Behavioral Intervention & Threat
Assessment Teams: Exploring
Reasonable Professional Responses
Christian Gamm, M.Ed., Doctoral Candidate
Michael Mardis, Ph.D.
Dana Sullivan, Ph.D.
ACPA Annual Conference
Baltimore, MD
March 29, 2011
Presentation Agenda
 Introduction
 Impetus behind the creation of threat assessment teams
 Delworth Model, 1989
 Study Rationale
 Results
 Group Discussion
Background
 On April 16, 2007, Seung-Hui Cho shot and killed 32 people and




wounded many others on Virginia Tech’s campus, before
committing suicide.
On February 14, 2008, Steven Kazmierczak shot and killed five
people and wounded 18 others before committing suicide at
Northern Illinois University.
Individual Campus Crisis Situations (University of Louisville
examples)
Due to recent tragedies at institutions of higher education, the
reasonable professional response to managing at risk students has
changed.
Administrators are developing ways to best assist students and
ensure a safe campus environment.
Questions for those attending
 Does your campus have a team?
 Are you on your campus team?
 What is the name? (BIT,TAT,SCT)
 When was your team created?
 Why was the team created? (Purpose)
 Do you have more than one team?
 Do you keep records?
 How do you maintain records?
 Does your team receive training?
Terminology
 Students – troubled, at-risk, mentally disabled, disturbed,
disruptive, distressed
 Definition of team – threat assessment team (TAT),
behavioral intervention team (BIT), student care team (SCT),
critical incident response team (CIRT)
 Over time will the profession come to a more standardized
approach how these teams function and for what purpose
BIT/TAT/SCT Team
 Often there is a clear lack of authority to fully
manage threatening situations and to make
critical decisions (Pavela, 2008).
 “Better communication about troubled students is
needed,” so there is a need for a centralized
approach to responding to these students (Fischer
& Wilson, 2007).
BIT/TAT/SCT Team
 Actuarial and clinical approaches to assessing threats can
lead to false positives (Redden, 2008).
 According to the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools,
there is no “useful profile” for a school shooter.
 93% of crimes students experience occur off campus
(Cornell, 2008).
 Murder rate is 28 times higher off campus than on
campus (Cornell, 2008).
Impetus for Creating Teams
 Research suggests the importance of “active engagement
with troubled students sooner rather than later (Pavela,
2007).”
 Governor’s Report in wake of Virginia Tech shootings;
prior to this incident, very few higher education
institutions had threat assessment teams
 Extensive background regarding threat assessment at the
elementary and secondary education levels.
 Risk avoidance
 Caring for students
Role of Teams
 Detect and monitor potentially violent students (Dunkle,
Silverstein, & Warner, 2008)
 Monitor other students who may be troubled or troubling in
other ways (Dunkle, Silverstein, & Warner, 2008)
 Engage troubled students as early as possible, helping them
receive appropriate professional help (Pavela, 2008)
 Coordinate response efforts of multiple units
Delworth Model of Threat Assessment
 Created in 1989
 Also referred to as a framework, the Assessment-Intervention
of Student Problems (AISP) model
 3 components



