is implemented with fidelity, and (3) responsible actions are taken. As a result, students are more likely to receive the support needed and violence is averted (NASP, 2021; NTAC, 2021; Reeves, 2021). Nevertheless, some concerns and challenges have been identified surrounding the implementation of this standard threat assessment model. A recent study surveying 146 assessors from schools in the United States and Canada suggested that training and appropriate implementation of threat assessment are lacking (Jackson & Viljoen, 2024). According to this study, many schools implementing standard threat assessment protocols reported that the training received was minimal (limited resources or no formal training). Findings indicated a deficiency in the standardized practices surrounding threat reporting, assessment, and response measures. Other research studies corroborated similar shortcomings, specifically in training, case management, and increased punitive outcomes (i.e., major student discipline and court referral) because of threat assessment implementation (Jackson & Viljoen, 2024; Stohlman et al., 2020).

One of the more significant problems surrounding the implementation of behavioral threat assessment is that school shootings are sensationalized and normalized, leading to overreaction to student misbehavior (Reeves, 2021; Stohlman et al., 2020). Although behavioral threat assessment training was initially built upon the NTAC model, developed by the US Secret Service and other governmental agencies, it differs from a criminal or disciplinary investigative process and does not include profiling. Profiling involves generalizing about an individual based on their similarity to members of high-risk groups (NTAC, 2021). In contrast, BTAM is an individualized assessment of the person of concern, considering their situation at a particular time (Reeves, 2021). Critics of threat assessment have raised concerns that school authorities potentially misuse the threat assessment process to unfairly punish or stigmatize students (Swetlitz, 2019).

In 1990, many schools adopted a zero tolerance approach in their response to student threats, and these practices have increased over time (Stallings & Hall, 2019; Stohlman et al., 2020). Zero tolerance policies rely on exclusionary discipline practices associated with low academic outcomes, high dropout rates, and subsequently placing minors in contact with the criminal justice system (Seo & Kruis, 2022; Stallings & Hall, 2019; Stohlman et al., 2020). When a standardized evidence-based threat assessment process is not used or when teams are not well trained, threat assessment can lead to more students being placed into what is known as the school-to-prison pipeline. This pipeline refers to the process by which a disproportionate number of minors and young adults from disadvantaged backgrounds become incarcerated because of increasingly harsh school and legislative policies (Mallett, 2016).

The goal of BTAM is not punishment, as punishment alone does not change behavior. As behavioral theorists have found, positive discipline is based on the theory of individual psychology, which creates the basis for the development of personal dignity and self-esteem, respect for other people and their rights, development of empathy, and application of nonviolence communication (Zukovic & Stojadinovic, 2021). Behavioral threat assessment is a deductive and dynamic process of reasoning to reach a logical conclusion focusing on understanding and mitigating safety concerns, not instituting punishment (Reeves, 2021; Stallings & Hall, 2019). It is intended to help schools identify and intervene with students and others whose behavior becomes threatening.

Foundations for Effective Threat Assessment and Management

The foundation for effective threat assessment and management is an intervention model focusing on the behaviors of concern while identifying resiliency and support to help mitigate risk (Reeves, 2021). With appropriate training, behavioral threat assessment equips school personnel to consider both contextual factors and developmental differences, enabling a tailored and effective response to student threats of violence (Stohlman et al., 2020). The BTAM model relies on a multidisciplinary team approach dedicated to helping students, caregivers, and educational leaders manage behaviors, mitigate risk, and help individuals achieve positive outcomes. At a minimum, the team should consist of a school administrator, a law enforcement representative, and a mental health professional.

Behavioral and Mental Health Resources As an Intervention.

