Threat Assessment Presentation 10 8 13

Threat Assessment and Threat Management in Schools
Katie Neubauer, Ed.S., NCSP ACES School Psychologist kneubauer@maryville.k12.mo.us 660-254-6135
Why are we here?
NOT to talk about an active shooter scenario. Briefly discuss the history of threat assessments. Learn a research-based method for assessing threats made by your students in school.
Katie Neubauer, ACES School Psychologist
What is Threat Assessment?
Evaluates risk of violence posed by someone who has communicated an intent to harm someone. Considers the context and circumstances surrounding a threat. Threat assessment includes interventions to manage and reduce the risk of violence.
Purposes of threat assessment:

1.
Reduce the risk. Identify educational and support needs. Reduce legal liability.
2.
3.
388 School shootings since 1992, including university campuses. Red icons indicate multiple fatalities, yellow indicate one or no fatalities.
Source: http://www.stoptheshootings.org/ Data current as of 11/3/13
Age of Victims 1992-2013
0-9
10 - 19 20 - 29 30 - 39
31 (6%)
299 (59%) 80 (16%) 28 (6%)
40 - 49
50+ Total number of fatalities: Age of Shooters 1992-2013 0-9 10 - 19 20 - 29 30 - 39 40 - 49 50+
32 (6%)
38 (7%) 509
5 (2%) 169 (69%) 36 (15%) 12 (5%) 14 (6%) 9 (4%)
Total number of shooters:

Source: http://www.stoptheshootings.org/
245
Katie Neubauer, ACES School Data current Psychologist
as of
Olathe North High School, KCK, 9/14/95, 2 fatalities
Sumner High School, St. Louis, 3/25/93, 1 fatality
Center High School, Kansas City, 11/29/93, 1 fatality
Beaumont High School, St. Louis, 2/29/96, 2 fatalities
St. James Catholic School, Kansas City, 11/7/02, 1 fatality
Memorial Middle School, Joplin, 10/9/06, 0 fatalities

Source: http://www.stoptheshootings.org/state/MO
School is Safe!
School is still the safest place for any child to be during the day even safer than their own homes! Sandy Hook traumatized teachers to the level that 9/11 traumatized the nation. Diana Browning Wright, M.S., L.E.P
CDC Division of Violence Prevention = less than 2% of all youth homicides occur at school, and this percentage has been stable for the Katie Neubauer, ACES School past decade. Psychologist
CDC School Associated Violent Death Study Trends from 19922010

http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/youthviolence/schoolviolence/savd.html
School Violence Factors

Bullying, cliques, rivalries, precipitating events (abuse) provide: MOTIVE = angry, depressed youth
http://beyondschool.org/2008/05/10/ bullied-thensuccessful-now-meme/ Katie Neubauer, ACES School Psychologist

Entertainment violence, violence at home teaches: METHOD of violence
http://www.vg247.com/2 013/05/08/gta-5screens-are-heavy-onvehicles/

Unsupervised access to firearms provides: MEANS of violence
http://www.parentherald.com/articles/54/20120728/gun-safetyshooting-children-gun-shooting.htm

Motive Method Means
When these three elements intersect, there is risk.
Brief History of Threat Assessment
Process originally developed by the U.S. Secret Service- not for use in schools.
Following Columbine the Secret Service and the Department of Education evaluated how these principles could be applied in school (published as Safe Schools Initiative)
Lessons learned From Safe School Initiative, 2002
93% of cases the act was planned; 51% had the idea for at least a month. 81% of incidents someone else knew; 59% of cases, more than 1 person knew; 93% of cases a schoolmate or sibling knew. 17% threatened to harm in some way prior to attack. No profile: about showed no marked change in performance, friendships or disciplinary problems. 93% engaged in behavior that caused others to be concerned; 88% at least one ADULT was concerned. Katie Neubauer, ACES School
Psychologist
98% experienced some type of loss prior to attack (precipitating event). Lacked coping skills; 83% had behaviors that suggested difficulty in coping. 78% had a history of suicide attempts or suicidal thoughts prior to attack. 61% had documented history of feeling depressed or desperate. 71% felt bullied, persecuted or injured prior to attack. In several cases the bullying was long-standing and severe. 63% had a known history of weapon use. 68% acquired the guns used in the attack from their own home or that of a relative. 44% were encouraged or influenced by others to Katie Neubauer, ACES School engage in the attacks. Psychologist
Most were stopped by school administrators, educators or other students, or by stopping on their own (suicide).
Most incidents were brief and ended in less than 15 minutes. 27% were stopped by law enforcement intervention. About were over in 5 minutes.
Lessons learned lead to the 6 principles of the threat assessment process.

