Transcript MTAT BS Threat Assessment Tools

BEST PRACTICES FOR
CAMPUS THREAT ASSESSMENT
Presented by:
BRETT A. SOKOLOW, ESQ.
SAUNDRA K. SCHUSTER, ESQ.
www.ncherm.org
Threat Assessment

The NCHERM model utilizes a multi-disciplinary
rubric to assess threat on three scales:

1: Mental Health-related risk


2: Generalized risk


Potential harm to self
Operational, reputational, facilities, financial
3: Aggression Measures

Potential harm to others
We need all three
Combining the resources of these three
disciplines gives behavioral intervention
teams the tools they need to accurately assess
the source, nature and severity of any threat
posed to the community.
3
Measures of
Mental Health-Related Risk
The “D” Scale

Distress

Disturbance

Dysregulation/Medical Disability
4
Distress

Failure to cope with situational stressors and
traumatic events results in disruptive and/or
concerning behavior

Emotionally troubled (e.g., depressed, manic,
labile)

Potentially psychiatrically symptomatic
5
Disturbance

Behaviorally disruptive, unusual, and/or
bizarrely acting

Destructive, apparently harmful or threatening to
others

May misuse and/or abuse substances
6
Dysregulation

Suicidal (thoughts, feelings, expressed
intentions and ideations)

Parasuicidal (self-injurious, eating disordered to
a life-threatening level)

Engaging in risk-taking (e.g., substance abusing)

Hostile, aggressive, relationally abusive

Deficient in skills that regulate emotion,
cognition, self, behavior, and relationships
7
Medical Disability
(parallel risk to dysregulation)

Profoundly disturbed, detached view of reality

Unable to self-care (prolonged starvation,
poor self care/protection)

At risk of grievous injury or death without an
intent to self-harm

Often seen in psychotic breaks
8
Measures of
Generalized Risk

The NCHERM 5-level Risk Rubric is applicable to
potentially violent and injurious acts and those that
threaten reputation, facilities, operations, and
financial risk

Apply these as default measures when there are no
overt mental health-related risks or signs of
aggression.
9
CLASSIFYING THE RISK

THE NCHERM CUBIT MODEL RUBRIC FOR
GENERALIZED RISK:

MILD

MODERATE

ELEVATED

SEVERE

EXTREME
1. Mild risk

Disruptive or concerning behavior.

Student may or may not show signs of distress.

No threat made or present.
11
2. Moderate risk

More involved or repeated disruption. Behavior more concerning.
Likely distressed or low-level disturbance.

Possible threat made or present

Threat is vague and indirect

Information about threat or threat itself is inconsistent, implausible
or lacks detail

Threat lacks realism

Content of threat suggests threatener is unlikely to carry it out.
12
3. Elevated risk

Seriously disruptive incident(s)

Exhibiting clear distress, more likely disturbance

Threat made or present

Threat is vague and indirect, but may be repeated or shared with
multiple reporters

Information about threat or threat itself is inconsistent, implausible
or lacks detail

Threat lacks realism, or is repeated with variations

Content of threat suggests threatener is unlikely to carry it out.
13
4. Severe risk

Disturbed or advancing to dysregulation

Threat made or present

Threat is vague, but direct, or specific but indirect (type of threat v.
object of threat)

Likely to be repeated or shared with multiple reporters

Information about threat or threat itself is consistent, plausible or
includes increasing detail of a plan (time, place, etc)

Threat likely to be repeated with consistency (may try to convince
listener they are serious)

Content of threat suggests threatener may carry it out.
14
5. Extreme risk

Student is dysregulated (way off their baseline) or medically disabled

Threat made or present

Threat is concrete (specific and direct)

Likely to be repeated or shared with multiple reporters

Information about threat or threat itself is consistent, plausible or
includes specific detail of a plan, often with steps already taken

Threat may be repeated with consistency

Content of threat suggests threatener will carry it out (reference to
weapons, means, target)

Threatener may appear detached
15
9 Measures of Aggression

Provides BITs the ability to assess potential for harm to others
in an objective way

Integrates the NCHERM model with the Center for Aggression
Management’s Aggression Continua

Enables BITs to prevent injury and violence via trained
Aggression Managers.