Formation of campus assessment team
General assessment process for channeling students into the most
appropriate on/off campus resources
Intervention with the student of concern
Delworth Model of Threat Assessment
From Jablonski, McClellan, & Zdziarski, 2008
Flowchart for Managing Disturbed and
Disturbing Students
From Jablonski, McClellan, & Zdziarski, 2008
Institutional Liability Concern
 Negligence
 Duty
 Breach of Duty
 Proximate Cause
 Injury
Courts have imposed a duty on colleges of protecting students
from foreseeable harm (Kaplin & Lee, 2007).
Privacy Laws
 Often there is confusion regarding what information on troubled
students educators and mental health officials can share (Fischer &
Wilson, 2007).
 Mental health professionals are allowed to share information in
circumstances where they reasonably believe the client poses an
imminent danger of serious injury to themselves or to others
(Pavela, 2008).
 FERPA permits educators to share confidential information with
law enforcement, medical personnel, and others without the
student’s consent to protect the health and safety of others(Fischer
& Wilson, 2007).
Rationale for the Study
Results – Descriptive Data
 1044 institutions invited (Sent to SSAO)
 51 undeliverable email
 993 invitations, 181 responses
 18% response rate
 Do you have a team designed to respond to students in crisis
or at-risk? -175 indicated having a team to respond to
students in crisis/distress. 5 No team, 1 not sure
 60 institutions (34% had had more than one team)
 8 institutions had 3 teams
 Only 1 institution indicated having 4 teams (BIT, Conduct Review
Board, Critical Incident Team, Emergency Management Team)
Demographics: Type of Institution
2 year
12%
4 year
88%
The majority of
respondents were 4
year schools,
almost evenly split
between public and
private institutions.
Private
47%
Public
53%
Demographics: Type of Institution
Community or Technical (n=35)
Religious Affiliated (n=45)
Demographics: Type of Institution
166 Institutions
Rural
40%
Urban
60%
Length of Time in Existence in Years
(Team 1 – 175 Responses)
 Mean = 4.26
 Minimum = .50 years
 Maximum = 30 years
 Median = 3 years
Was your team created to minimize liability based on risks associated
with recent high profile violent acts committed on campuses?
(M = 3.04, SD = 1.11) (no significant differences by type of institution)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20 Strongly Disagree
8%
10
0
Disagree
27 %
Neutral
27%
Agree
30%
Strongly Agree
8%
Confidence in the Team’s Meeting Institutional
Expectations
(M = 3.90, SD = .79) (no significant differences by type of institution)
100
90
80
70
Confident
53%
60
50
Moderately
Confident
21.5
40
30
20
10
0
Not at all
Confident2
.5%
Limited
Confidence
4%
Very Confident
21%
Confidence that by implementing teams your institutions is meeting reasonable
professional standards to effectively manage legal liabilities
(M = 3.91, SD = .8) (no significant differences by type of institution)
100
90
80
70
Confident
53%
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Not at all
Confident
1%
Limited
Confidence
4%
Moderately
Confident
20%
Very Confident
22%
Overall Effectiveness of Team in Addressing Threat
Assessment or Behavioral Intervention on Campus
(M = 3.95, SD = .75) (no significant differences by type of institution)
100
90
80
Effective
57%
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Not at all
Effective
0%
Limited
Effectiveness
5%
Moderately
Effective
17%
Very Effective
21%
Team 1
Team Function
Behavioral Intervention
48.57 %
Threat Assessment
18.29 %
Information/Referral
9.71 %
Student Care 10.29%
Other 13.14%
A rose by any other name would smell
as sweet…
 Student Crisis Action Team (SCAT)
 Communicating Action Response for Emergency (CARE)
 Care and Action for Students Team (CAST)
 Student Protection Response Team (SPRT)
 Action for Students In Suffering Team (ASIST)
 Ensuring Action for Students in Emergency (EASE)
 Action Crisis Team for Students (ACTS)
 Care Team
 Most common name: Behavioral Intervention Team
(BIT)
Most Frequently Occurring Responsibilities
Assessment and Referrals
• Making referrals for students in crisis (n = 164)
• Assessing at-risk students (n = 163)
• Sharing information among appropriate offices (n = 167)
Responding and Identifying Crisis Situations
•
•
•
•
Responding to a crisis that threatens the well-being of a student or students (n = 153)
Ensuring appropriate follow-through with students (n = 154)
Responding to student behavior that is disruptive to the university community (n = 151)
Identifying student behaviors that disrupt the learning environment (n = 142)
Record-keeping and Other
•
•
•
•
•
•
Keeping records on students considered “at-risk” or who are in crisis (n = 132)
Serving as a source of information to faculty and staff (n = 126)
Initiation of internal review of the crisis situation (n = 112)
Responding to incidents where the person of concern is a faculty or staff (n = 96)
Dealing with students with academic difficulties (n = 52)
Other functions (n = 12)
Situations Most Frequently Addressed
(Team 1)
Threats of Violence to Others
(n = 165)
Classroom Disruption
(n = 149)
Emotional Distress
(n = 158)
Stalking Behaviors
(n = 146)
Suicidal Threats
(n = 156)
Diagnosed Mental Health
Disorders (n = 129)
Inappropriate Communications
(n = 150)
Failing Grades (n = 49)
Financial Difficulties (n = 40)
Identified Team Members (175 respondents)









