Dana Sullivan, Ph.D.Michael Mardis, Ph.D.Christian Gamm, MA

Southern Association for College Student Affairs Annual Conference

Panama City, FLNovember 7, 2010

Exploring the Prevalence of Behavioral Intervention and Threat Assessment Teams in Institutions

of Higher Education

Presentation AgendaIntroductionImpetus behind the creation of threat

assessment teamsDelworth Model 1989Study Rationale ResultsGroup 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 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?

Institutional Liability Concern

NegligenceDutyBreach 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 student’s consent to protect the health and safety of others(Fischer & Wilson, 2007).

BIT/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).

BIT/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).

TerminologyStudents – troubled, at-risk, mental

disability, disturbed, disruptive, distressedDefinition of team – threat assessment

team, behavioral intervention team, student care team, critical incident response team

Over time will the profession come to a more standardized approach how these teams function and for what purpose (model BIT/SCT/TAT)

Impetus for creating teamsResearch 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 avoidanceCaring for students

Roles 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

Delworth Model of Threat AssessmentCreated in 1989Also referred to as a framework, the

Assessment-Intervention of Student Problems (AISP) model

3 componentsFormation of campus assessment teamGeneral 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

Reasons For the Study

RESULTS - Response Rate1044 institutions invited (Sent to SSAO)

51 undeliverable email993 invitations, 181 responses

18% 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 sure

60 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

2 year12%

4 year88%

Public53%

Private47%The majority of

respondents were 4 year schools,

almost evenly split between public and private institutions.

DemographicsType of Institution

Community or Technical (n=35)

Religious Affiliated (n=45)

DemographicsType of Institution

Urban60%

Rural40%

166 Institutions

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 Team’s 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 1Team 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 TeamMost common team name Behavioral Intervention

Team

Most 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, 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 Training67.24 % Receive Training32.76 % No Training

Types 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?

Team Meetings

Frequency %

Weekly 31%

As-Needed 29%

Twice Monthly 24%

Monthly 10%

Other 6%

Record KeepingDoes your team keep records of meetings?

79% Yes21% No

Does your team keep records of the specific students you’ve discussed?94% Yes6% No

Record 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, Univ 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?

TOP RESPONSESVisits 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)

Function

Behavioral Intervention 12%Threat Assessment 32 %Information / Referral 5 %Student Care 27 %

Academic 5 %

Team 2Length of time in

Existence in Years

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

DiscussionNext 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 employees

Areas for future research

Discussion Record Keeping/Documentation

Centralized or DecentralizedFormal informalAccess 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 InformationMichael MardisDean of Students Associate VPUniversity of Louisville502.852.5787m.mardis@louisville.edu

Dana Sullivan, MSW, Ph.D.Assistant ProfessorWestern Ky University Dept. of Social Work270.745.3535dana.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. Jossey-Bass

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.