Campus threat assessment and management:

A multidisciplinary approach

Dr. Annabel Chan & Mari Barry

What is threat management?

• A series of techniques to help identify, assess, and manage:

– Problem behaviour, influences on behaviour, seriousness of behaviour

– Likelihood the behaviour will:

• Stop, be repeated, escalate

– Risks to target, broader community, badly behaved

• The art of managing problem behaviour

What is problem behaviour?

• Problem behaviour causes fear, offence, or trauma (psychological or physical)

• Can be intentional or reckless • Excessive, not enough, or inappropriate • Distressed, difficult, defiant, detached • Follows predictable patterns • Influenced by state of mind, interpersonal dynamics,

and responses of third parties • No such thing as “snappers”!

Types of problem behaviours

• Violence (to self and others)

• Threatened violence (to self and others)

• Sexual harassment or sexual assault

• Bullying or non-sexual harassment

• Stalking

• Persistent or vexatious complaining

• Fraud or slander

• Property damage (especially fire setting)

History of campus threat management

• Virginia Tech’s mass shooting in 2007 changed everything

• Responses have included: – ramped up physical security

– zero tolerance policies

– active shooter training

– campus threat management teams

• TM teams now law in several

states of the USA (Virginia, Illinois)

Campus Threat Management

• TM Teams are responsible for the identification and evaluation of problem behaviour

• Effective and low-cost solution (using existing resources) to improve campus safety

• “Threat assessment is a process that is decidedly low-cost and easy to implement, as many colleges and universities already possess the key resources – namely, a team of people who, with their connections throughout campus, can gather pieces of information and assemble them into a larger picture.”

Deisinger et al (2008)

Campus Threat Management

• Collaborative and multidisciplinary approach to holding individuals accountable for their behaviours

• Principles of TM:

– restorative (educate, support, assist)

– voluntary (chance to change before action taken)

– non-punitive (that’s the next step)

• Willingness to break down barriers so information can be shared to see overall pattern of behaviour in each case (privacy NEVER trumps safety)

Swinburne’s TM Team

• Behavioural Risk Assessment & Management (BRAM) team

• Established in February 2012 by Manager of Student Development & Counselling (Mari Barry)

• Reports to VP of Student & Corporate Services

• Works alongside the Critical Incident Recovery Team

• Piloted as a staff-only service

• Promoting to students as Safer Community in 2013

• 200 individuals in database to date

The BRAM Team

• Central point of enquiry for assistance, investigation, assessment, and management of the distressed, difficult, defiant, and detached

• Swinburne’s TM team has slightly more mental health input compared to other Victorian teams

• Supervised by external clinical/forensic psychologist and threat specialist (Dr. Lisa Warren – Code Black Threat Management Pty Ltd)

• Team meets fortnightly

What does BRAM do?

• Depending on the case, BRAM can provide: – Internal/external referrals to appropriate services

– Mental health and forensic risk assessments

– Feedback, debrief, and case management plans

– Recommendations for misconduct sanctions

– Coordinate Security/HR/Police involvement to maximise workplace safety

– Staff training in mental health first aid and strategies in dealing with difficult students.

Meet the BRAM Team

• Departments currently represented on BRAM are:

– Student Services

• Student Development & Counselling, Swinburne International, Health, Equity & Disability, Careers & Employment, Housing & Finance, Residences

– Corporate Services

• Security, Student Operations, Legal, IT Security, HR

– Academic

• Higher Education, TAFE, Research, Swinburne College

• BRAM Team Leader and Coordinator

BRAM Protocol

What is triage?

• Triage is the first and most important step in TM

• An inevitable process for everyone as no one has the time, resources, or inclination to do everything that could be done in ideal world

• Get it right here and save: – further problem behaviour – distress of those targeted and third parties – money, scarce resources, time, frustration – corporate and reputational risk – …and maybe even lives

Why triage?

