Threat Assessment

1
One ESAs Role in Assessing Student Threats
Maureen T. Casey, Ph.D. Michael Cunningham
2
Oregons Education Service Districts
Willamette ESD
3
Willamette ESD Local Service Plan

• PROGRAMS FOR CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS
• Alternative Education Services Life Skills
  Program I (Marion and Polk)
• Augmentative Communication Services Life Skills
  Program II (Yamhill)
• Autism Services Life Skills Program
  Transportation (Marion)
• Behavior Services Low Incidence Regional
  Program Services
• Crossroads Program New Options Classroom
  (Polk)
• Early Intervention and Nursing Services
• Early Childhood Special Education Evaluations
  (EI/ECSE) Occupational and Physical Therapy
  Services
• Education Consultants Services Speech/Language
  Services
• Hearing Screenings Structured Learning Program
• Transition/Specialists Services
• TECHNOLOGY SUPPPORT
• Digital Media Library Media Services
• Business and Student Software Network Services
• Desktop Support E-Learning
• Subfinder
• SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT SERVICES

4
(No Transcript)
5
(No Transcript)
6
(No Transcript)
7
Today, educators face two conflicting realities

• Violent crime at schools has dramatically
  decreased in the last decademurder, assaults,
  rapesare less than half of what they were in the
  mid 1990s (source School Violence Facts Versus
  Fears, Dewey Cornell, 2006)

• School shootings continue to occur and to
  dominate the national consciousness and build a
  climate of fear among educators, parents,
  students and the general public.

8
Since September of 2006, seven events
(2 in Wisconsin, 1 in Pennsylvania, 1 in
Colorado, 1 in Virginia, 1 in Ohio and 1 in
Illinois

• have reinforced this sense of vulnerability and
  have raised the specter of violence being
  committed not only by students but also by armed
  adult intruders.

9
West Nickel Mines School Nickel Mines,
Pennsylvania, October 2nd
Charles Roberts, 32, entered a tiny Amish school
(25 to 30 students) with a shotgun and a handgun,
killed five female students and himself.
10
Platte Canyon High School Bailey, Colorado,
September 27th
Duane Morrison took six female high school
students hostage, molested them and later killed
Emily Keyes (age 16) and himself during a rescue
attempt by police. He had reportedly sat in the
parking lot and wandered the halls for 35 minutes
prior to taking students hostage.
11
Weston High School Cazenovia, Wisconsin
September 29th
Fifteen year old Eric Hainstock, shot and killed
his principal, John Klang. He had told a friend
two days earlier that he didnt believe Mr. Klang
would make it through homecoming. Hainstock
reported being harassed by peers. After the
attack, another student noted that Hainstock
always used to kid around about bringing things
to school and hurting kids.
12
East High School Green Bay, Wisconsin
September 15th
Shawn Sturtz, Bradley Netwal, William Cornell
were arrested when a fellow East High student
Matt Atkinson, alerted authorities that Cornell
and Sturtz were planning to execute a
Columbine-style attack at the high school.
13
Virginia TechApril 16, 2007

• Seung-Hui Cho kills 32 and wounds 25
• more on the campus in Blacksburg
• before finally killing himself.

14
SuccessTech Academy Cleveland, Ohio October 10,
2007 Fourteen year old Asa Coon shoots and
wounds two students and two teachers before
killing himself
15
(No Transcript)
16
(No Transcript)
17
Center Elementary School Waycross, Georgia,
April 1, 2008
A group of third-graders plotted to attack their
teacher, bringing a broken steak knife,
handcuffs, duct tape and other items for the job
and assigning children tasks including covering
the windows and cleaning up afterward.
18
There are many aspects to school safety and many
ways to address it

• Violence prevention curricula
• Strong anti-bullying programs
• A team approach to behavioral intervention with
  challenging students
• Intentional efforts to improve school climate
• Crime prevention through environmental design
  (CPTED) assessments of school buildings
• Emergency response plans that are designed and
  tested with police and fire department
  participation
• Student threat assessment

19
Our focus today is student threat assessment.

• Complicating Factors
• Threats are commonplace in schools
• Students typically do not act on the threats they
  make
• Those who do plan violent attacks dont often
  threaten their victims beforehand

20
The Challenge Facing Educators

• When to worry
• When not to worry
• How to intervene

21

• Mid-Valley Student
• Threat Assessment System
• A regional, multi-agency approach for
• 21 school districts serving 80,000 students
• in three Oregon Counties (Marion, Polk
• and Yamhill).

