Research on Student Threat Assessment

Training | Research | College Threat Assessment | Talking to Children about Terrorism

Studies Show How Schools Can
Safely Deal With Student Threats of Violence

Although both the FBI and Secret Service reports made a compelling case for student threat assessment, schools had no experience with this approach and there were many questions concerning the practical procedures that should be followed. In response, researchers at the University of Virginia developed a set of guidelines for school administrators to use in responding to a reported student threat of violence. Threat assessment teams are trained in a six-hour workshop that prepares them to use a 145-page threat assessment manual (Cornell & Sheras, 2006).

The Virginia model of threat assessment is an approach to violence prevention that emphasizes early attention to problems such as bullying, teasing, and other forms of student conflict before they escalate into violent behavior. School staff members are encouraged to adopt a flexible, problem-solving approach, as distinguished from a more punitive, zero tolerance approach to student misbehavior. As a result of this training, the model is intended to generate broader changes in the nature of staff-student interactions around disciplinary matters and to encourage a more positive school climate in which students feel treated with fairness and respect. Consistent with this goal, a pre-post survey study of 351 school staff members who completed the Virginia workshop found that participants became less anxious about the possibility of a school homicide, more willing to use threat assessment methods to help students resolve conflicts, and less inclined to use a zero tolerance approach (Allen, Cornell, Lorek, & Sheras, 2008). Similar effects were found for principals, psychologists, counselors, social workers, and law enforcement officers.

The Virginia guidelines follow a seven-step decision-tree. In brief, the first three steps constitute a triage process in which the team leader (a school administrator such as the principal or assistant principal) investigates a reported threat and determines whether the threat can be readily resolved as a transient threat that is not a serious threat. Examples of transient threats are jokes or statements made in anger that are expressions of feeling or figures of speech rather than expressions of a genuine intent to harm someone.

Any threat that cannot be clearly identified and resolved as transient is treated as a substantive threat. Substantive threats always require protective action to prevent the threat from being carried out. The remaining four steps guide the team through more extensive assessment and response based on the seriousness of the threat. In the most serious cases, the team conducts a safety evaluation that includes both a law enforcement investigation and a mental health assessment of the student. The culmination of the threat assessment is the development of a safety plan that is designed to address the problem or conflict underlying the threat and prevent the act of violence from taking place. For both transient and substantive threats, there is an emphasis on helping students to resolve conflicts and minimizing the use of zero-tolerance suspensions as a disciplinary response.

First study. The Virginia threat assessment guidelines were field-tested in 35 public schools encompassing an enrollment of more than 16,000 students in grades K-12 (Cornell et al., 2004). School-based teams evaluated 188 student threats that involved threats to hit, stab, shoot, or harm someone in some other way. Most of the threats (70%) were resolved as transient threats and the remaining 30% were substantive threats that required more extensive assessment and protective action. The threat assessment teams placed special emphasis on understanding the context and meaning of the threat, and developing a plan to address the underlying conflict or problem that stimulated the student to resort to threatening behavior. Use of this problem-solving approach meant that relatively few students received long-term suspensions or expulsions from school. Only three students were expelled from school, although half of the students (94) received short-term suspensions (typically 1-3 days). Notably, follow-up interviews with the school principals found no cases in which the threats were carried out. This study was published in School Psychology Review.

Second study. A second study enlarged the sample from the first study in order to identify more cases of students receiving special education services (Kaplan & Cornell, 2005). This study found that students in special education (120 cases) made disproportionately more threats, as well as more severe threats, than peers in general education (136 cases). Nevertheless, use of school suspension was consistent for students in special and general education, suggesting that the use of threat assessment did not lead to increased suspension rates among students in special education. This study was published in Behavioral Disorders.