It is essential to include a mental health professional in the work of threat assessment. Past research on active shooter incidents in the United States has shown that most perpetrators had significant difficulty coping with losses or failures, were feeling desperation, or were despondent. Seventy-eight percent of targeted mass attackers exhibited a history of suicide attempts or suicidal thoughts (Vossekuil et al., 2004). In 2018, suicide was the second leading cause of death for individuals aged ten to twenty-four in the United States (Curtin, 2020). Although the suicide rate for this age group stabilized from 2000 to 2007, it increased by more than 57 percent from 2007 to 2018. The accumulation of stressors, often coupled with feelings of discontent and physical and social isolation, can cause an individual to want to harm themselves and others as a way to cope. Unfortunately, schools have been the target of such acts of violence. Likewise, many perpetrators attempted and 40 percent succeeded at suicide or "suicide by cop" after their targeted act of violence (Blair & Schweit, 2014). Thus, homicidal and suicidal ideation can be intricately linked (NTAC, 2021; Reeves, 2021).

Although serious mental illness is a substantial risk factor present in targeted acts of violence, it is not necessarily the driving force behind the decision to act. Most with a mental health diagnosis or illness will never be violent. However, serious mental health challenges are often cooccurring with other risk factor vulnerabilities (i.e., trauma history, substance abuse, environmental stressors), which can increase the risk of harm to self and others and impact the ability to cope adaptively (NTAC, 2021; Reeves, 2021). Research and analyses of completed acts of targeted school violence show that warning signs were usually evident before a student committed an act of targeted violence on a school campus (NTAC, 2021). Often these warning signs indicate a breakdown between the individual and his/her environment. Research also indicates that the risk of violence can be mitigated if appropriate action is taken, warning signs are recognized, and the assessment process is implemented in a fair and equitable manner using a biopsychosocial person-in-environment perspective (Reeves, 2021). Behavioral threat assessment and management teams must understand the power they possess as their decisions have tremendous impacts on the safety and well-being of all involved. Furthermore, critical analysis and research regarding the application of social work theory and practice can provide evidence to support the unique role and contribution of social work in averting acts of targeted school violence and supporting the BTAM team-based model.

Social Work's Opportunity for Inclusion

School social workers bring specialized expertise in fostering communication, collaboration, and case management, along with the ability to conduct nuanced assessments of at-risk students within their broader social and cultural contexts. Despite these strengths, the integration of school social workers into the development and implementation of ecologically sound, trauma-informed, and culturally responsive BTAM models remains underexplored. As schools continue to prioritize comprehensive safety initiatives, the inclusion of social workers in BTAM processes presents an opportunity to enhance intervention strategies and outcomes.

The Rise of School Safety Initiatives

A comprehensive report by Brock et al. (2018) outlined the rise of school safety programs and policies administered by the US government. Major school safety initiatives and federal funding allocations can be traced to the early 1970s. However, it was not until the late 1990s that law enforcement and social services were equally recognized and funded as a supportive measure to protect public schools from violence. Between 1999 and 2005, the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) in schools program awarded more than $800 million in grants to law enforcement agencies to support hiring school resource officers nationwide. The other major initiative, the Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative, with more than $2 billion in funding, sought to enhance student mental health services, improve school safety, prevent substance abuse among youth, and promote prosocial behavior in children (Brock et al., 2018).

Today, the National Institute of Justice's Comprehensive School Safety Initiative of 2014 remains the primary source of federal guidance for schools. This discretionary grant program is designed "to identify and understand root causes of school violence and its impact on school safety" (National Institute of Justice, 2018, About the Initiative). Most of this work is intended to help schools develop comprehensive best practices to protect against all threats and hazards. Likewise, the National Center for Education Statistics and Bureau of Justice Statistics continue to collect data to help inform policymakers and practitioners of the nature, extent, and scope of violence-related and school crime prevention issues. Although federal funding initiatives have been proven necessary to accomplish goals and tasks aimed at creating and maintaining safer schools, the role of the school social worker within this scope of work remains unclear.

Inclusion of Social Work Within Behavioral Threat Assessment and Management

A key component missing from the literature is the inclusion of social workers in implementing the behavioral threat assessment model. Sosa et al. (2017) emphasized that in the current context school social workers are particularly well-positioned to facilitate "power sharing" among school administration, school-based law enforcement, parents, and students. This collaboration is crucial for creating shared visions of the purpose of behavioral threat assessment and establishing school safety goals and practice.