22
This system is designed to assess students at
risk for both targeted and reactive violence.

• Targeted violence can be defined as violence
  directed against a specific target that is the
  result of a cognitively based planning process.
• Reactive violence can be defined as violence that
  is an immediate, emotionally-based response to a
  provocation or perceived threat.

• Since the vast majority of threats, aggression
  and violence in schools are reactive in nature,
  its important that a threat assessment system
  address both types of violence.

23
The Mid-Valley Student Threat Assessment System

• Developed in late 1999 and early 2000 under the
  leadership of the Salem-Keizer School District
• Soon after Salem-Keizer implemented the model in
  its schools, the Willamette ESD implemented the
  model in rural districts served by the Willamette
  ESD
• The system was the outcome of a multi-agency task
  force effort that included representatives from
  a host of agencies serving youth (law
  enforcement, juvenile justice, mental health,
  OYA, etc.)

24
What spurred the work?

• Thurston and Columbine and the desire to keep
  schools as safe as possible
• The challenge to school districts posed by a
  state legal requirement enacted after Thurston
  and Columbine
• Concerns about zero tolerance as a safety tool

25
Oregon Revised Statute 339.250

• Requires administrators to notify parents of
  students who are threatened directly or whose
  names appear on a targeted list
• Requires administrators to consider seeking a
  mental health evaluation for students who
  threaten or menace others at school

26
The Challenge of ORS 339.250 for Oregon School
Districts

• It can lead to overreaction, with administrators
  excluding students unnecessarily while they await
  a mental health evaluation
• A mental health evaluation is not an efficient or
  effective way of assessing and managing risk

• takes too long
• doesnt address immediate safety concerns
• may or may not adequately address risk
• costly
• recommendations often too general
• limited school ownership of problem/solutions

27
Concerns About Zero Tolerance

• While a zero tolerance policy may be effective as
  a discipline tool, it is not entirely effective
  as a risk management strategy.
• Zero tolerance policies can be part of an
  effective response to overt threats and
  misbehavior but they wont be effective at
  identifying students who may pose a threat but
  who have not yet engaged in such overt behavior
  (e.g. the student who writes a concerning
  fictional essay in junior English).

28
Concerns About Zero Tolerance

• Zero tolerance can lead to the exclusion of
  students for accidental violations of policy
  (e.g. the student in Minnesota who was expelled
  this past spring break for buying her father a
  souvenir Lord of the Rings sword while on a choir
  trip in England).
• Students excluded from school might still pose a
  danger in a post-expulsion placement (note
  nearly half the students assessed for threats are
  special education students who, if excluded must
  remain in some form of education placement).

29
The model of threat assessment developed by the
multi-agency Task Force in 2000 was based on
several beliefs shared by members of the task
force

• While future violence might not be predictable,
  the risk of violence can be assessed and managed
• School violence is a school problem, but it also
  is a community problem and schools and community
  agencies should work together in assessing and
  managing students and situations of concern
• A two-stage model of school team screening and,
  if necessary, follow up multi-agency assessment,
  would help use outside agency resources more
  efficiently.
• The assessment system should address reactive
  violence as well as targeted violence.

30
In May, 2002, the Secret Service and the US
Department of Education issued two important
publications
31
The Final Report of the Safe School Initiative
(listed key findings from the Secret Service
study of school shooters)
32
The Safe Schools Initiative was a study conducted
by the U.S. Secret Service of 41 school shooters
involved in 37 school attacks between 1974-2000.

