BEST PRACTICES FOR THREAT ASSESSMENT

Presented by:

BRETT A. SOKOLOW, ESQ.

www.ncherm.org

Threat Assessment The NCHERM model utilizes a multi-disciplinary rubric

to assess threat on three scales:

1: Mental Health-related risk

Potential harm to self

2: Generalized risk

Operational, reputational, facilities, financial

3: Aggression Measures

Potential harm to others

We need all three

Combining the resources of these three

disciplines gives behavioral intervention

teams the tools they need to accurately assess

the source, nature and severity of any threat

posed to the community.

3

Measures of Mental Health-Related Risk

The “D” Scale

Distress

Disturbance

Dysregulation/Medical Disability

4

Distress

Failure to cope with situational stressors and traumatic events results in disruptive and/or concerning behavior

Emotionally troubled (e.g., depressed, manic, labile)

Potentially psychiatrically symptomatic

5

Disturbance

Behaviorally disruptive, unusual, and/or bizarrely acting

Destructive, apparently harmful or threatening to others

May misuse and/or abuse substances

6

Dysregulation Suicidal (thoughts, feelings, expressed

intentions and ideations)

Parasuicidal (self-injurious, eating disordered to a life-threatening level)

Engaging in risk-taking (e.g., substance abusing)

Hostile, aggressive, relationally abusive

Deficient in skills that regulate emotion, cognition, self, behavior, and relationships

7

Medical Disability (parallel risk to dysregulation)

Profoundly disturbed, detached view of reality

Unable to self-care (prolonged starvation, poor self care/protection)

At risk of grievous injury or death without an intent to self-harm

Often seen in psychotic breaks

8

Measures ofGeneralized Risk

The NCHERM 5-level Risk Rubric is applicable to potentially violent and injurious acts and those that threaten reputation, facilities, operations, and financial risk

Apply these as default measures when there are no overt mental health-related risks or signs of aggression.

9

CLASSIFYING THE RISK

THE NCHERM CUBIT MODEL RUBRIC FOR GENERALIZED RISK:

MILD

MODERATE

ELEVATED

SEVERE

EXTREME

1. Mild risk Disruptive or concerning behavior.

Student may or may not show signs of distress.

No threat made or present.

11

2. Moderate risk More involved or repeated disruption. Behavior more concerning.

Likely distressed or low-level disturbance.

Possible threat made or present

Threat is vague and indirect

Information about threat or threat itself is inconsistent, implausible or lacks detail

Threat lacks realism

Content of threat suggests threatener is unlikely to carry it out.

12

3. Elevated risk Seriously disruptive incident(s)

Exhibiting clear distress, more likely disturbance

Threat made or present

Threat is vague and indirect, but may be repeated or shared with multiple reporters

Information about threat or threat itself is inconsistent, implausible or lacks detail

Threat lacks realism, or is repeated with variations

Content of threat suggests threatener is unlikely to carry it out.

13

4. Severe risk Disturbed or advancing to dysregulation

Threat made or present

Threat is vague, but direct, or specific but indirect (type of threat v. object of threat)

Likely to be repeated or shared with multiple reporters

Information about threat or threat itself is consistent, plausible or includes increasing detail of a plan (time, place, etc)

Threat likely to be repeated with consistency (may try to convince listener they are serious)

Content of threat suggests threatener may carry it out.14

5. Extreme risk Student is dysregulated (way off their baseline) or medically disabled

Threat made or present

Threat is concrete (specific and direct)

Likely to be repeated or shared with multiple reporters

Information about threat or threat itself is consistent, plausible or includes specific detail of a plan, often with steps already taken

Threat may be repeated with consistency

Content of threat suggests threatener will carry it out (reference to weapons, means, target)

Threatener may appear detached

15

9 Measures of Aggression

Provides BITs the ability to assess potential for harm to others in an objective way

Integrates the NCHERM model with the Center for Aggression Management’s Aggression Continua

Enables BITs to prevent injury and violence via trained Aggression Managers.