1.
2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Targeted violence is the result of an understandable process, not a random or spontaneous act. Consider person, situation, setting and target. Maintain an investigative, skeptical mindset. Focus on facts and behaviors, not traits. Use information from all possible sources. Making a threat is not the same as posing a threat. Ask, is this student on a path toward an attack?
Abridged from the Secret Service/DOE guide
Bystander Study
Prior Knowledge of Potential School-Based Violence Study, May 2008
Focuses on the discovery that in 81% of the attacks, 1 other person knew of the impending attack, and 93% were peers of the perpetrators friends, schoolmates or siblings
Explored the factors that influenced bystanders on why they did or did not report to adults/staff what they knew.
1.
School climate matters. Schools and law enforcement should emphasize the value of the information brought forward and reassure that sharing will not cause harm. Policies that address the many aspects of reporting a threat are important.
2.
3.
School staff training on how to properly respond to students who provide information about a threatening situation, as well as actual threats, is
Some reasons students dont report threats

I didnt know who to tell. I didnt think he/she would really do it. I didnt want to get him/her in trouble. I didnt want to be a snitch.
Every teacher should make sure that all students understand the importance of reporting threats.
Source: Cornell, D.G., and Sheras, P.L., (2006). Guidelines for Responding to Student Threats of Violence. Boston, MA, NewYork, NY, Longmont, CO.: Sopris West Educational Services, p.85
The most important points to emphasize with students are:

Students can go to any teacher or staff member to report a threat. Students should report any threat that is not clearly a joke. A classmate will be in more trouble if a threat is carried out than if it is prevented. Seeking help to prevent someone from being hurt is not snitching.
Source: Cornell, D.G., and Sheras, P.L., (2006). Guidelines for Responding to Student Threats Katie Neubauer, ACES School of Violence. Boston, MA, NewYork, NY, Longmont, CO.: Sopris West Educational Services, p.85
Psychologist
Where to find the Bystander Study
www.secretservice.gov/ntac/bystander_study .pdf
Development of standardized process to conduct threat assessment in school
A variety of experts provided recommendations; none were backed by research
2004 the Virginia Youth Violence Project developed and field-tested guidelines. Virginia model the ONLY threat assessment approach listed on SAMHSAs National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Katie Neubauer, ACES School Practices. Psychologist
Studies demonstrating effectiveness of Virginia Model*
(2004) School-based teams in 35 public schools investigated 188 student threats.

None of the threats were carried out.
(2008) Large urban school district with a centralized threat assessment team.
109 threats to kill, shoot or stab someone. None of the threats were carried out.
*Cornell et al., 2012, School Psychology Review: 100-115.
Studies
(2009)
95 high schools using the Virginia Model, 131 schools using locally developed procedures, and 54 schools using no threat assessment approach (or Zero Tolerance).
Results: 1/3 fewer long-term suspensions Greater student willingness to report threats and More positive perceptions of school staff members
(2009) 23 high schools and 26 control group schools

Results: 52% reduction in long-term Katie Neubauer, ACES School Psychologist suspensions and a 79% reduction in bullying
Studies
(2010) 201 students identified by principals as making a threat of violence during the school year.
100 students attending intervention schools (schools implementing the Virginia Model for the first year) and 101 students attending control schools (schools waitlisted to receive training after one year).
Studies
100 students in the threat assessment group schools were more likely to receive
counseling services and a parent conference and less likely to receive a long-term suspension or alternative school placement than the 101 students in the control group schools.
This provides strong empirical support for the use of student threat assessment in schools.
What is not covered by Virginia Model Guidelines?

