Behavioral threat assessment and management where the team decides on cited facts, not the hallway version
Every referral screened within the hour, every level set by the team on cited facts.
See one case, screen by screen ↓Behavioral threat assessment and management (BTAM) is how a school threat assessment team decides how much concern a reported behavior warrants and what support or safety steps follow, then tracks the plan to closure. Behavioral Threat Assessment & Management guides each case from referral to safety plan and follow-up: agents screen, gather and cite the records, and check for bias, and the team sets the level.
AI in education: a buyer's guide to agentic AI for colleges, universities and school districts →
Updated
Behavioral threat assessment and management asks a school team to decide, quickly and fairly, how much concern a worrying essay, remark or tip warrants and what support or safety steps follow. Virginia, Florida, Texas, New Jersey and Michigan now require school threat assessment teams. Yet the records the team needs sit in different places: discipline and attendance in the student information system, counselor notes in the counseling record, IEP and 504 status in the special education system, tips in the safety tip line. Team members phone each other for them, and rumor fills the gap.
The risks sit at both ends. The dangerous case is rare and cannot wait in an inbox for a meeting. The ordinary case, a story with a dark line written by a student with an anxiety plan, can be over-assessed when nobody checks the referral's words against the student's disability profile. Then the plan agreed in the room lives in someone's notebook, follow-ups slip, and closure goes undocumented.
Estimated hours of staff time for one referral that goes to a team review, by hand and with the solution. Interviews and the team meeting stay with people.
Eight agents screen, gather, check and draft; the team sets the level and a second member confirms.
Tuesday, October 20, at Marlow Bay Unified School District, about 48,000 students in 62 schools. One tip names a gun before school; one essay is referred after lunch. Here is what happens next, screen by screen, in the working solution.
A safety tip line message says an 8th grader at Juniper Hill Middle School will bring his father's gun “tomorrow”. Case BT-0109 meets the imminent-danger screen in 1 minute. The Intake agent phones principal Martin Echols (answered 7:14 a.m.) and police dispatch (answered 7:15 a.m.) with a read-out script and texts the team lead, and the FERPA health-or-safety emergency disclosure is recorded at 7:16 a.m.
The Intake agent keeps calling down the list until a person answers. It never waits for a meeting on imminent danger.
Elias, a 9th grader at Linden Shore High School, ends his “turning point” short story with “He'd get even with all of them, one way or another.” His English teacher refers it. The Intake agent screens case BT-0112 in 12 minutes: no target, time, place or weapon named. It goes to the Linden Shore team, with the reasons shown step by step.
The referrer gets an acknowledgment, never the outcome.
The Records agent gathers what the team may see, each item cited: two counselor notes about bullying in September and October, a Section 504 plan for anxiety, attendance at 94.1% with 3 tardies, and one tardy referral. The special education system times out and is retried at 2:03 p.m. An anonymous tip, “I heard Elias has a list,” is filed as a report not verified. At 2:40 p.m. school psychologist Nadia Ferreira-Lund's interview with a classmate shows the list is the story's character list.
A report not verified never sets a level: it is resolved with evidence or set aside with a reason.
Keisha sets an interim placement of moderate concern while the team gathers. The case screen puts BT-0112 on one line from low to imminent. Below it sit seven factors from the district's model: communication of intent, access to weapons, grievance, stressors, planning or preparation, protective factors and prior discipline, each with its finding and the records it came from. The Assessment drafter drafts low concern at 0.86 confidence.
Below confidence 0.75 the Assessment drafter drafts no placement. The team sets the level.
The Bias Check agent notes that the words sit inside an assigned work of fiction, and that “won't make eye contact” and “keeps to himself” in the referral match Elias's 504 plan for anxiety rather than any threat factor. The district model requires the plan team's input, and 504 coordinator Derek Oyelaran adds his at 3:18 p.m. Of 6 similar fiction-writing referrals, 5 were placed at low concern.
The Bias Check agent never sets or lowers a level, and never hides a warning.
A 3:05 p.m. call with Elias's mother, Lucía Navarro, in Spanish with a district interpreter, confirms there are no firearms in the home. The team reviews the draft, the verified facts and the bias check, and places the case at low concern, 4 of 4 agreeing. Dr. Iwasaki-Hart proposes; Nadia Ferreira-Lund confirms as the second member. The member who proposes cannot confirm.
Reason code: “Fiction assignment; no plan, means or target; grievance being addressed.”
Six tasks from the district's supports menu: counselor check-ins twice a week (Tomás Ribeiro), a bullying investigation open by Oct 22 and a PE locker room schedule change by Oct 21 (Keisha Montgomery-Hale), a 504 plan review by Oct 27 (Derek Oyelaran), a parent meeting by Oct 23 and a note to the English teacher (Nadia Ferreira-Lund). The follow-up review is Friday, October 30, day 10.
The Plan agent never assigns a punitive measure and never schedules without the owner.
The notice to Mrs. Navarro says low concern, a fiction assignment, no disciplinary action, the supports for the bullying, a meeting with an interpreter by October 23 and the review on October 30. The Notice agent drafts it; Nadia Ferreira-Lund reviews it; Dr. Iwasaki-Hart signs. It goes by email and mailed letter, and names no other student.
Switched to the school resource officer's view, the same case shows the referral, the essay, the officer check and weapons access. The grievance and stressor findings that rest on counseling notes and the 504 plan are withheld. Every view is written to the audit trail.
“Withheld for the school resource officer: counseling and disability records (need-to-know).”
The same case, seen by five people who carry it: what their week looked like, and what it looks like now.
Eight agents screen, gather, check and draft; the team sets the level and a second member confirms.
Screens every referral within the hour against the district's imminent-danger screen, and on any sign phones the principal and law enforcement at once with a read-out script.
