1. CREATING YOUR BIT: INFLUENCING CHANGE ON YOUR CAMPUS The Community College Conference On Legal Issues January 30, 2012

2. Presented by Saundra K. Schuster, J.D. Partner, National Center for Higher Education Risk Management sschuster@att.net www.NCHERM.org © NCHERM, 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 2

3.  Nearly 80% of school (k-12 & college) violence perpetrators raised serious concerns about the potential for violence amongst friends, family, peers, or other community members prior to their acts  Nearly 80% of campus shooters/violent actors shared their plans, or parts of their plans, with others prior to their shootings. Source, Marisa Randazzo, Ph.D. 3 © NCHERM, 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

4.  Is an active shooter red in the face?  Are they about to “go postal”?  Are they sweating?  Are they angry and out-of-control?  Wearing a trenchcoat or hoodie?  Can’t you see one coming? Not when your mental image is skewed by media-driven stereotypes. 4 © NCHERM, 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

5. What does an “active shooter” really look like? 5 © NCHERM, 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

6. 6 A cognitive aggressor plans, executes methodically, and is emotionally disengaged. Someone who is willing to give their life for their cause shows a profound disconnection from their own well-being… and yours. Their body loses animation. Their face shows no affect. Beware the “thousand-yard” stare. -- Source: John D. Byrnes, The Center for Aggression Management © NCHERM, 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

7. Esquire Kazmierczak Profile 7 “ He stands for the briefest of moments looking at the class, then he raises the shotgun… He stands in place, not panicking, not rushing… There was no change of expression, not even excitement. It was like if you’re repainting a room at home, painting the walls, and you realize you missed a few spots, it was that mechanical.” Source: Esquire Magazine, July 16 th 2008 © NCHERM, 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

8. IV-4 : “Incidents of aberrant, dangerous, or threatening behavior must be documented and reported Immediately to a college’s threat assessment group, and must be acted upon in a prompt and effective manner to protect the safety of the campus community.” The Virginia Tech Governor’s Panel Report 8 © NCHERM, 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

9.  The post-Virginia Tech era shows a dramatic shift to proactive prevention as the majority of campuses move to implement or update behavioral intervention team practices.  As these teams evolve and become more sophisticated, we must ask what best practices are evolving and what future transformations are in store? A Focus on Proaction 9 © NCHERM, 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

10.  Team Development  Philosophical Considerations  Team Membership Team Leadership  Mission Development  Practical Meeting Applications 10 © NCHERM, 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

11. Key Question: Do we understand the difference between Threat Assessment and Behavioral Intervention? 11 © NCHERM, 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

12. 1. Who is/are the decision makers on your campus? 2. Are we willing to commit as much to prevention as we do to reaction? 3. Do you want to – and can you - support, assess and/or treat? 4. What is your philosophy on mandated assessment? 5. What entities already exist (BIT/CIRT/EAP)? 6. What level of campus buy-in exists? 12 © NCHERM, 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

13. 1. Will your team exist for students, faculty, and/or staff? 2. What mechanisms exist to learn about any type incident? 3. What about accountability and assessment? 4. What tools will we use to insure we are consistent and objective? 5. What are your capabilities for follow-up? 13 © NCHERM, 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

14. CORE GROUP  Chair/Case Manager  Student Conduct  Mental Health Professional  Law Enforcement/Security  “The Regulars” INNER CIRCLE  Disability Services  Faculty?  Other Student Service Areas OUTER CIRCLE  Health Services  Greek Affairs  Registrar  Academic Affairs  Media Relations  HR/Union/Faculty Senate  Make adjustments to fit your culture  Sustainability matters 14 © NCHERM, 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

15.  This should be the person on campus who has the ability to:  Remove/restrict students from campus  Mandate actions (i.e., assessment)  It must be someone who has the confidence of the community  Chair vs. Case Manager 15 © NCHERM, 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

16. Who is this on your campus? 16 © NCHERM, 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

17. Develop a vision and mission that is consistent with your institutional mission and philosophy.  Include your Inner Circle in mission development, and your outer core in mission enhancement.  This can be done while the team is in the early functioning stages. 17 © NCHERM, 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

