Threat Assessment Teams: A Model for Coordinating the Institutional Response and Reducing Legal Liability When College Students Threaten Suicide

Penven, James C.; Janosik, Steven M.

doi:10.1515/jsarp-2012-6339

Cited by 6 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Her parents sued MIT's medical and psychiatric personnel, as well as other campus administrators, for breach of contract. The court cited Schieszler vs. Ferrum in determining that MIT had a duty to assist Shin because the administrators were aware of her mental health issues (Blanchard, 2007;Cohen, 2009;Lake & Tribbenee 2002;Moore, 2007;Penven & Janosik, 2012;Wei, 2008).…”

Section: Institutional Liabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

An Examination of Institutional Approaches to Students Who Exhibit Suicidal Behaviors

Bell¹

2015

JBIT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Changing regulations related to suicidal students have led institutions to re-evaluate their policies and processes. This collective case study examined institutional responses to the revised direct threat test standard, as well as enforcement of policies that address liability, the duty of care, and compliance issues surrounding disability regulations. Findings focus on the importance of policies that address behaviors rather than diagnoses, the impact of those behaviors on the campus community, the use of due process, and the importance of collaborative decision making. 29

show abstract

Section: Institutional Liabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

An Examination of Institutional Approaches to Students Who Exhibit Suicidal Behaviors

Bell¹

2015

JBIT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There was also increased attention paid to the role of threat assessment and behavioral intervention teams (referred to as behavioral intervention teams from this point forward) within the campus communities. Some states' legislatures passed laws mandating the establishment of these teams on public colleges and university campuses (Penven & Janosik, 2012). The call for these teams' intervention mechanisms to be put in place, with the knowledge of disturbed students or student exhibiting disturbing behavior, has become common on campuses (Eells & Rockland-Miller, 2011).…”

Section: Fall 2014mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Traditionally the collaboration between many different constituents on campus strengthens the effectiveness of a behavioral team. Some of the offices typically included in a behavioral team are law enforcement/campus safety personnel, mental health providers, university administrators, and student affairs administrators (Delworth, 1989;Dunkle & et al, 2008;Penven & Janosik, 2012). In a recent study, only 27% of the teams whom responded included a representative from academic affairs to serve on a behavioral intervention team (Mardis et al, 2013).…”

Section: Academic Affairs and Behavioral Intervention Teammentioning

confidence: 99%

Behavioral Intervention Teams: A Campus Wide Collaboration

Bell¹

2014

gcpa

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Campus behavioral intervention teams vary greatly from campus to campus, guided by their institution's mission statement, ensuring a safe, educational environment for all members of the campus community. Assessments and interventions of distressed students and students exhibiting disturbing behavior provide a unique opportunity to collaborate with constituents of the campus community. This collaborative approach will assist in eliminating information silos and allow meaningful student interventions to take place.

show abstract

“…Changes to GWU policy were not the only legacy of the Jordan Nott case. In early 2007 the Virginia legislature unanimously passed a bill, ultimately signed into law that barred state universities from punishing students for self-harming behavior or seeking help with mental health issues (Keller, 2007;McAnany, 2008;Penven & Janosik, 2012;Reinberg, 2007). The bill's sponsor stated that the plight of Jordan Nott was the inspiration for the legislation (Keller, 2007).…”

Section: Virginia Lawmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sokolow and Lewis (2009) believe that the team's ability "for longitudinal tracking of student behaviors over time…and ability to see trends in behavior, both individually collectively" mean that it is well suited to manage behavioral interventions on campus. Penven and Janosik (2012) Lewis, 2014). This section reviews best practices for intervention teams.…”

Section: Multiple Levels Of Influence: Campus Intervention Teamsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can We Do Better When Students Are A Threat To Self? A Review Of Legal And Policy Implications For Current Practices On College Campuses

Hemingway¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Perfect Storm A perfect storm may be defined as "a particularly bad or critical state of affairs, arising from a number of negative and unpredictable factors" (Oxforddictionaries.com, 2014, n.p.) This could describe the current state of mental health concerns on college campuses. With advances in treatment, many more students with mental health issues are able to attend college than in the past (Dunkle, 2009; Massie, 2010; Meunier & Wolf, 2006; Watkins, Hunt, & Eisenberg, 2011). Surveys conducted by the American College Health Association and Directors of Counseling Centers show that increasing numbers of college students are reporting symptoms of depression and other severe psychological issues as well as taking psychotropic medications (Castillo & Schwartz, 2013; MacKean, 2011). The campus environment can also be stressful for many students. "Approximately 1,100 college students between the ages of 18 and 24 commit suicide, and nearly 24,000 attempt it" (Rodriguez & Huertas, 2013, p. 53). Add to the mix that mental health conditions such as bi-polar disorders begin in the age range associated with traditional college students (Massie, 2008; Meunier & Wolf, 2006). Rather than proactive planning and care, institutional policies addressing student mental health concerns have been based in fear and a desire for these students to go away Research Questions Specifically the research questions are: 1. What is the current jurisprudence regarding the liability of institutions of higher education when the student is considered a threat to self? 2. Is there synergy between the courts and changes to Title II regulations by the Department of Justice and enforcement of these regulations by the Office of Civil Rights? 3. Taking into consideration the current jurisprudence and the synergy between the courts and changes to Title II regulations, what are the implications for institutional policies and practices when the student is considered a threat to self? Definitions Direct Threat Provision: § 35.139 of Title II of the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) which was amended in 2010 by the Department of Justice so that direct threat may only be defined as a threat to others (Lannon & Sanghavi, 2011; Lewis, Schuster & Sokolow, 2012). Under this provision students who are a direct threat may be removed from campus without violating the ADA (Lannon & Sanghavi,

show abstract

Threat Assessment Teams: A Model for Coordinating the Institutional Response and Reducing Legal Liability When College Students Threaten Suicide

Cited by 6 publications

References 7 publications

An Examination of Institutional Approaches to Students Who Exhibit Suicidal Behaviors

An Examination of Institutional Approaches to Students Who Exhibit Suicidal Behaviors

Behavioral Intervention Teams: A Campus Wide Collaboration

Can We Do Better When Students Are A Threat To Self? A Review Of Legal And Policy Implications For Current Practices On College Campuses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About