Threats to damage property Threats made by non-students Fights or misbehavior that does not involve a threat Slurs, insults, verbal abuse that does not involve a threat to physically harm someone.
Other school policies apply to these situations.
What is a threat?
A threat is an expression of intent to harm someone.
May be verbal, written, artistic or gestured. May be direct or indirect. Need not be communicated to the intended victim(s). Weapons possession is presumed to be a threat unless circumstances clearly indicate otherwise (I forgot my knife was in my backpack.)

When in doubt, assume it isKatie a Neubauer, threat. ACES School

Psychologist
The Virginia Model of Threat Assessment
Ste p 0:
Threat Reported to Principal
Student becomes aware of threat

Student reports threat to teacher; teacher/staff member discovers or overhears threat
Key event in the threat assessment process.
Teacher/staff member determines threat needs to be reported.
Typical questions asked by administrator when threat first brought to him/her: 1. Do you know why I wanted to talk to
you? 2. What happened today when you were (place of incident)? 3. What exactly did you say and do? 4. What did you mean when you said/did that? 5. How do you think (person threatened) feels about what you said? 6. What was the reason you said that? 7. What are you going to do now?
Diana Browning Wright, M.S., L.E.P.
Questions to ask witnesses; typically the counselor or other team member:

1. 2.
3.
4. 5.
What happened to day when you were (place of incident)? What exactly did (student who made threat) say and do? What do you think he/she meant? How do you feel about what he/she said? Why did he/she say that?
Ste p 1:

Step 1. Evaluate Threat. Step 2. Decide if threat is clearly transient or substantive.
Threat is clearly transient.
Threat is substantive.
Step 3. Respond to transient threat.
Step 4. Decide if the substantive threat is serious or very serious.
Threat is serious.
Threat is very serious.
Step 5. Respond to serious substantive threat.
Step 6. Conduct Safety Evaluation. Step 7. Follow up on action plan.

Virginia Model: Step 1 Evaluate the Threat
Obtain an account of the threat and the context from the student and witnesses. The exact wording and context of a threat are very important!
Report Threats Verbatim

Continuum of Threats
Warning of Impending Violence
Attempts to intimidate or frighten

Thrill of causing a disruption
Lower Risk (not NO risk)
Attention-seeking, boasting
Fleeting expressions of anger
Jokes
Figures of speech
Types of threat..
Direct Threat: A statement of clear, explicit intent to harm Im going to shoot you with my 9mm Glock after school. Third Party: Violence of intent to harm another Im going to get him, wait and see. Indirect Threat: Violence is implied, threat is phrased tentatively If I wanted to, I could kill everyone at this school. Conditional Threat: Made contingent on a set of circumstances If they dont let me graduate Ill come back and shoot everybody. Katie Neubauer, ACES School Veiled Threat: Vague and subject to interpretation
Psychologist
11 Key Questions
*abridged from the DOE/Safe Schools guide
1. 2.
What are the students motives or goals? Any communications of intent to attack?
3.
Any inappropriate interest in other attacks, weapons, or mass violence?

Any attack-related behaviors? Making a plan, acquiring weapons, using surveillance on potential sites, etc)
Katie Neubauer, ACES School Does student have the capacity to attack? Psychologist
4.
5.
11 Key Questions cont.

6. 7. 8.
Is there hopelessness or despair? Any trusting relationship with an adult?
Is violence regarded as a way to solve a problem? Any peer influences?

Are students words consistent with actions? others concerned about the student?
9.
10. Are
Assessing written or artistic material Talk to those who know the student.

Understand the context of the writing or drawing Ask in detail about the material Express concern Think of written and artistic material as attempts to practice violence Look for themes Make copies when possible, and file with the counselor or in another appropriate place Monitor past and future materials Be persistent and specific with questions Assess access to or knowledge of weapons Watch for non-verbal cues
Ste p 2:

Threat is serious.

Types of threats Transient vs. Substantive
Often rhetorical remarks, not genuine expressions of intent to harm. At worst, express temporary feelings of anger or frustration. Usually can be resolved on the scene or in the office. After resolution, the threat no longer exists. Usually ends with an apology or clarification.
Express intent to physically injure someone beyond the immediate situation. There is at least some risk the student will carry out the threat. Require that you take protective action. May be legal violations and require law enforcement consultation. Katie Neubauer, ACES School
Psychologist
Substantive Threats: factors to consider
Credibility of student and willingness to acknowledge his or her behavior. Credibility of witness accounts. Age of student, consider developmental factors.
Same process regardless of age!
Capability of student to carry out the threat.
Students discipline history.
Indicators of substantive threats
Specific, plausible details (I am gonna blast Mr. Johnson with my pistol.) Threat has been repeated over time (Hes been telling everyone hes gonna get you.)
Threat reported as a plan or evidence of planning (Wait until you see what happens next Tuesday in the library.)
Accomplices or recruitment of accomplices. Physical evidence of intent (written plans, lists of Katie Neubauer, ACES School victims, bomb materials, etc.) Psychologist
Ste p 3:

Threat is serious.

Virginia Model: Step 3 Responses to a Transient Threat

No need to take safety precautions See that threat is resolved through explanation, apology, making amends. Provide counseling and skills education where appropriate. Administer discipline if appropriate.
Step 3: And then what?
Youre done!
Unless
Student made threat statement as a way to alert adults to a life risk (environment, abuse, homelessness, etc) Then other interventions need to be put into place.
What if a threat was made during a fight? Is that a threat?

No. Its a fight if no reference made to the future.
Considering context and history.
Transient Case Example
2nd grade Jake threatens to kill his classmate after being pushed out of his place in line when lining up to go to recess. Apologizes, denies intent. Tearful and distressed. Inconsistent with behavioral history.
Recently removed from home for neglect; lonely and depressed.

Referral for counseling.
Do Not Include Behavior that Quickly Resolves.

Teachers and administrators frequently deal with minor arguments or rough, playful behavior in which one student might threaten to strike or push another. Do not include behavior that can be resolved in seconds, such as 2 students arguing over who cut in line. If an incident requires more prolonged intervention such as a trip to the office, then initiate Virginia Model.
Ste p 4:

Threat is serious.

Virginia model Step 4: Serious or Very Serious substantive threat?
Serious = Assault threats (Im gonna beat him up.)

Very serious = Threats to kill, rape, physically maim (Im gonna slit his throat.) Substantive threats involving a weapon are classified as very serious.
Ste p 5:

Threat is serious.

Substantive Case Example
Kindergartener Robbie angrily chased classmate around room with scissors.

Threatening gesture? Yes. Transient? Maybe. Weapon? Yes = Very Serious
7th grade William plans a fight after school 9th grade Laura threatens to cut a girls throat. Knife found in her locker.
Virginia Model: Step 5 respond to serious substantive threat
Take precautions to protect potential victims. May consult with law enforcement. Notify intended victim and victims parents.
Notify students parents.

Discipline student for threat.
Determine appropriate intervention for student, such as counseling or dispute mediation.

Follow-up to verify that threat has been resolved and interventions are in progress. Katie Neubauer, ACES School
Psychologist
Threat assessment is distinct from discipline
Threat assessment is concerned with future danger to others. Discipline is concerned with the consequences for behavior. A threat may pose little danger, yet merit serious disciplinary consequences, A threat may pose danger, yet disciplinary consequences would be inappropriate and exacerbate the problem. Katie Neubauer, ACES School
Psychologist
Ste p 6:

Threat is serious.

Very Serious Substantive Threat Case Example
8th grade John reported by another student to have a hit list. Tells former girlfriend, Im gonna get even with you and all your friends by blowing you all away with a shotgun. John denies hit list or threatening statement. Later acknowledges anger at several classmates and at former girlfriend.
Virginia Model step 6: respond to a very serious threat

Take immediate precautions to protect potential victims. Consult with law enforcement promptly. Notify intended victim and victims parents
Notify students parents

Begin Risk Assessment
Determine safety during suspension, or other disciplinary action.

Take steps to determine whether the child has access to weapons, even if the specific threatKatie did not involve the use Neubauer, ACES School of a weapon, for example, Im gonna kill him said with Psychologist
Typical team roles when evaluating a very serious substantive threat

Principal or Assistant Principal School Resource Officer Leads team, conducts Step 1 Advises team, responds to illegal actions and emergencies
School Psychologist/Social Worker Team member, conducts threat inquiry (Risk Assessment) School Counselor Teachers, aides and other staff Team member, lead role in follow up interventions Reports threats, provides input to team. No additional workload.
Virginia Model: Risk Assessment
Part of the safety evaluation, not a prediction of student violence. Helps identify any mental health needs (e.g. suicide). Helps determine reasons why the threat was made. Proposes strategies for reducing risk
Ste p 7:

Threat is serious.

Virginia Model Step 7: Follow up with Action Plan
Identify appropriate school, family, and community interventions for student Schedule follow-up contact with student to assess current risk and update plan Document plan Monitor and review effectiveness of plan
Risk assessment FAQs
Parental permission? Not required in an emergency, but otherwise necessary Additional Testing? Use if clinically indicated, to supplement interviews need parent permission!
External Evaluations? Not a substitute for evaluation by trained school staff

Legal/FERPA FAQs
Interviews conducted as part of a threat assessment are not confidential.
Tarasoff applies (duty to protect)

Information covered by FERPA can be disclosed in a health or safety emergency situation:
An educational agency or institution may disclose personally identifiable information from a school record to appropriate parties in connection with an emergency if knowledge of the information is necessary to protect the health or safety of the student or other individuals. Sec 99.36 (a)
Diana Browning Wright, M.S., L.E.P. Katie Neubauer, ACES School Psychologist
More FERPA
Information covered by FERPA can be disclosed to other school staff. For example, disciplinary action taken against a student for conduct that posed a significant risk to the safety or well-being of that student or others CAN be disclosed to school staff who have legitimate interests in the behavior of that student. Sec 99.36 (b)2 Such information can be disclosed to staff of another school who have legitimate educational interests in the behavior of that student. Sec 99.36 (b)3
Parental Consent/Health and Safety
Educational agency MAY DISCLOSE personally identifiable information from educational records without consent of parent or adult student if:
articulable and significant threat to health or safety of student or others. Info may be disclosed to appropriate parties whose knowledge of the information is necessary. Education agency must record the threat that was the basis of the disclosure, and to whom disclosed. (34 CFR 99.36)
Disclosure to school officials and others
Can disclose without consent to school officials, including contractors, consultants and other parties to whom school has outsource services or functions. School remains responsible for outside service providers adherence to confidentiality requirements under FERPA (34 CFR 99.31 (a)(1).
Although the risk of an actual shooting incident in any one school is very low, threats of violence are potentially a problem in any school. Once a threat is made, having a fair, rational and standardized method of evaluating and responding to threats is critically important. from the FBI report on school shooters (2000).
In conclusion
School deaths from violence are tragic and shocking, leaving those in its wake feeling helpless and grieving.
A research-based, standardized process CAN help prevent violence by lowering risk.