Crisis Management, Threat Assessment & Conflict Resolution

Aggressive versus assertive
16
Primal & Cognitive Aggression
17
Three-phase construct

Trigger Phase

Escalation Phase

Crisis Phase
18
Level 1—Hardening
Cognitive Aggressor:

Becomes more distant and argumentative

Demonstrates a lack of understanding and empathy

Conceals motives and intent through deception
Example: averted eye contact in class, rationale does not
make sense
19
Level 2—Harmful Debate
Cognitive Aggressor:

Becomes fixated on his or her own view

May exhibit cutthroat-competition, distrust, proleptic and
obstructionist behavior

Has no interest in others’ perspectives or finding common
ground
May manifest in frequent arguments as resident advisors
confront code violations or as faculty find students arguing in
class just for the sake of argument
20
Level 3
Communicate with Actions vs. Words
Cognitive Aggressor:




Leaves argument behind
Takes action without consulting others
Appears detached and is self-absorbed
Perceives the intent of his/her intended victim(s) as not in
his/her best interest
RAs and other staff may notice this behavior as students
withdraw from contact with others and developing
concerning behaviors like punching bathroom doors.
21
Level 4



Image Destruction: This aggressor plants seeds of
distrust with their intended victim’s community −
those individuals the victim likes and respects and by
whom they want to be liked and respected in return
Examples: potentially stealing ideas or credit,
provoking anonymous, false accusations, or other
subtle undermining
Issues become bipolar, attacks intended victim’s core
identity.
22
Level 5

Forced Loss of Face

This aggressor unmasks his or her victim as an
enemy of their own community.

You’re not who you pretend to be.
23
Level 6



The final level of the Escalation Phase reveals Threat
Strategies, where the aggressor becomes more overt
toward their victim or victims.
Often this level of aggression is about controlling or
manipulating a victim or victims, positioning them so
that they feel the full impact of the aggressor’s threat.
This aggressor presents an ultimatum to his or her
victim or victims, aggressively responds to perceived
threats, possibly on the verge of panic.
24
Level 7

Limited Destructive Blows:

This aggressor is the Complicit Tactician, the individual who is
complicit with the eighth and ninth-levels of the aggression
continuum but does not intend to murder or die for their
cause.

This aggressor will inspire others to do so or aid the others in
the committing of their violence.

In the generic sense this individual is an “accomplice.”
25
Level 8

Win/lose Attack:

This aggressor may be prepared to give up their life for this
cause but intends to survive.

Generically, this is the murderer (or in a military or homeland
security context, a combatant).
26
Level 9
“Plunging Together into the Abyss”

Murder/Suicide, the ultimate lose/lose attack

This Cognitive Aggressor:

Does not intend to survive

Has a profound disconnection from his/her own well-being

Will often take his own life to avoid capture or incarceration
27
Using the Chart
Primary framework—the 5-level generalized risk (mild to
extreme) scale:

Will indicate to the team the overall risk level and appropriate resources,
support and intervention techniques to deploy.

Scale applies to every case

Mental health and aggression measures only apply as overlays when
mental health issues and/or signs of aggression are indicated
Using all of the information reported to the team it will then assimilate
the information and assign a risk level.
28
MORE ON THE CHART
If mental health-related issues are present

Classify the student on the “D” scale first.

Then, identify the corresponding level of generalized risk, and any indicators of
aggression.
If there is no evidence of mental health-related risk

Directly classify the risk according to the 5-level scale
If generalized risk is unclear, and because measures of aggression are more objective,
you can

Work the chart from right to left, assigning a correct level of aggression

From that, assign the corresponding level of generalized risk

There may or may not be a corresponding level of mental health-related risk
29
FINALLY

Use the right-hand side of the NCHERM Risk Rubric
Table.

This will give you the corresponding tools in the
toolbox for your team to deploy depending upon the
level of risk you have perceived.
THE CUBIT RESOURCE PAGE
www.ncherm.org/CUBIT.html