• Among the key findings of the study were the
  following
• There is no accurate or useful profile of school
  shooters
• Most shooters felt bullied or persecuted
• School shooters rarely acted impulsively instead
  they planned their acts ahead of time
• Shooters didnt threaten their targets directly,
  but often leaked their intentions ahead of time
  to other students, friends or siblings

33

• Threat Assessment
• A Guide to Managing Threatening Situations and to
  Creating Safe School Climates

34
The Federal Guide

• Suggested a two-stage multi-agency model for
  threat assessment that validated our approach
• Led to a revision of our screening tool so that
  it clearly included all of the essential
  questions a team should address when
  investigating a threat
• Focused us on the importance of working to break
  down the Code of Silence so that students would
  be more likely to bring information about
  dangerous situations to the attention of staff

35

• Talking Points for Educators
• What is the code
• Why is it a problem
• Why break the code
• How to break it

(Poster and talking points available on our
website)
36
(No Transcript)
37
(No Transcript)
38
(No Transcript)
39
(No Transcript)
40
(No Transcript)
41
(No Transcript)
42
(No Transcript)
43
(No Transcript)
44
(No Transcript)
45
(No Transcript)
46
What a Law Enforcement Officer Brings to the
Level 2 Assessment Team

• Ability to identify whether a crime has been
  committed
• Ability to determine whether a student can be
  arrested/detained, etc.
• Access to information (criminal history, etc.)
• Ability to determine if scope of investigation
  can be broadened (e.g. interviewing
  students/family members/community members making
  home visits obtaining search warrants, etc.)
• A natural skepticism

47
What a Mental Health Specialist Brings to the Team

• Ability to spot potential mental health issues
• Knowledge of appropriate mental health assessment
  options and intervention strategies
• Knowledge of community mental health resources
• Knowledge of how to obtain immediate mental
  health intervention service (e.g.
  hospitalization) if necessary

48
What an Education Professional Trained in Threat
Assessment Brings to the Team

• Knowledge of schools
• A realistic sense of what interventions can work
  in school settings
• Knowledge of special education processes
• Ability to write a report that can be quickly
  shared with appropriate school staff

49
The role of the educator on the threat
assessment team is filled by the Willamette
Education Service District when the team responds
to any of our twentyrural school districts
50
What circumstances have led schools in our region
to do threat screenings and request assessments?

• When a student is arrested for weapons
  possession, assault, menacing or harassment, at
  school or in the community
• When a student brings or has a weapon at school
• When information is received that a student may
  be planning to attack one or more students or
  staff members at school
• When a student has directly threatened another
  student or staff member or has a targeted list
• When a physical attack by a student did or could
  have resulted in serious injury to a another
  student or staff member

51
What circumstances have led schools in our region
to do threat screenings and request assessments?

• When a physical or verbal conflict between
  students is unresolved
• When students or staff members report being
  fearful of a particular student
• When a student displays a high level of anger
  clearly inappropriate to a given provocation or
  event
• When a student expresses violent ideation in
  verbal speech or writing
• When a student justifies the use of his own
  aggression or violence to solve a problem
• When a student displays an escalating pattern of
  aggressive/violent behavior

52
Level 2 Threat AssessmentsRural Marion and Polk
Co. (3/01- 6/08) Yamhill Co. (9/05- 6/08)
53

• 3 out of every 5 cases involved the issuance of a
  threat
• 1 out of every 4 cases involved a disturbing act
• 1 out of every 8 cases involved bringing a weapon
  to school
• In 1 of every 5 of the above assessments, a
  student was assessed at medium to high risk for
  targeted violence
• In nearly half of the above assessments students
  were assessed medium to high risk for reactive
  violence

54
(No Transcript)
55
Mid-Valley Student Threat Assessment Team (STAT)
Survey ResultsSchool Administrators

• 94 stated STAT effectively identified
  potentially dangerous students
• 94 stated STAT had positive effects on school
  safety
• 95 stated STAT provided information necessary
  for support, discipline, and placement decisions
• 95 stated STAT fulfills a valuable and important
  role in schools
• 90 reported STAT increased efficient
  coordination with law enforcement and mental
  health

