Developing Response Plans to Address Student Distress BIT

Developing Response Plans to Address Student Distress: BIT Teams Overview Victor Schwartz MD CMO, The Jed Foundation

Brief History of Campus Teams • Virginia Tech reports • Failure to “connect the dots” • Recognition that there is a need for structure where information about a student of concern can be shared and acted on • Recognition of the value of a simple clear access point for reports about concerning students 2

Models for Campus Teams • The original focus on threat assessment teams-consistent with origins of approach: goal is to identify anyone who may present risk of violence to campus • Expansion to more broad view-student at-risk teams • Each approach has some advantages and disadvantages, but both seek to consolidate inflow of information from anyone on campus concerned about a student (or conceivably faculty or staff as well) • Some campuses have both: can be independent or a single committee that takes on both functions 3

Threat Assessment Model • Work and goal is highly focused and specific: identify potentially dangerous students (or others) and take action to prevent • This is highest stakes issue • Typically will not be used very much-not a “heavy lift” • Much easier to contain flow of information and privacy-FERPA rarely a problem in this context • Lack of volume may be challenge to maintaining efficacy, capabilities of team members-if team rarely called into action might be less effective • Needle in haystack problem • Danger focus might be impediment to reporting-people might think you need a very high level of concern to report • Prevention might actually be more effective 4

Student Distress Model • This approach takes a very wide view-goal is upstream prevention and intervention for any student experiencing serious distress or disruption of functioning • This model can lead to too much traffic-requires consistent communication and education of the availability and function • You are more likely to catch someone before a crisis has emerged in this model • So while more students may enter this system, some crisis situations averted may be offset for workload • You need a wider membership to this committee • Info sharing may be more complicated in this context • Vagueness of parameters for reporting can be impediment here 5

Membership and Management of the Team • The threat approach is simpler: campus safety, discipline, dean of students, counseling, legal affairs, risk management are typical • The at-risk approach typically includes wider group since you may also want to address students who are struggling academically, are withdrawn in res life etc. • Not everyone needs to attend all meetings-different components can be activated depending on specific case and nature of campus • Senior counseling staff should participate but usually not chair since they have more complicated info sharing constraints • Counseling staff can provide guidance in general terms but need to protect patient privacy except as permitted by law 6

Case Management • The team will try to define and understand the problem of students brought to their attention-sometimes this will require an interview with a student affairs, housing or academic staffer first (working from the surface down) • Many colleges have adopted case management roles to help facilitate this work although case managers are used is several other settings as well 7

Final Thoughts • For these programs to work well they need to be well publicized, easily accessible and responsive to incoming information • They also must be clearly seen as being helpful and supportive of students rather than primarily as an arm of discipline, campus PR management or police activities (even when functioning in the threat assessment role) Questions? victor@jedfoundation. org 8