For more than a century, school social workers have been dedicated to eliminating barriers that hinder students' access to and benefit from education. Numerous models and scholarly writings have emerged to guide practice decisions in this specialized area of social work (Sosa et al., 2017). In 2011, the National School Social Work Practice Model (figure 3) was developed to offer a framework outlining the services expected from certified school social workers. This model serves as a guide to inform key stakeholders of the professional services offered by school social workers, many of which extend beyond clinical work (micro level) to include acting as a liaison among students, families, schools, communities, and agency providers. Social workers possess unique skills that facilitate communication, coordination, case management, and ongoing evaluation of at-risk students. However, the role of school social workers in implementing an ecologically sound, trauma-informed, and culturally sensitive BTAM model for students at risk for violence has yet to be fully developed. As school safety initiatives evolve and create more opportunities for social workers, it is essential to research and adapt the role of school social workers within the behavioral threat assessment model.

Discussion

Behavioral threat assessment and management has become the universally accepted evidence-based practice model tasked to avert targeted school violence. Although ample evidence supports BTAM, there is a need to identify its limitations and provide for a more inclusive applica tion supported by innovative ideas and strategies. Currently, the role of social work in this vital intervention is underrepresented. Therefore, this conceptual article offers a foundation for future research into the integration of social work practice and theory within the BTAM model. The premise of further discussion centers on the need to promote a culturally sensitive and trauma-informed application of BTAM, as previous authors have indicated (Reeves, 2021; Stalling & Hall, 2019; Stohlman et al., 2020). Additionally, the intersection of social work and BTAM yields meaningful insights that can guide scholarship and best practices in averting targeted school violence and supporting at-risk students.

Implications for Social Work Practice

The meaningful application of this theoretical model that integrates social work and BTAM provides a framework for maintaining safe and supportive schools. Research on BTAM in schools has identified several key implementations for social work practice:

* Social workers possess a unique skill set that places them in a viable position as threat assessment team members. Their role may encompass micro- and macro-level work, including functions as clinicians, crisis interventionists, case managers, BTAM trainers, and coordinators.

* Students are more likely to experience positive outcomes when threat assessment teams are established and well trained and implement the process with fidelity.

* Schools have more significant opportunities to reduce the number of punitive and potentially biased outcomes for students subjected to the threat assessment process.

Recommendations and Next Steps

Research highlights the significance of the intersectionality theory, which identifies the relationship between the multidisciplinary threat assessment team members and acknowledges the benefits of professional diversity and practice (Collins, 2019). However, the role of social workers within this specific violence intervention model remains unclear, as they are not explicitly included. Given their unique skill set, social workers are well suited to connect a network of school-community resources, thereby strengthening the effectiveness of the BTAM model. They can also address gaps identified within the BTAM model, enhancing its fidelity through coordination, training, and facilitation and monitoring of case management plans.

Research strongly argues for the BTAM process to be implemented fairly and equitably, relying upon a biopsychosocial person-in-environment perspective (Reeves, 2021).

Applying ecological systems theory results in a more informed assessment and a more vital individualized case management plan, leading to more positive outcomes for all involved. For instance, students are more likely to receive appropriate support (i.e., counseling, conflict resolution, and restorative discipline) and are less likely to receive long-term suspension or expulsion when threat assessment is implemented with fidelity and cultural sensitivity. Therefore, additional research is needed to establish a person-in-environment perspective that offers a more ecologically sensitive and effective method for assessing school violence risk levels, risk factors, and protective factors.

A significant challenge facing the BTAM model is its potential adverse effect as a mechanism for enacting predominant practices and policies that tend to reduce individuals to their deficits, pathologies, and dysfunctions. For this reason, adopting the strengths perspective should be integral to the design and modality of the standard BTAM model. The ideal behavioral threat assessment model must address risk and protective factors with the strongest degree of empirical support at each of multiple levels, incorporate a comprehensive program evaluation strategy, and use a variety of techniques across levels of prevention. The inclusion of the strengths perspective within the implementation of the standard BTAM model has great potential for supporting individuals subjected to the assessment process.