18. How often should we meet? Where? What about multiple campus sites? How will we be trained? What will these meetings look like? 18 © NCHERM, 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

19. How will we manage the data and records? What about meeting minutes and notes? 19 © NCHERM, 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

20. 2 nd generation behavioral intervention teams use formalized protocols of explicit engagement techniques and strategies;  A policy tells you what you’ll do. A protocol shows you how  Short but thorough  Clear within a year  Answers “Why We Did What We Did” when the Governor’s Panel starts asking tough questions. 20 © NCHERM, 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

21. 2 nd generation behavioral intervention teams see their role as nominally to address threat, and primarily to support and provide resources to students;  Threat assessment v. behavioral intervention  Tool of student success  Aid in retention  Non-threatening to the community 21 © NCHERM, 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

22. 2 nd generation behavioral intervention teams utilize mandated psychological assessment’  Define who will assess, when and for how long  Define what tools will be used  Define who pays for the assessment  Define what must be communicated to team  Define what will happen if student fails to comply  Define how assessment results will be used 22 © NCHERM, 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

23. 2 nd generation behavioral intervention teams utilize voluntary/involuntary medical/psychological withdrawal policies; are you aware of the change in ADA law?  Do everything you can to encourage voluntary withdrawal  Must consider campus conduct action  Direct threat determination under Section 504  Applies to withdrawal from housing and/or the institution  Clear conditions for return 23 © NCHERM, 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

24. 2 nd generation behavioral intervention teams are undergirded by sophisticated threat assessment capacity, beyond law enforcement and psychological assessment tools;  Limitations of each discipline’s approach  Example of the NaBITA Threat Assessment Tool 24 © NCHERM, 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

25. 2 nd generation behavioral intervention teams use risk rubrics to classify threats;  This enables us to treat all similar situated students similarly  A risk rubric allows for a consistent, objective evaluation  A risk rubric enables a common language across the community 25 © NCHERM, 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

26. 2 nd generation behavioral intervention teams foster a comprehensive reporting culture within the institution;  Your duty and your responsibility  BIT sets a standard of care…it is expected to know what members of the community know, but can’t act on information it does not have  When in doubt, err on the side of reporting  Amnesty, Anonymous &Web-based reporting  BIT “Appeals” 26 © NCHERM, 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

27. 2nd generation behavioral intervention teams are technologically advanced; supported by comprehensive databases that allow the team to have a longitudinal view of a student's behavior patterns and trends;  Comprehensive Maxient database www.maxient.comwww.maxient.com  Record retention policies & practices  FERPA 27 © NCHERM, 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

28. 2 nd generation behavioral intervention teams train and educate the community on what to report and how;  We must create a common language for what is concerning  If you build it, they will come  What if the concern is minor  Impediments to training  Internal AND External Training/Orientation 28 © NCHERM, 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

29. 2 nd generation behavioral intervention teams focus not only on student-based risks, but on faculty and staff as well;  Separate Teams?  Requires HR on team; bifurcated recordkeeping  Collective Bargaining Agreements?  Faculty/Staff handbook Adjustments  What about EAP? 29 © NCHERM, 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

30. 2 nd generation behavioral intervention teams intentionally integrate with campus and community resources such as crisis management plans, emergency response procedures, CISDT protocols, and existing campus risk management programs addressing sex offenders, Prior Felony Assaults, criminal background checks and admissions screenings. 30 © NCHERM, 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

31. 2 nd generation behavioral intervention teams utilize their databases to integrate a function for “minding the gaps”  Is a period of quietude cause of relief or cause for alarm?  We need to check in to see if the student is tethered to our support structures and coping, or quietly planning and trying to evade our detection 31 © NCHERM, 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

32.  Fully implement all twelve 2 nd gen BIT best practices  Empower a culture of reporting  Conduct Bystander Intervention Training  Ensure Adequate Mental Health Services  Get a database (Maxient.com)  Train Faculty & Staff  Offer Suicide Gatekeeper Training (QPR, CC) 32 © NCHERM, 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

33. www.ncherm.org/CUBIT.html www.nabita.org www.atap.org www.maxient.com 33 © NCHERM, 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

34. 34 Thank you! Questions? Saunie Schuster, Esq. © NCHERM, 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED