March Madness

NCHERM Partner W. Scott Lewis here, with my first ever blog. Not just for this site, but my first ever. Period. I just returned from a series of speaking and conference engagements including NASPA and the NCHERM event at Occidental College. This was right on the heels of the SC Safety Conference, ASCA, and the Community Colleges Legal Issues Conference (with a webinar for Magna Publications in the midst of that as well).

At all of the national and regional events, I noticed a similar theme from presenters who were providing information on Behavioral Intervention Teams – the lack of distinction between “threat assessment” and “behavioral intervention.” I noticed (especially in the five sessions I attended at NASPA) that the terms were being used interchangeably. I believe that, in doing so, we do ourselves and the students, faculty and staff we serve a disservice by this misnomer.

Let me begin by saying that I am truly excited in seeing these teams (whatever they may be called) become more formalized and better developed than they were previously. As one who found himself in a quasi-hostage situation, seeing this “next generation” of teams evolve assures me that we will truly be saving students lives as we continue to develop these practices and teams.

Where I fear we may go astray is if we think in terms of “threat assessment” instead of “behavioral intervention,” and I think it goes beyond semantics. I recognize that the Presidential/Gubernatorial report(s) and multiple entities (including NCHERM, at times) have used the term “threat assessment” to describe these intervention teams, so I want to draw a clear distinction, in the hopes of creating better terminology, better practices, better reporting, and therefore, better teams.

“Threat Assessment” in my mind – and likely in the minds of many of our constituents – means exactly what it says, the assessment of threats (or threatening behavior). While Intervention teams certainly need to be able to assess the level of threat in certain behaviors, I would assert that we (and our communities) are better served when we are able to intervene long before the behavior reaches that which a layperson would think of as “threatening.”

This is where I think the use of “Threat Assessment Teams” as a term of art “threatens” (get it?) to undermine the early reporting culture we are trying to foster. Additionally, in marketing these teams, the terminology makes the assumption that all of the students we work with are “threats” as opposed to students who need some (hopefully) low level assistance. The language is limiting.

Rather than try to get everyone to switch the everyday definition of “threat,” I think we are better served by utilizing the term “behavioral assessment” or “behavioral intervention,” and then training the community to recognize low level and early warning signs of students headed toward crisis instead of waiting until their “threatening” behavior indicates that they are already in crisis. Then we can ensure that the teams are trained in behavioral recognition (and intervention) as well as in threat assessment.

In short, I think of threat assessment skills as an integral tool for Behavioral Intervention Teams, but as a subset of overall behavioral recognition skills that these teams – and ideally, the entire community – possess. I have engaged some teams in dialogue about this distinction, and I am glad to report that some teams are already changing their names to reflect this shift, as well as their training practices. I welcome the continued discussion, and look forward to hearing from you.

On a lighter note, speaking of “teams,” happy March Madness to everyone! Hope your brackets, favorite teams, alma maters, etc. are going well! Be safe and have a great weekend!

Scott