Future Research and Area of Study

This conceptual article has identified the need for further research into several critical areas surrounding the study of BTAM for schools. Findings from previous research studies indicate the need for greater development and implementation effort directed to the case management component of the standard BTAM model (Cornell et al., 2017; Jackson & Viljoen, 2024; Mayer et al., 2021; Stohlman et al., 2020). Similar research studies corroborate shortcomings, specifically in training, case management, and increased punitive outcomes (i.e., major student discipline), because of threat assessment implementation (Jackson & Viljoen, 2024; Stohlman et al., 2020). As a result, critics of threat assessment have expressed concerns that school authorities may misuse the process to unfairly punish or stigmatize students (Swetlitz, 2019). The National Association of School Psychologists (2021) noted that, if not utilized appropriately, school-based BTAM may be discriminatory and biased, potentially violating students' civil rights and leading to disproportionate applications of discipline and placements in special education, particularly for students with disabilities and students of color. Furthermore, ineffective use of the threat assessment process or lack of proper training for teams can contribute to more students being funneled into the school-to-prison pipeline.

The findings corroborate the need for a trauma-informed and culturally sensitive behavioral threat assessment model. This approach targets students at risk for violence and is grounded in social work's theoretical framework. The literature reveals a significant gap in empirical research concerning the inclusion of social work within the standard BTAM model, highlighting the need for further exploration of the following areas:

* inclusion of social workers within the multidisciplinary BTAM team;

* development of training curricula that include person-inenvironment and strengths-based perspectives as the theoretical framework encapsulating the pedagogical mode;

* application of these theoretical frameworks within the practice setting and assessment of the outcomes of their implementation.

In summary, this conceptual framework is based on a multitiered structure of theoretical ideas relevant to the intersection of school safety and social work. The conceptual ideas outlined in this article have undergone peer review and are currently being presented by the author at national school safety conferences throughout the United States. The goal of this conceptual framework is to combine social work theories and perspectives with the standard BTAM model to offer a more traumainformed and culturally sensitive approach to implementing BTAM in schools. Overall, this theoretical vision can support the ongoing development of a more effective and inclusive BTAM model for schools.

References

References

Barzman, D., Ni, Y., Griffey, M., Bachtel, A., Lin, K., Jackson, H., Sorter, M., & DelBello, M. (2018). Automated risk assessment for school violence: A pilot study. Psychiatric Quarterly, 89, 817-828. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11126-018-9581-8

Blair, J. P., & Schweit, K. W. (2014). A study of active shooter incident, 2000-201 3. Texas State University & Federal Bureau of Investigation. https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active -shooter-study-2000-2013-1.pdf/view

Brock, M., Kriger, N., & Miró, R. (2018). School safety policies and programs administered by the U.S. Federal Government: 1990-2016 (p. 161). Federal Research Division, Library of Congress.<https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1 /nij/grants/251517.pdf

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Evans, G. W. (2000). Developmental science in the 21st century: Emerging questions, theoretical models, research designs and empirical findings. Social Development, 9(1), 115-125. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00114

Collins, P. (2019). Intersectionality as critical social theory. Duke University Press.

Cornell, D. (2020). Comprehensive school threat assessment guidelines: An overview. University of Virginia. https://education.virginia.edu/ documents/yvpcomprehensive-school-threat-assessment guidelines-overviewpaper2020-05-26pdf

Cornell, D. G. (2021). Reflections on school safety from a threat assessment perspective. International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, 18(3), 277-284. https://doi.org/10.1002/aps.1720

Cornell, D. G., Maeng, J. L., Burnette, A. G., Jia, Y., & Huang, Е. (2017). Student threat assessment as a standard school safety practice: Results from a statewide implementation study. School Psychology Quarterly, 33(2), 213-222. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1037/spg0000220

Cramer, R. J., & Kapusta, N. D. (2017). A social-ecological framework of theory, assessment, and prevention of suicide. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1756. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017 .01756

Curtin, S. C. (2020). State suicide rates among adolescents and young adults aged 10-24: United States, 2000-2018. National Vital Statistics Reports, 6 (11). https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/ 93667

Dahlberg, L. L., & Krug, E. G. (2002). Violence: A global public health problem. In E. Krug, L. L. Dahlberg, J. A. Mercy, A. В. Zwi, & В. Lozano (Eds.), World report on violence and health (pp. 3-21). World Health Organization.