Crisis Management, Threat Assessment & Conflict Resolution

Aggressive versus assertive

16

Primal & Cognitive Aggression

17

Three-phase construct

Trigger Phase

Escalation Phase

Crisis Phase

18

Level 1—Hardening

Cognitive Aggressor:

Becomes more distant and argumentative

Demonstrates a lack of understanding and empathy

Conceals motives and intent through deception

Example: averted eye contact in class, rationale does not make sense

19

Level 2—Harmful DebateCognitive Aggressor:

Becomes fixated on his or her own view May exhibit cutthroat-competition, distrust, proleptic and

obstructionist behavior Has no interest in others’ perspectives or finding common

ground

May manifest in frequent arguments as resident advisors confront code violations or as faculty find students arguing in class just for the sake of argument

20

Level 3 Communicate with Actions vs. Words

Cognitive Aggressor:

Leaves argument behind Takes action without consulting others Appears detached and is self-absorbed Perceives the intent of his/her intended victim(s) as not in

his/her best interest

RAs and other staff may notice this behavior as students withdraw from contact with others and developing concerning behaviors like punching bathroom doors.

21

Level 4 Image Destruction: This aggressor plants seeds of

distrust with their intended victim’s community − those individuals the victim likes and respects and by whom they want to be liked and respected in return

Examples: potentially stealing ideas or credit, provoking anonymous, false accusations, or other subtle undermining

Issues become bipolar, attacks intended victim’s core identity.

22

Level 5

Forced Loss of Face

This aggressor unmasks his or her victim as an enemy of their own community.

You’re not who you pretend to be.

23

Level 6 The final level of the Escalation Phase reveals Threat

Strategies, where the aggressor becomes more overt toward their victim or victims.

Often this level of aggression is about controlling or manipulating a victim or victims, positioning them so that they feel the full impact of the aggressor’s threat.

This aggressor presents an ultimatum to his or her victim or victims, aggressively responds to perceived threats, possibly on the verge of panic.

24

Level 7 Limited Destructive Blows:

This aggressor is the Complicit Tactician, the individual who is complicit with the eighth and ninth-levels of the aggression continuum but does not intend to murder or die for their cause.

This aggressor will inspire others to do so or aid the others in the committing of their violence.

In the generic sense this individual is an “accomplice.”

25

Level 8 Win/lose Attack:

This aggressor may be prepared to give up their life for this cause but intends to survive.

Generically, this is the murderer (or in a military or homeland security context, a combatant).

26

Level 9“Plunging Together into the Abyss”

Murder/Suicide, the ultimate lose/lose attack

This Cognitive Aggressor:

Does not intend to survive

Has a profound disconnection from his/her own well-being

Will often take his own life to avoid capture or incarceration

27

Using the ChartPrimary framework—the 5-level generalized risk (mild to

extreme) scale:

Will indicate to the team the overall risk level and appropriate resources, support and intervention techniques to deploy.

Scale applies to every case

Mental health and aggression measures only apply as overlays when mental health issues and/or signs of aggression are indicated

Using all of the information reported to the team it will then assimilate the information and assign a risk level.

28

MORE ON THE CHARTIf mental health-related issues are present Classify the student on the “D” scale first. Then, identify the corresponding level of generalized risk, and any indicators of

aggression.

If there is no evidence of mental health-related risk Directly classify the risk according to the 5-level scale

If generalized risk is unclear, and because measures of aggression are more objective, you can

Work the chart from right to left, assigning a correct level of aggression From that, assign the corresponding level of generalized risk There may or may not be a corresponding level of mental health-related risk

29

FINALLY

Use the right-hand side of the NCHERM Risk Rubric Table.

This will give you the corresponding tools in the toolbox for your team to deploy depending upon the level of risk you have perceived.

THE CUBIT RESOURCE PAGETHE CUBIT RESOURCE PAGEwww.ncherm.org/CUBIT.html