Gathers the prior discipline, attendance, counseling notes, IEP or 504 status and documents each role may see, cites each one, and files every statement as a verified fact or a report not verified.
Warns when the referral's language or factors reflect disability, culture or language rather than threat, requires the plan team's input, and shows how similar cases were placed.
Drafts the factor findings and a placement on the concern continuum from the district model, with its rationale and confidence.
Drafts the safety and support plan from the district's menu of supports, with owners and dates.
Keeps the plan on schedule, drafts check-in notes for review, sends reminders and escalates missed tasks.
Drafts parent notices in the family's home language, with the original beside the English.
Drafts the state threat assessment report from the cases and assembles the audit export pack.
Sets the level, approves closure. The agents propose; a named person decides.
Ask about any referral, case, plan or report, or say what to do next. Every answer cites the records it came from, and shows only what your role may see.
Why is the draft low concern?
The draft weighs the words inside a fiction assignment, no weapons access, no plan or preparation in any verified record, and strong protective factors. The grievance is real: bullying in September and October, and the plan addresses it. The team sets the level; this is only a draft (confidence 0.86).
What does the 504 plan say about his behavior?
When anxious, Elias may avoid eye contact and withdraw from peers. The referral's words “won't make eye contact” and “keeps to himself” match that profile, so the Bias Check agent does not count them as a threat factor. The 504 team agrees.
What may the school resource officer see on this case?
The referral, the essay, the officer check and the weapons-access finding. Counseling notes, the 504 plan and the 504 team input are withheld, unless a health-or-safety emergency disclosure is documented under 34 CFR 99.36.
Which follow-ups are due this week?
Seven: BT-0093's counselor check-in is overdue by 1 day and escalated to you; BT-0110 and BT-0111 have team reviews on Wednesday, and four more fall on Thursday and Friday. Two closures also wait for your approval.
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
The clocks, the plan team consult and the privacy rules are settings. Each change is saved as a new version, and a new district model needs the Assistant Superintendent's approval.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| Screen a referral | Within 1 hour | Within 30 minutes · Within 1 hour · Within 2 hours |
| Imminent danger phoned to the principal and law enforcement | Within 5 minutes | Within 2 minutes · Within 5 minutes |
| Team review, moderate concern and above | Within 1 school day | Same day · Within 1 school day · Within 2 school days |
| Full assessment, high concern | Within 5 school days | Within 3 school days · Within 5 school days |
| Default follow-up review | Day 10 | Day 5 · Day 10 · Day 20 · Day 30 |
| Plan team consult | Required before a level when the student has an IEP or a Section 504 plan | On · Off |
| Retention | 5 years after closure or age 23, whichever is later | 5 years after closure or age 23, whichever is later · 7 years after closure |
| Agents never set a level | They draft; the team decides and a second member confirms | Locked |
Every figure is labelled: a target the solution is built to, an estimate, a typical published result, or a proven one.
“demo” = seen in the working solution, on its sample district data · “target” = the design goal, measured in the live solution · “estimated” = our estimate of staff hours for one referral that goes to a team review · “typical” = published figures (a National Institute of Justice–funded statewide study of 15,301 threat assessments in 1,221 schools; an analysis of statewide school safety audit data summarized by New America; U.S. Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center, Protecting America's Schools, 2019). State laws requiring school threat assessment teams in Virginia, Florida, Texas, New Jersey and Michigan, and FERPA (34 CFR §99.36 and §99.32), IDEA and Section 504 are named as context. Marlow Bay Unified School District, its schools, and the people and cases named on this page are fictional: characters and sample data in the working solution.
Behavioral threat assessment and management (BTAM) is how a school threat assessment team decides how much concern a reported behavior warrants and what support or safety steps follow, then tracks the plan to closure. Behavioral Threat Assessment & Management guides each case from referral to safety plan and follow-up: agents screen, gather and cite the records, and check for bias, and the team sets the level.
The Intake agent screens every referral within the hour against the district's imminent-danger screen: a weapon named or seen, a time or place named, a target named, or preparation seen. On any sign it phones the principal and law enforcement with a read-out script, keeps calling down the list until a person answers, and records the emergency disclosure.
The Records agent files every statement as a verified fact or a report not verified, each cited to its record. A report not verified, such as an anonymous tip, never feeds a level: a team member resolves it with evidence, like an interview, or sets it aside with a reason.
Before any level is set, the Bias Check agent compares the referral's words with the student's IEP or 504 profile and with similar cases, and the plan team is consulted. The state report's fairness watch compares referral shares by disability, race and language with enrollment. The agent warns; the team decides.
Only what the law allows. The officer's view shows the referral, the essay, the officer check and weapons access, and withholds counseling, health, IEP and 504 details unless a health-or-safety emergency disclosure under FERPA is documented. Every view is on the audit trail.
Yes. The agents only draft. The team places the case on the continuum, a second member confirms every level change, a change to an agent's finding needs a reason code, the team lead approves closure, and a person signs every parent notice.
Yes. The Reporting agent drafts the report from the cases, with each count linked to its cases. The program administrator prepares it and the Assistant Superintendent approves it before it goes to the state reporting portal.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements and documents, such as your district's threat assessment model, supports menu, notice templates and records schedule, and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. We will walk you through it on your own model first.
Families enrolled in one visit; staff review only the exceptions, each tied to its proof.
1-min demoSchool Immunization ComplianceEvery missing dose found and named to the family before exclusion day.
1-min demoChronic Absenteeism & Truancy InterventionOutreach starts at 5%, in the family's language, long before the review board.
1-min demoWe'll run Behavioral Threat Assessment & Management on your district's model, supports menu and de-identified past cases.