Downes, P., & Cefai, C. (2019). Strategic clarity on different prevention levels of school bullying and violence: Rethinking peer defenders and selected prevention. Journal of School Violence, 18(4), 510-521. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2019.1566915

Ellis, A. L. (1981). Where is social work? Police brutality and the inner city. Social Work, 26(6), 511-514. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/ 26.6.511

Gitterman, A., & Germain, C. (2008). The life model of social work practice: Advances in theory and practice (3rd ed.). Columbia University Press.

Guo, S. (2021). A comparison of traditional victims, cyber victims, traditional-cyber victims, and uninvolved adolescents: A socialecological framework. Child & Youth Care Forum, 50, 925-945. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-021-09604-6

Guo, S., Liu, J., & Wang, J. (2021). Cyberbullying roles among adolescents: A social-ecological theory perspective. Journal of School Violence, 20(2), 167-181. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220 .2020.1862674

Henderson, H. E. (1976). Helping families in crisis: Police and social work intervention. Social Work, 21(4), 314-315. https://doi .org/10.1093/sw/21.4.314

Hipple, J. L., & Hipple, L. (1976). Training law enforcement officers. Social Work, 21(4), 316-317. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/21 ‚4.316

Hong, J. S., & Garbarino, J. (2012). Risk and protective factors for homophobic bullying in schools: An application of the socialecological framework. Educational Psychology Review, 24, 271-285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-012-9194-y

Jackson, J. R., & Viljoen, J. L. (2024). Preventing school violence: A survey of school threat assessment practices, perceived impact, and challenges. Journal of Threat Assessment and Management, 11(1), 1-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/tam0000187

Kondrat, M. E. (2013). Person-in-environment. Encyclopedia of social work. National Association of Social Workers Press & Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199 975839.013.285

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Spring Publishing Company.

Mallett, C. (2016). The school-to-prison pipeline: A comprehensive assessment. Springer Publishing Company.

Marsh, J. C. (2003). The social work response to violence. Social Work, 48(4), 437-438. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/48.4.43 7

Mayer, M. J., Nickerson, A. B., & Jimerson, $. В. (2021). Preventing school violence and promoting school safety: Contemporary scholarship advancing science, practice, and policy. School Psychology Review, 50(2-3), 131-142. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 2372966X.2021.1949933

Michaels, R. A., & Treger, H. (1973). Social work in police departments. Social Work, 18(5), 67-75. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/18.5.67

Mizrahi, T. (2020, July 9). Social work and the police: It's "both and": Let's proceed with courage, conviction and action! Medium. https://medium.com/@tmizrahi/social-work-and-the-police-its -both-and-let-s-proceed-with-courage-conviction-and-action -8da18014f0e

National Association of School Psychologists. (2021). A school safety and crisis resource: Upholding student civil rights and preventing disproportionality in behavioral threat assessment and management (BTAM). https://www.nasponline.org/assets/Documents/ Resources%20and%20Publications/Handouts/Safety%20and %20Crisis/SSC_BTAM-SPED_ExecSummary_Rev.pdf

National Institute of Justice. (2018). NIJ's comprehensive school safety initiative. Retrieved November 15, 2024, from https://nij.ojp .gov/topics/articles/nijs-comprehensive-school-safety-initiative

National Threat Assessment Center. (2018). Enhancing school safety using a threat assessment model: An operational guide for preventing targeted school violence. US Secret Service and Department of Homeland Security. https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/ files/reports/2020-10/USSS_NTAC_Enhancing_School_Safety _Guide.pdf

National Threat Assessment Center. (2021). Averting targeted school violence: A U.S. Secret Service analysis of plots against schools. US Secret Service and Department of Homeland Security. https:// www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2021-03/ USSS%20Averting%20Targeted%20School%20Violence.2021 .03.pdf

New York State Targeted Violence Prevention Working Group. (2023). Targeted violence prevention strategy. Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services. https://www.dhses.ny.gov/ system/files/documents/2023/04/2023-nys-tvp-strategy.pdf

Pardeck, J. T., & Yuen, F K. O. (2006). Social work for the twenty-first century: Challenges and opportunities. Praeger.