Third study. A third study examined the Virginia threat assessment model in Memphis City Schools, one of the nation’s largest school districts, serving a largely disadvantaged urban population in which 75% of students are eligible for a free or reduced price meal (Strong & Cornell, 2008). This study examined outcomes for 209 cases referred to a centralized threat assessment team because the principal deemed them to merit long term suspension. At least 110 of the cases involved explicit threats to shoot, stab, or kill someone, as well as 99 other threats to attack someone, commit a sexual assault, burn down or blow up the school, etc. Approximately 38% of the students were receiving special education services (compared to a 12% baseline) and 71% had been academically retained at least one year. This study found that all of the student threats were resolved without any detected act of violence. Almost all students were able to return to their school or an alternative school placement, with only five students receiving long-term suspensions without school services. Plans to assist each student included modifications to special education plans, the provision of academic and behavioral support services, and referrals to community-based mental health services. After the threat assessment, the number of disciplinary office referrals for these students declined by approximately 55% through the remainder of the school year. This study was published in Behavioral Disorders.

Fourth study. A major limitation to the previous studies was the absence of a comparison group of schools. Our fourth study examined the use of the Virginia model in the statewide population of Virginia high schools (Cornell, Sheras, Gregory, & Fan, in press). The 95 high schools using the Virginia model (according to principal report on a state-mandated audit of school safety conditions) were compared to 131 schools using a locally developed threat assessment model and 54 schools not using a threat assessment approach. This was a retrospective comparison using data on student victimization and perceptions of school climate that were available from the Virginia High School Safety Study, a separate study of high school safety conditions funded by the U.S. Department of Justice (Cornell & Gregory, 2008). This study did not collect case data on student threats, so schools were compared on the basis of more general outcomes that could be expected from the adoption of a threat assessment approach, based on an anonymous survey of randomly selected students from each high school. This threat assessment study found that students in schools using the Virginia model reported less bullying, greater willingness to seek help for bullying and threats of violence, and more positive perceptions of the school climate than students in either of the other two groups of schools, with an overall multivariate effect size of h2 = 0.15, which is a medium sized effect (Cornell, Sheras, Gregory, & Fan). In addition, schools using the Virginia guidelines had an average of 10 long-term suspensions compared to 15 for the other two groups (p < .05, d = .30). Group differences could not be attributed to school size, minority composition or socio-economic status of the student body, neighborhood violent crime, or the extent of security measures in the schools, which were statistically controlled.

Currently, we are initiating a randomized controlled study of threat assessment. School systems interested in participating in this study can contact Dewey Cornell for more information.

Special Education and Student Threats

The following is a summary of a study investigating threats of violence by students in special education presented by Sebastian G. Kaplan, Julea R. Posey, and Dewey G. Cornell at the 2003 American Psychological Association conference in Toronto. Both the poster and the accompanying handout are available in PDF format.

Abstract

We compared threats of violence made by K-12 students in special education (93 cases) or regular education (95 cases). Threat information was gathered in two school districts field-testing guidelines for responding to student threats of violence. Special education students committed threats at a significantly higher annual rate (33/1,000 students) than regular education students (6.9/1,000) and made more substantive threats (39.8%) than students in regular education (20%). Students classified as Emotionally Disturbed (ED) made the highest threat rates and most serious threats. Students in special education who made threats also committed significantly more disciplinary infractions during the school year, including more infractions involving violent acts and disorderly conduct, than regular education students who made threats. There was no significant difference in days of school suspension that special and regular education students received in association with a threat incident. Post-threat behavioral improvement was more likely in regular education students.

Rationale

Reports from the FBI (O'Toole, 2000) and Secret Service and U.S. Department of Education (Fein, et al., 2002) recommended that school systems institute a threat assessment model for responding to student threats of violence. Little is known about student threats of violence, although students in special education tend to commit disciplinary violations at a higher rate than regular education students (Leone, et al., 2000; Skiba, et al., 1997). Threats of violence pose a dilemma for educators, who must balance federal requirements protecting the rights of special education students against needs for school safety. The present study examined threats of violence by students in special education by addressing the following questions:

Study Questions

1. Are there differences between students in special and regular education in threat rate and severity?

2. Are there differences in threat rate and severity associated with special education classification (e.g. ED, LD, and OHI)?

3-5. Are there differences between students in special and regular education who made threats in:

• Disciplinary infractions committed during the school year?

• Disciplinary consequences for the threat incident?

• Post-threat adjustment?

