Solution to Threat Assessment Example #3

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.

The principal obtained a detailed account of the incident from the driver, who felt that Michael appeared angry and did not seem to be communicating the threat in a joking manner. The principal then interviewed Michael to assess his intentions and discover what circumstances led to the threat. Michael was reluctant to discuss the incident and did not convincingly retract the threat. The principal considered other sources of information to assess the situation, such as Michael’s discipline history and observations by his teachers that Michael had a recent increase in disruptive behavior and angry outbursts. The principal also interviewed Michael’s friend from the school van, who reported that there was a growing conflict between Michael and a group of classmates.

Since the threat could not be readily resolved as a transient threat, the principal classified the threat as a substantive threat. Because the threat involved use of a weapon and could result in severe injury, it was further classified as a very serious substantive threat. 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. In addition to providing immediate supervision of the student, the principal consulted with the School Resource Officer (SRO) to determine 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 the threat and the presence of any injuries to the victim. In this case, the SRO and the principal discussed the possibility that Michael might have access to weapons. The principal conducted a search of Michael’s locker and book bag, with the SRO present as an observer. The SRO contacted Michael’s parents and asked whether Michael has access to weapons. The SRO also requested permission to look for weapons in Michael’s bedroom. (Note: decisions to undertake searches of students, their possessions, or their residence require careful consideration of legal issues that to beyond the scope of this case example.) No firearms, knives, or other weapons were found in these searches.

As a further safety precaution, the principal also notified the families of those students who were involved with the ongoing conflict with Michael. These families were advised that the school had suspended Michael and that school authorities were following school guidelines for responding to a student threat of violence. (Federal law governing the confidentiality of school records permits school authorities to break confidentiality when there are immediate and compelling safety concerns.) School authorities also advised the parents that the school resource officer was investigating the incident from a law enforcement standpoint.

In the case of a very serious substantive threat, the student is suspended from school for violation of school discipline policy and is not permitted back to school until school authorities can determine whether or not it is safe for him or her to return to school. As a result, Michael received a long-term suspension for violation of school code. His parents were advised that Michael would not be permitted back into the school until a determination of safety was made. Our Guidelines refer to this determination as a safety evaluation, which is completed by the threat assessment team. As part of the safety evaluation, a trained member of the school staff (e.g. school psychologist or school counselor) conducts a mental health assessment of the student. Our Guidelines specify a protocol for the mental health professional to follow in conducting an assessment of a student who has made a very serious substantive threat. The purpose of this mental health assessment is twofold: (1) to determine if the student has mental health needs related to the threat (e.g., is suicidal, psychotic, or in some other way in need of immediate mental health intervention), and (2) to investigate the student’s motivations in making the threat. The results of the mental health assessment are used by the threat assessment team to devise appropriate recommendations to reduce the risk of violence and make it possible for the student to continue his or her education.

In this case, the school psychologist found that Michael was angry and depressed because he felt teased and bullied by several other students. School authorities then investigated Michael’s complaints that he had been bullied at school. The school psychologist met with Michael’s parents and discussed with them the current status of his emotional disability and the mental health treatment he was receiving in the community. They reached agreement that Michael was not doing well in his current school placement and that a change might be appropriate.

Since Michael’s suspension exceeded 10 consecutive school days, the principal convened his IEP team to conduct a manifestation determination meeting as mandated by federal guidelines. The team determined that Michael’s behavior was not a manifestation of his disability and the suspension was allowed to continue; however, they felt that the school could not meet Michael’s needs and a change of educational placement was necessary in order to provide him with increased supervision and individualized instruction.

Upon the completion of his suspension, Michael was sent to the school’s alternative program for students with emotional disabilities. Michael responded well to the change in placement and finished the school year with only a handful of minor disciplinary infractions. Michael committed no acts of violence towards the students who had bullied him.

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.