• Effectively and efficiently determine:

– seriousness of behaviour that prompted the referral

– response to behaviour that prompted referral

– need for risk assessment for further problem behaviour and/or escalation

How to triage?

• Triage risk assessment is based on:

– Type of problem behaviour

– Seriousness of behaviour • Aggression continuum

• Distress continuum

• Complaints continuum

– 8 warning behaviours

– Structured professional judgement

Seriousness of behaviour

Distress Continuum

Apprehensive

Calm

Fearful

Vigilant

Panic

Worried

Complaints Continuum

Ranting

Whinging

Educating: “I’m just letting

you know that…”

Casual complaining: letters and calls that

begin pleasantly

“I now need to use formal complaints

procedures

Being a crusader by appealing to

the important folk in the courts and appellate courts Media: TV, talk

back radio

You forced me to involve external adjudicators (e.g.:

civil and administrative tribunals, unions)

8 Warning Behaviours

1) Pathway behaviours: any behaviour that is part of researching, planning, preparing, or implementing an attack

2) Fixation behaviours: evidence of an increasing pathological preoccupations with a person or cause

3) Identification behaviours: warrior/commando mentality

4) Behavioural try-outs: aggressive behaviours that have no obvious link to pathway behaviours. Behaviours that typically test the ability/nerve/willingness to follow through (e.g.: carrying a concealed weapon, killing an animal)

8 Warning Behaviours

5) Energy bursts: periods of increased attention on the target, activities related to the target increasing in frequency, intensity or duration. Can include innocuous activities

6) Leakage behaviours: threats to third parties, communication of an intent to harm a target

7) Last resort thinking: statements or activities that suggest the badly behaved has reached a point of desperation. Includes the suggestion they no longer feel constrained by moral or ethical attitudes. “What else can I do?” “I’ve got no choice.”

8) Direct/explicit threats: the target is threatened with death or physical injury

BRAM’s Triage Protocol

• Standardised triage risk assessment protocol developed based on training and consultation with Dr. Lisa Warren:

• http://www.swinburne.edu.au/stuserv/bram-triage/

• Triage Risk Rating

– Score 0 = Not a valid referral. Provide feedback/referrals.

– Score 1 - 4 = Low Risk (to be actioned within 5 working days)

– Score 5 - 8 = Moderate Risk (to be actioned within 3 working days)

– Score 9 - 12 = High Risk (to be actioned within 24 hours)

– Score 13 - 25 = Critical (Immediate actions to be taken and CIRT to be notified)

A Case Study - Dean

• Day 1: Referral from Security

– TAFE male 17 year old student from outer campus brought meat cleaver to class and reported by classmate to be looking at firearms & weapons online

– Meat cleaver confiscated until end of day

• Triaged as high risk

– Investigation commenced: • ITS asked to look into internet history

• Student known to Health and Counselling services

Investigation

• Information from campus nurse

– Student self-referred to Health service week before

– Disclosed thoughts of killing people

– Described as grandiose

– Spoke about how easily he could obtain weapons

– Was referred to counselling immediately

Investigation

• Information from counsellor:

– Reported similar content as campus nurse

– Noted lack of anger, specific target, or plans

– Student described his father as “similar” but said they’ve never hurt anyone

– Assessed as attention-seeking but not posing actual threat

Investigation

• Information from IT Security

– Only one-off search on weapons and one page visited

– Low risk

• Action plan

– Security not to return meat cleaver to Dean

– Assessment interview scheduled for next day

– Authorised Officer notified

– Consulted Lisa Warren re: weapon assessment

Assessment

• Day 2: Tandem assessment interview by Security Manager and BRAM Coordinator – Presentation: good insight, cooperative, able to establish

rapport, defensive at times but never antagonistic

– Explained meat cleaver as newly bought for cooking purposes and forgot it was left in bag

– Forensic history: reported regular meetings with parole officer, court involvement for car thefts/armed robbery but let off on all charges

– Showed photo of a knife he’d shoplifted in the past that was confiscated by police when interviewed for car theft

