Slide 1

Christian Gamm, M.Ed., Doctoral CandidateMichael Mardis, Ph.D.Dana Sullivan, Ph.D.ACPA Annual ConferenceBaltimore, MDMarch 29, 2011Behavioral Intervention & Threat Assessment Teams: Exploring Reasonable Professional ResponsesPresentation AgendaIntroductionImpetus behind the creation of threat assessment teamsDelworth Model, 1989Study Rationale ResultsGroup Discussion2Background On April 16, 2007, Seung-Hui Cho shot and killed 32 people and wounded many others on Virginia Techs 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.

Obviously, we are not the experts, but are sharing the information we have found.3Questions for those attendingDoes 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?

TerminologyStudents troubled, at-risk, mentally disabled, disturbed, disruptive, distressedDefinition 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 purposeNo standard definition that can be found in the literature.5BIT/TAT/SCT TeamOften 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).

6BIT/TAT/SCT TeamActuarial 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).7Impetus for Creating TeamsResearch suggests the importance of active engagement with troubled students sooner rather than later (Pavela, 2007).Governors Report in wake of Virginia Tech shootings; prior to this incident, very few higher education institutions had threat assessment teamsExtensive background regarding threat assessment at the elementary and secondary education levels.Risk avoidanceCaring for students

8Role of TeamsDetect 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 9Delworth Model of Threat AssessmentCreated in 1989Also referred to as a framework, the Assessment-Intervention of Student Problems (AISP) model3 componentsFormation of campus assessment teamGeneral assessment process for channeling students into the most appropriate on/off campus resourcesIntervention with the student of concern10Practical approach that can be applied easily, identifies the most appropriate members and articulates their roles and responsibilities, provides a diagnostic tool for members to quickly assess between behavioral and mental health issues, guides team members in connecting students to resources protect their and the campus community's health and well-being.Delworth Model of Threat Assessment

From Jablonski, McClellan, & Zdziarski, 200811There are obviously other models; National Center for Higher Ed Risk Managements College and University Intervention TeamFlowchart for Managing Disturbed and Disturbing Students

From Jablonski, McClellan, & Zdziarski, 2008

12Institutional Liability ConcernNegligenceDutyBreach of Duty Proximate CauseInjury

Courts have imposed a duty on colleges of protecting students from foreseeable harm (Kaplin & Lee, 2007).

Privacy LawsOften 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 students consent to protect the health and safety of others(Fischer & Wilson, 2007).When sharing, they can share sufficient info to allow for warning/protection of potential victims; dont disclose entire mental health history.14Rationale for the Study

Results Descriptive Data1044 institutions invited (Sent to SSAO)51 undeliverable email993 invitations, 181 responses18% response rateDo 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 sure60 institutions (34% had had more than one team)8 institutions had 3 teamsOnly 1 institution indicated having 4 teams (BIT, Conduct Review Board, Critical Incident Team, Emergency Management Team)Demographics: Type of Institution

The majority of respondents were 4 year schools, almost evenly split between public and private institutions.Demographics: Type of Institution

Demographics: Type of Institution

Length of Time in Existence in Years (Team 1 175 Responses)Mean = 4.26Minimum = .50 yearsMaximum = 30 yearsMedian = 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)Confidence in the Teams Meeting Institutional Expectations (M = 3.90, SD = .79) (no significant differences by type of institution)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)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)Team 1

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 TeamMost common name: Behavioral Intervention Team (BIT)26Most Frequently Occurring Responsibilities Situations Most Frequently Addressed (Team 1)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, Womens Services, Registrar, Wellness Director, Career ServicesTitles vary at types of institution (DOS and VPSA)

*most frequently identified chair (DOS 72, VPSA 44, Other 38, Counseling Director 20)

Team Training67.24 % Receive Training32.76 % No TrainingTypes of training In house (VPSA, Legal Council, DOS, Police, Counseling Center)WebinarsWorkshopsConferences NaBITA (National Behavioral Intervention Team Association) Brett Sokolow

Audio Online Seminar BITMAGNA 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 MeetingsFrequency%Weekly31%As-Needed29%Twice Monthly24%Monthly10%Other6%

Record-keepingDoes your team keep records of meetings?79% Yes21% No

Does your team keep records of the specific students youve discussed?94% Yes6% NoRecord-keeping: How teams keep records of information discussed at meetings. Notes (personal, informal)Meting minutesPrograms (conduct software, Maxient software, Excel, Titanium)Student files (DOS, Conduct, Counseling Center, University Police)Shared Electronic FolderList of students names and date discussed onlyIndividuals maintain recordsRecord 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: dont make others aware, we dont promote, faculty senate, Chairs meeting, faculty training, peer education

Team 2 (n= 41)

Team 2Length of time in Existence in Years

Mean = 3.8Minimum = .50 yearsMaximum = 30 yearsMedian =3 years

Threat asm types increase, it is more beh intervention for team 136DiscussionNext steps as a professionWhere 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 employeesAreas for future research

DiscussionRecord Keeping/Documentation Centralized or DecentralizedFormal informalAccess to informationRecord keeping who has access from institutionStaff Training Parental NotificationCommunication with CampusHow are you sharing informationPrivacy LawsWho is on your team (faculty)?Areas for future study

Contact InformationDr. Michael MardisDean of Students, Associate Vice President of Student AffairsUniversity of Louisville502.852.5787m.mardis@louisville.edu

Christian GammDoctoral CandidateUniversity of Louisville502-852-3109cagamm01@louisville.edu

Dr. Dana SullivanAssistant Professor of Social WorkWestern Kentucky University270.745.3535dana.sullivan@wku.edu

ReferencesCornell, 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 panels 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. Jossey-BassPavella, G. & Joffe, P. (2007). Responding to troubled and at-risk students. NASPA Webinar. 10/9/2007.Pavella, G. (2008). Colleges wont help students by fearing them. Chronicle of Higher Education 54(25), A37.Redden, E. (2008). Predicting and preventing campus violence. Inside Higher Ed.com, 4/7/2008.40Chart11288

Column2

Sheet1Column22 year124 year88To resize chart data range, drag lower right corner of range.

Chart15347

Column1

Sheet1Column1Public53Private47To resize chart data range, drag lower right corner of range.

Chart14456

Column2

Sheet1Column2Community or Technical (n=35)44Religious Affiliated (n=45)56To resize chart data range, drag lower right corner of range.

Chart16040

Column2166 Institutions

Sheet1Column2Urban60Rural40To resize chart data range, drag lower right corner of range.

Chart148.5718.299.7110.2913.14

FunctionTeam Function

Sheet1FunctionBehavioral Intervention 48.57 %48.57Threat Assessment 18.29 %18.29Information/Referral 9.71 %9.71Student Care 10.29%10.29Other 13.14%13.14To resize chart data range, drag lower right corner of range.

Chart11232527520

Function

Sheet1FunctionBehavioral Intervention 12%12Threat Assessment 32 %32Information / Referral 5 %5Student Care 27 %27Academic 5 %5Other 19 %20To resize chart data range, drag lower right corner of range.