Solution to Threat Assessment Example #2

School Response: The first step in threat assessment is for the principal to collect information about the threat by interviewing the student or students who made the threat, the recipient or target of the threat, and any witnesses to the threat. The Guidelines include some standard questions to ask and some important factors to consider as part of a triage investigation. The purpose of the investigation is to determine whether the threat is transient or substantive. Transient threats can be resolved immediately, usually through an explanation and apology, whereas substantive threats require that protective action be taken while additional steps are taken to resolve the threat. Differentiation of transient and substantive threats is explained in the Guidelines.

In this case, the principal interviewed Nathan to determine the nature of the conflict between him and Sam, as well as Nathan’s intentions in carrying out the threat. The principal then interviewed Sam to ascertain more information regarding their conflict and to gauge his reason to Nathan’s threat. The principal observed that Nathan continued to harbor angry feelings towards Sam, based on his refusal to apologize or to retract his threat to beat Sam up. The principal also learned from Sam that the conflict between the two boys had been ongoing for the past several weeks, and that Sam felt endangered by Nathan’s threatening statement.

The principal gathered additional information through interviews of staff witnesses and consulted with the SRO as to what—if any—law enforcement actions should be taken. Law enforcement actions are left to the judgment of the SRO and are based in large part on the nature of any injuries to the victim. In this case, Sam was not seriously injured.

Since the threat could not be readily resolved and Nathan exhibited a continuing intent to harm Sam, the principal classified the threat as substantive. In the case of any substantive threat, school authorities are obligated to take some form of protective action to prevent the threat from being carried out. Therefore, in this case the principal notified Sam’s parents of the threat and advised them of the steps they were taking to prevent any further violence between the two boys. School staff monitored the boys and kept them apart until their parents came to school to pick them up.

In response to a substantive threat, the principal should proceed with disciplinary action consistent with the school code. Schools differ in their disciplinary consequences for fighting, and our threat assessment guidelines do not require changes to school discipline policy. In this case, Nathan received a 10-day suspension for fighting. It is important to recognize that discipline and threat assessment are distinguishable processes. Discipline is a consequence for an act of misbehavior, whereas threat assessment is concerned with the prevention of a future act of misbehavior.

Before Nathan returned from his suspension, the principal met with him and his parents to determine a plan to address the dispute between Nathan and Sam. In order to keep the two boys separated, Nathan was not allowed on the school bus for two additional weeks. Nathan and Sam agreed to meet with the school counselor individually, followed by a joint mediation session to resolve the conflicts between them. Although the boys did not become friends, no altercations occurred throughout the remainder of the school year.

This prototypical example is derived from an incident that occurred in one of the schools using our Guidelines for Resolving Student Threats of Violence.

Click here for more information about our Guidelines.

Click here for another case example.