Methods

We trained two school divisions using our Guidelines for Responding to Student Threats of Violence (Cornell, 2001). We collected information about 188 threats that were reported to school principals during one school year. Male students made 77.7% of the threats while female students made 22.3% of the threats. The racial/ethnic composition was 54.8% Caucasian, 43.1% African-American, 1.1% Hispanic, and 1.1% other groups.In following the guidelines, school principals classified threats as transient (relatively less serious threat such as an angry remark that is resolved with an apology or explanation) or substantive (more serious threat which the principal judged that the student might carry out). For information on our threat assessment guidelines, see the Youth Violence Project website.

Results

1. Threat Rates and Severity : Special education students committed threats at a significantly higher rate than regular education students (χ 2 = 142.1, p < .001) (Figure 1). While special education and regular education students made comparable numbers of threats in elementary school and high school, special education students made more threats in middle school (χ 2 = 7.86, p < .05) (Figure 2). Special education students were more likely to make serious substantive threats than regular education students (χ 2 = 10.57, p < .01) (Figure 3).

2. Special Education Classification : ED students had higher threat rates than LD and OHI students (χ 2 = 126.08, p < .001) (Figure 1). Furthermore, ED students committed a disproportionate number of substantive threats (χ 2 =10.2, p < .05) (Figure 4).

3. Other Discipline Infractions : Students in special education committed significantly more disciplinary infractions, including more violent incidents (F = 9.9, p < .01, R 2 = 0.47) and more disorderly conduct (F = 13.9, p < .001, R 2 = 0.67) , than students in regular education (Wilks’ Lambda = 0.37) (Figure 5) .

4. Suspension Differences : Although special education students made more serious threats and committed more discipline infractions than peers in regular education, differences did not exist for use of school suspension (χ 2 =.27, p > .05) or length of suspension, in response to the threat incident (t = 1.13, p > .05) (Figure 6) .

5. Post-Threat Behavior Differences : As rated by school principals, regular education students were more likely to exhibit improved behavior following the threat incident, while special education students were more likely to display declining behavior, in the months following the threat incident (χ 2 = 13.6, p < .01) (Figure 7).

Figure 1. Threat Rates	Figure 2. Grade Levels
Total School Enrollment* Number of Threats Rate per 1,000 Students Regular ED 13,612 95 6.9 Special ED-All 2,788 93 33 ED 271 57 210 LD 1,028 29 28 OHI 399 18 45
*School enrollment based on the total number of students in the two school divisions (35 schools) that participated in the field-test project.	N = 188, including 86 Elementary, 61 Middle, and 41 High school cases.

Figure 5. School-Year Discipline Infractions

N = 188. Statistically significant group differences for Violent and Disorderly Conduct infractions.

Figure 6. Suspension Differences
Was the student suspended for the threat?	What was the average number of suspension days?
No Yes Regular Ed   52.3% 47.7% Special Ed   46.8% 53.2%
N = 91. Number of days suspended was only available for one school division.

Figure 7. Post-Threat Behavior Differences

N = 176

Conclusions

Threats of violence appear to be more prevalent among students in special education than regular education. Nearly half of all threats reported to school principals were made by special education students, even though special education students represented only 17% of enrollment. This study was conducted in schools that were field-testing threat assessment guidelines, and only included threats reported to school administrators, so should be replicated in other school divisions. Special education teams should be prepared to respond to student threats of violence in the classroom and to consider the link between the student’s handicapping condition and threatening behavior in manifestation determinations and functional behavior assessments.

References

Cornell, D.G. (2001). Guidelines for responding to student threats of violence. Charlottesville: Virginia: University of Virginia.

Fein, R.A., Vossekuil, F., Pollack, W.S., Borum, R., Modzeleski, W. Reddy, M. (2002). Threat assessment in schools: A guide to managing threatening situations and to creating safe school climates. Washington, DC: U.S. Secret Service and U.S. Department of Education.

Leone, P.E., Mayer, M.J., Malmgren, K., & Meisel, S.M. (2000). School violence and disruption: Rhetoric, reality, and reasonable balance. Focus on Exceptional Children, 33, 1-20.

O'Toole, M.E. (2000). The school shooter: A threat assessment perspective. Quantico, Virginia: National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime, Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Skiba, R.J., Peterson, R.L., & Williams, T. (1997). Office referrals and suspension: Disciplinary intervention in middle schools. Education and Treatment of Children, 20, 295-315.