56
Threat Assessment Case 1 Eddie

• A junior in high school
• While riding the bus home one day in
  mid-November, a male peer on the bus made the
  comment to him that he looks like a guy who could
  bring a gun to school and shoot people. Eddie
  retorted that he was and that the peer would be
  the first on his hit list.
• The next day at school Eddie reportedly made
  similar remarks to other students who had been
  harassing him, telling them that they were also
  on his hit list.
• When the school administrator spoke with Eddie,
  Eddie admitted making threats, stating that he
  was hassled by some peers but that he wouldnt
  actually hurt anyone.

57
What action might a school administrator take?

• What actually happened
• Eddie was suspended (in-school) pending a Level I
  screening which took place that afternoon.

58
Information about Eddie shared at the screening
from school staff and parents

• at the school for 2 months
• has a mix of mainstream and resource classes but
  has few school credits
• came from a locked treatment facility due to
  self-injurious behavior and suicidal ideation
• history of past abuse and some delinquency (not
  recent)
• ED and AD/HD
• Taking medication for depression
• often harassed at school
• generally isolated, especially at lunch or other
  free times
• In two of his resource room classes Eddie jokes
  and appears at ease
• He has positive interactions with the resource
  room teacher
• mainstream teachers observe that he is often
  sleepy and inattentive and his history and
  English teachers believe he will be failing by
  the end of the semester
• Eddie can be defensive and has lashed out
  verbally to staff on two occasions and then has
  backed off
• rides the bus on some days but walks home (3
  miles) when the weather is dry
• Eddie lives with his father and stays in regular
  contact with his mother who has remarried
• Eddies father has removed guns from the home and
  the stepfather keeps his guns locked with ammo
  locked in separate containers
• Eddie sees a counselor on a weekly basis

59
Given this information, what decision might the
Level 1 Screening Team make regarding whether or
not to call the Student Threat Assessment Team
for a Level 2 Assessment?

• What actually happened
• The screening team called for a level 2
  assessment which occurred the following day.

60
Additional Information Provided at Level 2
Assessment

• The team discussed and identified Agitators
  (factors which increase the likelihood of threats
  and violence) for Eddie, which included
  harassment by peers, unstructured time and space,
  large classrooms with a lot of book work and
  being challenged directly by a staff member.
• The team discussed and identified Inhibitors
  (factors which decrease the likelihood of threats
  and violence) include using his hands, working
  with small engines, physical activity, doing
  chores that earn him money, art class, ERC
  classes, watching TV, and playing with his baby
  brother.

61
What level of risk was assigned to Eddie
regarding targeted violence?
The team concluded that the risk of targeted
violence was low (at that time).
What about reactive violence?
The team concluded that the risk of reactive
violence was at a moderate level.
62

• What management/supervision strategies were
  recommended for both home and school?

63
Recommendations for home

• remove weapons from mother and stepfathers
  house
• take Eddie to physician for review of medication
  in light of his chronic tiredness at school
• in conversation with Eddie, support schools
  safety interventions, which follow.

64
Recommendations for school

• school administration should require a no-threat,
  no-harm contract as part of Eddies return
• school should provide a daily mentoring/
  confidante relationship for Eddie (resource room
  teacher is the logical choice for this role)
• assistant principal and resource room teacher
  should intervene with peers who target Eddie to
  eliminate or reduce harassment
• Eddie should ride in the front of the bus on days
  he chooses to ride bus driver should report any
  instances of harassment to school officials
• Eddie should have opportunities to connect with
  staff or peers through activity options during
  free time (e.g. work or read in library, do
  office jobs for secretary, work in the cafeteria,
  etc.)
• school counselor should communicate with outside
  counselor for consultation and coordination
• school should consider, if feasible, paid work
  experience for Eddie at the high school, another
  district building or in community.

65
Case Outcome

• Eddie had a successful remainder of the year. No
  new incidents.
• He worked in the cafeteria, developed a couple of
  friendships, and passed all his classes.