No one alone can accurately assess risk, a TEAM approach is best.
Websites for further information
Diana Browning Wright
http://www.pent.ca.gov/ http://www.dianabrowningwright.com/ http://curry.virginia.edu/research/projects/thre at-assessment https://nasp.inreachce.com/Details?category =e782c58f-5093-4071-b6c2b0eebb0ffa0c&groupId=a8f6ae23-df4d-43418035-ead075af2289

Virginia Model of Threat Assessment
Legal, Sound, Effective Threat Assessment in Schools NASP workshop
Thoughts and/or Questions?

Thank You! Katie Neubauer, Ed.S., NCSP ACES School Psychologist Office: 660-582-3768 Mobile: 660-254-6135 kneubauer@maryville.k12.mo.us

Threat Assessment Presentation 10 8 13

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Threat Assessment Presentation 10 8 13

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Threat Assessment and Threat Management in Schools

Katie Neubauer, Ed.S., NCSP ACES School Psychologist kneubauer@maryville.k12.mo.us 660-254-6135

Why are we here?

What is Threat Assessment?

Katie Neubauer, ACES School Psychologist

Purposes of threat assessment:

Katie Neubauer, ACES School Psychologist

Age of Victims 1992-2013

5 (2%) 169 (69%) 36 (15%) 12 (5%) 14 (6%) 9 (4%)

Total number of shooters:

Olathe North High School, KCK, 9/14/95, 2 fatalities

Sumner High School, St. Louis, 3/25/93, 1 fatality

Center High School, Kansas City, 11/29/93, 1 fatality

Beaumont High School, St. Louis, 2/29/96, 2 fatalities

St. James Catholic School, Kansas City, 11/7/02, 1 fatality

Memorial Middle School, Joplin, 10/9/06, 0 fatalities

Katie Neubauer, ACES School Psychologist

CDC School Associated Violent Death Study Trends from 19922010

Katie Neubauer, ACES School Psychologist

School Violence Factors

http://beyondschool.org/2008/05/10/ bullied-thensuccessful-now-meme/ Katie Neubauer, ACES School Psychologist

School Violence Factors

Katie Neubauer, ACES School Psychologist

School Violence Factors

Katie Neubauer, ACES School Psychologist

School Violence Factors

When these three elements intersect, there is risk.

Katie Neubauer, ACES School Psychologist

Brief History of Threat Assessment

Lessons learned From Safe School Initiative, 2002

Katie Neubauer, ACES School Psychologist

Lessons learned lead to the 6 principles of the threat assessment process.

Abridged from the Secret Service/DOE guide

Some reasons students dont report threats

Katie Neubauer, ACES School Psychologist

The most important points to emphasize with students are:

Where to find the Bystander Study

Katie Neubauer, ACES School Psychologist

Development of standardized process to conduct threat assessment in school

A variety of experts provided recommendations; none were backed by research

Studies demonstrating effectiveness of Virginia Model*

(2004) School-based teams in 35 public schools investigated 188 student threats.

(2009) 23 high schools and 26 control group schools

What is not covered by Virginia Model Guidelines?

Other school policies apply to these situations.

Katie Neubauer, ACES School Psychologist

When in doubt, assume it isKatie a Neubauer, threat. ACES School

The Virginia Model of Threat Assessment

Threat Reported to Principal

Katie Neubauer, ACES School Psychologist

Student becomes aware of threat

Teacher/staff member determines threat needs to be reported.

Katie Neubauer, ACES School Psychologist

Questions to ask witnesses; typically the counselor or other team member:

Diana Browning Wright, M.S., L.E.P.

Threat Reported to Principal

Threat is clearly transient.

Step 3. Respond to transient threat.

Step 4. Decide if the substantive threat is serious or very serious.

Threat is very serious.

Step 5. Respond to serious substantive threat.

Step 6. Conduct Safety Evaluation. Step 7. Follow up on action plan.

Virginia Model: Step 1 Evaluate the Threat