Counseling Center Director (153)
Director of Dept. of Public Safety (139)
Housing Director (125)
Dean of Students (114) *
Student Conduct Officer (112)
Health Services Director (81)
Faculty Rep (72)
VP of Student Affairs (61)
Others Identified (125)
 Academic Advising, Financial Aid, Disabilities Office Rep., Legal Counsel,
University Ministry, Athletics, International Office, Women’s Services, Registrar,
Wellness Director, Career Services
 Titles vary at types of institution (DOS and VPSA)
*most frequently identified chair (DOS 72, VPSA 44, Other 38, Counseling
Director 20)
Team Training
 67.24 % Receive Training
 32.76 % No Training
Types of training
 In house (VPSA, Legal Council, DOS, Police, Counseling Center)
 Webinars
 Workshops
 Conferences
 NaBITA (National Behavioral Intervention Team Association)
Brett Sokolow
Audio Online Seminar BIT
MAGNA Publications
1. Why do we need a BIT?
2. Who should be on our team?
3. Is there an ideal team size?
4. How often should the team meet?
5. What are BIT recordkeeping best practices?
6. What is the ideal function of a BIT?
7. Who performs actual interventions?
8. What should a BIT protocol include?
9. How formal should the BIT operations be?
10. How transparent should BIT operations be?
11. What should be reported to the BIT?
12. Who should report information to the BIT?
13. How should information be reported to the BIT?
14. What feedback should reporters receive from the BIT?
15. How should the BIT communicate with the campus, and about what?
16. What is the role of the counselor(s) on the BIT?
17. Who should chair the BIT?
18. What are post-intervention best practices?
19. How can a BIT foster a culture of reporting?
20. How does a BIT successfully address privacy/confidentiality concerns?
Frequency of Team Meetings
Frequency
%
Weekly
31%
As-Needed
29%
Twice Monthly
24%
Monthly
10%
Other
6%
Record-keeping
 Does your team keep records of meetings?
 79% Yes
 21% No
 Does your team keep records of the specific students you’ve
discussed?
 94% Yes
 6% No
Record-keeping: How teams keep records of
information discussed at meetings.
 Notes (personal, informal)
 Meting minutes
 Programs (conduct software, Maxient software, Excel,





Titanium)
Student files (DOS, Conduct, Counseling Center, University
Police)
Shared Electronic Folder
List of students names and date discussed only
Individuals maintain records
Record action items only
How do you make others aware of your
team?
 Visits to units/departments (n = 102)
 Campus electronic notification to faculty staff (n = 99)
 Website (n = 65)
 Brochure (n = 39)
 Campus electronic notification to students (n = 37)
 Other: don’t make others aware, we don’t promote, faculty senate, Chairs
meeting, faculty training, peer education
Team 2 (n= 41)
Team 2
Length of time in
Existence in
Years
Mean = 3.8
Minimum = .50
years
Maximum = 30
years
Median =
3 years
Function
Behavioral
Intervention 12%
Threat Assessment
32 %
Information /
Referral 5 %
Student Care 27 %
Academic 5 %
Discussion
 Next steps as a profession
 Where do we see this going (What is the future)?
 Resources (Time & Funding)
 What are the implications for us as practitioners?
 Risk avoidance and liability issues – what can we do,
what should we be doing, and what are we saying we can
do with these teams?
 Team responsibilities for situations involving employees
 Areas for future research
Discussion
 Record Keeping/Documentation
 Centralized or Decentralized
 Formal informal
 Access to information
 Record keeping who has access from institution
 Staff Training
 Parental Notification
 Communication with Campus
 How are you sharing information
 Privacy Laws
 Who is on your team (faculty)?
 Areas for future study
Contact Information
 Dr. Michael Mardis
Dean of Students,
Associate Vice President of
Student Affairs
University of Louisville
502.852.5787
m.mardis@louisville.edu
 Christian Gamm
Doctoral Candidate
University of Louisville
502-852-3109
cagamm01@louisville.edu
 Dr. Dana Sullivan
Assistant Professor of Social
Work
Western Kentucky University
270.745.3535
dana.sullivan@wku.edu
References

Cornell, D. (2008). No title. NASPA Leadership Exchange.

Delworth, U. (1989). Dealing with the behavioral and psychological problems of students. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Dunkle, J.H., Silverstein, Z.B., & Warner, S.L. (2008). Managing violent and other troubling
students: The role of threat assessment teams on campus. Journal of College and University Law 34(3),
585-636.

Fischer, K., & Wilson, R. (2007). Review panel’s report could reverberate beyond Virginia Tech and
Virginia. Chronicle of Higher Education 53.

Kapplin, W. & Lee, B. (2007). The Law of Higher Education Student Version. San Francisco. JosseyBass

Pavella, G. & Joffe, P. (2007). Responding to troubled and at-risk students. NASPA Webinar. 10/9/2007.

Pavella, G. (2008). Colleges won’t help students by fearing them. Chronicle of Higher Education
54(25), A37.

Redden, E. (2008). Predicting and preventing campus violence. Inside Higher Ed.com, 4/7/2008.