66
Threat Assessment Case Study 2Steven

• A senior in high school
• On a Thursday, he brought a weapon to school,
  and, in his car, showed it to his girlfriend and
  said, You make me hate life. The girlfriend
  called Stevens mother who retrieved the weapon
  from the car.
• That evening, Steven followed the girlfriend and
  two female peers as they were driving toward a
  nearby city. Steven chased down and forced the
  girlfriends car to stop and tried to grab her
  from her vehicle. When he discovered one his
  girlfriends peers had called 911, he threatened
  to kill himself and the left the scene.
• The responding officer interviewed the girlfriend
  and discovered that Steven had brought a gun to
  school that day.
• Steven was arrested that evening and taken into
  custody.
• The superintendent of the school district was
  contacted.

67
What action might the school administrator take
at this juncture?
What actually Happened

• School Administrator contacted the Student Threat
  Assessment Team Friday morning.
• Plan was made to collapse the level 1 screening
  and the level 2 assessment into one meeting which
  took place Friday afternoon.

68
Information about Steven shared at the assessment
from school staff, parents, school resource
officer, and juvenile department probation officer

• Within the previous week, Steven had shown the
  girlfriend the gun while they were driving and
  had stated that there was a bullet for her and
  her previous boyfriend if the girlfriend were to
  cheat on him with this previous boyfriend.
• Within the previous month, Steven has made
  suicidal threats. He has been observed being
  physically controlling of girlfriend on several
  occasions.
• Steven has an explosive temper and a long history
  of defiant and physically aggressive behavior.
• He had previously been on probation due to an
  assault in his sophomore year on two middle
  school boys on a school bus.
• Stevens recent behavior is seen by parents and
  others as escalated in the past month.

69

• He was physically and emotionally abused in the
  first seven years of his life by his mothers
  previous husband, who was abusive to her as well.
  
• Stevens mother is concerned that her son is
  displaying behavior similar to that of this
  ex-husband.
• Stevens stepfather believes that the team is
  overreacting to the situation and that there was
  no chance Steven would actually use the weapon.
• There are weapons in the home, all of which are
  now locked up.
• Steven is in an alternative program, due to poor
  performance and dissatisfaction with regular
  program. He has a few friends, but many other
  peers at school steer clear of him. Steven speeds
  when driving, especially when angry.
• Steven works at a local gas station, a job which
  he has liked and at which he has performed well.
  Steven has a positive relationship with the
  school resource officer and made some efforts
  this past fall to control his emotions in school
  and classroom settings. He will be recommended
  for expulsion for bringing the firearm to school.

70
Situational Variables

• Stressors (factors which increase the likelihood
  of threats or violence) include Stevens
  conflicts with girlfriend and other peers and
  being explicitly confronted by an authority
  figure about misbehavior.
• Inhibitors (factors which decrease the likelihood
  of threats and violence) include working and
  interactions with positive and familiar adults
  when they are not confronting him.

71
What level of risk was assigned to Steven
regarding targeted violence? What about reactive
violence?

• While in custody in the juvenile detention
  center, Stevens risk for both targeted and
  reactive violence is low.
• If released at this time, risk to others of
  targeted violence would appear high. Threats were
  direct and plausible, targets were identified,
  some planning and preparation were evident.
  Stressors likely will intensify (loss of
  girlfriend, loss of school placement, likely loss
  of job). Risk to others of affective or reactive
  violence (threats, physical acting out or
  aggression) would also appear high, given
  Stevens behavioral history and recent incidents.

72
What management strategies were recommended?
Steven is currently in the physical custody of
the county Juvenile Department. The probation
officer will, based on this threat assessment,
recommend to the judge that Steven remain in
custody at least until a psychological evaluation
has been completed. Once the court determines
the disposition of his case, a follow-up threat
assessment should be conducted shortly before
Stevens release to the community. At that time,
recommendations for safety planning for school,
home and community can be made that will be
informed by new evaluation information and by
court planning and support.
73
Case Outcome

• Steven was court ordered to remain in detention
  until he successfully completed a program for
  youth displaying behavior consistent with that of
  domestic violence perpetrators.
• He was not allowed to return to his home
  community and was placed with relatives in a
  different community setting.
• He was restrained for any contact with his
  ex-girlfriend and successfully completed an
  alternative high school education program.