Assessment

• Family and relationship background – Aunt and uncle are legal guardians after he left home

due to difficult relationship with parents

– Relationship with aunt and uncle reasonably positive

– Wants to start afresh in Melbourne

– Supportive girlfriend

– Trying to distance from “bad” peer group from home

– Really enjoying the freedom at TAFE and has had no problems with teachers or classmates

Weapons Assessment

• Reported not currently in possession of any other weapons but that it would be easy to obtain them

• Limited knowledge on exactly how to obtain weapons, estimated $500 for gun

• No evidence of excessive knowledge or interest in weapons or combat

• Perceives himself as a good protector and defender

• Reported being in fights when he was “with the wrong crowd back home” but not since being in Melbourne

Violence Risk Assessment

• No plans or intent to hurt himself or others but have thoughts about killing people in general when angry or anxious – Feels he is able to stop himself from acting because it is

“common sense not to get in trouble” and knows to seek help if he feels out of control

– When asked what he thought was going to happen when he told the nurse and counsellor about homicidal intent, he said he thought it would make him feel better once he voices them.

– Willing to engage in regular counselling as he found it helpful to have a safe space to air his thoughts

– Asked if he is a threat to others

Assessment Outcomes

• Bag search – no weapons, compliant • Teaching staff reported no concerns with him in class • Underage issues clarified with Legal

– Indicated to student that it is likely we have to notify his aunt or uncle with assessment outcome

– He protested but understood

• Communicated likely outcomes – Behavioural contract with counselling support – Agreed to sign – He had concerns about his classmates hassling him about

this (advised to contact us if so)

Recommendations

• Email send to Authorised Officer at end of Day 2: – Based on preliminary assessment, while Dean presented

with several risk factors relating to life circumstances, there are no evidence at this stage that he is an immediate threat to himself or others.

– In order to manage further risks, we’d like to recommend that he sign a behavioural contract so he’s aware that any future incidents may lead to more serious sanctions.

– Dean is also to have regular ongoing counselling sessions with counsellor who will flag with BRAM should further risks present themselves in her sessions with him.

– Draft behavioural contract attached.

Management

• Behavioural contract signed • Regular counselling with consent to provide information

to BRAM as needed • Information from counsellor:

– Tested boundaries & defensive at start but established excellent rapport once he felt he could trust in therapeutic process

– Struggles around his identity as the tough boy who is good at fighting; doesn’t want to be that person anymore but doesn’t know who he is or how to protect himself & his friends without it

– “Just a young boy for whom the world has been a hostile place and he tries to match that with his own hostility and aggression”

– Thoughts of hurting others have decreased

3 Month Review

• Student reported having to chase “gang members” from his home with chainsaw

• Had thoughts of threatening his ex-girlfriend’s current partner who is rumoured to be treating her badly

• External referral to Child & Adolescent Mental Health Service; assessed as low risk of violence and symptoms are part of anxiety

• Continues regular counselling

• Behavioural contract hasn’t been broken

• No forensic history

• No concerns from teaching staff

Reflections

• Case of Dean is one of the “easier” and “neater” cases with a clear positive outcome

• Many other cases are messier and some students are referred multiple times

• Common challenges: – Minimising resource waste and trauma/fear and around

vexatious students

– “Treating the untreatable”

– Balancing support and boundary setting for those who sit in the grey area of being “annoying” but not quite a threat

Threat Management Resources

• The Handbook for Campus Threat Assessment & Management Teams by Deisinger et al.

• Code Black Threat Management Pty Ltd (Dr. Lisa Warren)

• Tertiary Safer Community Network (Victoria)

• Australasian Association of Threat Assessment Professionals (http://www.aatap.org/) Annual Conference (14-16 Nov ‘13)

• 2nd Annual Campus Threat Management Conference in Melbourne CBD (16 – 18 July 2014)

• Mari & Annabel: bram@swin.edu.au

Thank you!