Reeves, M. A.L. (2021). 15-Minute Focus: Behavioral threat assessment and management for K-12 schools. National Center for Youth Issues.

Rotabi, K. S. (2007). Ecological theory origin from natural to social science or vice versa? A brief conceptual history for social work. Advances in Social Work, 8(1), 113-129. https://doi.org/10 .18060/135

Saleebey, D. (2001). Human behavior and social environment: A biopsychosocial approach. Columbia University Press.

Saleebey, D. (Ed.). (2013). The strengths perspective in social work practice. (6th ed.). Pearson.

School shootings this year: How many and where. Education Week. (2022, January 5).<https://www.edweek.org/leadership/school shootings-this-year-how-many-and-where/2022/01

School Social Work Association of America. (n.d.). National SSW model. https://www.sswaa.org/ssw-model

Schrager, J. (1964). Mental health training for state police officers. Social Work, 9(2), 64-69. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/9.2.64

Seo, C., & Kruis, N. E. (2022). The impact of school's security and restorative justice measures on school violence. Children and Youth Services Review, 132, 106305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2021.106305

Sosa, L. V., Cox, T., & Alvarez, M. (2017). School social work: National perspectives on practice in schools. Oxford University Press.

Stallings, R., & Hall, J. C. (2019). Averted targeted school killings from 1900-2016. Criminal Justice Studies, 32(3), 222-238. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2019.1618296

Stephens, M. (1988). Problems of police-social work interaction: Some American lessons. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 27(2), 81-91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2311.1988.tb00607.x

Stohlman, S., Konold, T., & Cornell, D. (2020). Evaluation of threat assessment training for school personnel. Journal of Threat Assessment and Management, 7(1-2), 29-40. https://doi.org/10 .1037/tam00001 42

Swetlitz, I. (2019, October 15). Who's the threat? Searchlight New Mexico [Newsletter]. https://www.searchlightnm.org/whos-the threat

Treger, H. (1980). Guideposts for community work in police-social work diversion. Federal Probation, 44(3), 3-8.

Ungar, M. (2002). A deeper, more social ecological social work practice. Social Service Review, 76(3), 480-497. https://doi.org/10.1086/ 341185

University of Kansas School of Social Welfare. (n.d.). Principles of the strengths perspective. https://socwel.ku.edu/principles-strengths -perspective#:-:text=The%20Strengths%20Perspective%20is %20an,center%200of{%20the%20helping%20process

Virginia Center for School & Campus Safety. (2020). Threat assessment in Virginia schools: Model policies, procedures, and guidelines. https:// www.dcjs.virginia.gov/sites/dcjs.virginia.gov/files/publications/ law-enforcement/threat-assessment-model-policies-procedures -and-guidelinespdf_0.pdf

Vossekuil, B., Reddy, M., Fein, R., Borum, R., & Modzeleski, W. (2004). The final report and findings of the safe school initiative: Implications for the prevention of school attacks in the United States. US Secret Service and US Department of Education. https://www.ed.gov/ sites/ed/files/admins/lead/safety/preventingattacksreport.pdf

Wakefield, J. C. (1996). Does social work need the eco-systems perspective? Part 1. Is the perspective clinically useful? Social Service Review, 70(1), 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1086/604163

Woolf, D. A., & Rudman, M. (1977). A police-social service cooperative program. Social Work, 22(1), 62-63. https://doi.org/10.1093/ sw/22.1.62

Zukovic, S., & Stojadinovic, D. (2021). Applying positive discipline in school and adolescents' self-esteem. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education, 9(1), 1011. https://doi.org/10.23947/2334-8496-2021-9-1-1-11