74
Advantages of the Mid-Valley Student Threat
Assessment System

• Its fast. School teams typically conduct Level
  One screenings the same day of the threatening or
  violent incident. This allows them the ability to
  make a safety plan quickly and to decide if a
  Level Two assessment by three members of the
  Student T.A. team is needed. The Level Two
  Assessment team typically comes out to the school
  within one to three days of the event, conducts a
  risk assessment and provides the school teams
  with recommendations about safety planning and
  about next steps.
• The presence of an outside team reduces potential
  conflict between a school and the parent of the
  student who has threatened or harmed someone.
• The process actually keeps many students in
  school who might otherwise be removed. Nearly 80
  of those assessed remain in school or return
  after a brief period of suspension.

75
Advantages of the Mid-Valley Student Threat
Assessment System

• The process helps insure that students who are
  at-risk for either targeted or reactive violence
  receive the proper interventions to reduce that
  risk, whether they are removed from mainstream
  school settings or not.
• The process reduces liability for school
  districts due to its multi-agency nature and due
  to the fact that it is aligned with the federal
  Threat Assessment in Schools guide published by
  the U.S. Dept. of Ed. and the U.S. Secret Service
  in 2002.
• Most importantly, the process, due to its ability
  to help schools assess and manage risk, actually
  helps make schools safer places.

76
By collecting information from many sources
teachers, other staff, parents and students and
then considering the information in a systematic
way
A school teamand, when necessary, a multi-agency
teamcan put the puzzle pieces together to get a
clear picture of whats going on so the team can
generate an effective intervention strategy to
keep the school safe for everyone.
77
Education Service Agencies are uniquely qualified
to Support Student Threat Assessment Systems

• ESAs can form and maintain relationships with
  other key regional partners (law enforcement,
  mental health and juvenile justice)
• Economy of scale (both in terms of cost and
  expertise)
• ESAs can respond quickly due to greater
  flexibility in staffing
• ESAs can provide systematic screening training to
  school teams across a region
• Ease of cost sharing

78
Suggested Steps for ESAs in Helping to
ImplementA Regional Threat Assessment Model

• Decide, internally, if you want to support the
  creation of a threat assessment system for
  districts in your region (it takes time, energy
  and resources to get a system off the ground)
• Determine, through discussions with your school
  districts, what is the level of need for and
  interest in developing such a system
• Form a work group of educatorsboth from the the
  ESA and from school districtsand of community
  agency professionals from law enforcement, public
  mental health, juvenile, and other interested
  agencies serving youth
• In the work group, discuss how schools and
  agencies could partner in a school-based threat
  assessment effort. (Try and recruit educators and
  agency professionals who are opinion leaders in
  their own organizations and who are boundary
  spannerspeople who arent overly territorial and
  who can think a little out of the box)

79
Suggested Steps for ESAs in Helping to
ImplementA Regional Threat Assessment Model

• Study the federal guide (Threat Assessment in
  Schools), examine existing models, discuss your
  local resources and limitations, and then map out
  a proposed system, relying as much as possible on
  in-kind efforts in order to reduce new dollar
  costs.
• Subject your proposed system to close scrutiny
  and then refine it.
• Establish a proposed implementation timeline that
  allows adequate time for agency approvals, any
  MOUs, training of key staff, orientation of all
  staff, etc.

80
Suggested Steps for ESAs in Helping to
ImplementA Regional Threat Assessment Model

• Present your proposed system and its rationales
  to school district superintendents and agency
  decision-makers to obtain approval to proceed.
• Seek grant monies to help reduce start-up costs
  but dont depend on grant money in order to
  implement your system.
• Train key personnelfirst the members of the
  assessment team and then school administrators
  and counselors who will participate in
  screenings.
• Orient all staff members, and get going!